8 ms·
A news article where both the scientists and the reporter understate the claims, publish the data, and ask other teams to please prove them wrong. I like this.
by DanielBMarkham 15y ago
A news article where both the scientists and the reporter understate the claims, publish the data, and ask other teams to please prove them wrong.
I like this. Most of the time the reporters overstate the research, the scientists keep the data secret, and the general public is left scratching their heads.
- ErrantX 15y agoIndeed. Compare that with the other article about this currently on the first page of HN: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPE... Which is less cautious and more of the standard fare of not-very-well-reported science. sigh
- quux 15y agoAt least they didn't use the phrase "perverse and often baffling" in this one.
- AgentConundrum 15y agoThat's the article that's at the top of reddit right now. I came to Hacker News to see if there was a better article here since the reddit one didn't seem particularly well written.
- forsaken 15y agoOne of my favorite subreddits: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ko638/if_the_particle_discovered_as_cern_is_proven/ http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ko638/if_the_par...
- lutorm 15y agoMost of the time ... the scientists keep the data secret Um, no. There are plenty of data being released, and in even more cases the scientists are happy to give you the data if you ask. It's very dependent on discipline, though. In astronomy, pretty much all data obtained with publicly funded facilities (e.g. including all large space instruments) are accessible by anyone after a proprietary period of 1 year.
- bestes 15y agoMaybe not secret then, but to be released at a later date. Or released in one of those journals that most of cannot access.
- lutorm 15y agoNo one releases data in journals, at least not in astronomy. There are dedicated sites for this, e.g. http://archive.stsci.edu/ http://archive.stsci.edu/ About the later date: I think it's reasonable that those that put together the proposal and thought up the project have a chance at getting their results out first. Otherwise, why would you go through the effort of planning and executing observations if you could just poach someone else's data as it comes down the pipe? Think of it as a 1-year patent on the research project.
- tingletech 15y agoThe data cite people http://datacite.org/ http://datacite.org/ are trying to figure out how to create "data papers" and "data journals" that would let publishing data get a "peer-review" status that would help people advance towards tenure.
- lutorm 15y agoYeah, this would probably be an important incentive.
- arcdrag 15y agoThere's often cases of the data literally being measured in tera or peta bytes. Releasing the raw data isn't always feasible.
- olihb 15y agoScientist rarely keep the data secret. It's the basis of peer review. There's a reason why open access journals (PLoS One) are getting so popular, scientists want to be known and publish. In my experience, ego is a currency much more valuable than money in academic circles.
- Maro 15y agoIn Physics, published raw data is not the basis of peer review. We're not there yet.
- xbryanx 15y agoThe vast majority of the world's petroleum geologists keep their data secret.
- cpeterso 15y agoBut are they "doing science" or just doing a job?
- lutorm 15y agoPresumably, they are in private employment?
- gnosis 15y agoAre they concerned with the possibility of data falsification? This has happened in other fields.
- nl 15y agoIn related news most gold prospectors keep their gold strikes secret until they lodge the claim....
- tjic 15y ago> Scientist rarely keep the data secret. It's the basis of peer review. In a better world, that would be true. In this world, it's not. Most of the climate science data that Phil Jones and others have worked with, and most of their models are secret. It is THIS that makes me keep at least one ear open for the "anti-" side in the climate debate. Real science SHOULD be conducted out in the open.
- zeratul 15y agoThis seems to be solid work. First, the group proved that the neutrino speed can be accurately measured in OPERA: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2822 http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2822 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/13/5/053051 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/13/5/053051 Second, they compared the neutrino results with light results. Third, they ask to replicate the results in some other environment. This is a normal scientific procedure. Please also note the number and variety of authors on this work. They will make sure that there is no overstate, understate, secrets, or head scratching.
- hartror 15y agoPhil Plait the Bad Astronomer goes into some of the technical challenges the scientists have to overcome in this experiment in laymen's terms. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/faster-than-light-travel-discovered-slow-down-folks/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/fa...
- Groxx 15y agoWow, and he's extremely reserved about the whole thing - usually he's like a cold shower, raining on the press's parade. I like the SN1987A counter-example, though - it does raise a few questions. Not even remotely conclusive, but it makes it more puzzling.
- hartror 15y agoWell normally the press or the PR people representing the scientists blow things all out of proportion. In this case it seems everyone is being pretty reserved and the claims, while extraordinary are already heavily couched in caveats. I am expecting one of two things to happen: a. A systemic error in the measurements, which is most likely IMO. b. a modification of physics similar to how relativity was a modification of Newtonian physics.
- dewiz 15y agoIt's called impartial news, possible only as a public service
- derleth 15y ago> impartial news Inherently impossible, a troubling myth that is made all the more troubling by the fact people believe it. Impartiality is gone the moment the camera is aimed over here as opposed to over there.
- kul 15y agoThe beauty of state-funded news, no?
- derleth 15y ago> The beauty of state-funded news, no? Until it steps on the state's toes.
- weavejester 15y agoThe BBC is indirectly funded, but not controlled by the UK government. It's possible that the government could threaten to cut the BBC's budget by reducing the cost of the TV license, or not raising it along with inflation, unless it changed its news coverage. However, a tactic like this would go over about as well as a proposition to repeal the first amendment would in the United States.
- derleth 15y ago> The BBC is indirectly funded, but not controlled by the UK government. I doubt funding can ever be divorced from control, even if it is indirect. The BBC knows where its next meal comes from.
- weavejester 15y agoSo if you were the UK government, and you knew the BBC was going to publish something you didn't want them to, how exactly would you get them to stop?
- majika 15y agoI'm Australian, and we have the ABC. So, assuming you're British, we're coming from the same page. That said, the GP does have a point. The only thing preventing the possibility of closed-door deals going on between the BBC and political parties is good faith. Ergo, if it's not already happening or hasn't already happened, which is unlikely, there's no reason it can't happen in future. Note: despite Australia's high exposure to UK content, I don't know much about the British media landscape. I haven't read the BBC's charter (nor the ABC's, for that matter). Edit: It's a tradeoff of different goals. On one hand, you get a news agency which can focus on news - not entertainment as would be dictated by a comittment to profit. On the other hand, that news agency is more susceptible to decisions by government. Consider: what determined the BBC's spending cuts? I think publicly-owned news organisations are a great idea. The ABC, BBC, and NPR usually provide great news coverage. They have no need to sensationalize content, and that services the public to no end.
- lambda 15y agoWell, it is one of the most surprising results in the past century. It's not like this is an "x cures cancer/AIDS/the common cold/obesity" which reporters love to overstate, and which can easily be overstated because of how vague things like "obesity" and "cures" can be. In this case, it's "this fact that we've believed to be completely fundamental to physics for the past century appears to be wrong," and if you stated that without asking for people to check your work carefully because you are puzzled too, people are going to laugh at you if it turns out that you were wrong somehow. I'm not sure how you really could report this without downplaying it; it's just too incredible a claim for people to believe if you did anything close to overstating it.
- beloch 15y agoScientists generally do not keep data secret. They try to publish as much as they can actually! This is how you get nice things like funding and tenure! Most of the time reporters misunderstand the research and then oversell it in order to get their story read. The general public is usually left scratching their heads because of this bizarre layer of clueless journalists between them and the scientists. Yes, some scientists are hard to understand, but there's no hope in trying to understand particle physics filtered through the soft spongy grey matter of a liberal arts major! Scientists are quite often educators who are used to speaking to a wide range of audiences. Journalists would do far far better to introduce the subject and then let the scientist explain it in their own words. I have no idea why this is not done more. As for the FTL neutrinos at CERN... I'd hold on to skepticism for now. The reason they're asking for help finding the glitch instead of proudly proclaiming that they've found tachyons (FTL particles) is because this would be a truly bizarre result that would upend a century of physics that has, to date, proved remarkably accurate in its predictions. If this discovery proved true it would literally force us to rewrite physics from ~1900 onwards. Physicists are not afraid of this. Quite the contrary! It would touch off a bonanza of research! There would be so much work to do that the field would literally explode. It's just a lot more probable that there really is a glitch somewhere and we simply haven't found it yet. This actually would not be the first time that tachyons were "found". A group in the 70's found statistically significant evidence for them preceding cosmic showers. They were so sure of their results that they published. Then, a year or two later, they discovered that it was just a glitch in their electronics! These guys were small fry compared to CERN, but CERN's accelerator is so complex that glitches could be very hard to find. The scientists at CERN are clearly out of ideas and mean just what they say: They don't believe their results and they want help finding the glitch that's probably causing them. It's extremely irresponsible to report this story as if FTL particles have really been found before CERN has had a chance to consult with outside scientists and other facilities have had a chance to try reproducing their results.
- trocker 15y agoYes,the mankind would literally need to rewrite physics! It will be so exciting to be a part of it! About the 70's group, can you share the link to the article?