Skip to main content

View Diary: Mysteries of Science (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So defend your hypothesis already ;-) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, palantir

    It's the scientific method after all.

    How does New Scientist fail to meet your expectations? I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I'd be interested in yours. Science reporting is too critical these days to dismiss when it fails to measure up.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 07:07:23 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing in particular wrong with The New Scientist (4+ / 0-)

      Granted it can be a bit superficial, but their audience isn't the actual scientists steeped in their particular discipline, but they cover the subject with sufficient specificity to make further investigation possible, at least until you run up against those god damned pay walls.

    •  Their inclusion of the homeopathy study (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slouchsock

      inexcusable.

      •  Why? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chrisfs, chimpy, melfunction, Praxical

        If a researcher sets out to prove homeopathy doesn't work - but gets results that don't support what they're trying to prove and they can't find any errors in their work - they're doing it right.

        It doesn't mean the homeopaths are necessarily right - just that we don't know as much as we think we do, and more work is necessary.

        Failure is just as important to doing science as success. Data is data and we now have more of it.

        "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

        by xaxnar on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 09:00:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it means science is hard work (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xaxnar, melfunction

          It means that methods are not easy, and seemingly unrelated effects can affect your results. In that Belfast study, something must have been missed in the preparation or application. Finding that something might lead to new guidelines on material handling or glassware cleaning, so weird results are usually worth checking into.

          Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

          by chimpy on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 10:09:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Remember those fast neutrinos? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chimpy, melfunction

            Turned out to be a hardware issue. They were embarrassed, but they got it sorted out eventually. They didn't try to fudge the results.

            "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

            by xaxnar on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 10:22:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, that took some guts. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xaxnar, melfunction, Praxical

              They pre-released some data with some pretty revolutionary implications. But, they weren't making a claim as to those implications, just opening up their methods and their state of debugging and asking for help.

              So, end result is they get some help with their specific particle stimulus and data acquisition methods, and everyone else gets an education on the overall Scientific Method.

              Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

              by chimpy on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 10:33:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site