8 ms·

"This is antithetical to science. If you're promising a breakthrough discovery, you're approaching the experiment with bias." I think all experiments are began

by fsloth 9y ago

"This is antithetical to science. If you're promising a breakthrough discovery, you're approaching the experiment with bias." I think all experiments are began with some premonition of what to expect. For example Michaelson and Morley very much expected to measure the speed through which earth would pass through aether ... except they couldn't. An the results pushed physics toward theory of relativity. I disagree that's it's an entirely bad process to bankroll experiments based on unproven promises. This is exactly how the Manhattan Project happened. The physicists promised that it was very likely they could create a very large explosion, but they did not know if it would bang or fizzle. So, the US government began a huge industrial scale operation to enrich uranium and to assemble the bomb. The first atomic bomb explosion was very much empirical science that was bankrolled by "unsound" promises. In this sense going beyond LHC would be kinda ground breaking - big budget science with absolutely no clue on what to expect. It's how discoveries are made, yes, but I'm not sure if any large scale scientific project has been funded without at least some clue on what to expect.

kerkeslager 9y ago
> I think all experiments are began with some premonition of what to expect. For example Michaelson and Morley very much expected to measure the speed through which earth would pass through aether ... except they couldn't. An the results pushed physics toward theory of relativity. > I disagree that's it's an entirely bad process to bankroll experiments based on unproven promises. This is exactly how the Manhattan Project happened. The physicists promised that it was very likely they could create a very large explosion, but they did not know if it would bang or fizzle. So, the US government began a huge industrial scale operation to enrich uranium and to assemble the bomb. The first atomic bomb explosion was very much empirical science that was bankrolled by "unsound" promises. What you're describing is the "hypothesis" step in the scientific process. Properly done, a hypothesis isn't a promise--it's simply a statement of the possibility you're testing, without any commitment to the possibility being the reality or not. A good hypothesis results in the same experiment as its negative: "There are more supersymmetric particles at higher energies" is the same hypothesis as "There are not more supersymmetric particles at higher energies" because you test both hypotheses in the same way. Contrast this with a promise: you can't promise something and its opposite. > In this sense going beyond LHC would be kinda ground breaking - big budget science with absolutely no clue on what to expect. It's how discoveries are made, yes, but I'm not sure if any large scale scientific project has been funded without at least some clue on what to expect. I don't think we have absolutely no clue what to expect--the article goes into some of the possibilities.
- mseebach 9y ago
  I think you're splitting hairs now. Once you have a hypothesis, you can come up with a promise. IF there are (or are not) more supersymmetric particles at higher energies, THEN we can leverage X plus this to move towards possibly curing cancer [or whatever, I have no idea]. The word "promise" doesn't just mean that something will definitely happen, it has a secondary meaning of something being promising, having "the quality of potential excellence". It's about articulating where this experiment slots into the context, articulating why it's interesting to look at this thing, and not the fifteen other things that won't be funded if your thing does.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    That's simply not true. Once you have a hypothesis, you do not come up with a promise. You come up with a test. Promise and Promising do not have the same meaning. promise = statement that something will happen promising = showing signs of future success
    - mseebach 9y ago
      You do both. You come up with a test, yes, and you come up with an idea of what it will mean if the test either confirms or rejects the hypothesis. And no, promise can mean exactly what I said it can mean. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/promise https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/promise From the article: > To justify substantial investments, I am told, an experiment needs a clear goal and at least a promise of breakthrough discoveries That sentence is meaningless if "promise" means "A declaration or assurance that one will do something or that a particular thing will happen" -- the "at least" is totally redundant in that interpretation. If it means "the quality of potential excellence", then "at least" makes perfect sense.
      - Kapow 9y ago
        If it was "promise" in the sense of "showing promise", then it's a mass noun and they wouldn't have said "a promise". That's like saying "a money" or "a knowledge".
tallanvor 9y ago
I think what really should be said is that we need governments to continue funding pure science - research that doesn't necessarily have immediate benefits, but rather expands our understanding and may provide building blocks for those breakthrough discoveries that clearly move us forward. That's not to say that there isn't also a place for funding specific research that shows promise for solving specific problems or that would provide specific benefits - the Manhattan Project is certainly an example of this.
- neolefty 9y ago
  Yes, and the LHC cost about $13 billion. Was it worth it? Would another--probably more expensive--collider be worth a likely negative result? Is there a cheaper way to achieve most of the same goals? Are there more promising things to do with that research money?
  - AlexCoventry 9y ago
    Top comment suggests it's too early to say that the results from the LHC are entirely negative. > At the end of 2018, the LHC will have recorded a mere 3% of the intended research program. That means that there is 30x more data to come. I think you'd need to see the results of all of the data before you say that the LHC was a bust. It may be. But your claim is hasty.
nonbel 9y ago
>"I disagree that's it's an entirely bad process to bankroll experiments based on unproven promises. This is exactly how the Manhattan Project happened. The physicists promised that it was very likely they could create a very large explosion, but they did not know if it would bang or fizzle." The difference is that they predicted a large explosion before, now they predict a bump on a graph representing an event (actually events) that nobody otherwise notices ever happened...
lisper 9y ago
> The first atomic bomb explosion was very much empirical science that was bankrolled by "unsound" promises. War often forces you to take risks that would be imprudent under normal circumstances.

by fsloth 9y ago

kerkeslager 9y ago

> I think all experiments are began with some premonition of what to expect. For example Michaelson and Morley very much expected to measure the speed through which earth would pass through aether ... except they couldn't. An the results pushed physics toward theory of relativity. > I disagree that's it's an entirely bad process to bankroll experiments based on unproven promises. This is exactly how the Manhattan Project happened. The physicists promised that it was very likely they could create a very large explosion, but they did not know if it would bang or fizzle. So, the US government began a huge industrial scale operation to enrich uranium and to assemble the bomb. The first atomic bomb explosion was very much empirical science that was bankrolled by "unsound" promises. What you're describing is the "hypothesis" step in the scientific process. Properly done, a hypothesis isn't a promise--it's simply a statement of the possibility you're testing, without any commitment to the possibility being the reality or not. A good hypothesis results in the same experiment as its negative: "There are more supersymmetric particles at higher energies" is the same hypothesis as "There are not more supersymmetric particles at higher energies" because you test both hypotheses in the same way. Contrast this with a promise: you can't promise something and its opposite. > In this sense going beyond LHC would be kinda ground breaking - big budget science with absolutely no clue on what to expect. It's how discoveries are made, yes, but I'm not sure if any large scale scientific project has been funded without at least some clue on what to expect. I don't think we have absolutely no clue what to expect--the article goes into some of the possibilities.

mseebach 9y ago
I think you're splitting hairs now. Once you have a hypothesis, you can come up with a promise. IF there are (or are not) more supersymmetric particles at higher energies, THEN we can leverage X plus this to move towards possibly curing cancer [or whatever, I have no idea]. The word "promise" doesn't just mean that something will definitely happen, it has a secondary meaning of something being promising, having "the quality of potential excellence". It's about articulating where this experiment slots into the context, articulating why it's interesting to look at this thing, and not the fifteen other things that won't be funded if your thing does.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  That's simply not true. Once you have a hypothesis, you do not come up with a promise. You come up with a test. Promise and Promising do not have the same meaning. promise = statement that something will happen promising = showing signs of future success
  - mseebach 9y ago
    You do both. You come up with a test, yes, and you come up with an idea of what it will mean if the test either confirms or rejects the hypothesis. And no, promise can mean exactly what I said it can mean. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/promise https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/promise From the article: > To justify substantial investments, I am told, an experiment needs a clear goal and at least a promise of breakthrough discoveries That sentence is meaningless if "promise" means "A declaration or assurance that one will do something or that a particular thing will happen" -- the "at least" is totally redundant in that interpretation. If it means "the quality of potential excellence", then "at least" makes perfect sense.
    - Kapow 9y ago
      If it was "promise" in the sense of "showing promise", then it's a mass noun and they wouldn't have said "a promise". That's like saying "a money" or "a knowledge".

tallanvor 9y ago

I think what really should be said is that we need governments to continue funding pure science - research that doesn't necessarily have immediate benefits, but rather expands our understanding and may provide building blocks for those breakthrough discoveries that clearly move us forward. That's not to say that there isn't also a place for funding specific research that shows promise for solving specific problems or that would provide specific benefits - the Manhattan Project is certainly an example of this.

neolefty 9y ago
Yes, and the LHC cost about $13 billion. Was it worth it? Would another--probably more expensive--collider be worth a likely negative result? Is there a cheaper way to achieve most of the same goals? Are there more promising things to do with that research money?
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  Top comment suggests it's too early to say that the results from the LHC are entirely negative. > At the end of 2018, the LHC will have recorded a mere 3% of the intended research program. That means that there is 30x more data to come. I think you'd need to see the results of all of the data before you say that the LHC was a bust. It may be. But your claim is hasty.

nonbel 9y ago

>"I disagree that's it's an entirely bad process to bankroll experiments based on unproven promises. This is exactly how the Manhattan Project happened. The physicists promised that it was very likely they could create a very large explosion, but they did not know if it would bang or fizzle." The difference is that they predicted a large explosion before, now they predict a bump on a graph representing an event (actually events) that nobody otherwise notices ever happened...

lisper 9y ago

> The first atomic bomb explosion was very much empirical science that was bankrolled by "unsound" promises. War often forces you to take risks that would be imprudent under normal circumstances.