4 ms·
Remember the faster than light neutrinos that turned out to be a loose cable? I doubt they "just forgot", but being perfect is more difficult than making a mis
by stonemetal12 4y ago
Remember the faster than light neutrinos that turned out to be a loose cable? I doubt they "just forgot", but being perfect is more difficult than making a mistake somewhere in the process. Before they publish I would hope they Quadruple checked for every source of possible contamination. Instead of saying we did it right so obviously nothing went wrong.
- craftsman 4y agoI think you're reading too much into the phrase "can be ruled out." I suspect that the leader author was saying "Contamination is possible, but based on our procedures, test methods, etc, the overwhelmingly larger probability is that we did detect <...> in the samples, and that the detection was not from pre- or post-contamination." Could the paper's conclusions be incorrect? Yes, I think everyone--the authors included--will agree that "something could have gone wrong." But pointing out that "something could have gone wrong" is probably not a new idea to most readers.