Fake News and Science Reporting - Comments

[ZapperZ]

It seems like courses on how to deal or spot fake news are popping up.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/civics-course-schools-avoid-fake-news-060627594.html

How effective this is remains to be seen.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

I definitely think such education is necessary as part of a critical thinking course -- among the many things people don't learn in school but should. The California law mandates it for 7-12, which is where I think it should be...perhaps even parallel to the early Physical Science courses where kids learn about the scientific method, difference between precision and accuracy, etc.

I do have concerns about both the effectiveness and the slant, but I don't know that that can be helped. And in my opinion having the skills is better than not having them, even if they are taught only to apply them to FoxNews and never to CNN.

 

[PeterDonis]

They say things like "the climatologists hide the fact that their models have been wrong in recent years." Which models? Have they said which models?

They might not have (I agree the media is not always good at citing sources, although I don't think this is limited to the "right-wing corporate media"), but the claim that the models are divergent from reality is not itself an "alternative fact". See, for example, here:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/

People hear lots of rubbish, but they do not hear that, according to NASA, 2016 was the hottest year on record.

This was reported extensively in the media, including Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2017/01/18/2016-declared-hottest-year-on-record-for-globe/

 

[PeterDonis]

I think this sort of antiscientific disinformation campaign is extremely dangerous.

I think it's worth observing in this connection that scientists themselves should bear a part of the responsibility for this. As any PF staff member can tell you, we spend a lot of time correcting misconceptions that come from, um, less than careful statements from scientists in pop science venues--books, articles, TV specials, etc. I think a key factor contributing to this is that scientists in these pop science venues, and more generally in their communication with non-scientists, too often give into the temptation to present Science as an authority. They make flat statements without any attempt to give the reader or listener a sense of the generative models that actually make up the scientific theories they are describing. Those statements are often ambiguous, and often do not distinguish between theories or hypotheses with greatly varying levels of confidence and experimental support.

What happens here on PF is that the small minority of readers or listeners who are actually curious about the science come here, and after some discussion they realize (hopefully) that what they thought they heard or read was in fact very misleading, and start to learn the actual underlying theories and models. But most people don't do that. They just think they've received a statement from Science the authority, when in fact they've gotten a distorted and misleading view of the science. Plus, when Science eventually makes a statement that ends up being plain false--which will happen sooner or later--those who took it as authoritative draw the incorrect conclusion that Science can't be trusted at all (instead of the correct conclusion that Science the authority is not actually the same as science the body of valid, experimentally tested theories), and go looking for some other authority to tell them what to believe.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

They might not have (I agree the media is not always good at citing sources, although I don't think this is limited to the "right-wing corporate media"), but the claim that the models are divergent from reality is not itself an "alternative fact". See, for example, here:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/This was reported extensively in the media, including Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2017/01/18/2016-declared-hottest-year-on-record-for-globe/

Thanks for the links.

The Fox News Weather Center article is all right. But as far as being reported "extensively,' I wonder how many people read it, compared to those who watch or listen to reports which describe man-made global warming as a hoax?

In any case, I recommend these links. They represent the overwhelming consensus of world scientists who specialize in study of the climate.





http://jamespowell.org/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/global-warming/bibliography/overview.html

http://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/i...-klimawandel-begann-vor-180-jahren/index.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[PeterDonis]

as far as being reported "extensively,' I wonder how many people read it

I don't know, and I don't know that there's any way to find out. But that is not the same as knowing that a negligible number of people read it. If we don't know, the proper thing to say is just that we don't know--and then to refrain from speculating without any basis for it.

(Also, by "reported extensively" I just meant that many, many news sites reported it, not that lots of people necessarily read it.)

I recommend these links.

Please note, first, that this thread is not about climate change (and I was not making an argument either way about climate change as a policy issue), and second, PF has a policy specifically about that subject because of how easy it is for discussions of it to go off the rails. My point was simply about carefully distinguishing what is and is not "fake news", which is the topic of this thread. Claims that you happen to disagree with can still be valid news and not "fake news".

 

[rbelli1]

The leaks are real. You’re the one that wrote about them and reported them. I mean the leaks are real. You know what they said. You saw it, and the leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-leaks-bring-fake-news-trump-says-as-he-blasts-media-214217042.html

Well apparently even if you agree with the truth of a particular fact reporting of that fact is "FAKE NEWS!" if you don't like the implications of that fact.

Can someone please explain this for me?

BoB

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Please note, first, that this thread is not about climate change (and I was not making an argument either way about climate change as a policy issue), and second, PF has a policy specifically about that subject because of how easy it is for discussions of it to go off the rails. My point was simply about carefully distinguishing what is and is not "fake news", which is the topic of this thread. Claims that you happen to disagree with can still be valid news and not "fake news".

I see your point. I think my point, which I did not express clearly enough, is that I think it is biased to keep broadcasting fringe opinions on a scientific question, while attributing the mainstream scientific view to some kind of globalist conspiracy, if it is even mentioned. One of Dr. Powell's videos addresses the conspiracy theory.

So I was trying to emphasize the viewpoint of mainstream science, which I believe is underreported by Fox News TV and also by many right-wing talk shows. But I would call it biased news, not fake news.

Regarding"fake news" I am already getting very tired of hearing that term. People now call any news story they disagree with "fake news." I don't watch TV any more, but when I turn on radio I hear this term several times a day. It's not helpful. People should point out specifically what is "fake" about a news story.

Thanks for the reply. I'm done with this topic now!

 

[PeterDonis]

I think it is biased to keep broadcasting fringe opinions on a scientific question

But you didn't give an example of that (at least not for climate science--your example about evolution seems fine to me as an example of fringe opinions). Saying that the models diverge from actual temperatures is not a "fringe opinion"; it is an opinion held by some climate scientists, and they can back it up with data, as the link I gave shows. If you had found a report of someone claiming that the climate hasn't changed at all, or that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, that would be a "fringe opinion".

People should point out specifically what is "fake" about a news story.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Here is fake Fox news which was admitted by the fakers themselves. I suppose some people will excuse it as just a clever sales ploy.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...ting-fake-news-promote-a-cure-wellness-976979

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here is fake Fox news

Where does it say Fox News?

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Sorry, I just noticed I made a mistake. The Swedes posted an article listing everything that happened that fateful night.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a...-happened-in-sweden-friday-night-mr-president

Apparently not much happens in Sweden.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Where does it say Fox News?

Nowhere in that article that I can see. I wrote "fake Fox news" not "fake Fox News."

 

[Rx7man]

There is nothing as manipulable than a statistic... On Canada's east coast in the 90's I believe it was, they were doing studies on fish populations and looking at different 'fishing holes'.. well, when a place had no fish anymore, it wasn't considered a fishing hole anymore and thus excluded from the data, completely skewing the results...
Then there are the unemployment statistics, where people who've been out of work for a year or are on welfare are no longer considered "Unemployed"...

And the same goes for climate change, For one I think it's such a complex phenomenon that we just CAN'T model it accurately and not impart personal opinion into it somewhere along the way.. Russia's scientists are apparently calling for a mini ice age over the next 50 years based on sunspot activity

 

[ZapperZ]

There is nothing as manipulable than a statistic... On Canada's east coast in the 90's I believe it was, they were doing studies on fish populations and looking at different 'fishing holes'.. well, when a place had no fish anymore, it wasn't considered a fishing hole anymore and thus excluded from the data, completely skewing the results...
Then there are the unemployment statistics, where people who've been out of work for a year or are on welfare are no longer considered "Unemployed"...

And the same goes for climate change, For one I think it's such a complex phenomenon that we just CAN'T model it accurately and not impart personal opinion into it somewhere along the way.. Russia's scientists are apparently calling for a mini ice age over the next 50 years based on sunspot activity

But here's the thing about statistics, though. We have no other means to analyze many of these problems without them. This is especially true when we try to study social dynamics, correlations, and cause-and-effect.

For example, someone can claim that children who are constantly playing with video game A will tend to be more violent. Why? Because supposedly, that teenage shooter killed a bunch of people in a shopping mall.

Now, is this a claim that is backed by any defensible and valid evidence?

So what social scientists have to do is do a study to find all teenagers who play this game at various length of time, and compare that with teenagers who live in roughly the same area with the same demographics and socio-economic standings, and then do a comparison, for example. In fact, there could be MANY different ways to study the validity of this connection. Then you try to figure out first if there is any correlation with violent behavior, and if there is, establish a cause-and-effect, because correlation does not imply causation.

This is not easy, and it is not infallible. No one is claiming it is. But we lack any other means to study this type of phenomenon. The best we can do is to let the experts hash it out and let it go through its gestation period. People will examine the validity of (i) the data that were collected (ii) the way those data were collected (iii) the way they were analyzed (iv) the assumptions that were made (v) the strength of the conclusion, etc... etc. In fact, another group may conduct a similar study, and might even come up with an opposite conclusion. This is not unheard of. So unless one is an expert in that particular field, there is no way that I can see how one can simply dismiss a particular result. You cannot simply dismiss such a result simply based on taste, or personal opinion, or the phase of the moon. Either point out the flaw in the statistics, the flaw in the analysis, the flaw in the conclusion, or do your own study to counter the first one. Otherwise, it is an objection without merit.

Sure, statistics can be manipulated. But it doesn't mean that all statistics should be dismissed off-hand. The specific flaw in it should be pointed out, rather than simply making a board dismissal. Otherwise, there is no way for us to know if any kind of social, economic, political etc. policies and ideas are actually working or effective as claimed.

Zz.

 

[Rx7man]

I'm not faulting statistics when they're used correctly, because yes it is just a tool.. it's when they're deliberately misused, misquoted and misinterpreted the problems come up.. Just like using a baseball bat to break kneecaps is a misuse of the tool. Look at the last election when one side was saying unemployment was ~5% while the other was saying 45%, and they were both right.. depending on which statistic you used.
I am pointing out other scientific opinions.. I don't have the expertise to analyze the data, or even know if everyone is working from the same dataset... Recently I've heard a lot about temperatures 20C above normal in the arctic... that sounds a little fishy.. was it for a day or a whole month? I know that in Alaska this winter they had some insanely cold temperatures of -50C... I was looking at the weather near Khabarovsk, Russia and it didn't look like it was warmer this winter than the last few winters.

 

[mfb]

I don't have the expertise to analyze the data,

Then don't try it.
And don't mix weather and climate please.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not faulting statistics when they're used correctly, because yes it is just a tool.. it's when they're deliberately misused, misquoted and misinterpreted the problems come up.. Just like using a baseball bat to break kneecaps is a misuse of the tool. Look at the last election when one side was saying unemployment was ~5% while the other was saying 45%, and they were both right.. depending on which statistic you used.
I am pointing out other scientific opinions.. I don't have the expertise to analyze the data, or even know if everyone is working from the same dataset... Recently I've heard a lot about temperatures 20C above normal in the arctic... that sounds a little fishy.. was it for a day or a whole month? I know that in Alaska this winter they had some insanely cold temperatures of -50C... I was looking at the weather near Khabarovsk, Russia and it didn't look like it was warmer this winter than the last few winters.

I don't want to get into a debate about the evidence for this so-called global warming, but you need to understand that "weather" is not the same as "climate".

Statistics will be used/abused and will continued to be used and abused by everyone. But we need to differentiate between the conclusion of a scientific study versus the study being used by others in their own "special" ways. The former should be studied, discussed, challenged, etc. intellectually, i.e. as part of the process of verification. The latter must be dealt with by pointing out how they are wrong or misplaced or misguided. This, unfortunately, is not something a lot of people seem able to distinguish and separate, and so they tend to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Zz.

 

[JorisL]

Well some good news here in Belgium. A well-known comic (Lieven Scheire) that studied (but didn't finish) physics in college started a monthly podcast that looks at science and technology news. He did similar things in a TV show although they often focused on unbelievable facts much like QI.
It is discussed with the help of active scientists. They address problems with popular accounts in an attempt to counteract ill-written articles.

I checked out the February edition and it seems quite good. They joke about a little which could help with coverage.

 

[Dembadon]

BTW, when it comes to medical stuff, i find that I'm able to develop an opinion by reading a few studies about effectiveness, despite the fact that I don't have a medical background. Again, a small amount of quantitative literacy comes into play here. Was it tested? Was there a control group? Peer reviewed? Double blind? How big was the sample? I don't need to know the mechanics of the drug.. just "is there some probability this will work, and does it outweigh the potential complications?"

It's amazing how many studies are misrepresented by the media. Many misunderstandings could be avoided by simply reading the abstract/discussion. Many times the claims being made about the study are not supported by the authors in the conclusion/discussion. Understanding the hierarchy of evidence is also important; placing a case study involving a handful of subjects on the same level as systematic reviews and meta-analyses of "RCTs with definitive results" can lead to mistaking a mere association (which requires further study) with a causative effect/mechanism.

 

[russ_watters]

I wasn't sure exactly where to put this one (also fits into the "March for Science" thread a bit), but it has been bugging me for a week:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_WINTER_WEATHER_FORECAST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-14-17-17-34

For the un-initiated, a "Nor'easter" is a storm system unique to the northeastern US, where a cold front comes in from the north west and collides with warm, moist air coming up the coast. The collision of the air masses produces a severe and rapidly intensifying storm. In the summer they rival hurricanes and in the winter, they produce massive blizzards along the Washington-Boston corridor.

Because they involve a cold and a warm air mass, there is a potentially wide variation in impacts across the storm from east to west. In the east, you might get all rain and in the west it is all snow. There will be a gradient of each, with the center generally producing the most snow, along a swath 10-50 miles wide and up to several hundred miled long.

Last week's nor'easter was late for a snowstorm, which produced a forecasting problem. Early indications were that it would be a classinc winter nor'easter, almost entirely snow, and cutting straight through the population centers from Philly to Boston. But hours before the snow started (Monday morning), the models started showing the warm air from the east would win and produce mostly rain along the coasts and a snow/sleet mix further inland, only producing all snow much further inland. These models were correct. The National Weather Service held a meeting on Monday afternoon and decided against updating the forecasts, "out of extreme caution" (quote) and "...they didn't want to confuse the public." (AP paraphrase).

Wait, what? A coherent message is more important than the quest for accuracy?

So along the east coast, we went to bed last Monday night expecting to wake up to a foot+ of snow and actually finding totals less than half of the low-end of the forecast (NYC predicted: 18-24", actual: 7"). Scientists can claim somewhat of a win in that the mass of precipitation was actually accurate, it was just denser than predicted, but that difference matters a lot in how you respond to the storm. Particularly when eastern Delaware and NJ saw mostly rain instead of a foot of snow! You can't un-cancel school if it doesn't snow. As for me, I did notice something was off when I woke up, but I was sicklazy and stayed home from work on Tuesday though many of my colleagues ended up going in.

This is from a division of the same government agency responsible for collecting, interpreting and disseminating climate data. Which begs the question: is the climate data/warming predictions we get filtered with the same bias?

 

[ZapperZ]

This is from a division of the same government agency responsible for collecting, interpreting and disseminating climate data. Which begs the question: is the climate data/warming predictions we get filtered with the same bias?

The weather forecast was intended to the general public. It is a forecast/prediction based on the data, and can often change in the last minute.

Climate data are meant for professionals and scientists, and are also collected by not only other scientists not working with the agency, but also by other countries that have their own weather collection protocol. These are also collected over time, and the raw data are what these scientists deal with.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

The weather forecast was intended to the general public. It is a forecast/prediction based on the data, and can often change in the last minute.

Climate data are meant for professionals and scientists...

None of that is completely true/relevant. There exists, in both cases, a necessary connection between the scientists/data and the rest of the government/public. The government collects, analyses, makes predictions from and disseminates weather and climate data not because they are randomly curious about them, but because it has been deemed in the public interest for the public to know and for the government and public to use the information to make policy/action decisions. In neither case are we provided all the details and models and in both cases we are provided the predictions to work from.

Regarding the middle part, the time frames are different (years vs days), but otherwise the signal to noise ratio problems and "last minute changes" are almost exactly the same. The main difference being that GW data should improve over time whereas weather is always resetting.

 

[ZapperZ]

None of that is completely true/relevant. There exists, in both cases, a necessary connection between the scientists/data and the rest of the government/public. The government collects, analyses, makes predictions from and disseminates weather and climate data not because they are randomly curious about them, but because it has been deemed in the public interest for the public to know and for the government and public to use the information to make policy/action decisions.

There was a branch of the National Weather Service at BNL when I was there (it might still be there), and I have chatted with a couple of the scientists there. They will provide the raw data for research because that is part of the requirement for all public-funded work. This is no different than any other public-funded work. In fact, *I* am required to keep and store all experimental data as part of my DOE and NSF grants, and will have to provide them when requested.

I will also state that raw data without context are meaningless numbers. This is especially true in climate science, because certain measurements have more caveats than others. But one has to be well-versed in this field to know that.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

There was a branch of the National Weather Service at BNL when I was there (it might still be there), and I have chatted with a couple of the scientists there. They will provide the raw data for research because that is part of the requirement for all public-funded work. This is no different than any other public-funded work. In fact, *I* am required to keep and store all experimental data as part of my DOE and NSF grants, and will have to provide them when requested.

I will also state that raw data without context are meaningless numbers. This is especially true in climate science, because certain measurements have more caveats than others. But one has to be well-versed in this field to know that.

Ok...that's all fine, but I don't see how it relates to what we were discussing/what you quoted.

In any case,
I wrote my description of NOAA's purpose without looking at their mission statement, but in paraphrasing it, I wouldn't change a thing:
http://www.noaa.gov/about-our-agency

Of note/relevance:
1. The importance of dissemination of the information to the public and planners.
2. The general mandate for climate and weather is exactly the same based on the fact that the two are listed next to each other in the opening sentence of the mission.

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok...that's all fine, but I don't see how it relates to what we were discussing/what you quoted.

It is relevant because you said "... In neither case are we provided all the details and models and in both cases we are provided the predictions to work from..."

It somehow implied that these are purposely hidden and cannot be made available. This is false. You can get the raw data, and the model being used are often known. In fact, in weather forecasting, there are several different models that are used, and we can often see that very clearly in the prediction of the path of a hurricane.

These are not provided when weather prediction is made to the public because this is not something the public cares about, the same way the public never demanded to see the economic model used to do the federal budget, or the model used in actuarial analysis of your insurance rates. I do not see why this has be singled out here, especially when one CAN obtain those information if needed from NOAA or the NWS.

Zz.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I wasn't sure exactly where to put this one (also fits into the "March for Science" thread a bit), but it has been bugging me for a week:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_WINTER_WEATHER_FORECAST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-14-17-17-34

For the un-initiated, a "Nor'easter" is a storm system unique to the northeastern US, where a cold front comes in from the north west and collides with warm, moist air coming up the coast. The collision of the air masses produces a severe and rapidly intensifying storm. In the summer they rival hurricanes and in the winter, they produce massive blizzards along the Washington-Boston corridor.

Because they involve a cold and a warm air mass, there is a potentially wide variation in impacts across the storm from east to west. In the east, you might get all rain and in the west it is all snow. There will be a gradient of each, with the center generally producing the most snow, along a swath 10-50 miles wide and up to several hundred miled long.

Last week's nor'easter was late for a snowstorm, which produced a forecasting problem. Early indications were that it would be a classinc winter nor'easter, almost entirely snow, and cutting straight through the population centers from Philly to Boston. But hours before the snow started (Monday morning), the models started showing the warm air from the east would win and produce mostly rain along the coasts and a snow/sleet mix further inland, only producing all snow much further inland. These models were correct. The National Weather Service held a meeting on Monday afternoon and decided against updating the forecasts, "out of extreme caution" (quote) and "...they didn't want to confuse the public." (AP paraphrase).

Wait, what? A coherent message is more important than the quest for accuracy?

I suspect your post would be much "too political" for certain parties policing the "March for Science" thread. Good choice to put it here.

But you wisely point out that the "coherent message" that leads to inaccurate predictions undermines public trust in the agencies involved (and in science more broadly).

Scientists need to call out this foolishness and dishonesty for what it is if we hope to regain much of the public trust that is rapidly eroding.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

There was a branch of the National Weather Service at BNL when I was there (it might still be there), and I have chatted with a couple of the scientists there. They will provide the raw data for research because that is part of the requirement for all public-funded work. This is no different than any other public-funded work. In fact, *I* am required to keep and store all experimental data as part of my DOE and NSF grants, and will have to provide them when requested.

I will also state that raw data without context are meaningless numbers. This is especially true in climate science, because certain measurements have more caveats than others. But one has to be well-versed in this field to know that.

Zz.

Dunno about the National Weather Service, but their parent agency, NOAA, definitely does not share all their data. We've been able to get all the weather, climate, and satellite data we've wanted, but they have not and apparently will not grant access to us for the vast majority of their fisheries data. They seem to share with other public agencies, but NOT with private researchers.

Likewise, we've also been refused fisheries data regularly by several states. Under Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, we had a great relationship with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) and for several years, all we needed to do was ask nicely and explain the nature of the research project. Within a couple of weeks we were granted access to the state fisheries data we wanted. As a courtesy, we provided the reports or preprints of papers back to the agency when they were available. After Democrat John Bel Edwards took office, our data requests began to be denied. Even though a lot of their data is acquired with federal funds, I would not be optimistic we would prevail in court. In Louisiana, the better approach is to play nice, be patient, and try and figure out whose back you need to scratch. Colorado has gladly and quickly shared all the fisheries data we requested. One mid-western state politely declined. Preliminary indications suggest formal requests to Texas and Florida would not be honored.

I should also mention that there has never been ANY requirement to share our data from DoD-funded work. In fact, many times, we cannot even publish our results until the paper is "approved for public release" through one DoD research office or another. Likewise, if a work was partially supported by a private company it is usually locked down pretty tightly even if partial support was public. Recently, I had to decline a request from the Naval Surface Warfare Center (Crane, IN) to share data from a project because of a non-disclosure agreement with a private company. Essentially, this required NSWC to repeat most of an experiment that we had already done. This is very common in the DoD world. We were able to help them on the project, but it was an odd dance: we couldn't share the data, and they couldn't tell us exactly why they needed it.

When it comes to sharing data over which we exercise discretion (no legal prohibition or requirement to share), our practice is to have a discussion among the stakeholders and decide what data the requesting party has that we would like and work out a trade. We've never denied a request for our data (unless we had to), but we do like to get something of value in return.

 

[Keith_McClary]

Recently I've heard a lot about temperatures 20C above normal in the arctic... that sounds a little fishy.. was it for a day or a whole month? I know that in Alaska this winter they had some insanely cold temperatures of -50C... I was looking at the weather near Khabarovsk, Russia and it didn't look like it was warmer this winter than the last few winters.

More detailed information is available, for example:
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

 

[ZapperZ]

I will call this out as another example of "Fake News". Here, the report on the UPI website went further than what the press release stated, and in the process, made a critical error.

This news article is reporting an interesting experimental result that created objects with "negative effective mass" in a superfluid. From what I can tell, the writer is basing the report not on the original paper, but rather from the press release out of Washington State University.

The error comes in at the very beginning of the news article:

A team of physicists at Washington State University have created a fluid that ignores Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion. The fluid has "negative mass." When it's pushed it accelerates backwards.

I took a look at the WSU press release and in the paper itself. Nowhere in there was any claim made that this phenomenon "... ignores Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion..." In fact, it HAS to obey the second law for it to have such a direction of acceleration.

The 2nd Law is basically F = ma.

1. For a positive mass, it means that F and a are in the same direction.

2. For a negative mass, then the 2nd law is F = -|m|a. It means that F and a are colinear, but in the opposite direction. In other words, it is the 2nd law that actually tells you that for a negative mass, if you push on it away from you, it will accelerates towards you. This is exactly OBEYING the 2nd law, not ignoring it! In fact, if the negative mass actually moves away from you the way we normally think ordinary mass should, it is only then that this mass is ignoring the 2nd Law!

The claim that this experiment "ignores the 2nd Law" is Fake Science Reporting. It is introduced to possibly make the story sexier and in the process, made a very amateurish mistake.

BTW, negative effective mass isn't new. This is common in condensed matter/solid state physics, because we have positive holes in solids, and on how we define effective mass (the curvature of the dispersion).

Zz.