First off, I never said support for a hypothesis = certainty. You seem to have read into my comment, and your response is by result largely a straw man. But I'll answer it anyways, with a patronizing lecture in return for your own.
Then why make a big deal about words like "maybe," and "may," which are commonplace (and, in fact,
necessary) in scientific discussion? You may not have stated it explicitly, but it sure seemed as though that was the implication, especially given the context of our initial exchange. Otherwise your focus on those words makes literally *zero* sense: you excluded these findings from the category of "support" because of what amounts to cumulative uncertainty. This seems to indicate a fundamental ignorance of not only the language that is common to scientific discussions, but of some of the central tenets of the scientific method itself (
and, most importantly, the role of probability in its application).
And your original premise about not knowing whether life existed on Mars invalidating the idea that evidence can be mounted for panspermia of Martian origin is horribly flawed. If there is support for the latter hypothesis, then it stands to reason that it must also serve as support for the former, and knowledge of the former
a priori is not necessarily required. This is basic logic.
ThePhantasm said:
The scientific era as we know it was born in the Enlightenment, in which philosophy assumed in general the objective validity, truth, and clarity of what we observe in nature and can argue through rationality. The scientific method has always been inherently empirical. This means it needs to rely on actual demonstrable evidence (note, here "evidence" doesn't necessarily have to be tangible, but it needs to be provable).
No theory can be considered infallibly certain, i.e. above questioning or challenge. It is always possible that new evidence or reasoning may arise that negates a prior accepted theory. But to read what I said in my above comment as meaning "infallible certainty" would be an uncharitable over-reading of my position. This doesn't mean that theories can't be "certain," "proven," or "accepted" - indeed these terms are used all the time in the scientific community because scientists are largely not postmoderns. The point is that some sort of demonstrable evidence or reasoning is required - the theory cannot subsist merely on probabilities. The theory in this news article is not in the slightest demonstrable - it is prima facie plausible in presentation, but no "mounting evidence" is actually shown. A hypothesis it is, but it isn't one giving anyone a reason to take it very seriously.
And each of those premises - the supposed availability of oxidized Molybdenum, water covering the earth, etc. - is based upon...
...wait for it...
empirical evidence.
You seem to be under the impression that empiricism is, itself, free from uncertainty. This is simply not the case. Uncertainty is built in to the principles that allow the utilization of empirical evidence/data (the ones which collectively constitute the scientific method), and even empirical data are prone to such phenomena as measurement error, etc.
You don't seem to fully grasp or appreciate the actual implications of what you're saying here - not the least of which is the idea that inference based upon accumulated evidence (which is, in turn, based upon empirical data) is either impossible or at the very least untenable.
If we were to subscribe to that reasoning, evolutionary theory - especially as it applies to macroevolution - would fall into the same category as you claim the hypotheses we are discussing now do.
So, while it was a nice lecture you gave, it missed the point - badly.
Myself? I've never trusted Martians... And I never will... I can't forgive them for the death of my son. 
