[vanderZwan]

> Tone of this blog post is extremely pedantic and comes across as if the author were personally insulted by the paper.

I suspect she is insulted, but more so by the press release surrounding a new paper unconfirmed by experimentation. That is now how science works.

One could say it's like calling a buggy alpha version of a software project a stable finished product, if we pretended people actually did give a damn about that in software.

[eutropia]

Yeah the press release and subsequent science journalism is all annoying and breathless and overblown -- totally agreed.

But to say that its unconfirmed by experimentation and "not how science works" is a bit silly, don't you think? The paper proposes a model, shows outputs of the model, and demonstrates how it predicts things we have already observed. It's a good starting point for other experiments and observations, don't you think? Plenty of papers do purely theoretical work and science is better for them, too.

[vanderZwan]

> But to say that its unconfirmed by experimentation and "not how science works" is a bit silly, don't you think?

No, because she is not saying that the paper is rubbish, she is addressing the hype among an uninformed public and telling them to chill.