• Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have seen a bunch of samples float, and we have seen papers detect no superconductivity on samples that don’t float. The missing damning evidence would be a paper that manages to produce samples that do float but aren’t superconducting. Instead we are getting a slow trickle of reasons why other causes for the material to float are less and less likely, while superconductivit in lk99 is still perfectly plausible. Not to mention the various theoretical papers that also seem to indicate very high temperature superconductivity is plausible to expected in lk99.

      On top of all that there is a second group that has a prepub paper showing high temperature superconductivity.

      For this to turn into a nothing burger either all the various observed cases of levitation would all have to be wrong somehow, or despite all theoretical expectations this material would have to be diamagnetic, while also being a high temperature superconductor (which is a pretty rare combination of properties on top), or the paper measuring high temperature superconductivity would have to be wrong and still despite all theoretical expectations this material would have to be diamagnetic not superconducting even though our (admitedly flawed) models indicate the reverse.

    • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Inability to replicate results does not disprove anything. Ability to replicate results does prove something.

      The production of LK-99 is not so refined to be consistent, so results will vary.

      • BiNonBi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not how science generally works. It’s not up to others to disprove your results. It’s up to you to prove results to them.

        You generally do this by very carefully explaining what you did and what the results where. Then others can follow your instructions and get the same results.

        If they don’t get the same results you haven’t proven anything.

        • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nobody said these researchers have proven anything. It is how science works because it’s how logic works.

          Inability to prove something doesn’t mean it has been disproven. All it means is that it has not been proven.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You are turning things on their head.

            If the claim can’t be replicated. it lacks evidence/proof.

            Without evidence the claim is baseless. It does not have to be disproved to be considered baseless.

            Ergo lack of poof is consequentially the same as being disproved in the long run. The claim is considered false.

            This happens all the time, for instance the cold fusion claim in 1989, was never disproved, but it couldn’t be replicated. So it is now considered false, ergo the result is similar to being disproved, because there is no evidence it is considered false.

            • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              As I said, at this point nothing has been proven or disproven, so you’re agreeing with me that the claim is baseless.

              However, lack of proof is not the same thing as being disproven at all. Disproven means it has been proven to not be true.

              If I make a claim and say that it’s possible to combine flour, eggs, and milk and bake for some period of time to get a cake, that is true. At this point it has not been proven or disproven by anyone.

              If you try to replicate my result and use 5 lbs of buckwheat flour, 1 egg, and 2 gallons of milk, it will not result in a cake. That does not mean you have disproven my claim. It means your replication failed. There are countless ways mess up baking a cake. We’re talking about quantum mechanics here and the precision of an oven.

              If one other person tries it and succeeds in a cake being created, that does prove my claim to be true.

              The issue here is that the process for making LK-99 is not deterministic at this point. Disproven means proof that it’s wrong. Lack of proof means, well… lack of proof.

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                lack of proof is not the same thing as being disproven at all.

                Yes it is, lack of proof makes the claim baseless, the default for a baseless claim is to consider it false. Ergo the result is the same as if it actually was disproved.

                But that’s not the problem here, you are reversing the burden of proof. The burden of proof is always with the one who has the claim. If he is not able to describe a process where the results can be replicated, it will ultimately after enough trials, be considered a false claim.

                There is nothing in that process about actively disproving the claim.

                • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  the default for a baseless claim is to consider it false

                  This is not correct.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

                  One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

                  You are committing this logical fallacy.

                  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence

                    That’s the same as considering a baseless claim false because it has no evidence.

                    You are committing this logical fallacy.

                    No you are making the mistake of comparing a “proposition” with a scientific claim that has been examined. Also you are making the mistake of using semantics to discard the scientific method. What you are arguing would in science be the same as claiming a hypothesis false without examination. That would be an argument from ignorance.

                    Not all claims are equal, there’s a difference between a scientific claim and saying I had cereal for breakfast. Questioning an everyday personal experience is very different from questioning a scientific claim without evidence.

        • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s extremely hard to disprove things in general as opposed to proving them, unless you’re dealing with math or logic.

        • klay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Basically, repeat the experiment under a wide range of conditions, and show that the conditions for success, if any, are far beyond the original claim. I always loved the ‘mythbusters’ approach: if one bible can’t stop a bullet, how about two bibles? ten? where is the cutoff between true and false?