4 ms·

> ... scientists themselves weren't sensationalizing their findings ... Yeah right. They were saying things like "please prove us wrong" while doing interview

> ... scientists themselves weren't sensationalizing their findings ... Yeah right. They were saying things like "please prove us wrong" while doing interview rounds, and (I'm sure) celebrating, loving and looking forward to more and more limelight, so strictly speaking they were not "sensationalizing their findings". In a related story, OJ and Casey Anthony did not kill anyone.

Hnrobert42 6y ago
Somewhat like the scientists you are criticizing, you ascribe a lot of meaning to little data. Support for your claims that they were celebrating and reveling in fame are very thin. I would like to see more evidence before we criticize not just their work but also them as people.
- fizixer 6y ago
  On their reddit AMA thread [0], can you point me to a single of their over a hundred answers which expresses concerns that media is overhyping and running away with the story? On the contrary, how would you 'nudge' the laymen's thought to be directed a certain way? would saying things like "So it's a big deal" and then putting a question mark at the end work? [1]. Does that ring a bell, or are you daft enough that you would need data to be convinced that doing so is a sign of wanting attention, and wanting the story to get sensationalized? And why would you do a public forum AMA and then go through the effort to post over a hundred answers to begin with, if you didn't want the story to blow up? I don't know if you're associated with any research or academic body or not, but here's a news flash for you: stories don't get big on their own, not in today's short-attention-span world. The researchers take the just-published work to their organization's news outlet and ask them to cover it. The unspoken, and often spoken, reasoning being "this is significant". If a researcher wants to practice caution, it is super easy these days to do so, just don't make a mountain out of a mole hill. Also you and the other downvote sheep, go eff yourself and do your own research about what really happened a month ago (I was there and was telling everyone that these researchers are bullshitters taking everyone for a ride). [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/itt9b7 https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/itt9b7 [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/itt9b7/askscience_ama_series_we_have_hints_of_life_on/g5hn5fm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/itt9b7/askscien...
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    Your sarcasm and hostility disproportionate to this discussion. I wish you well with whatever you are going through.
fleischhauf 6y ago
If you read the paper they are very very careful with their claims. Also please prove us wrong is the default position in science, thats what peer review is all about. I dont see a problem with that.
- fizixer 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24982942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24982942

Hnrobert42 6y ago

Somewhat like the scientists you are criticizing, you ascribe a lot of meaning to little data. Support for your claims that they were celebrating and reveling in fame are very thin. I would like to see more evidence before we criticize not just their work but also them as people.

fizixer 6y ago
On their reddit AMA thread [0], can you point me to a single of their over a hundred answers which expresses concerns that media is overhyping and running away with the story? On the contrary, how would you 'nudge' the laymen's thought to be directed a certain way? would saying things like "So it's a big deal" and then putting a question mark at the end work? [1]. Does that ring a bell, or are you daft enough that you would need data to be convinced that doing so is a sign of wanting attention, and wanting the story to get sensationalized? And why would you do a public forum AMA and then go through the effort to post over a hundred answers to begin with, if you didn't want the story to blow up? I don't know if you're associated with any research or academic body or not, but here's a news flash for you: stories don't get big on their own, not in today's short-attention-span world. The researchers take the just-published work to their organization's news outlet and ask them to cover it. The unspoken, and often spoken, reasoning being "this is significant". If a researcher wants to practice caution, it is super easy these days to do so, just don't make a mountain out of a mole hill. Also you and the other downvote sheep, go eff yourself and do your own research about what really happened a month ago (I was there and was telling everyone that these researchers are bullshitters taking everyone for a ride). [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/itt9b7 https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/itt9b7 [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/itt9b7/askscience_ama_series_we_have_hints_of_life_on/g5hn5fm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/itt9b7/askscien...
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Your sarcasm and hostility disproportionate to this discussion. I wish you well with whatever you are going through.

fleischhauf 6y ago

If you read the paper they are very very careful with their claims. Also please prove us wrong is the default position in science, thats what peer review is all about. I dont see a problem with that.

fizixer 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24982942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24982942