[ziddoap]

I looked around (Smithsonian, space.com, astronomy.com, etc.), but nowhere has any mention of people disputing the findings, do you have a link? Who is "people" in this case?

(I was/am skeptical just because it's a single-author study with pretty spectacular results, and have been keeping an eye out for any followups, but must have missed them)

[iainmerrick]

This comment has a good summary of the debunking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43540635

It's unfortunately rare for this kind of straightforward falsification to make it into publications aimed at the general reader. "A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on," as they say.

[ziddoap]

Thanks.

I was hoping for something a bit more authoritative than a reddit comment being copy/pasted to HN (e.g. an actual retraction, or a paper directly disputing the findings), but I'm guessing most of the community just ignored the paper due to the history of the author.

[dkural]

That comment has exactly what you're asking for: Links to papers that show there is no evidence for rotation asymmetry. The very first article linked in that Reddit comment is a scientific publication from the Royal Society with the title "No evidence for anisotropy in galaxy spin directions".

[ziddoap]

>That comment has exactly what you're asking for

No, it doesn't.

I was hoping to read something that addressed this specific paper. All of those links are papers published before Lior Shamir's paper was published.

The comment I originally replied to said "people pointed out he cherry-picked results". I thought "people" might be "scientists" and they might have pointed it out in a subsequent paper or something.

Thanks though.

[Retric]

The chronology or papers isn’t important here.

The cherry picking is clear from the difference in results not their timing.

[ZunarJ5]

Download the Pubpeer extension. There's often blips from someone.

[mike-the-mikado]

Do you mean "common" rather than "rare"?

[iainmerrick]

I think "rare" is right but the way I phrased it is probably misleading, sorry.

I meant the rebuttal usually doesn't get published with the same high profile as the original story.