Ashok in a blog post called Heaven, Scientifically Speaking refers to a theory called Panspermia. He thought I would be interested, or in his words, “excited”. I was in fact curious to ask myself why I am not excited.
First his title. To me, Heaven, which featured in my recent post The Grand Scheme of Things, is a science-free zone. It’s a poetic idea based on a subjective experience. Perhaps it can be “explained” neurologically, just as rainbows were explained in Newton’s Opticks. At any rate, science hasn’t made rainbows any less magical, to those of us primitive enough to see them that way.
As for Panspermia, or his home-grown variant Pansmeria, I can’t see anything to get excited about. To the non-scientist, all theory is metaphor. Even scientists behave like non-scientists most of the 24 hours; at least, I hope so.
A hundred and fifty years after Charles Darwin’s seminal work, we—most of us—are reconciled to the implication of human evolution from other extinct non-human animals. We see it in a sort of poetic way. Scientists argue about the fine details but that is too specialized for us. We accept—again, most of us—our common ancestry with mammals. I like to take it further and feel brother to the humble slug, but I accept that I’m probably out of line with the majority in this. I marvel at the symbiosis of bee and flower, twin results of evolving side by side, fulfilling one another’s need for nectar and pollination respectively.
I’m vaguely aware that evolutionary theory, as conceived by Darwin and elaborated by mingling his ideas with those of Mendel and more modern understanding of DNA, remains full of unsolved mysteries. I’m absolutely content with unsolved mysteries. The last place I want to be is at the cutting-edge of anything. In my world, thought and language are inextricably metaphoric. Metaphors are poetic. Poets employ poetic licence. But somewhere—and I’m grateful for it—there is hard science, where ordinary words have to be rigorously defined, observations subject to careful measurement, ideas subject to peer review. When they can, scientists use mathematical symbols to express the generality of their discovered structures. When they speak of quantum physics, they don’t mean it in the loose sense employed by a thousand quacks to support their dubious claims*. When they publish findings about different functions of the brain’s two hemispheres, they are not responsible for the metaphoric usage (“left-brain”, “right-brain”) employed in everyday speech by non-scientists.
Nobody is prevented from using any scientific term any way they want, that is, metaphorically. If I had a metaphoric use for Panspermia, or if I felt it solved a mystery that stands in the way of living life well or wisely, I might use it: in a 150 years or so, if I’m still around, and if it has entered the everyday vocabulary of the man in the street, and resonates in the soul. But still it would have nothing to do with hard science.
* I watched an entertaining bout between Richard Dawkins and Deepak Chopra. Dawkins accuses Chopra of quoting quantum physics unscientifically. Chopra says he uses it metaphorically. Dawkins says yes, maybe, but there’s a tinge of scientific pretension in your poetic usage as well. Chopra ripostes that physicists hijacked the word quantum in the first place. They don’t own the term. Realizing his riposte is weak, he then follows with a sharp right where it hurts most: “There are fundamentalists in science, too!” Dawkins reels outraged. This is getting too personal. “No, you are quite wrong,” he gasps, unable to produce a reasoned argument for once. Seeing his opponent wrong-footed, Chopra goes for the killer punch, accuses Western science of massive arrogance. Yes, it has managed to cure certain diseases, but its interventions have also created epidemics.
Coyly avoiding the inevitable bloodshed, the camera cuts to an ornate view of Oxford college roofs. A bell marks the end of the round, not a moment too soon. Dawkins gets in a quick voiceover to save face.
I have to admit my loyalties were evenly divided on this one. I feel the same about Panspermia: neither for nor against.
a wayfarer’s notes 
a lovely post, not certain why it didn't pass muster for you. Glad you did post it, though.
for me, panspermia is a poetic idea, and the notion that reputable scientists suspect it might be true adds excitement: the notion that life might truly BE poetry, and not only in my own mind.
LikeLike
Some people seem to have a mission in their lives: to be always right, no matter what. Deepak Chopra gives me that impression every time I watch him on TV shows. But it might be just an impression, I don´t know.
I like what Joseph Campbell says : People say that what we are all seeking is a meaning for life.I think what we´re really seeking is the experience of being alive.[ not sure those were the exact words, but it´s close].
I welcome any thought and feeling that can help me find that experience of being alive rather than the ones that try to explain why.
LikeLike
Lucian, with Chopra, I cannot decide. He's a cross between the old-style Indian guru with a bunch of mystical twaddle, a doctor with a background in Western medicine, and an enormous self-publicising ambition.
What I can't decide is how much his healing stuff works. One time, when I actually had a chronic condition, I did listen to his tapes and try to determine how they would help me. In the end, I came to the conclusion that it was a mish-mash of ideas peddled as placebo. It doesn't mean that everything he says is false, though. I can't decide how genuine he is. Certainly not 100%. Certainly a great deal more than Tony Blair. But that is saying little, if anything at all.
LikeLike
Hayden, I have to differ with you on these important matters. Reputable scientists don't suspect any poetic idea to be true. Poetic ideas don't have truth values that mean anything to science. They are different realms.
There are poetic ideas about the moon. They have nothing to do with scientific ideas about the moon.
“The notion that life might truly BE poetry and not only in my own mind” doesn't make sense to me. Poetry is subjective. Cannot be anything else. Life is life. Any attributes like that I put on it are only in my own mind. And you cannot use the word “truly” like that either.
I've had similar discussions with a blogger (and his admirers) who said that a photograph in colour from a radio-telescope was a “work of art”. I pointed out that “art” doesn't mean “beautiful”. It means something man-made. Metaphorically we could say that God creates a work of art. But that belongs to sentimental song-lyrics.
LikeLike
OK, then how do you characterize the alleged fact that Stephen Hawkins subscribes to the Panspermia notion?
Certainly Panspermia isn't hard science. And just as certainly most of the scientific world would argue that Stephen Hawkins is a reputable scientist.
(I can't tolerate Chopra. Never could. Have not followed his work because it always seems like he's too much in love with his own image for me to trust him. Figuring out what might or might not work seems like – for me – an irritating waste of time.)
LikeLike
Deepak Chopra may have a message to SELL as do many evangelists. I listen to them or read their stuff, if I have the time, but with a very large pinch of salt and from a safe distance.
As regards panspermia, it is a theory about the origin of life on earth and indeed anywhere else in the universe that it might exist. I have always been curious about the beginnings of life, and taken great interest in theories of the origin of life and the environment that sustains it. To me Panspermia is the most plausible explanation available so far. There are details that are still being explored and worked out and that is a process, I think that will go on forever because as someone said, it is not possible for man or even angels to know all the mysteries of the Universe. Only the universe knows itself.
A beautifully expressed post Vincent, thanks for it.
LikeLike
And a very beautiful photo!
LikeLike
15 years later, the photo is missing, not worth finding it again
LikeLike
Hayden, yes, it does become apparent to me that Panspermia is not a hard science. It is a loose collection of speculations. Hard scientists do like to speculate. I don't know why they say Stephen Hawking supports the theory, but I did try to follow up why they include Richard Dawkins as a believer in Panspermia. It was some speculative remark he made once.
I think with Dawkins, he being a fundamentalist scientist, radically opposed to religion, passionately opposed to quackery, ready to take on anyone in a verbal boxing match, he's ready to break the Queensberry Rules when the ref is not watching, as we all are in argument. For him the beauty of the Panspermia theory is that it's 100% physical (as he sees it) with no added mysticism, which he detests like an artificial additive to otherwise nourishing food.
I think if you look at the list of scientists who are alleged to support Panspermia, you would not find many (or any) who would mention Panspermia by name.
LikeLike
Vincent, the website panspermia.org includes a list of scientists (click on introduction on the home page for that)who accept/support the theory along with dates. It has a lot else on the scientific studies on the topic including several references. Just copying and pasting a small portion of the list below
25 January 2005: J. Craig Venter endorses panspermia.
10 May 2007: E. O. Wilson endorses panspermia.
18 Apr 2008: Richard Dawkins endorses panspermia.
7 Apr 2009: Stephen Hawking endorses panspermia.
2 May 2009: Freeman Dyson speaks favorably about panspermia
LikeLike
Vincent, Panspermia is hard science as per my studies but my own version pansmeria (2006) includes speculations that have not
yet entered the scientific arena.
LikeLike
Yes, Ashok, I had that list in mind when I commented above. If you find a paper written by any of those scientists on the subject, or a similar piece of evidence in which they mention panspermia by name, I will be glad to hear about it.
LikeLike
To me, hard science will have funding, research papers published openly by specialist scientists for peer review. Do you mean something different by hard science, or can you point to names and papers, and the source of funding?
LikeLike
Vincent the topic appears to have excited you. Here are some references:
John Gribbin, “Panspermia revisited” [link | pdf], arXiv:astro-ph/9909013v1, 1 Sep 1999.
(http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909013v1)
Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Bacterial morphologies supporting cometary panspermia: a reappraisal” [abstract], doi:10.1017/S1473550410000, International Journal of Astrobiology, 10 Jun 2010.
D.S. McKay, et al. “Search for Past Life on Mars: Possible Relic Biogenic Activity in Martian Meteorite ALH84001” Science 273 pp. 924-930, 1996.
D.S.McKay, et al. “Possible Bacteria in Nakhla [#1816],” Proceedings of the 30th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, Houston Texas, 15-19 March 1999.
H. Ochman, et al. “Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation,” Nature 405, pp. 299-304, 2000.
D. Papadopoulos et al. “Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 96 pp. 3807-3812, 1999.
You will find more references by scanning the various links at panspermia.org and the net. An extract from an interview linked from that side to one of the scientists (CW) who propounded the modern version of this theory is pasted below. It expresses the sort of skepticism you have.
SM: On that basis, the Universe must be full of life.
CW: Yes. Life is teeming throughout the universe, and more importantly Life on Earth is connected intimately and inescapably with Life that exists everywhere else in the universe.
This January there were two papers published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society discussing precisely these issues. The fact that we got these published in such a respectable journal answers one of your earlier questions about how difficult it is to get our ideas published. It is now not so difficult to get even ideas on Panspermia published, serious work on it like the paper I co-authored with my colleague Dr. Max Wallis in Cardiff.
LikeLike
Sorry for the deletes my computer was messing up.
Panspermia is a revolutionary theory and many persons have had difficulties in accepting it.
LikeLike
Have you heard of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle? For many years I had a book with this title. Wrestled with its complexities.This link tells more. I quote:
We should not be surprised to observe that the universe is so large. No astronomer could exist in one that was significantly smaller. The universe needs to be as big as it is in order to evolve just a single carbon-based life-form.
Interestingly, we discover that Richard Dawkins approves of the Anthropic Principle, which he mentions more than once in this article.
Panspermia says life is everywhere in the Universe. The Anthropic Principle says that life is so rare as to occur only once in the universe, which needs to be as big as it is to support the possibility of that life. These are incompatible theories. You cannot approve of both.
I support the Anthropic Principle, which pretty much rules out life anywhere but on Earth. Therefore I cannot support Panspermia.
However, I gave away my lovely hardback copy of that book. I cannot repeat its intricate arguments, often represented in mathematical formulae which I could never understand. I'm not a scientist. All we can do is select the theory which resonates best with our own soul. I won't debate the details, because I'm not competent. But if you could demonstrate to me that Panspermia attracts as much attention from heavyweight physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists & other hard scientists as the Cosmological Principle, I'd be glad to know about it and give your Panspermia greater respect.
LikeLike
Answering my own question, I see that one of the most respected scientists to have supported Panspermia (not necessarily using that name, but similar concepts) was Fred Hoyle.
I found an illuminating review of his book The Intelligent Universe.
LikeLike
Luciana, I strongly agree with your comments on Chopra and Joseph Campbell.
LikeLike
Vincent,
It appears that you have not fully comprehended Pansmeria. In my version, pansmeria, (and I think panspermia too) believe that life is so rare that its beginning can occur only once in the universe.It needs a huge universe for that. This has been mentioned in alienaccount.blogspot.com.I think Panspermia too believes that.
But I do not assume that the place it begins is earth. I do not believe it is earth and do not believe for a moment that earth has any central importance in this vast universe. It is just one of an infinite number of planets where life is possible.
Once having begun, it spreads through the universe with the help of bacteria so that we end up with these microbes all over, in large areas of the universe. How bacteria helps to evolve diverse life forms and the possible mechanisms for that have been discussed in alienaccount.blogspot.com
Yes Fred Hoyle in collaboration with Chandra Wikrmasinghe of Ceylon are the orginators of the modern version of panspermia. The theory was born after Chandra a specialist on interstellar dust noted during his research along with Fred Hoyle that this dust contained microbes in abundance.
Both Fred and Chandra use the term Panspermia freely. CS in one of my comments is Chandra, Fred's partner in propogating this theory
LikeLike
sorry not CS but CW
Vincent i apologise for the deleted comments. My computer is not behaving very well today and it is time for some repairs. If you would remove forever the deleted comments that will be great.
LikeLike
Ashok, it seems to me – I hope you will clarify if I am wrong – that your comment contradicts itself.
You say “life is so rare that its beginning can occur only once in the universe”. Which agrees with the anthropic cosmological principle.
A few sentences later you say “(I) do not believe for a moment that earth has any central importance in this vast universe. It is just one of an infinite number of planets where life is possible.”
Which do you believe, Ashok? That life could have begun on an infinite number of planets, or only once in the universe?
LikeLike
Vincent, You are failing to understand my words. There is absolutely no contradiction. The contradiction is arising because you are being influenced by previously prevalent ideas.
Life begins once in the universe is what I have said. I also said that place is not earth.
Having begun it spreads through the universe. The genetic code is carried through the universe by bacteria( The only life form capable of that travel). The bacteria after reaching a habitable planet begin the long process of initiating life on planets such as earth. The process of diverse multicelled life forms emerging from that initial seed takes millions of years.
As an analogy consider the process like a seed being born/created somewhere (in particular place that is not earth, or let us say not the Buckingham palace for the analogy) and from that a tree many more seeds are produced that spread to other places and produce more seeds and more trees (including Buckingham Palace) elsewhere.
Am I getting across now. For a more detailed explanation I suggest again that you read alienaccount.blogspot.com with an open mind in a chronological order of the posts. It is written in a manner that is not formal so as to make it quite easily understandable. The analogy given here is not even approximate to the actual process.
LikeLike
I don't know why the place is not earth.
The whole basis of my thought, based as you say on what I have studied earlier, is that some extremely unusual circumstances have to be present for any form of reproducible life to initiate, Any subsequent evolution will be dependent on the environmental conditions.
The conditions on earth are extremely unlikely. In his first book on Gaia, Lovelock makes this clear. So do the authors of the anthropic cosmological principle.
Bacteria can't survive in any conditions. Some are anaerobic, some are not, etc etc. I do not understand how they can travel in space and colonise different planets because every planet has a different environment. Most would not have atmosphere as we know it. I would say that none have atmosphere as we know it, except in science fiction.
LikeLike
As I said before, I am prepared to wait 150 years till scientists have agreed on this business. I'm quite happy with Darwin, Mendel, Watson, Crick and so forth. Before Copernicus and Galileo, everyone was happy about the Earth being the centre of the universe. Now we accept that the earth revolves around the Sun.
The idea that life as we know it on earth originated somewhere else doesn't excite me at all! And I shall repeat what Luciana said in comment no. 2 on this post:
“I think what we´re really seeking is the experience of being alive.[ not sure those were the exact words, but it´s close].
I welcome any thought and feeling that can help me find that experience of being alive rather than the ones that try to explain why.”
LikeLike
Vincent and Ashok,
Vincent, do you absolutely support the principle that life exists only on Earth knowing that the scientists have studied so far only few planets out of millions of stars, and they haven’t even done those studies in full yet? And they don’t know how many other galaxies exist, so we don’t know how many millions of stars in each galaxy and so on.
I’ve never been good at science and never read science fiction, but discussion on any fundamental concept fascinates me.
Ashok, thank you for all the info. I wanted to ask you the source documents, but I didn't think I have time or brain to do a science reseach. But, it's always good to know in case we want to.
LikeLike
Keiko, I think it is likely that there is no life other than on Earth, because of earlier beliefs from the principle I mentioned. But it is not an article of faith with me. I'm interested in life on earth and look at the sky as a firmament. Science has its investigations, but any life beyond earth won't affect this lifetime.
LikeLike
Vincent,
You have many questions on the topic, far more than can be adequately addressed in a comments section but if enough of your interest is generated you might wish to read the references that have been quoted. But that depends on interest and it is neither possible nor necessary to try and know everything for this business of living that we are all engaged in as you have rightly said.
The business of living differs from individuals to individuals as it must in order for the world to continue. Imagine what would happen if it was playing music for everyone, we would have lots of music then but no musicians because there would be no farmers.
The business of living has included the exploration of concepts such as pansmeria and life beyond our planet for some.
LikeLike
Thanks Ashok. I quite agree with your latest comment. You have been very patient on this matter & I feel great respect for the trouble you have taken in presenting this topic.
What you have said already, plus the references, will give me and anyone else who visits, both here and your your own blogs, an excellent start in pursuing the subject.
LikeLike
Thanks Vincent, as always it was a pleasure, 🙂
LikeLike
I loved the rumble in the jungle between those two heavyweights Dawkins and Chopra. I read some stuff by Chopra about operating from the heart which I liked. But I think my money is on Dawkins.
LikeLike
My biggest problem with the whole project of “finding life on other planets” is the methodolgy and the level of enlightenment of those looking.
We really need to emphasize “life AS WE KNOW IT” since we know so little and are constantly being surprised.
It was only in 1979 that we discovered that life could exist in conditions unimagined previously – right down in the ocean vents, in 'poisonously' sulfurous conditions and unbelievably high heats. Yet those critters are somehow part of our own chain of life, many of them recognizably so. We learned that sulfur is the primary source of energy for them – the base of their food chain, which is chemical energy rather than photosynthesis. All very much not “life as we know it” circa pre-1970.
What other mistakes might we be making In our search for appropriate conditions?
My constant harping on this general point of what we don't know is not intended to dismiss scientific effort, but to seed doubts about our understanding and to struggle to keep our minds open when we review the data. It just seems that there should be more qualifiers, and fewer absolute statements. “What we think we know so far”…. instead of “We know…” While it's cumbersome to say it that way, it serves to keep possibilities and minds open and functioning more clearly.
LikeLike
When metaphorical arguments evolve into metaphysical manifestations, that can only be appreciated by those who have faith in the theories behind them, I loose focus.
I am willing to entertain concepts I have little or no faith in for the purpose of discussion or as an exercise of the imagination. However, science has an advantage that other areas of exploration lack. Evidence, peer reviewed and documented.
There are many theories for which little evidence has been put forth, that help explain the unexplainable. I see many of these as wishful thinking or a means of directing the attention of others away from what can be proven by empirical evidence.
I am comfortable discussing any concepts that may lead to learning something new. As Hayden indicated, keeping an open mind to all possibilities. However, I don't find it necessary to insist that any unproven concept has any more merit than another. They may be equally interesting, however, without evidence to support them they can be nothing more than subjective views of the unexplained.
Science Fiction is full of these concepts. I find them very entertaining, and a very helpful means of exploring concepts that cannot easily be discussed scientifically.
Arthur C. Clark took a very different approach, he based his science fiction on real science, and was always greatly disturbed when one of the theoretical concepts was dis proven. Many of his books, when re-published include annotations by the author that correct or clarify the science quoted in his books.
All this said, I have an animal side to me as we all do. Science means little to the animal side. Instinct, Imagination, and self deception manifest themselves equally with the rational side.
Understanding the entirety of ones perspective is a lifelong pursuit.
LikeLike
Here are some more comments:
Luciana
A ‘sister’ site? Are websites female, Vincent? 😀 In Portuguese they´re masculine, I wonder why.
Vincent
Yes, it’s a funny thing. I think it starts with ships which are always female in English. The concept of “sister ship” has extended to other “vessels” such as newspapers, journals and companies under the same ownership, which are considered as a fleet, the proudest member being called the flagship.
As you know, our nouns don’t have gender as part of the grammar, but the concept exists all the same, sometimes imported from other languages.
So, for example, everyone knows that the Sun is male and the Moon is female. It has filtered through from the Romance languages.
Raymond
In their subtext Dawkins and Chopra, I suspect, are both showing what Sartre calls bad faith. Their subtextual claims have no warrant. In their implications,they are both claiming that they can know something about this world with certainty.
Like you, I don’t need certainty to comfort me. I am not comfortable with claims of certainty.
(I only suspect; I don’t know this with certainty)
LikeLike