4 ms·

It is indeed a press release so that's not great, but why wouldn't their model be verifiable? We know the applicable laws of physics, someone else can code up a

by Luc 8y ago

It is indeed a press release so that's not great, but why wouldn't their model be verifiable? We know the applicable laws of physics, someone else can code up a simulation and verify the results.

DiabloD3 8y ago
We can't even verify, say, dark matter and dark energy, no matter how much we look for it, and we handed out Nobels for them. Just because we have "laws of physics" and "computer modules based on simulations of said laws of physics" doesn't mean it's real.
lordnacho 8y ago
A simulation is a prediction, not a verification. Verification would be going out to a load of planets and seeing if they look the way the simulations say.
- jerf 8y ago
  In fact there's been several news stories about extraterrestrial planets over the past few years, since we're finding more of them now. But the ones we hear about focus on things like "can they support life". There is nothing per se wrong with playing with the math and playing with models and trying to get a sense of the space of possibilities. Where I get crabby is when the whole process is condensed down to the level the title is at: "Plate tectonics not needed to sustain life". No. The level of confidence expressed in those words is utterly unjustified. We have perhaps a trace more than absolutely no idea. That trace is scientifically valid and I do not begrudge some planetary scientists fiddling around. But we must not place excessive confidence in the results. The inability to practically proof the correctness of a computer model does not mean it is scientifically valid to then just assume they are correct! To put it in local terms, that's exactly as valid as expecting a programmer to just type a few thousand lines of code into an editor, compile, and deploy to production with no further testing required. Because, in a fairly real way, this isn't even a metaphor, this is precisely what making such concrete predictions off of an unproofed computer model is doing. Being unable to test the correctness of the code does not therefore render it correct. I am reminded of the classic quote "On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." by Babbage. I am not able to apprehend the confusion of ideas that produces this concept that if we can't test the model, we are justified in assuming it is correct. To my understanding of science, exactly and precisely the opposite is true. (Incidentally, I also consider the phrase "Plate tectonics are necessary to support life" to be completely unjustified! Our one sample of life-supporting planet has plate tectonics. Our own solar system is at least suggestive of the possibility that plate tectonics across a long time period may be rare, but no more than "suggestive" without a lot more data. Given the very-slowly-increasing evidence that life may be rare in the cosmos, it is suggestive that rare characteristics of our planet and the rare characteristic of "life" may be connected. We have some plausible-sounding theories as to why plate tectonics may be helpful. But we can not say absolutely "they are necessary for life" by any means.)

by Luc 8y ago

It is indeed a press release so that's not great, but why wouldn't their model be verifiable? We know the applicable laws of physics, someone else can code up a simulation and verify the results.

DiabloD3 8y ago

We can't even verify, say, dark matter and dark energy, no matter how much we look for it, and we handed out Nobels for them. Just because we have "laws of physics" and "computer modules based on simulations of said laws of physics" doesn't mean it's real.

lordnacho 8y ago

A simulation is a prediction, not a verification. Verification would be going out to a load of planets and seeing if they look the way the simulations say.

jerf 8y ago
In fact there's been several news stories about extraterrestrial planets over the past few years, since we're finding more of them now. But the ones we hear about focus on things like "can they support life". There is nothing per se wrong with playing with the math and playing with models and trying to get a sense of the space of possibilities. Where I get crabby is when the whole process is condensed down to the level the title is at: "Plate tectonics not needed to sustain life". No. The level of confidence expressed in those words is utterly unjustified. We have perhaps a trace more than absolutely no idea. That trace is scientifically valid and I do not begrudge some planetary scientists fiddling around. But we must not place excessive confidence in the results. The inability to practically proof the correctness of a computer model does not mean it is scientifically valid to then just assume they are correct! To put it in local terms, that's exactly as valid as expecting a programmer to just type a few thousand lines of code into an editor, compile, and deploy to production with no further testing required. Because, in a fairly real way, this isn't even a metaphor, this is precisely what making such concrete predictions off of an unproofed computer model is doing. Being unable to test the correctness of the code does not therefore render it correct. I am reminded of the classic quote "On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." by Babbage. I am not able to apprehend the confusion of ideas that produces this concept that if we can't test the model, we are justified in assuming it is correct. To my understanding of science, exactly and precisely the opposite is true. (Incidentally, I also consider the phrase "Plate tectonics are necessary to support life" to be completely unjustified! Our one sample of life-supporting planet has plate tectonics. Our own solar system is at least suggestive of the possibility that plate tectonics across a long time period may be rare, but no more than "suggestive" without a lot more data. Given the very-slowly-increasing evidence that life may be rare in the cosmos, it is suggestive that rare characteristics of our planet and the rare characteristic of "life" may be connected. We have some plausible-sounding theories as to why plate tectonics may be helpful. But we can not say absolutely "they are necessary for life" by any means.)