Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cornell Library Archive)   Scientists reanalyze the spectral data supporting the existence of phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus and claim that it spurious because the methodology generates false positives. In unrelated news: Science is hard   (arxiv.org) divider line
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

271 clicks; posted to STEM » on 21 Oct 2020 at 1:05 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



17 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-21 11:26:13 AM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 1:14:14 PM  
Science isn't a set of truths. It's a process.

Yay, Science.
 
2020-10-21 1:16:59 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 1:28:30 PM  
I was sort of hoping for some exotic chemistry, but if these guys did not screw up that appears not to be the case. This paper is not yet peer reviewed so it is best to wait for relevant experts before jumping to conclusions. If I had to bet, the phosphate hypothesis will die. But i am not going to bet yet.
 
2020-10-21 1:28:40 PM  
I hope the scientists that rushed to publish are given wedgies at the next convention.
 
2020-10-21 1:57:46 PM  

Russ1642: [Fark user image 640x360]


i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 4:05:58 PM  
explainxkcd.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 5:23:59 PM  
I'm super unsurprised by this.
 
2020-10-21 5:54:10 PM  

madgonad: I hope the scientists that rushed to publish are given wedgies at the next convention.


You should not assume that all astrophysicists wear underwear or attend Star Trek conventions.
 
2020-10-21 11:29:16 PM  

madgonad: I hope the scientists that rushed to publish are given wedgies at the next convention.


Publishing doesn't mean you are right just that your conclusions are considered reasonable by referees. The act of publishing says that you have reached the limits of your ability to assess things and now it is time for others to try to tear apart your work.

This is literally part of the scientific process.
 
2020-10-22 12:33:08 AM  

BolloxReader: madgonad: I hope the scientists that rushed to publish are given wedgies at the next convention.

Publishing doesn't mean you are right just that your conclusions are considered reasonable by referees. The act of publishing says that you have reached the limits of your ability to assess things and now it is time for others to try to tear apart your work.

This is literally part of the scientific process.


My recollection was that the suspected chemical composition they detected wasn't published through a peer-reviewed process. They just went straight to some media company. This article does what peer review should have done from the beginning. Still not as bad as the bogus cold fusion in the 1980s.
 
2020-10-22 8:54:07 AM  

madgonad: BolloxReader: madgonad: I hope the scientists that rushed to publish are given wedgies at the next convention.

Publishing doesn't mean you are right just that your conclusions are considered reasonable by referees. The act of publishing says that you have reached the limits of your ability to assess things and now it is time for others to try to tear apart your work.

This is literally part of the scientific process.

My recollection was that the suspected chemical composition they detected wasn't published through a peer-reviewed process. They just went straight to some media company. This article does what peer review should have done from the beginning. Still not as bad as the bogus cold fusion in the 1980s.


The paper itself was peer reviewed though and Nature Astronomy is a pretty well respected journal
 
2020-10-22 1:53:54 PM  

johnny_vegas: madgonad: BolloxReader: madgonad: I hope the scientists that rushed to publish are given wedgies at the next convention.

Publishing doesn't mean you are right just that your conclusions are considered reasonable by referees. The act of publishing says that you have reached the limits of your ability to assess things and now it is time for others to try to tear apart your work.

This is literally part of the scientific process.

My recollection was that the suspected chemical composition they detected wasn't published through a peer-reviewed process. They just went straight to some media company. This article does what peer review should have done from the beginning. Still not as bad as the bogus cold fusion in the 1980s.

The paper itself was peer reviewed though and Nature Astronomy is a pretty well respected journal


I stand corrected. I just saw the articles in the broader media.
 
2020-10-22 1:59:03 PM  

johnny_vegas: The paper itself was peer reviewed though and Nature Astronomy is a pretty well respected journal


Well, just 'read' the article. Didn't see reference to peer review. They acknowledged their sources, but I saw no mention of peer review. The paper was received in February, accepted in July and was printed in the next publication in September.
 
2020-10-22 2:00:27 PM  

BolloxReader: madgonad: I hope the scientists that rushed to publish are given wedgies at the next convention.

Publishing doesn't mean you are right just that your conclusions are considered reasonable by referees. The act of publishing says that you have reached the limits of your ability to assess things and now it is time for others to try to tear apart your work.

This is literally part of the scientific process.


Pretty shoddy limits when their findings were nullified within a month of publication.
 
2020-10-22 2:27:27 PM  

madgonad: johnny_vegas: The paper itself was peer reviewed though and Nature Astronomy is a pretty well respected journal

Well, just 'read' the article. Didn't see reference to peer review. They acknowledged their sources, but I saw no mention of peer review. The paper was received in February, accepted in July and was printed in the next publication in September.


At the very end the journal they thank the peer reviewers (only one is named)
 
2020-10-22 6:52:06 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.