SPACE.com: "Astronomers Had It Wrong"

[siriusmre]

Oh. My. God. The whole mood of this recent SPACE.com article seems to me to be a bit...subjunctive. Lots of "could"s, "would"s, and "may"s. This points out yet again that despite the confident pronouncements from main stream astronomers about their understanding of how things work, there is still quite a ways to go.<br /><br />One of the lines that struck me was this: "'It’s an important realization,' said Christopher McKee, an astronomer from the University of California, Berkeley who was not involved in the study. 'The facts that [study author Charles Lada of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics] points out were available for a long time and <b>people just hadn’t put them together.'</b> [Emphasis added.]"<br /><br />Makes you wonder what else they have wrong, what other pieces that no one has "put together" yet... <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Saiph]

its really just a public acknowledgement of a selection effect.<br /><br />Most sun-like stars are binary...still true. And as most stars we can see are sun-like...most stars are binary.<br /><br />But, we've found over the years (last couple of decades) that red dwarfs are far more common than larger stars...and those are single.<br /><br />Thus, it skews the sample once you include those.<br /><br />yeah, it's simple, but it's also understandable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>Lots of "could"s, "would"s, and "may"s.</i><br /><br />So? He's a Science Writer hedging his bets.<br /><br /><i>there is still quite a ways to go.</i><br /><br />No one has ever denied that. But you seem to believe a refinement in something is tantamount to a failure. That's quite evident. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br />Makes you wonder what else they have wrong, what other pieces that no one has "put together" yet... <br /><br /></font><br /><br />exactly. <br />

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"Makes you wonder what else they have wrong, what other pieces that no one has "put together" yet..."</i><br /><br />This is why science is not like religion. In religion, they can never question their belief system because they already know all the answers. In science, we must always question our beliefs because new and better observations constantly change our perceptions of reality -- this process is called learning... <br /><br />-------------------<br /><br />I think we will soon discover the source of the "Missing Mass" and it will turn out that dark matter is comprised of stellar BHs and brown dwarfs, rather than exotic particles. (Just my opinion!)

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br />This is why science is not like religion. In religion, they can never question their belief system because they already know all the answers. In science, we must always question our beliefs because new and better observations constantly change our perceptions of reality -- this process is called learning... </font><br /><br />at least in christianity, we have the burden of free will. and at least to me, this is a huge indeterminant in that faith. it is saying basically, you act as a christian <i>based upon your ongoing journey that is open-ended, the power of choice being the ulitmate factor in life's path.</i> this entails just as much refinement of faith as in scientific knowledge, as more data becomes available. the relationship with god ever changes according, as well, to more "data." what may have meant something ten years ago may mean something entirely different ten years from now. this goes for a spiritual path as well as a scientific one. <br /><br />is perhaps more palatable to address science as a <i>philosophy</i>, and religion as a <i>philosophy</i>, as this is really what the two disciplines are. they are facets of a larger humanity. <br /><br />my opinion <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />