|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2023 16:58:06 GMT
We will have to agree to disagree. Anton is fine (speech impediment aside) but his channel simply doesn't go anywhere near Thunderfoot's better material. Thundefoot isn't just sharing (re-reading) what has read in a popular science publication, he is providing instruction on how to de-clutter and evaluate stuff independently. There is a lot of nonsense flying around the technical sphere presently and lot of it gains currency because people don't have a proper grasp of basics and are unable to confidently apply simple reasoning to those basics - because they have never been shown how to. If you catch Thunderfoot out of his domain - ie talking about anything other than engineering, chemistry, physics etc, he can be a bit of an idiot. He has, for instance, the political opinions he is told to have,
Anton is good for what he does, which is a casual overview of what has come out in the scientific journals and he covers a lot of different topics, and is often associated with space and cosmology, as per a good all-rounder. He's accurate as well. I never find any errors in his work.
Regarding this topic though, if you want to get down to business it is bloody complicated. Anton is fine for what he provides - ie a re-reading of popular science publications. He chooses well etc. If you want anything more, you aren't going to get it from Anton. I find it a bit 'so so' because there is no exploratory content. Like i said earlier, this isn't really a technical issue, it's more to do with how to evaluate information efficiently. We don't have full, fleshed out models for superconductivity and so the claim can't be evaluated on any theoretical basis. The fact that they claimed superconductivity, but left out any key information that would show superconductivity was a bit of a red flag. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 12, 2023 17:52:24 GMT
Anton is good for what he does, which is a casual overview of what has come out in the scientific journals and he covers a lot of different topics, and is often associated with space and cosmology, as per a good all-rounder. He's accurate as well. I never find any errors in his work.
Regarding this topic though, if you want to get down to business it is bloody complicated. Anton is fine for what he provides - ie a re-reading of popular science publications. He chooses well etc. If you want anything more, you aren't going to get it from Anton. I find it a bit 'so so' because there is no exploratory content. Like i said earlier, this isn't really a technical issue, it's more to do with how to evaluate information efficiently. We don't have full, fleshed out models for superconductivity and so the claim can't be evaluated on any theoretical basis. The fact that they claimed superconductivity, but left out any key information that would show superconductivity was a bit of a red flag. Indeed it did look sloppy, but firstly it was work in progress and secondly, I think you will find many brilliant Chinese at least who publish where the style is distinctly different to the sort of thing you would expect in a Western paper. They are a bit more casual and they are very succinct. It really does take your head a bit of adaptation to see it as it would be viewed in China. Korea I know less about, but it seems to me the Koreans are a little bit similar. There's quite a bit of culture that is shared in the East Asian region. Still I have many unanswered questions myself about it. LK99 is so named because it refers to the date of 1999. Could it have taken them this long to actually get the result in a genuine way? Is the crystal structure so critical that these null results are what you would expect. It's easy to think, oh it is probably fraud, but even if we investigated that route there is no evidence of it. With other dodgy fraudsters, if you look at their history you often see tell-tale signs. I don't see anything here either. Then again it might have been a mistake, although normally people admit to it when it is. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 2, 2023 14:35:10 GMT
I have just found my local public library offers me a free and never ending subscription to the ‘international’ version of new scientist.
Which in its 12th August edition has a paper on this very topic.
I’m off for a well earned all inclusive all the gin i can swill holiday soon. The android phone is coming with me and i shall enjoy reading the details on an article whose executive summary was ‘sounds good but nobody has repeated it yet’
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 2, 2023 15:05:18 GMT
I have just found my local public library offers me a free and never ending subscription to the ‘international’ version of new scientist. Which in its 12th August edition has a paper on this very topic. I’m off for a well earned all inclusive all the gin i can swill holiday soon. The android phone is coming with me and i shall enjoy reading the details on an article whose executive summary was ‘sounds good but nobody has repeated it yet’ Enjoy your forth comming vacation mate... |
|
|
|
Post by besoeker3 on Sept 2, 2023 15:09:06 GMT
Anton is fine for what he provides - ie a re-reading of popular science publications. He chooses well etc. If you want anything more, you aren't going to get it from Anton. I find it a bit 'so so' because there is no exploratory content. Like i said earlier, this isn't really a technical issue, it's more to do with how to evaluate information efficiently. We don't have full, fleshed out models for superconductivity and so the claim can't be evaluated on any theoretical basis. The fact that they claimed superconductivity, but left out any key information that would show superconductivity was a bit of a red flag. Indeed it did look sloppy, but firstly it was work in progress and secondly, I think you will find many brilliant Chinese at least who publish where the style is distinctly different to the sort of thing you would expect in a Western paper. They are a bit more casual and they are very succinct. It really does take your head a bit of adaptation to see it as it would be viewed in China. Korea I know less about, but it seems to me the Koreans are a little bit similar. There's quite a bit of culture that is shared in the East Asian region. Still I have many unanswered questions myself about it. LK99 is so named because it refers to the date of 1999. Could it have taken them this long to actually get the result in a genuine way? Is the crystal structure so critical that these null results are what you would expect. It's easy to think, oh it is probably fraud, but even if we investigated that route there is no evidence of it. With other dodgy fraudsters, if you look at their history you often see tell-tale signs. I don't see anything here either. Then again it might have been a mistake, although normally people admit to it when it is. |
|
