Speaking for myself : The title is a grabber (not all sub-eds are brain-dead, as is commonly supposed), which is a good start. It's written with some style, and the structure is excellent : it rattles through the actual experiment in a few paras and from a slightly unusual (that is, non-tabloid) angle, tees up the shot with the "practical applications" para, then gets right into the meat.
And it's real meat (thanks, jimtron
). Not scientific meat, of course, but none the less satisfying for that. Science makes predictions like the Higg's, seeks, and finds. Superstition makes predictions like the Rapture or a tall dark stranger to drag your life out of the toilet, and sod-all happens.
Science also makes predictions such as super-symmetric particles, but they seem
not to be found, despite the seeking. If it's confirmed that they
should have been found at CERN if they exist, but weren't, then we'll see another difference between science and superstition manifest itself.
