New York Times Reports Martians Building Canals on Mars
A lesson in science, pseudoscience, and information literacy
The headline is real: “Martians Build Two Immense Canals in Two Years.” The subhead elaborates: “Vast Engineering Works Accomplished in an Incredibly Short Time by Our Planetary Neighbors.”
We may scoff and call it “fake news,” but this story actually appeared, in all seriousness, in The New York Times on Aug. 27, 1911.
The article quotes renowned astronomer Percival Lowell, founder of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, and asserts that canals seen by telescope on Mars could only have been constructed by intelligent beings. “The whole thing is wonderfully clear-cut,” Dr. Lowell states.
Authored by Mary Proctor, a popular astronomy writer and lecturer, the story is a classic example of pseudoscience. Proctor uses facts, scientific reports, and statements by experts to “prove” that Martians exist and are thriving on the red planet.
We know now that both Lowell and Proctor were wrong — in the 1960s, photographic evidence from NASA’s Mariner missions showed no evidence of canals, let alone Martians — yet this kind of misunderstanding and misuse of scientific inquiry thrives today in television, podcasts, websites, and more, all driven by lack of science education, critical thinking, and information literacy, plus the desire to make a quick buck.
Let’s take a look at how this century-old story involving a respected scientist and a newspaper of record has influenced our culture, then and now.
Dr. Lowell’s Excellent Experiments
No one knows for sure how or why Percival Lowell (1855–1916) came to believe in Martians. We know that by 1894, when he founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, he was already driven by a belief in the possibility of life on Mars.
Lowell had already built a reputation as a businessman, author, and diplomat. Born into a prominent Massachusetts family, Lowell’s siblings included A. Lawrence Lowell, who served as president of Harvard University, and Amy Lowell, a poet. He graduated from Harvard in 1876 with a degree in mathematics but dabbled in a number of fields, including economics, religion, psychology, and life in Japan. For a time, he served as a diplomat to Korea.
By 1893, he decided to devote his energies to studying Mars and finding intelligent life there. Using a 24-inch refracting telescope specially built by Alvan Clark & Sons, Lowell spent about 15 years observing Mars, sketching its topographical features, and writing about his conclusions.
In his book Mars and Its Canals, published in 1906, Lowell speculated that Martians used the canals to redirect water from the planet’s frozen poles to the central desert plains. He wrote, “A mind of no mean order would seem to have presided over the system we see — a mind certainly of considerably more comprehensiveness than that which presides over the various department of our own public works.”
It must have been Martians who built the canals, he reasoned. Who else could have done it?
If this argument from ignorance sounds familiar, think of the TV show Ancient Aliens, which claims that everything from the Great Pyramids to Stonehenge must have been built by aliens since there is no evidence to show exactly how these structures came to exist.
Evidence Lost in Translation
Many scholars have suggested that Lowell’s belief in extraterrestrials was based on the observations of another scientist, Giovanni Schiaparelli, who observed deep trenches on Mars which he called channels, or “canali,” in Italian. Lowell translated the word as “canals” and assumed they must have been created by intelligent life to carry water.
(Can you say hasty generalization?)
Yet, Lowell’s conclusion was perhaps understandable. Schiaparelli (1835–1910), a respected Italian astronomer, had made several important discoveries by telescope involving asteroids, meteor showers, and comets. In 1877, he drew several detailed maps of the “canali” he observed on Mars that were widely published and discussed.
In his 1906 book, Mars as the Abode of Life, Lowell expresses great admiration for Schiaparelli, calling him “the best observer of his day,” and indicates that it was Schiaparelli that raised the idea of intelligent creatures on Mars. Lowell states that Schiaparelli writes “in his own words,” that the canals “looked to have been laid down by rule and compass.”
Lowell concludes, using the editorial “we”: “We have carefully considered the circumstantial evidence in the case, and we have found that it points to intelligence acting on that other globe and is incompatible with anything else. … We are justified, therefore, in believing that we have unearthed the cause and our conclusion is this: that we have in these strange features, which the telescope reveals to us, witness that life of no mean order, at present inhabits the planet.”
What has happened here? Essentially, one respected scientist (Lowell) drew a conclusion based on the work of another respected scientist (Schiaparelli) and his own observations. In the terms of Thomas Kuhn, it’s just “normal science.”
But Lowell’s conclusion turned out to be so, so wrong. Why?
“Deduced from the Outcome of Observation”
By the time Lowell made his observations about new canals on Mars, he was already under the sway of confirmation bias, and there’s some evidence that he knew it. In a previous New York Times dated Aug. 30, 1907 titled “Mars Inhabited, Says Prof. Lowell: Declares the Planet to Be the Abode of Intelligent, Constructive Life,” Lowell maintained that his idea of life on Mars was not an “a priori hypothesis” but a conclusion “deduced from the outcome of observation.”
If he sounds defensive, it’s because other scientists were pushing back. None of them were able to see what Lowell was seeing. For example, at about the same time Lowell was doing his observations, astronomer E.E. Barnard at the Lick Observatory in California was using a 36-inch telescope, larger and more powerful than Lowell’s 24-inch instrument. He saw “various spots and patches” on the red planet, but nothing close to the coordinated network of straight-line canals that Lowell claimed to see.
In 1894, Barnard wrote: “The past two nights while making drawings I have examined Mars most thoroughly under good conditions. The region of the lake of the Sun has been under review. There is a vast amount of detail when the seeing is good. I however have failed to see anything of Schiaparelli’s canals as straight narrow lines. In the regions of some of the canals near the Lacus Solis there are details — some of a streaky nature but they are broad, diffused and irregular and under the best conditions one could never be taken for the so-called canals.”
Yet, Lowell persisted with his hypothesis about life on Mars, publishing books and articles, speaking on lecture tours, and enlisting the help of journalists. It was an idea that tickled the imaginations of many and provided compelling material for popular media writers of the time, such as Mary Proctor.
They Want to Believe: “Victims of an Illusion”
While she had no degree in astronomy (she graduated from a teacher preparation college), Mary Proctor (1862–1957) learned from her father Richard Proctor, a writer and lecturer of astronomy. Referred to as a “popularizer of astronomy,” she wrote numerous articles about comets, eclipses, planets, stars, and other topics of outer space aimed at the newspaper and magazine-reading audience. She was also the author of several children’s books.
Proctor’s writing style combined facts, literature, history, and lyricism. Still, she attempted to stick to the facts and discourage speculation. In a Times article dated May 8, 1910, titled “Fears of the Comet are Foolish and Ungrounded,” she cautions against the dangers of speculation, and indeed, she is careful to attribute doomsday anxieties to other sources, even amid sensationalism.
“A dismal report is circulating,” she writes, “to the effect that Halley’s comet is about to cause the destruction of our planet.” She then systematically argues against popular fears by giving detailing a history of comet appearances and superstitions of catastrophe that proved false.
Early on, she expresses skepticism about life on Mars and about whether canals even exist. In a 1905 Times article titled “Mary Proctor Writes about Mars, Planet of Romance,” she states, she reports “a series of experiments” conducted in England. According to Proctor, a researcher in 1902 gave drawings of Mars, “free from canals,” to schoolboys and asked them to make a copy. She states, “The results were striking. Four out of five drew no canals, but the remaining fifth supplied them.”
She explains that the difference was caused by how far away the boys were from the drawings. “Those that were near saw too well and distinctly to imagine spurious lines,” she writes.
Proctor cites a Prof. Young, who has an explanation: “There seems to be a strong tendency in certain eyes to connect minute and irregular markings, imperfectly seen, into lines continuous and definite.” In short, the canal-seers were “victims of an illusion.”
However, at end of the same article, it’s clear she isn’t ready to dismiss the possibility of Martian life. “If Mars is an inhabited world, it must be people by a race of beings not constituted as we are.”
Could It Be… There’s Life on Mars..?
Sometime between 1905 and Lowell’s report in 1911, Mary Proctor became fully convinced of some sort of intelligent beings on Mars. Perhaps it was Lowell’s new observations or perhaps the charisma of Lowell himself; we don’t know exactly what persuaded her. But in her 1911 article, although she is aware of his critics, she defends his conclusions about the canals and the Martian creatures that supposedly built them.
Still, she attempts to maintain a logical approach. What’s science if it doesn’t consider the acts? Never mind if the evidence is “imperfectly seen” or the mind connects lines that aren’t there.
Proctor begins her article by reporting objectively about Lowell’s observations of Mars: that he had spotted two new canals since the last time he had the same view of the planet in 1909, and that he had measured some of the canals to be about 1,000 miles long and 20 miles long.
Then, agreeing with Lowell, Proctor dismisses the idea that natural forces on Mars created the canals. It’s “out of the question,” she writes. She accepts Lowell’s observations as evidence of Martians and writes, “We can scarcely imagine the inhabitants of Mars accomplishing this Herculean task within the short interval of two years.”
Then, after a bit of poetry, Proctor uses the rest of the article to discuss detailed observations about Saturn.
We can hardly blame Proctor for the absolute tone of the headline: “Martians Build Two Immense Canals in Two Years.” It’s a long tradition in newspaper journalism that copy editors, not writers, compose the headlines. It likely caught the attention of readers a century ago, just as sensational-sounding click-bait does today.
The Legacy of Pseudoscience
Proctor’s article is an early published example of the type of pseudoscience that is driven by incomplete facts and confirmation bias that ignores opposing evidence. Both Lowell and Proctor wanted to believe. And Proctor, while relying on reports by popular and persuasive scientists, wrote for an audience eager for the sensational, unusual, and controversial.
It’s the same situation we see today in the plethora of TV shows about extraterrestrials, UFOs, and Bigfoot, and the same mindset that causes people to see faces on Mars and find curses in the Bermuda Triangle.
For the most part, pseudoscience is harmless — it’s amusing, it’s entertaining, it’s all tongue-in-cheek. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with various conspiracy theories involving the Covid-19 pandemic, conclusions drawn from pseudoscience methods can be destructive and even deadly.
Good science consists of a long, mostly boring, and often repetitive process. It’s messy, it’s uncertain, and it never “proves” anything. (It suggests, demonstrates, supports, adds information, confirms or fails to confirm hypotheses, and so on.) It often raises more questions than answers. The general public is understandably disturbed by that. They want easy, definitive answers. And, many lack an understanding of the scientific process and the critical thinking skills to recognize logical fallacies.
Such a Fine Line between Science and Science Fiction
Despite their erroneous conclusions about life on Mars, both Percival Lowell and Mary Proctor were, and still are, respected in their fields for their contributions to scientific knowledge.
In his lifetime, Lowell was a prominent member of several scientific organizations and was awarded the Prix Jules Janssen, the highest award by the French astronomical society. His memory is honored today as founder of Lowell Observatory. An asteroid discovered in 1949 is named for Lowell, as well as craters on the Moon and Mars. A region on Pluto confirmed in 2015 by the New Horizons mission was named the Lowell Region.
As for Proctor, she was a member of the British Astronomical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A crater on the Moon is named for her.
But perhaps the most far-reaching legacy of Lowell’s and Proctor’s work has been on science fiction. Martian canals are featured in Robert Heinlein’s 1949 book, Red Planet, and Ray Bradbury’s 1950 work, The Martian Chronicles. Undoubtedly, H.G. Wells had read Lowell’s writings about Mars before he wrote his 1898 book, War of the Worlds. Countless novels, stories, comics, movies, and TV shows — not to mention podcasts and blogs — continue to be fascinated by the possibilities of Mars.
Even scientists like to speculate. NASA’s 2020 Mars rover, Perseverance, is framed as a search for “signs of life on Mars.” Let’s hope that both science writers and readers can recognize the fine line between science and science fiction.
