The headline of an online Washington Post article published today reads, “’God Particle’: Scientists close in on evidence of Higgs boson existence.” This appeared in contrast to the trickle of information being previously released, namely, that scientists were running out of places to look for this hypothetical particle, and were losing hope for its discovery. Did they now finally detect something? So as I’m reading it, I come upon the following statements:
“Scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research have narrowed the range where the hypothetical “God particle” created at the beginning of the universe may be found, closing in on evidence of its existence.”
TRANSLATION: We’ve already looked at the most likely places and found nothing, and so are running out of places where it might be.
“While the scientists found “tantalizing hints” of the particle, it’s too early to say whether it exists, the scientists said.”
TRANSLATION: We have nothing.
“We cannot conclude anything at this stage.”
TRANSLATION: Ditto.
“Finding the Higgs boson could be a gateway to discovering new physics.”
TRANSLATION: We know that we previously reported repeatedly that NOT discovering the Higgs would lead us to a ‘new physics’, but the phrase is so cool-sounding and stirs so much attention that we’re parroting it at every opportunity.
“The significance of the hints reported today could turn into proof beyond a doubt come next October.”
QUESTION: What hints???? They reported nothing.
TRANSLATION: We previously reported that we’d know by 2012. Now we’re giving ourselves another year.
“CERN said in September that an experiment showed a neutrino beam appears to have moved faster than the speed of light. The finding, if confirmed, would contradict Albert Einstein, who said nothing can exceed light speed.”
TRANSLATION: Since neither we scientists nor the writer really has anything to report, and since it only sounds sensational by the way we took nothing and painted “something” over it, we need to add this previously reported sensation that, even though it has been universally rejected by virtually every credible scientific authority as faulty science, our lipstick-on-a-pig journalistic approach just wasn’t cutting it on its own, even by our own nebulous and diluted standards.
Modern journalism + modern science = > 0 [I think I have the math right—I checked my work too]
“Scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research have narrowed the range where the hypothetical “God particle” created at the beginning of the universe may be found, closing in on evidence of its existence.”
TRANSLATION: We’ve already looked at the most likely places and found nothing, and so are running out of places where it might be.
“While the scientists found “tantalizing hints” of the particle, it’s too early to say whether it exists, the scientists said.”
TRANSLATION: We have nothing.
“We cannot conclude anything at this stage.”
TRANSLATION: Ditto.
“Finding the Higgs boson could be a gateway to discovering new physics.”
TRANSLATION: We know that we previously reported repeatedly that NOT discovering the Higgs would lead us to a ‘new physics’, but the phrase is so cool-sounding and stirs so much attention that we’re parroting it at every opportunity.
“The significance of the hints reported today could turn into proof beyond a doubt come next October.”
QUESTION: What hints???? They reported nothing.
TRANSLATION: We previously reported that we’d know by 2012. Now we’re giving ourselves another year.
“CERN said in September that an experiment showed a neutrino beam appears to have moved faster than the speed of light. The finding, if confirmed, would contradict Albert Einstein, who said nothing can exceed light speed.”
TRANSLATION: Since neither we scientists nor the writer really has anything to report, and since it only sounds sensational by the way we took nothing and painted “something” over it, we need to add this previously reported sensation that, even though it has been universally rejected by virtually every credible scientific authority as faulty science, our lipstick-on-a-pig journalistic approach just wasn’t cutting it on its own, even by our own nebulous and diluted standards.
Modern journalism + modern science = > 0 [I think I have the math right—I checked my work too]
RSS Feed