Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Cue all the people justifying their pseudoscientific behavior. If it is too expensive to fund twice, it shouldn't be funded once. If that means the LHC and LIGO wouldn't get done, then we should have only funded one of them. We need to remain skeptical of those results until replicated by a new team. Even one replication is pretty weak...

Independent replications of experiment (and the corresponding independent reports of observations) are a crucial part of the scientific method, no matter how much you wish it wasn't. Nature doesn't care if it is inconvenient for you to discover her secrets, or that it is more difficult for you to hype up your findings to the unsuspecting public.




You do realize that scientists who work on the LHC have the highest repeatability standards of any science profession, right?


The LHC experiment is not the issue here.

There is a lot of transparency there, a lot of well meaning people with a lot of oversight.

I suggest most would admit 'there could be a problem' there, but it's out in the open if there is.

The problem of lack of repeatability I think has to do with subconscious bias on the part of the experimenters which will be less pronounced when there are 5000 people working on it.


As far as I know there is only one organization running a machine that can check the LHC results. That is the team that runs the LHC.

On the other hand, there are many other experiments that are repeated billions+ times a day in order for consumer electronics to work, etc.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: