←back to thread

417 points fuidani | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.219s | source
Show context
weberer ◴[] No.43714466[source]
Here's the primary source

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c8

They possibly detected dimethyl sulfide, which is only known to be produced by living organisms.

replies(5): >>43714570 #>>43715076 #>>43715316 #>>43717206 #>>43718733 #
perihelions ◴[] No.43715076[source]
I'm not convinced about the methods. It looks a lot like p-hacking to me: they have a highly specific hypothesis drawn from a large universe—that dozen or so molecules (§3.1) in their infrared spectrum model they're fitting experimental data against. I don't buy the way they created that hypothesis. The put a handful of highly specific biosignature gases into it, things that were proposed by exobiology theory papers. One very specific hypothesis out of many, and a low likelihood one. And that's the hypothesis they get some borderline ~3σ signals for? Really?

edit: Any chance someone might have the charity to explain why my criticism is so far off-base, according to the HN consensus?

replies(3): >>43715363 #>>43716369 #>>43716786 #
spacemark ◴[] No.43716786[source]
Don't be bothered by the down votes. HN consensus is not something worth pursuing. Your criticism is valid, it's just that it runs against what HN readers want to believe in this instance. Readers here like to think they're motivated by reason and intelligence and whatnot, but that is laughable - examples of logical fallacies and assertions of fact rocketing to the top comments abound. Overconfidence and readiness to accept bold claims is a more dangerous cultural dysfunction than the lack of seriousness and ubiquitous monetization that plagues other platforms.

In any case this study will likely go on the pile of papers judged by time to be an overreach of conclusions and a dead end.

replies(1): >>43718708 #
1. ◴[] No.43718708[source]