Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.
|
Copyright © OmniNerd 2004-2008 OmniNerd uses valid, standards-based markup.
Maximize enjoyment with a standards-compliant browser. |
RSS
RE: Don't We Already Know This?
I see now why I had an intuitive feeling that what he was saying made sense; but I was still caught up in the direction the UEA article took, which put too much emphasis on the word “unlikely”. As you have discerned, in a place as large as the universe, even the word “unlikely” can add up to large numbers.
I very strongly criticize the attempt at sensationalizing it by the journalists.
I’m beginning to recognize a trend which is becoming increasingly mainstream. In the journalism days of past it was all about getting the “scoop” and all that went with creating a story and being the first to get it. Now with the internet it seems to be more about constant content flow which I suspect is causing this breezy twist in how things are being presented.
Thank you for deciphering Dr Watson’s paper in a much more contextual manner than originally presented. I’ve recently started making an effort to include links to the original scientific papers if they are available, (you have to dig around) and this instance shows a good reason for doing so.
View Full Discussion