Talk:2017 in science
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
stop the climate change news spam edit
Don't get me wrong: Climate change is real. Climate change is a huge problem. The no.1 cause of climate change is the animal agriculture. And we need to take bold action to stop climate change. But with all this being said: Am I the only one annoyed by the inflationary amount of insignificant climate change news across the months on this wiki article? The hundredth study proving decades known climate change facts is not what I would consider a 'significant scientific event occurred or is scheduled to occur in 2017', which is worth it to stand next to scientific events like discovery of the Higgs boson (last years) or first detection of gravitational waves.
Created talk page edit
Created talk page for 2017 in science article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
August 14 - emoticon research edit
Is there anyone else that thinks this junk science and doesn't belong here? — Myk Streja (beep) 19:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
"Studies" and "Adjustments" of Old Data edit
When people come to 2017 in Science, I think they want to read about new discoveries and inventions. There are a lot of good ones, but there are also a ton of "climate studies" which are really just repeats of looking at or adjusting old data and extrapolating it. It would be one thing if these were substantial new data discoveries with mounds of new research. However they seem to just be new interpretations of data that are NOT double-blind peer reviews as studies should be. This is especially the case for extrapolated "studies" in which people publish their predictions for rising sea levels and temperature increases. Let's just stick to the discoveries rather than predictions. I want to read about significant discoveries about advancement in science, not the same old predictions that have been repeated for decades and decades. Nothing against climate change, but the studies are somewhat out of hand and are not really within the scope of this page. Furthermore, look back at older years in this series. They are NOT full of climate studies, but scientific advances. This is because those studies and predictions quickly become outdated or at least not important to the future of science. BrainofJT (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
RfC about 2017 solar eclipse edit
Please go to Talk:2017#Eclipse and respond to the discussion of whether or not the eclipse should have an entry in the main article. Thank you. — Myk Streja (beep) 21:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria edit
I've looked at a few of these years in science articles, and haven't seen any inclusion criteria. What makes a discovery significant enough to be included? Natureium (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
All these fusion startups edit
I suggest to remove their entries. There is no scientific contribution from a first plasma in some experimental reactor of a startup company, and most of these companies never get beyond this step because they don't create conditions relevant for fusion. This applies to the Dec 21 entry, the Nov 6 entry and the April 28 entry. It does not apply to the big international collaborations (ITER and Wendelstein) as they are known to create scientific output, and it does not apply to proper research results (e.g. Aug 21, Nov 10). --mfb (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- No objections -> did that. --mfb (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- These companies are trying new innovative methods to try to achieve commercial fusion, and should be included. It's not significantly different from ITER. The only difference is ITER is through government cooperation, and the others are private startups. And some of them already have achieved fusion, like TAE Technologies, but yet have not been able to derive electricity from it. And they do publish their results.--110.93.240.133 (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thousands of companies are trying thousands of different things. If they publish interesting results we can include them, but a press release “yeah, our test setup is making some progress, we are now where other reactors were in the 1950s“ is not. That is something that happens hundreds of times every day in research. ITER has a completely different scale and many more scientists working on it. And we know it will achieve parameters relevant for fusion. --mfb (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Do we then start removing any kind of research by private companies then in the articles? Because then we would have to remove many entries from the articles.--110.93.240.133 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with mfb, here. The startups, however promising and exciting, did not achieve any scientific breakthroughs and hence, have no real place here. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- TAE Technologies did manage a breakthrough through the field-reversed configuration method, that no government or other private fusion entity has managed so far yet I believe. General Fusion did build the world's largest plasma injector, though I guess that's not really a breakthrough. --110.93.240.133 (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Then we should reference the breakthrough, not the new device. Where did they publish it, where are secondary sources reporting about this publication? --mfb (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- They published it here: https://tae.com/a-high-performance-field-reversed-configuration. The company itself is credible because Google has acknowledged working with it: https://research.googleblog.com/2017/07/so-there-i-was-firing-megawatt-plasma.html & https://twitter.com/ericschmidt/status/927705471770771456?lang=en
- Also noticed by MIT Technology Review, a credible technology magazine: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601482/go-inside-trialpha-a-startup-pursuing-the-ideal-power-source/ --110.93.240.133 (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I meant publications in peer-reviewed journals, not press releases. TAE has these publications (taking your link from below) - but not in 2017. Put them in the 2015/2014/... articles if you didn't do that already. --mfb (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Then we should reference the breakthrough, not the new device. Where did they publish it, where are secondary sources reporting about this publication? --mfb (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- TAE Technologies did manage a breakthrough through the field-reversed configuration method, that no government or other private fusion entity has managed so far yet I believe. General Fusion did build the world's largest plasma injector, though I guess that's not really a breakthrough. --110.93.240.133 (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with mfb, here. The startups, however promising and exciting, did not achieve any scientific breakthroughs and hence, have no real place here. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Do we then start removing any kind of research by private companies then in the articles? Because then we would have to remove many entries from the articles.--110.93.240.133 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thousands of companies are trying thousands of different things. If they publish interesting results we can include them, but a press release “yeah, our test setup is making some progress, we are now where other reactors were in the 1950s“ is not. That is something that happens hundreds of times every day in research. ITER has a completely different scale and many more scientists working on it. And we know it will achieve parameters relevant for fusion. --mfb (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- These companies are trying new innovative methods to try to achieve commercial fusion, and should be included. It's not significantly different from ITER. The only difference is ITER is through government cooperation, and the others are private startups. And some of them already have achieved fusion, like TAE Technologies, but yet have not been able to derive electricity from it. And they do publish their results.--110.93.240.133 (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 Response to third opinion request :
|
| The question in any article reviewing scientific advancement is whether there indeed was advancement in science - not in any particular initiative (regardless of its funding sources), but in the generation of new knowledge. Whether a particular experimental discovery or experimental setup constitutes "new knowledge" should be judged by the following criteria: a) novelty - whether it is indeed new; b) detail - whether it's described in enough detail to be reproduced by a 2nd party. However, in practice this article isn't only about science, but about technology as well, and there "detail" can be dropped in favor of viability (as a technology's importance is in its use more than in the details of its operation) - whether the technology is likely to arrive to market in the foreseeable future. Note the identity of the technology's developer is not of importance per se, but it can be taken into account when considering the technology's viability. For example: The Nov. 10th announcement by IBM of a 50 qubit quantum computer has little in the way of scientific novelty, but it is significant in terms of technological innovation, and is likely to see its way to market soon. Taking all of this into consideration:
The following entries should be removed:
The following entries require further discussion:
The following entries should stay:
François Robere (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)|}
|