2 ms·

Other than to denote a hypothesis, why do these articles use the term “may.” I think it implies “have” to the layman and implies hasn’t to anyone with some mat

Other than to denote a hypothesis, why do these articles use the term “may.” I think it implies “have” to the layman and implies hasn’t to anyone with some math or science based education. If nothing has been proven yet what’s the story here? It seems to me, and I’m happy to be wrong, that science journalism is indulging in clickbait.

endofreach 5y ago
When i read „may have solved…“, i instantly think: „…but they didn‘t“.
ffhhj 5y ago
Newton "may" have solved what makes objects to fall, until Einstein gave a more complete explanation, and we still don't fully understand gravity. So it's always a "may" until you get a better theory.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  This would be a measure of may I’m okay with, but the article isn’t denoting that since it is discussing theories about gravitational waves that have not been verified. If we roll with your analogy we’re at the Galilean period where we don’t yet even have methods to prove that reality reflects the maths we contrived. This is why I take issue with it. When I go to walk my dog in an hour I may solve the pieces to a theory of unified gravity. If I did it would be okay for me to make a claim like that, if I thought about how cool circles looked in space and solved some random equations for replicating those circles I don’t think anyone would appreciate me saying I may have solved an actual theory. Obviously I’m walking over the part where they actually do research, but only to drive the point home of it being clickbait (I see these titles more and more in r/physics)
mannykannot 5y ago
This dichotomy - either it's proven or it's nothing - has been alluded to in several comments here, and shows up whenever similarly far-reaching hypotheses are raised on HN. The thing is, though, you need a hypothesis before you can get to a proof [1], and a hypothesis that is consistent with everything we think we know is a significant advance, especially when the absence of such a hypothesis has ben gnawing at the foundations of physics for several decades. The history of science provides plenty of examples. Take the atomic theory for example, where Einstein's Brownian paper theory is generally regarded as the step that silenced the positivist opposition. Does that mean that none of the prior work by Boltzmann and in chemistry was newsworthy? On the contrary, it paved the way to Einstein's paper, and was an essential part of the history. [1] Not that scientific theories are ever formally proven, of course, but that line of argument would be a diversion here.

endofreach 5y ago

When i read „may have solved…“, i instantly think: „…but they didn‘t“.

ffhhj 5y ago

Newton "may" have solved what makes objects to fall, until Einstein gave a more complete explanation, and we still don't fully understand gravity. So it's always a "may" until you get a better theory.

edgyquant 5y ago
This would be a measure of may I’m okay with, but the article isn’t denoting that since it is discussing theories about gravitational waves that have not been verified. If we roll with your analogy we’re at the Galilean period where we don’t yet even have methods to prove that reality reflects the maths we contrived. This is why I take issue with it. When I go to walk my dog in an hour I may solve the pieces to a theory of unified gravity. If I did it would be okay for me to make a claim like that, if I thought about how cool circles looked in space and solved some random equations for replicating those circles I don’t think anyone would appreciate me saying I may have solved an actual theory. Obviously I’m walking over the part where they actually do research, but only to drive the point home of it being clickbait (I see these titles more and more in r/physics)

mannykannot 5y ago

This dichotomy - either it's proven or it's nothing - has been alluded to in several comments here, and shows up whenever similarly far-reaching hypotheses are raised on HN. The thing is, though, you need a hypothesis before you can get to a proof [1], and a hypothesis that is consistent with everything we think we know is a significant advance, especially when the absence of such a hypothesis has ben gnawing at the foundations of physics for several decades. The history of science provides plenty of examples. Take the atomic theory for example, where Einstein's Brownian paper theory is generally regarded as the step that silenced the positivist opposition. Does that mean that none of the prior work by Boltzmann and in chemistry was newsworthy? On the contrary, it paved the way to Einstein's paper, and was an essential part of the history. [1] Not that scientific theories are ever formally proven, of course, but that line of argument would be a diversion here.