There's a difference between "unwilling to accept new information" and "throwing away decades of studies based on one new study" I find @Digimule's comment an important nuance to add, at least for...
There's a difference between "unwilling to accept new information" and "throwing away decades of studies based on one new study"
I find @Digimule's comment an important nuance to add, at least for those who know how the scientific community works. If one does not, it might indeed sound like "meh, who cares about any particular study". I don't expect that that was the intended message
Because science doesn't work based on the notion of "why not?" This paper could very well be accurate, but currently it's just one paper without a solid base supporting it. Scientists will study...
Because science doesn't work based on the notion of "why not?" This paper could very well be accurate, but currently it's just one paper without a solid base supporting it. Scientists will study it, run experiments, play with the mathematics and if it works out then it will be accepted.
But we are not at the point to throw out our existing theories based on one idea.
One study believes the universe is 26.7 billion year old.
Phrasing the headline like you did makes it seem as though this is widely accepted.
There's a difference between "unwilling to accept new information" and "throwing away decades of studies based on one new study"
I find @Digimule's comment an important nuance to add, at least for those who know how the scientific community works. If one does not, it might indeed sound like "meh, who cares about any particular study". I don't expect that that was the intended message
Because science doesn't work based on the notion of "why not?" This paper could very well be accurate, but currently it's just one paper without a solid base supporting it. Scientists will study it, run experiments, play with the mathematics and if it works out then it will be accepted.
But we are not at the point to throw out our existing theories based on one idea.
Or our current methodology for calculating mass is slightly off: https://youtu.be/W4KH1Jw6HBI
Changed the title to the first line from the article, to be more accurate.
Please label this comment as offtopic.