I suppose if the idea is that pareidolia is real and happens all the time, therefore we need to be careful to not dismiss actual things for pareidolia, then ok. Although it reminds me a bit of a saying on a Tee shirt I remember from my early teen years. At the time it took me a while to comprehend it:

"Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not really out to get you".

Here it's "Just because pareidolia is almost hardwired into human brains and happens all the time, maybe that face is really a face" or something like that. Fair enough, but that's not what seems to be going on. I'd argue this is just the classic maneuver in UFOlogy, Bigfootery and other fringe causes to shift the burden of proof.

The claim becomes "Yes pareidolia is real, but you can't PROVE it's pareidolia that is creating the Face on Mars, so maybe it's not pareidolia. And if it's not pareidolia, then it really is a Face on Mars, therefore ALIENS until you can prove it's just pareidolia". Ball is squarely back in the skeptic's court.

The part of the other referanced paper provided by @john.phil above (post #3) illustrates this even more clearly. First, the author acknowledges the burden of proof:

External Quote:

But then instead of providing any evidence, besides pareidolia, he begins to shift the burden:

External Quote:

So, now the burden of proof is of equal weight. Not only does he need a "smoking gun" of some sort to prove the objects are artificial, meaning built by aliens, but now the skeptic also needs a "smoking gun" to prove rocks and stuff on a naturally occurring planet are in fact natural.

Having now established that he and the skeptic have the same evidentiary burden, he reverts to another often-used ploy, the "sum is greater than the parts". He may not have a "smoking gun", but he doesn't need one:

External Quote:

This is common in UFOlogy, the argument being "All these people can't be wrong can they? There are just too many sightings to dismiss them all as hoaxes or misidentified things right?" Lacking any good evidence, the idea is to heap up piles of poor evidence. A 1+1=5 argument. Having amassed a bunch of crap, they challenge the skeptic to explain all of the bad evidence. During the course of which more bad evidence is continued to be piled up. A Gish Gallop of sorts.

Of course, when skeptics use a similar argument, it is challenged. If a skeptic shows that 95 of 100 UFO reports had prosaic explanations like planes and hoaxes, so it's likely the other 5 do also, this reasoning is rejected and flipped around as now the 5 unexplained reports become proof of aliens.

The idea is to just keep trolling out new and different things and challenge the skeptic to prove they are not what is claimed. As here, having suggested that pareidolia may not be the cause of these various objects on Mars, the author now places the burden of proof on the skeptic to show each and every geological mechanism that can create each and every object, otherwise ALEINS!

External Quote:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tain_objects_on_Mars_are_artificial_in_origin