They really wanted to say Terraforming, but its more believable than most of the garbage archaeologists hypothesise so they went with the tooth fairy did it instead.
Errr, most science works by making hypotheses and then doing the research to confirm or deny. But maybe you could tell the archeologists they are doing science all wrong, I'm sure they'll listen to you.
Errr, most science works by making hypotheses and then doing the research to confirm or deny. But maybe you could tell the archeologists they are doing science all wrong, I'm sure they'll listen to you.
This. When working with hypotheses, Scientists throw out ll kind of ideas. They even throw out wild-ass guesses, or WAGS. Then you discuss and try to tear all of them apart. You pick the remaining possibilities, and take them from there.
And it's a pity, because the winnowing process is fun. And if new data comes, it starts all over again.
Science journalists like headlines like "Scientists stunned by" (fill in whatever they are stunned by) while in fact, they are excited.
And seemingly, most people don't like it when they change the script. We've seen recent examples of that in some fields.
The missing "rock" is a fascinating issue. One of the most fascinating parts is that we're still trying to figure it out.
Science journalists like headlines like "Scientists stunned by" (fill in whatever they are stunned by) while in fact, they are excited.
"Science journalists" are a very rare breed - the overwhelming majority of journalists are "English" (subject, not language) or history graduates who haven't touched a science course since before the started growing pubes.
(There are exceptions - they are rare.)
BTW, this story isn't exactly news - I was having exactly this discussion (with different data, some overlapping)
Science journalists like headlines like "Scientists stunned by" (fill in whatever they are stunned by) while in fact, they are excited.
"Science journalists" are a very rare breed - the overwhelming majority of journalists are "English" (subject, not language) or history graduates who haven't touched a science course since before the started growing pubes.
(There are exceptions - they are rare.)
BTW, this story isn't exactly news - I was having exactly this discussion (with different data, some overlapping) in 1980. Or 1981 - I'd have to check a diary.
No doubt about the age of the story. It's not my field, but I've always been interested in Geology. But I remember it from long ago too.
Editors - We had a technical editor who fit into the "English" class mode. She wasn't terribly knowledgable, but was a really great lady and competent outside of science.
What she did though was teach me a few ways to zip up my writing which I adapted and it ended up working out well. Just made things a lot more terse, less of the problem some have of trying to be too i
> most science works by making hypotheses and then doing the research to confirm or deny
And also picking a favorite hypothesis among all the potentially valid ones, then dividing into tribal camps with bitter rivalries among them, featuring derision, jockeying for tenure, data falsification, p-hacking, and sabotaging grant applications of rivals.
*puts up hands* Now hear me out (Score:4, Funny)
"Aliens"
Re: *puts up hands* Now hear me out (Score:2)
They really wanted to say Terraforming, but its more believable than most of the garbage archaeologists hypothesise so they went with the tooth fairy did it instead.
Re: *puts up hands* Now hear me out (Score:5, Interesting)
Errr, most science works by making hypotheses and then doing the research to confirm or deny. But maybe you could tell the archeologists they are doing science all wrong, I'm sure they'll listen to you.
Re: *puts up hands* Now hear me out (Score:5, Informative)
Errr, most science works by making hypotheses and then doing the research to confirm or deny. But maybe you could tell the archeologists they are doing science all wrong, I'm sure they'll listen to you.
This. When working with hypotheses, Scientists throw out ll kind of ideas. They even throw out wild-ass guesses, or WAGS. Then you discuss and try to tear all of them apart. You pick the remaining possibilities, and take them from there.
And it's a pity, because the winnowing process is fun. And if new data comes, it starts all over again.
Science journalists like headlines like "Scientists stunned by" (fill in whatever they are stunned by) while in fact, they are excited.
And seemingly, most people don't like it when they change the script. We've seen recent examples of that in some fields.
The missing "rock" is a fascinating issue. One of the most fascinating parts is that we're still trying to figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
"Science journalists" are a very rare breed - the overwhelming majority of journalists are "English" (subject, not language) or history graduates who haven't touched a science course since before the started growing pubes.
(There are exceptions - they are rare.)
BTW, this story isn't exactly news - I was having exactly this discussion (with different data, some overlapping)
Re: (Score:2)
"Science journalists" are a very rare breed - the overwhelming majority of journalists are "English" (subject, not language) or history graduates who haven't touched a science course since before the started growing pubes.
(There are exceptions - they are rare.)
BTW, this story isn't exactly news - I was having exactly this discussion (with different data, some overlapping) in 1980. Or 1981 - I'd have to check a diary.
No doubt about the age of the story. It's not my field, but I've always been interested in Geology. But I remember it from long ago too. Editors - We had a technical editor who fit into the "English" class mode. She wasn't terribly knowledgable, but was a really great lady and competent outside of science.
What she did though was teach me a few ways to zip up my writing which I adapted and it ended up working out well. Just made things a lot more terse, less of the problem some have of trying to be too i
Re: *puts up hands* Now hear me out (Score:5, Insightful)
> most science works by making hypotheses and then doing the research to confirm or deny
And also picking a favorite hypothesis among all the potentially valid ones, then dividing into tribal camps with bitter rivalries among them, featuring derision, jockeying for tenure, data falsification, p-hacking, and sabotaging grant applications of rivals.
"Professional Science"
Re: *puts up hands* Now hear me out (Score:5, Insightful)
That is how "most science" fails, not how "most science works". Yes, this stuff happens, but it is a stain on the community, not on science itself.
Re: (Score:1)
All the pseudoscientists agree you are wrong (or they would lose their tenure)
All the media is funded by the same people funding the pseudoscientists and they agree you are wrong.
At this point actual science is a stain on the community, because it makes people question the groupthink.
Its the world we live in. What you gonna do? change it?
Re: *puts up hands* Now hear me out (Score:2)
Re: *puts up hands* Now hear me out (Score:1)
->But maybe you could tell the archeologists they are doing science all wrong, I'm sure they'll listen to you.
How about we start by all of us just not calling politicised unrepeatable random guesses "science"
Re: (Score:2)
But maybe you could tell the archeologists they are doing science all wrong, I'm sure they'll listen to you.
And then they'll say "The geology department is down the hall".