Comments of the Week #95: from gravitational waves to the Multiverse
"To someone who’s never done experimental or observational work, this might seem like the ultimate example of fooling yourself. But there’s a good reason for it: there are two types of errors, statistical (where you can improve on your errors by taking more data/doing more experiments), and systematic, where you need to calibrate/account for a variety of effects having to do with your equipment, sources, objects, and experimental setup. Sometimes you get results that aren’t what you expect, and that’s often because of systematic errors. In fact, that’s often how systematic errors get caught. Unfortunately, we (scientists) suffer from the bias that when we’ve identified all the systematic errors we can and we get a result that’s in alignment with our expectations, we stop looking for new systematics. And that’s how this problem — at least in my experience — often self-perpetuates. Erring on the other side, by the way, is what leads to the OPERA faster-than-light neutrinos, where you fail to get all your systematics before publishing!"
One blog, eight posts this past week, and some dozen internet comments called out for... well, you'll just have to read and find out!













