3 ms·
>Other authors have concluded there’s less than a 50% chance that CNEOS 20140108 was interstellar Lazy research. The linked article is just a simple "doubt pap
by schiffern 3y ago
>Other authors have concluded there’s less than a 50% chance that CNEOS 20140108 was interstellar
Lazy research. The linked article is just a simple "doubt paper" questioning the error bars of the raw data, published prior to the DoD releasing information about the error bars.
To give such an outdated paper the last word (and even use the loaded word 'conclude') makes everything the author writes highly suspect.
- DemocracyFTW2 3y agoWhere is the cited paper outdated? It's from 2014, is it that what makes outdated being from 9 years ago? And then you jump from "hey this guy in an article with like two dozens external links has one link to a paper that is slightly too old for my taste" to "lazy! just doubts! highly suspect!" It's all about probabilities.
- schiffern 3y agoThe paper linked in that quote was from 2019, not 2014. The paper is outdated because the DoD later addressed their concern about error bars. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/it-takes-a-village-to-declassify-an-error-bar/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/it-takes-a... > And then you jump from "...a paper that is slightly too old for my taste" to "highly suspect!" It's worse than mere age. The paper he chooses to "conclude" a major section is cherry-picked from the middle of the story, within a highly-publicized drama within the academic field. It's unlikely that anyone even casually following could be unaware of the real ending to the story. The author is either incompetent at research or deceptive. Either way, "highly suspect" is warranted.