During HMP 2003 we are not talking as much about being on Mars
or going to Mars as we did in 1998 and through 2001. Previously,
thought of Mars was always in the background: "If we had
been on Mars" We are now engaged in a normal science effort:
doing a crater study, testing technology.
This dynamic of stages is fundamental: A vision & invitation, participation, personal development, infrastructure and activity construction, enactment (events), publication/press. Then second and third generation participation and sequential events (e.g., Rotation #16). The original founders begin to differentiate and sort into related or other activities.
Hypothesis: Now we are in normal science, a paradigm change has occurred in which motives are formulated into practical/routine goals and activities, and tools. Institutionalization has produced conferences, workshops, papers, books.
What might come next? A reconsideration: Whatever happened to ? It doesn't get us to our goal, we continue meeting and getting resources to do our work, but the motive must become something else.
This is a way of understanding the social construction of activities: As occurring within "revolutions," which is to say development of a scientific community of practice.
In this example, we have individuals/leaders, articulated goals (People on Mars), and transformed activities (e.g., crater study -> HMP -> FMARS).
Opportunities are found for participation in subactivities (e.g., the HMP greenhouse), which become a Research Program (involving a PI, funding, staff, publications).
Thomas
Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions
The emphasis of Kuhn and his standard interpretation is with respect
to beliefs, world views (conceptualizations), assumptions. What
if we made motives, communities, participation, tools and activities
primary? In other words, make activity theory and not theory-theory
the constitution of a paradigm. In fact, tools and activities
are the materials (the transformative agents) of a revolution.
The FMARS hab is the reification of the People on Mars goal in its idealized form: A surface building in which the crew lives on Mars.
The "Mars on Earth" activity is perhaps analogous to the invention of a new instrument (e.g., procedural programming languages) for measuring or modeling phenomena.
Mars on Earth is oriented to studying how we might live and work on Mars, and what technologies, procedures, facilities, roles, etc. will enable it to be done safely, reliably, and cost effectively.
The activity of HMP, FMARS, MDRS, etc. has two components:
Participation in expeditions, which is controlled (subject to
application), and in societies (Mars Society) and institutions
(Mars Institute), which have open memberships.
Perhaps as fundamental are the transformations of existing institutions
(The Planetary Society), personal research programs (e.g., CC's
biological research, Parnel, Oz, Lee), and publications (e.g.,
Popular Science, Scientific American, NY Times).
Institutions need to respond, either by co-sponsoring or reacting to the new activity (e.g., Friedman: Putting the cart before the horse; LA Times July 2003). Indeed, some of the new institutions will result from leaders of the new movement splintering off from established groups: Zubrin NSS -> Mars Society Lee -> Mars Institute.
Leaders will be motivated by attaining their objective and personal credit.
New adherents may first arrive in a wave of early adopters
who find that the activities & facilities enable applying
their existing skills to further perhaps latent motives. Hence
many scientists in HMP are redirecting their investigations to
Mars-relevant research (e.g., Field Science Ethnography). Each
scientist is obligated to tell a story that relates his activity
back to the group's objective.
The Press will want to have a story on the new movement, reacting
either as strong proponents (Popular Science) or skeptical, but
friendly reporters (NY Times).
Scientific publications will need to reinterpret their missions and evaluate the methodologies of the new activities. Some will fit very well (NSS), others will require traditional papers with only passing mention of motives (applications are always tangential to science).
The idea of winning appears less relevant to engineering and exploration motives - we are competing for resources (e.g., at NASA, is computing devoted to ISS or Mars?) - but the institutions and personal objectives normally have space for multiple motives (e.g., ONR funded medical diagnosis under the rubric of military troubleshooting).
One might then argue that Mars on Earth is neither a paradigm nor a scientific revolution, because although it is certainly a belief system, it is not replacing a competing world view.
Or one might say that the competing views are: Robots vs. Humans, Welfare vs. Space Exploration. These are both value systems and conflicts of interest (e.g., my job at JPL might depend on building robots and spacecraft).
So situated cognition transformed cognitive science, though many are left doing their previous work because their methods have other applications (e.g., expert systems).
The very problem of getting people to Mars might be related to showing the "fruitfulness" of a view. In science, the evaluation is usually theory-based (seeing and understanding phenomena). Astrobiology is the scientific revolution pertinent to Mars. But Mars on Earth is more a movement (indeed, moving people to Mars) than a scientific revolution. This is especially because doing Mars-oriented analog research is not so fundamental as to replace use of robots, orbiting spacecraft, or telescopes for studying Mars. It is fully complementary, so it is not competing as a world view. It is a methodology that is fully consistent with other world views about Mars.
The paradigms of Mars relate to issues of life, climate, and geomorphology - not whether people should walk and live on Mars.
Related paradigms involve biological contamination and the destructive greening of Mars. These are value systems as much as belief systems.
If paradigms are defined as assumptions, then sending people to Mars is a paradigm: We can do it, people will survive, and it is a good way to learn about Mars.
Websters: 3 : a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated
To recap: According to Kuhn, beliefs are the foundation of a scientific practice. For Mars on Earth, an activity perspective is more illuminating, as the emphasis is on expedition events, controlled participation in crews, and infrastructure (habs, camps, web sites).
Perhaps the word movement is most appropriate, but it
is most often derogatory when applied to scientists, probably
because of the political connotation:
b : a series of organized activities working toward an objective;
also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end *the
civil rights movement*
But surely advocating sending people to Mars is a political
position for most of us.
That is the crux: Is Mars on Earth a political movement or a
scientific method?
Political is also derogatory in a scientific community:
b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished
from the administration of governmental policy
Thus Mars on Earth is advocating policy, which involves advocating
human spaceflight, a humans-to-Mars program, and prioritizing
the program.
The issue about Mars on Earth not being a scientific revolution from using science as the justification for a political avocation. That is, my motive might be to send humans to Mars, but as a scientist, I can use my research program and methodological skills to do analog science, which indirectly advances my political cause.
Thus Mars analog science may be seen as a tool for political change.
Properly speaking then, the Mars Society is foremost a political organization, while HMP/Mars Institute is a scientific organization. One may belong to both or just one or neither.
TMS creates activities to advance its political cause: Sending
humans to Mars.
TMI/HMP creates activities to advance its scientific cause: Doing
Mars analog research, which includes "science " proper
(geology and biology relevant to Mars) and "human exploration"
(including technologies, operations, and human factors).
The trick is that TMS uses science as a means of authenticating and realizing its political stance. While TMI/HMP uses science authentically for its own sake, and only indirectly as a means of realizing its political program.
For TMI/HMP science must stand alone with respect to broader communities. The study of Haughton has integrity in its own right.
For TMS science may stand alone for participants, but for the organization it is always secondary, a tool. The study of Haughton is only a means towards an ends.
For the TMS scientist, it is the individual's responsibility to work with scientific integrity. The leader focuses on political integrity. Individuals are free to exploit the work in anyway consistent with the political objectives.
For TMI/HMP scientist, it is the leader's responsibility to work with integrity. The scientists must adhere. Exploiting the work (for any means) is regulated by the leader (e.g.., even to the point of displaying a flag).
In conclusion, the notion of scientific revolution is not directly applicable to Mars on Earth. MoE reveals how politics and science are interwoven. The belief system is inherently political and is shared by TMS and HMP. However, the politics is transcended in HMP by scientific methods and integrity. For TMS science is transcended by the political objective.
MoE has developed a scientific community of practice, but through the addition of a method to an existing paradigm, not as a scientific revolution. Thus, HMP and its adherents within TMS participating in the research stations, constitutes a sub-community, a milieu, within a normal scientific world view.
All of this explains why Pascal (at base camp) had to react
with moral indignation to Zubrin's "Happy Birthday Viking"
July 2001 (political) camp. For Lee, we must be serious about
science. But Zubrin treats science playfully. Following Sontag's
"Notes on Camp" here lies the difference in world views,
not within science, but how science itself is viewed and used.
July 21, 2003
Devon Island
Copyright © 2004 William J. Clancey. All Rights Reserved.