6 ms·

> I'm actually surprised by the sheer lack of people commenting in the more-or-less-perma-LK-99 threads who show skepticism of the results. There's plenty of p

> I'm actually surprised by the sheer lack of people commenting in the more-or-less-perma-LK-99 threads who show skepticism of the results. There's plenty of people that are skeptical and making it a point to tell everyone they are skeptical. There's plenty of people that are skeptical that are still engaging on the possibility of it being real because it is interesting to do so. There are plenty of people discussing potential pitfalls in the papers being written and experiments being done. But ultimately talking to people in the comments on HN is a form of entertainment for most of the people engaging, and skepticism is a lot less entertaining for most people in general than being enthusiastic and engaging on possibilities. It's not surprising that people going somewhere for engagement and entertainment are doing the thing that is more fun to the majority. I doubt the majority of people that are excited about it would place serious money on it being true - I sure wouldn't. But I am having fun watching the developments, talking about things to the minimal extent I understand, and thinking about the Cool Stuff that would become possible if we were to suddenly have a new room temp ambient pressure semiconductor

_0ffh 3y ago
Ha, I've been talking about the same topic with an experimental physics professor friend of mine. He was just not interested at all, like "I've seen stuff like that so many times before, I'm not interested at this point. I may look at it when there's a publication in a serious journal." while I was like "Hey it's popcorn time, this is a fun ride, whatever the outcome!". =)
- vinnyvichy 3y ago
  Speaking as an academic, I really hope they don't ever publish in a serious journal even if it turns out to replicate. Did your friend take Ranga Dias seriously because that was published in Nature? I understand there's a lot of noise, but one of the things one learns is to cut out noise without having to rely on journal brand
  - _0ffh 3y ago
    Nope, he didn't. You're getting the wrong message here. That publication is necessary to arouse his interest doesn't mean it's sufficient to make him believe anything. Those are different things. Peer review for publication is just meant to cut out the obvious crap. It's not a guaranty, and nobody who knows this stuff thinks it is.
    - vinnyvichy 3y ago
      Do you even do proofs in your line of work? I'm saying making publication necessary for arousal is a foolproof way to miss out on the beginnings of most of the really interesting stuff. Yeah he can read the ivy-approved materials in nature, but that would be stale. Okay, I can understand that his own line of work is much more interesting to him, that he would ignore the latest glimmerings from adjacent fields. That makes more sense than just taking peer review at face value.
      - calf 3y ago
        Several years ago there was publicized a P = NP proof, and during our group meeting I couldn't help but audibly scoff, but our advisor just calmly downloaded the pdf and started skimming it. It was an object lesson for me. Keep an open mind, use your own competence and intellectual abilities to see for yourself and decide. And only then can you offer insightful criticism.
junon 3y ago
This. The idea that science can't also be fun seems to be the mindset of a lot of people criticizing others for participating more as eager spectators. Nothing wrong with that. Let people enjoy things. If LK-99 turns out to be nothing then we got some entertainment out of it and a lot of people learned about superconductors (and science in general) in the process. How's that not a win in and of itself?
- _jal 3y ago
  Just to underline this, after years of plague, war and uncertainty, I think this is a great, positive thing, whatever happens. I'm annoyed with someone I was talking to about this, who either can't or won't stop ranting about past high-profile failures. Yes, we all know. Old folks like me remember the cold fusion scam first hand. Your knowing cynicism displays deep scientific wisdom. Happy? Great, now let's watch the fucking show, this is neat, even if it doesn't work out.
  - greenthrow 3y ago
    It's one thing to engage suspension of disbelief when watching a movie. It's another to engage it when discussing actual scientific papers.
    - junon 3y ago
      No, it's not. Most people engaging in scientific papers are not themselves scientists in the field. Further, their enthusiasm doesn't change reality. LK-99 is or is not a superconductor. People getting overly excited doesn't change that. Lighten up.
      - greenthrow 3y ago
        Just because you are not a scientist in the field does not mean you cannot engage and improve your critical thinking skills. I do not need to lighten up, you need to learn some intellectual rigor.
  - 3y ago

_0ffh 3y ago

Ha, I've been talking about the same topic with an experimental physics professor friend of mine. He was just not interested at all, like "I've seen stuff like that so many times before, I'm not interested at this point. I may look at it when there's a publication in a serious journal." while I was like "Hey it's popcorn time, this is a fun ride, whatever the outcome!". =)

vinnyvichy 3y ago
Speaking as an academic, I really hope they don't ever publish in a serious journal even if it turns out to replicate. Did your friend take Ranga Dias seriously because that was published in Nature? I understand there's a lot of noise, but one of the things one learns is to cut out noise without having to rely on journal brand
- _0ffh 3y ago
  Nope, he didn't. You're getting the wrong message here. That publication is necessary to arouse his interest doesn't mean it's sufficient to make him believe anything. Those are different things. Peer review for publication is just meant to cut out the obvious crap. It's not a guaranty, and nobody who knows this stuff thinks it is.
  - vinnyvichy 3y ago
    Do you even do proofs in your line of work? I'm saying making publication necessary for arousal is a foolproof way to miss out on the beginnings of most of the really interesting stuff. Yeah he can read the ivy-approved materials in nature, but that would be stale. Okay, I can understand that his own line of work is much more interesting to him, that he would ignore the latest glimmerings from adjacent fields. That makes more sense than just taking peer review at face value.
    - calf 3y ago
      Several years ago there was publicized a P = NP proof, and during our group meeting I couldn't help but audibly scoff, but our advisor just calmly downloaded the pdf and started skimming it. It was an object lesson for me. Keep an open mind, use your own competence and intellectual abilities to see for yourself and decide. And only then can you offer insightful criticism.

junon 3y ago

This. The idea that science can't also be fun seems to be the mindset of a lot of people criticizing others for participating more as eager spectators. Nothing wrong with that. Let people enjoy things. If LK-99 turns out to be nothing then we got some entertainment out of it and a lot of people learned about superconductors (and science in general) in the process. How's that not a win in and of itself?

_jal 3y ago
Just to underline this, after years of plague, war and uncertainty, I think this is a great, positive thing, whatever happens. I'm annoyed with someone I was talking to about this, who either can't or won't stop ranting about past high-profile failures. Yes, we all know. Old folks like me remember the cold fusion scam first hand. Your knowing cynicism displays deep scientific wisdom. Happy? Great, now let's watch the fucking show, this is neat, even if it doesn't work out.
- greenthrow 3y ago
  It's one thing to engage suspension of disbelief when watching a movie. It's another to engage it when discussing actual scientific papers.
  - junon 3y ago
    No, it's not. Most people engaging in scientific papers are not themselves scientists in the field. Further, their enthusiasm doesn't change reality. LK-99 is or is not a superconductor. People getting overly excited doesn't change that. Lighten up.
    - greenthrow 3y ago
      Just because you are not a scientist in the field does not mean you cannot engage and improve your critical thinking skills. I do not need to lighten up, you need to learn some intellectual rigor.
- 3y ago