There is certainly a dangerous tendency for "space is hard" to mean "space is too hard.
Originally shared by Wyatt Johnson
Do you agree?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/29/8863121/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-explosion-excuses
Tuesday 30 June 2015
Friday 26 June 2015
The BBC does not forget
Nice one, Beeb !
The "forgotten list" sadly doesn't include headlines, just the links. Clicking on some at random reveals that most are about violent crime.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33287758
The "forgotten list" sadly doesn't include headlines, just the links. Clicking on some at random reveals that most are about violent crime.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33287758
Thursday 25 June 2015
Anti-intellectualism
Via Sophie Surmont.
Originally shared by Matthew Holt
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america
Originally shared by Matthew Holt
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america
Tuesday 23 June 2015
Interstellar is nothing special
"This image produced for Interstellar has given scientists new insights into black holes and raised interesting new questions."
That simply isn't true. I wish people would stop propagating this myth.
"He added: "The physics has been very carefully reviewed by experts and found to be accurate."
... apart from the freakin' floating ICE MOUNTAINS and ridiculously tiny single-stage-to-orbit landing craft.
"Christopher Nolan told BBC News that scientific accuracy helped him tell a better story."
No it didn't. He used accuracy selectively to tell a pretty bad story. The examination of time as relative in the story is accurate, but there are countless episodes of various sci-fi TV shows that are just as good, if not better. Apart from its depiction of the wormhole, I'm just not seeing this as the pinnacle of accurate sci-fi it's claimed to be. 2001 still holds that crown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33173197
That simply isn't true. I wish people would stop propagating this myth.
"He added: "The physics has been very carefully reviewed by experts and found to be accurate."
... apart from the freakin' floating ICE MOUNTAINS and ridiculously tiny single-stage-to-orbit landing craft.
"Christopher Nolan told BBC News that scientific accuracy helped him tell a better story."
No it didn't. He used accuracy selectively to tell a pretty bad story. The examination of time as relative in the story is accurate, but there are countless episodes of various sci-fi TV shows that are just as good, if not better. Apart from its depiction of the wormhole, I'm just not seeing this as the pinnacle of accurate sci-fi it's claimed to be. 2001 still holds that crown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33173197
Saturday 13 June 2015
Wednesday 10 June 2015
Science as an arena
Rick Santorum, a confused dog, and gladiatorial combat
To expand on a recent post, here's why non-experts should generally follow the scientific consensus.
The scientific world view is like a gladiatorial arena. In the pit itself you have various theories locked in mortal combat with one another. The current consensus is the gladiator who's still standing. He may be wounded and he probably hasn't slain all his enemies - some of them are probably still clinging on but are in a worse state than he is. A new theory might enter the arena at any time. But, currently, he's the best we've got. If you want to bet on the winner, he's the one to go for.
The audience closest to the floor are like experts - they're the ones best placed to judge what's going on. They can see if the gladiator's injuries are just cuts and bruises or really life-threatening, or if any of his competitors are merely feigning injury. Those further away are like other scientists who are experts in other fields. They can see basically what's happening but their view isn't as clear.
Those at the back are the general public. Their view is less clear again. They might even be cheering for competitors who are, in fact, dead. They would do well to listen to the cheers from the lower levels to judge what the outcome would be, at least as much as basing their conclusions on the evidence of their own eyes. Of course, any of the people at the back might well be specialists in other fields, and in all but scientific matters it's the scientists who would normally be sitting at the back. The same goes for any specialist discipline. You can't ignore the scientific consensus just because you don't like it.
To expand on a recent post, here's why non-experts should generally follow the scientific consensus.
The scientific world view is like a gladiatorial arena. In the pit itself you have various theories locked in mortal combat with one another. The current consensus is the gladiator who's still standing. He may be wounded and he probably hasn't slain all his enemies - some of them are probably still clinging on but are in a worse state than he is. A new theory might enter the arena at any time. But, currently, he's the best we've got. If you want to bet on the winner, he's the one to go for.
The audience closest to the floor are like experts - they're the ones best placed to judge what's going on. They can see if the gladiator's injuries are just cuts and bruises or really life-threatening, or if any of his competitors are merely feigning injury. Those further away are like other scientists who are experts in other fields. They can see basically what's happening but their view isn't as clear.
Those at the back are the general public. Their view is less clear again. They might even be cheering for competitors who are, in fact, dead. They would do well to listen to the cheers from the lower levels to judge what the outcome would be, at least as much as basing their conclusions on the evidence of their own eyes. Of course, any of the people at the back might well be specialists in other fields, and in all but scientific matters it's the scientists who would normally be sitting at the back. The same goes for any specialist discipline. You can't ignore the scientific consensus just because you don't like it.
Tuesday 9 June 2015
Science versus the feelies
Via Anthony Shaw (see https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RhysTaylorRhysy/posts/KdUJZRoD3wa - Google+ won't me link to the correct Anthony Shaw). It deserves its own post. Why merely believing something is useless for science, as demonstrated by climate change deniers.
http://youtu.be/OjD0e1d6GgQ
http://youtu.be/OjD0e1d6GgQ
Monday 8 June 2015
Why Philosophy Matters for Science : A Worked Example
"Fox News host Chris Wallace pushed Republican presidential candidate to expand on his criticism of Pope Francis for talking about climate change.... “if he’s not a scientist, and, in fact, he does have a degree in chemistry, neither are you …So, I guess the question would be, if he shouldn’t talk about it, should you?” "
It's not often I agree with Fox "News" about anything, but I've been saying this for a while. The "I'm not a scientist" defence is fine provided you don't then express an opinion about scientific matters. You don't somehow magically become more qualified to have a scientific opinion by not being qualified. That's not how it works.
"To that Santorum essentially said that politicians have to talk about things they’re not experts in all the time so anything is fair game. ... And Santorum pushed back that fighting action on climate change is about defending American jobs."
Yes, politicians have to talk about things they're not experts in. But you wouldn't formulate a financial strategy without consulting the bankers. Rick, you're either saying that a) you're more qualified than the experts but non-experts shouldn't talk about science, which is self-contradictory, or b) you understand the scientific consensus but just don't care about it. Which is like saying that if a team of engineers have told you a dam is about to burst and flood a town, you don't need to evacuate that town.
At this point, Rick, I see no way to avoid labelling you as an idiot.
"At one point, Wallace notes that “somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent of scientists” who have studied the issue agree. But Santorum is having none of it, calling it a “speculative science” and saying that he doesn’t believe anyone who is so sure of their facts. “Any time you hear a scientist say the science is settled, that’s political science, not real science, because no scientists in their right mind would say ever the science is settled.”
Yes Rick, I agree you shouldn't believe anyone who says an issue is settled. But perhaps you should believe everyone if they say an issue is settled. If a single engineer says the damn will burst, then perhaps you've got a problem or maybe you've just hired an incompetent engineer. If, however, 45 out of a team of 50 engineers say the dam will burst, treating that opinion as mere speculation is a recipe for disaster.
See also : http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2014/09/quack-quack.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/07/fox_host_to_santorum_if_only_scientists_can_talk_climate_change_shouldn.html
It's not often I agree with Fox "News" about anything, but I've been saying this for a while. The "I'm not a scientist" defence is fine provided you don't then express an opinion about scientific matters. You don't somehow magically become more qualified to have a scientific opinion by not being qualified. That's not how it works.
"To that Santorum essentially said that politicians have to talk about things they’re not experts in all the time so anything is fair game. ... And Santorum pushed back that fighting action on climate change is about defending American jobs."
Yes, politicians have to talk about things they're not experts in. But you wouldn't formulate a financial strategy without consulting the bankers. Rick, you're either saying that a) you're more qualified than the experts but non-experts shouldn't talk about science, which is self-contradictory, or b) you understand the scientific consensus but just don't care about it. Which is like saying that if a team of engineers have told you a dam is about to burst and flood a town, you don't need to evacuate that town.
At this point, Rick, I see no way to avoid labelling you as an idiot.
"At one point, Wallace notes that “somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent of scientists” who have studied the issue agree. But Santorum is having none of it, calling it a “speculative science” and saying that he doesn’t believe anyone who is so sure of their facts. “Any time you hear a scientist say the science is settled, that’s political science, not real science, because no scientists in their right mind would say ever the science is settled.”
Yes Rick, I agree you shouldn't believe anyone who says an issue is settled. But perhaps you should believe everyone if they say an issue is settled. If a single engineer says the damn will burst, then perhaps you've got a problem or maybe you've just hired an incompetent engineer. If, however, 45 out of a team of 50 engineers say the dam will burst, treating that opinion as mere speculation is a recipe for disaster.
See also : http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2014/09/quack-quack.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/07/fox_host_to_santorum_if_only_scientists_can_talk_climate_change_shouldn.html
Sunday 7 June 2015
A great big airship, because why not ?
"Incidentally, HAV originally planned to build it for the US Army (hence the UNITED STATES ARMY plastered on the vehicle in the vid below), but budget cuts kept it in the UK."
Wait, it was too expensive for the Americans so the British will buy it instead ????? SAY WHA ?!?!?
Not to mention that helium is a finite resource and being able to haul "10 tonnes of cargo 1,500 miles" is pathetic compared to things like, oh, I don't know, planes. Trains. Boats. A large enough number of donkeys.
Methinks airships have had their day.
Originally shared by Rich Thoma
The World's Biggest Aircraft Could Launch A New Age Of Airships
It’s called the Airlander 10: over 300 feet long, it’s a floating airship that’s 25 percent bigger than a Boeing 747. It’s 1,340,000 cubic feet in volume, and can soar up to 20,000 feet and move at 90 miles an hour cruising speeds. It’s made by Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV), a British company that wants to make quiet aircraft that also don’t pollute.
http://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-biggest-aircraft-could-launch-a-new-age-of-a-1709158109#
Wait, it was too expensive for the Americans so the British will buy it instead ????? SAY WHA ?!?!?
Not to mention that helium is a finite resource and being able to haul "10 tonnes of cargo 1,500 miles" is pathetic compared to things like, oh, I don't know, planes. Trains. Boats. A large enough number of donkeys.
Methinks airships have had their day.
Originally shared by Rich Thoma
The World's Biggest Aircraft Could Launch A New Age Of Airships
It’s called the Airlander 10: over 300 feet long, it’s a floating airship that’s 25 percent bigger than a Boeing 747. It’s 1,340,000 cubic feet in volume, and can soar up to 20,000 feet and move at 90 miles an hour cruising speeds. It’s made by Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV), a British company that wants to make quiet aircraft that also don’t pollute.
http://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-biggest-aircraft-could-launch-a-new-age-of-a-1709158109#
Friday 5 June 2015
Using violence in dramas does not morally endorse it
I don't understand the criticism here. It's depicting violence as being a very bad thing indeed. Why is it wrong to show how bad things can be ?
I would understand it if it was glorifying it in some way, but you'd have to have a serious mental health issue if you watch the show and think GoT is in any way whatsoever putting a positive light on sexual violence.
Originally shared by David Brin
George Martin has been slagged – and the directors of the Game of Thrones series – for depicting sexual violence against women. George answers well in this interview. But he does not drive home the point. Which is: if you don’t like that kind of stuff, don’t romanticize the creepy-awful-horrid feudal way of life that trapped our ancestors – and especially women – for most of the last 10,000 years!
While the story and dramatization of Game of Thrones are vividly captivating, they should also cure anyone of actually wanting anything like feudalism to even begin to rear its head outside of fantasy flicks, ever again. And yet, I run into romantics who claim they would like to live in such a world… or that of Tolkien, or Frank Herbert’s Dune… oy! Dig it fools. Herbert and Martin wrote these nasty worlds so that millions will be girded to oppose any sign (and there are signs today) of a return to such monstrously unfair societies!
You activists who decry vividly cringeworthy depictions of behaviors that were common in the past … you are not true paladins of progress. You should be praising this art form. “Look at what used to be normal in other civilizations!” you should cry. “This is the kind of thing we must make, and we are now making, extinct. Now fight to make this never reappear outside of fiction.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/martin-defends-depiction-women-game-thrones-article-1.2246664
I would understand it if it was glorifying it in some way, but you'd have to have a serious mental health issue if you watch the show and think GoT is in any way whatsoever putting a positive light on sexual violence.
Originally shared by David Brin
George Martin has been slagged – and the directors of the Game of Thrones series – for depicting sexual violence against women. George answers well in this interview. But he does not drive home the point. Which is: if you don’t like that kind of stuff, don’t romanticize the creepy-awful-horrid feudal way of life that trapped our ancestors – and especially women – for most of the last 10,000 years!
While the story and dramatization of Game of Thrones are vividly captivating, they should also cure anyone of actually wanting anything like feudalism to even begin to rear its head outside of fantasy flicks, ever again. And yet, I run into romantics who claim they would like to live in such a world… or that of Tolkien, or Frank Herbert’s Dune… oy! Dig it fools. Herbert and Martin wrote these nasty worlds so that millions will be girded to oppose any sign (and there are signs today) of a return to such monstrously unfair societies!
You activists who decry vividly cringeworthy depictions of behaviors that were common in the past … you are not true paladins of progress. You should be praising this art form. “Look at what used to be normal in other civilizations!” you should cry. “This is the kind of thing we must make, and we are now making, extinct. Now fight to make this never reappear outside of fiction.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/martin-defends-depiction-women-game-thrones-article-1.2246664
Thursday 4 June 2015
Legalise it
Originally shared by Joshua McGee
https://twitter.com/McGeekiest/status/606123107607281665
#atheist #atheism #AtheistRollCall #LGBT
A single sentence doth not a paragraph make
Dear the BBC,
Please note that paragraphs conventionally consist of more than one sentence.
Paragraphs that consist of a single sentence look weird and spoil whatever point it is you're trying to make.
Please don't do this in future.
Thanks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32967628
Please note that paragraphs conventionally consist of more than one sentence.
Paragraphs that consist of a single sentence look weird and spoil whatever point it is you're trying to make.
Please don't do this in future.
Thanks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32967628
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)