7 ms·
The disappointing part of this is the large parts of the population who will look at this and other recent cases (see: Francesca Gino) and think that "academia
by jspann 3y ago
The disappointing part of this is the large parts of the population who will look at this and other recent cases (see: Francesca Gino) and think that "academia is broken" or "scientists can't be trusted". That narrative will even be amplified by many YouTubers and periodicals who were quick with those headlines. However, as soon as this work came out, multiple scientists voiced concerns, several even filed complaints with the journal. Those in the field even took steps to reproduce the work found in the paper. The fact that this error was caught and several were skeptical enough to comment is how the system should work. Arguing over results that are too good to be true, taking steps to try to reproduce it independently, and publicly taking it down is why science can be trusted. Research isn't going to be perfect every time but peer review and reproduction should weed out the less than credible.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yieldcrv 3y agothey could have argued quietly if there were challenges in getting people to care enough about reproducibility then we should address that because the tabloid fanfare rightly deserves all the criticism it got and all the blemish to “science” if thats what people’s takeaway was
- whelp_24 3y agoAcademia is broken, and for deeper reasons than the occasional implausible result. Indeed it's the papers that don't make waves that are dangerous. As well as the papers that don't get written.
- dboreham 3y ago> large parts of the population... They're not paying attention to this.
- ajross 3y ago> The disappointing part of this is the large parts of the population who will look at this and other recent cases (see: Francesca Gino) and think that "academia is broken" or "scientists can't be trusted". No, sorry. Just no. Stop. "Scientists" were clear, loud, and nearly unanimous in their calls for caution about these results. People on this very site were in these threads saying "we should wait a few weeks, guys" and getting downvoted into gray oblivion for their trouble by a horde of kids hopped up on "proof" they saw via (and I'm not kidding about this) a multimeter screen on TikTok. You can't fix that with science. Science did everything right here. We had a tantalizing result reported, investigated, and disposed.
- david-gpu 3y agoNote that the article is not about LK-99, but rather about another supposed room temperature superconductor.
- jodrellblank 3y ago> ""we should wait a few weeks, guys" and getting downvoted into gray oblivion for their trouble by a horde of kids" Their trouble of being no-fun wet blankets? What trouble was that, exactly? > "Science did everything right here. We had a tantalizing result reported, investigated, and disposed." And the only thing you wish went differently is that you squashed more people's enthusiasm??
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- groby_b 3y agoSaying "These are huge claims with insufficient evidence, let's wait for clarity" is hardly "being no-fun wet blankets". It's understanding how science works. "And the only thing you wish went differently is that you squashed more people's enthusiasm??" It's not about "enthusiasm". It's about scientific illiteracy. You can be excited all you want. "I saw a multimeter on TikTok, therefore it's true" and then shouting down folks with actual understanding for being cautious isn't enthusiasm, though. It's Dunning Kruger in action.
- fullspectrumdev 3y agoThe incident in TFA has nothing to do with the LK-99 hype.
- mcpeepants 3y ago> No, sorry. Just no. Stop. I agree with your assessment, of course, but I don’t think it invalidates the comment you are responding to. Large parts of the population could plausibly think those things, despite how clear and unambiguous “scientists” were about the results.
- Dalewyn 3y ago>"academia is broken" Academia is broken, in many ways even. >"scientists can't be trusted" You shouldn't trust scientists anyway, at least not without due dilligence. Science is built on skepticism.
- georgeecollins 3y agoI am not comfortable with that point of view. Growing up people used to always say "question authority" and that seems like the responsible thing to teach. But on the other hand, does it really make sense for everyone to do their own diligence in every matter? The thing that has caused me to question this the most is crypto-currency scams. I don't mean generally, just the things we would all agree are clearly scams and kind of obviously so. They so often tell you: "do your own research". I think its a version of the poorly written Nigerian scam letter. The idea is a person with the right skill or knowledge will see its a scam right away and not bother them. People who are careless enough, dumb enough desperate enough will still be suckered and there are plenty of them. So the obvious scammers is completely comfortable saying "do your own research" and know that he filters out everyone but the suckers. I wonder if sometimes most of us are better off just trusting the people who are experts most of the time? Skepticism is good but you can't really form your own exper opinion on every question you will face.