4 ms·

> 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 h

by 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 ago
Right, 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 ago
  To 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 ago
    Right, 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.

by a9h74j 5y ago

caf 5y ago

Right, 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 ago
To 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 ago
  Right, 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.