A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Thursday, 31 March 2016
Monday, 28 March 2016
The simplest answer is always "a wizard did it", which is why science is hard
Be very careful handling sharp pointy objects, even if they're just philosophical concepts.
Sunday, 27 March 2016
Anti-terrorism : what the research says
Too difficult to summarise this one, so I won't.
Via Joerg Fliege.
Originally shared by rare avis
What Research Says about Defeating Terrorism
Seven enlightening studies from social psychology hold vital lessons for policy makers—and the rest of us
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-research-says-about-defeating-terrorism/
Via Joerg Fliege.
Originally shared by rare avis
What Research Says about Defeating Terrorism
Seven enlightening studies from social psychology hold vital lessons for policy makers—and the rest of us
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-research-says-about-defeating-terrorism/
Saturday, 26 March 2016
What people think about climate change
I really hate Forbes belligerent policy on ad blockers, but this is worth a read. Read the article first, then go directly to the survey results :
https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3
"Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change -as defined by AMS-is happening with almost 89% stating that they are either “extremely” or “very sure” it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening."
I can't seem to find their particular definition of climate change, but only a lunatic would think the climate isn't changing. The climate isn't static almost by definition. What matters is whether or not they think humans are the cause.
"A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of the changes in the climate over the past 50 years (see summary for details)….Conversely, 5% think the climate is caused largely or entirely by natural events, 6% say they don’t know…."
From the survey results :
"Specifically: 29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity (i.e., 81 to 100%); 38% think most of the change is caused by human activity (i.e., 61 to 80%); 14% think the change is caused more or less equally by human activity and natural events..."
So that's 67% who think climate change is largely due to human activity. That's a far cry from 97%. But make no mistake : if 67% of engineers told me my house was likely to fall down, I'd still act on that.
Furthermore that rises to 81% if we include those who think that humans are only an equal contributing factor. Only 12% are convinced that humans are not at all responsible.
Where things get very much more controversial is the section on whether the climate change has been dangerous or not (page 17 of the report). Only about 36% think the effects are primarily harmful, while another 36% think there's been a mixture of beneficial and harmful effects. 21% are undecided.
There's a somewhat stronger view that the effects in the future will be harmful, with 47% convinced they will be mostly harmful but only 29% saying there will be a mix. Still 19% are undecided.
But.... and it's a very big but.... not everyone polled here is a scientist :
"AMS is a professional and scientific society comprised of atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, climatologists, hydrologists, oceanographers, broadcasters, educators, policy officials and more."
By their own admission, only 57% of participants consider themselves an expert in climate science. Alas the responses only from that 57% are not yet available (as far as I can tell).
Originally shared by Vladimir Pecha
You may have seen them. Media reports a few years ago claiming that a survey of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) refutes the consensus position regarding climate change. When I saw how that survey and the results were being twisted and distorted, I realized that people read things with an eye for what they want to believe, so-called confirmation bias. AMS Executive Director Dr. Keith Seitter even wrote on the AMS website clarifying the results and condemning rampant distortion that was being spread. A full statement of the survey authors’ response to the horrific distortion of their findings can be found at this link. With such a mischaracterized response, the AMS felt that a new survey was needed. The preliminary results of that new report were released this week.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/03/24/96-of-american-meteorological-society-members-think-climate-change-is-happening-says-new-report/#274ea1b43935
https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3
"Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change -as defined by AMS-is happening with almost 89% stating that they are either “extremely” or “very sure” it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening."
I can't seem to find their particular definition of climate change, but only a lunatic would think the climate isn't changing. The climate isn't static almost by definition. What matters is whether or not they think humans are the cause.
"A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of the changes in the climate over the past 50 years (see summary for details)….Conversely, 5% think the climate is caused largely or entirely by natural events, 6% say they don’t know…."
From the survey results :
"Specifically: 29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity (i.e., 81 to 100%); 38% think most of the change is caused by human activity (i.e., 61 to 80%); 14% think the change is caused more or less equally by human activity and natural events..."
So that's 67% who think climate change is largely due to human activity. That's a far cry from 97%. But make no mistake : if 67% of engineers told me my house was likely to fall down, I'd still act on that.
Furthermore that rises to 81% if we include those who think that humans are only an equal contributing factor. Only 12% are convinced that humans are not at all responsible.
Where things get very much more controversial is the section on whether the climate change has been dangerous or not (page 17 of the report). Only about 36% think the effects are primarily harmful, while another 36% think there's been a mixture of beneficial and harmful effects. 21% are undecided.
There's a somewhat stronger view that the effects in the future will be harmful, with 47% convinced they will be mostly harmful but only 29% saying there will be a mix. Still 19% are undecided.
But.... and it's a very big but.... not everyone polled here is a scientist :
"AMS is a professional and scientific society comprised of atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, climatologists, hydrologists, oceanographers, broadcasters, educators, policy officials and more."
By their own admission, only 57% of participants consider themselves an expert in climate science. Alas the responses only from that 57% are not yet available (as far as I can tell).
Originally shared by Vladimir Pecha
You may have seen them. Media reports a few years ago claiming that a survey of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) refutes the consensus position regarding climate change. When I saw how that survey and the results were being twisted and distorted, I realized that people read things with an eye for what they want to believe, so-called confirmation bias. AMS Executive Director Dr. Keith Seitter even wrote on the AMS website clarifying the results and condemning rampant distortion that was being spread. A full statement of the survey authors’ response to the horrific distortion of their findings can be found at this link. With such a mischaracterized response, the AMS felt that a new survey was needed. The preliminary results of that new report were released this week.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/03/24/96-of-american-meteorological-society-members-think-climate-change-is-happening-says-new-report/#274ea1b43935
Review : The Expanse
Mixed opinions on this one. I might have to read the episode guides and possibly the novel and then watch it again.
(post contains no spoilers)
(post contains no spoilers)
Review : The Expanse
What's that you say ? A new show on the Sy Fy channel ? Yes, I'm sure that will have all the wit and sagacity we've come to expect from the network that brought us Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus.
Friday, 25 March 2016
What's in a name ?
Interesting examples of multi-cultural techno-shock.
" When Jennifer Null tries to buy a plane ticket, she gets an error message on most websites. The site will say she has left the surname field blank and ask her to try again.
Consider also the experiences of Janice Keihanaikukauakahihulihe'ekahaunaele, a Hawaiian woman who complained that state ID cards should allow citizens to display surnames even as long as hers – which is 36 characters in total.
To many English-speaking westerners, the name “Patrick McKenzie” might not seem primed to cause errors, but where McKenzie lives – Japan – it has created all kinds of issues for him. “Four characters in a Japanese name is very rare. McKenzie is eight, so for printed forms it’ll often be the case that there’s literally not enough space to put my name,” he says."
All I get is problems with people pronouncing my name, but I've never had it break a computer system.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160325-the-names-that-break-computer-systems
" When Jennifer Null tries to buy a plane ticket, she gets an error message on most websites. The site will say she has left the surname field blank and ask her to try again.
Consider also the experiences of Janice Keihanaikukauakahihulihe'ekahaunaele, a Hawaiian woman who complained that state ID cards should allow citizens to display surnames even as long as hers – which is 36 characters in total.
To many English-speaking westerners, the name “Patrick McKenzie” might not seem primed to cause errors, but where McKenzie lives – Japan – it has created all kinds of issues for him. “Four characters in a Japanese name is very rare. McKenzie is eight, so for printed forms it’ll often be the case that there’s literally not enough space to put my name,” he says."
All I get is problems with people pronouncing my name, but I've never had it break a computer system.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160325-the-names-that-break-computer-systems
Thursday, 24 March 2016
On the perils of learning by imitation
Taught to swear, endorse genocide, OK, maybe the robot apocalypse is a scary thing after all.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35890188
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35890188
More than evidence : conclusions are formed from five independent factors
Based on the research to date, Newman suggests our gut reactions swivel around just five simple questions:
Does a fact come from a credible source ?
Do others believe it ?
Is there plenty of evidence to support it ?
Is it compatible with what I believe ?
Does it tell a good story ?
We tend to trust people who are familiar to us, meaning that the more we see a talking head, the more we will begrudgingly start to believe what they say. “The fact that they aren’t an expert won’t even come into our judgement of the truth,” says Newman.
Then there’s the “cognitive fluency” of a statement – essentially, whether it tells a good, coherent story that is simple to imagine. “If something feels smooth and easy to process, then our default is to expect things to be true,” says Newman.
An interesting twist on Occam's Razor. One can also use seemingly simple "facts" to "debunk" complicated issues. E.g., CO2 can't be causing climate change because it's good for trees. I suggest a modification. It's usually formulated as, "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one." Perhaps instead it should be, "the simplest explanation is the one you should test first". More complicated explanations are usually more adaptable and can be altered to fit the available data more readily. Simpler explanations are better not because the Universe is simple or elegant - like hell it is - but because they are easier to falsify. Which emphasises that if someone comes up with a wonderfully simple, elegant model, you should be eager to test it, not believe it.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160323-why-are-people-so-incredibly-gullible
Does a fact come from a credible source ?
Do others believe it ?
Is there plenty of evidence to support it ?
Is it compatible with what I believe ?
Does it tell a good story ?
We tend to trust people who are familiar to us, meaning that the more we see a talking head, the more we will begrudgingly start to believe what they say. “The fact that they aren’t an expert won’t even come into our judgement of the truth,” says Newman.
Then there’s the “cognitive fluency” of a statement – essentially, whether it tells a good, coherent story that is simple to imagine. “If something feels smooth and easy to process, then our default is to expect things to be true,” says Newman.
An interesting twist on Occam's Razor. One can also use seemingly simple "facts" to "debunk" complicated issues. E.g., CO2 can't be causing climate change because it's good for trees. I suggest a modification. It's usually formulated as, "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one." Perhaps instead it should be, "the simplest explanation is the one you should test first". More complicated explanations are usually more adaptable and can be altered to fit the available data more readily. Simpler explanations are better not because the Universe is simple or elegant - like hell it is - but because they are easier to falsify. Which emphasises that if someone comes up with a wonderfully simple, elegant model, you should be eager to test it, not believe it.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160323-why-are-people-so-incredibly-gullible
Unbearable pedantry ?
I can't stand NGT. Hang me for that if you like, but there it is. I can't watch him for more than about 5 minutes before wanting to hurl something at the screen with great force, but even I think this article goes too far.
It has some good points that his version of history is laughably simple and his depiction of Bruno was just plain wrong, and that he has a tendency to state the blindingly obvious as though it was a revelation. And one of NGT's main problems that isn't mentioned here is that he loudly proclaims the value of uncertainty and the scientific method, whilst simultaneously sounds incredibly, overwhelmingly, mind-wrenchingly pompous and certain. Someday I may get angry/bored enough to explain this in more detail but not today.
But explaining what things are doesn't diminish the wonder of what they are, and it certainly doesn't make the universe boring. Far from it. While I despise the style of his presentation, trying to explain how wonderful the universe is if you strip it down to the bare facts is a laudable goal. It's the execution that's the failure point, not the method.
But pretty much everyone loves him, so I must be wrong. Oh well.
[Since then I've come to the conclusion that this article does have a point - at least sometimes NGT does become a totally unnecessary pedant, making corrections where absolutely none are needed.]
Neil deGrasse Tyson is, supposedly, an educator and a populariser of science; it’s his job to excite people about the mysteries of the universe, communicate information, and correct popular misconceptions. This is a noble, arduous, and thankless job, which might be why he doesn’t do it. What he actually does is make the universe boring, tell people things that they already know, and dispel misconceptions that nobody actually holds.
https://samkriss.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/neil-degrasse-tyson-pedantry-in-space
It has some good points that his version of history is laughably simple and his depiction of Bruno was just plain wrong, and that he has a tendency to state the blindingly obvious as though it was a revelation. And one of NGT's main problems that isn't mentioned here is that he loudly proclaims the value of uncertainty and the scientific method, whilst simultaneously sounds incredibly, overwhelmingly, mind-wrenchingly pompous and certain. Someday I may get angry/bored enough to explain this in more detail but not today.
But explaining what things are doesn't diminish the wonder of what they are, and it certainly doesn't make the universe boring. Far from it. While I despise the style of his presentation, trying to explain how wonderful the universe is if you strip it down to the bare facts is a laudable goal. It's the execution that's the failure point, not the method.
But pretty much everyone loves him, so I must be wrong. Oh well.
[Since then I've come to the conclusion that this article does have a point - at least sometimes NGT does become a totally unnecessary pedant, making corrections where absolutely none are needed.]
Neil deGrasse Tyson is, supposedly, an educator and a populariser of science; it’s his job to excite people about the mysteries of the universe, communicate information, and correct popular misconceptions. This is a noble, arduous, and thankless job, which might be why he doesn’t do it. What he actually does is make the universe boring, tell people things that they already know, and dispel misconceptions that nobody actually holds.
https://samkriss.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/neil-degrasse-tyson-pedantry-in-space
Wednesday, 23 March 2016
A gravity sensor
Originally shared by Rob Jongschaap
MoD gravity sensor breakthrough to 'see underground or through walls' - Telegraph
'A scientific breakthrough in a Ministry of Defence research project could pave the way for a scanners that one day could see underground or through walls.
A team of scientists including experts at the MoD’s Porton Down labs have developed a new device that can detect tiny fluctuations in gravity.
The device revealed in a BBC Horizon documentary could one day also lead to sensors that are immune to jamming or stealth technology designed to beat conventional systems like radar.
[...]
By studying how the particles are influenced by the mass of nearby objects, scientists can then draw a 3D map highlighting how density changes nearby.
Mr Stansfield said one potential use would be to allow people to see underground.
He said: “Seeing underground is an obvious one. From a national security perspective, the potential is obvious if you can see caves and tunnels.” '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12201086/MoD-gravity-sensor-breakthrough-to-see-underground-or-through-walls.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12201086/MoD-gravity-sensor-breakthrough-to-see-underground-or-through-walls.html
MoD gravity sensor breakthrough to 'see underground or through walls' - Telegraph
'A scientific breakthrough in a Ministry of Defence research project could pave the way for a scanners that one day could see underground or through walls.
A team of scientists including experts at the MoD’s Porton Down labs have developed a new device that can detect tiny fluctuations in gravity.
The device revealed in a BBC Horizon documentary could one day also lead to sensors that are immune to jamming or stealth technology designed to beat conventional systems like radar.
[...]
By studying how the particles are influenced by the mass of nearby objects, scientists can then draw a 3D map highlighting how density changes nearby.
Mr Stansfield said one potential use would be to allow people to see underground.
He said: “Seeing underground is an obvious one. From a national security perspective, the potential is obvious if you can see caves and tunnels.” '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12201086/MoD-gravity-sensor-breakthrough-to-see-underground-or-through-walls.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12201086/MoD-gravity-sensor-breakthrough-to-see-underground-or-through-walls.html
Monday, 21 March 2016
No scientist is an island
Tackling the myth of the scientist as a loner and the lone genius. Both are wrong and damaging. A recent article that science can be for loners is true, but misses the point.
We fight the myth of the social loner not because they aren't worthy people, but because they are widely perceived to be the norm (or even the exclusive demographic) in science. Science is apparently for people who end up talking to potted plants at parties, not nightclub-going "cool" people. In reality, science has the unusual position where the loners are seen as dominant. They don't need defending, so in this peculiar case it's the extroverts who have an image problem. That's why we fight the myth of social loners - to promote an environment suitable for everyone. That does not mean that loners aren't welcome.
Then there's the far more damaging myth of scientists as lone geniuses who are too cool for school, as though a single rogue professor can come along and overturn decades of research through nothing more than their sheer intellect. It doesn't work like that.
We fight the myth of the academic lone genius for entirely different reasons : because it undermines academia and the need for collaborative science. Virtually no-one makes a really significant contribution to science without at the very least reading the work of their forebears. People just aren't that smart. It may be nice to think that you can overturn decades of science in an afternoon with no formal training, but you can't. The lone genius myth fuels the fire of those who are convinced scientists are all ivory-tower closed minded snobs.
We fight the myth of the social loner not because they aren't worthy people, but because they are widely perceived to be the norm (or even the exclusive demographic) in science. Science is apparently for people who end up talking to potted plants at parties, not nightclub-going "cool" people. In reality, science has the unusual position where the loners are seen as dominant. They don't need defending, so in this peculiar case it's the extroverts who have an image problem. That's why we fight the myth of social loners - to promote an environment suitable for everyone. That does not mean that loners aren't welcome.
Then there's the far more damaging myth of scientists as lone geniuses who are too cool for school, as though a single rogue professor can come along and overturn decades of research through nothing more than their sheer intellect. It doesn't work like that.
We fight the myth of the academic lone genius for entirely different reasons : because it undermines academia and the need for collaborative science. Virtually no-one makes a really significant contribution to science without at the very least reading the work of their forebears. People just aren't that smart. It may be nice to think that you can overturn decades of science in an afternoon with no formal training, but you can't. The lone genius myth fuels the fire of those who are convinced scientists are all ivory-tower closed minded snobs.
It's probably better that we didn't build this
It would have been cool, but really, really stupid.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160318-the-memorial-to-newton-that-would-have-eclipsed-the-pyramids
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160318-the-memorial-to-newton-that-would-have-eclipsed-the-pyramids
Saturday, 19 March 2016
The Expanse is, ummm....
Two episodes in to The Expanse. So far I have no idea what all the fuss is about. Feels like Firefly if you sucked all the humour out with a big sucky-outy thing.
Airships : for real this time ?
"“You want to put a hospital into Africa?” Bruce Dickinson, the company’s lead investor, said to me. “You put the whole hospital in the inside of this—whoosh. Start the generator. ‘Here’s your hospital, buddy!’ Job done. You know? You can just plunk the vehicle straight down on the farm, load it with fifty tons of green beans or whatever, and twenty-four hours later you land right next door to the processing plant. It’s a global conveyor belt. And water! With these vehicles, you could drop off a twenty-ton slab of water that is clean, drinkable, to an African village. It’s astonishing what you can do that you just can’t do with anything else. Shit, you can do that with it? Wow, you can do that with it? Seriously fantastic!”"
Promises of a return to the age of airships have been around for at least a couple of decades, so I'll believe it when I see it. Nonetheless, this is an excellent article which is well worth reading, via Helen Read (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+HelenRead/auto : G+ doesn't list the correct Helen Read if I try the usual +name).
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/a-new-generation-of-airships-is-born
Promises of a return to the age of airships have been around for at least a couple of decades, so I'll believe it when I see it. Nonetheless, this is an excellent article which is well worth reading, via Helen Read (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+HelenRead/auto : G+ doesn't list the correct Helen Read if I try the usual +name).
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/a-new-generation-of-airships-is-born
The supergun
A modern von Braunian figure indeed.
"At a time when Bull’s expertise should have been in high demand by all of the world’s superpowers, he chose to make his supergun for Saddam Hussein instead, a decision that would end in murder.
Although he would end up spending much of his career in government-funded weapons research designing rockets and guns for warring countries, his personal ambition was to use his designs to launch satellites not missiles."
... and yet ...
"In 1976, Bull was arrested in South Africa for violating the United Nations arms embargo and he served six months in a US prison, wrote the New York Times after his death. On release he began selling to South Africa again, and this time was fined $55,000 for international arms dealing."
And yet the gun he designed would have be a formidable satellite launcher indeed :
" The recoil force from the gun would have totalled 27,000 tonnes – equivalent to a nuclear explosion – and would have registered as a major seismic event around the world... the capabilities of Big Babylon would have made the supergun an attractively cheap way to launch satellites. The cost was roughly $1,727 per kilogram, adjusting for inflation. By comparison, Nasa estimates that it costs $22,000 per kilogram to launch a modern satellite into orbit using conventional rockets."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160317-the-man-who-tried-to-make-a-supergun-for-saddam-hussein
"At a time when Bull’s expertise should have been in high demand by all of the world’s superpowers, he chose to make his supergun for Saddam Hussein instead, a decision that would end in murder.
Although he would end up spending much of his career in government-funded weapons research designing rockets and guns for warring countries, his personal ambition was to use his designs to launch satellites not missiles."
... and yet ...
"In 1976, Bull was arrested in South Africa for violating the United Nations arms embargo and he served six months in a US prison, wrote the New York Times after his death. On release he began selling to South Africa again, and this time was fined $55,000 for international arms dealing."
And yet the gun he designed would have be a formidable satellite launcher indeed :
" The recoil force from the gun would have totalled 27,000 tonnes – equivalent to a nuclear explosion – and would have registered as a major seismic event around the world... the capabilities of Big Babylon would have made the supergun an attractively cheap way to launch satellites. The cost was roughly $1,727 per kilogram, adjusting for inflation. By comparison, Nasa estimates that it costs $22,000 per kilogram to launch a modern satellite into orbit using conventional rockets."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160317-the-man-who-tried-to-make-a-supergun-for-saddam-hussein
Something so crazy even the American military wouldn't buy it
I've heard of this before. Still I find this amusing :
"The US Army ran out of money to develop it as a surveillance machine, so the British aerospace company behind it bought the rights back."
Now, call me crazy, but anything the >$200 billion US army says is too expensive is probably best avoided, as a rule of thumb. But hey, they've built one now, so prove me wrong. I for one would love to travel by airship.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-35836218
"The US Army ran out of money to develop it as a surveillance machine, so the British aerospace company behind it bought the rights back."
Now, call me crazy, but anything the >$200 billion US army says is too expensive is probably best avoided, as a rule of thumb. But hey, they've built one now, so prove me wrong. I for one would love to travel by airship.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-35836218
Thursday, 17 March 2016
And this your mountainish inhumanity
This is doing the rounds, but finally an article which includes a transcript and a reading by Ian McKellan.
Originally shared by S. John
".....And this your mountainish inhumanity."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2016/03/16/speech_from_play_about_sir_thomas_more_written_by_shakespeare_makes_a_plea.html
Originally shared by S. John
".....And this your mountainish inhumanity."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2016/03/16/speech_from_play_about_sir_thomas_more_written_by_shakespeare_makes_a_plea.html
Tuesday, 15 March 2016
Feynman on questions
Feynman had a lot of flaws as a human being, but his philosophy was beautifully eloquent.
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don't know anything about, but I don't have to know an answer.
I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me.
I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers which can't be questioned.
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don't know anything about, but I don't have to know an answer.
I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me.
I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers which can't be questioned.
Laws are there for a reason
Found on the internet (along with the commentary below, which is not mine).
How come when one applies the "criminals don't follow gun laws" nonsense to other topics, other laws, it sounds completely STUPID and DEVOID OF LOGIC and JUSTICE?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Speeders don't follow speed limits. Only law abiding drivers follow speed limits. And there is just no evidence that speed limits prevent speeding."
"Tax evaders don't follow the tax code. Only law abiding tax payers pay taxes. And there is just no evidence that tax laws prevent tax evasion."
"Dog owners don't follow the 'pooper scooper laws'. Only well trained dogs and responsible dog owners follow 'pooper scooper laws'. And there is just no evidence that 'pooper scooper laws' prevent puppy poo."
"Republicans don't say anything truthful. Only scientifically literate Democrats even attempt to stay in the realm of logic and reason. There is zero evidence that the Code of Official Conduct of Congress prevents Marco Rubio from reiterating utterly stupid stuff."
How come when one applies the "criminals don't follow gun laws" nonsense to other topics, other laws, it sounds completely STUPID and DEVOID OF LOGIC and JUSTICE?
"Speeders don't follow speed limits. Only law abiding drivers follow speed limits. And there is just no evidence that speed limits prevent speeding."
"Tax evaders don't follow the tax code. Only law abiding tax payers pay taxes. And there is just no evidence that tax laws prevent tax evasion."
"Dog owners don't follow the 'pooper scooper laws'. Only well trained dogs and responsible dog owners follow 'pooper scooper laws'. And there is just no evidence that 'pooper scooper laws' prevent puppy poo."
"Republicans don't say anything truthful. Only scientifically literate Democrats even attempt to stay in the realm of logic and reason. There is zero evidence that the Code of Official Conduct of Congress prevents Marco Rubio from reiterating utterly stupid stuff."
Friday, 11 March 2016
The frozen squirrel : how animals survive deep hibernation
"One truly remarkable beetle, the red flat bark beetle (Cucujus clavipes puniceus) from Alaska, can supercool its body fluids to -50C. But there is huge variation between individuals – some can tolerate body temperatures as low as -100C. These deep-supercooling beetles have higher levels of antifreeze proteins and cryoprotectants like glycerol, which help them to minimise ice formation even at such extreme temperatures.
Several scientists are trying to work out how the Arctic ground squirrel (Spermophilus parryii) became the only known warm-blooded mammal to be able to tolerate subzero body temperatures. Solving the mystery could hold the key to freezing human organs for transplant without damaging them.
Although the exact mechanism remains a mystery, Barnes’ research suggests the ground squirrels may achieve this by producing masking agents, which neutralise ice-nucleators before ice has a chance to form around them. “The Arctic ground squirrel can survive body temperatures to -3C, but they do not freeze”, he explains. “Instead body fluids within the arctic ground squirrel enter a ‘supercooled’ state”. Without any effective nucleators to get the ice crystals started, water in the squirrel’s blood simply can’t freeze."
I was curious about how the squirrel avoids brain damage. According to this article :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-ground-squirrel-brain/
It doesn't. Although their brains don't go below freezing, and blood is still pumped around their bodies, they still suffer heavy damage. But every few weeks the squirrels warm up and the brains heal themselves, in fact ending up with even more synapses than they had before. I wonder if anyone's done a study on personality changes in squirrels due to hibernation....
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160308-how-one-squirrel-manages-to-survive-being-frozen
Several scientists are trying to work out how the Arctic ground squirrel (Spermophilus parryii) became the only known warm-blooded mammal to be able to tolerate subzero body temperatures. Solving the mystery could hold the key to freezing human organs for transplant without damaging them.
Although the exact mechanism remains a mystery, Barnes’ research suggests the ground squirrels may achieve this by producing masking agents, which neutralise ice-nucleators before ice has a chance to form around them. “The Arctic ground squirrel can survive body temperatures to -3C, but they do not freeze”, he explains. “Instead body fluids within the arctic ground squirrel enter a ‘supercooled’ state”. Without any effective nucleators to get the ice crystals started, water in the squirrel’s blood simply can’t freeze."
I was curious about how the squirrel avoids brain damage. According to this article :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-ground-squirrel-brain/
It doesn't. Although their brains don't go below freezing, and blood is still pumped around their bodies, they still suffer heavy damage. But every few weeks the squirrels warm up and the brains heal themselves, in fact ending up with even more synapses than they had before. I wonder if anyone's done a study on personality changes in squirrels due to hibernation....
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160308-how-one-squirrel-manages-to-survive-being-frozen
Thursday, 10 March 2016
Fukushima's radiation level is less than in Cornwall
"On recent visits to the towns of Okuma and Namie inside the radiation exclusion zone I measured a "received dose" of around 3 microsieverts of radiation per hour. If I were to stand outside here for 12 hours a day, every day of the year, I would receive an annual extra dose of radiation of around 13 millisieverts. That is not insignificant, but it is far below what the data suggest is dangerous to long-term health.
In most countries nuclear industry workers are allowed to receive up to 20 millisieverts a year. There are places in Cornwall in the UK where background radiation levels reach 8 millisieverts a year. The world's highest background radiation rate is found in the city of Ramsar in Iran, which has the astonishing rate of 250 millisieverts a year."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35761136
In most countries nuclear industry workers are allowed to receive up to 20 millisieverts a year. There are places in Cornwall in the UK where background radiation levels reach 8 millisieverts a year. The world's highest background radiation rate is found in the city of Ramsar in Iran, which has the astonishing rate of 250 millisieverts a year."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35761136
Monday, 7 March 2016
Science is absolutely dependent on luck
"As people dredge the unknown, they are engaging in a highly creative act. What an inventor “finds” is always an expression of him- or herself. Martin Chalfie, who won a Nobel Prize for his work connected with green fluorescent protein — the stuff that makes jellyfish glow green — told me that he and several other Nobel Prize winners benefited from a chain of accidents and chance encounters on the way to their revelations. Some scientists even embrace a kind of “free jazz” method, he said, improvising as they go along: “I’ve heard of people getting good results after accidentally dropping their experimental preparations on the floor, picking them up, and working on them nonetheless,” he added."
Observational science is rather different from the hypothesis->experiement->verify->refine/disprove cycle taught in schools. It makes sense to have some idea you want the data to test, but planning anything that's more than vaguely defined is (as a rule of thumb) foolish. Too often the data will just show something you didn't expect at all. Better to approach the data with as few preconceptions as possible and try and determinine what it's telling you without bias. You could try speculating about as many different scenarios as possible but it's usually a waste of effort that ends up being castles in the air. So in that sense, observational astronomy is a great example of an inherently serendipitous process.
Of course, there are exceptions. If you're building a new instrument you need to have some idea as to what it should detect - you can't go spending millions of currency units on some new-fangled telescope unless you're pretty sure it's going to detect something. But more often than not, once you've established that you'll detect something, you let the data tell you about the universe, rather than trying to test a specific hypothesis. Hypothesis testing is useful and has its place, but it is not the be-all and end-all of science.
Which is a very roundabout way of saying, "I don't like writing telescope proposals, they're silly".
EDIT : I was also going to add that with regards to fostering an environment that promotes serendipitous discoveries, I've already written about that here : http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/11/when-worlds-collide-science-in-society.html. Relevant quote :
These similarities mean that sometimes the process of doing both science and the arts can be very similar. Both require large amounts of time to do nothing but thinking (and in the case of science at least, an awful lot of background reading). Inspiration can't be forced - you cannot make people have new ideas. You can, however, encourage them. Science and art are both sometimes highly elaborate forms of play, to explore the question, "what if I did it this way...", or better yet, "what does this button do ?" Such thinking intrinsically demands a liberal, reasonably informal atmosphere. Insisting that people are at their desks during some particular set of hours and only talk to each other during scheduled meetings makes absolutely no damn sense whatsoever.
Except that I have a nice personal counter-example. I recently came up with a way to view volumetric data in spherical polar coordinates directly in Blender with no need for Cartesian gridding... during a long and extremely boring meeting to which I was not paying any attention. So perhaps seemingly pointless meetings have their uses after all.
Via Kazimierz Kurz.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/how-to-cultivate-the-art-of-serendipity.html?_r=0
Observational science is rather different from the hypothesis->experiement->verify->refine/disprove cycle taught in schools. It makes sense to have some idea you want the data to test, but planning anything that's more than vaguely defined is (as a rule of thumb) foolish. Too often the data will just show something you didn't expect at all. Better to approach the data with as few preconceptions as possible and try and determinine what it's telling you without bias. You could try speculating about as many different scenarios as possible but it's usually a waste of effort that ends up being castles in the air. So in that sense, observational astronomy is a great example of an inherently serendipitous process.
Of course, there are exceptions. If you're building a new instrument you need to have some idea as to what it should detect - you can't go spending millions of currency units on some new-fangled telescope unless you're pretty sure it's going to detect something. But more often than not, once you've established that you'll detect something, you let the data tell you about the universe, rather than trying to test a specific hypothesis. Hypothesis testing is useful and has its place, but it is not the be-all and end-all of science.
Which is a very roundabout way of saying, "I don't like writing telescope proposals, they're silly".
EDIT : I was also going to add that with regards to fostering an environment that promotes serendipitous discoveries, I've already written about that here : http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/11/when-worlds-collide-science-in-society.html. Relevant quote :
These similarities mean that sometimes the process of doing both science and the arts can be very similar. Both require large amounts of time to do nothing but thinking (and in the case of science at least, an awful lot of background reading). Inspiration can't be forced - you cannot make people have new ideas. You can, however, encourage them. Science and art are both sometimes highly elaborate forms of play, to explore the question, "what if I did it this way...", or better yet, "what does this button do ?" Such thinking intrinsically demands a liberal, reasonably informal atmosphere. Insisting that people are at their desks during some particular set of hours and only talk to each other during scheduled meetings makes absolutely no damn sense whatsoever.
Except that I have a nice personal counter-example. I recently came up with a way to view volumetric data in spherical polar coordinates directly in Blender with no need for Cartesian gridding... during a long and extremely boring meeting to which I was not paying any attention. So perhaps seemingly pointless meetings have their uses after all.
Via Kazimierz Kurz.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/how-to-cultivate-the-art-of-serendipity.html?_r=0
Sunday, 6 March 2016
Trump supporters : desperate, not stupid ?
Thought-provoking reading via Guy Geens. Needs mulling over before commenting.
"We are depriving the white working classes of their means to give. As we export manufacturing jobs internationally and as we streamline labor with technology, we start moving people to the sidelines. It’s not just that they have less money, it’s that their identity as providers is being threatened. This is why they are often so against welfare. Even if it would fix their financial situation, it would not fix their identity problems."
"...no one wants to occupy the “last” place in society. No one wants to be the most despised. As long as racism remains intact, poor white people are guaranteed not to be “the worst.” If racism is ever truly dismantled, then poor white people will occupy the lowest rung of society, and the shame of occupying this position is very painful. This shame is so painful, that the people at risk of feeling it will vote on it above all other issues."
"Shaming Drumpf supporters for being “ignorant bigots” is the worst thing you can do, because their entire motivation in voting for Drumpf is to alleviate the shame they are already carrying. If you add to their shame, they will dig in further."
https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/trump-supporters-aren-t-stupid-3d38f70f2a2f#.b88db2lu2
"We are depriving the white working classes of their means to give. As we export manufacturing jobs internationally and as we streamline labor with technology, we start moving people to the sidelines. It’s not just that they have less money, it’s that their identity as providers is being threatened. This is why they are often so against welfare. Even if it would fix their financial situation, it would not fix their identity problems."
"...no one wants to occupy the “last” place in society. No one wants to be the most despised. As long as racism remains intact, poor white people are guaranteed not to be “the worst.” If racism is ever truly dismantled, then poor white people will occupy the lowest rung of society, and the shame of occupying this position is very painful. This shame is so painful, that the people at risk of feeling it will vote on it above all other issues."
"Shaming Drumpf supporters for being “ignorant bigots” is the worst thing you can do, because their entire motivation in voting for Drumpf is to alleviate the shame they are already carrying. If you add to their shame, they will dig in further."
https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/trump-supporters-aren-t-stupid-3d38f70f2a2f#.b88db2lu2
Friday, 4 March 2016
Knowledge is not understanding
Ignore the headline.
"Scientific literacy has little to do with memorising information and a lot to do with a rational approach to problems. There is no compelling reason to believe that knowledge of the structure of the solar system correlates with a true understanding of science. We learn that earth orbits the sun in the same way we learn that Jesus’ mother was a virgin or that we should never wear white before Memorial Day. We accept it because someone we trust told us that it’s true. "
"It’s not possible for everyone—or anyone—to be sufficiently well trained in science to analyse data from multiple fields and come up with sound, independent interpretations.... As a starting point, we could teach our children that the theories and technologies that have been tested the most times, by the largest number of independent observers, over the greatest number of years, are the most likely to be reliable. If someone is going to choose areas of science to reject, evolution and vaccines are terrible choices."
http://qz.com/588126/theres-a-good-reason-americans-are-horrible-at-science/
"Scientific literacy has little to do with memorising information and a lot to do with a rational approach to problems. There is no compelling reason to believe that knowledge of the structure of the solar system correlates with a true understanding of science. We learn that earth orbits the sun in the same way we learn that Jesus’ mother was a virgin or that we should never wear white before Memorial Day. We accept it because someone we trust told us that it’s true. "
"It’s not possible for everyone—or anyone—to be sufficiently well trained in science to analyse data from multiple fields and come up with sound, independent interpretations.... As a starting point, we could teach our children that the theories and technologies that have been tested the most times, by the largest number of independent observers, over the greatest number of years, are the most likely to be reliable. If someone is going to choose areas of science to reject, evolution and vaccines are terrible choices."
http://qz.com/588126/theres-a-good-reason-americans-are-horrible-at-science/
The brain is not a Bayesian net
The first 2 minutes can be safely skipped. Actually the whole thing would probably have been better as a short webpage rather than a video, but never mind.
Basically, the brain doesn't update every idea automatically when new information is presented. Even when you abandon one belief, other ideas that it spawned still hang around even though the original basis for them has gone. Which explains quite a lot - though by no means all - about the anti-vaccines movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFv5DvrLDCg&feature=share
Basically, the brain doesn't update every idea automatically when new information is presented. Even when you abandon one belief, other ideas that it spawned still hang around even though the original basis for them has gone. Which explains quite a lot - though by no means all - about the anti-vaccines movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFv5DvrLDCg&feature=share
Thursday, 3 March 2016
Wednesday, 2 March 2016
The road to hell
"Let's design a search engine that's safe for kids. Like, making it impossible to search for offensive content".
Oh what could possibly go wrong...
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35694883
Oh what could possibly go wrong...
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35694883
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)