Edward Archer, a "Computational Physiologist currently serving as Chief Science Officer for EnduringFX," energetically argues "No." I agree. And I'd add that this is one of several reasons economics tends to outperform other social sciences: we don't pay much--or even any--attention to what people say about why they do what they do.
If this stuff doesn't completely boggle your mind, I suggest you check your pulse. You might be dead.
I suppose his guess is as good as anybody else's.
A new material can absorb up to 90 times its own weight in spilled oil and then be squeezed out like a sponge and reused, raising hopes for easier clean-up of oil spill sites.
Especially recommended if you're unfamiliar with Kahneman and Tversky's work. This is a good summary of it in an important application.
They sound good to me. Bring 'em on.
If should just be a rule: if no one can try to replicate it, it isn't science. I don't care what kind of data you're using.
They think they've "seen" quantum fluctuations.
This seems startling and impressive.
My first reaction was that surely there must be a reasonable explanation. But then I considered the institutions involved and I think maybe not so surely.
Sabine Hossenfelder does a good job explaining in non-technical terms why radiating black holes give physicists a pain the the rear.