CERN’s announcement on July 4 — that experiments performed by the Large Hadron Collider had discovered a particle that was consistent with the Higgs boson — has passed a key step towards becoming ratified science: Its findings have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Letters B.
Am i the only person who finds this a bit odd?
a particle that was consistent with the Higgs boson"
---
So still not actual science?
has passed a key step towards becoming ratified science
---
It either is or it isn't probably isn't good enough.
but as the Standard Model of particle physics only has one undiscovered particle remaining, it probably is the Higgs boson
Alas; Before peer review, it was a discovery. Now that peer review has confirmed it, and removed a great deal of doubt, it can be labeled a a fact and filed under science. There is an important distinction to note. One that many conspiracy theorists and pseudo-science hucksters intentionally leave out because it helps them sell their fake products. Science is a process not a single point in time. I could publish a paper saying that peoples toes glow at night. It would be well thought out, with documentation pertaining to my toes glowing as they stuck out from under the sheets of my bed. Since I have made this discovery, I have made science! Where is my Nobel prize? Unfortunately I have not made science. Besides potentially making an ass out of myself in a public forum, I made a discovery that calls for peer review. When a scientist reviews the work, they validate that the experiment was done properly and they try to recreate the experiment. If an only if the experiment can be properly recreated and there are no errors in the process, it can then be labeled science. What would a peer review say of my glowing toes? "That is simply your nightlight reflecting off of the shiny part of your Batman Underoos. And by god, trim your nails!"
It's not that simple, and peer review is, like any human institution, full of politics and humbuggery. It's possibly the best process we know, but don't invest it with special powers. I think the peer review process probably works best in the so-called hard sciences, but it's certainly let some stinkers through there as well. -XC
I agree. I think peer review indicates another level of certitude, but the value of peer review depends on the quality of the journal (the editors and peers selected), the culture of the discipline, and the current prevailing scientific consensus. Peer review is a variable entity. That said, Phys Rev B is a solid journal, and physicists are typically sticklers. The way I see it, theory predicted a Higgs, this particle fits the description, so for all intensive purposes, it is the Higgs we were looking for. Of course, now people will try to take that apart, or expand upon it. To me, this article suggests that their ducks were in a row, and there weren't any big gaps in the analysis.