= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on [LINK] Scientists use Bayesian reasoning to update the drake equation for the existence of ET's - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (7)
Here's the actual article on the arXiv.
I find it a useful working assumption that everything on physorg is either wrong or copied from somewhere else where it's presented more accurately or informatively. I don't think I've found any counterexamples yet.
Anyway, the article is merely making the observation that what's known about when life on earth emerged doesn't constitute enough evidence to make our posterior probabilities for abiogenesis very different from our priors. This isn't exactly world-shaking.
What are the better news sources that you can suggest?
I don't offhand know of any good general sources for science news. Perhaps there aren't any, in which case a useful algorithm might be to look on physorg, and then whenever you see something interesting go to whatever source they cribbed it from.
(I'm not sure whether your question is intended to suggest that if I can't suggest a specific better alternative then I shouldn't be criticizing physorg. If it is, then I disagree with the general principle. Saying "X is bad in such-and-such a way" doesn't incur an obligation to suggest something else that does what X is trying to do but doesn't have that flaw.)
Thanks i guess i just need to hone my check the source skills. The () part is not implied :)