Does science need to be proven?

[magnemoe]

On 5.5.2016 at 1:29 PM, todofwar said:

Science can sometimes be defined as the misunderstanding of statistics unfortunately. In the end basic research is funded by getting results that are definite, even when claiming a definite result is not always appropriate. People chase the all important p value and publish once they get below a certain threshold, but aside from the fact that this is not what p values are really meant for you can always adjust your criteria for throwing out data points until your p value is low enough. It gets worse as you go from scientific journals to pop sci, a paper showing a correlation between a certain gene and a certain phenotype becomes x gene causes y effect, when no such causal relationship really exists.

But all this still involves falsifiable hypotheses, so it remains scientifically valid and the next scientist can come along and get credit for disproving a theory with a better p value (or slightly worse p value, doesn't seem to matter to the all important journal editors/grant reviewers).

Yes, in physic you rarely make mistakes who has been proven to be totally false, you get new stuff on other levels like relativity and quantum.
In softer sciences this is not uncommon, this include things who are pretty hard like medicine and economy. 

[magnemoe]

22 hours ago, PB666 said:

This then just about scrapes all Sci-fi drives systems in one swoop, none are better or worse than others, they are all fantasy.
I would include in this discussion just about all of Issac Arthur stuff sci-fi---->fantasy as there are two unproven aspects that almost all of his work is based on.
We may or may not get fusion to produce electric power >> heat, and that we may actually use fusion electric power in space.

The known science that fusion based spaceflight is facing is entropy . . . . we are reasonably good at managing entropy on earth when we have huge heat sinks to dump heat into (although if we look at our total power systems, we are relatively inefficient. Consider the chemical energy/time that goes into a power plant and the power that  reaches your computer screen).  In space we have few really good heat sinks, all the heat sinks in space are passive. Future space travel really gets down to how effective we can be at extracting electric power from heat, dumping as little heat into space as possible.

Entropy is one of those things where we think we manage entropy well in our technological systems, including those used in space, but at close inspection we realize how actually poorly we manage entropy.

As a result we may be left with using thermonuclear devices to propel space craft. In which case I think interstellar travel will be unfeasible.

Most fusion drive consepts does not generate electricity to run ion or other engines but uses the high energy fusion products directly, 
You have an fusion bottle or field with an nozzle you let some out or you go pulsed. 
If you just after heat fission is much simpler 

[PB666]

32 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, in physic you rarely make mistakes who has been proven to be totally false, you get new stuff on other levels like relativity and quantum.
In softer sciences this is not uncommon, this include things who are pretty hard like medicine and economy. 

If you read the entirety of the interview with Rovelli he makes the point that all hypotheses should be falsifiable in order to be taken seriously. In fact that was the point

we are taking string theory and MWI seriously even though they cannot be falsified. He refers to this as laziness . . . .IOW you come up with a hypothesis that cannot be falsified because you don't want to invest the time and money to get more background information (e.g. studying the results of Ligo, studying then event horizon around black holes, etc). I suppose it means that before such hypothesis should be treated seriously one should have walked the ends of the visible universe in search of alternative answers.

[magnemoe]

45 minutes ago, PB666 said:

If you read the entirety of the interview with Rovelli he makes the point that all hypotheses should be falsifiable in order to be taken seriously. In fact that was the point

we are taking string theory and MWI seriously even though they cannot be falsified. He refers to this as laziness . . . .IOW you come up with a hypothesis that cannot be falsified because you don't want to invest the time and money to get more background information (e.g. studying the results of Ligo, studying then event horizon around black holes, etc). I suppose it means that before such hypothesis should be treated seriously one should have walked the ends of the visible universe in search of alternative answers.

Agree, as you say if it can not be proven in any way its theology. 
Now you can use it as an mathematical model to explain stuff but it should then have other effects who should be observable. If not its just empty theory. 

We has burned trough lots of models for planetary formation over the years and I think or current models are pretty crappy to. 
Yes its an part of physic there theories end on the junk heap fast. 

[p1t1o]

In response to the OP:

Very, very long story short - Make a list of things that you know to be 100.0% philosophical-grade "proven" and notice how short it is. That should give you the answer.

[Green Baron]

For natural science is valid: publications need to stand a peer review and must be repeatable with the right equipment and the necessary knowledge and in doing so yield the same outcome.

Science philosophers like Karl Popper demand that a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. This is not to make scientists lives miserable but to separate stuff from actual finding. It is simply a stronger foundation to a thought if somebody actually can step up and prove that a thing does not work that way.

Pure theoretic / mathemagic edifices like String- or M-Theory are then in a strict sense not pure natural science any more, at least for now.

tl, dr and personal opinion: yes.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Green Baron

[PB666]

3 hours ago, Green Baron said:

For natural science is valid: publications need to stand a peer review and must be repeatable with the right equipment and the necessary knowledge and in doing so yield the same outcome.

Science philosophers like Karl Popper demand that a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. This is not to make scientists lives miserable but to separate stuff from actual finding. It is simply a stronger foundation to a thought if somebody actually can step up and prove that a thing does not work that way.

Pure theoretic / mathemagic edifices like String- or M-Theory are then in a strict sense not pure natural science any more, at least for now.

tl, dr and personal opinion: yes.

tl, dr generally you didn't appreciate someones opinion. Rovelli's interview is not that long and it is an interesting critique.

Peer review has just a whole bunch of problems. I have probably reviewed hundreds of manuscripts in my career, what would be called a super referee. One of the biggest problems it the expert players wont referee a paper unless its a friends or colleagues. I have many a monday morning meeting that starts like this 'we just go the 2 referees comments on these papers and they don't seem correct can you . . . ' . .and almost all cases the referee did not even read the paper, just the abstract. Figures are missing axis titles, figure legends, all kinds of things that you would need to referee. But more importantly the miss things like there is no materials and methods section, or a one sentence reference to 3 other papers. However, I will never have to referee another paper again,  The review process really depends on the quality of the journal, if its a top ranked field specific journal with a top ranked editor (<-- editorial board generally do nothing) then chances are most bad papers will be screened out.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/28/science/retractions-scientific-studies.html

http://iai.asm.org/content/79/10/3855/F1.expansion.html

And if you think that Nature and Science have detected all the bunk, you should hear directly from the horses mouth.

The reason that falsifiability is important is this. Suppose you write a paper

(example)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11209053
 

such and such comes back 15 years later using the same materials
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27274055 

If you don't create a method for what you are doing that is clear, concise and amenable to someone else repeating it, then of what value is your result. Where would we be if Max Planck fudged on his numbers to get the Plancks constant that he thought should exist. He had no earthly idea how important his constant was, it permeates now literally all of quantum mechanics. What if he had said this is not the real constant, the real constant is obscured by a large number of parallel universes?  That's not what they did, in many cases they would come up with theories and within 6 months be the most vocal critic of the theory. Quantum entanglement, Einstein partially discovered, he had difficulty accepting the conclusion.

Why are there two Ligo experiments, why not just one, shouldn't one just be good enough. But thats the only way to validate a transient observation, have multiple observers. Rovelli's point is that good science is hard work.

 

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, PB666 said:

Why are there two Ligo experiments, why not just one, shouldn't one just be good enough.

Quote

I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.

I.e. they need the third one.

Edited February 20, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

10 hours ago, PB666 said:

tl, dr generally you didn't appreciate someones opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

I actually don't only accept his opinion, i strongly support it. Sad fact is, in some works (including the journals you meant) the principles are sometimes violated. But to judge if such a thing is the case or not in a specific work one must have deep knowledge of what is is about.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

10 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Nuff said.

[Green Baron]

Sure, everyone knows about the dis- and advantages of peer review, no doubt there. But if the alternatives are political influence and/or paid research then i think we are quite well off with the current system. Of course it isn't the last word and doesn't totally exclude directed work, nonsense and disgressive or even absurd things and will one day be replaced, but for know we must live with it.

Augmenting the current criteria by two new ones is a good idea. But it doesn't solve the principal problem that some sciences have a hard time transporting their findings to the general public. This is the case for physics as well as highly complex systems like a biosphere. As long as people name the shortcomings and downsides (e. g. and just because i am a bit into it, of a model for an environmental process) and others of the subject have looked over it we can give it a deeper look.

And to that bashing of the big journals: they try to be in the first front of publishing current research(*). It is true that they are not always right(tm) and many publications go down the river of constant change sooner than later. But they are a condensed source of information of what's going on in the branches of natural science and far better then all the second hand stuff. Sure, always read things with a the usual salt grain of reason ... a fool who doesn't.

 

Have a nice day or whatever time applies on your part of the disk !

 

(*) especially when people are away from the knowledge pool and access privileges of a university.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Green Baron

[PB666]

12 hours ago, Green Baron said:

And to that bashing of the big journals: they try to be in the first front of publishing current research(*). It is true that they are not always right(tm) and many publications go down the river of constant change sooner than later. But they are a condensed source of information of what's going on in the branches of natural science and far better then all the second hand stuff. Sure, always read things with a the usual salt grain of reason ... a fool who doesn't.

Again this gets to the motivations of the Authors. I know people who have published in Science or Nature simply so that they could have the notoriety to get a better job. Once upon a time I heard this "yeah, I just published an article in Nature, don't read it, its crap" pointing to a more relevant paper on the topic. The problem is that only so much good science can become of having your materials and methods section in your figure legends. There is good stuff, White's publication of Ardipiticus ramidus (after a very long wait) was good quality and created all kinds of questions that need to be created. When the big guys are compelled to offer big space, but when authors are forced to scale back a decent work to the size so that its more or less a pointer to other work. In many instance, and I don't know if its still true, the 'primary literature' is nothing more than a synopsis of literature published elsewhere and in more field specific journals with one new image added. More or less secondary literature mascaraing as primary literature. There is nothing false about this, but it is kind of a deception, because what you are doing is holding back that last small experiment so that you can glorify all your other work in a special place.

Is it better than selling big books that sell only one opinion and that don't have peer review? yeah. At least in my specific field I cannot think of a single paper published in the last 20 years that reflected fairly the state of the science in Nature or Science. There have been tangential papers. You know what got up my crawl is the Benviniste Affair in 1987-89 where Nature basically absolves themselves of responsibility, but the leading experts were arguing your referees should have been arguing that the work was simply too controversial to have been published in the format that got published. Everyone was laughing at Nature because each had their own experience with the Journal. It was a big public hoot and hollering contest. In as much they stated the reason they published because they perceived it to be fore-front research. . .but also thats they reason they got such a huge backlash, because of people who sent MS to Nature get a summary reject letter ('our journal is currently not interested in this type of work). That was in my field so I am very much aware of people saying, 'my work was much better and the would not even consider my work [snicker]' .  Some of that work that was attempted to be published was what we now call 'biologics', those miracle drugs, highlytargeted antibodies,  that treat cancer and autoimmune diseases . . .rejected. Sour grapes, but in a good way it broke them of the habit of wanting to publish in coffee table science magazines. Nature and Science have both said on occassion that there review process was thorough and at other times there were problems that they corrected. But the retraction statistics basically points to the fact that its the same-ole same-old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection Tousche but here again this is a chat forum. If I were to use my social vices to push something unfairly to the forefront of the science discussion, that would be unfair would it not.

In science your best friends are the harshest critics close to you, the worst place to be criticized is after you published others around you knew was bad stuff.

BTW, I am egalitarian in once sense you are not, I consider BIG the best from each field, the best journals from Each field. I have been a big fan of both the Journal of Human Evolution and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, they make false steps also, but fewer.

[PB666]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full

 

[KG3]

I think that for most people who aren't scientists science can't be proven.  When the public hears conflicting arguments and are told that both are true people throw up their hands and say "scientists are crazy and just  make things up".  For example, smoking (not here to argue the merits of smoking).  People were told that if they smoke they are more likely to die of lung cancer.  Then they were told that there is no evidence that any particular chemical in cigarettes alters any particular cell in the lung to become cancerous, and here is an octogenarian who has smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day since he was six and he can still dance hornpipes.  Conflicting messages from people wearing lab coats, one group passionate the other emphatic, and neither technically wrong.  

  For people (like myself) who can't do math beyond balancing a check book, we just have to rely on faith that we're not being lied to.  For instance, "science has discovered a new element".  Well I'm a black smith, let's put some of this new stuff in the forge, smack it with a hammer, work it on the anvil and see what we can do with it.  Then I'm told than only about a dozen or so atoms of the stuff has been conclusively made and it only lasts for a millionth of a second!  How do you prove to me that the stuff actually exists?  (Actually, I usually just say "cool, new element" and assume somebody's double checked it.)

  Then you get the person who really does lie, comes up with a ridiculous idea and calls it a ground breaking, paradigm shifting new theory.  When the general scientific community debunks this persons "proof" a complete gibberish then he/she can claim that they are being persecuted by an entrenched anachronistic establishment whos members either lack the intellectual capabilities to understand or are simply to afraid of loosing funding and don't have the nads to embrace brilliance of this new "theory".  Just to confuse things this person will find five other people in lab coats that will hop on the band wagon.  They don't understand anything but will hedge their bets and agree with the guy.  If it turns out the guy actually is right these five people in lab coats hope to look really really smart.

Enough said about pseudoscience, I think we've all seen it.  But I will say be careful what you call proof.  To many of us it really does look like gibberish.      

        

[PB666]

11 minutes ago, KG3 said:

I think that for most people who aren't scientists science can't be proven.  When the public hears conflicting arguments and are told that both are true people throw up their hands and say "scientists are crazy and just  make things up".  For example, smoking (not here to argue the merits of smoking).  People were told that if they smoke they are more likely to die of lung cancer.  Then they were told that there is no evidence that any particular chemical in cigarettes alters any particular cell in the lung to become cancerous, and here is an octogenarian who has smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day since he was six and he can still dance hornpipes.  Conflicting messages from people wearing lab coats, one group passionate the other emphatic, and neither technically wrong.  

  For people (like myself) who can't do math beyond balancing a check book, we just have to rely on faith that we're not being lied to.  For instance, "science has discovered a new element".  Well I'm a black smith, let's put some of this new stuff in the forge, smack it with a hammer, work it on the anvil and see what we can do with it.  Then I'm told than only about a dozen or so atoms of the stuff has been conclusively made and it only lasts for a millionth of a second!  How do you prove to me that the stuff actually exists?  (Actually, I usually just say "cool, new element" and assume somebody's double checked it.)

  Then you get the person who really does lie, comes up with a ridiculous idea and calls it a ground breaking, paradigm shifting new theory.  When the general scientific community debunks this persons "proof" a complete gibberish then he/she can claim that they are being persecuted by an entrenched anachronistic establishment whos members either lack the intellectual capabilities to understand or are simply to afraid of loosing funding and don't have the nads to embrace brilliance of this new "theory".  Just to confuse things this person will find five other people in lab coats that will hop on the band wagon.  They don't understand anything but will hedge their bets and agree with the guy.  If it turns out the guy actually is right these five people in lab coats hope to look really really smart.

Enough said about pseudoscience, I think we've all seen it.  But I will say be careful what you call proof.  To many of us it really does look like gibberish.      

        

This means that scientist can prove to other skeptical scientist that they are correct.
 

For example recent experiments offer evidence consistent with the theory of general relativity and Einstein's field equations, but do not offer evidence in support of any theory of quantum gravity. So for example the Ligo offers evidence that supports GR but offers no support of string theory. String theory cannot be proved or disproved and so that neither layman or scientiest are compelled to believe it. GR on the otherhand is difficult to understand and layman are not expected to believe it. The college student is largely expected to understand why other scientist believe GR even if their understanding of field equations does not suffice to prove it to themselves. The graduate level student in physics is expected to know how to execute the field equations and prove it to themselves, and a may participate in projects that provide evidence that prove it. The professors (a portion thereof) are knowledgeable enough to gather the people together to design the experiments (e.g. Ligo) that are also designed to provide the data that supports the theory. 

The level of understanding depends on the layman, but there is no prophecy in ignorance. For all the false pointers the internet provides it also provides numerous free online courses to learn about science, there is Modern Physics, Advanced Physics, General Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Entanglement,  . . . . .So that the layman says I chose not to believe, but then makes no effort to understand, professing a non-truth to others; this is the definition of wanted ignorance . . .its not a realm of science.

 

[Green Baron]

30 minutes ago, KG3 said:

 Then they were told that there is no evidence that any particular chemical in cigarettes alters any particular cell in the lung to become cancerous, and here is an octogenarian who has smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day since he was six and he can still dance hornpipes.  Conflicting messages from people wearing lab coats, one group passionate the other emphatic, and neither technically wrong.  

Vvott ? I'd like to see a publication in a peer reviewed medical journal that says so. Not everyone wearing a lab coat is actually a scientist ! The consensus is "Smoking kills by causing cancer !". I can't imagine that an upright medical scientist says otherwise, or he/she was bribed to doing so.

Quote

  For people (like myself) who can't do math beyond balancing a check book, we just have to rely on faith that we're not being lied to.  For instance, "science has discovered a new element".  Well I'm a black smith, let's put some of this new stuff in the forge, smack it with a hammer, work it on the anvil and see what we can do with it.  Then I'm told than only about a dozen or so atoms of the stuff has been conclusively made and it only lasts for a millionth of a second!  How do you prove to me that the stuff actually exists?  (Actually, I usually just say "cool, new element" and assume somebody's double checked it.)

Yes. That is so. Because the means and methods to conduct an experiment are beyond what the average citizen can afford, build or control. Few people have an LHC in their garden ;-) But usually such discoveries are made by teams and have been checked against other hypotheses before they head on and submit a publication. Such new things are often put to discussion in the community, the impact on our every day life is small. Also it is a good habit to principally distrust all stuff from colourful internet sources. There are some pop science sites (like Scientific American for example, in Germany Spektrum) that can per default be regarded as honest and correct.

Quote

  Then you get the person who really does lie, comes up with a ridiculous idea and calls it a ground breaking, paradigm shifting new theory. 

When the general scientific community debunks this persons "proof" a complete gibberish then he/she can claim that they are being persecuted by an entrenched anachronistic establishment whos members either lack the intellectual capabilities to understand or are simply to afraid of loosing funding and don't have the nads to embrace brilliance of this new "theory". 

Ridiculous stuff us generally simply ignored and the ignoramus then howls "nobody likes me" and "they all have no idea". A single voice against the rest of the world ? A clear sign that there is something wrong. A hypothesis needs proof to become a theory. The proof must be checked and generally accepted.

Quote

Enough said about pseudoscience, I think we've all seen it.  But I will say be careful what you call proof.  To many of us it really does look like gibberish.      

Usually a new idea is not immediately shouted out, but a working hypothesis formulated, that tested and checked, and the result put to a review process. The process takes months, sometimes longer and there are enough opportunities in the meantime to discuss and question.

Usually scientists do not boast with their knowledge. The one at the next desk may know more ;-). Those who do often do so because of .... deficiencies. Ignore them. What counts is that what is generally agreed on. Of course one is happy and joyful if something turns out to be correct !

OK, hope that wasn't too high stitched :-)

Oh, i have studied geoscience, prehistory and palaeoanthroplogy, but only out of interest, never worked in the subject. I try to keep myself informed by browsing thourgh the (paid) publications of a few journals.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Green Baron

[KG3]

There is an awful lot to keep up with, but I do enjoy trying!

[Green Baron]

Many actually dedicate some time every day to keep up with their respective subject ...

[KG3]

6 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Vvott ? I'd like to see a publication in a peer reviewed medical journal that says so. Not everyone wearing a lab coat is actually a scientist ! The consensus is "Smoking kills by causing cancer !". I can't imagine that an upright medical scientist says otherwise, or he/she was bribed to doing so.

There was a time...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement

The tobacco companies fought against the emerging science by producing their own science, which suggested that existing science was incomplete and that the industry was not motivated by self-interest.[11] With the creation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, headed by accomplished scientist C.C. Little, the tobacco companies manufactured doubt and turned scientific findings into a topic of debate. The recruitment of credentialed scientists like Little who were skeptics was a crucial aspect of the tobacco companies' social engineering plan to establish credibility against anti-smoking reports. By amplifying the voices of a few skeptical scientists, the industry created an illusion that the larger scientific community had not reached a conclusive agreement on the link between smoking and cancer.

 

 

[Green Baron]

Yeah, between the wars and until the early 60s smoking was even recommended to people with a low blood pressure. The downsides weren't known or seen.

But the link you posted was never based on scientific publications, in contrary, the article mentions several published papers in the early 50s that connect smoking directly to lung cancer. Science lives in such publications, not in company driven propaganda and advertisements.

And after the 70s, in the early 80s, if companies then still kept up with this sort of paid and bribed "science" and people still believed it, as a rectification for smoking habits, then they wanted to, which puts 50% of the responsibility into the consumer's hands.

The cause why the review process exists is exactly to part the nonsense from the serious work. That does not totally exclude the possibility of deceit or corruption, but it lessens its occurrence. And there is nothing better until now, in contrary, with the internet and for example pre-print servers, Wikipedia etc. it becomes punctuated. And that is why for example "The march for Science" is so important, to counter attempts to discredit scientific work. But that touches politics ....

Don't get me wrong, serious work doesn't last forever and may be overthrown, but it reflects the momentary view on things. Just last week, it was published that our direct precursors on earth, the Neandertals, had the same mental capabilities with only gradual differences as modern humans. A view that lasted for almost 150 years must be replaced.

 

You are right, keeping up to date isn't trivial if you really want to. Use the official channels if they are not reported to be under political influence and/or pay a bit and support science :-) You're a blacksmith ? How about a journal of metallurgy and material science ? :-)

 

Edit: much of this is just my personal opinion, of course.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Green Baron

[KG3]

17 hours ago, Green Baron said:

 

The cause why the review process exists is exactly to part the nonsense from the serious work. That does not totally exclude the possibility of deceit or corruption, but it lessens its occurrence. And there is nothing better until now, in contrary, with the internet and for example pre-print servers, Wikipedia etc. it becomes punctuated. And that is why for example "The march for Science" is so important, to counter attempts to discredit scientific work. But that touches politics ....

Don't get me wrong, serious work doesn't last forever and may be overthrown, but it reflects the momentary view on things. Just last week, it was published that our direct precursors on earth, the Neandertals, had the same mental capabilities with only gradual differences as modern humans. A view that lasted for almost 150 years must be replaced.

You are right, keeping up to date isn't trivial if you really want to. Use the official channels if they are not reported to be under political influence and/or pay a bit and support science :-) You're a blacksmith ? How about a journal of metallurgy and material science ? :-)

  The internet is an amazing resource.  I was born in 1965 so I remember some of the moon landings (the ones after 1970 or so).  Sure everyone thought the rockets were amazing but not many people new anything about how they worked, at least not the kids and adults where I lived.  We certainly didn't have people discussing the merits of different rocket fuels, engines, strategies for getting into space and such as there seems to be now!  I must say the KSP community and moderators here seem to do a great job of answering peoples questions and steering them to useful resources.  It's really easy to make people feel stupid (even unintentionally) when they ask a question but it seems like people here are quite helpful, at least going by the tiny fraction of the millions of posts I've read.  

  I do have great faith in the scientific method.  I'm particularly fond of astronomy and feel lucky to live at a time that's seen so much progress in this field.  Hubble, Chandra, Swift, WISE, Kepler, ROSAT and the soon to be James Webb just to name a few in orbit!  Also the 8.2 m(!!) Subaru, the10 m(!!!!) Keck telescopes on the ground.  LIGO on line!  And many many other observatories as well.  Plus the technology available to amateurs that allows them to work alongside professionals.      

 http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/amateur-astronomer-captures-supernovas-first-light/  

[The pixel was initially so faint that Buso didn´t recognize it as a supernova right away. Nevertheless suspicious that the bright spot might be something interesting, he reached out to some professional astronomers — only to find that none were available. Then he called another amateur astronomer, Sebastian Otero, a member of the American Association of Variable Observers (AAVSO). Otero helped Buso send an international warning for other astronomers to follow up. Both amateurs are receiving credit as coauthors of the research article published in the February 22nd Nature.]

  

  Yes I am a blacksmith or actually a farrier (I shoe horses), there is a slight difference between the two.  I use hammer, tongs, anvil and forge to make and shape horseshoes to be applied to horses feet.  I was at a contest just last week in Kentucky (yes we have horseshoeing contests).  A guy there showed me a set of tongs that he had made out of titanium that he travels with to save weight in his luggage! 

[Green Baron]

Nature Astronomy is a nice condensed source i think, and not as pricey as some other journals. Yes, it happens sometimes that lay astronomers point the professionals to a new discovery :-)

 

[YNM]

Science isn't a result - science is the process. Which is why you have scientific theories and not science theories (alright, there is - but they tend to change or they're rather simply a rational thing to take, like Occam's razor and such).

The big problem is that rational and convenience sometimes lie too close to each other.