Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#571

Post by hackerlight »

zmgsabst wrote: post #541
hackerlight wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not dismissing any particular argument. I'm dismissing the attitude espoused in comments like this: > Try challenging climate science, even in a valid way, and see how popular it is on reddit or HN or twitter. It is an attitude that is a hallmark of cranks of all forms who think they've pierced the veil, but almost inevitably they have fallen for some distorted thinking that they can't see beyond due to the limit…

> It is an attitude that is a hallmark of cranks of all forms who think they've pierced the vale And labeling groups who disagree with them as “heretics”, “crazies”, “cranks”, etc is how the orthodoxy censors — as they’ve done for thousands of years. That the orthodoxy seeks to censors dissent rather than address it, particularly when ignoring their own ridiculous members (eg, Al Gore and Greta Thunberg making absurd…

> And labeling groups who disagree with them as “heretics”, “crazies”, “cranks”, etc is how the orthodoxy censors

It's also how you accurately describe people who actually are cranks, such as creationists, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, and so on. That these labels can sometimes be wrongly weaponized doesn't mean that such descriptions aren't also sometimes accurate and helpful.

It's useful to have a unifying descriptive label because it reflects the fact that all these groups of people are similar in one important way: they think there exists an orthodoxy that are stifling any questioning of an official narrative. When, in reality, this "orthodoxy" are simply a group of people who know more about the topic than you, and who view the crank in the same way that you view flat earthers. As people with distorted thinking who have advanced an argument that is entirely void of merit.

> That the orthodoxy seeks to censors dissent rather than address it

How do you think biologists should deal with the claims of creationists? That's not a rhetorical question. There are many, many groups with a grievance against the "orthodoxy", who harbour perceptions of being ignored/censored Do you think creationists are unfairly treated by biologists? Or do you think biologists are correct to ignore them? If you think biologists are correct in doing so, doesn't that violate the principles you've outlined?

> (eg, Al Gore and Greta Thunberg making absurd statements)

Climate activists != climatologists.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#572

Post by josefx »

forward-slashed wrote: post #565

It's sad to see people accept the credibility of this article simply because it's from Nature. The author himself is a freelance science journalist (with no real expertise in the field), so this article is not worth any more of our attention than many twitter threads. You can gauge the trustworthiness yourself here: https://x.com/dangaristo?s=21&t=lI9nNO9bkbL1YKFrdIw_Tg

So what about the sources he cites, are those also from freelance science journalists? Or are you going after the messenger because you can't attack the message?

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#573

Post by fsh »

forward-slashed wrote: post #565

It's sad to see people accept the credibility of this article simply because it's from Nature. The author himself is a freelance science journalist (with no real expertise in the field), so this article is not worth any more of our attention than many twitter threads. You can gauge the trustworthiness yourself here: https://x.com/dangaristo?s=21&t=lI9nNO9bkbL1YKFrdIw_Tg

I accept the credibility of the article because it is very well written (far above any twitter thread on the issue that I have seen), and it cites high-quality sources. In my experience, the news section of nature contains some of the best science journalism out there.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#574

Post by wesleywt »

forward-slashed wrote: post #565

It's sad to see people accept the credibility of this article simply because it's from Nature. The author himself is a freelance science journalist (with no real expertise in the field), so this article is not worth any more of our attention than many twitter threads. You can gauge the trustworthiness yourself here: https://x.com/dangaristo?s=21&t=lI9nNO9bkbL1YKFrdIw_Tg

Do not judge for yourself because you are not a dense material scientist. Comments like these pose themselves as intelligent. But intelligent people know that they don't have the expertise to judge everything and do defer to experts in the field. And the experts currently are not able to replicate the findings.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#575

Post by glenngillen »

penjelly wrote: post #392
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instead of "the excitement was good for everyone" they might realize these hoaxes harm scientific integrity. Totally disagree. If anything, this whole episode (debacle?) reinforced the fact that science works and the process played out exactly how the scientific process should work: 1. First, the paper was originally posted on arxiv, meaning it was a pre-print and didn't go through any peer review. So the vast majo…

good points. I can agree to that. However, I do think something did break down and I think your assessment below is more accurate than my initial take. > One may argue that this was really a failure in media communication vs. the actual underlying science the scientific process and scientists here are innocent, media not so much in my eyes.

While we’re talking about things working as they should, even when frequently the opposite is true… what a wonderful discourse this was between two people disagreeing and then coming to find common ground. Thank you for providing such a great example to all of us.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#576

Post by wesleywt »

forward-slashed wrote: post #568
firtoz wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it right or is it wrong?

I care about the process of determining truth. If one does expert deferral, then they should do so properly. Sadly Nature is expending their social capital as a scientific journal to pivot to a typical news organization. If one is up to date with sc news, this article should not affect their beliefs. But maybe some people are happy that they can share an article from Nature to convince their friends.

What did Nature do wrong in this case. Be specific. And show us where the findings are replicated. That should be easy.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#577

Post by fsh »

forward-slashed wrote: post #568
firtoz wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it right or is it wrong?

I care about the process of determining truth. If one does expert deferral, then they should do so properly. Sadly Nature is expending their social capital as a scientific journal to pivot to a typical news organization. If one is up to date with sc news, this article should not affect their beliefs. But maybe some people are happy that they can share an article from Nature to convince their friends.

Nature has had a news section since 1869 [1]. There are many things to criticise about them, but the science journalism is not one of them.

[1] https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/1/issues/2#News

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#578

Post by nullc »

calibas wrote: post #553
nullc wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hm? "superconductors that levitate over magnets" == type-II, type-II can be spun and held upside-down.

Yes, and I though the claim was that LK-99 was a type-I superconductor.

Ah. I wasn't aware that people were claiming that-- I guess it was an effort to explain why there was apparent diamagnetism but no clear demonstrations of flux pinning.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#579

Post by exmadscientist »

parker_mountain wrote: post #440
exmadscientist wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, uh, I wouldn't. There was a B- or C-list physics blogger a few years back whose graduate homework I used to grade. (I still remember this one, so that should tell you something.) He got very angry that I gave him zero credit for one particular question. But he: - did not use the standard/expected approach to this problem - did not explain what he was doing well enough for me to find him any partial credit (this…

I didn't say authority, and I didn't say trust blindly. I just said I'd trust someone with baseline qualifications over a random (presumably unqualified) person. lmao

My point is that this person has baseline qualifications (Physics PhD!), was accepted by the media as "qualified" to be a blogger, and yet was still a complete god damned moron even in his own field of "specialization".

It wouldn't have made such an impact except that he was getting paid to publicly write about this stuff, at the same time he was privately incompetent. A stellar example of the Gell-Mann Effect (aka Amnesia) if ever there was one.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#580

Post by exmadscientist »

ajani wrote: post #305
exmadscientist wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, uh, I wouldn't. There was a B- or C-list physics blogger a few years back whose graduate homework I used to grade. (I still remember this one, so that should tell you something.) He got very angry that I gave him zero credit for one particular question. But he: - did not use the standard/expected approach to this problem - did not explain what he was doing well enough for me to find him any partial credit (this…

Which point would be enough by itself for you to discount him totally?

Honestly? His mannerisms was all we really needed. He was not well liked in his year, and that takes some doing to achieve these days. The smug "how could I be wrong" when he was, well, 26 orders of magnitude wrong, is special even by entitled scientist standards.
Post reply on HN