4 ms·

As someone who spent a fair amount of time in academia, this is pretty common. As much as we all like to pat each other on the back, there are always contrarian

As someone who spent a fair amount of time in academia, this is pretty common. As much as we all like to pat each other on the back, there are always contrarians who want to tamp down or be skeptical of another scientists conclusions. Even after a few years, I learned there is always in-fighting when a major discovery like this is made. Regardless of where these bones should be classified, it's an incredible find no matter what - which is sometimes lost in the ensuing fray of dissenting opinions.

SEJeff 11y ago
But isn't a healthy dose of scepticism simply good Science? Peer reviewed results are hard to be sceptical about. My favorite thing about science is that you often have strongly opposing sides both with super intelligent scientists. When everything has been fleshed out, the best and brightest tends to come to the top (not always, but as a generalism it is true). Virtually everyone was sceptical of the guy claiming to have developed a form of propulsion powered more or less only by light, but then NASA tested the "EmDrive" and sure enough, it seems like the fundamental idea works. (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futu...)
- gus_massa 11y ago
  The supposed thrust of the EmDrive is very small. But the device has a lot of wires with current that can be equivalent to an electromagnet, and very hot parts that can create air currents, and ... If you have not done few physics labs, it's easy to underestimate the measurement problems and the level of noise in experiments. Most of the Physics community thinks that this is an experimental error. One symptom is that at lunch in a Physics department nobody talks about this. If this were real it would be a groundbreaking result because it breaks some of the most fundamental Physics laws.
  - SEJeff 11y ago
    I don't think the scientists at NASA are bogus. They managed to calculate when a probe would reach pluto that was only off by a few seconds. There is still a lot of research that needs to be done on that, but there are those that say it isn't breaking the laws of physics. We shall see I guess, but it has been replicated in 3 places now taht I'm aware of, two of which are serious science outfits.
    - gus_massa 11y ago
      The NASA is very big, they went to the Moon but they also published the infamous arsenic life paper ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1#Biochemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1#Biochemistry ). In a "massless" thruster, the theoretical maximum Thrust/Power ratio is 1/c = 0.0033 mN/KW if you don't want to break the conservation of momentum, special relativity or quantum mechanics. You could get this value with an ideal perfectly efficient laser beam. The latest NASA version proclaims (50 uN / 50 W) = 1 mN/KW that is 300x the theoretical maximum, so if it's not an experimental error, it must be breaking some of the currently supposed physic laws.
- beambot 11y ago
  > Peer reviewed results are hard to be sceptical about. With rampant forging of data and results, you better be skeptical of peer-reviewed results too. Reproducibility is an important, oft-overlooked, and under-appreciated part of science.
  - SEJeff 11y ago
    And when I say peer review, perhaps I meant to say peer reproduced (which wasn't super obvious in the initial comment).
    - yawaramin 11y ago
      Good point; after all, how can a review be serious if the reviewer(s) don't even try to reproduce the results?
      - kibibu 11y ago
        A peer review can identify a very large class of problems with research without actually replicating the experiment. For example, problems with methodology and sampling, overlooked prior research, bad analysis of results, straight-up non-sequiturs and conclusions drawn from insufficient data. All of these mean peer review is valuable without reproducing results. For an extreme example: if somebody publishes a "Cheese found on moon" paper, do you expect the reviewer to mount an expedition to the moon to check?
        yawaramin 11y ago
        Those are all excellent points, but even if you don't find any significant problems with the methodology or the math, or any of the other factors, that still doesn't make a complete review--not without replication. For the 'Cheese found on moon' paper, I would expect the reviewer to clearly state that the results could not be replicated before mentioning anything else. Let readers draw informed conclusions based on a complete picture of the result, including whether or not it was a one-off.

SEJeff 11y ago

But isn't a healthy dose of scepticism simply good Science? Peer reviewed results are hard to be sceptical about. My favorite thing about science is that you often have strongly opposing sides both with super intelligent scientists. When everything has been fleshed out, the best and brightest tends to come to the top (not always, but as a generalism it is true). Virtually everyone was sceptical of the guy claiming to have developed a form of propulsion powered more or less only by light, but then NASA tested the "EmDrive" and sure enough, it seems like the fundamental idea works. (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futu...)

gus_massa 11y ago
The supposed thrust of the EmDrive is very small. But the device has a lot of wires with current that can be equivalent to an electromagnet, and very hot parts that can create air currents, and ... If you have not done few physics labs, it's easy to underestimate the measurement problems and the level of noise in experiments. Most of the Physics community thinks that this is an experimental error. One symptom is that at lunch in a Physics department nobody talks about this. If this were real it would be a groundbreaking result because it breaks some of the most fundamental Physics laws.
- SEJeff 11y ago
  I don't think the scientists at NASA are bogus. They managed to calculate when a probe would reach pluto that was only off by a few seconds. There is still a lot of research that needs to be done on that, but there are those that say it isn't breaking the laws of physics. We shall see I guess, but it has been replicated in 3 places now taht I'm aware of, two of which are serious science outfits.
  - gus_massa 11y ago
    The NASA is very big, they went to the Moon but they also published the infamous arsenic life paper ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1#Biochemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1#Biochemistry ). In a "massless" thruster, the theoretical maximum Thrust/Power ratio is 1/c = 0.0033 mN/KW if you don't want to break the conservation of momentum, special relativity or quantum mechanics. You could get this value with an ideal perfectly efficient laser beam. The latest NASA version proclaims (50 uN / 50 W) = 1 mN/KW that is 300x the theoretical maximum, so if it's not an experimental error, it must be breaking some of the currently supposed physic laws.
beambot 11y ago
> Peer reviewed results are hard to be sceptical about. With rampant forging of data and results, you better be skeptical of peer-reviewed results too. Reproducibility is an important, oft-overlooked, and under-appreciated part of science.
- SEJeff 11y ago
  And when I say peer review, perhaps I meant to say peer reproduced (which wasn't super obvious in the initial comment).
  - yawaramin 11y ago
    Good point; after all, how can a review be serious if the reviewer(s) don't even try to reproduce the results?
    - kibibu 11y ago
      A peer review can identify a very large class of problems with research without actually replicating the experiment. For example, problems with methodology and sampling, overlooked prior research, bad analysis of results, straight-up non-sequiturs and conclusions drawn from insufficient data. All of these mean peer review is valuable without reproducing results. For an extreme example: if somebody publishes a "Cheese found on moon" paper, do you expect the reviewer to mount an expedition to the moon to check?
      - yawaramin 11y ago
        Those are all excellent points, but even if you don't find any significant problems with the methodology or the math, or any of the other factors, that still doesn't make a complete review--not without replication. For the 'Cheese found on moon' paper, I would expect the reviewer to clearly state that the results could not be replicated before mentioning anything else. Let readers draw informed conclusions based on a complete picture of the result, including whether or not it was a one-off.