- "Not only are the authors claiming to identify silicates but nanoparticles of quartz vs. other silicates and/or oxides using broad spectral bins and with big

- "Not only are the authors claiming to identify silicates but nanoparticles of quartz vs. other silicates and/or oxides using broad spectral bins and with big error bars. I just don't see how they get there no matter how much they "torture the data." My understanding of these things, generally, is that they disregard every candidate outside of a narrow set drawn from theory-based atmospheric models. Like: it's 90% Bayesian priors + 10% experimental evidence. I agree with your sense that it's sketchy how they present these results to the public. I've complained about this at least twice on HN (on unrelated JWST research papers): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37473122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37473122 (dimethyl sulfide bullshit) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37782393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37782393 (polyaromatic hydrocarbon bullshit)