I know I usually harp on about the value of doubt in PoS posts, but this time I look at the cases when it's OK to say, "LA LA LA I'm not listening !". If you doubt everything, you end up learning absolutely nothing.
I personally am never going to conduct any tests to see if the Earth is flat because I know it's round. Uncounted numbers of people have already done tests to prove it's round, the only way to get around (ha ha) this is to say, "they're all lying". If you have so little trust in your fellow human beings that you think this many people are lying, one wonders how you're able to get out of bed every morning. You're not in a healthy state of doubt, you are simply paranoid.
I am not a climate scientist, but I believe global warming is likely mostly the result of humans. I am not a biologist, but I believe vaccines work. I am not a surgeon, but I know surgery works. Nor am I a chemist, but I'm pretty sure dynamite works. And I'm not an electrician but I can still use the internet. Is it dogmatic of me to trust the experts on so many issues about which I'm genuinely no better informed than the average man on the street ? No, because I do understand how the scientific method works.
Friday, 16 October 2015
Thursday, 15 October 2015
Farewell to cows
Ah, a report that recognises just how significant lab-grown meat could be :
"An independent study found that lab-grown beef uses 45% less energy than the average global representative figure for farming cattle. It also produces 96% fewer greenhouse gas emissions and requires 99% less land."
Bye bye cows !
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34540193
"An independent study found that lab-grown beef uses 45% less energy than the average global representative figure for farming cattle. It also produces 96% fewer greenhouse gas emissions and requires 99% less land."
Bye bye cows !
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34540193
Open peer review gives higher quality results
I'd be wary of disclosing the identity of reviewers. There's a risk that they won't want to be seen as supporting unconventional research, thereby establishing a false consensus. However I do think that publishing the author-reviewer correspondence as well as the research itself might be a good idea.
I'm surprised that the difference in quality is so low (5% better using the alternative method), but I haven't read the original report yet.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/open-peer-review-better-quality-than-traditional-process
I'm surprised that the difference in quality is so low (5% better using the alternative method), but I haven't read the original report yet.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/open-peer-review-better-quality-than-traditional-process
Tuesday, 13 October 2015
The point of worthless knowledge
Keep 'em coming, Jim...
"The stubborn critic would say : 'What is the benefit of these sciences ?' He does not know the virtue that distinguishes mankind from all the animals : it is knowledge, in general, which is pursued solely by man, and which is pursued for the sake of knowledge itself, because its acquisition is truly delightful, and is unlike the pleasures desirable from other pursuits. For the good cannot be brought forth, and evil cannot be avoided, except by knowledge. What benefit then is more vivid ? What use is more abundant ?”
-Al-Biruni, c.1000 A.D.
"The stubborn critic would say : 'What is the benefit of these sciences ?' He does not know the virtue that distinguishes mankind from all the animals : it is knowledge, in general, which is pursued solely by man, and which is pursued for the sake of knowledge itself, because its acquisition is truly delightful, and is unlike the pleasures desirable from other pursuits. For the good cannot be brought forth, and evil cannot be avoided, except by knowledge. What benefit then is more vivid ? What use is more abundant ?”
-Al-Biruni, c.1000 A.D.
Sunday, 11 October 2015
Make yourself an enemy
Another great quote I found in Jim Al-Khalili's "The Golden Age of Arabic Science" :
“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”
— Ibn al-Haytham, c.1025 AD.
“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”
— Ibn al-Haytham, c.1025 AD.
Wednesday, 7 October 2015
Cameron being a dick, as usual
Nice one Cameron. Your opponent calls for a kinder politics with less personal attacks, completely ignores the allegations of your sexual depravities... and you respond by saying he hates Britain and sympathises with terrorists. Good job !
Originally shared by Garry Knight
How to troll like a sociopath
Here's the truth about what Jeremy Corbyn actually said. It's a comment on earlier news that David Cameron Called Corbyn a “security threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideologue”.
These words were spoken out loud at the Conservative Conference but if they had been posted straight away on the Internet it would be an extremely good example of the worst kind of trolling anyone can stoop to. Here's how it's done:
1) Take just a few words that someone has said, and take them entirely out of context. The fewer the words, the easier it is to coerce them to mean what you say they mean.
Example: He thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy”.
2) Take something else that person has said and make it look like a) you said it first, b) it supports your argument, c) it doesn't support your opponent's views, and d) it can be used to make him look bad.
Example: No. A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York.
3) Get to know all of the logical fallacies such as the straw man argument (raising an issue as if it came from your opponent rather than arising in your own head) and the ad hominem attack ("my spurious use of fallacy shows that he is therefore a bad person").
Example: My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.
There are plenty of other tactics you can use. Just look up 'logical fallacies' and think about how you can use them to trap those who haven't been on the Internet as long as some of us.
Oh, and it helps if you have an extremely high level of sociopathy.
Here's a report on what Cameron actually and shamelessly said to the Conservative Conference:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/07/david-cameron-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-conservative-conference
The link below reveals not only what Jeremy Corbyn actually said and believes but also shows up the underhanded tactics that Cameron used and uses all the time.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/07/david-cameron-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-conservative-conference
Originally shared by Garry Knight
How to troll like a sociopath
Here's the truth about what Jeremy Corbyn actually said. It's a comment on earlier news that David Cameron Called Corbyn a “security threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideologue”.
These words were spoken out loud at the Conservative Conference but if they had been posted straight away on the Internet it would be an extremely good example of the worst kind of trolling anyone can stoop to. Here's how it's done:
1) Take just a few words that someone has said, and take them entirely out of context. The fewer the words, the easier it is to coerce them to mean what you say they mean.
Example: He thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy”.
2) Take something else that person has said and make it look like a) you said it first, b) it supports your argument, c) it doesn't support your opponent's views, and d) it can be used to make him look bad.
Example: No. A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York.
3) Get to know all of the logical fallacies such as the straw man argument (raising an issue as if it came from your opponent rather than arising in your own head) and the ad hominem attack ("my spurious use of fallacy shows that he is therefore a bad person").
Example: My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.
There are plenty of other tactics you can use. Just look up 'logical fallacies' and think about how you can use them to trap those who haven't been on the Internet as long as some of us.
Oh, and it helps if you have an extremely high level of sociopathy.
Here's a report on what Cameron actually and shamelessly said to the Conservative Conference:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/07/david-cameron-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-conservative-conference
The link below reveals not only what Jeremy Corbyn actually said and believes but also shows up the underhanded tactics that Cameron used and uses all the time.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/07/david-cameron-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-conservative-conference
Let's keep the nukes... for now
I don't want us to give up the nuclear deterrent juuuuust yet.
"We do not have nuclear weapons so that we can wipe out the planet in the case that someone launches a nuclear strike against us. All that would do is turn an awful situation into a total apocalypse. Rather, we have them so that that situation can't happen in the first place. The threat of our nukes prevent others from using theirs."
"We do not have nuclear weapons so that we can wipe out the planet in the case that someone launches a nuclear strike against us. All that would do is turn an awful situation into a total apocalypse. Rather, we have them so that that situation can't happen in the first place. The threat of our nukes prevent others from using theirs."
Thursday, 1 October 2015
Political networking
So, yeah, I was wrong. He is indeed going for bottom-up politics. Which the SNP don't quite get (or rather, would prefer to deliberately misunderstand, for obvious reasons).
""After days of chaos and infighting, [umm, no] Jeremy Corbyn must use his trip to Scotland to make clear whether he is leading Labour - or whether Labour is leading him."
Well, no, because establishing a consensus isn't supposed to be about anyone leading anyone.
I suspect it may be more difficult to persuade the media that he's willing to work with people he disagrees with than it is to actually work with people he disagrees with.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34405505
""After days of chaos and infighting, [umm, no] Jeremy Corbyn must use his trip to Scotland to make clear whether he is leading Labour - or whether Labour is leading him."
Well, no, because establishing a consensus isn't supposed to be about anyone leading anyone.
I suspect it may be more difficult to persuade the media that he's willing to work with people he disagrees with than it is to actually work with people he disagrees with.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34405505
No news is indeed often good news
The Nirvana fallacy is a powerful one. No, the world isn't perfect, but that is not to say it isn't very much better than it once was. No, those improvements haven't been occurred everywhere, but that is not to say they haven't happened at all. The future is not hopeless, no matter what Noam Chomsky might think.
Originally shared by David Strumfels
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-most-important-thing-and-its-almost-a-secret.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-most-important-thing-and-its-almost-a-secret.html?_r=0
Originally shared by David Strumfels
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-most-important-thing-and-its-almost-a-secret.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-most-important-thing-and-its-almost-a-secret.html?_r=0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)