5 ms·
Now I don’t know what to believe.
by soligern 3y ago
Now I don’t know what to believe.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sMarsIntruder 3y agoWait till tomorrow when there will be a new not peer reviewed paper stating the contrary. [edit:grammar]
- coding123 3y agolol, and now it's not tomorrow, it's today https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37043447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37043447
- loveparade 3y agoSure, but you really think peer review would solve any of that? It would only make things move 1000x slower and be worse. The current "free-market" process of replication attempts is going to resolve the issue both quicker and with more statistical significance than peer-review ever could. Perhaps this isn't what you're implying, but the peer-review word in your comment jumped out to me, as if that changes anything.
- db48x 3y agoPeer review _is_ a free market solution to the problem of incorrect research.
- lolinder 3y ago> with more statistical significance You can't take a dozen lousy studies and put them together to get better statistical significance than a single well-designed study. If the methodology of a study is bad, the results have to be scrapped entirely, and peer review is supposed to be the process through which we filter out bad methodology. Without peer review we don't know which studies to eliminate from our informal meta-analysis, which means we can't come to any conclusions about the data.
- threeseed 3y agoThe original scientists said that only 10% of their synthesis attempts were successful. So at this point no one should be believing anything until we have a lot more evidence.
- carabiner 3y agoSuperposition of it's over / we are so back.
- vbezhenar 3y agoI'd wait for Nobel prize.
- jacquesm 3y agoWho is to say there will be one? And if there is one, then there is no need to wait for it. Typically those are awarded after we're all very much aware of what they are awarded for.
- gizmo686 3y agoWhy do you need to believe anything at this point. Unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, either sit back and enjoy the show, or change the channel and watch something else.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoYeah, with things like these, I prefer the watch something else option. It doesn't matter how many of these arxiv papers and dubious twitter videos I look at, I still won't know the answer until there's a scientific consensus. Until then, I see no point in investing any effort. I'm not a physicist. There's no way this information will materially affect my life in the next several years. And there's a pretty huge chance it will never affect my life at all(if it disappears). It is fun to watch the absolute torrent of confirmation bias and people changing their minds all the time in the comments though. Must be exhausting to constantly wax and wane like that.
- Zetice 3y agoConversely, why wouldn't someone believe something if there are no consequences to being wrong? As you say, unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, nothing you believe really matters, so why not jump in with both feet?
- jprete 3y agoBecause it leads to a habit of getting overly excited about every press release.
- Turskarama 3y agoAnd then burning out when too many of them turn out to be nothing and deciding no progress ever gets made.
- Zetice 3y agoThis begs the question; why "overly", why not just "excited"?
- jacquesm 3y agoPatience. Just that. It will come out, either positive, or negative, but as long as it is inconclusive there is only patience. No need to get jubilant, no need to be jaded or 'cool'. Just wait.
- m3kw9 3y agoYou are believing and disbelieving something based on a title.