>Is it really
>worth trying to belittle what should turn out to be excellent science?
A serendipity case. Once more. Where is excellency exactlly,
according to you ? I repeat that excellency would be to produce
a theory which would have allowed to predict the MgB2
superconductor properties. Then, the need for chance in order
to disclose it would have been unnecessary.
I would call that excellent chance, not excellent science. I think
I can make the difference. I admit that the authors should receive
congratulations for their phenomenal chance. After all, this
compound is known structurally since several decades. The
conclusion is that we still continue to need having chance for
discovering new superconductors, because a good global
scientific theory is still lacking.
Others have no chance at all, or no equipment. The producers
of the first copper oxyde supraconductor were clearly
unlucky, though making good science for chemists
(also traditionally unable to predict what will be obtained when
putting given elements in a platinum tube at high temperature).
An extraordinary discovery is not necessarily Science. It is just
an unexpected result. Wow, lucky guys ! Splendid ! Now give the
sample to neutronists, but please with the good B isotope, and see
what happens.
Best regards,
Armel
