Ice Ice Baby

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

The thing just exploded very close to our zodiac! Or should I say imploded. And it spitted out big chunks of thousands year old ice to our heads… Crazy!

Vaguely reminiscent of Atlantis blowing up in The Spy Who Loved Me

Stop Deifying Peer Review

Stop deifying “peer review” of journal publications

I would like to add my two cents now – focusing on the exalted status some give to peer reviewed journal articles. I have three main concerns with this attitude which can be summarized as follows
1. Peer review is not magic
2. Peer review is not binary
3. Peer review is not static.

In general discussion, a peer-reviewed article is often a better citation than a mainstream/pop-sci article, but one has to acknowledge that peer-review simply means that some professionals have looked at it and found no (obvious) errors in the work. Mistakes can be made, things can be overlooked. Even without that, peer-review doesn’t mean the results are true. The full process of scientific inquiry means others have to replicate the work somehow, if it’s experiment, or test the work, if it’s theory. As the article says, this is a continual process, and as I’ve said before, every experiment is a test of the principles that underlie it.