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)
What are the assumptions of science?
Science makes assumptions about the nature of the world and the nature of humanity. We are so used to these ideas that we may overlook that...
-
This week Nobel Prizes will be announced. I have not done predictions since 2020 . This is a fun exercise. It is also good to reflect on w... -
Two years ago, I wrote a post about a paper by Wei et al, Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models Then last year, I posted about a pap...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro...
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