That’s because that’s how science works. Discoveries are not considered to be statistically significant until they reach what’s called 5 sigma certainty which is approximately equivalent to saying that the chance that the discovery is wrong is 1 in 3.5 million.
A lot of scientists would consider it unethical to claim a discover until you had provided enough data to reach 5 sigma certainty. When papers are published, it takes a lot of peer review before the hypothesis of that paper event approaches 5 sigma certainty, but that doesn’t mean that reporters aren’t happy to pick up the story.
It’s just bad and/or unethical science journalism that are picking up on unproven papers because of the sensational title.
That’s because that’s how science works. Discoveries are not considered to be statistically significant until they reach what’s called 5 sigma certainty which is approximately equivalent to saying that the chance that the discovery is wrong is 1 in 3.5 million.
A lot of scientists would consider it unethical to claim a discover until you had provided enough data to reach 5 sigma certainty. When papers are published, it takes a lot of peer review before the hypothesis of that paper event approaches 5 sigma certainty, but that doesn’t mean that reporters aren’t happy to pick up the story.
It’s just bad and/or unethical science journalism that are picking up on unproven papers because of the sensational title.
Technically correct, the best kind of correct.