The possibility of sending humans to Mars has gained attention in recent years because members of the tech-industry have advocated for these plans. While there is an ongoing discussion about the benefits and risks of such missions, scientist Michael Menaker (2015) argues in his article “Why humans shouldn’t go to Mars” that humans should not undertake journeys to Mars.
In this paper, I will argue that Menaker presents an inductive argument, which is strong because it is reliable and has true premises and also belongs to the category of normative arguments. In order to support my thesis, I will first reconstruct Meanker’s argument, then outline reasons for the strength of the inductive argument by presenting the features of a strong inductive …show more content…
The author supports his claim with two premises: First, sending humans to Mars would be a dangerous and unethical adventure. A journey to Mars could take well over a year and Menaker doubts whether the astronauts would actually be able to return to Earth. This potential outcome “raises troubling ethical questions” of sending humans to Mars, according to Menaker (2015). He also highlights the physical danger of such a mission from the exposure of astronauts to cosmic radiation, as well as the psychological negative impact to humans resulting from long isolation during the journey. Second, the costs for manned mission are too high and these resources should be used to “improve life on Earth” according to Meanker (2015). He points to the estimated costs of tens of billions of dollars for a manned mission to Mars and furthermore states that past experience with large government projects had shown that the final costs can even double or triple. For these reasons, Meanker advocates for the allocation of these funds in basic science on Earth rather than for missions to Mars because the money could contribute to important scientific …show more content…
In contrast to a deductive argument, in which true premises guarantee the truth of its conclusion, the premises of an inductive argument provide reasons to accept its conclusion, but they do not guarantee it. In the case of Meanker’s essay, the premises of dangers of manned missions and the high costs make it likely to accept the conclusion that humans should not travel to Mars. However, there might be a possible world, in which a person would not be deterred from attempting a journey to Mars by those premises. In another scenario, some humans might not be affected by the danger or perhaps a state is willing to pay the high cost of a mission to Mars. Thus, the two premises do not entail the conclusion, but still give non-conclusive reasons to support the conclusion. As a result, this argument cannot be deductive, but is an inductive
In this paper, I will argue that Menaker presents an inductive argument, which is strong because it is reliable and has true premises and also belongs to the category of normative arguments. In order to support my thesis, I will first reconstruct Meanker’s argument, then outline reasons for the strength of the inductive argument by presenting the features of a strong inductive …show more content…
The author supports his claim with two premises: First, sending humans to Mars would be a dangerous and unethical adventure. A journey to Mars could take well over a year and Menaker doubts whether the astronauts would actually be able to return to Earth. This potential outcome “raises troubling ethical questions” of sending humans to Mars, according to Menaker (2015). He also highlights the physical danger of such a mission from the exposure of astronauts to cosmic radiation, as well as the psychological negative impact to humans resulting from long isolation during the journey. Second, the costs for manned mission are too high and these resources should be used to “improve life on Earth” according to Meanker (2015). He points to the estimated costs of tens of billions of dollars for a manned mission to Mars and furthermore states that past experience with large government projects had shown that the final costs can even double or triple. For these reasons, Meanker advocates for the allocation of these funds in basic science on Earth rather than for missions to Mars because the money could contribute to important scientific …show more content…
In contrast to a deductive argument, in which true premises guarantee the truth of its conclusion, the premises of an inductive argument provide reasons to accept its conclusion, but they do not guarantee it. In the case of Meanker’s essay, the premises of dangers of manned missions and the high costs make it likely to accept the conclusion that humans should not travel to Mars. However, there might be a possible world, in which a person would not be deterred from attempting a journey to Mars by those premises. In another scenario, some humans might not be affected by the danger or perhaps a state is willing to pay the high cost of a mission to Mars. Thus, the two premises do not entail the conclusion, but still give non-conclusive reasons to support the conclusion. As a result, this argument cannot be deductive, but is an inductive