[flagged]
I also know that scientists have a bias to show impressive results, and that even NASA among others, in a similar case was all too fast to jump to conclusions and make a whole show about their 'findings' and annoucements to the press, and they still got it comically wrong, despite "actually working with the data and not just reading about it on the Internet.".
Finally, I know that "we found RNA building blocks and B3" on a meteorite is less likely that contamination, so the story seems fishy and premature.
Sorry that somebody even doubted than an announcement or a paper can ever be likely wrong without being on the team who wrote it.
Now how about some apologies for your tone?
Since you rightly encourage everyone to question claims, I question this claim. How do you know this, specifically?
In other words, we have a situation where a team has done a bunch of experiments, data collection, and analysis, and then published a paper claiming "we found RNA building blocks and B3", right? And now your claim is "no, you're wrong about that," but without any experiments, data collection, and analysis. So if you're going to make a claim, provide the details, data, and evidence that substantiates your claim.
Same, to give an obvious extreme example, as I'd be sceptical about an annoucencement that "We found the perpetual machine, there was a major flaw in thermodynamics laws, here are our numbers and results", even if they're world reknown experts in physics saying it, and I don't have access to their data, or to the machine to try it myself - hell, even if I can't understand their formulas.
One would still have a prior in this case, based on a general understanding of the the world, and the possibility range where this falls.
You might have a more informed prior because you took more concrete information into account than mere experience of other such announcements being repeatedly proven wrong, the probability of RNA being found on a meteor sample, the probability of the team just being lax with their annoucement to get publicity and grants, and so on.
Or, I guess, you think that we should never do that, and we should either do the research ourselves, or wait until someone else does, and at any point, whatever they say as their conclusion, them being experts and having done the work and everything, should be the final word.
Which probably means that as you see it, it makes no sense, to have a belief on anything or its refutation as likely or unlikely, unless one has either replicated the study and checked the conclusions, or found specific actionable faults.
> Finally, I know that "we found RNA building blocks and B3" on a meteorite is less likely that contamination, so the story seems fishy and premature.
Regardless of each of our own priors and biases, respectfully, you don't know this. You don't have evidence that shifts the probability in this direction. Or rather, you haven't presented any. You haven't pointed out a specific flaw in the experimental design, instrument design and operation, data collection and analysis. What you have done is state your strong prior suspicion that something is wrong. That's not knowledge, and it's nothing that anyone else could base their assessment upon. The statement is simply a statement of your prior, nothing else. It's not a material statement about the actual paper, its data, analysis, or its conclusion.
Actually its your tone-policing that is so disruptive to the conversation - you seem to have issues with peoples' statements given confidently - but fortunately there have been many more responses to your rash argumentation than I care to give.
the way it currently reads is less like curiosity and more like “how dare you question the judgment of scientists”, as if questioning results isn’t the absolute bedrock of science in the first place
If a paper is published which claims that such-and-such drug shows effectiveness against shingles, it's easy and trivial to say, "Not so fast my friend" followed by any number of statements about Big Pharma, citing previous situations in which a claim was later shown to be false, etc. But while all of those things may, in fact, be true, they don't bring to bear any actual evidence that this particular drug study is flawed and exactly how.
yes, I agree, it would be better if they had a specific criticism of the methodology, but an appropriate response is simply to ask for such a thing, not to jump on them for questioning it at all, which is what happened here. do you see what I mean?
what happened:
>I think there could be contamination of the samples
>oh wow how adorable, what’s next from your big book of ideas, little one?
what would have been healthy:
>I think there could be contamination of the samples
>interesting. do you have a specific criticism of their methodology?
It's also trivial to accept though. And in a world where you can't (for time and effort constrains) check every announcement personally, and where expert proclamations aren't always correct so thay you can just take them as granted, there are still reasons to have an estimation (as a layman but even as a scientist) of something being true or not summarily.
> I'd suggest reading every paper critically, realizing (as most people do) that the results are tentative, and either letting it go at that, or dig in and do the hard work to figure out what may be flawed in the work presented. Then work with the authors or publish a paper of one's own pointing out the flaw and the new resulting analysis.