Paper Example on Scientific Evaluation of the KIC

Introduction

The Atlantic (TA) reports on an unusual star that lies between the Lyra and Cygnus constellations. Though naked eyes cannot see the star, the Kepler space telescope makes it visible. The TA reports the star as a unique thing that resembles something built by an alien civilization (Andersen). The MNRAS gives a detailed finding of the KIC 8462852 star based on the findings made during the Kepler mission. The findings report that the star underwent several unusual flux dips that went to as low a twenty percent. The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) also reports that the dipping activity would last between five to seven days (Boyajian et al.). TED gives different views on the abnormal data collected from KIC 8462852. It raises the claim of alien activities around the star that might have caused the dips observed during the Kepler mission. The finding on the star leads to the formation of a team of scientists known as Planet Hunters. The star emitted a pattern of light that was defined as bizarre and exciting (Andersen). The theme shared by these two articles is about the unusual data recorded during the Keppler mission. The TA is a media report while the MNRAS is a peer-reviewed science journal article. The difference in the two articles is that while TA records a media perception on the star. In gives claims of alien activities around the star. The MNRAS gives a detailed scientific finding on the dips observed from the star during the Keppler's mission. This paper seeks to conduct a scientific evaluation of KIC 8462852 based on how the media a perceived representation on a scientific finding reported from the Keppler mission and supported by observation from Planet Hunters.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

During the Keppler's mission, it was observed that the KIC 8462852 underwent aperiodic flux dips that were shaped irregularly. The flux dips lasted between five and eighty days and went below the twenty percent mark. The Keppler mission made these observations by focusing on a single field in the sky for a period of four years, that is, from the year two thousand and nine to the year two thousand and twelve (Boyajian et al.). The overall scope of the research was to establish the occurrence of transit throughout these four years. The field collected data from more than one hundred and fifty thousand stars with an aim to determine whether there another planet that existed outside the existing solar system (Boyajian).

The science journal concluded that the abnormal data findings were as a result of a previous breakup occurrence that resulted in the passage of exocomet fragment family along the field of view (Boyajian et al.). The media attributed the incident to a possible alien activity such as building as a result of alien civilisation (Andersen). The conclusion of the effect of the scientific and media point of view is not convincing. The reason is that the report and findings presented from the two points of view do not have any substantial evidence to back their claims. Dr Boyajian gives a presentation on these claims and offers different views on the scientific and media claims concerning this issue. An alien civilisation such as the construction of large solar panels would result in the emission of heat, although not captured in the field of study.

Similarly, a collision would also lead to the suspension of dust and debris that was also not captured. There need for proper research to present a finding that can defend the claim.

The media does well in reporting the great star. However, it does not give a composed backing on this finding. The claim by the press is beyond the ordinary. Therefore, the application ought to have been backed with substantial evidence that can convince the public. Since the media claim is opposed to the scientific finding, I suppose the media did an excellent report that crippled the scientific discovery. All scientific findings need supportive evidence that will convince the consumers of the information (Vaughn). Without this convincing part, the transmitted information merely depends on the persuasive power of the authors rather than on substantial evidence.

Presenting scientific information on a media platform is never relevant if the data contradicts the scientific findings (Vaughn). More to this, the media has a more convincing power than scientific platforms. As a result, real scientific discoveries may be denied a leeway to the public by false media representations. In doing this, the public gets a better chunk of false information in the name of media misrepresentation. The media should not pass any information without the authority of scientific institutions To achieve a seamless flow of information from scientific findings. On the other hand, the scientific institutions should be keen to release results backed by proper evidence to prevent any misrepresentations.

In some cases, scientific findings involve constructing significant statistical values from p-hacking (Oliver). In other scenarios, scientists publish findings to win the heart of the audience or the donors or funders. In the case of KIC 8462852, the media gives a different view from the scientists' view. It is important to note that the information presented by the media also leaked from a suspected possibility in the Keppler's mission. Leaving the study suspended may be defined as a mechanism structured by the scientists to seek further funding. Oliver's concluded that most scientific findings are based on the aims of the scientists rather than the general good. For instance, Boyajian's (pg. 3988-4004), Where's the flux registers that the abnormal variation in flux registered from KIC was due to a possible collision of comets that resulted in the accumulation of matter around the star. However, the claim is dismissed in Boyajian's presentation where she states that accumulated matter would have swallowed up by the star's gravity. The media's claim on possible alien activity is also dismissed since possible heat emissions are not detected from the field of study.

Conclusion

The media report and the scientific journal have reported differently on a similar event. The media report claims of an alien activity while the scientific report claims of a possible collision. Both applications seem to have insufficient evidence in providing substantial proof making the findings irrelevant and un-suit for public consumption. Further research needs to be done on the abnormal behavior of the star to establish an accurate causative agent of the behavior. The study will not only clear the air concerning false information but will also help in supporting or providing a basis for future research.

Works Cited

Andersen, R. "The Most Mysterious Star in Our Galaxy." The Atlantic. (2015): 1-4.

Boyajian Tabetha. "The most mysterious star in the universe." TED. Web. 29 April 2016.

Boyajian, T. S., et al. "Planet Hunters IX. KIC 8462852-where's the flux?." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 457.4 (2016): 3988-4004.

Oliver John. "Scientific Studies: Last Week Tonight with." HBO. Web 8 May 2016.

Vaughn, L. "The power of critical thinking: Effective reasoning about ordinary and extraordinary claims." (2008).