Scientists & "Geek cool"
In a previous post, I mentioned my theory that when "theories" sound really good, listeners buy into them without any significant critical thinking. That is, if you can make an idea pretty-sounding, it turns people into gullible idiots. Today, I would like to freely admit that this disease also hits scientists.
There is a strong psychological need in people to feel "special". This had effects on things like the ancient Greek theories of the cosmos. While there was at least one ancient Greek who proposed that all the planets orbited the Sun, the more popular theory was that the Earth was the special center of the universe.
Theologically, there has always been a prejudice that humans are the special creatures that God loves best.
But over the last few centuries, scientists have been finding: if you make an assumption that humans, or the human place in the universe is "special" -- you almost always end up with the wrong answer. And if you make the opposite assumption, that nothing about humans, or the Earth, is "special" -- then you are much more likely to come up with good answers. From a scientific point of view, the fact that such a difference is detectable is strong circumstancial evidence that the second assumption, that nothing here is special/unusual, is correct.
Most scientists have taken this view strongly to heart. We are not special. The Earth is not special. We are just another species of animal, and the Earth is just a planet like any other, and our Sun is like many other suns, in a galaxy that is like many other galaxies.
However ... scientists still have this age-old psychological weakness. They cannot phrase it in terms of being special (usually) -- but scientists are geeky types. Scientists are turned on by ideas that sound really "cool" -- in the flamingly geeky sense.
Now, "geek cool" is a strange bird, certainly. Almost an oxymoron. Things that sound cool to a geek are going to be things like massive space collisions, or the end of all life from a global heatwave. Dramatic. "Romantic" in a sense.
And here's where the scientists turn into gullible idiots.
Have you ever heard the theory that Earth's Moon formed from a titanic collision of the early Earth with a "Mars sized object" that rammed into it at 11 kilometers per second? The theory is extremely popular in scientific circles. It's also total crap. I am willing to stake every bit of reputation I ever have, on this theory being utterly wrong.
Why am I so sure? First, it assumes that the Earth and Moon are special. I mean, how many early planets get smacked by a Mars sized object? And if you think the answer is "many" -- then where are all the Mars-sized objects that missed?
Second, and most important, the theory is too utterly cool. You may not be able to imagine just how dreamy-eyed a scientist can get, visualizing the collision -- the bits flying off -- the planets melting and smushing into each other.
(There are also some other bits of evidence that the early Earth was cold enough to have liquid water on it, for example.)
The coolness of the collision itself keeps way too many scientists from even considering the data, and odds against the collision theory.
But the Earth's formation was not special. And it was not cool either! (Unless you're into extremely slow condensation and agglomeration processes.) I suppose this is the next thing scientists must take to heart in their search for truth.
So how did the Earth's Moon really form? Just like the Sun formed, and the planets, and all their other moons. The exact details of it aren't understood completely. But in a cloud of cosmic dust and gas, you get swirls and eddies. Eddies are places of "low pressure", and dust collects there. If there is no sun nearby, it will also be very cold, and gases will freeze onto the dust and other stuff. A big eddy starts to turn into a sun, when too much dust and ice freezes together in the center. And when you look on a larger scale, that big eddy will have smaller eddies swirling around it, and those become planets. And planetary eddies have even smaller eddies around them, and those condense into moons.
There is a strong psychological need in people to feel "special". This had effects on things like the ancient Greek theories of the cosmos. While there was at least one ancient Greek who proposed that all the planets orbited the Sun, the more popular theory was that the Earth was the special center of the universe.
Theologically, there has always been a prejudice that humans are the special creatures that God loves best.
But over the last few centuries, scientists have been finding: if you make an assumption that humans, or the human place in the universe is "special" -- you almost always end up with the wrong answer. And if you make the opposite assumption, that nothing about humans, or the Earth, is "special" -- then you are much more likely to come up with good answers. From a scientific point of view, the fact that such a difference is detectable is strong circumstancial evidence that the second assumption, that nothing here is special/unusual, is correct.
Most scientists have taken this view strongly to heart. We are not special. The Earth is not special. We are just another species of animal, and the Earth is just a planet like any other, and our Sun is like many other suns, in a galaxy that is like many other galaxies.
However ... scientists still have this age-old psychological weakness. They cannot phrase it in terms of being special (usually) -- but scientists are geeky types. Scientists are turned on by ideas that sound really "cool" -- in the flamingly geeky sense.
Now, "geek cool" is a strange bird, certainly. Almost an oxymoron. Things that sound cool to a geek are going to be things like massive space collisions, or the end of all life from a global heatwave. Dramatic. "Romantic" in a sense.
And here's where the scientists turn into gullible idiots.
Have you ever heard the theory that Earth's Moon formed from a titanic collision of the early Earth with a "Mars sized object" that rammed into it at 11 kilometers per second? The theory is extremely popular in scientific circles. It's also total crap. I am willing to stake every bit of reputation I ever have, on this theory being utterly wrong.
Why am I so sure? First, it assumes that the Earth and Moon are special. I mean, how many early planets get smacked by a Mars sized object? And if you think the answer is "many" -- then where are all the Mars-sized objects that missed?
Second, and most important, the theory is too utterly cool. You may not be able to imagine just how dreamy-eyed a scientist can get, visualizing the collision -- the bits flying off -- the planets melting and smushing into each other.
(There are also some other bits of evidence that the early Earth was cold enough to have liquid water on it, for example.)
The coolness of the collision itself keeps way too many scientists from even considering the data, and odds against the collision theory.
But the Earth's formation was not special. And it was not cool either! (Unless you're into extremely slow condensation and agglomeration processes.) I suppose this is the next thing scientists must take to heart in their search for truth.
So how did the Earth's Moon really form? Just like the Sun formed, and the planets, and all their other moons. The exact details of it aren't understood completely. But in a cloud of cosmic dust and gas, you get swirls and eddies. Eddies are places of "low pressure", and dust collects there. If there is no sun nearby, it will also be very cold, and gases will freeze onto the dust and other stuff. A big eddy starts to turn into a sun, when too much dust and ice freezes together in the center. And when you look on a larger scale, that big eddy will have smaller eddies swirling around it, and those become planets. And planetary eddies have even smaller eddies around them, and those condense into moons.