3 ms·

You absolutely have to substantiate possibilities; otherwise we could just list off anything that comes to mind endlessly. There must be a reason why this poss

by Zetice 3y ago

You absolutely have to substantiate possibilities; otherwise we could just list off anything that comes to mind endlessly. There must be a reason why this possibility is worth mentioning but not all of the other unsubstantiated ones.

anigbrowl 3y ago
No. Artificial alloys exist; we know because we make them all the time. Since we don't know what natural process might yield this particular material (yet) there's always the possibility that it's artificial. You're demanding the proof before the investigation.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Consider that "possibility" as it's used here is really a synonym for "hypothesis". Do you really think it's unreasonable to criticize a research paper for presenting an unsubstantiated hypothesis? Do you think including snippets like this serves more to advance scientific understanding, or Loeb's profile in the media and podcast circuit?
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    It's not a hypothesis, which asserts something may be true and proposes tests. It's just conjecture, enumerating a variety of possible explanations for a puzzling discovery. IT's restrained and not conclusory. Scientists are allowed to have imagination and speculate. Y'all are making out like he's arrogantly asserting this is the only possible explanation. This is the actual quote (citations omitted for readability): The “BeLaU" abundance pattern suggests that IM1 may have originated from a highly differentiated crust of a planet with an iron core outside the solar system. In that case, IM1’s high speed of ∼ 60 km s−1 in the Local Standard of Rest of the Milky Way galaxy and the extremely large number of similar objects per star, ∼ 1023±1295, inferred statistically for the population of natural interstellar objects it represents, are challenging to explain by common dynamical processes. The “BeLaU" overabundance of heavy elements could perhaps have instead originated from r-process enrichment and fragmentation of ejecta from core-collapse supernovae or neutron star mergers. However, the “BeLaU" pattern also displays s-process enrichment which must have a separate origin, such as Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars. Another possibility is that this unfamiliar abundance pattern may reflect an extraterrestrial technological origin. These interpretations will be considered critically along with additional results from spherule analysis in future publications. Quit with the pearl-clutching.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      I think the difference of opinion stems from others seeing this as a continuation of a pattern of behavior, whereas you seem to be considering this in isolation. I'd certainly feel differently about it if he hadn't done something similar with 'Oumuamua, leveraged that for a media tour, and framed any criticism of him as evidence he was the only person researching the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. The last one especially is why I don't give him the benefit of the doubt, it's entirely disingenuous. It's not that I have a problem with scientists being imaginative. It's that I have a problem with anyone running a grift, regardless of their background. It certainly isn't pearl clutching to judge his intentions by the broader constellations of actions and statements that he's made. I'm confused why you seem to be taking offense and have begun dispensing insults. I don't think anyone is criticizing you. I'm certainly not. I'm disagreeing with you about this matter in particular, and that is the beginning and the end of it for me.
      - anigbrowl 3y ago
        I haven't insulted you. By 'pearl clutching' I refer to your use of italics to emphasize words for purely rhetorical effect, like it's a Daily Mail scandal. I'm well aware that he has made bold claims on this topic in the past, some of which I found more persuasive than others. I'm fine with him doing that as long as he's not fabricating evidence, and nobody is suggesting such.
        maxbond 3y ago
        Emphasis is definitely not the defining feature of pearl clutching, and rhetoric isn't a dirty word. I used emphasis to draw your attention to what I thought was most important - pretty normal behavior. That's all well and good if you are okay with what he's doing, I personally think he's skirting the edge of professional ethics while attacking the people who are actually doing this work, and I think that's pretty crummy. Frankly if you want to tell me that I'm "pearl clutching" and that my rhetoric is "like the Daily Mail" in an exasperated tone, but that you aren't being insulting, then I don't think you're being entirely honest with me. (For what it's worth I don't take offense.)
- Zetice 3y ago
  Yes. Artificial alloys exist from humans, once you start suggesting nonhuman metallurgy you venture into the science fiction, and at that point why not suggest alchemy? Because alchemy doesn’t support his little pet conspiracy. In academia it’s important to maintain credibility, and with one line at the end he tosses his in the garbage.

by Zetice 3y ago

anigbrowl 3y ago

No. Artificial alloys exist; we know because we make them all the time. Since we don't know what natural process might yield this particular material (yet) there's always the possibility that it's artificial. You're demanding the proof before the investigation.

maxbond 3y ago
Consider that "possibility" as it's used here is really a synonym for "hypothesis". Do you really think it's unreasonable to criticize a research paper for presenting an unsubstantiated hypothesis? Do you think including snippets like this serves more to advance scientific understanding, or Loeb's profile in the media and podcast circuit?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  It's not a hypothesis, which asserts something may be true and proposes tests. It's just conjecture, enumerating a variety of possible explanations for a puzzling discovery. IT's restrained and not conclusory. Scientists are allowed to have imagination and speculate. Y'all are making out like he's arrogantly asserting this is the only possible explanation. This is the actual quote (citations omitted for readability): The “BeLaU" abundance pattern suggests that IM1 may have originated from a highly differentiated crust of a planet with an iron core outside the solar system. In that case, IM1’s high speed of ∼ 60 km s−1 in the Local Standard of Rest of the Milky Way galaxy and the extremely large number of similar objects per star, ∼ 1023±1295, inferred statistically for the population of natural interstellar objects it represents, are challenging to explain by common dynamical processes. The “BeLaU" overabundance of heavy elements could perhaps have instead originated from r-process enrichment and fragmentation of ejecta from core-collapse supernovae or neutron star mergers. However, the “BeLaU" pattern also displays s-process enrichment which must have a separate origin, such as Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars. Another possibility is that this unfamiliar abundance pattern may reflect an extraterrestrial technological origin. These interpretations will be considered critically along with additional results from spherule analysis in future publications. Quit with the pearl-clutching.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I think the difference of opinion stems from others seeing this as a continuation of a pattern of behavior, whereas you seem to be considering this in isolation. I'd certainly feel differently about it if he hadn't done something similar with 'Oumuamua, leveraged that for a media tour, and framed any criticism of him as evidence he was the only person researching the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. The last one especially is why I don't give him the benefit of the doubt, it's entirely disingenuous. It's not that I have a problem with scientists being imaginative. It's that I have a problem with anyone running a grift, regardless of their background. It certainly isn't pearl clutching to judge his intentions by the broader constellations of actions and statements that he's made. I'm confused why you seem to be taking offense and have begun dispensing insults. I don't think anyone is criticizing you. I'm certainly not. I'm disagreeing with you about this matter in particular, and that is the beginning and the end of it for me.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      I haven't insulted you. By 'pearl clutching' I refer to your use of italics to emphasize words for purely rhetorical effect, like it's a Daily Mail scandal. I'm well aware that he has made bold claims on this topic in the past, some of which I found more persuasive than others. I'm fine with him doing that as long as he's not fabricating evidence, and nobody is suggesting such.
      - maxbond 3y ago
        Emphasis is definitely not the defining feature of pearl clutching, and rhetoric isn't a dirty word. I used emphasis to draw your attention to what I thought was most important - pretty normal behavior. That's all well and good if you are okay with what he's doing, I personally think he's skirting the edge of professional ethics while attacking the people who are actually doing this work, and I think that's pretty crummy. Frankly if you want to tell me that I'm "pearl clutching" and that my rhetoric is "like the Daily Mail" in an exasperated tone, but that you aren't being insulting, then I don't think you're being entirely honest with me. (For what it's worth I don't take offense.)
Zetice 3y ago
Yes. Artificial alloys exist from humans, once you start suggesting nonhuman metallurgy you venture into the science fiction, and at that point why not suggest alchemy? Because alchemy doesn’t support his little pet conspiracy. In academia it’s important to maintain credibility, and with one line at the end he tosses his in the garbage.