3 ms·
I'm very skeptical about this. It seems like every time a "supposed" scientific discovery gets published in the media before a peer-reviewed journal, it's almos
by jshowa 15y ago
I'm very skeptical about this. It seems like every time a "supposed" scientific discovery gets published in the media before a peer-reviewed journal, it's almost always wrong. The same thing happened with cold fusion, Ida (aka. Darwinius) the supposed "missing link" between human and ape, and NASA's "supposed" discovery of bacterium growth through arsenic instead of phosphorus.
It's always disheartening when science gets reported to the media at such an early age of discovery (i.e. the point where it hasn't been criticised and the lead investigator himself says he isn't so sure). It just opens the flood gates for the retarded news to make of moronic headlines like: "Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged"
- jberryman 15y agoThis wasn't characterized as a discovery, either by the reporter or the scientists involved. But it is really interesting. Either you didn't RTFA or I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
- Juha 15y agoI agree, few articles that I have read about this (including BBC) clearly mention this as speculation and a possibility. However probably there are people who still take this as a fact after reading the article. In my mind media has been surprisingly careful with this not to claim this as a new discovery.