Sometimes when I talk to experimentalists about their latest results they say something like, "We have this really interesting data. But we can't explain it and so we are not going to publish it until we can explain it." No doubt this is sometimes what referees say.
But, I disagree. The most interesting experimental results have no clear explaination!
Furthermore, many of the "explainations" I read in experimental papers seem to be either naive, wrong, or highly speculative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Confusing bottom-up and top-down approaches to emergence
Due to emergence, reality is stratified. This is reflected in the existence of semi-autonomous scientific disciplines and subdisciplines. A ...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro... -
Nitrogen fluoride (NF) seems like a very simple molecule and you would think it would very well understood, particularly as it is small enou... -
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
Further, and worse, these "explanations" are often then cited as if they are "facts" "proven" by the data!
ReplyDeleteWe theorists do need something to do, after all!
ReplyDelete