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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)