I have serious reservations about this announcement, and I find this disclosure highly irresponsible. There should be a preponderance of evidence for making this statement, because the people running the experiment are in no way at all impartial about the outcome. Much of the scientific community expects that this particle exists, wants this same particle to exist, and frankly needs this particle to exist. We all know too well that we often end up seeing things that we want to see.
My mind harkens back to the Martian meteorite debacle, and the Viking debacle that happened before that. Which was the result of overoptimism on the part of researchers. In both cases they saw something that they wanted to see in the data, and only later it was proven that the data could reflect something else entirely. With Viking basic chemical processes could produce the same results as life, and in the Martian meteorite it was shown that natural processes could fashion those structures.
Sure there is still some hedging in the description, but the problem is that the average layperson is going to make the logical leap, and that could lead to a public relations debacle later. When they may have to say it didn't end up being what they thought it was. More damning perhaps is they didn't need to make any announcement until much later. Their research cannot be independently verified or discredited. So there is no peer review that can be done. Anyway I think they should have waited until there was much more data beyond saying hey something is there it must be what I was looking for.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
