- #1
PaulCam
- 5
- 0
Hi,
I thought I would come and ask here as something has been bugging me for quite a while.
Exoplanets.
I'm not being bugged by the fact we are looking for them or that they exist. I am a bit suspicious of some of the evidence and how it's interpreted. While the adage is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" I feel that some of the exoplanet findings are the other way around. It seems to me that the evidence being found amounts to extraordinary and the conclusions gleaned from this evidence are extraordinary.
Take for example gas giants that have orbital periods of only a few days. Another example is the higher than expected number of very close and very large planets. The astrophysics community seem to be going all out to find explanations for these extra-ordinary examples.
Is it not more likely that there are issues with the evidence gathering? Is it not scientific that if an experiment results in completely unexpected or extraordinary results that you first question your experimental approach to double and triple check it is not an artefact of your experiemental design... before you start coming up with fantastical conclusions like a gas giant with an orbital period of a few days... which does not seem likely!
I think the science is too young and the methods used to vague and speculative, open to too much interpretation to be making the kind of claims that are a weekly occurrence in the popular science media.
Am I the only one?
Paul
I thought I would come and ask here as something has been bugging me for quite a while.
Exoplanets.
I'm not being bugged by the fact we are looking for them or that they exist. I am a bit suspicious of some of the evidence and how it's interpreted. While the adage is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" I feel that some of the exoplanet findings are the other way around. It seems to me that the evidence being found amounts to extraordinary and the conclusions gleaned from this evidence are extraordinary.
Take for example gas giants that have orbital periods of only a few days. Another example is the higher than expected number of very close and very large planets. The astrophysics community seem to be going all out to find explanations for these extra-ordinary examples.
Is it not more likely that there are issues with the evidence gathering? Is it not scientific that if an experiment results in completely unexpected or extraordinary results that you first question your experimental approach to double and triple check it is not an artefact of your experiemental design... before you start coming up with fantastical conclusions like a gas giant with an orbital period of a few days... which does not seem likely!
I think the science is too young and the methods used to vague and speculative, open to too much interpretation to be making the kind of claims that are a weekly occurrence in the popular science media.
Am I the only one?
Paul