4 ms·

A thought. Imagine working and spending your entire scientific career on a specific problem, hoping to create positive change and then to be meet with this typ

A thought. Imagine working and spending your entire scientific career on a specific problem, hoping to create positive change and then to be meet with this type of skepticism. I can't help but feel sad for everyone involved in this scientific research if they end up seeing this. I do value skepticism but it feels somewhat unfair here because they are very transparent with how they relate to current existing lithium-ion technology while discussing their differences and how they could potentially innovate and iterate on their solution. All of of this while referring to their peer-reviewed paper. What more could they have done? Shouldn't we celebrate events like this?

gameswithgo 6y ago
Yes we should.
hannob 6y ago
> What more could they have done? Oh this one is simple. Be transparent in your communication about the limitations of what you've done. Be clear whether this is early research or something likely to find its way into products any time soon. And above all: Avoide terms like "breakthrough" unless they're really deserved (which is exceptionally rare).
- jnwatson 6y ago
  But it isn't the researchers doing this. This is university PR.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  All of that was clear in the article. It is research, it has way less energy density than a normal battery, and it WAS a breakthrough.
- polack 6y ago
  It might not be a breakthrough that takes us to Mars, but saying that an 10x improvement over existing versions isn't a breakthrough feels a bit unfair and a bit narrow minded. In this space it's obviously an breakthrough, you just don't happen to be interested or directly affected by it.
DoingIsLearning 6y ago
We continue to disseminate this type of news by linking to university press releases or technology news sites rather than the paper directly. 90% of the time press releases oversimplify results and overstate the research impact when the actual paper strives to be on point and accurate. I appreciate it's hard to stay true to the original research and explain things in a simple but engaging way. On the other hand it sometimes feel like creative freedom in second hand reporting does more harm than good.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Strongly agree, but my experience is that linking to papers directly usually means your thread will die with only a few comments; most people don't want to put in the effort to read the paper and many either don't read or quibble with the abstract. Also, a lot of business websites and Github pages are fluffy and PR and boring academic papers don't stand out well by comparison. Sadly commercial logic means that most third party science news reporting reverts to a sensational mean because there isn't that much money in accessible-but-serious journalism. Scientific American used to occupy a sweet spot of being informative yet accessible, but as the market at that spot shrank they watered down the quality of their coverage, and that was over 20 years ago. Quanta seems like the best online science writing in recent years but at the cost of fairly limited scope.
graderjs 6y ago
I totally feel that. But it's OK. It's only HN. There's plenty of places to feel hopeful about the future and optimistic. Research departments are one place. Your own head could be another. Maybe some of reddit. Some blogs. And like minded people in atomspace. HN values "intellectualism" so it has to be very cautious to throw its unbridled enthusiasm behind something new that it doesn't understand, unless it turns out wrong. The memory of being wrong, and having to face that stupidity or ignorance I think is too much for the intellectual HN superego to bear, so instead it hedges toward caution and skepticism. These are the default and "sensible" positions if you value not being wrong, and seeming right, and if the cost of "looking stupid" is too perceptually high. I'm not being too bearish on HN. The flipside is you can have great informed discussions, with less noise and fluff than elsewhere. But you can't find people so readily welcoming of brave new worlds here. They are here, it's just that the community sentiment / mass consciousness / superego of the place shames and punishes any such enthusiasm that isn't backed by hard facts and Wikipedia pages and common knowledge, etc. And even then it's not on the whole welcomed as much as scrutinized, pushed-back against, cross-examined and interrogated. So that's a reaction limiter on those voices speaking up here enthusiastically. Hey, they still do tho. Me included. I disliked it at first, and extreme examples I still dislike. But I get it's just someone else's way of engaging or seeing the world. That's a valid perspective, just as much as mine. Even if I don't share it. It doesn't matter. Different perspectives are normal. And I find the awareness I now have of how the HN organism might react to some post a useful different perspective. I don't temper my enthusiasm for new stuff with it, but before posting here, maybe I'll consider how people might react. Maybe they won't be able to appreciate it. But at the same time. HN is not homogenous. It's amorphous and ever changing. The superego sentiment shifts, and there can be many examples of HN embracing the new. Given all that, it's good to see voices actually seeking to engage more enthusiastically and openly with newness emerge from the codified skeptical pit that is HN. I think this picture that I paint above misses alot of the details and it probably only 61-62% accurate but it's a fair enough take on HN that I think might clarify some things for people, and certainly does for me. Tho honestly in the case of this article I would love to see more technical analysis and less skepticism (or meta posts like mine). I know I'm contributing to that, I'm just not skilled enough in this area right now to analyze it, but would love to read discussion of the technical details.
fabian2k 6y ago
University press releases are often just that bad, especially the ones that lead to papers getting this kind of attention. And this kind of dramatic overselling does deserve all this skepticism.
_carbyau_ 6y ago
Please don't take my skepticism for a lack of enthusiasm! In this case we have an article on a paper - peer reviewed or otherwise - and it's claims. - data is limited, even taking everything they say at face value. - my expertise is near nonexistent (like most here) - predicting the future is hard - past is littered with "battery breakthroughs" that has not perceptably(this is important distinction) changed life as we know it So... skepticism it is. I am absolutely glad this person got to do that science research. I applaud the work taken to get here and wish all the best for them plus a bottle of [favoured beverage] on top. I absolutely hope so much more research is done. But until I perceive data that says otherwise, my skepticism of THIS particular article and it's ability to change any part of the world I am aware of (IE my own, my friends, my family, my social groups) remains. In future, if a work colleague comes to work one day and says "I was affected positively by [structural battery thing]." New data = new judgement of super awesome cool!

gameswithgo 6y ago

Yes we should.

hannob 6y ago

> What more could they have done? Oh this one is simple. Be transparent in your communication about the limitations of what you've done. Be clear whether this is early research or something likely to find its way into products any time soon. And above all: Avoide terms like "breakthrough" unless they're really deserved (which is exceptionally rare).

jnwatson 6y ago
But it isn't the researchers doing this. This is university PR.
gameswithgo 6y ago
All of that was clear in the article. It is research, it has way less energy density than a normal battery, and it WAS a breakthrough.
polack 6y ago
It might not be a breakthrough that takes us to Mars, but saying that an 10x improvement over existing versions isn't a breakthrough feels a bit unfair and a bit narrow minded. In this space it's obviously an breakthrough, you just don't happen to be interested or directly affected by it.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago

We continue to disseminate this type of news by linking to university press releases or technology news sites rather than the paper directly. 90% of the time press releases oversimplify results and overstate the research impact when the actual paper strives to be on point and accurate. I appreciate it's hard to stay true to the original research and explain things in a simple but engaging way. On the other hand it sometimes feel like creative freedom in second hand reporting does more harm than good.

anigbrowl 6y ago
Strongly agree, but my experience is that linking to papers directly usually means your thread will die with only a few comments; most people don't want to put in the effort to read the paper and many either don't read or quibble with the abstract. Also, a lot of business websites and Github pages are fluffy and PR and boring academic papers don't stand out well by comparison. Sadly commercial logic means that most third party science news reporting reverts to a sensational mean because there isn't that much money in accessible-but-serious journalism. Scientific American used to occupy a sweet spot of being informative yet accessible, but as the market at that spot shrank they watered down the quality of their coverage, and that was over 20 years ago. Quanta seems like the best online science writing in recent years but at the cost of fairly limited scope.

graderjs 6y ago

I totally feel that. But it's OK. It's only HN. There's plenty of places to feel hopeful about the future and optimistic. Research departments are one place. Your own head could be another. Maybe some of reddit. Some blogs. And like minded people in atomspace. HN values "intellectualism" so it has to be very cautious to throw its unbridled enthusiasm behind something new that it doesn't understand, unless it turns out wrong. The memory of being wrong, and having to face that stupidity or ignorance I think is too much for the intellectual HN superego to bear, so instead it hedges toward caution and skepticism. These are the default and "sensible" positions if you value not being wrong, and seeming right, and if the cost of "looking stupid" is too perceptually high. I'm not being too bearish on HN. The flipside is you can have great informed discussions, with less noise and fluff than elsewhere. But you can't find people so readily welcoming of brave new worlds here. They are here, it's just that the community sentiment / mass consciousness / superego of the place shames and punishes any such enthusiasm that isn't backed by hard facts and Wikipedia pages and common knowledge, etc. And even then it's not on the whole welcomed as much as scrutinized, pushed-back against, cross-examined and interrogated. So that's a reaction limiter on those voices speaking up here enthusiastically. Hey, they still do tho. Me included. I disliked it at first, and extreme examples I still dislike. But I get it's just someone else's way of engaging or seeing the world. That's a valid perspective, just as much as mine. Even if I don't share it. It doesn't matter. Different perspectives are normal. And I find the awareness I now have of how the HN organism might react to some post a useful different perspective. I don't temper my enthusiasm for new stuff with it, but before posting here, maybe I'll consider how people might react. Maybe they won't be able to appreciate it. But at the same time. HN is not homogenous. It's amorphous and ever changing. The superego sentiment shifts, and there can be many examples of HN embracing the new. Given all that, it's good to see voices actually seeking to engage more enthusiastically and openly with newness emerge from the codified skeptical pit that is HN. I think this picture that I paint above misses alot of the details and it probably only 61-62% accurate but it's a fair enough take on HN that I think might clarify some things for people, and certainly does for me. Tho honestly in the case of this article I would love to see more technical analysis and less skepticism (or meta posts like mine). I know I'm contributing to that, I'm just not skilled enough in this area right now to analyze it, but would love to read discussion of the technical details.

fabian2k 6y ago

University press releases are often just that bad, especially the ones that lead to papers getting this kind of attention. And this kind of dramatic overselling does deserve all this skepticism.

_carbyau_ 6y ago

Please don't take my skepticism for a lack of enthusiasm! In this case we have an article on a paper - peer reviewed or otherwise - and it's claims. - data is limited, even taking everything they say at face value. - my expertise is near nonexistent (like most here) - predicting the future is hard - past is littered with "battery breakthroughs" that has not perceptably(this is important distinction) changed life as we know it So... skepticism it is. I am absolutely glad this person got to do that science research. I applaud the work taken to get here and wish all the best for them plus a bottle of [favoured beverage] on top. I absolutely hope so much more research is done. But until I perceive data that says otherwise, my skepticism of THIS particular article and it's ability to change any part of the world I am aware of (IE my own, my friends, my family, my social groups) remains. In future, if a work colleague comes to work one day and says "I was affected positively by [structural battery thing]." New data = new judgement of super awesome cool!