Comment Re:Misleading title (Score 3, Interesting) 122
I would guess that the research is quite solid, the press release is overhyping as usual.
I would guess that the research is quite solid, the press release is overhyping as usual.
What has been found is an excess of certain events (namely anti-muon-neutrino to anti-electron-neutrino oscillations), where "excess" is defined relative to the current best-established model. So what this experiment (if correct) shows, is that the current model is not good enough.
From the PRL paper:
The source of the excess remains unexplained, although several hypotheses have been put forward
One of those hypotheses is additional neutrino flavours, but this finding is not evidence for that.
From the discussion section at the end (emphasis mine):
For most traits, the effects of individual genes are too small to stand out against the combined influence of all other genes and environmental factors. Thus, our p-value of 0.02 on a sample of 2,000 individuals should be treated cautiously. The expectation in genetics is that only repeated efforts to replicate associations on independent samples by several research teams will verify initial findings like these. Thus, perhaps the most valuable contribution of this study is not to declare that ‘‘a gene was found’’ for anything, but rather, to provide the first evidence for a possible gene-environment interaction for political ideology.
Contrast this with TFA:
The study's authors say this is the first research to identify a specific gene that predisposes people to certain political views.
I hate it when this happens, makes people dumb.
What is this doing on the front page?
The summary links to a report on an experimental setup. The poster draws his unverifiable conclusions. On Wikipedia we would say "no original research, please".
The costs are obviously high, as these are still in developmental stage. Most of the turbines performed below the expected yield, but for example the "Skystream", which was one of the cheaper models, output 2109 kWh, where 1360 kWh were expected. The test can easily be claimed to show this was a success.
I'm curious, if you think "believe" means "to think without evidence", what would you put in "Scientists __________ in evolution"? Or do you not have a word that encapsulates the concept of "see it confirmed over and over again, so accept it as a very good theory."?
Actually, I would say yes to this, because "believing" can imply so many other things (these days?).
Scientists don't believe in evolution, they see it confirmed over and over again, so accept it as a very good theory. Therefore religion is not an alternative for evolution, it's a whole different game.
Nobody will oppose that "there are particles", but what a particle actually is, no one can really say.
I work in quantum physics, and to me, an electron is just a bunch of so-called quantum numbers, such as mass, electric charge etc.
Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.