Krauss has written a short article explaining his reasons behind his comments:
CERN and colliding theories
Quote:
A dramatic claim from a distinguished laboratory that turns out to be false reinforces the notion that somehow science is not to be trusted, that one can dismiss theories one finds inconvenient, even those whose predictions do agree with observations. This particular claim also reinforces the notion that scientific revolutions sweep away all that went before them. This is not how science progresses. Results that have withstood the test of experiment will continue to remain valid, no matter how physical theory evolves.
…
What is inappropriate, however, is the publicity fanfare coming before the paper has even been examined by referees. Too often today, science is done by news release rather than waiting for refereed publication. Because a significant fraction of experimental results ultimately never get published or are not later confirmed, providing unfiltered results to a largely untutored public is irresponsible.
The CERN result may indeed herald something new and remarkable. But if the overwhelming suspicions that greeted it are true instead, then the public presentation is unfortunate and misleading.
|
So, with those words, Krauss has gone up (in my estimation) of public science presenters.
Its good to see that he recognises the very real risks of poorly managed media announcements, and the precariously balanced position of the image of science in the minds of the public.
What's more, he's also shown that he's prepared to demonstrate his own regard for responsibility, by taking the time to clearly explain his own comments .. all entirely supportable from the perspective of the scientific process … (which is more than can be claimed by certain other popular science presenters …
)
Good on him.
So, far Khalili and Krauss have demonstrated leadership skills, and not simply a desire for ratings and self-image consciousness.
Cheers