3 ms·

Thanks for clarifying, and my apologies if I came off as argumentative --- what you _are_ suggesting makes sense and is a reasonable thing to wonder about. But

Thanks for clarifying, and my apologies if I came off as argumentative --- what you _are_ suggesting makes sense and is a reasonable thing to wonder about. But I don't see anything particularly strange or coordinated is happening. From the collaboration's perspective, it's quite stressful having this event. They've already unblinded, so it would be unethical to do anything other than report what they found. If they publicize it and it's a mistake, then that's a big blow to their credibility. But if they withhold it and it's real, then they miss making the discovery and/or bias their future analyses on larger datasets without disclosing that to the community. So they are in a tough spot, and are safest to just tell the world what they saw. This is getting media attention because it would be a big deal to the general public if this ends up being a real. Someone in the field wouldn't claim that it's real, but the possibility is catnip to folks looking for a sensational headline. That the press releases are synchronized in time is because the result was just released right now and they're all doing their commentaries right away --- for something like this, each institution independently negotiates a release with the local researchers who are involved. They all promise to wait until the result is officially released, out of respect for the scientific process, like you say, but the different institutions aren't coordinating with each other. They're just all respecting their own researchers. Is a 2 or 3 sigma fluctuation worth a lot of press? Personally, I don't think so. But we don't know if it's a fluctuation yet, and no institution is going to pass on having made it clear, if this does turn out to be real, that they were involved. All that being said: I would very much like these folks to continue to receive funding. They are professional and do excellent work, as demonstrated here.

antonvs 20d ago
> They've already unblinded, so it would be unethical to do anything other than report what they found. Absolute and utter ridiculous nonsense. Can you not just admit when you're wrong? It's perfectly ethical for them to give a talk at TeVPA about a paper they've published. But at least 8 global, coordinated press releases? That's a choice, with consequences. And one of those consequences is that they reveal themselves as chasing funding above all else. Scientific rigor goes out the window. 2.6 sigma results become amazing new discoveries. It's not really their fault - it's systemic. But don't try to pretend that this is somehow the normal process of science being conducted with integrity.
- physicsdude 14d ago
  > > They've already unblinded, so it would be unethical to do anything other than report what they found. > Absolute and utter ridiculous nonsense. Can you not just admit when you're wrong? Wrong about what? If you think they should _not_ just report their findings, and instead try to change their analysis after already finding this event, then you're free to think that, and you're also free to say so. Personally, I don't think that that would be ethical. > But at least 8 global, coordinated press releases? That's a choice, with consequences. You seem to be asserting that there is something of nefarious happening. The collaboration does coordinate otherwise-unrelated releases by individual institutions. The alternative is that PR folks distributed across different institutions, few if any of whom have any training in physics or statistics, would make whatever claims they feel appropriate at whatever time they feel appropriate (relative to each other, and relative to publication of the actual paper). In what way is that preferable? > 2.6 sigma results become amazing new discoveries. They are not claiming a new discovery. They are claiming to have observed a single event, which is significant at the level of 2.6 sigma. A naive treatment produces a significance of more than 3 sigma, and the collaboration did what you might call "extra" work to be fair in their statistical analysis, which reduced the appropriate number to quote to be below 3 sigma. They state that clearly, and suggest interpreting the event at 2.6 sigma, the less-flashy option. To me, that shows integrity.

antonvs 20d ago

> They've already unblinded, so it would be unethical to do anything other than report what they found. Absolute and utter ridiculous nonsense. Can you not just admit when you're wrong? It's perfectly ethical for them to give a talk at TeVPA about a paper they've published. But at least 8 global, coordinated press releases? That's a choice, with consequences. And one of those consequences is that they reveal themselves as chasing funding above all else. Scientific rigor goes out the window. 2.6 sigma results become amazing new discoveries. It's not really their fault - it's systemic. But don't try to pretend that this is somehow the normal process of science being conducted with integrity.

physicsdude 14d ago
> > They've already unblinded, so it would be unethical to do anything other than report what they found. > Absolute and utter ridiculous nonsense. Can you not just admit when you're wrong? Wrong about what? If you think they should _not_ just report their findings, and instead try to change their analysis after already finding this event, then you're free to think that, and you're also free to say so. Personally, I don't think that that would be ethical. > But at least 8 global, coordinated press releases? That's a choice, with consequences. You seem to be asserting that there is something of nefarious happening. The collaboration does coordinate otherwise-unrelated releases by individual institutions. The alternative is that PR folks distributed across different institutions, few if any of whom have any training in physics or statistics, would make whatever claims they feel appropriate at whatever time they feel appropriate (relative to each other, and relative to publication of the actual paper). In what way is that preferable? > 2.6 sigma results become amazing new discoveries. They are not claiming a new discovery. They are claiming to have observed a single event, which is significant at the level of 2.6 sigma. A naive treatment produces a significance of more than 3 sigma, and the collaboration did what you might call "extra" work to be fair in their statistical analysis, which reduced the appropriate number to quote to be below 3 sigma. They state that clearly, and suggest interpreting the event at 2.6 sigma, the less-flashy option. To me, that shows integrity.