I'm not sure why this would be impressive. That's how science has always worked, and scientists very often get excited when new data increases the likelihood that some previously held idea is false. In fact, more often than not what irritates scientists is when experiments increase support for existing theories since that usually means that other theories are less likely to hold (e.g., LHC and supersymmetry theories). That results in people who had invested long periods of time into work that the data now says is bogus having mild existential crises - "damnit nature - now what?".
It says something unfortunate about the current perception of science if people think scientists getting excited about new data contradicting theories is something noteworthy.
‘We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.'
You can say what you want about the antagonistic nature of climate science (the pro-AGW site skeptical science excuses the above quotes on that basis), but I think science flourishes best when opposing viewpoints are vigorously but truthfully defended.
Indeed! And the climate-deniers being talked about are very far indeed from truthful or scientific, so there's no point in doing anything to aid their campaign of deceit. They'll lie about it either way.
Justifying bad action (hiding or misrepresenting data, allowing untruthful hyperbolic statements, ad hominem attacks) on the basis of hypothetical bad action is hardly helpful.
> climate-deniers
I've never heard anyone deny the climate.
I've never actually heard anyone deny climate change, except those who assert there was no significant change before the 19th or 20th century.
Very few even deny anthropogenic climate change - most just question the magnitude, relative attribution, or whether it will be easier to adapt rather than attempt to prevent.
You probably meant "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change denier", which is just an intentionally offensive way to say, "Someone who disagrees with the consensus position so we hope you'll ignore them".
They must be given every opportunity to criticize. They don't need to be given the same attention, but have to be allowed to criticize or else we create sacred cows.
I'm not sure of the percentages, but I would say many scientists feel pressure to publish "new groundbreaking results that fit a lofty hypothesis"
This situation is a little different because their hypothesis actually wasn't lofty, but their results were.
But it is decently undeniable in my eyes that scientists are facing pressure from the MBAs to set goals first and then brute force the results to match the goals.
"It says something unfortunate about the current perception of science if people think scientists getting excited about new data contradicting theories is something noteworthy."
I don't think this is a problem in physics but it seems to be a problem in social sciences or economics where people get defensive when doubts arise over their theories.
It is incredible how everywhere we look in the solar system, we find things we did not expect. It looks like there is not a boring spot to be found here.
I still wish somebody would send a similar probe to Uranus and/or Neptune, but I am also excited that there is still plenty to discover in, on, and around Jupiter!
It's kind of like planet Earth writ large: I don't think there's a single part of the planet's surface that could be reasonably described as ’boring’ or ’uninteresting’ despite the fact we are in possession of a bunch of reasonably accurate average statistics that broadly summarise all of it.
“The lesson I take from this is, if you want to learn something about these complex systems, you have to look at them,” Flasar said. “Because you’re not going to figure it out from first principles. [...]
I think this is a great insight. First principles are fantastic to plan drafts and establish key concepts, but building & testing are equally important.
I am finding it hard to imagine the constitution of Jupiter. The findings say it doesn't have a solid core but diffuse. How can a planet not have a surface? How does gravity work if it is just gases?
The only achievement I can come up with that hasn't been done with unmanned probes is a serious sample return mission. The Apollo mission brought back 382 kg of lunar material. Unmanned Soviet missions have brought back a total of 0.32 kg. Would we back then have been capable of building an unmanned system capable of investigating rocks, cleaving samples, and bringing back hundreds of kilograms? Are we now?
good example. but you are comparing the soviet space program to the US space program. You seem to have good data on the yield of moon rocks; do you have any data on cost per kg? It would be interesting to see!
And even if it did make sense historically, with as far as robotics have come in 2017 I can't see a reason why we would do a similar manned mission in the future.
It's hard to find data on the individual cost of Soviet space programs. Wikipedia gives the total cost for the Luna program at 4.5 billion dollars, but that figure is unsourced, and it's unclear whether they're 1969 or 2008 dollars.
In any case, the Apollo program easily wins in kg/dollar. The total cost of the Apollo program was just 22 billion 1969 dollars, so a bit more than 60 million 1969 dollars per kilo and obviously the program did much, much more than just return some rocks. On the other hand, just launching the Proton-K rocket that got the Luna 16 to the moon cost 100 million 1969 dollars, so up to 1 billion dollars per kilo. And that's not counting the development cost of the vehicle etc...
Good news for the future though, China is planning to send a sample-return mission in November[0] and they plan to return at least 2 kilograms. If they succeed, I guess you don't need humans for that either
