5 ms·

You're right that this is the worst case scenario, but each interesting replication or semi-replication, even sloppy replication, or theoretical model erodes at

You're right that this is the worst case scenario, but each interesting replication or semi-replication, even sloppy replication, or theoretical model erodes at that. Being perma-skeptic is as bad as being a perma-fanboy Anyways your memory is really short. Don't you remember how when it first came out (not even a week ago) everyone was hollering that it was fake? Inb4 "extraordinary claims...": there is no fundamental reason for superconductivity in general to be impossible at RT.

jcranmer 3y ago
> You're right that this is the worst case scenario, but each interesting replication or semi-replication, even sloppy replication, or theoretical model erodes at that. Not really. The ur-example of the worst-case scenario is cold fusion, and as we were reminded by somebody [1] early on, is that the first replications of the Fleischmann–Pons experiment were actually successful to some degree. Those initial replications were later retracted when it was found that there was experimental error that could observe the same phenomenon, and other replication attempts were reporting outright failure instead of partial success. > Anyways your memory is really short. Don't you remember how when it first came out (not even a week ago) everyone was hollering that it was fake? Your memory is really short. The first thread was 8 days ago [2], over a week ago. I've just been perusing those comments quickly, and there's very few accusations of it being fake. The dominant sentiment is along the lines of "big, if true" or "please let it be true", and there's only a few top-level comments casting any shade on its plausibility. But the threads since the weekend have largely seemed to cast aside even the limited skepticism once opined. [1] I'd love to credit them, but sorry, trying to dig out which comment out of several hundred splayed out across the various early threads was the one I remembered is more work than I can devote at the time. Edit: credit is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884183, thanks to segfaultbuserr for finding the link. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624
- segfaultbuserr 3y ago
  > I'd love to credit them, but sorry, trying to dig out which comment out of several hundred splayed out across the various early threads was the one I remembered is more work than I can devote at the time. It was posted by curiousObject at [1]. I upvoted that thread and participated in that discussion (including adding extra information on why cold fusion experiments were inherently problematic), so I have the link. As the submitter of the current paper, I'm cautiously optimistic based on the recent theoretical and experimental results. But I strongly agree with you that a repetition of cold fusion's initial false-positive replication "success" is a real risk. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884183
- HelloNurse 3y ago
  Fortunately, observing a levitating fleck of diamagnetic material is far less error prone than measuring heat or neutrons in a messy cold fusion experiment.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    Exactly this.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  Yeah apologies, I was seeing lots of hot takes that it was fake on other platforms (like Twitter)
atoav 3y ago
I read through this thread and I can't help to feel reminded of the discussion about cryptocurrencies. So many people that want to believe, rational people that try to explain why it has to work when there is just not enough information right now. As if we believing it will change the outcome of the replication everybody that doesn't believe is shunned and called a heretic. Suddenly people that studied social sciences try to explain to me (a certified electrical engineer) why this is a big deal, because they saw a few videos on youtube about it, with theories of how this solves all energy problems that are so far removed from practical reality that this can only become a let-down. Note: I am cautiously optimistic myself, but damn, just wait and don't overhype it.
- kolinko 3y ago
  As for crypto, tgere is nothing to believe in - it’s doing well after 14 years.
  - atoav 3y ago
    You mean cryptography? Yeah, thanks to let's encrypt we are now reaching widespread adoption of TLS. You barely see any http websites anymore thanks to that.
    - jfk13 3y ago
      You know perfectly well that's not what they meant.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        Cryptocurrencies on the other hand don’t seem to be doing all thar well. Their hype-phase is definitely over and not many actually useful use cases remained.
      - atoav 3y ago
        Sure, but I am against the idea that from now on "crypto" has to be forever referenced to some ponzi schemes that provide no actual value.
matkoniecz 3y ago
> Being perma-skeptic is as bad as being a perma-fanboy Not really? Perma-skeptic will be far more accurate than perma-fanboy. Depends on context but for example believing every get-rich-quick scheme will get you robbed by scammers, while perma-skeptic will miss very occasional actual opportunity. Obviously catching and exploiting great opportunities would be even better, but of these two perma-skeptic is better.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > Perma-skeptic will be far more accurate than perma-fanboy. That's not accuracy, that's statistics. Once you bias for the expected outcome the perma skeptic will be just as often wrong or right as the perma optimist. They have no information about the thing they are talking about, they only have information about that expected outcome based on previous observations. If they had information about the thing itself they wouldn't be wrong for those things that turn out to be true (but then, I guess they wouldn't be perma skeptics to begin with). So, a perma skeptic misses all of the real stuff and a perma optimist misses all of the bad stuff. Neither shows intelligence.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    Perma optimist has more fun, though
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That's a fact.

jcranmer 3y ago

> You're right that this is the worst case scenario, but each interesting replication or semi-replication, even sloppy replication, or theoretical model erodes at that. Not really. The ur-example of the worst-case scenario is cold fusion, and as we were reminded by somebody [1] early on, is that the first replications of the Fleischmann–Pons experiment were actually successful to some degree. Those initial replications were later retracted when it was found that there was experimental error that could observe the same phenomenon, and other replication attempts were reporting outright failure instead of partial success. > Anyways your memory is really short. Don't you remember how when it first came out (not even a week ago) everyone was hollering that it was fake? Your memory is really short. The first thread was 8 days ago [2], over a week ago. I've just been perusing those comments quickly, and there's very few accusations of it being fake. The dominant sentiment is along the lines of "big, if true" or "please let it be true", and there's only a few top-level comments casting any shade on its plausibility. But the threads since the weekend have largely seemed to cast aside even the limited skepticism once opined. [1] I'd love to credit them, but sorry, trying to dig out which comment out of several hundred splayed out across the various early threads was the one I remembered is more work than I can devote at the time. Edit: credit is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884183, thanks to segfaultbuserr for finding the link. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624

segfaultbuserr 3y ago
> I'd love to credit them, but sorry, trying to dig out which comment out of several hundred splayed out across the various early threads was the one I remembered is more work than I can devote at the time. It was posted by curiousObject at [1]. I upvoted that thread and participated in that discussion (including adding extra information on why cold fusion experiments were inherently problematic), so I have the link. As the submitter of the current paper, I'm cautiously optimistic based on the recent theoretical and experimental results. But I strongly agree with you that a repetition of cold fusion's initial false-positive replication "success" is a real risk. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36884183
HelloNurse 3y ago
Fortunately, observing a levitating fleck of diamagnetic material is far less error prone than measuring heat or neutrons in a messy cold fusion experiment.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  Exactly this.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
Yeah apologies, I was seeing lots of hot takes that it was fake on other platforms (like Twitter)

atoav 3y ago

I read through this thread and I can't help to feel reminded of the discussion about cryptocurrencies. So many people that want to believe, rational people that try to explain why it has to work when there is just not enough information right now. As if we believing it will change the outcome of the replication everybody that doesn't believe is shunned and called a heretic. Suddenly people that studied social sciences try to explain to me (a certified electrical engineer) why this is a big deal, because they saw a few videos on youtube about it, with theories of how this solves all energy problems that are so far removed from practical reality that this can only become a let-down. Note: I am cautiously optimistic myself, but damn, just wait and don't overhype it.

kolinko 3y ago
As for crypto, tgere is nothing to believe in - it’s doing well after 14 years.
- atoav 3y ago
  You mean cryptography? Yeah, thanks to let's encrypt we are now reaching widespread adoption of TLS. You barely see any http websites anymore thanks to that.
  - jfk13 3y ago
    You know perfectly well that's not what they meant.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      Cryptocurrencies on the other hand don’t seem to be doing all thar well. Their hype-phase is definitely over and not many actually useful use cases remained.
    - atoav 3y ago
      Sure, but I am against the idea that from now on "crypto" has to be forever referenced to some ponzi schemes that provide no actual value.

matkoniecz 3y ago

> Being perma-skeptic is as bad as being a perma-fanboy Not really? Perma-skeptic will be far more accurate than perma-fanboy. Depends on context but for example believing every get-rich-quick scheme will get you robbed by scammers, while perma-skeptic will miss very occasional actual opportunity. Obviously catching and exploiting great opportunities would be even better, but of these two perma-skeptic is better.

jacquesm 3y ago
> Perma-skeptic will be far more accurate than perma-fanboy. That's not accuracy, that's statistics. Once you bias for the expected outcome the perma skeptic will be just as often wrong or right as the perma optimist. They have no information about the thing they are talking about, they only have information about that expected outcome based on previous observations. If they had information about the thing itself they wouldn't be wrong for those things that turn out to be true (but then, I guess they wouldn't be perma skeptics to begin with). So, a perma skeptic misses all of the real stuff and a perma optimist misses all of the bad stuff. Neither shows intelligence.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Perma optimist has more fun, though
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's a fact.