Viking didn't find life on Mars.
But it is true that the experiments showed positive results.
They didn't see any little green (or orange, ...) things skipping by the cameras. They didn't find any living things.
But the experiments were positive ...
My understanding of the Scientific Method:
__Construct hypothesis.
__Design experiment to absolutely prove/disprove hypothesis:
____If results = x, hypothesis = true,
____If results = y, hypothesis = false.
__Run experiment.
__Publish results.
__Peer review of methodology.
__Peer replication of experiment validates/invalidates hypothesis or methodology.
__Hypothesis validation/invalidation accepted by scientific community.
The experiment on the Viking lander was designed to prove/disprove the existence of life on Mars. When the results met the criteria that would prove the existence of life, the peer review of the methodology decided that the results COULD be showing something else.
Conspiracy time:
1) So, after the experiment was conducted NASA decides to have best “experts” examine the methodology? Bad management or cover story?
2) In the next 36 years, they couldn’t have found the time/money/platform availability to send up the revised experiment? 36 consecutive years of bad management?
My theory: What is the upside/downside breakdown of being the President that breaks it to the world populace that life does exist on other planets? For a politician’s perspective: I see lots of potential downside, not a lot of upside.