Coming back to this almost eight hours later, I ask: What is the problem here? On HN, we upvote articles that are interesting. My idea of a downvote is an article where I felt I lost IQ for reading it. In the case of the kid’s mistaken result, is there any question his research and theory were interesting? Does anyone honestly feel stupider for having read about it and considered the possibility that he was correct?
Quite honestly, almost everything that makes it to the front page of HN is wrong. We talk about software development, startups, muse about whether Apple is brilliant or is lucky enough to have lame competition, argue about Haskell and Erlang... All stuff that is non-empirical and therefore unfalsifiable.
How does that stuff get a free pass to be on the front page of HN without peer-reviewed research backing it up? I’ll tell you how: We’re smart enough to know that all of that stuff is probably at least partly wrong, but if there’s something in there that makes us smarter, it’s worth reading and upvoting and discussing.
If the kid’s ideas had in them just one thing that made us smarter for having thought about it... That’s a win, that’s worth upvoting and repeating. Why wait for peer review? As long as nobody ran out and dropped a million bucks on manufacturing solar arrays, what’s the harm? If anything is wrong with an article, a day or so later, all of the flaws will be corrected. And thats exactly what has happened here.
Thinking about this, I don’t see a problem with the “blogosphere” or with HN upvoting and tweeting and repeating the original article. Thank goodness we don’t put everything through a peer-review first. I’d say things are working just fine, and I encourage every other thirteen year-old kid to experiment and publish.
No harm, no foul. There’s nothing in there that’s more wrong than anything I’ve ever said in a blog post or a comment, it’s just easier to prove where empirical science is concerned. But even when they’re wrong, my posts are useful if they help people think, and I suspect his post is useful for the same reason.
The whole idea behind science is to try out what seems most impossible. That's the whole magic and beauty behind it. What annoyed me was the fact that the author seems to be personally offended over the kid's article and all the hype it got. Considering it was a 13 year old kid doing a science project, it doesn't make much sense to put in so much of hardwork in proving what he did and wrote about was completely wrong or "nonsense" (as he likes to call it).
That's not even close to the idea behind science. But publishing your ideas and having someone tear them apart definitely is the idea behind science.
The majority of everyone's ideas turn out to be wrong, or at least not worth further effort. Science is a process that makes sure that the ideas we do promote have been tested and argued over by other experts in the field so that fewer wrong ideas are promoted. That's why our lives are so much better today, because of this process.
I think the author seemed offended that the main stream science news didn't bother to check a result that is, apparently, very naive to those who work on solar cells. And he should be, now thousands and thousands of people will have this little factoid that they think is true in their heads. And all because the "lone inventor" story makes for good news, even though it's not how real science gets done at all.
Do you really want this kid to keep going with this and waste his own time (he's obviously very smart and motivated) and make himself look worse in the end? Better someone nicely points out that his math is wrong and he can change his design.
"Publishing your ideas and having someone tear them apart definitely is the idea behind science."
Peer review is definitely a part of science. But not the complete idea behind it. If it were, then slowly the whole field would converge to publishing "safe" ideas so lesser and lesser of it gets torn apart. Because torn apart means rejection of papers (which translates to no research done). The complete cycle of science involves:
1. Understanding the different ideas and problems that are out there.
2. Manifesting a different perspective on the matter.
3. Understanding and experimenting with this perspective.
4. Publishing the result
5. Gaining feedback and talking to people about the results.
6. Continue.
"Better someone nicely points out that his math is wrong and he can change his design."
Exactly. Calling it "nonsense" on a public blog where thousands of people can read it is not the best of pointing out mistakes.
Yes, it makes for good news, and thousands of people will think this is good news, but for anyone who seriously does solar cells, will either find that this is impossible or as the author of this pointed out violate the basics of solar power technology.
Quite honestly, almost everything that makes it to the front page of HN is wrong. We talk about software development, startups, muse about whether Apple is brilliant or is lucky enough to have lame competition, argue about Haskell and Erlang... All stuff that is non-empirical and therefore unfalsifiable.
How does that stuff get a free pass to be on the front page of HN without peer-reviewed research backing it up? I’ll tell you how: We’re smart enough to know that all of that stuff is probably at least partly wrong, but if there’s something in there that makes us smarter, it’s worth reading and upvoting and discussing.
If the kid’s ideas had in them just one thing that made us smarter for having thought about it... That’s a win, that’s worth upvoting and repeating. Why wait for peer review? As long as nobody ran out and dropped a million bucks on manufacturing solar arrays, what’s the harm? If anything is wrong with an article, a day or so later, all of the flaws will be corrected. And thats exactly what has happened here.
Thinking about this, I don’t see a problem with the “blogosphere” or with HN upvoting and tweeting and repeating the original article. Thank goodness we don’t put everything through a peer-review first. I’d say things are working just fine, and I encourage every other thirteen year-old kid to experiment and publish.
No harm, no foul. There’s nothing in there that’s more wrong than anything I’ve ever said in a blog post or a comment, it’s just easier to prove where empirical science is concerned. But even when they’re wrong, my posts are useful if they help people think, and I suspect his post is useful for the same reason.