Wendell writes:

> I have no problem with the Mars Lander project.  What I do have problems
>  with is the lengths some will go to prove or disprove their pet theory.
>  Whatever data is collected may well prove interesting, but what is more
>  interesting is the interpretations of that data.  As long as they keep
>  science on an empirical basis, that is fine; however, when they start to
>  take the data and categorically say that it proves one theory or another
>  about origins, then they have left the realm of true science and entered
>  into speculation and pseudo-science.

Unfortunately, that isn't the way science works. The hypothesis, a
cornerstone in the process of actually performing science, is intrinsically a
speculative thought (to some degree or another), albeit based on a projection
of the best possible current evidence and rational, logical theory. Indeed,
the word "hypothesis" is Greek, meaning "underlying thought". Your current
hypothesis governs everything about how you approach your experimental design
and you build your instrumentation.

The Mars Lander is precisely one of those instruments designed to serve a
rational, hypothetical purpose. And, in this case, the lengths we'll go to
prove our pet theories is 40 million miles :-). But all kidding aside,
Wendell isn't the only person to voice this concern, within or outside
science. However, I adamantly disagree with such a notion, as did Darwin.
Darwin wrote the following in a letter to Henry Fawcett in 1861:

"About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to
observe and not theorize; and I well remember saying that at this rate a
might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the
colors. How odd it is that anyone should see that all observation must be for
or against some view if it is to be of any service."

I keep that quote framed next to my desk, as a constant reminder to what I
should be doing on those days when I do get a chance to do science.

Wirt Atmar