GIGO

Black Holes

It looked like a really great story -- two black holes in a spiral dance of death, X-rays pouring out as one hole devours another. Inspiring stuff, even if a little hard to imagine. So there we were, the day before the expected collision, ready to go to print and wondering if we could delay the deadline to see if the observations held out.

A quick check with Mount John Observatory burst our bubble -- no collision, no titanic death struggle at the galactic core, just a glitch in satellite software that had fooled some astronomers. So what to do? Pull the story out and find another to fill it at this late stage? Well, we could have done that, but thinking about how the story had developed made us think more about how well it illustrated the nature of science.

Firstly someone had made a series of interesting observations which required explanation. The idea of the colliding black holes was suggested, criticised, modified, alternative explanations tried out. A prediction was made, but even before it could have been tested, further examination of the observations showed a far simpler reason for them, and one which did not rely on an event where the odds of it occurring were, ahem, astronomical.

Were we any other sort of publication, the story would have been dropped. I recall an overseas science show keen to cover some research here concerning the biodynamic approach to possum control. It was the first time in over 60 years someone had actually tested the claims of the oft-touted "peppering science" of Rudolph Steiner, undertaken at a time when numerous regional councils were being called upon to use the technique to control a variety of plant and animal pests. However, because the tests showed no effect, the television people lost interest in covering the research, and we continue to see media reports on the miracles of peppering.

In science, unlike almost any other human endeavour, finding out that you have got something wrong can be as useful as finding that your prediction has tested true. The latter may be more gratifying -- and probably helps more in gaining funding -- but it doesn't necessarily make it better science.

Vicki Hyde is the editor of New Zealand Science Monthly.