Any conclusion drawn from an incorrect theory must also be wrong
Not only is that incorrect, it's a well-known logical fallacy. (It's also creating a false dichotomy of "correct" and "incorrect" scientific theories.)
That would make it something of a challenging business model on the smaller scale, since it's general medical practitioners who end up prescribing your drugs. The company that produces the drug that cures the disease is going to get substantially more sales than the one that simply alleviates the symptoms.
On the larger scale, disease eradication isn't exactly simply a matter of pharmaceutical research -- it's very difficult. Still, if a pharmaceutical company developed a product that could be reasonably used to eradicate a disease, a push to eradicate that disease would be an enormous windfall for the company. (Still, to be fair, unless it's something that's available cheaply, eradication is nearly impossible, since a lot of the drug needs to be provided to poor people and countries.)
I think it's more that eradicating diseases isn't a pharmaceutical-research priority because you can't do it simply be developing a drug.
Amicus curiae is present in most common-law systems, including the UK. In France and Germany, at least, the courts are able to make requests for the opinions of third parties.
So if the jury members have iPhones and access google it is a problem
Yes, as it's a completely different situation. In this case, the opinion is provided to the court and could be presented to the jury if it meets judicial rules. If jury members simply look up information on their own on the Internet, there's no judicial vetting. (So, for example, a police organization could gather evidence illegally and then openly publish information about this evidence so that the jurors could read it, rendering the fact that it is barred from being produced as evidence in court moot.) An organization, governmental or not, cannot produce such an opinion and have it be presented to the jury without judicial review.
But curing diseases would be a bad business model and lead to their eventual unemployment.
Oddly, people like you are the ones who think this way, whereas the medical profession and makers of vaccines seem to prefer eradication. Hence the current status of smallpox, polio, malaria, measles, etc. (in the U.S.).
However, as noted elsewhere, the Y. pestis plague cannot be effectively eradicated, as it uses rodents as a reservoir. Eliminating such diseases is very difficult.
They're not "stepping in", they're making a position statement on the matter. It's quite common and, on the whole, useful, because the judiciary is not generally an expert on an arbitrary matter.
It's not "how atom-efficient can you make the system" -- after all, individual atoms are inconceivably cheap -- it's "how minimal of a motor can you create". (Although if it's using a quantum-mechanical effect, the fewer the atoms involved, the easier.)
They didn't say the whole system was two atoms, they said the motor is two atoms. The motor is the component that turns a non-mechanical energy potential into mechanical motion. The cooling system, the device that produces the magnetic field, etc. are no more part of the motor than the gas tank and radiator are part of the internal combustion engine.
A statistically valid measurement for a correlation is certainly an option. That's a study. A study really never properly shows causation, but depending on the hypothesis, you can assume causation or not worry about it. (This is part of why medical studies are difficult -- studies are much easier than experiments, and there are so many coupled variables that simple correlation is of limited help.)
What does sufficiently show causality is scientific experiment, where variables other than the two of interest are controlled.
I'm not sure what you're aiming at with "formal investigation". There are different level bars for different purposes. If what you're trying to do is show whether a treatment is potentially effective, what you want is a study. The bar for these is fairly low. (Usually you do an initial study with relatively low accuracy and limited funding to determine if a full study is warranted.) These are quite common, but their results are distorted by the media and ignored by the public. (Plus, medical research is not particularly straightforward -- it's no easy task to perform a truly definitive study.)
Useful anecdotal evidence, even in quantities, is fairly rare, because people will try lots of different things, their situations are often drastically different, and interviewing them after the fact causes them to change how they remember or report past events.
However, there certainly are formal studies -- often enough that they disagree with one another. (Of course, most medical studies can only make fairly soft claims, so disagreement is not a sign of a serious problem.)
That's correct -- all of those are insufficient to show causality. That's why all of the scientific theories you refer to were confirmed by substantially more thorough experimentation than you suggest.
If Y follows X, it suggests that properly investigating the possibility that X causes Y would be a worthwhile endeavour, nothing more.
In short, you just have a poor understanding of how science is done.
No, because the Mediterranean is actually 0.7% of the world's seas, whereas 0.00000000000000000001% of the Earth's surface is 0.05 square millimeters, which is an unbelievably small crime scene.
Oh, the article explains their method just fine. The problem is that they create a pointless and misleading measure.
First, they don't confirm that the blacklist's URLs use the same definition of "URL" as Google. Blacklists are notoriously bad about saying URL when they mean a wildcarded URL, like http://badsite.com/* or http://geocities.com/badsite/*. Clearly, a wildcarded URL is associated with some unknown number of Google-cache URLs.
Second, they compare the number of URLs blacklisted to the approximate size of the Google cache to arrive at an estimate of the likelihood of running across a "bad" URL if you are accessing URLs randomly. This is only true if your method of random access is selecting a URL out of Google's cache, with an equal chance of selecting any of them, and visiting it. For any "you" that is not a Google engineer, "you" are almost certainly never going to use the Web in this fashion, so this metric is not representative of any significant "you".
Finally, they assume that since avoiding the filter through proxying is technically feasible (and easy), that the number of people looking for illicit material who get caught by the filter is essentially zero. This significantly overestimates the intelligence of many consumers of CP.
Say what you will about the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Austrailian web filters... This "70 times more likely to win the national lottery" business was clearly pulled out of someone's ass, and in the process, they made a number of egregiously wrong statements.
Perhaps the summary author assumed a level of reading comprehension. It might be presumptuous if we knew there were gravitational waves, but not what their behavior was. However, we know their behavior, but not if they exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Any conclusion drawn from an incorrect theory must also be wrong
Not only is that incorrect, it's a well-known logical fallacy. (It's also creating a false dichotomy of "correct" and "incorrect" scientific theories.)
It appears to measure the presence of oxygenated hemoglobin.
Doesn't fMRI measure blood flow through the brain, rather than electrical impulses in the neurons?
That would make it something of a challenging business model on the smaller scale, since it's general medical practitioners who end up prescribing your drugs. The company that produces the drug that cures the disease is going to get substantially more sales than the one that simply alleviates the symptoms.
On the larger scale, disease eradication isn't exactly simply a matter of pharmaceutical research -- it's very difficult. Still, if a pharmaceutical company developed a product that could be reasonably used to eradicate a disease, a push to eradicate that disease would be an enormous windfall for the company. (Still, to be fair, unless it's something that's available cheaply, eradication is nearly impossible, since a lot of the drug needs to be provided to poor people and countries.)
I think it's more that eradicating diseases isn't a pharmaceutical-research priority because you can't do it simply be developing a drug.
Amicus curiae is present in most common-law systems, including the UK. In France and Germany, at least, the courts are able to make requests for the opinions of third parties.
So if the jury members have iPhones and access google it is a problem
Yes, as it's a completely different situation. In this case, the opinion is provided to the court and could be presented to the jury if it meets judicial rules. If jury members simply look up information on their own on the Internet, there's no judicial vetting. (So, for example, a police organization could gather evidence illegally and then openly publish information about this evidence so that the jurors could read it, rendering the fact that it is barred from being produced as evidence in court moot.) An organization, governmental or not, cannot produce such an opinion and have it be presented to the jury without judicial review.
But curing diseases would be a bad business model and lead to their eventual unemployment.
Oddly, people like you are the ones who think this way, whereas the medical profession and makers of vaccines seem to prefer eradication. Hence the current status of smallpox, polio, malaria, measles, etc. (in the U.S.).
However, as noted elsewhere, the Y. pestis plague cannot be effectively eradicated, as it uses rodents as a reservoir. Eliminating such diseases is very difficult.
They're not "stepping in", they're making a position statement on the matter. It's quite common and, on the whole, useful, because the judiciary is not generally an expert on an arbitrary matter.
The lasers aren't the spark plugs; they're more like the walls surrounding the piston.
It's not "how atom-efficient can you make the system" -- after all, individual atoms are inconceivably cheap -- it's "how minimal of a motor can you create". (Although if it's using a quantum-mechanical effect, the fewer the atoms involved, the easier.)
They didn't say the whole system was two atoms, they said the motor is two atoms. The motor is the component that turns a non-mechanical energy potential into mechanical motion. The cooling system, the device that produces the magnetic field, etc. are no more part of the motor than the gas tank and radiator are part of the internal combustion engine.
Stay the fuck out of government, take it to a real court.
Yes, because the courts aren't part of the government.
A statistically valid measurement for a correlation is certainly an option. That's a study. A study really never properly shows causation, but depending on the hypothesis, you can assume causation or not worry about it. (This is part of why medical studies are difficult -- studies are much easier than experiments, and there are so many coupled variables that simple correlation is of limited help.)
What does sufficiently show causality is scientific experiment, where variables other than the two of interest are controlled.
I'm not sure what you're aiming at with "formal investigation". There are different level bars for different purposes. If what you're trying to do is show whether a treatment is potentially effective, what you want is a study. The bar for these is fairly low. (Usually you do an initial study with relatively low accuracy and limited funding to determine if a full study is warranted.) These are quite common, but their results are distorted by the media and ignored by the public. (Plus, medical research is not particularly straightforward -- it's no easy task to perform a truly definitive study.)
Useful anecdotal evidence, even in quantities, is fairly rare, because people will try lots of different things, their situations are often drastically different, and interviewing them after the fact causes them to change how they remember or report past events.
However, there certainly are formal studies -- often enough that they disagree with one another. (Of course, most medical studies can only make fairly soft claims, so disagreement is not a sign of a serious problem.)
As this is a civil case, "innocent until proven guilty" is not a factor.
I'm sure you could provide horror stories of quack chiros and what not.
And those would also be worthless. See how it works?
And while my story may be anecdotal
I still don't think you properly understand how anecdotal evidence is worthless.
but where is your proof that its a bogus science.
How about the following:
Ernst E (2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". J Pain Symptom Manage 35 (5): 544â"62.
That's correct -- all of those are insufficient to show causality. That's why all of the scientific theories you refer to were confirmed by substantially more thorough experimentation than you suggest.
If Y follows X, it suggests that properly investigating the possibility that X causes Y would be a worthwhile endeavour, nothing more.
In short, you just have a poor understanding of how science is done.
Most nuclear waste is in a water-soluble form, and is more dangerous because of its toxicity than because of its radioactive properties.
No, because the Mediterranean is actually 0.7% of the world's seas, whereas 0.00000000000000000001% of the Earth's surface is 0.05 square millimeters, which is an unbelievably small crime scene.
Oh, the article explains their method just fine. The problem is that they create a pointless and misleading measure.
First, they don't confirm that the blacklist's URLs use the same definition of "URL" as Google. Blacklists are notoriously bad about saying URL when they mean a wildcarded URL, like http://badsite.com/* or http://geocities.com/badsite/*. Clearly, a wildcarded URL is associated with some unknown number of Google-cache URLs.
Second, they compare the number of URLs blacklisted to the approximate size of the Google cache to arrive at an estimate of the likelihood of running across a "bad" URL if you are accessing URLs randomly. This is only true if your method of random access is selecting a URL out of Google's cache, with an equal chance of selecting any of them, and visiting it. For any "you" that is not a Google engineer, "you" are almost certainly never going to use the Web in this fashion, so this metric is not representative of any significant "you".
Finally, they assume that since avoiding the filter through proxying is technically feasible (and easy), that the number of people looking for illicit material who get caught by the filter is essentially zero. This significantly overestimates the intelligence of many consumers of CP.
Say what you will about the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Austrailian web filters... This "70 times more likely to win the national lottery" business was clearly pulled out of someone's ass, and in the process, they made a number of egregiously wrong statements.
Hmm. Please do not explain physics in the future. :-(
Not that relativity is particularly easy, but... just no.
It's not like they've ever detected any.
If only the summary had said so! Wait...
Might I suggest the following wording instead
No, that would be presumptuous.
Perhaps the summary author assumed a level of reading comprehension. It might be presumptuous if we knew there were gravitational waves, but not what their behavior was. However, we know their behavior, but not if they exist.
The satellites are sensitive microphones to pick up and retransmit to Earth the quiet whispers of Satan.
Personally, I don't believe in something like gravitational waves
Science: You're doing it wrong.