<story><title>Losing the Nobel Prize</title><url>http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10211</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>KKKKkkkk1</author><text>&lt;i&gt;But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science.  That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation.  It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly.  It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards.  For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Richard Feynman</text></comment>
<story><title>Losing the Nobel Prize</title><url>http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10211</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>tombone12</author><text>Go read Hossenfelder&amp;#x27;s review instead, its a better teardown. The fourth paragraph is:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “Losing the Nobel Prize” is well written and engaging and has a lot of figures and, ah, here I run out of nice things to say. But we all know you didn’t come for the nice things anyway, so let’s get to the beef.</text></comment>