14 ms·
> than it should be This may be pedantic on my part, but I don't like this framing. It has the implication that our models dictate what happens in the universe
by bmitc 5y ago
> than it should be
This may be pedantic on my part, but I don't like this framing. It has the implication that our models dictate what happens in the universe and not the other way around. The universe is expanding faster than our models predict or there's something up with our observations or both. Maybe this is what people have in mind, but I think it's a subtle communication difference and can miscommunicate that science is truth, whereas science is the collection and evolution of models and observations describing the reality we experience.
- ncmncm 5y agoNot pedantry. This is a common failing in cosmology.
- imoverclocked 5y agoThis is a common failing everywhere. A friend once told me, “stop shoulding yourself.” Turns out, I should’ve listened.
- simonh 5y agoIt is pedantry. This is just idiomatic human communication and not specific to any single domain. People say thing like this all the time. Saying ‘than it should be’ instead of ‘than we expect’ is everyday English language usage that confuses nobody and complaining about it is entirely performative. You’re technically correct, here have a round of applause, but it contributes nothing. Dealing with smug nitpicking like this that’s completely beside the point is one of the tedious chores or reading HN.
- bmitc 5y agoIt's a problem because it miscommunicates to non-scientists about what science actually is and it causes scientists themselves to be misinformed about what they're really doing. I greatly enjoy science, but you have to admit that there's a problem of scientists being viewed as "elites who think they know everything" that is fueled by journalism and the miscommunication of science. It's alright to critique something to try and improve it, you know? Lastly, it's not really besides the point, as our models and possibly our observations being wrong is entirely the crux of this "problem".
- eecc 5y agoOh please, it’s a headline. The pedantically correct phrasing is right below in the second heading, not buried in a footnote. Have you even glanced at the article?
- bmitc 5y agoI read it. I admitted it was possibly pedantic, and then I got "smug nitpicking". And this happens all the time, so there's some pre-existing bias on my part in terms of being bothered by these communication mishaps. I struggle to watch many science documentaries these days due to communication issues such as these.
- a9h74j 5y ago> idiomatic Absolutely. If one person does their best work and is still frustrated after trying dozens of options, it is fair for them to be scratching their head and saying, "This shouldn't be happening." The article itself provides exceptionally precise reporting (though IANAA) of mutual work toward a grand challenge in astronomy --- which is still leaving people scratching their heads at discrepancies after trying dozens of model or analysis variations. The word 'should' in the title (I believe it only appears there) to me conveys well-enough (it is only a title) that there are human elements/expectations and legitimate after-the-best-of-care puzzles remaining. I don't know if it is a good comparison, but if the time for the g-2 result reveal came, and the result was a 20-sigma discrepency, I would expect every experimentalist and every theorist involved to immediately scowl and say, "F***, this should never have happened." Also perfectly ordinary and ideomatic: To say, This should be compiling without errors. Great science reporting in the article, hence my rant to defend it.
- caf 5y agoRight, when you say, deep in a debugging session, "hmm, this variable shouldn't have this value", this is shorthand for "according to my assumptions about the way this code operates and the initial conditions, it shouldn't be possible to observe the variable with this value". As far as I can see, it's similar here.
- simonh 5y agoTo be fair, in the programming case you change the code or data to make the variable correct, while in science unless there's a mistake somewhere you follow the data, you don't change things to 'fix' it. However we all know this, we know scientists aren't going to try and 'correct' reality or the data to fit our assumptions. Well, excepting the tin foil hat brigade, but we shouldn't pander to them or let them dictate our use of language.
- caf 5y agoRight, but when you say "this variable shouldn't have this value", it doesn't imply that you doubt your observation of the variable - it is well understood that you are doubting your understanding of the code / initial conditions.
- spaetzleesser 5y agoIt’s just wording. When you talk to a scientist they would tell you “ The Universe Is Expanding Faster Than It Should Be according to our models”. That’s how fundamental research is done. You collect data, develop a model that fits the data, collect more data and check if the model still works. If not, go back to the drawing board and develop a model that fits the new data. And most scientists will be excited if they find such a gap because now the interesting work starts.
- paulmooreparks 5y agoI had the same thought when I read that, so it's not just you. "Faster than predicted by current theories" would have been a better way of stating it.
- kybernetyk 5y agoyes, but then the title wouldn't be as click-baity
- nathias 5y agoThe title is fine, you have a problem with your own implications.
- agumonkey 5y agoI bet 10$ they do it on purpose two fold. They know it's absurd to say reality is not behaving well and they know it sounds better to say it anyway.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- zigzag312 5y agoAgree. Models are only our attempts of describing how something behaves. That's why I'm also not a fan of using the word "law" for names of the models, because it implies as if the universe is obligated to follow this "law", but a law of physics is still essentially only our description (even if it uses math equations instead of words to describe).