Slashdot Mirror
Billionaire Technologist Accuses NASA Asteroid Mission of Bad Statistics (sciencemag.org)
Taco Cowboy quotes a report from Science Magazine: Nathan Myhrvold, ex-CTO of Microsoft, is accusing NASA of providing bad statistics on asteroid size. Mr. Myhrvold alleged that scientists using a prominent NASA space telescope have made fundamental mistakes in their assessment of the size of more than 157,000 asteroids they have observed. In a paper posted to the arXiv.org e-print repository on 22 May, Myhrvold takes aim at the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), a space telescope launched in 2009, and a follow-on mission, NEOWISE, which together are responsible for the discovery of more asteroids than any other observatory. Yet Myhrvold says that the WISE and NEOWISE teams' papers are riddled with statistical missteps. "None of their results can be replicated," he tells ScienceInsider. "I found one irregularity after another" Myhrvold says the NASA teams have made mistakes, such as ignoring the margin of error introduced when extrapolating from a small sample size to an entire population. They also neglected to include Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation in their thermal models of the asteroids. Based on his own models, Myhrvold says that errors in the asteroid diameters based on WISE data should be 30%. In some cases, the size errors rise to as large as 300%. "Asteroids are more variable than we thought they were," he says. He has submitted the paper to the journal Icarus for review. However, the WISE and NEOWISE teams are standing by their results, and say that Myhrvold's criticism should be dismissed. "For every mistake I found in his paper, if I got a bounty, I would be rich," says Ned Wright, the principal investigator for WISE at the University of California, Los Angeles. Wright says that WISE's data match very well with two other infrared telescopes, AKARI and IRAS. To find out how accurately those infrared data determine the size of an asteroid, scientists have to calibrate them with radar observations, other observations made when asteroids pass in front of distant stars, and observations made by spacecraft up close. When they do that, Wright says, WISE's size errors end up at roughly 15%. Wright says his team doesn't have Myhrvold's computer codes, "so we don't know why he's screwing up." But Wright archly noted that Myhrvold once worked at Microsoft, so "is responsible in part for a lot of bad software."
Isn't that this patent troll?
But Wright archly noted that Myhrvold once worked at Microsoft, so "is responsible in part for a lot of bad software."
That hurts.
Here's a link to the paper. Seriously, does this guy think the WISE team are a bunch of idiots? I'm personally not qualfied to judge the details of the physical arguments in Myhrvold's paper, but I would give it high probability that he's full of shit.
winner.
I think we're witnessing a new class of rich assholes who think they're superman or something. Where money is a substitute for intellect, beauty or inspiration.
Disgusting, but also scary. A danger to society as a whole.
Watch them meeting at Davos to "solve the big problems of humankind". Barf.
The worst kind of data problem is when the data appear reasonable enough to not trigger suspicions but are actually dead wrong. I've been there, where I had a result that looked reasonable enough that I presented it at a conference. I later discovered that the result was wrong enough to invalidate anything I had presented. The problem was a software package I was using, a programming and data analysis tool called NCL. Had a function worked as documented and in the examples on the website, my results would have been fine. But because of the bug in NCL that probably still hasn't been fixed, my results looked reasonable enough but we're wrong. Thankfully I discovered the problem before trying to publish the results.
NASA says their results look reasonable. However, if their methodology has errors, it might be a case of reasonable looking results that are wrong. I think it would be worthwhile to look into the concerns and see if any of them have merit.
The last statement in the summary is completely uncalled for. The ad hominem attack does nothing to defend NASA's methodology. It only serves to try to discredit the criticism. That's the biggest thing I have a problem with. If you're convinced the methodology is correct and that the concerns are unfounded, that's enough to fend off the criticism. That the critic was once an executive at Microsoft is totally irrelevant.
He has also attacked other researchers in other fields: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/science/earth/outsider-challenges-papers-on-growth-of-dinosaurs.html
Shame he's been unable to locate the stick lodged in his butt.
How does he have the free time to write a 111 page research paper in the first place? He looks a busy man wiki...
" but this is unsupported by any calculations and undermined because NEOWISE results for 102 asteroids appear to have had the diameter from prior radar and occultation studies simply copied rather than being due to NEOWISE thermal modeling"
Yes this is a big claim & should be easy to check. If true it means there has been very sloppy research. This is the process of academic peer review. It hasn't been all that active for over a decade, hopefully this might finally change.
Nathan only got his billions by riding the coat tails of Bill. he did nothing at all that was impressive, and honestly from insight read online during those yearst he CTO was not as competent as he should have been.
Bored Billionaire wants attention, attacks real scientists with pseudoscience, news at a11.
Now if he actually give them ALL the information including his Excel spreadsheet.... I mean software.... then we can start to take him serious.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Wright says his team doesn't have Myhrvold's computer codes, "so we don't know why he's screwing up." But Wright archly noted that Myhrvold once worked at Microsoft, so "is responsible in part for a lot of bad software."
See, now this is something that would be fun to watch.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Do we find the science too complicated? Too busy to actually read the papers? Too lazy to do a little digging? Never learned how to do the math? Never mind. We can always pick a side and run down the character of any and all opponents. It's quick. It's easy. It's fun. Science be damned.
chances are high, that he is right in both accusations he made in the past years.
1. He only posts in his personal field of interests
2. He has no personal benefit, except for his own knowledge gain.
3. He tried to contact the original researchers and asked for clarification, but got no real answer for it.
4. The peer review process is broken and everybody knows it. anybody heard about the "chocolate diet"?
5. Many studies are often tweaked to show results, where there are non, because in our society a result with "no, there is nothing new here" is considered a failure. Anybody seen a Paper with the headline: "We failed at [...] and thats why?" Or "Our Colleges are right at [...]"
So yes: I strongly believe a interested rich man can check results of some scientists and he might be able to point out studies which are faked for some reasons.
Not only does having untold millions in your bank account (actually generated by your rank and file) make you a permanent money addict, searching for another hit that felt as good as that first million, but it also warps your mind to such a degree that you think you're an all-knowing, all-seeing demigod (see: Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, etc.).
It reminds of the time Tom Cruise told Matt Lauer that "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the body.", and "You don't know the history of psychiatry, I do.".
The overpaid and entitled, with a pulpit to stand on and a microphone in front of them, will always feel the need to speak from a position of equal parts confidence and ignorance.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
It's not rocket science, people.
Oh, wait...
The peer review process is broken and everybody knows it.
To paraphrase a quote about democracy as a system of government, 'peer review is the worst system of review except for all the others'.
Lets see who to believe?
A team of highly dedicated and experienced scientists or a bean counter from microsoft.
Ill take my chances with the scientists. Also anyone else see the irony in someone bitching about object size when they worked for MICROsoft?
NASA is talking about (and might eventually maybe do) a mission where they go grab ONE asteroid and bring it back. Once they find a few candidates, they will obviously have to send robot probes to the candidates for a close examination. No way to do it by telescope, before you ever try to move an asteroid you need to see it at extremely close range to see it's true composition, look for cracks, etc.
Then they have some plan to send a robot spacecraft with a shit-ton of dV to bring it back. (and so they need an engine with fairly high ISP and fairly high thrust so the burns can be finished in a reasonable time period. Unfortunately the only way to get that even on paper is nuclear and they probably don't want to develop one)
And put the asteroid in an accessible place so it can be rendezvoused with and looked at in person by a chosen few astronaut geologists.
He has not published his alogorithm source code or calculation so the same apply to that guy. On the other hand result in agreement with other telescope and experiment give some more surety. So we have 3 results similar and 1 guy which makes some calculation and tell us they are all 3 wrong in effect and riddled of error " Yet Myhrvold says that the WISE and NEOWISE teams' papers are riddled with statistical missteps" "fundemental mistake" so excuse me if I pardon the "he made bad software".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Um, not if you only got a penny per mistake. And this statement from a guy who claims his math is defensible.
I feel bad or the guy, having to write all those equations in MS Word. Must have been painful.
But Wright archly noted that Myhrvold once worked at Microsoft, so "is responsible in part for a lot of bad software."
There was a time when Microsoft was in the IBM "no one ever got fired for buying..." position.
Now we have statements like this in (more or less) mainstream press, not just techie circles. That's a long way to fall, when having Microsoft on your CV is held against you.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Based on the slashdot summary? Maybe dig a bit deeper. Scientists can be proud and rash, but it is likely backed by mountains of data.
Eh, their formula works for spherical asteroids in a vacuum, what more do they want -.o; (Seriously, you're never going to get perfection, we have the data we have, they're making the best guess they can based on it, if better data appears they'll certainly adjust their view.)
They check their figures against the other type of data that was available. The numbers were comparable. So they publish their size estimates. OK. Now someone disagrees. Alright. Me I am trying to figure out why it matters.
Well, that's how the scientific process works. It's not pretty sometimes, but finding a mistake in someone else's work is how we progress. Sometimes people are dicks about it, or refuse to admit their own error.
Get out the popcorn if you like.
This is a question of facts and evidence. Whoever has the best conkers will win.
chances are high, that he is right in both accusations he made in the past years.
1. He only posts in his personal field of interests.
Being "interested" is, unfortunately, no guarantee of being correct. Crackpots are all interested, that doesn't make them right.
2. He has no personal benefit, except for his own knowledge gain..
Translation: nobody is actually paying him for this work. Translation of translation: he's not actually a professional in the field.
3. He tried to contact the original researchers and asked for clarification, but got no real answer for it..
A lot of the public does believe that it is the duty of scientists to drop everything and give unpaid tutorials to anybody in the public who calls up and asks you to explain the basics of their field, but really, it's impossible; you can't. At some point you just have to say "there are textbooks available, read them."
4. The peer review process is broken and everybody knows it. anybody heard about the "chocolate diet"?.
Except nevertheless, peer review is better than no peer review, which is what Myhrvold has so far
5. Many studies are often tweaked to show results, where there are non, because in our society a result with "no, there is nothing new here" is considered a failure.
Except this isn't "results"-- it is counts of number of astroids as a function of size. What Myhrvold is saying is that it should be different counts of numbers.
Anybody seen a Paper with the headline: "We failed at [...] and thats why?" Or "Our Colleges are right at [...]"
So yes: I strongly believe a interested rich man can check results of some scientists and he might be able to point out studies which are faked for some reasons.
And I strongly believe than arrogant rich man can be wrong. Here's an interesting thing: once you get rich, people start telling you how smart you are. And stop telling you when you're acting like an idiot.
I think College Admission/Voting/Drinking Age should match. I love how you are "too immature" to make reasonable life choices about drinking at an age you are making many life altering decisions. I finished my first semester of college at the age of 17.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
NASA statistics get personal
Maybe the asteroids were just rotating and he's seeing a different side of them than NASA observed? Plausible, so it must be true.
Maybe he could put some Preparation-H on his enlarged asteroids.
Just another day in Paradise
It's not just college you can join the armed services and die for your country prior to being drinking age.
I started my first semester of college mid-year just before my 18th birthday and missed my high school prom and graduation. Much later I went back to school and was older and more experienced than many of my professors. Just wait until I retire and go back again.
Peer reviewers will determine whether Myhrvold's argument is basically reasonable, though not necessarily whether it's actually true. That's the most information anybody can get out of a scientific paper without understanding it. Truth is ultimately only determined by actual data.
Wright says his team doesn't have Myhrvold's computer codes, "so we don't know why he's screwing up."
May be he used Microsoft Excel and failed to account for the various problems in its math library (like calculating the Ceiling and Floor on negative numbers).
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Myhrvold is an interesting guy. He has his fingers in a lot of pies, juggles many activities. Considering all the other stuff he does (yes, some very controversial) it's amazing that he has the time, energy and resources to tackle this obscure topic. Hats off!
...omphaloskepsis often...
Know bug ridden!
Astrophysicist here. I read his paper, and it strikes me as an engineer's approach rather than an astrophysicist's. He builds up a very complicated framework from many, many assumptions and gets a very complicated model with "more accurate" solutions.
An astrophysicist learns where to make simplifying assumptions that ease the calculation and make the relationships clearer without sacrificing too much accuracy. The less complicated the model, the less likely you are to be wrong (Occam's Razor).
Now I don't know in this specific instance if a simpler model is viable (I'm not an asteroid specialist), but the difference between his paper and all of the other hundreds of astrophysics papers I've read was stark. The sheer length of the paper suggests that it is highly improbable that there are no mistakes at all, even for someone of his intellectual capability.
Now, couple that to the lack of a public release of his analysis code, and you have a conclusion emerging ...
Question: Is there evidence that Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold know much about technology? They wrote a really, really poor book together, The Road Ahead. Quote from the Wikipedia page:
That New York Times book review suggests that Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold were deliberately engaged in fraud, and deliberately eliminated anything of value from the book before it was printed.
Or, maybe it wasn't fraud, or only fraud. Maybe they actually don't know much about technology.