The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true

Re:The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true by mtrycz on Saturday August 06, 2016 @02:04PM (#12239100)

I was about to say something similar, just checking out if someone had already said it.

I just don't dig the obsession with "aesthetics". It just doesn't compute. I understand the need for simplicity, but there's JUST NO PLACE for aesthetics in science. We need simple verifiable experiments and results, no "my model is more beautiful than yours" stupidity.

One important thing: scientists need to recognize where science ends and passion/preference begins. Scientism is the greatest foe of science.

Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true by wyager on Saturday August 06, 2016 @02:22PM (#12239214)

Aesthetics in science is shorthand for simplicity. Most agree that simpler theories have a higher prior probability (I.e. Occam's Razor).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true by mruniverse on Saturday August 06, 2016 @02:42PM (#12239320)

It's here in programming too. C++ gets a lot of hate for being ugly, while Lisp is praised for it's beauty.

[ Parent | on HN ]