The study hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, so the title is a bit too confident in its claim.
https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(24)01091-2
It truly is a new class of genomic elements.
They then expanded the search to millions of sequences, which are publicly available, and found ~30k different classes(!) of Obelisk elements. One could argue that the quality of each of these "experiments" may not be as good as IHMP, but still, the signal is more than sufficient to clearly demonstrate the existence and implied significance of these elements.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No doubt there are valid concerns but the value of comments formed by internet clichés and dismissive tropes is... lower than what we want here. When it comes with a tone of entitled aggressiveness, that's even worse—that's enough to drive away the people who spend their lives working on a subject, and that would be the worst possible outcome for HN.
I think you're trying to draw a comparison here between two things of completely different category, and I feel like you might not understand how different they are.
I think you’d be better served by trying to understand how psychological research has been done, why people go on about replication, what results are suspect from psych, and how they developed in the first place.
Bc it seems like you’re trying to justify the actions in psych world by other disciplines, but it just doesn’t make sense.
I am genuinely curious as to how best to present the evidence. What would you like to see to tame your skeptic?
It's good to wait until replication and then 5 years to let the dust setle down.
But if the research group had group had a good past history, it's better to trust them while the other teams verify.
I'm starting to realize that this may be a justification of their prejudice against these fields rather than a legitimate basis for dismissal.
The noticed it in multiple datasets.
What would replication look like here besides someone else looking at the dataset and agreeing that they also see the curiosities?
Or do you mean someone measuring a new fresh set of data and looking at it?
Asking for replication in this case is surprising, because seemingly the entire value is to prompt other research to go figure out what’s going on with these things.
Rather obviously, I'd think, if someone else looks at similar samples and sees no "Obelisks" at all. Or looks at their samples.
> What is H_0 in this study?
"The stuff we're seeing here doesn't exist"?
Or, IOW, "All the electron microscopes used have the same weird bug, showing obelisk-shaped pieces of RNA material where there really isn't anything at all"?
Feels a bit like what you want is really "We were all high on funny mushrooms when we saw that".
Look, I see from your other comments that you're actually not talking about this, but something else entirely. And you may well have a point there, but in order to make that point here, you would have had to come up with something a lot better than this. Because I'm fairly sure they weren't all high on funny mushrooms. Aren't you too, really?
So most findings in research psychology definitely need replication. But the idea that the existence of something is verifiably found across a bunch of different datasets doesn't need a new set of experiments to show -- you just check the data.
The problem with psychology is that despite the fact that the subject matter is inherently more difficult to study, researchers are forced into the same publish-or-perish system as biologists and mathematicians. A higher degree of skepticism towards new studies might technically be prejudice, but it’s certainly justified.
Not that it matters at all.