Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by DavidSJ 3711 days ago
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't think anyone seriously doubts that the null article produces no thrust. So it's not a question of whether the null article's production of thrust disproves the efficacy of anything. It's a question of whether the experimental setup which measured that thrust is trustworthy.
2 comments
austinz 3711 days ago
I'm not saying the experiments were trustworthy or conducted properly. Only that the author of the article misunderstood the experimental setup.

(To be precise, the comment about the null thruster was made by the author in a comment on this article, and by a previous article written by the author, which this one references. It is not in the article itself.)

link
DavidSJ 3711 days ago
I realize that, but I'm suggesting that you may have misunderstood the author.

It sounds like you think the author is asserting that the null test article was intended as an experimental control and that its production of thrust is evidence for the null hypothesis.

I read him/her as asserting that the null test article is an experimental apparatus calibration tool, and that the reading of thrust suggests the apparatus is improperly calibrated, so that no results at all can be inferred from the experiment.

link
taneq 3711 days ago
Holy triple negative batman! Do you mean that nobody thinks the null article produces thrust? Or did I parse that wrong?
link
DavidSJ 3711 days ago
You have the right parity but there is a slight semantic difference between that and what I said. Sorry that I wasn't so clear. I'll try again.

There's a difference between "I don't believe X" (which allows for ambivalence) and "I believe not X" (which does not). There's also a difference between "I believe not X" and "I have no doubt of not X".

I was pointing out that there is no dispute or even doubt about the null article's inability to produce thrust (and this would have been a better phrasing). So the question is not "what does the null article's thrust imply about various hypotheses?" It's "what does the apparatus' measurement of thrust from the null article imply about the apparatus?" GP seems to have missed this point.

link
taneq 3711 days ago
Agreed on the semantic differences, I missed that one.

> "What does the apparatus' measurement of thrust from the null article imply about the apparatus?"

That makes sense, and I think it's a good question. Thanks for clarifying!

link