5 ms·
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 pain
by 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 agoI 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.