There is a big difference between "junk science" and science which is
incomplete, or published too early, or even of generally marginal quality.
In the case of this recent work, the hypothesis is sound and the techniques
used are reasonable. Certainly, there is reason to suspect that more work
should have been done before publishing (although that is far from certain
at this point).
I don't know how this will all shake out in the long run. I'm sure that
others will be pursuing similar work, and applying additional tests. In any
case, having read the paper, I don't think this work can fairly be called
"junk science". At worst, it is incomplete.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "JoshuaTreeMuseum" <joshuatreemus...@embarqmail.com>
To: <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 1:00 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] NASA Finds New Life Form
What's up with the NASA junk science? First it's psuedo-fossils in
meteorites, now a phony not-new life form. What's next, cold fusion?
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
