Scott: I am not sure you will find the tour that much more interesting. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, the amount of information provided is generally somewhat superficial.

Your article serves as an important reminder of the difference between actual “science” and zealotry – whoever the zealot, whatever the “object” of ones zealotry might be. Thank you for a wonderful reminder!

Dave

This report suggests that there were not clear, specific goals for the original experiment to accomplish. This would explain why it had so many critics, back then. The goals inform the experimenter what to measure and track and whether the experiment failed to accomplish the goal.

My recollection was that the experiment was to be a closed system, and any violation of that closure would invalidate the experiment. If it was to be mostly closed, then it should have been made clear what could go in or come out (but didn’t have to) and for what reasons, in order to make clear why the experiment was successful rather than a failure. Did the reduced sunlight (something that was necessary to go in) invalidate the experiment? Without a clear plan, no one knows.

Being lax about keeping the system closed and not keeping good financial accounts suggests to me that they were not serious about the data that they were collecting. That is a lot of time and expense for irreproducible results.

Kirk: We took the history tour, which also includes the “Under the Glass Tour.” I think it was worth it, though of course you always have to recognize that the amount of information you can get on one of these tours is somewhat superficial. The main reason to go is to see the place.