It’s ludicrous. He can’t even keep straight what the paper says and what Professor Kipping said in the video. I stayed early on that it’s important to differentiate what a paper says from arguments made based on the paper. For example, the paper describes the sun as being normal or typical in terms of activity. That’s all it says.Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:59 pmDid you read the entire research paper in question?
- Doc
The 1/3 number comes from Kipping’s video. Figure 3 in the paper is a graph that shows the frequency distribution for the whole sample, the periodic sub sample, and what’s labeled “noisy sun.” The graph does not show the distribution of the subsample of the non periodic starts — the stars that most resemble the earth. And the graph’s caption and the text use the graph to illustrate that the periodic starts almost entirely make up the “active” part of the total sample’s distribution. Nothing says anything about where the sun falls in the non periodic distribution.
What Dr. Kipping did is made an argument based on figure 3. Even though figure 3 says nothing about where the sun fits in the distribution of non periodic stars, you can subtract the distribution of the periodic subsample from the distribution of the the total sample and, what’s left, is the distribution of the periodic subsample.
If you look at figure 3, it’s not that hard to see what the distribution would look like. And, at least by eyeball, Kipping’s estimate looks reasonable to me — especially for an informational video for the public.
Now, lets ignore revisionist history and look at the claim DT made that set this whole kerfuffle of:
The link is to the abstract, which is a strong indication that DT didn’t read the paper. But that his last sentence contradicts both what the paper says and what Dr. Kipping says. That’s because he wrongly equated the term “solar-like,” which is a specifically defined term in the paper, with the specific description used by Kipping: “quiet sun-like.”doubtingthomas wrote: 3. Only about five percent of stars are solar-like. To make things crazier, "The Sun is less active than other solar-like stars". That means only about 0.5% of stars are truly sun-like.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020S ... R/abstract
Had he read the paper, he would have understood that the title and Dr. Kipping were talking about two different types of stars. How he got from 5% to .5% is beyond me. If he used Kipping’s estimate, the answer is 1.5%. And the paper doesn’t make a percentage estimate comparable to Dr. Kipping’s.
My point, which I have made in other discussions, is that DT habitually misuses snippets from scientific papers because he doesn’t take the time to read and understand the paper. That’s exactly what he did here. Even worse, he claimed to be just saying what Dr. Kipping said at the same time he was trying to deny or discredit the very evidence Kipping was basing his claim on. As late as last night, he still was insisting that Kipping never said anything about the non periodic stars (which was the subsample of “quiet sun-like stars.”
Maybe he finally read the whole paper in the last 24 hours — he read enough to drop a name.
But it’s clear that he still doesn’t understand the paper, Dr. Kipping’s inference, or much of what I posted. If he did, he wouldn’t have posted a list of “contradictions” that aren’t contradictory at all. I suppose I could rub his nose in whole thing by quoting all his ridiculous assertions he has made about the paper in a big list, but that seems like overkill. And kinda mean.
