"But, before you go on about how science progresses and is never wrong, let's apply that same standard of excellence to our former President? I mean, George Bush wasn't wrong when he invaded Iraq. He merely learned that Saddam did not have WMD, and the original plans for the invasion needed to be revised to consider an increased number of soldiers. He wasn't wrong... he just learned!"
The basic tennet of the philosophy of science is scientists are never "right", the basic tennet of Bush was that he was never "wrong".
I drove through Kilmore on the evening of the firestorm. I have experienced bushfires for almost 50yrs including ash wednesday and the '69 fires but this was unlike anything I have ever seen. I knew from the volcanic appearance of the smoke plume that rose to a height of 15km, this was what the CSIRO and others had warned us about.
By time Monday rolled around many in the press where blaming the very people who fortold of such a disater, ie: (rational) environmentalists. One particular anti-science hate monger who has a column in the Sydney Morning Hearald wrote: "It's not arsonists who should be hanging from lamposts but greenies".
Yes, the universe is meaningless until you ascribe some meaning to it.
If you want to believe there is a "higher authority" that has already done that for you then fine but please refrain from critizing others who find meaning without serving said authority, for that is the sin of arrogance.
An excellent book on the subject is "Unweaving the rainbow" by R. Dawkins. The book quite clearly demonstrates that like most humans, the current king of the Atheists also experiences the feeling that you might describe as "religious awe".
"But why do I care if my genes are evolutionarily successful?"
As a farther of tow adult childeren and soon to be one grandkid I say you won't know the answer to that until your genes ARE evolutionarily successful.
Yep, NASA Learning Technologies will have had to (at a minimum) pay people to review and pick the winning tender. I'm not a US taxpayer so I will leave it to others to judge if that's a waste of their money.
As someone who watched Armstrong step on the moon live on TV way out in the back-blocks of Australia I disagree. Every kid on the planet already knows "how fantastic being an astronaut would be", the aim here is to take that interest and redirect it to teach science. It may well flop but it's not taxpayer money so NASA have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
What evidence do you have that this is your money?
The article gives a hint with the words "subscription based", three clicks and I managed to find the RFP, a quick skim gives the following quote: "Funding to design, develop, and deploy the MMO should be included in the proposer's business plan."
Apologies for interupting everyone's political flame fest, please continue...
"Of course, it'd be daft to use one in this application as while they do amplify, it's not like they're >100% efficient."
I'm probably stating the obvious but as I understand it the technology you are talking about amplifies the signal not the energy. "Energy amplifyer" is another term for "perpetual motion machine".
"worthy of the data" - Thank you for confirming my suspicions of elitisim or is it just plain arrogance? Either way the rest of the post that precedes your conclusion of who is "worthy" reads as an attempt to define what others should or should not be interested in. If you don't want to take part in open access then fine, nobody is forcing you to do so. Please do not obstruct the efforts of others just because it does not fit your worldview as this would imply you are not only elitist but also a control freak.
I also suspect your a "climate skeptic", this is fine by me as long as your arguments are intellectually honest and backed by hard evidence (ie: genuine scientific skepticisim). If you have such arguments I would love to hear them but please don't link to papers that I have to pay for out of my own pocket!
Finally I ask you again to stop putting words in my mouth to build your strawman. Eg: I did not say Einstein's paper was simple I said it was elegant, nor did I claim it provided "sufficient elucidation", AFAIK Phd's are still arguing over it's implications.
I recently read an opinion that went something like...
In N.O. where the dykes are fragile, the poor are below sea-level while the rich (read those in power) occupy the high-ground. In Holland where the dykes are robust, rich and poor both live below sea-level.
Document procedures have evolved (precicely what TFA is banging on about), the philosophy and methodology of science are pretty much the same, no?
"Let me ask you this: Can you honestly ask a high school student or a freshman to understand..."
I could but as you say they may have diffuculty understanding. More puzzling is why are you asking me? - I'm 50 and I am talking about myself and other educated laymen (particularly those in the less developed countries), why you are focusing on kids that are younger than my own adult childeren? - because it makes a good strawman?
"The folks at RealClimate are just commenting on their results, not real papers."
Speaking of a lack of background understanding, yes the site is commentry but look deeper and unlike the mass-media opinion columns you will find pointers to the original papers splattered all over it. Climate related papers are amoungst the simplest to find on the web BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, physics and math are up there too but that's got more to do with the common-sense and intelligence of the community surrounding those subjects. I just happend to become intrested in climate before it became popular, ditto with computers where it lead to my CS and OR qualifications and then on to a good living OUTSIDE the ivory towers where papers can cost an arm or a leg (ie: an un-natural barrier to self-education).
"Given the climate crisis pro-contra, I think reading just the research comments will add to the confusion to the public minds. Or worse, creating camps. We don't want that to happen. So, I think it's wise for the public to read far beyond pop sci writings."
Huh? - The first part of that sounds like the objections of a pre-Guttenburg scribe, the second part contradicts it.
"Scientists do not take other scientists' words at face values and neither should laymen."
Thank you captain obvious. You have spent the entire post arguing against things I did not say, and views I do not hold.
Both good points and it's certainly an option in it's current state, I was thinking of the dykes in Holland when I pulled the N.O. example out of my arse.
Your the second green libertarian I have met this week...err...ever! The unfortuate impression I usually get from people identifying themselves as libertarians is that they are more akin to self-centered anarchists (of which there is no shortage amoungst the radical left).
"Private enterprises can be effective in cleaning up the environment."
Yep, but only if/when our economic system properly recognises pollution as a cost. The other green libertarian put it quite succinctly as "a failure of the leagal system and those who influence it to extend invioble, transferable, property rights to the commons" (paraphrased). This does not mean corporations get to own the atmosphere and charge you for breathing it means that they have to compete for (say) it's finite CO2e absorbtion services.
The same property principles can be extended to pollution in general allowing people younger, smarter, and more energetic than I to profit from their solutions to the "tradedy of the commons".
BTW: I'm generally considered a green lefty on this site because of opinions such as my support for an effective UHC scheme such as the one we enjoy here in Australia, but as I said to the other green libertarian I try to avoid trapping myself in an ideological cage, (see sig below).
I don't think anyone in TFA is seriously suggesting that hand holding noobs be a requirement for publication and this is probably where the confusion sets in. I also understand that you may want to keep your own data close to your chest until you have extracted a paper out of it (ie: publish or perish).
"To be honest, if your institution does not foot the bill for subscription, try inter-library loans...[snip]...The problem with scientific publication is that you need to be terse. They're limited to 8-12 pages."
Einstein managed to get away with three elegant pages and zero refrences, chasing down the english translation in that link took a couple of minutes. I'm interested in quality not quantity, I would be delighted with the 8-12 pages at my finger-tips because like most educated laymen I do not have "too much time on my hands". The internet and afformentioned lack of time is the reason I have not set foot in a library for almost a decade and the last time I studied/taught at a tertiary institution was quite possibly before you were born...
"If you want to know the research, do your homework and study the subject carefully for a few years. Then you'll appreciate whatever data or paper the scientists are publishing.
Precisely why I chose to use the folk at realclimate as an example, following the science for 25+yrs does not make me a climatologist but it has given me a deep understanding of what they are banging on about.
"I'm a working scientist (ok, PhD student), so I read journal articles pretty often."
And how would you read them if your institution did not foot the bill for subscriptions?
"In almost all cases, the only people who actually benefit from access to particular data are a small handful of specialists."
When you amalgamate "almost all cases" you end up with "almost all publications". The rest of your post smacks of elitisim, trivializes scientific curiosity and completely ignores the social and scientific impact of radical improvements in communicating knowledge.
I would have thought working scientists would actually be proud of their work and want to diseminate it to the largest audience possible but in your case I'm obviously mistaken.
"You don't usually want to reproduce the exact same experiment with the exact same conditions."
That's right I want an independent "someone else" to do that in order to make my original result more robust. If I were an acedemic I would rely on post-grads to take up that challenge, if they find a discrepency all the better since you now have another question! To continue your software development analogy - you don't want the developer to be the ONLY tester.
Slashdot Mirror
"But, before you go on about how science progresses and is never wrong, let's apply that same standard of excellence to our former President? I mean, George Bush wasn't wrong when he invaded Iraq. He merely learned that Saddam did not have WMD, and the original plans for the invasion needed to be revised to consider an increased number of soldiers. He wasn't wrong... he just learned!"
The basic tennet of the philosophy of science is scientists are never "right", the basic tennet of Bush was that he was never "wrong".
I drove through Kilmore on the evening of the firestorm. I have experienced bushfires for almost 50yrs including ash wednesday and the '69 fires but this was unlike anything I have ever seen. I knew from the volcanic appearance of the smoke plume that rose to a height of 15km, this was what the CSIRO and others had warned us about.
By time Monday rolled around many in the press where blaming the very people who fortold of such a disater, ie: (rational) environmentalists. One particular anti-science hate monger who has a column in the Sydney Morning Hearald wrote: "It's not arsonists who should be hanging from lamposts but greenies".
Conclusion: We are ALL screwed!
Yes, the universe is meaningless until you ascribe some meaning to it.
If you want to believe there is a "higher authority" that has already done that for you then fine but please refrain from critizing others who find meaning without serving said authority, for that is the sin of arrogance.
An excellent book on the subject is "Unweaving the rainbow" by R. Dawkins. The book quite clearly demonstrates that like most humans, the current king of the Atheists also experiences the feeling that you might describe as "religious awe".
"But why do I care if my genes are evolutionarily successful?"
As a farther of tow adult childeren and soon to be one grandkid I say you won't know the answer to that until your genes ARE evolutionarily successful.
Yep, NASA Learning Technologies will have had to (at a minimum) pay people to review and pick the winning tender. I'm not a US taxpayer so I will leave it to others to judge if that's a waste of their money.
As someone who watched Armstrong step on the moon live on TV way out in the back-blocks of Australia I disagree. Every kid on the planet already knows "how fantastic being an astronaut would be", the aim here is to take that interest and redirect it to teach science. It may well flop but it's not taxpayer money so NASA have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
What evidence do you have that this is your money?
The article gives a hint with the words "subscription based", three clicks and I managed to find the RFP, a quick skim gives the following quote: "Funding to design, develop, and deploy the MMO should be included in the proposer's business plan."
Apologies for interupting everyone's political flame fest, please continue...
"Of course, it'd be daft to use one in this application as while they do amplify, it's not like they're >100% efficient."
I'm probably stating the obvious but as I understand it the technology you are talking about amplifies the signal not the energy. "Energy amplifyer" is another term for "perpetual motion machine".
"No little robots, high energy weapons or exotic supermaterials"
WHAT!!! - Next idea please...
"Do you think we have anything remotely like that which we could feasibly launch into orbit?
No, but please don't give these people any more marketing ideas.
Yep, here's a really scary flying shark in action (around the 2:20 mark).
"worthy of the data" - Thank you for confirming my suspicions of elitisim or is it just plain arrogance? Either way the rest of the post that precedes your conclusion of who is "worthy" reads as an attempt to define what others should or should not be interested in. If you don't want to take part in open access then fine, nobody is forcing you to do so. Please do not obstruct the efforts of others just because it does not fit your worldview as this would imply you are not only elitist but also a control freak.
I also suspect your a "climate skeptic", this is fine by me as long as your arguments are intellectually honest and backed by hard evidence (ie: genuine scientific skepticisim). If you have such arguments I would love to hear them but please don't link to papers that I have to pay for out of my own pocket!
Finally I ask you again to stop putting words in my mouth to build your strawman. Eg: I did not say Einstein's paper was simple I said it was elegant, nor did I claim it provided "sufficient elucidation", AFAIK Phd's are still arguing over it's implications.
I recently read an opinion that went something like...
In N.O. where the dykes are fragile, the poor are below sea-level while the rich (read those in power) occupy the high-ground. In Holland where the dykes are robust, rich and poor both live below sea-level.
Thanks for offical link, it will come in handy when talking to what I am begining to realise are psuedo-libertarians.
Well that really is a shame for the US, glad I don't live there.
"Science has evolved much from 1905."
..."
Document procedures have evolved (precicely what TFA is banging on about), the philosophy and methodology of science are pretty much the same, no?
"Let me ask you this: Can you honestly ask a high school student or a freshman to understand
I could but as you say they may have diffuculty understanding. More puzzling is why are you asking me? - I'm 50 and I am talking about myself and other educated laymen (particularly those in the less developed countries), why you are focusing on kids that are younger than my own adult childeren? - because it makes a good strawman?
"The folks at RealClimate are just commenting on their results, not real papers."
Speaking of a lack of background understanding, yes the site is commentry but look deeper and unlike the mass-media opinion columns you will find pointers to the original papers splattered all over it. Climate related papers are amoungst the simplest to find on the web BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, physics and math are up there too but that's got more to do with the common-sense and intelligence of the community surrounding those subjects. I just happend to become intrested in climate before it became popular, ditto with computers where it lead to my CS and OR qualifications and then on to a good living OUTSIDE the ivory towers where papers can cost an arm or a leg (ie: an un-natural barrier to self-education).
"Given the climate crisis pro-contra, I think reading just the research comments will add to the confusion to the public minds. Or worse, creating camps. We don't want that to happen. So, I think it's wise for the public to read far beyond pop sci writings."
Huh? - The first part of that sounds like the objections of a pre-Guttenburg scribe, the second part contradicts it.
"Scientists do not take other scientists' words at face values and neither should laymen."
Thank you captain obvious. You have spent the entire post arguing against things I did not say, and views I do not hold.
Cite please.
IIRC it was Arthur C Clarke who, with tounge firmly in cheek, suggested such blasts were in fact alien industrial accidents.
Both good points and it's certainly an option in it's current state, I was thinking of the dykes in Holland when I pulled the N.O. example out of my arse.
Your the second green libertarian I have met this week...err...ever! The unfortuate impression I usually get from people identifying themselves as libertarians is that they are more akin to self-centered anarchists (of which there is no shortage amoungst the radical left).
"Private enterprises can be effective in cleaning up the environment."
Yep, but only if/when our economic system properly recognises pollution as a cost. The other green libertarian put it quite succinctly as "a failure of the leagal system and those who influence it to extend invioble, transferable, property rights to the commons" (paraphrased). This does not mean corporations get to own the atmosphere and charge you for breathing it means that they have to compete for (say) it's finite CO2e absorbtion services.
The same property principles can be extended to pollution in general allowing people younger, smarter, and more energetic than I to profit from their solutions to the "tradedy of the commons".
BTW: I'm generally considered a green lefty on this site because of opinions such as my support for an effective UHC scheme such as the one we enjoy here in Australia, but as I said to the other green libertarian I try to avoid trapping myself in an ideological cage, (see sig below).
"If you are required..."
I don't think anyone in TFA is seriously suggesting that hand holding noobs be a requirement for publication and this is probably where the confusion sets in. I also understand that you may want to keep your own data close to your chest until you have extracted a paper out of it (ie: publish or perish).
"To be honest, if your institution does not foot the bill for subscription, try inter-library loans...[snip]...The problem with scientific publication is that you need to be terse. They're limited to 8-12 pages."
Einstein managed to get away with three elegant pages and zero refrences, chasing down the english translation in that link took a couple of minutes. I'm interested in quality not quantity, I would be delighted with the 8-12 pages at my finger-tips because like most educated laymen I do not have "too much time on my hands". The internet and afformentioned lack of time is the reason I have not set foot in a library for almost a decade and the last time I studied/taught at a tertiary institution was quite possibly before you were born...
"If you want to know the research, do your homework and study the subject carefully for a few years. Then you'll appreciate whatever data or paper the scientists are publishing.
Precisely why I chose to use the folk at realclimate as an example, following the science for 25+yrs does not make me a climatologist but it has given me a deep understanding of what they are banging on about.
I forgot...
8. Anti-environment PM is awarded medal of freedom.
I'm not sure what your point is but I don't see libraries turning to dust because nobody cares.
"I'm a working scientist (ok, PhD student), so I read journal articles pretty often."
And how would you read them if your institution did not foot the bill for subscriptions?
"In almost all cases, the only people who actually benefit from access to particular data are a small handful of specialists."
When you amalgamate "almost all cases" you end up with "almost all publications". The rest of your post smacks of elitisim, trivializes scientific curiosity and completely ignores the social and scientific impact of radical improvements in communicating knowledge.
I would have thought working scientists would actually be proud of their work and want to diseminate it to the largest audience possible but in your case I'm obviously mistaken.
"You don't usually want to reproduce the exact same experiment with the exact same conditions."
That's right I want an independent "someone else" to do that in order to make my original result more robust. If I were an acedemic I would rely on post-grads to take up that challenge, if they find a discrepency all the better since you now have another question! To continue your software development analogy - you don't want the developer to be the ONLY tester.