The usual behavior towards this kind of ignorance and arrogance is contempt. I could have kept shut and let people make fools of themselves but, somehow, I care about this place and the quality of the community, hence my reply.
I probably wouldn't have been as vehement hadn't I known (remotely for most of them) some of the authors, hence the disclosure, but that's not the point.
The criticism below come from people who, by the fact of their comments, displayed flagrant ignorance of the subject and of the scientific process, and imagined they could criticize the paper on a technical ground when they are clearly incompetent to do so. Hence the link to the original paper and the information complement ==> "Please read the paper and make your opinion based on it rather than on a simplified summary".
-
I know of course that there are smart people outside the academic world. That's why I'm hanging around here. But the Science reviewers are the best researchers in their fields, and, to get there, you need to be impressively smart and knowledgeable. I hope you've had or will have the chance to hang around with people in that "league", they are amazing. Assuming you can outsmart them at reviewing a paper without having even read it is just dumb.
-
At last, I didn't see the comments here as threats to the paper it is solid, and so are the people behind it. I wouldn't have written the comment if I had a single doubt about it. The Cyclotron team routinely publishes papers in the best journals (Science, Nature, PLOS, PNAS, the Lancet, to name a few). They're badasses ;-)
We should celebrate our specialties and the amount of narrow and deep knowledge required to become experts in them instead of having our egos tripped up because we can't have our intelligence validated in every single domain.
That said, I agree with your point, and thank you for your support.
That's exactly what he did, and he did it so well, the stupid parts of the discussion can now end, and that's a good thing.
Also, Mr. Pot you might not want to go out of your way to point out black kettles.
I guess what I'm saying is YOU get down from your high horse let discussion happen.
People whose only involvement is friendship with the author defending said author from comment from the peanut gallery and using arguments such as "you probably don't know anything about this subject", "stop thinking and just trust the publication", "don't criticise the reviewers, they're smarter than you. Smarter than you can even imagine. How dare you think you have anything worth saying?".
And of course, the brilliant: "You're failing therefore I'm looking down on you, why not stop now?"
This is HN, not a peer reviewed science journal. Comment here is no real threat anyway, and even if it was a real threat, if the paper is as solid as you say then it wouldn't be affected anyway. Get down from your high horse and let discussion happen. Some of us might even make mistakes and clarify our understanding of some part in the process. (How dare we!)