4 ms·

Quotes from the article: "ninety-nine percent convinced" That's not "hmm, that's funny, let's investigate more". "The theory has been sitting in peer-reviewed

by jules 12y ago

Quotes from the article: "ninety-nine percent convinced" That's not "hmm, that's funny, let's investigate more". "The theory has been sitting in peer-reviewed literature for more than fifteen years" (a single paper in a philosophy journal...) "Those who are players in the field of advanced propulsion," he says, "feel obligated, for whatever reason, to dissuade people from considering seriously alternatives to their particular scheme. I think they may genuinely feel they are doing a public service when they say, 'Don't spend money on that, it can't possibly work.'" He gives me a wry smile. "But their own schemes have all failed." Implying that the space industry should invest in it.

mikeash 12y ago
Yay, taking quotes out of context! She became "ninety-nine percent convinced." She started out skeptical until she investigated it thoroughly. "Sitting in peer-reviewed literature" only applies to "something obviously wrong with it." He's saying that, if there's a flaw, it must be subtle. That's not saying "therefore it must be right" but merely that there are no obvious flaws. And for space industry investment, I really don't see the problem here regardless of the context. Imagine, for a moment, that this was a completely legitimate thing that failed to attract any investment. Why would he not say those exact words? If this is something that could be said both by a kook and a legitimate scientist working on a legitimate theory, does that not mean the statement has no deciding power?
- jules 12y ago
  Meh, from those quotes it's 100% clear that the article presents a picture that is diametrically opposed to the picture that you said it paints. If it were painting a picture of good science where such an extraordinary claim would be approached with great skepticism, then it wouldn't contain phrases such as she's 99% certain, claims that it's peer reviewed when it's really not, and implications that the space industry should invest in it.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I simply don't understand how you reach that conclusion. What about "science" is supposed to prevent a scientist from becoming 99% convinced that an effect is real after extensively studying it? It looks to me like this fellow has quite a few peer-reviewed papers out there. Most are indeed in that weird journal, but not quite all. And I just flat-out disagree with your supposed implication about investing. Let me be clear: I doubt this effect is real. The difficulty of reproducing the experiment and the fact that the observed effect got smaller as they refined their technique both imply that there's some confounding factor at work. But I don't see any "pseudoscience" here.

by jules 12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

Yay, taking quotes out of context! She became "ninety-nine percent convinced." She started out skeptical until she investigated it thoroughly. "Sitting in peer-reviewed literature" only applies to "something obviously wrong with it." He's saying that, if there's a flaw, it must be subtle. That's not saying "therefore it must be right" but merely that there are no obvious flaws. And for space industry investment, I really don't see the problem here regardless of the context. Imagine, for a moment, that this was a completely legitimate thing that failed to attract any investment. Why would he not say those exact words? If this is something that could be said both by a kook and a legitimate scientist working on a legitimate theory, does that not mean the statement has no deciding power?

jules 12y ago
Meh, from those quotes it's 100% clear that the article presents a picture that is diametrically opposed to the picture that you said it paints. If it were painting a picture of good science where such an extraordinary claim would be approached with great skepticism, then it wouldn't contain phrases such as she's 99% certain, claims that it's peer reviewed when it's really not, and implications that the space industry should invest in it.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I simply don't understand how you reach that conclusion. What about "science" is supposed to prevent a scientist from becoming 99% convinced that an effect is real after extensively studying it? It looks to me like this fellow has quite a few peer-reviewed papers out there. Most are indeed in that weird journal, but not quite all. And I just flat-out disagree with your supposed implication about investing. Let me be clear: I doubt this effect is real. The difficulty of reproducing the experiment and the fact that the observed effect got smaller as they refined their technique both imply that there's some confounding factor at work. But I don't see any "pseudoscience" here.