Hacker News Reader

Comment by donquixote25 | Hacker News Reader

If you were familiar with NIF, you would know that they absolutely will publish the details of the experiment just as they published the details of the experiment that achieved ignition in August 2021: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12...

View on HN

NASA also publishes. Yet we still got this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVSJLUIQrA0

BICEP2 was a respected scientific collaboration, and it ended up like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iasqtm1prlI

The even took a touching video of one of the participants notifying the theorist that predicted the result about their achievement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA

Just a two off the top of my mind.

can you elaborate on what was wrong with the NASA thing?

Other than not being true?

https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-u...

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/21/why-one-biologist-say...

What is your point? That we should distrust everything in a scientific journal? You are shifting the goal post. First, you wanted a publication. Now, you say that would not be enough?

I am inclined to believe a publication unless other plasma physicist come out with a contradictory information.

It's easy to be cynic...

My point is that people should distrust science by press conference.

The minimum is to wait for the publication.

Even then, scientific skepticism is the rule, not the exception. Especially in fields that are price to hype.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com