3 ms·
It seems the article extremely clearly communicates (as your plentiful quotes aptly demonstrate) that the evidence in question is a computational model. I do n
by arrrg 4y ago
It seems the article extremely clearly communicates (as your plentiful quotes aptly demonstrate) that the evidence in question is a computational model.
I do not get your point about this being bad science communication at all. Your own quotes demonstrate that the press release is crystal clear about the type of evidence.
Your beef is with the science, not the communication. And you shouldn’t mix those two up.
- exmadscientist 4y ago> Your beef is with the science, not the communication. And you shouldn’t mix those two up. No, my beef is that communicating this was irresponsible because it does not represent meaningful progress in an accurate understanding of the physics of water, and thus no impression should be given that it does. Science grows through communication. The two are not separable.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoI am someone that regularly rails against in silico work, but come on. Treat this as a sanity check to start understanding 1. if the colloidal thought model explains unexplained observables 2. If the colloidal model makes predictions not observed yet. It might be too harsh to say this is not a meaningful advance. The system may be too difficult to make predictions without a computer, so having a thought model is useless. Now that we have a computer model, we can start doing experimental work that we wouldn't have chosen to do otherwise.