Never mind the nuclear deterrent thingy for now. What I'm more intrigued by here is :
"Following the shadow cabinet criticism of his comments, Mr Corbyn was asked by the BBC's John Pienaar what the point of the Labour defence policy debate and review was. He said: "The point of a policy debate is to try and bring people with me."
Eh ? What happened to a new way of doing politics ? Or is there missing context to the quote ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565
Wednesday 30 September 2015
Tuesday 29 September 2015
The difference between science and pseudoscience
I'm not sure what my favourite pseudoscience claim is, but for the "nutcase" category I still hand it to the Space Mirror Mystery.
Originally shared by rare avis
What's your favoritenutcase pseudoscientifc claim?
I'm still trying to figure out what a chemtrail is...
~RA
*
I was invited to speak on the difference between science and pseudoscience. The most common theme I gleaned from the conference is that one should be skeptical of all things mainstream: cosmology, physics, history, psychology and even government (I was told that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11 and that “chemtrails”—the contrails in the sky trailing jets—are evidence of a government climate-engineering experiment).
The acid test of a scientific claim, I explained, is prediction and falsification. My friends at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, tell me they use both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity theory in computing highly accurate spacecraft trajectories to the planets. If Newton and Einstein are wrong, I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.
Conventional psychology was challenged by Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona, who, in keeping with the electrical themes of the day, explained that the brain is like a television set and consciousness is like the signals coming into the brain. You need a brain to be conscious, but consciousness exists elsewhere. But TV studios generate and broadcast signals. Where, I inquired, is the consciousness equivalent to such production facilities? No answer.
A self-taught mathematician named Stephen Crothers riffled through dozens of PowerPoint slides chockablock full of equations related to Einstein's general theory of relativity, which he characterized as “numerology.” Einstein's errors, Crothers proclaimed, led to the mistaken belief in black holes and the big bang. I understood none of what he was saying, but I am confident he's wrong by the fact that for a century thousands of physicists have challenged Einstein, and still he stands as Time's Person of the Century. It's not impossible that they are all wrong and that this part-time amateur scientist sleuth is right, but it is about as likely as the number of digits after the decimal place in Einstein's equations accurately describing the relativistic effects on those GPS satellite orbits.
The EU folks I met were unfailingly polite, unquestionably smart and steadfastly unwavering in their belief that they have made one of the most important discoveries in the history of science. Have they? Probably not. The problem was articulated in a comment Thornhill made when I asked for their peer-reviewed papers: “In an interdisciplinary science like the Electric Universe, you could say we have no peers, so peer review is not available.” Without peer review or the requisite training in each discipline, how are we to know the difference between mainstream and alternative theories, of which there are many?
In his book The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Tom Wolfe quotes Merry Prankster Ken Kesey: “You're either on the bus or off the bus.” It's not that EUers are wrong; they're not even on the bus.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-difference-between-science-and-pseudoscience/
Originally shared by rare avis
What's your favorite
I'm still trying to figure out what a chemtrail is...
~RA
*
I was invited to speak on the difference between science and pseudoscience. The most common theme I gleaned from the conference is that one should be skeptical of all things mainstream: cosmology, physics, history, psychology and even government (I was told that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11 and that “chemtrails”—the contrails in the sky trailing jets—are evidence of a government climate-engineering experiment).
The acid test of a scientific claim, I explained, is prediction and falsification. My friends at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, tell me they use both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity theory in computing highly accurate spacecraft trajectories to the planets. If Newton and Einstein are wrong, I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.
Conventional psychology was challenged by Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona, who, in keeping with the electrical themes of the day, explained that the brain is like a television set and consciousness is like the signals coming into the brain. You need a brain to be conscious, but consciousness exists elsewhere. But TV studios generate and broadcast signals. Where, I inquired, is the consciousness equivalent to such production facilities? No answer.
A self-taught mathematician named Stephen Crothers riffled through dozens of PowerPoint slides chockablock full of equations related to Einstein's general theory of relativity, which he characterized as “numerology.” Einstein's errors, Crothers proclaimed, led to the mistaken belief in black holes and the big bang. I understood none of what he was saying, but I am confident he's wrong by the fact that for a century thousands of physicists have challenged Einstein, and still he stands as Time's Person of the Century. It's not impossible that they are all wrong and that this part-time amateur scientist sleuth is right, but it is about as likely as the number of digits after the decimal place in Einstein's equations accurately describing the relativistic effects on those GPS satellite orbits.
The EU folks I met were unfailingly polite, unquestionably smart and steadfastly unwavering in their belief that they have made one of the most important discoveries in the history of science. Have they? Probably not. The problem was articulated in a comment Thornhill made when I asked for their peer-reviewed papers: “In an interdisciplinary science like the Electric Universe, you could say we have no peers, so peer review is not available.” Without peer review or the requisite training in each discipline, how are we to know the difference between mainstream and alternative theories, of which there are many?
In his book The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Tom Wolfe quotes Merry Prankster Ken Kesey: “You're either on the bus or off the bus.” It's not that EUers are wrong; they're not even on the bus.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-difference-between-science-and-pseudoscience/
Chairman Mao called, he wants his bike back
I, for one, would like to give him a great big hug.
"But then there’s another journalist who had obviously been hanging around my street a great deal, who quotes: “Neighbours often see him riding a Chairman Mao style bicycle.” Less thorough journalists might just have referred to it as just a ‘bicycle’, but no. So we have to conclude that whenever we see someone on a bicycle from now on, there goes another supporter of Chairman Mao. Thus, the Daily Express has changed history."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-full-speech-labour-6539944
"But then there’s another journalist who had obviously been hanging around my street a great deal, who quotes: “Neighbours often see him riding a Chairman Mao style bicycle.” Less thorough journalists might just have referred to it as just a ‘bicycle’, but no. So we have to conclude that whenever we see someone on a bicycle from now on, there goes another supporter of Chairman Mao. Thus, the Daily Express has changed history."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-full-speech-labour-6539944
Monday 28 September 2015
Trying to prove an idea can be a form of skepticism too
"But science is built not so much on skepticism as it is on skepticism's socially awkward cousin : doubt. Whether you believe a theory or not is not as important as the ability to change your opinion. It doesn't really matter if you're trying to disprove or prove a theory by testing it, provided you accept the measurements you get and the consequences of those numbers for your theory. So in that sense, trying to prove a theory could be seen as just as "skeptical" as trying to disprove one. "
Sunday 27 September 2015
Things I cannot understand
I respect David Strumfels and think he posts a lot of interesting stuff, but I really don't understand this attitude.
Originally shared by David Strumfels
No, I won't read an article on why atheism is a religion. I won't do it for the same reason I won't read a Jehovah's Witness tract, or a book on why evolution is wrong. If atheism is a religion then not believing in Jove or Thor or Shiva are also all religions -- so that we are all religious, thousands of times over, whatever we think we are or not.
What about agnosticism? Sorry, that dog won't bark. Agnosticism is actually theism that denies we can know God via the human mind or senses (gnostic means knowledge). It is, in fact, the default position of all the faithful in Abrahamic religions, who rely purely on mindless and senseless faith. It is in no way some kind of fair compromise between theism and atheism. To believe the word means what many people think it means is to take a vague, 50-50 position on whether Russel's teapot really exists since we don't actually know for sure. Logically ludicrous. It only seems to be fair because we are used to the concept of God, but not Russel's teapot -- it's amusing to wonder what if the situation were the other way around.
What I like about "New Atheists", like Dawkins and Hitchens, is that they don't pussyfoot around the issue in an attempt to dishonestly sound "fair". Indeed, they have (rightly) nothing but contempt for agnosticism (as agnostics incorrectly define it). Simply put, there is no valid evidence or logic for gods, indeed overwhelmingly the opposite. People do believe in them in the face of this evidence and their lack of it, and Dawkins et al are not shy in pointing this out. There is no question as to how they made so many enemies: as Daniel Dennet has put it so succinctly, "There is no polite way of telling someone they have devoted their life to a folly."
Originally shared by David Strumfels
No, I won't read an article on why atheism is a religion. I won't do it for the same reason I won't read a Jehovah's Witness tract, or a book on why evolution is wrong. If atheism is a religion then not believing in Jove or Thor or Shiva are also all religions -- so that we are all religious, thousands of times over, whatever we think we are or not.
What about agnosticism? Sorry, that dog won't bark. Agnosticism is actually theism that denies we can know God via the human mind or senses (gnostic means knowledge). It is, in fact, the default position of all the faithful in Abrahamic religions, who rely purely on mindless and senseless faith. It is in no way some kind of fair compromise between theism and atheism. To believe the word means what many people think it means is to take a vague, 50-50 position on whether Russel's teapot really exists since we don't actually know for sure. Logically ludicrous. It only seems to be fair because we are used to the concept of God, but not Russel's teapot -- it's amusing to wonder what if the situation were the other way around.
What I like about "New Atheists", like Dawkins and Hitchens, is that they don't pussyfoot around the issue in an attempt to dishonestly sound "fair". Indeed, they have (rightly) nothing but contempt for agnosticism (as agnostics incorrectly define it). Simply put, there is no valid evidence or logic for gods, indeed overwhelmingly the opposite. People do believe in them in the face of this evidence and their lack of it, and Dawkins et al are not shy in pointing this out. There is no question as to how they made so many enemies: as Daniel Dennet has put it so succinctly, "There is no polite way of telling someone they have devoted their life to a folly."
Saturday 26 September 2015
Being offended OR offensive doesn't mean you're right
If it were up to me, Dawkins and Tyson would be sent to live together on an island somewhere far, far away....
People who claim they have objective truth, whether they arrive at it from religious texts or a quasi-religious antitheism, are almost always best avoided.
Or to put it another way, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right... and just because you're offensive also doesn't mean you're right.
Originally shared by David Strumfels
I love truth too (which doesn't mean I always possess it, of course); unfortunately, too many people love to be offended somehow and so those dedicated to truth have to run a gauntlet whenever they open their mouths.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/25/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments_n_8194526.html?1443183545
People who claim they have objective truth, whether they arrive at it from religious texts or a quasi-religious antitheism, are almost always best avoided.
Or to put it another way, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right... and just because you're offensive also doesn't mean you're right.
Originally shared by David Strumfels
I love truth too (which doesn't mean I always possess it, of course); unfortunately, too many people love to be offended somehow and so those dedicated to truth have to run a gauntlet whenever they open their mouths.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/25/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments_n_8194526.html?1443183545
Some people REALLY don't get philosophy
Wow. Apparently believing philosophy is important for science makes me a liar !
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ScienceHookme/posts/AuM75BcPVTQ
And I see he's a vocal atheist. I'd like to say I'm shocked, but that would make me a liar.
Friday 25 September 2015
Not expecting the unexpected
Well I wasn't expecting that.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34346595
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34346595
Too many publications erodes trust
It should be emphasised that this is about too many publications, not too much research. You can never have enough research, but you can certainly have too many papers. Which is somewhat ironic given that the award the Prague group just received was based on the number of publications...
Then there's the problem, which is only alluded to in the article, of not publishing negative results.
I think my half-serious idea of a maximum number of publications per year is not without merit. :)
(and massive flaws too, but that's another matter)
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
Research overflow
To nobodys surprise, there is so much research going on that the standard peer review routine cannot cope anymore. This seems to have the following effects:
1) Scientific fraud: some fraudster is weaseling his/her way into a journal and is not getting caught by referees because referees are overworked. While this is always headline grabbing, it doesn't seem to happen to often. Also, the nature of science makes sure that fraudsters are usually caught.
2) Good research is being ignored and (costly) experiments are duplicated, because nobody can even pretend to keep up with the literature anymore.
3) To combat effect no. 2, many scholars specialise in smaller and smaller areas. That can't be good.
4) To get into a top journal, researchers focus more and more on "selling" their research, and concentrate on studies that are presently deemed "sexy".
5) To get into a top journal, corners are cut. You have to beat the competition. That is not the same as item 1, but it adds to a general feeling of sloppiness, which is adverse to good science. Trust among researchers erodes.
6) Referees and readers rely on journal prestige and institutional reputation as a proxy for quality of a paper. Don't have enough time to read the paper? Where are the authors from? Not a "good" university, so just ignore the paper.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/overflow-of-new-research-erodes-trust-between-scientists
Then there's the problem, which is only alluded to in the article, of not publishing negative results.
I think my half-serious idea of a maximum number of publications per year is not without merit. :)
(and massive flaws too, but that's another matter)
Originally shared by Joerg Fliege
Research overflow
To nobodys surprise, there is so much research going on that the standard peer review routine cannot cope anymore. This seems to have the following effects:
1) Scientific fraud: some fraudster is weaseling his/her way into a journal and is not getting caught by referees because referees are overworked. While this is always headline grabbing, it doesn't seem to happen to often. Also, the nature of science makes sure that fraudsters are usually caught.
2) Good research is being ignored and (costly) experiments are duplicated, because nobody can even pretend to keep up with the literature anymore.
3) To combat effect no. 2, many scholars specialise in smaller and smaller areas. That can't be good.
4) To get into a top journal, researchers focus more and more on "selling" their research, and concentrate on studies that are presently deemed "sexy".
5) To get into a top journal, corners are cut. You have to beat the competition. That is not the same as item 1, but it adds to a general feeling of sloppiness, which is adverse to good science. Trust among researchers erodes.
6) Referees and readers rely on journal prestige and institutional reputation as a proxy for quality of a paper. Don't have enough time to read the paper? Where are the authors from? Not a "good" university, so just ignore the paper.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/overflow-of-new-research-erodes-trust-between-scientists
No detections but lots of money
Well, look who still doesn't have any detections ? That's right, it's the gravy wavers !
(I'm gonna keep sniggering in a childish manner right up until the point they do get a detection, whence I shall run and hide in a deep hole somewhere)
Originally shared by Jonah Miller
Missing Gravitational Waves Tell us Something About Galaxy Formation
There's been a major result in gravitational wave astrophysics today. Pulsar timing arrays are a way of looking for the random wobbles in spacetime due to the merger of many supermassive black holes across the universe. These black holes are believed to be at the centre of every galaxy and thus merge whenever two galaxies merge.
And we should see perturbations of spacetime due to them. But... so far, we don't. A new paper in Science, using 11 years of data says that this means our current models of galaxy formation are 90% likely to be wrong.
I'm still thinking about and interpreting this result (and reading the supplementary material to understand the author's methods). But this might be big.
For some background, I wrote about pulsar timing arrays here:
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/08/23/distance-ripples-how-gravitational-waves-work/
https://theconversation.com/where-are-the-missing-gravitational-waves-47940
(I'm gonna keep sniggering in a childish manner right up until the point they do get a detection, whence I shall run and hide in a deep hole somewhere)
Originally shared by Jonah Miller
Missing Gravitational Waves Tell us Something About Galaxy Formation
There's been a major result in gravitational wave astrophysics today. Pulsar timing arrays are a way of looking for the random wobbles in spacetime due to the merger of many supermassive black holes across the universe. These black holes are believed to be at the centre of every galaxy and thus merge whenever two galaxies merge.
And we should see perturbations of spacetime due to them. But... so far, we don't. A new paper in Science, using 11 years of data says that this means our current models of galaxy formation are 90% likely to be wrong.
I'm still thinking about and interpreting this result (and reading the supplementary material to understand the author's methods). But this might be big.
For some background, I wrote about pulsar timing arrays here:
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/08/23/distance-ripples-how-gravitational-waves-work/
https://theconversation.com/where-are-the-missing-gravitational-waves-47940
Thursday 24 September 2015
The bells ! The bells !
“We’re going to give everyone who uses anecdotal evidence over actual science a little bell so everyone will know to get the hell out of their way, a bit like lepers in the old days, except these people are lacking an ability to extrapolate from actual evidence rather than lacking limbs.”
Not a bad idea.
Originally shared by NewsThump
Walloping children, taking enormous amounts of drugs and drink-driving are all to lose their social stigmas as long as you can prove it didn’t do any harm to at least one person you know.
http://newsthump.com/2015/09/24/everything-fine-as-long-as-it-didnt-do-you-or-your-grandad-any-harm/
Not a bad idea.
Originally shared by NewsThump
Walloping children, taking enormous amounts of drugs and drink-driving are all to lose their social stigmas as long as you can prove it didn’t do any harm to at least one person you know.
http://newsthump.com/2015/09/24/everything-fine-as-long-as-it-didnt-do-you-or-your-grandad-any-harm/
The BBC subtly comments on Cameron's escapade
I was wondering if and how the BBC would cover that story without actually mentioning it. Well now they have, and it's brilliant.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150924-the-truth-about-pigs
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150924-the-truth-about-pigs
Radioactive bacteria, what could possibly go wrong ?
"When placed in the extreme below-background levels of radiation, essentially zero radiation, growth was inhibited in both species. Both species also showed a measurable stress response, identifiable to specific genes in their DNA, when in the absence of radiation.
Amazingly, those responses reversed when the bacteria were transferred back and forth to the opposite environments. The experiment used reciprocal controls to verify that the physiological responses observed were due to the radiation treatment. By restoring background radiation levels to radiation-deprived cultures, the growth rate of both species increased and the culture cell density returned to that of the control after only 24 hours.
So, two species of bacteria from disparate taxonomies sensed and exhibited a physiological response to the absence of radiation, indicating that these low levels of radiation are a significant environmental cue. And the lack of radiation produced the substantial stress, not the presence of radiation."
Originally shared by David Strumfels
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/09/23/is-radiation-necessary-for-life/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/09/23/is-radiation-necessary-for-life
Amazingly, those responses reversed when the bacteria were transferred back and forth to the opposite environments. The experiment used reciprocal controls to verify that the physiological responses observed were due to the radiation treatment. By restoring background radiation levels to radiation-deprived cultures, the growth rate of both species increased and the culture cell density returned to that of the control after only 24 hours.
So, two species of bacteria from disparate taxonomies sensed and exhibited a physiological response to the absence of radiation, indicating that these low levels of radiation are a significant environmental cue. And the lack of radiation produced the substantial stress, not the presence of radiation."
Originally shared by David Strumfels
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/09/23/is-radiation-necessary-for-life/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/09/23/is-radiation-necessary-for-life
Wednesday 23 September 2015
Be more Machiavellian
My advice to Labour right now would to be Machiavellian. You may not like Corbyn, but a lot of voters certainly did. Nigh-on all of Scotland voted for the even more left-wing SNP. True, Ed Miliband didn't go down well in England either, but then Ed had even less charisma than David "I definitely did not have sexual relations with that pig" Cameron, as he shall henceforth be known.
Miliband had no prospect of building the wider social movement needed to support his (supposedly) hard-left policies, but worse, he was willing to compromise pretty drastically to try and appease Tory voters on other issues, especially immigration. This ended up with a mix of policies perceived as very left and others which basically said that some fundamental Labour ideologies were wrong, led by a man without any talent for leadership. It was the worst of all worlds, and never going to end well.
Now, it could well be the case that the policies of Corbyn won't appeal to a wider audience. That is perfectly possible, but it remains to be seen. Surely the correct course of action is to give it a little time (let's say a year) and see how Labour do in the polls and by-elections. Corbyn has charisma, appeals to younger voters, and stands a real chance of building the movement that Miliband couldn't. Maybe it won't work, but it would be foolish to stab him in the back without giving him a chance. This is the exact opposite of the mistake with Miliband, which was to not stab him in the back a lot sooner (albeit that for a long time the polls were highly misleading).
You were willing to veer to the right under Blair to get into power, why not veer to the left under Corbyn if he can do the same ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34331389
Miliband had no prospect of building the wider social movement needed to support his (supposedly) hard-left policies, but worse, he was willing to compromise pretty drastically to try and appease Tory voters on other issues, especially immigration. This ended up with a mix of policies perceived as very left and others which basically said that some fundamental Labour ideologies were wrong, led by a man without any talent for leadership. It was the worst of all worlds, and never going to end well.
Now, it could well be the case that the policies of Corbyn won't appeal to a wider audience. That is perfectly possible, but it remains to be seen. Surely the correct course of action is to give it a little time (let's say a year) and see how Labour do in the polls and by-elections. Corbyn has charisma, appeals to younger voters, and stands a real chance of building the movement that Miliband couldn't. Maybe it won't work, but it would be foolish to stab him in the back without giving him a chance. This is the exact opposite of the mistake with Miliband, which was to not stab him in the back a lot sooner (albeit that for a long time the polls were highly misleading).
You were willing to veer to the right under Blair to get into power, why not veer to the left under Corbyn if he can do the same ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34331389
How the other half live
"People with weakened immune systems, such as Aids patients, have come to rely on the drug, which until recently cost about $13.50 (£8.80) a dose. But Mr Shkreli announced he was raising the price to $750 a pill."
How is that even legal ?
"The additional profits he said will be used to make improvements to the 62-year-old drug recipe."
Yes, while the people who actually need it probably can't afford it any more.
""We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit," he told ABC News. "We think these changes will be welcomed.""
Why do I suspect that this man's idea of "very small profit" and my idea of "very small profit" might be quite different things ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34331761
How is that even legal ?
"The additional profits he said will be used to make improvements to the 62-year-old drug recipe."
Yes, while the people who actually need it probably can't afford it any more.
""We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit," he told ABC News. "We think these changes will be welcomed.""
Why do I suspect that this man's idea of "very small profit" and my idea of "very small profit" might be quite different things ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34331761
Tuesday 22 September 2015
How not to manage a damaging allegation
An interesting insight into how to manage a damaging news story.
Also quite revealing as to the problem Cameron faces over the (dubious) pig story: if he denies it then people will ask why not deny everything else, which is lethal if something, such a when he knew about Ashcroft's nom-dom status is proven true.
Basically, he's been caught good and proper.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/22/david-cameron-advisers-piggate-spin-doctor
Also quite revealing as to the problem Cameron faces over the (dubious) pig story: if he denies it then people will ask why not deny everything else, which is lethal if something, such a when he knew about Ashcroft's nom-dom status is proven true.
Basically, he's been caught good and proper.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/22/david-cameron-advisers-piggate-spin-doctor
Radiation at Fukushima is not that big a deal
Via David Strumfels
Originally shared by Jennifer Ouellette
Four years after Fukushima, no one has been killed or sickened by radioactivity. But 1,600 died fleeing the disaster. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html …
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html
Originally shared by Jennifer Ouellette
Four years after Fukushima, no one has been killed or sickened by radioactivity. But 1,600 died fleeing the disaster. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html …
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html
Monday 21 September 2015
This man needs a twitter minder
Not sure what he's done lately, but I agree on general principles.
EDIT : Oh, he thinks Clock Boy is a fraud. Good grief.
Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger
There are some people whose reputation seems to vary in inverse proportion with the frequency with which they open their mouths.
Seriously, how did he turn into this much of a dick?
Moderation squared
Freedom of speech, people being offended, Kim Davis, Jeremy Corbyn, Bilbo Baggin's genitals, Tim Hunt and sex robots... but not necessarily in that order.
Or if you want an actual blurb : I look at people being offended and free speech. It's perfectly possible to be offended by something not because it's genuinely harmful, but because you're an idiot. This appears to be the case with Jeremy Corbyn not singing the national anthem, and, to a lesser extent, the Tim Hunt fiasco (though in that case people were not in possession of the full facts, they tended to instantly assume the worst without justification). I look at when I think censorship is appropriate, but discuss why this is an extreme measure. It should be a weapon of last resort, not a first response as many twitter mobs seem to be advocating.
PLACEHOLDER
Or if you want an actual blurb : I look at people being offended and free speech. It's perfectly possible to be offended by something not because it's genuinely harmful, but because you're an idiot. This appears to be the case with Jeremy Corbyn not singing the national anthem, and, to a lesser extent, the Tim Hunt fiasco (though in that case people were not in possession of the full facts, they tended to instantly assume the worst without justification). I look at when I think censorship is appropriate, but discuss why this is an extreme measure. It should be a weapon of last resort, not a first response as many twitter mobs seem to be advocating.
PLACEHOLDER
Saturday 19 September 2015
"It's not about winning", they said
"Scientists believe this will now give them the sensitivity needed to pick up what should be a very subtle signal. The theoretical physicist Kip Thorne, one of the pioneers behind the experiment, went so far as to say that it would be "quite surprising" if the labs made no detection."
I'll believe it when I see it.
""Recording a gravitational wave for the first time has never been a big motivation for Ligo," said Kip Thorne."
HAH HAH AHHAH HAHH ! Good one, Kip.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34298363
I'll believe it when I see it.
""Recording a gravitational wave for the first time has never been a big motivation for Ligo," said Kip Thorne."
HAH HAH AHHAH HAHH ! Good one, Kip.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34298363
Friday 18 September 2015
The chicken that walks like a dinosaur
"Dr Rodrigo Vasquez, from the University of Chile, received the biology Ig Nobel for the crucial observation that if you raise a chicken with a weighted, artificial tail stuck to its backside, it will walk like a dinosaur."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34278595
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34278595
Thursday 17 September 2015
To be privy or not to be privy ?
His answer (or lack thereof) about the question on joining the Privy Council is simply bloody brilliant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34276963
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34276963
Tuesday 15 September 2015
Mopra merchandising
I tried to download the Mopra data to make a nice 3D visual for them, but I had problems registering. I emailed them to see if I can get that fixed.
"If you have a particular idea for a reward that you'd like to see put into the gift box or included at a lower level do let us know. Especially with regards to the data products, but also with the physical rewards. "
I think I should let them know about this :
http://www.rhysy.net/virgo-glass.html
Also, I've been suggesting "adopt a hydrogen detection" for years. Maybe now Robert Minchin will take me seriously. :P
Originally shared by null
Save the Mopra Telescope & Map the Milky Way
We have spent the last four years mapping the Southern portion of our Milky Way Galaxy with the Mopra Radio Telescope in Australia. However, due to drastic budget cuts the telescope will be shut down at the end of September, leaving our map unfinished and our knowledge incomplete. Help us finish the survey and make it public, so that we can put the Milky Way on the map.
#TeamMopra #Science #Kickstarter
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/astrocate/teammopra-save-a-telescope-and-map-the-milky-way
"If you have a particular idea for a reward that you'd like to see put into the gift box or included at a lower level do let us know. Especially with regards to the data products, but also with the physical rewards. "
I think I should let them know about this :
http://www.rhysy.net/virgo-glass.html
Also, I've been suggesting "adopt a hydrogen detection" for years. Maybe now Robert Minchin will take me seriously. :P
Originally shared by null
Save the Mopra Telescope & Map the Milky Way
We have spent the last four years mapping the Southern portion of our Milky Way Galaxy with the Mopra Radio Telescope in Australia. However, due to drastic budget cuts the telescope will be shut down at the end of September, leaving our map unfinished and our knowledge incomplete. Help us finish the survey and make it public, so that we can put the Milky Way on the map.
#TeamMopra #Science #Kickstarter
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/astrocate/teammopra-save-a-telescope-and-map-the-milky-way
Monday 14 September 2015
Climate change is about more than breaking records
I don't think this is a sensible way of reporting on climate change. Firstly, it's very difficult for people to believe because we don't think statistically. You can tell me that 2015 was the hottest year on record, and maybe you're right, but it's a very difficult fact for me to believe. Especially when those sorts of figures are disputed.
Secondly, setting a record isn't important if you're talking about a change in climate. Britain had a very cold, snowy winters not so long ago, and that wasn't touted as indicative of global warming. Using outliers to demonstrate the overall trend is a bad idea.
Thirdly, this particular article reports a prediction. This is good because predictions can be held to account. The downside is that it's even harder to convince people about predictions than it is about statistical data.
Finally, this wouldn't be so bad if those predictions weren't adjusted to conform to expectations. The recent claim that there was no pause in global temperature rises may be perfectly correct, but it looks dreadful from a PR perspective.
I believe in humans as a main cause of climate change. I am not an expert in the science, but it seems to me that the way it's being reported isn't doing anyone any favours. Naming and shaming the hottest years is headline grabbing but doesn't help anyone believe what's happening.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34226178
Secondly, setting a record isn't important if you're talking about a change in climate. Britain had a very cold, snowy winters not so long ago, and that wasn't touted as indicative of global warming. Using outliers to demonstrate the overall trend is a bad idea.
Thirdly, this particular article reports a prediction. This is good because predictions can be held to account. The downside is that it's even harder to convince people about predictions than it is about statistical data.
Finally, this wouldn't be so bad if those predictions weren't adjusted to conform to expectations. The recent claim that there was no pause in global temperature rises may be perfectly correct, but it looks dreadful from a PR perspective.
I believe in humans as a main cause of climate change. I am not an expert in the science, but it seems to me that the way it's being reported isn't doing anyone any favours. Naming and shaming the hottest years is headline grabbing but doesn't help anyone believe what's happening.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34226178
Sunday 13 September 2015
Corbyn's policies : mostly decent
Mostly things I believe too. Especially anti-austerity, immigration (I see we're now finally calling them what they are : refugees - about time too !), and a maximum wage.
Things I don't agree with : cancelling Trident (a very good idea in principle, but not right now - or if it is scrapped, use the money on conventional forces instead), uniting Ireland, and possibly leaving NATO.
I support his idea of talking to militant groups in the Middle East, but :
"Asked during a Sky News hustings whether there were any circumstances in which he would deploy UK military forces, Corbyn said: "I'm sure there are some but I can't think of them at the moment.""
IS are burning people alive. Ruling out military intervention seems like a bad idea at this stage.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34209478
Things I don't agree with : cancelling Trident (a very good idea in principle, but not right now - or if it is scrapped, use the money on conventional forces instead), uniting Ireland, and possibly leaving NATO.
I support his idea of talking to militant groups in the Middle East, but :
"Asked during a Sky News hustings whether there were any circumstances in which he would deploy UK military forces, Corbyn said: "I'm sure there are some but I can't think of them at the moment.""
IS are burning people alive. Ruling out military intervention seems like a bad idea at this stage.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34209478
Saturday 5 September 2015
The difficulties of writing real research as exciting as the crap
"Archaeologists are trained as anthropologists to recognize and celebrate the diversity of humanity, both today and in the past. Eric Cline succinctly explains this in his review, noting “pseudoarchaeologists cannot accept the fact that the mere humans might have come up with great innovations such as the domestication of plants and animals or built great architectural masterpieces such as the Sphinx all on their own; rather, they frequently seek or invoke divine, or even alien, assistance to explain how these came to be.”
"But these books are perhaps most problematic for archaeologists because, as Lekson notes, “alternative archaeology is more interesting than the stuff we write… more interesting to more people, that is.” Academic archaeologists are not trained to write readably, which means there is a large opening for authors to connect with the “guy on the airplane.” Archaeologists like Brian Fagan who do write more approachable books have to walk a fine line between making data interesting and not making extraordinary claims."
I, for one, highly recommend Britain B.C. by Francis Pryor (yes, even if you're not British). It does an amazing job of making what could be an incredibly boring subject absolutely fascinating.
http://www.amazon.com/Britain-BC-Ireland-Before-Romans/dp/000712693X
You can also find the T.V. documentary online, but honestly the book is so much better.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/09/03/what-archaeologists-really-think-about-ancient-aliens-lost-colonies-and-fingerprints-of-the-gods
"But these books are perhaps most problematic for archaeologists because, as Lekson notes, “alternative archaeology is more interesting than the stuff we write… more interesting to more people, that is.” Academic archaeologists are not trained to write readably, which means there is a large opening for authors to connect with the “guy on the airplane.” Archaeologists like Brian Fagan who do write more approachable books have to walk a fine line between making data interesting and not making extraordinary claims."
I, for one, highly recommend Britain B.C. by Francis Pryor (yes, even if you're not British). It does an amazing job of making what could be an incredibly boring subject absolutely fascinating.
http://www.amazon.com/Britain-BC-Ireland-Before-Romans/dp/000712693X
You can also find the T.V. documentary online, but honestly the book is so much better.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/09/03/what-archaeologists-really-think-about-ancient-aliens-lost-colonies-and-fingerprints-of-the-gods
Friday 4 September 2015
Bizarre beasties
"Tests have shown that the water does not contain any food particles, and is chemically and biologically sterile. Instead, the food comes from the strange frothy foam sitting on top of the water. Rather than using light as an energy source, the Movile bacteria use a process known as chemosynthesis."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150904-the-bizarre-beasts-living-in-romanias-poison-cave
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150904-the-bizarre-beasts-living-in-romanias-poison-cave
Thursday 3 September 2015
Moaaaar universities !
"The biggest difference is that a much smaller proportion of young people go to university in Germany. In Germany, about 27% of young people gain higher education qualifications. In the UK, the comparable figure is 48%. The expansion in university entry in the UK has been one of those changes that has been so big that no one really notices."
I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people did notice, actually. In my opinion it was a laudable but misguided goal. You don't really need a University degree for a lot of jobs.
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34132664
I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people did notice, actually. In my opinion it was a laudable but misguided goal. You don't really need a University degree for a lot of jobs.
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34132664
The stupid, it literally burns
"He tells the BBC that as a "novelty tool" it is not his responsibility to check who is buying it or what it will be used for.
"Who are we to deny individuals the ability own a product?" he says. "We don't assume everyone is a criminal."
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGHHH.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34131334
"Who are we to deny individuals the ability own a product?" he says. "We don't assume everyone is a criminal."
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGHHH.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34131334
Three trillion trees
Apparently counting trees is really difficult.
""The previous estimate of trees in the world was 400 billion. The new estimate is three trillion large trees. There are so many margins of error in this study that the real number could be anything between the two - or even 10 times higher," he said."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366
""The previous estimate of trees in the world was 400 billion. The new estimate is three trillion large trees. There are so many margins of error in this study that the real number could be anything between the two - or even 10 times higher," he said."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366
Terminator meets The Little Mermaid
I suppose this is what you'd get if you crossed Terminator with The Little Mermaid....
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34129490
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34129490
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)