4 ms·

I'm no astronomer trying to have work published, but wouldn't a mistake like that be one of the most obvious things to attempt to test your own work against bef

I'm no astronomer trying to have work published, but wouldn't a mistake like that be one of the most obvious things to attempt to test your own work against before releasing the results? Is the fear of releasing an obvious mistake and the damage to one's reputation just not present anymore, or is first to publish so critical that mistakes are forgiven? To me, if I was going to present a paper that goes against existing conventional thinking, I'd want to make sure my paper stood up to the most rigorous review including (especially?) from HN commenters.

voxleone 1y ago
Fair point — I don't think gravitational redshift was completely ignored, but perhaps it was ruled out early and not discussed in the public-facing article. In most astrophysical observations, especially with JWST, cosmological redshift and AGN mechanisms usually dominate the interpretation, but I agree: when something challenges conventional thinking, even “obvious” effects deserve a clear mention or elimination.
- devmor 1y ago
  I think your comment/complaint is indicative of something I've mused about for a while in regards to science articles - I wish there were a level of common scientific publication somewhere between "novice" and "expert". I don't need it explained to me like I'm five, but I would like it explained to me like I'm a curious student who's taken a course or two on the subject.
  - emmelaich 1y ago
    Agree, but it's probably covered by Quanta magazine, Ars Technica, plus 3b1b, veritasium, vsauce, etc.
    - andrewflnr 1y ago
      Veritasium is definitely more at the beginner level. I'm not terribly familiar with Vsauce but my impression is that he's even more mass-market. On YouTube, PBS Spacetime tries to be mass-market but ends up requiring some background knowledge, for better or worse. :D
    - devmor 1y ago
      Ars occasionally does have articles at that level! But it's just a couple regular contributors on their specific subjects of expertise. I'd really like to see a whole magazine (or website) dedicated to it, one day.

voxleone 1y ago

Fair point — I don't think gravitational redshift was completely ignored, but perhaps it was ruled out early and not discussed in the public-facing article. In most astrophysical observations, especially with JWST, cosmological redshift and AGN mechanisms usually dominate the interpretation, but I agree: when something challenges conventional thinking, even “obvious” effects deserve a clear mention or elimination.

devmor 1y ago
I think your comment/complaint is indicative of something I've mused about for a while in regards to science articles - I wish there were a level of common scientific publication somewhere between "novice" and "expert". I don't need it explained to me like I'm five, but I would like it explained to me like I'm a curious student who's taken a course or two on the subject.
- emmelaich 1y ago
  Agree, but it's probably covered by Quanta magazine, Ars Technica, plus 3b1b, veritasium, vsauce, etc.
  - andrewflnr 1y ago
    Veritasium is definitely more at the beginner level. I'm not terribly familiar with Vsauce but my impression is that he's even more mass-market. On YouTube, PBS Spacetime tries to be mass-market but ends up requiring some background knowledge, for better or worse. :D
  - devmor 1y ago
    Ars occasionally does have articles at that level! But it's just a couple regular contributors on their specific subjects of expertise. I'd really like to see a whole magazine (or website) dedicated to it, one day.