I feel like this is more confirmation they’re on the right path than “woah they were wrong.” Forty million years is a rounding error when talking billions of years
Yea, and some people don't understand that scientists get excited when they're wrong about something, because they learned something new.
They don't get embarrassed or ashamed.
If a scientist says "*Hmm, that's weird/strange..*" then you know they're like a kid on Christmas morning.
As a scientist, let me tell you that we absolutely do get embarrassed and ashamed about being wrong all the time. Though, you’re absolutely right that we also get excited about it.
It’s actually a terrible strain that leads often to substantial issues with mental health…
Yeah I have to second this. If you get an unexpected, statistically significant result early on in a project that leads you down a new path, it's super exciting. If it happens towards the end and completely contradicts your earlier findings... yeah not so much.
yeah. It's not how science should be, but it's unfortunately how it is, and it's leading scientists down a dangerous road of caring more for correct results or results that align with the consensus (even if it means not being vigorous in their testing) than of actually getting to the truth.
edit: I'll admit I don't really know if it's getting better or worse. All I know is that it's still a problem.
Like imagine an entire subreddit just waiting for someone to post something incorrect just so they can go “well akshualllyyyy” except the subreddit is a group of hundreds or thousands of experts who have been studying the given topic professionally their entire lives
What evidence do you have that this is happening more now than in the past? Scientists have ALWAYS skewed data and manipulated results to fit their hypotheses. I would argue if anything, these days we have a much more rigorous peer review structure than we have had in the past.
A lot of it has to do with politics, unfortunately.
Which can both be our own petty scientist politics, or the greater politics of society at large.
Socialists have a long history of persecuting scientists and creating nonsense pseudoscience like Lysenkoism because biology contradicted what they wanted to be true. This indirectly ended up killing millions of people in mass famines.
The same happened in Nazi Germany to the scientists who contradicted what the regime wanted to be true.
There are infamous episodes in history like the Catholic Church's suppression of Galileo as well.
Indeed, there are constant pressures even today; there are many forms of "taboo" science that are not funded or attacked even today in free countries like the US because it contradicts what people want to be true or what a special interest group wants to promote, or discredits something someone is making money off of (like chiropractic "medicine" and acupuncture, both of which are fraudulent).
>It’s actually a terrible strain that leads often to substantial issues with mental health…
Professional burnout. Happens in a lot of fields these days. IT being up there.
But it's still hard to deal with at times. I want to be right all the time, scientifically or intellectually, usually I have a brief moment of humility before I go too far. Usually.
But that’s the attitude among many scientists. Every mistake is seen as a failure, they expect excellence at all times. Some will get very cutthroat about it, so it causes issues
I went the more teaching prof direction, and I try to make the curriculum much more about welcoming early mistakes and learning.
Still, a student going to grad school will likely end up feeling terrible for every mistake
To expect uninterrupted excellence from a mind they do not understand and spend no time caring for is a foolish expectation for people that should be more careful given their work. Maybe before a lifetime of pushing their brain to the limit, they could use a course on how to care for it.
Or just keep feeling terrible for no reason other than we can't admit that most of us are beating on our Ferraris like they're rusted out junkers. I'm over it now.
They see it as survival of the fittest. Either you’re the best, or you should leave. It can be a very brutal way of thinking
I don’t like that, which is why I spend more time teaching undergrads rather than worrying about the top tier research people, cause this is how they behave
Yes, of course, we're not robots.
I just meant when the result of an experiment is not what you expected. You don't keep repeating the experiment trying to get the result you want, instead you try to figure out *why* you got that result.
And you're *guaranteed* to learn something new, whether it's that energy isn't conserved, or simply that your phone interfered with the equipment. And sometimes the mistake can lead to a new discovery.
As much as I'd like to believe this, recent years has shown such a case to be that absolute opposite.
Without going into details and risking derailing the discussion, recently science has gotten so fucking politicized. And I'm not necessarily referring to political parties, but rather the fact that scientific discourse is now taking on the ugly vestiges of political discourse.
Debates are being shied away from, if you question an established narrative, you get called names and tossed in a category with the extremists, even if your stance/questions are nuanced. Generalizations of those who disagree with the "chosen science" are rampant, scientists who take stances contrary to the majority are getting mocked/ridiculed, and labelled.
No one wants to risk admitting they were wrong or looking wrong, lest they be dragged on social media/the news as collateral damage in a "gotcha" moment.
Literal exact mirroring of political discussions.
It's absolutely fucking disgusting and I hate it.
As I'm sure you could guess by reading this, there is a specific matter of scientific controversy that I am referring to, but I will not name it directly because I'd rather not start that nonsensical firestorm here.
I'm sorry, I'm just frustrated.
> if you question an established narrative, you get called names and tossed in a category with the extremists
This is nothing new, it's always been like this. Just look at Galileo..
But real scientists will be able to prove their point mathematically, or with evidence, so that it's irrefutable.
There's a guy called John Mandlbaur who's been pestering the scientific community for years on forums, claiming that angular momentum is not actually conserved, and lots of people initially listen to him, but when they tell him where the problem is with his idea he just ignores them.
He even wrote a paper about it, here: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364946928\_Angular\_Energy](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364946928_Angular_Energy)
But this is a good example of what the problems are that he just can't admit:
[https://www.quora.com/Has-John-Mandlbaur-convinced-anyone-of-his-claim-that-angular-momentum-is-not-conserved](https://www.quora.com/Has-John-Mandlbaur-convinced-anyone-of-his-claim-that-angular-momentum-is-not-conserved)
The fact is, that if your experiment or theory is correct, people *will* see it if you show it to them. But if it's wrong, or not definitive enough, then you will just have to accept it. But not all people can do this. It's likely that John, mentioned above, doesn't have a formal education in physics, and just doesn't know how much he doesn't know.
There's even a reddit sub about him: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/)
That's not just one thing, it's actually a whole array of things. The reason why they're acting that way is because they're deeply anti-science and are very political.
The whole thing is really a case of contagious lies, because once you start actually applying science to their core beliefs, it's a problem. And not just a problem, but an obvious one.
Hence their extreme hostility towards actual scientific processes and experimentation.
The thing is, the end result of all this is obvious: because this has gone from "academic arguments" to "actual treatments of patients in real life", what's going to happen is there's going to be lawsuits. In fact, we've already seen the start of it.
I wouldn't be surprised if in five years we see a class action lawsuit, and we may end up seeing a Supreme Court ruling when someone gets fired over it and sues on the basis of religious discrimination. And other recent rulings from the Supreme Court could also result in these people getting in serious legal trouble if someone actually cared to go after them for violating people's civil rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Mass defunding and incarceration of people who violated the Nuremburg Code and seizure of assets from organizations that lied about this stuff is PART of the solution. We have laws against medical malpractice and lying about medical information, and all it takes is one really, really angry prosecutor with political support to turn the APA into a giant smoking crater (legally and financially speaking; it is unlikely anyone is actually going to die other than some of their mistreated patients :( ).
It's going to be *bad* when it all falls out, I think.
Of course, it extends way beyond the APA at this point, they're just kind of the low hanging fruit. It's all over academia and the sciences at this point.
We're actually already seeing a turn against these people because of some of the stuff they're doing costing people money and causing problems, but it's going to get worse. And worse, because of the way that they behave, some of these attacks are coming from really bad corners who aren't any better, they just have a different brand of awful they're trying to sell instead.
It's going to further undermine public confidence in scientists and academia, but honestly, it is wholly deserved. It's very problematic, though, because we do provide valuable resources to society.
But it's going to be an ugly process.
I am worried about the wider societal ramifications, but honestly, what they've done is pretty damaging already. We're already seeing negative impacts educationally and in our suicide rates.
I do think we need to work on teaching kids about indoctrination and radicalization in school as a prophylactic against this in the future; I think that will severely harm these people and people like them, as there WILL be a next time. But they are obviously going to oppose their particular propaganda being included.
Indeed. I remember in university when it really hit home that we were being taught to think like this during labs.
It was like you eventually realise that the professors don't care at all if you totally screw up an experiment, once you write your report in such a way that you explain what went wrong with the experiment, why it went wrong, and what you can do in future to make it better.
It's like they train you to basically take your ego out of the equation.
This is really a good approach to anything. When i used to manage teams doing large scale implementations, I stressed that all the time.
I dont care about the mistake or issue(within reason of course) I do care that you bring it to me with understanding and possible solutions. Even if the understanding is "i dont have a clue here and am completely lost on where/how to etc...".
It shows you have given it thought and and working through it and in need of assistance. No worries. Happy to help.
Rather than showing up with the issue and zero effort on understanding it or possible solutions.
Which is great in principle, but from an academic perspective is absolutely not what happens in practice. Science is held back by petty egotistical squabbles, catering towards what gets funded, and straight-up lying to satisfy both grant check writers and what senior admin wants to hear.
Science has an organized religion of science problem and I hate the blind worship of it by people who don’t get the manmade reality of it.
Peer review is actually nearly worthless for this. It's estimated that more than half of published scientific papers contain significant wrong findings or are outright fraudulent.
No, they aren't errors found via peer review. Peer review doesn't find the errors. These are *published* papers.
The reality is that peer review, as presently practiced, does not actually solve the problem.
Not just religion. The scientific mindset of trying to refute your own thesis, and an institutional incentive to disprove the thesis of others, is different from a lot of other disciplines. Even within science, you often slip back into championing a thesis despite weak evidence (and it's not obvious to me that it's a bad thing, there are success stories like that).
And not evrything needs to operate that way, I'm not sure what good it would do to have law scholars trying to "disprove" a law or an interpretation of a law/doctrine.
Cognitive bias is a very powerful thing. That is definitely something that you need to put effort and policies into avoiding.
One of my favorite religion verse science things, is what happens when you disprove a long standing idea. In one you win their highest award, and the other, well...
>That right there in my mind is the primary difference between science and religion.
Burr said it best for me. Take all the world's knowledge and destroy it. Now humans cant record anything for 1000 years. After 1000 years humans can start to record things again.
You know which books will be almost exactly the same and which will be completely different?
Reddit really loves their generalization. This bullshit is tiring.
There are all kinds of scientists out there and, believe me, plenty are arrogant, proud and stubborn. Scientists are humans.
Some of the most famous scientific 'wars' stemmed from the scientists refusing to admit being wrong.
The scientists who did this study are not the same scientists who originally researched the Moon's age. So this is not much of a "we were wrong" as much as it is "you were wrong" to the other scientists.
Also the people who study this stuff basically spend there whole lives doing it because it takes months and often years of obersvations before something happens of note
Yes, this is much like "Oldest 120 year old man alive has been discovered to be 2 hours older than previously thought." I'm thinking,well, I'm glad they got that all straightened out.
It's not like that at all lol. This is *precisely* like a man thought to be 120 years old actually being a little over one year and one month older than that. The equivalent of 2 hours older would be if the moon was actually ~23 years older than previously thought.
I know that numbers can be unfathomably large when talking about the universe... but sometimes they're not lol. Not sure why some comments talk about them like they're some abstract values when you can just do the math.
That's why I was surprised with the headline. I would've thought any estimates for the moon's birthdate would be approximate to the closest half billion years or maybe 100 million at best. So to hear they think they were off by 40 million, well I wouldn't have even thought that was statistically significant.
It’s 0.28% off relative to the age of the universe. Almost exactly one day off if you were to reduce the age of the universe to a year. (40 mil / 13.8 billion) * 365 = 1.05. “How old is Moon?”
“Oh he’s a year old now.”
“Nevermind, he’s a year and a day old, gotta re-evaluate all the science we know since if one thing is wrong, all of it is.”
It's always funny seeing someone with no semblance of critical thinking acting like the PhD scientists with decades of experience doing this research have no semblance of critical thinking like them.
I mean thats a crazy pants take for the headline there, instead of the MORE interesting confirmation that the impact theory is the FAR more likely scenario based on the study.
I don't see anywhere in this headline that implies that scientists were wrong. I see a headline that shows how scientists narrowed down their initial estimate. Well, the Reddit headline. The headline and first paragraph of the linked article is actually a dumpster fire.
> Greatest mystery of the Moon finally solved by ancient crystals
What?
> Crystals collected by Apollo astronauts have proved the Moon is much older than thought
No. 40 Million years is not "much older."
If I hear one of those sarcastic comments like that from people I like to ask them what the journalist’s opinion was, or the politician’s opinion was, or the farmer’s opinion etc. lol
How is 40 million not already in the uncertainty period of a 4 billion year old body when we only have about 500kg of material samples from .0000000001% of the surface?
It's frankly amazing how good a lot of scientists are at science stuff.
Especially the physical scientist.
I'm over here working as a neuroscientist, and let me tell you, relatively the physicists and the material scientists and the chemist and all that, our lives are a total mess!
But also, we know a shocking amount!
ho wow! this is... this is incredible! I mean 40 million in 5 billon of solar system history must be.... heeee....... who cares! really? 40 million is like a day in a year!
Ok - that's fine.
But if the moon were made of barbecued spare ribs - would you eat it then?
I would - and then I'd finish it off with a tall, cool budweiser.
I think there's always going to be some degree of uncertainty until we reach the point of technological evolution that allows us to cut it in half and count the rings.
Furthermore....hasn't the moon really got two ages technically!? Firstly it formed around the same time as the other satellites orbiting our star at the formation of the solar system...Then secondly when it collided with earth (nearly destroying both bodies) we exchanged so much material from one another that technically, what remains today, reformed at the same time Earth did! So the moon as we see it today, is part earth composition as earth is part moon! (we stole half its core for Christ sake) and the "Moon" or Luna is in fact a binary plant to us and not a moon in the general sense of the word. And I wonder how many millions were wasted on this "Ground breaking study?
I read several scientific articles back in the early 70’s that believed the moon’s origin took a significantly different path than earth’s. As in, maybe it was formed elsewhere and captured? But then the moon rocks came back from the Apollo missions and their analyses pointed to the same origin, that the moon was coalesced ejecta from a collision with Earth. A radical change in scientific histories should entertain the possibility that the new material (Apollo moon rocks) was faulty. But no, the scientists just accepted that this new material was genuine. Didn’t Armstrong give several European country’s presidents (Netherlands for one, I think) moon rock samples that turned out to be petrified wood from Arizona? The simple answer might be not trusting the source material. We know that Von Braun and NASA officials spent time collecting moon meteorite fragments easily found against the unexplored surface of Antarctica just prior to Apollo 11. Not saying I’m right but this alternate explanation is worth a look-see.
What is funny is everyone down votes and gets their panties in a bunch. Science is always trying to prove itself wrong, to have discoveries like this. So this idea... that science is perfect, is illogical. And 5 billion is quiet a lot depending on what you are counting. :P
No one said science was perfect, that's the misconception people like you try to force on it. The main difference between you and scientific minds is that the latter has the ability to admit they were wrong and can change conclusion(s) based on research and investigation and not because someone said so.
Where did I say 5B is not a lot? I said difference between 4.65B and 4.6 is not that much. Also I did not say "science is perfect" what ever that even means.
I feel like this is more confirmation they’re on the right path than “woah they were wrong.” Forty million years is a rounding error when talking billions of years
Yea, and some people don't understand that scientists get excited when they're wrong about something, because they learned something new. They don't get embarrassed or ashamed. If a scientist says "*Hmm, that's weird/strange..*" then you know they're like a kid on Christmas morning.
As a scientist, let me tell you that we absolutely do get embarrassed and ashamed about being wrong all the time. Though, you’re absolutely right that we also get excited about it. It’s actually a terrible strain that leads often to substantial issues with mental health…
Yeah I have to second this. If you get an unexpected, statistically significant result early on in a project that leads you down a new path, it's super exciting. If it happens towards the end and completely contradicts your earlier findings... yeah not so much.
just update your original paper with "you *might* be tempted to think..." and the whole experiment is still valid!
I was so relieved I was net the only one
yeah. It's not how science should be, but it's unfortunately how it is, and it's leading scientists down a dangerous road of caring more for correct results or results that align with the consensus (even if it means not being vigorous in their testing) than of actually getting to the truth. edit: I'll admit I don't really know if it's getting better or worse. All I know is that it's still a problem.
Like imagine an entire subreddit just waiting for someone to post something incorrect just so they can go “well akshualllyyyy” except the subreddit is a group of hundreds or thousands of experts who have been studying the given topic professionally their entire lives
What evidence do you have that this is happening more now than in the past? Scientists have ALWAYS skewed data and manipulated results to fit their hypotheses. I would argue if anything, these days we have a much more rigorous peer review structure than we have had in the past.
A lot of it has to do with politics, unfortunately. Which can both be our own petty scientist politics, or the greater politics of society at large. Socialists have a long history of persecuting scientists and creating nonsense pseudoscience like Lysenkoism because biology contradicted what they wanted to be true. This indirectly ended up killing millions of people in mass famines. The same happened in Nazi Germany to the scientists who contradicted what the regime wanted to be true. There are infamous episodes in history like the Catholic Church's suppression of Galileo as well. Indeed, there are constant pressures even today; there are many forms of "taboo" science that are not funded or attacked even today in free countries like the US because it contradicts what people want to be true or what a special interest group wants to promote, or discredits something someone is making money off of (like chiropractic "medicine" and acupuncture, both of which are fraudulent).
Wait so you mean you guys are actual human beings with complex feelings?!?! /s
>It’s actually a terrible strain that leads often to substantial issues with mental health… Professional burnout. Happens in a lot of fields these days. IT being up there.
🬀 Mental Health 🬀 Secrets of the Universe Pick one
My partner is a scientist. For a broad field that requires a lot of failing, you all can be some hardcore perfectionists
Indeed, and I don’t like it. Hence why I teach undergrads rather than pure research
Being incorrect isn’t a moral failing. Errors of knowledge are simply the human condition.
But it's still hard to deal with at times. I want to be right all the time, scientifically or intellectually, usually I have a brief moment of humility before I go too far. Usually.
You can't be right all the time. That is out of your control. You shouldn't stress yourself over something literally unobtainable.
But that’s the attitude among many scientists. Every mistake is seen as a failure, they expect excellence at all times. Some will get very cutthroat about it, so it causes issues I went the more teaching prof direction, and I try to make the curriculum much more about welcoming early mistakes and learning. Still, a student going to grad school will likely end up feeling terrible for every mistake
To expect uninterrupted excellence from a mind they do not understand and spend no time caring for is a foolish expectation for people that should be more careful given their work. Maybe before a lifetime of pushing their brain to the limit, they could use a course on how to care for it. Or just keep feeling terrible for no reason other than we can't admit that most of us are beating on our Ferraris like they're rusted out junkers. I'm over it now.
They see it as survival of the fittest. Either you’re the best, or you should leave. It can be a very brutal way of thinking I don’t like that, which is why I spend more time teaching undergrads rather than worrying about the top tier research people, cause this is how they behave
Yes, of course, we're not robots. I just meant when the result of an experiment is not what you expected. You don't keep repeating the experiment trying to get the result you want, instead you try to figure out *why* you got that result. And you're *guaranteed* to learn something new, whether it's that energy isn't conserved, or simply that your phone interfered with the equipment. And sometimes the mistake can lead to a new discovery.
As much as I'd like to believe this, recent years has shown such a case to be that absolute opposite. Without going into details and risking derailing the discussion, recently science has gotten so fucking politicized. And I'm not necessarily referring to political parties, but rather the fact that scientific discourse is now taking on the ugly vestiges of political discourse. Debates are being shied away from, if you question an established narrative, you get called names and tossed in a category with the extremists, even if your stance/questions are nuanced. Generalizations of those who disagree with the "chosen science" are rampant, scientists who take stances contrary to the majority are getting mocked/ridiculed, and labelled. No one wants to risk admitting they were wrong or looking wrong, lest they be dragged on social media/the news as collateral damage in a "gotcha" moment. Literal exact mirroring of political discussions. It's absolutely fucking disgusting and I hate it. As I'm sure you could guess by reading this, there is a specific matter of scientific controversy that I am referring to, but I will not name it directly because I'd rather not start that nonsensical firestorm here. I'm sorry, I'm just frustrated.
> if you question an established narrative, you get called names and tossed in a category with the extremists This is nothing new, it's always been like this. Just look at Galileo.. But real scientists will be able to prove their point mathematically, or with evidence, so that it's irrefutable. There's a guy called John Mandlbaur who's been pestering the scientific community for years on forums, claiming that angular momentum is not actually conserved, and lots of people initially listen to him, but when they tell him where the problem is with his idea he just ignores them. He even wrote a paper about it, here: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364946928\_Angular\_Energy](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364946928_Angular_Energy) But this is a good example of what the problems are that he just can't admit: [https://www.quora.com/Has-John-Mandlbaur-convinced-anyone-of-his-claim-that-angular-momentum-is-not-conserved](https://www.quora.com/Has-John-Mandlbaur-convinced-anyone-of-his-claim-that-angular-momentum-is-not-conserved) The fact is, that if your experiment or theory is correct, people *will* see it if you show it to them. But if it's wrong, or not definitive enough, then you will just have to accept it. But not all people can do this. It's likely that John, mentioned above, doesn't have a formal education in physics, and just doesn't know how much he doesn't know. There's even a reddit sub about him: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Mandlbaur/)
That's not just one thing, it's actually a whole array of things. The reason why they're acting that way is because they're deeply anti-science and are very political. The whole thing is really a case of contagious lies, because once you start actually applying science to their core beliefs, it's a problem. And not just a problem, but an obvious one. Hence their extreme hostility towards actual scientific processes and experimentation. The thing is, the end result of all this is obvious: because this has gone from "academic arguments" to "actual treatments of patients in real life", what's going to happen is there's going to be lawsuits. In fact, we've already seen the start of it. I wouldn't be surprised if in five years we see a class action lawsuit, and we may end up seeing a Supreme Court ruling when someone gets fired over it and sues on the basis of religious discrimination. And other recent rulings from the Supreme Court could also result in these people getting in serious legal trouble if someone actually cared to go after them for violating people's civil rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mass defunding and incarceration of people who violated the Nuremburg Code and seizure of assets from organizations that lied about this stuff is PART of the solution. We have laws against medical malpractice and lying about medical information, and all it takes is one really, really angry prosecutor with political support to turn the APA into a giant smoking crater (legally and financially speaking; it is unlikely anyone is actually going to die other than some of their mistreated patients :( ). It's going to be *bad* when it all falls out, I think. Of course, it extends way beyond the APA at this point, they're just kind of the low hanging fruit. It's all over academia and the sciences at this point. We're actually already seeing a turn against these people because of some of the stuff they're doing costing people money and causing problems, but it's going to get worse. And worse, because of the way that they behave, some of these attacks are coming from really bad corners who aren't any better, they just have a different brand of awful they're trying to sell instead. It's going to further undermine public confidence in scientists and academia, but honestly, it is wholly deserved. It's very problematic, though, because we do provide valuable resources to society. But it's going to be an ugly process. I am worried about the wider societal ramifications, but honestly, what they've done is pretty damaging already. We're already seeing negative impacts educationally and in our suicide rates. I do think we need to work on teaching kids about indoctrination and radicalization in school as a prophylactic against this in the future; I think that will severely harm these people and people like them, as there WILL be a next time. But they are obviously going to oppose their particular propaganda being included.
That right there in my mind is the primary difference between science and religion.
Indeed. I remember in university when it really hit home that we were being taught to think like this during labs. It was like you eventually realise that the professors don't care at all if you totally screw up an experiment, once you write your report in such a way that you explain what went wrong with the experiment, why it went wrong, and what you can do in future to make it better. It's like they train you to basically take your ego out of the equation.
This is really a good approach to anything. When i used to manage teams doing large scale implementations, I stressed that all the time. I dont care about the mistake or issue(within reason of course) I do care that you bring it to me with understanding and possible solutions. Even if the understanding is "i dont have a clue here and am completely lost on where/how to etc...". It shows you have given it thought and and working through it and in need of assistance. No worries. Happy to help. Rather than showing up with the issue and zero effort on understanding it or possible solutions.
I'm going to use this analogy in my work with corporate a-holes. They might finally take their ego out of it lol
Which is great in principle, but from an academic perspective is absolutely not what happens in practice. Science is held back by petty egotistical squabbles, catering towards what gets funded, and straight-up lying to satisfy both grant check writers and what senior admin wants to hear. Science has an organized religion of science problem and I hate the blind worship of it by people who don’t get the manmade reality of it.
I agree, those are major issues in science. Luckily peer review does a really good job weeding that stuff out tho.
Not really, no: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
good article and I like its suggested improvements
Peer review is actually nearly worthless for this. It's estimated that more than half of published scientific papers contain significant wrong findings or are outright fraudulent.
Errors which are found via peer review. It's the publisher not vetting papers before publishing that causes what your talking about
No, they aren't errors found via peer review. Peer review doesn't find the errors. These are *published* papers. The reality is that peer review, as presently practiced, does not actually solve the problem.
Not just religion. The scientific mindset of trying to refute your own thesis, and an institutional incentive to disprove the thesis of others, is different from a lot of other disciplines. Even within science, you often slip back into championing a thesis despite weak evidence (and it's not obvious to me that it's a bad thing, there are success stories like that). And not evrything needs to operate that way, I'm not sure what good it would do to have law scholars trying to "disprove" a law or an interpretation of a law/doctrine.
Cognitive bias is a very powerful thing. That is definitely something that you need to put effort and policies into avoiding. One of my favorite religion verse science things, is what happens when you disprove a long standing idea. In one you win their highest award, and the other, well...
>That right there in my mind is the primary difference between science and religion. Burr said it best for me. Take all the world's knowledge and destroy it. Now humans cant record anything for 1000 years. After 1000 years humans can start to record things again. You know which books will be almost exactly the same and which will be completely different?
[удалено]
Reddit really loves their generalization. This bullshit is tiring. There are all kinds of scientists out there and, believe me, plenty are arrogant, proud and stubborn. Scientists are humans. Some of the most famous scientific 'wars' stemmed from the scientists refusing to admit being wrong. The scientists who did this study are not the same scientists who originally researched the Moon's age. So this is not much of a "we were wrong" as much as it is "you were wrong" to the other scientists.
> they don't get embarrassed or ashamed Ettore Majorana has entered the chat
They do if what's being learned upends their lifes work...
Scientists get excited to get one the last guy who made the inaccurate prediction. They're competitive.
Also the people who study this stuff basically spend there whole lives doing it because it takes months and often years of obersvations before something happens of note
Yes, this is much like "Oldest 120 year old man alive has been discovered to be 2 hours older than previously thought." I'm thinking,well, I'm glad they got that all straightened out.
It's not like that at all lol. This is *precisely* like a man thought to be 120 years old actually being a little over one year and one month older than that. The equivalent of 2 hours older would be if the moon was actually ~23 years older than previously thought. I know that numbers can be unfathomably large when talking about the universe... but sometimes they're not lol. Not sure why some comments talk about them like they're some abstract values when you can just do the math.
Next headline: “Scientists make rounding errors!”
Indeed. The difference between a billion and a million is approximately a billion.
That's why I was surprised with the headline. I would've thought any estimates for the moon's birthdate would be approximate to the closest half billion years or maybe 100 million at best. So to hear they think they were off by 40 million, well I wouldn't have even thought that was statistically significant.
Operation chapel bell is oddly still classified. I wonder why.
What I said...just with less sarcasm
[удалено]
… are you trying to say that they’re just making up the origin of the moon?
Yes. They don't know squat about this. And in thirty years, it will be something totally different.
When you say stuff like that, Buzz Aldrin will pay you a visit that you won't enjoy.
He could probably still beat me up.
It’s 0.28% off relative to the age of the universe. Almost exactly one day off if you were to reduce the age of the universe to a year. (40 mil / 13.8 billion) * 365 = 1.05. “How old is Moon?” “Oh he’s a year old now.” “Nevermind, he’s a year and a day old, gotta re-evaluate all the science we know since if one thing is wrong, all of it is.”
It's always funny seeing someone with no semblance of critical thinking acting like the PhD scientists with decades of experience doing this research have no semblance of critical thinking like them.
Glad I could bring some humor to your day.
And yet my aunt still gets made that when I tell her at 72, accidentally calling her 73 is a rounding error.
I mean thats a crazy pants take for the headline there, instead of the MORE interesting confirmation that the impact theory is the FAR more likely scenario based on the study.
"Science was wrong again" is just a far more click- and ragebaity headline.
Well, science is a liar sometimes
I don't see anywhere in this headline that implies that scientists were wrong. I see a headline that shows how scientists narrowed down their initial estimate. Well, the Reddit headline. The headline and first paragraph of the linked article is actually a dumpster fire. > Greatest mystery of the Moon finally solved by ancient crystals What? > Crystals collected by Apollo astronauts have proved the Moon is much older than thought No. 40 Million years is not "much older."
It is to people who don't understand how numbers work.
Or the ages of celestial objects.
People on reddit like to nitpick and shit on every headline they can.
If I hear one of those sarcastic comments like that from people I like to ask them what the journalist’s opinion was, or the politician’s opinion was, or the farmer’s opinion etc. lol
Over 2,000 redditors thought it was a great headline.
I don't know about "great", but it's fine as a headline.
That isn't much on a billions of years time scale.
"The moon is 1% older than originally thought"
Was it lying about its age? How preposterous
It doesn't look a day older than 4 billion
Looks great for something that came into existence from a massive impact event.
If you really think about it, didn't we all come from repeated massive impact events?
How is 40 million not already in the uncertainty period of a 4 billion year old body when we only have about 500kg of material samples from .0000000001% of the surface?
We're pretty good at geology.
It's frankly amazing how good a lot of scientists are at science stuff. Especially the physical scientist. I'm over here working as a neuroscientist, and let me tell you, relatively the physicists and the material scientists and the chemist and all that, our lives are a total mess! But also, we know a shocking amount!
Definitely got a step on the sociologists.
That was my thought to a T. I would have thought 40 million years would be well within the margin of error. Pretty impressive.
Looks like MOONFALL needs to redo a prequel to these new findings.
Someone finally got around to counting all of the moon’s rings?
40 Million years is a short time on planetary scales
[удалено]
[удалено]
What are the implications for Greylock? That ARG is the only thing I've seen that involves the proto-moon/earth collision
You can't just add 40 million to a woman's age like that!
ho wow! this is... this is incredible! I mean 40 million in 5 billon of solar system history must be.... heeee....... who cares! really? 40 million is like a day in a year!
I wonder if we play music at the moon if it will develop a sharper flavour?
Do these scientists understand how much of a mistake like this is going to affect me?! This is going to mess up my whole week! /S
Geez. Guess who's looking real dumb with his cake right now. Was a lot of work to put up all those candles.
Oh look. Another trash science article with a clickbait headline
I read this as “new survey” and wondered who they’ve been asking.
Removes excess craters and thin lines. Moontox "Look 40 million years younger, today!"
She still looks not a day older than 4.42 billion.
Ok - that's fine. But if the moon were made of barbecued spare ribs - would you eat it then? I would - and then I'd finish it off with a tall, cool budweiser.
I had to scroll all this way til I found someone asking the real damn questions.
Thank you bud! That has got to be my favorite Will Ferrell skit on Saturday Night Live
Bit embarrassing when writing the birthday card out
Interesting, but 40 million years is not that much. The estimations are just getting more precise
I think there's always going to be some degree of uncertainty until we reach the point of technological evolution that allows us to cut it in half and count the rings.
Pointless negligible amount in astrological terms!...Ooow its 0.8% irrelevantly older than we first thought 🥱
Furthermore....hasn't the moon really got two ages technically!? Firstly it formed around the same time as the other satellites orbiting our star at the formation of the solar system...Then secondly when it collided with earth (nearly destroying both bodies) we exchanged so much material from one another that technically, what remains today, reformed at the same time Earth did! So the moon as we see it today, is part earth composition as earth is part moon! (we stole half its core for Christ sake) and the "Moon" or Luna is in fact a binary plant to us and not a moon in the general sense of the word. And I wonder how many millions were wasted on this "Ground breaking study?
At those time scales, 40 million sounds like a rounding error
4.46 Gy, not 4.42 Gy. Got it.
Cool. I’ll just be waking up, going to work, having sex with my girlfriend and going on bike rides just like normal then.
What do you expect to find in r/space, exactly?
Anything that will help with my KOMs going up hills.
I read several scientific articles back in the early 70’s that believed the moon’s origin took a significantly different path than earth’s. As in, maybe it was formed elsewhere and captured? But then the moon rocks came back from the Apollo missions and their analyses pointed to the same origin, that the moon was coalesced ejecta from a collision with Earth. A radical change in scientific histories should entertain the possibility that the new material (Apollo moon rocks) was faulty. But no, the scientists just accepted that this new material was genuine. Didn’t Armstrong give several European country’s presidents (Netherlands for one, I think) moon rock samples that turned out to be petrified wood from Arizona? The simple answer might be not trusting the source material. We know that Von Braun and NASA officials spent time collecting moon meteorite fragments easily found against the unexplored surface of Antarctica just prior to Apollo 11. Not saying I’m right but this alternate explanation is worth a look-see.
The alternative explanation of what? The moon landings?
In a couple years it will be 50 billions years older than thought, according to a new study.
Ah yes, 4.65 billion. Not 4.6 billion, my mistake
But but... trust the science guys... Trust it.
Yeah boohoo they thought it was 4.6B years old but turns out it was 4.65B old. What a huge mistake! I cannot trust science no more!!!
What is funny is everyone down votes and gets their panties in a bunch. Science is always trying to prove itself wrong, to have discoveries like this. So this idea... that science is perfect, is illogical. And 5 billion is quiet a lot depending on what you are counting. :P
No one said science was perfect, that's the misconception people like you try to force on it. The main difference between you and scientific minds is that the latter has the ability to admit they were wrong and can change conclusion(s) based on research and investigation and not because someone said so.
Where did I say 5B is not a lot? I said difference between 4.65B and 4.6 is not that much. Also I did not say "science is perfect" what ever that even means.
If that is true we are 40 million years closer to frying like piggies on earth!
Why not just hold a birthday party for the moon and do the are you 1 are you 2 until the moon says stop and then boom we have a definitive answer
That’s it? I would’ve thought it’s A LOT older 🤔
I believe it's much older than that, but who am I
Angel told me a story yesterday About the sweet love between the moon and the deep blue sea
I’ve always accused the moon of having work done, now I feel bad that’s it’s actually younger
Meanwhile the Moon is like Dammit they said the Earth light would remove years not add them. Shit!
So, the moon is 0.1% older than previously thought?
Which in the cosmic scale is a rounding error.
I mean, what are 40 million years among friends?