You don’t understand. Real science happens on Twitter. Real scientists are the startup founders who make grandiloquent threads about Arxiv pre-publications. Academia doesn’t work at all. Actuallly, academia’s scientists are just jaded. We’re so much smarter than them. You need to root for LK99 to be real so we can live in the post-scarcity techno magic utopia. If you spread FUD the rock wont levitate. Extraordinary claims only require trivial amount of suggestive evidence. Did you hear an anon cat girl already made a Gundam robot in her kitchen out of the stuff? Maybe if you squint hard enough and try 999 times it’ll work the 1000th. Epistemic standards don’t matter. What matters is to be excited and enthusiastic. That’s what science is really about. We’re all in this together folks. What an adventure.
Irrespective of your view on the Nature article and the current online activity, it is useful to remember that much like Epistemic standards, HN also has standards.
At the bottom of this page you will find a Guidelines page with an "In comments" section:
" Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
You were both not entertaining and added nothing to the discussion.
As much as I agree with you, people are excited for the potential of an extraordinary result, and in my view this article's tone is completely out of place for a publication with the historic weight and impact of Nature.
Oh, I see you're embracing a rather unconventional perspective on science and academia. While it's true that social media platforms like Twitter have provided new avenues for scientific discussions and collaboration, it's essential to consider the potential downsides of context switching and chasing after every shiny new experiment.
Research and replication are crucial components of the scientific process. Context switching too frequently can indeed lead to wasted time, as researchers may not have the opportunity to delve deeply into a particular topic and build upon existing knowledge. Replication is essential for validating findings and ensuring the reliability of scientific claims.
While some interesting discussions may occur on Twitter, it's important not to dismiss academia entirely. Academic institutions provide an environment conducive to rigorous research, peer review, and collaboration, which are fundamental aspects of advancing scientific knowledge.
