4 ms·

I adore these images, and deeply respect the reputation risk in getting them. I also believe that even if we found nothing at all, it would still advance our u

I adore these images, and deeply respect the reputation risk in getting them. I also believe that even if we found nothing at all, it would still advance our understanding of the universe as we could confidently say what limits there might be.

stingraycharles 6y ago
Unfortunately people would not have gotten nearly as excited when seeing nothing, and the nay-sayers would have made this very clear. These things are always as much science as they are politics, so the reputation damage would have been real.
- JamesLeonis 6y ago
  While I agree with you about PR and reputation (sadly), it would be valuable for scientists as a Null value. I would put it on the same level as the Aether experiments.
  - stingraycharles 6y ago
    Yes the point I tried to make was explicitly about the political aspects. I agree that from a scientific point of view, the null value is almost as valuable as what we got now.
- YinglingLight 6y ago
  The greatest flaw we possess today en masse is that Science, as it is conducted today, is pure. Ironically, a dogmatic belief in it's purity. There is science, which got Western Civilization where it is today, and there is Science™.
- ianai 6y ago
  More importantly, could he have done the same thing in today’s world and political realities that he did then?
- ISL 6y ago
  If nothing had been seen, the implications would have been spectacular. Experiments worth doing are worth doing no matter the result.
  - mirimir 6y ago
    Right, I suspect that there was much more behind Bob's deep field study than TFA presents.
  - Tegran 6y ago
    The implications aren't automatically "there's nothing out there", more "this was the wrong tool for the job".
    - ISL 6y ago
      True, but I doubt that anyone would have gambled that much Hubble time without working out the statistical sensitivity of the measurement.
soneil 6y ago
I think it's not so much that it was a huge gamble. It was more that it was a sensitive time politically, to make that gamble. I mean, if they found nothing? Sure, that's still a question Hubble should be trying to answer. But right after such a rocky start, the politically obvious choice would have been to go for easy wins. The timing was as ballsy as anything else, if not more so.

stingraycharles 6y ago

Unfortunately people would not have gotten nearly as excited when seeing nothing, and the nay-sayers would have made this very clear. These things are always as much science as they are politics, so the reputation damage would have been real.

JamesLeonis 6y ago
While I agree with you about PR and reputation (sadly), it would be valuable for scientists as a Null value. I would put it on the same level as the Aether experiments.
- stingraycharles 6y ago
  Yes the point I tried to make was explicitly about the political aspects. I agree that from a scientific point of view, the null value is almost as valuable as what we got now.
YinglingLight 6y ago
The greatest flaw we possess today en masse is that Science, as it is conducted today, is pure. Ironically, a dogmatic belief in it's purity. There is science, which got Western Civilization where it is today, and there is Science™.
ianai 6y ago
More importantly, could he have done the same thing in today’s world and political realities that he did then?
ISL 6y ago
If nothing had been seen, the implications would have been spectacular. Experiments worth doing are worth doing no matter the result.
- mirimir 6y ago
  Right, I suspect that there was much more behind Bob's deep field study than TFA presents.
- Tegran 6y ago
  The implications aren't automatically "there's nothing out there", more "this was the wrong tool for the job".
  - ISL 6y ago
    True, but I doubt that anyone would have gambled that much Hubble time without working out the statistical sensitivity of the measurement.

soneil 6y ago

I think it's not so much that it was a huge gamble. It was more that it was a sensitive time politically, to make that gamble. I mean, if they found nothing? Sure, that's still a question Hubble should be trying to answer. But right after such a rocky start, the politically obvious choice would have been to go for easy wins. The timing was as ballsy as anything else, if not more so.