You always have a choice. If someone points a gun at your head and wants to make you do his bidding, you always have the choice to say "shoot" instead of becoming his accomplice.
The choice may not be something you like. But there is ALWAYS an alternative.
Scientific "findings" isn't a binary black box. It's a long process from gathering samples and measuring them all down to distilling this results and maybe, eventually, using them to formulate a hypothesis, test it against competing hypotheses, maybe formulate a theory even. And yes, at every step there's human error possible.
So yes, your results may be wrong. Does that invalidate your measurements? No. At least not necessarily. It means you drew the wrong conclusions and maybe someone found an explanation that explains the results better, with fewer contradictions.
Example: Miasma theory. Observation: People get sick in areas where there is lots of shit and decaying stuff. Conclusion: It smells bad, so there is something in the air that they breathe in that makes them sick. Solution: Make sure the air doesn't smell bad and people won't get sick. Results: Poor, people still got sick even if they covered their faces with clothes soaked in perfume.
Classic example of a correct observation and drawing the wrong conclusion. The observation is correct, because people got sick of the bacteria in the feces that contaminated drinking water and from handling infected people and their belongings. The conclusion was not correct because they thought it was the stench that made people sick, not that there was something that created the stench AND made people sick.
So yes, I don't doubt that 50% (likely more) of the end results of research is thrown out if reevaluated. Does that mean that 50% or more of the measurements are bogus? Most likely not.
We have been measuring temperature for centuries. The earliest recorded temperature measurements date to the 1600s. Are they valid? Yes. They are not as accurate as our measurements today and we have to assume a fairly large margin of error compared to modern thermometers, but that does not invalidate their measurements, all it means is that we have to take that error into account when using these values.
Likewise, measurements, unless they are for some reason invalidated by circumstances or forgery, are valid working material, even if the result that they were the foundation for turns out to be wrong.
More accurately, they are less trained to apply rigorous testing to a presented hypothesis. Because for their job, doing so would probably lead to a catastrophe.
When you're in a blue collar job, you don't have the time to second guess everything you're told. Your foreman says "do that, and do it this way", and you do it. Why? Because he's foreman for a reason, he's responsible for what's going on here and he's in charge. Do it or you'll find yourself on the street again with someone else doing it. This is how you're trained and this is how you work. Not because you're dumb and wouldn't understand why you should do it that way, but because the foreman doesn't have time to explain to every single worker why something should be done this way and not another. There's work to be done, and talking about it doesn't build a house.
In a scientific environment, such a behaviour would be fundamentally wrong. There, questioning and testing someone else's hypothesis is basically your job. There is no foreman who knows best, even if Stephen Hawking said that there's a little blue man at the center of every black hole you cannot take it at face value because the smartest and best astrophysicist said it, he still has to defend this position and present a conclusive proof for it.
Expecting from either to radically change his behaviour in a private environment is asking a bit much, don't you think?
And this, kids, is how it's possible today that science is shunned and charlatans of all trades can get a foot on the ground at all. "I feel that way" trumps reality or facts.
Hey, Trump is the president of the little guy, too, so of course a school that oozes tradition and where everyone looks down at you if you can't show your lineage at least 'til the battle of Hastings is the epitome of liberalism.
Could we have your definition of "tolerated", please? I have this hunch that you feel "oppressed" by those leftist liberal pinkos because you can't tell the fags that they'll go to hell no matter whether they give a shit about your imaginary buddy or not.
Great, now the left AND the right want to destroy science and replace it with "what I feel is right is right" narrative. The right in the name of their imaginary friend, the left in the name of what they consider equality.
If you have a semblance of sense left in you, get out of this country. Now.
The point is that the GP claimed that mercury is not toxic as a liquid or solid, when practically all mercury compounds are toxic and all organic mercury compounds are highly toxic.
Remember Spain and their discovery of the "new world"? Spain brought home tons (literally) of silver to Europe, enough to trash the silver price. Before the influx of that Spanish Main silver, silver and gold had almost the same value in Europe. Afterwards, silver was valued at a fraction of the gold value.
Yes, gold does have applications, too. And if there is cheap(er) gold available, more gold will probably be used where cheaper materials are used now, but generally, the price of gold is to no small part due to its rarity. Dump cheap gold into the market and watch the gold price plummet.
We aren't talking about a river of silvery mercury running down the Hudson. What we're dealing with here, and what you'd know if you actually bothered to read the article, is mercury trapped in plants that cannot decay due to temperatures too low for natural decay to occur. Mercury, and that's what makes it such a dangerous stuff, binds readily to organic material. Any mercury that does exist gets sequestered in the plants that can actually live in such an environment, many of which never decay properly to release that mercury back into the environment.
It's no longer alarmism. It's basically cynical gallows humor. At least on my side.
I don't give a fuck anymore. I have about 30 years left. Maybe 40. More likely 20. The world will survive that long, and after that you can all go to hell with me as far as I'm concerned. I'm no longer trying to save your planet for people who don't give a fuck themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
You always have a choice. If someone points a gun at your head and wants to make you do his bidding, you always have the choice to say "shoot" instead of becoming his accomplice.
The choice may not be something you like. But there is ALWAYS an alternative.
Sorry, that exploit doesn't work on this batch of terrorists. It would literally be like beating a dead horse.
So we have azimuth, can I have the correct elevation, too? I'll take care of the rest, then...
Scientific "findings" isn't a binary black box. It's a long process from gathering samples and measuring them all down to distilling this results and maybe, eventually, using them to formulate a hypothesis, test it against competing hypotheses, maybe formulate a theory even. And yes, at every step there's human error possible.
So yes, your results may be wrong. Does that invalidate your measurements? No. At least not necessarily. It means you drew the wrong conclusions and maybe someone found an explanation that explains the results better, with fewer contradictions.
Example: Miasma theory. Observation: People get sick in areas where there is lots of shit and decaying stuff. Conclusion: It smells bad, so there is something in the air that they breathe in that makes them sick. Solution: Make sure the air doesn't smell bad and people won't get sick. Results: Poor, people still got sick even if they covered their faces with clothes soaked in perfume.
Classic example of a correct observation and drawing the wrong conclusion. The observation is correct, because people got sick of the bacteria in the feces that contaminated drinking water and from handling infected people and their belongings. The conclusion was not correct because they thought it was the stench that made people sick, not that there was something that created the stench AND made people sick.
So yes, I don't doubt that 50% (likely more) of the end results of research is thrown out if reevaluated. Does that mean that 50% or more of the measurements are bogus? Most likely not.
We have been measuring temperature for centuries. The earliest recorded temperature measurements date to the 1600s. Are they valid? Yes. They are not as accurate as our measurements today and we have to assume a fairly large margin of error compared to modern thermometers, but that does not invalidate their measurements, all it means is that we have to take that error into account when using these values.
Likewise, measurements, unless they are for some reason invalidated by circumstances or forgery, are valid working material, even if the result that they were the foundation for turns out to be wrong.
Apparently that's what people want to do and what the government keeps them from doing.
Why are you so for big government and against the free market? Are you a commie?
Now that it's about to fade into obscurity again, it's no longer a threat to our economy model.
We can still regulate it in case this dragon ever lifts its head again and endangers our flavor of fiat money.
So you're not allowed on campus? Or how are you not tolerated there?
More accurately, they are less trained to apply rigorous testing to a presented hypothesis. Because for their job, doing so would probably lead to a catastrophe.
When you're in a blue collar job, you don't have the time to second guess everything you're told. Your foreman says "do that, and do it this way", and you do it. Why? Because he's foreman for a reason, he's responsible for what's going on here and he's in charge. Do it or you'll find yourself on the street again with someone else doing it. This is how you're trained and this is how you work. Not because you're dumb and wouldn't understand why you should do it that way, but because the foreman doesn't have time to explain to every single worker why something should be done this way and not another. There's work to be done, and talking about it doesn't build a house.
In a scientific environment, such a behaviour would be fundamentally wrong. There, questioning and testing someone else's hypothesis is basically your job. There is no foreman who knows best, even if Stephen Hawking said that there's a little blue man at the center of every black hole you cannot take it at face value because the smartest and best astrophysicist said it, he still has to defend this position and present a conclusive proof for it.
Expecting from either to radically change his behaviour in a private environment is asking a bit much, don't you think?
And this, kids, is how it's possible today that science is shunned and charlatans of all trades can get a foot on the ground at all. "I feel that way" trumps reality or facts.
Hey, Trump is the president of the little guy, too, so of course a school that oozes tradition and where everyone looks down at you if you can't show your lineage at least 'til the battle of Hastings is the epitome of liberalism.
Could we have your definition of "tolerated", please? I have this hunch that you feel "oppressed" by those leftist liberal pinkos because you can't tell the fags that they'll go to hell no matter whether they give a shit about your imaginary buddy or not.
Great, now the left AND the right want to destroy science and replace it with "what I feel is right is right" narrative. The right in the name of their imaginary friend, the left in the name of what they consider equality.
If you have a semblance of sense left in you, get out of this country. Now.
If you can't refute them, discredit them?
How can there be an exodus from a platform you can leave as easily as North Korea?
The point is that the GP claimed that mercury is not toxic as a liquid or solid, when practically all mercury compounds are toxic and all organic mercury compounds are highly toxic.
Nope. Sorry, but nope.
Remember Spain and their discovery of the "new world"? Spain brought home tons (literally) of silver to Europe, enough to trash the silver price. Before the influx of that Spanish Main silver, silver and gold had almost the same value in Europe. Afterwards, silver was valued at a fraction of the gold value.
Yes, gold does have applications, too. And if there is cheap(er) gold available, more gold will probably be used where cheaper materials are used now, but generally, the price of gold is to no small part due to its rarity. Dump cheap gold into the market and watch the gold price plummet.
I've been to the US. Thanks, but no thanks.
I'm part of that rest, but my patience wears thin. If we're willing to let those idiots run the planet into the ground, we deserve what we get.
First, mercury is NOT toxic neither in liquid nor in solid (cinnabar) forms. Full stop.
You're right. Here, catch this vial of dimethylmercury!
Way ahead of you. I live on an elevated position. I have a gun. Anyone trying to escape the rising sea levels gets shot.
Didn't get the memo? "Common sense" and "I feel it's that way" is the new gold standard for truth. Welcome to the post-factual times.
Wasn't that aluminium?
That's an awful lot of words for "Whew, finally someone writes something that I understand and supports my preferred narrative!"
We aren't talking about a river of silvery mercury running down the Hudson. What we're dealing with here, and what you'd know if you actually bothered to read the article, is mercury trapped in plants that cannot decay due to temperatures too low for natural decay to occur. Mercury, and that's what makes it such a dangerous stuff, binds readily to organic material. Any mercury that does exist gets sequestered in the plants that can actually live in such an environment, many of which never decay properly to release that mercury back into the environment.
Thaw them and they will.
It's no longer alarmism. It's basically cynical gallows humor. At least on my side.
I don't give a fuck anymore. I have about 30 years left. Maybe 40. More likely 20. The world will survive that long, and after that you can all go to hell with me as far as I'm concerned. I'm no longer trying to save your planet for people who don't give a fuck themselves.