3 ms·
At the same time, that comment is based on someone, working in exoplanetary science, skimming the paper for at most two hours before commenting. Just looking a
by SiempreViernes 6y ago
At the same time, that comment is based on someone, working in exoplanetary science, skimming the paper for at most two hours before commenting.
Just looking at figure 2[0], it doesn't look like the ALMA a detection is particularly weak and looks like a proper line. Of course, I don't know the full analysis chain, so I can't say how hard it is to make a line like this completely by accident, but I doubt you could tell just from this figure either way.
[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1174-4/figures/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1174-4/figures/2
- nabla9 6y agoOne of the authors agrees that the finding needs additional confirmation in the last paragraph.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoWell yeah, xkcd 2268 is a good joke for a reason. Confirmation of a new result is always desirable and everybody knows this, "more studies needed" is however not the same as saying "we're probably wrong".