Methane Oceans

Many years ago, I used to believe a lot of things like ESP, UFO, and the Bermuda Triangle all had a valid basis in reality. I remember a history class in high school where a teacher was telling us a little bit of sports history (though I can’t remember the context¹). He told us that AstroTurf was named for its inventor, a “John Astro”². I was dutifully taking notes and, while I found that a little odd, I still wrote it down as fact. He then immediately told us that he was joking and continued on with his lecture. I can’t say that his little joke was a revelation or a turning point, but thinking back, it’s a key event that I use as a reminder to be skeptical.

Another time I remember was also when I was a kid. In fact, it was well before high school. I think I was 11, but I’m not sure. My age, though, is not important. It was a brief talk with my dad. I remember telling him that I wasn’t sure I believed in God, I needed proof of his existence. His was response, in hindsight, was no surprise. He said something along the lines of: “that’s what faith is”. I didn’t voice this aloud, but my immediate thought was something along the lines of: “but I need more”. While it took a long time to take hold and develop, I think that was my first time that I can label myself as thinking skeptically.  I couldn’t just assume something existed, I needed evidence.

As I’ve gotten older and more adept at using technology, I’ve learned a lot. I think I can attribute this start to Phil Plait at the BadAstronomy blog³. I learned of him from some news article on the Moon Landing Hoax, looked up his website and have been reading it ever since. He was the one who introduced me to so much of what I read today. If it wasn’t for him, I wouldn’t know of Skepticality or The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe. I wouldn’t even know of Pharyngula. Due to these sites and more that I’ve found through them, I’ve learned so much. Amongst the things I’ve learned is what good science sites do.

Since I want to have a good science site, I want to emulate that as much as possible. Below are my personal rules for this site. They can change, and I am open to suggestions.

1. Comments: I won’t delete a comment just because they disagree with me. That doesn’t guarantee I will respond, though. Why not? Does that mean I’m not open to criticism? No, what it means is that I’m a busy person so I cannot respond to everything. Also, I may not dignify someone with a response because their response does not apply to what I wrote.  There’s a tactic sometimes used in debates by people whose scientific points are weak where they flood the audience with so many points that their opponent just cannot respond to them all. Unfortunately for them, this doesn’t work well on the internet. So, before you ask me to address a new point, be sure to address the ones I made first.
2. Corrections: With the exception of correcting a typo (unless that typo alters the meaning of the sentence) or an error on the website, you won’t see posts or text disappear. What you will see are one or two things, depending on the circumstances. If I make a mistake that I need to correct, then the text will be crossed out with an explanation following. The other is if I need to add something, I will use some form of: “Edited to add”. My final note on this is that I am human. I will make mistakes. Knowing me, I will rush to get something out and make a mistake, such as forgetting to do one of the above things (though the latter seems more likely than the former). If I do that, I invite you to call me on it and I’ll make the approriate change.
3. Quotes: Depending on the post and topic, it is less likely that I will post something that looks like one of the following:
   

   You won’t see something…..that looks….like…..this.

   You may see…..somethng that looks like this.

   What’s the difference? The first one could be assembled from multiple parts of a paragraph or even a whole document. It’s worse than cherry picking because it could be used to create whatever I want it to say. I might as well be quoting the dictionary. The second one isn’t as bad. It’s not perfect but I may use that one. Usually, it’s likely to mean that I just removed something unimportant from the sentence. For example, the original quote could have read:

   You may see unicorns, fairies, or somethng that looks like this.

   It’s not ideal but may be unavoidable. To be honest, though, what’s most likely for me to use is a block of text. This may or may not include emphasis added by yours truely. Want to be sure I’m making an accurate quote? Then follow me to #4.

4. Links: I should include, in posts, relevant links to sites. By including those links, you may follow them to read the relevant site yourself. It also keeps me honest. If I don’t include something, then by all means, ask me to add it. I should have done it in the first place (see #2).
5. Final thought: When in doubt, there’s a good possibility that I’m being sarcastic. I think I have a similar sense of humor to the Bad Astronomer

1 – While I did go to public schools, I can assure you that whatever he was talking about was relative to the class. While I can’t remember the details of the lecture, I remember the teacher to be one who was quite dedicated and would not go significantly into irrelevant topics.
2 – I made up the first name, I’m going off of my memory from about 10 years ago.
3 – His blog was also the first I ever read. I resisted reading them for a long time (don’t ask why, I’m not even sure why), but once I started reading his, I was hooked. It was actually by reading his blog, not his site, that I found the sites I also listed. Another interesting side note, I had never heard of the Moon Landing Hoax before that article, but if I hadn’t read the Bad Astronomy site, I might have thought that the Apollo landing were faked.