Hacker News Reader

If NASA really wanted to answer the 'life on Mars' question, Perseverance would have included a microscope. AFAICT, the reason it doesn't is because nobody wants to stake their reputation on the hypothesis.

View on HN

What hypothesis?

If you found life on Mars you're going to be rendered immortal as long as knowledge survived. No one is refusing out of pride.

Gilbert Levin might disagree.

Really? What's wrong with admitting you were wrong, and that was a discovery in its own?

I recently made an error regarding essential amino acids, and it only improved the quality of suggested foods. Everyone wins.

(Although you still get a few internet haters)

Yes, that's the way science should be done. But look at the number of negative result papers that get published, et cetera. How much push does a negative result give your career vs a positive one? Who's interested in spending ten years of their career pushing a test for a hypothesis that most people (and likely themselves) think is negative? And of course the microscope cannot prove the negative hypothesis, nor does it really help the negative hypothesis much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com