Oh yeah, competitors are out to murder their disgraced colleague for all his fame he got from his famously retracted paper. We must be on the right trail, Dr. Holmes.
Yeah, and so have some of the predictions of string theory, since it asserts certain kinds of relationships that the standard model assert. The problem it has in meaningfully distinguishing itself, empirically, which only happens at scales that are either too large or too small for existing tech.
Even though you're more aware of the fact that the advertising is false, you're still more likely to form a positive image of the brand as a result of being happy. I have, without being fully informed about "true" advertising, mentally extrapolated that to apply to all advertisements.
This idea is at least a little corroborated by this older study which suggests happier moods implies a greater uptake on simple advertising messages.
This isn't what you were saying. I don't disagree with this digest at all. The link is a great criticism, about the nature of how scientific theories fail, but it's nothing about "inherent" untestability.
Yeah, and this is a much much much more valid criticism, but I do get a bit sick of the cargo cult "I don't know anything but like to sound smart by using the word pseudoscience" posts.
Theorists had tried to no avail to design a Pomeron closed string theory that was unitary in the ordinary four dimensions of spacetime. Instead the theory yielded monstrosities called tachyons that defied the law of cause and effect. A tachyon is a particle or field that travels faster than light and hences moves backward in time. While some researchers such as Gregory Benford have speculated about their properties, they have never been an accepted part of realistic physical theories. Most physicists believe that the only viable way to have a physical theory with tachyons is if they decouple from the theory, meaning they do not impact the observable phenomena—things like cross-sections and scattering amplitudes—that arise from it. (In addition to scholarly papers about tachyons, Benford also wrote a short story called the “Tachyonic Anti-telephone” about causality violations through backwards-in-time communication.)
So that's the unexplained phenomenon and:
In a moment of revelation, Lovelace suddenly realized that the solution to the problem was staring him in the face. Suppose one relaxed the assumption that strings lived in a four-dimensional world. He cranked up the dimensions of their surroundings higher and higher, and found that at precisely D = 26 the tachyonic problem vanished and unitarity was restored. He could scarcely believe such an odd result.
That's the resolution that requires 26 dimensions. My linalg-fu is weak, so I'm actually not checking the math myself. Happy?
Yeah, genius, you figured it out. Good job. We just observed E=MC2. It was written on a tiny chalk board on some atoms we looked at with a microscope. We didn't extrapolate that idea from any sort of theory or model.
It's absolutely the case that we mapped observational experimental data to the resulting formula, and found perfect matches, but it's not like a plot of data points for mass and heat energy released in radioactive is identical to a smooth curved mapped by a mathematical equation. We create the system, and we examine if it corresponds to reality.
Inasmuch as the math of string theory maps to the behavior of tachyons(as described in this article) it's tested in much the same way. People say it isn't "tested" because your tests, nominally, shouldn't be the same as the data you're trying to explain in the first place, and should represent a divergence from the null hypothesis.
No, we're talking about a filtering algorithm applied to your friends, where you don't see things that might be important to challenging you because it makes a small difference in your happiness levels(which, again, influence your advertising susceptibility).
Because it would involve digging through multiple google scholar searches to find the paper I'm remembering on a few vague mental relationships, checking through several papers to verify that they are/aren't the one I'm looking for, and then dropping them, which takes longer than both that post and this one.
Why do you allege the lack of testability is "inherent". That's a charge I hear a lot from people who pretend to like science, but mostly just regurgitate nice sayings they've heard about science.
Social media helps keep you in a nice little bubble, where you're never exposed to information you might not like.
Psychology tells us we(in general) don't like information that challenges our biases. Is anyone else afraid that Facebook and Google are unintentionally driving us all towards ignorance?
No conspiracy necessary: happy people pay more attention to ads(citation available if anyone cares), they try to make us happy, trying to make us happy keeps us dumb, and it all serves everyone's short term interests, and no ones' long term interests.
Neither is an assertion about the absolute limit on speed in the universe(really: devise a test for that).
At some level, science is about creating a model that explains existing observations. Testing that model, looking for violations is essential but the postulation of an internally coherent parsimonious system that matches what we already see is science.
Proposing an idea that explains a previously unexplained observation isn't pseudoscience. It can certainly be wrong, and should be treated as such until experimentally tested.
But pseudoscience lives in a special realm, where it wraps itself in the verbiage of science, while not sharing the methods and intent. String theory very clearly falls into the "not testable yet" category, rather than the "designed to resist testing" category that weapons grade bullshit enjoys.
Here at discount dimension warehouse you can get 27 dimensions for the price of 26. We honor all competitors empirically undemonstrated theory coupons. More dimensions for your money.
I thought you were moving out, after those last couple "incidents" with the island. No, don't get angry, it's just that you never pay your rent, and you break everything.
I know, we depended on you a lot during that whole spat we had with USSR, but come on, you never do any chores, you just sit there threatening us until one of us decides it's easier to do it than put up with your shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, there are worse alternatives also driven by advertising profit.
Oh yeah, competitors are out to murder their disgraced colleague for all his fame he got from his famously retracted paper. We must be on the right trail, Dr. Holmes.
Probably not anyone Japanese. The fundamentalist stem-cell hate comes from the bizarrely strong abortion debate that's almost unique to the US.
Yeah, and so have some of the predictions of string theory, since it asserts certain kinds of relationships that the standard model assert. The problem it has in meaningfully distinguishing itself, empirically, which only happens at scales that are either too large or too small for existing tech.
Relevant wikipedia section
I wouldn't say I assert any truth to the claims, only that they fit the mold of science.
Yeah, no problem. I just only wanted to engage in that effort if someone actually wanted the info.
Positive Mood and Susceptibility to False Advertising
Even though you're more aware of the fact that the advertising is false, you're still more likely to form a positive image of the brand as a result of being happy. I have, without being fully informed about "true" advertising, mentally extrapolated that to apply to all advertisements.
This idea is at least a little corroborated by this older study which suggests happier moods implies a greater uptake on simple advertising messages.
This isn't what you were saying. I don't disagree with this digest at all. The link is a great criticism, about the nature of how scientific theories fail, but it's nothing about "inherent" untestability.
Yeah, and this is a much much much more valid criticism, but I do get a bit sick of the cargo cult "I don't know anything but like to sound smart by using the word pseudoscience" posts.
Well, let's go to RTFA land and see:
Theorists had tried to no avail to design a Pomeron closed string theory that was unitary in the ordinary four dimensions of spacetime. Instead the theory yielded monstrosities called tachyons that defied the law of cause and effect. A tachyon is a particle or field that travels faster than light and hences moves backward in time. While some researchers such as Gregory Benford have speculated about their properties, they have never been an accepted part of realistic physical theories. Most physicists believe that the only viable way to have a physical theory with tachyons is if they decouple from the theory, meaning they do not impact the observable phenomena—things like cross-sections and scattering amplitudes—that arise from it. (In addition to scholarly papers about tachyons, Benford also wrote a short story called the “Tachyonic Anti-telephone” about causality violations through backwards-in-time communication.)
So that's the unexplained phenomenon and:
In a moment of revelation, Lovelace suddenly realized that the solution to the problem was staring him in the face. Suppose one relaxed the assumption that strings lived in a four-dimensional world. He cranked up the dimensions of their surroundings higher and higher, and found that at precisely D = 26 the tachyonic problem vanished and unitarity was restored. He could scarcely believe such an odd result.
That's the resolution that requires 26 dimensions. My linalg-fu is weak, so I'm actually not checking the math myself. Happy?
Yeah, genius, you figured it out. Good job. We just observed E=MC2. It was written on a tiny chalk board on some atoms we looked at with a microscope. We didn't extrapolate that idea from any sort of theory or model.
It's absolutely the case that we mapped observational experimental data to the resulting formula, and found perfect matches, but it's not like a plot of data points for mass and heat energy released in radioactive is identical to a smooth curved mapped by a mathematical equation. We create the system, and we examine if it corresponds to reality.
Inasmuch as the math of string theory maps to the behavior of tachyons(as described in this article) it's tested in much the same way. People say it isn't "tested" because your tests, nominally, shouldn't be the same as the data you're trying to explain in the first place, and should represent a divergence from the null hypothesis.
No, we're talking about a filtering algorithm applied to your friends, where you don't see things that might be important to challenging you because it makes a small difference in your happiness levels(which, again, influence your advertising susceptibility).
Because it would involve digging through multiple google scholar searches to find the paper I'm remembering on a few vague mental relationships, checking through several papers to verify that they are/aren't the one I'm looking for, and then dropping them, which takes longer than both that post and this one.
Why do you allege the lack of testability is "inherent". That's a charge I hear a lot from people who pretend to like science, but mostly just regurgitate nice sayings they've heard about science.
Social media helps keep you in a nice little bubble, where you're never exposed to information you might not like.
Psychology tells us we(in general) don't like information that challenges our biases. Is anyone else afraid that Facebook and Google are unintentionally driving us all towards ignorance?
No conspiracy necessary: happy people pay more attention to ads(citation available if anyone cares), they try to make us happy, trying to make us happy keeps us dumb, and it all serves everyone's short term interests, and no ones' long term interests.
Neither is an assertion about the absolute limit on speed in the universe(really: devise a test for that).
At some level, science is about creating a model that explains existing observations. Testing that model, looking for violations is essential but the postulation of an internally coherent parsimonious system that matches what we already see is science.
Because that's not necessary to explain a particular empirical observation?
Proposing an idea that explains a previously unexplained observation isn't pseudoscience. It can certainly be wrong, and should be treated as such until experimentally tested.
But pseudoscience lives in a special realm, where it wraps itself in the verbiage of science, while not sharing the methods and intent. String theory very clearly falls into the "not testable yet" category, rather than the "designed to resist testing" category that weapons grade bullshit enjoys.
I'm severely concerned for you if you've ever met any physics PhDs who didn't give off that vibe.
Here at discount dimension warehouse you can get 27 dimensions for the price of 26. We honor all competitors empirically undemonstrated theory coupons. More dimensions for your money.
Ha, the trick is that they're not changing anything important. These are placement ads.
Your comment has enlightened me.
I've resolved to take all American drivers out of my sudoers file.
Because any federally elected office can only be tried by impeachment under the constitution.
Oh, not to worry. No one will comment on it.
Look, it depends on exactly what the law says is illegal whether they've committed a crime.
Sorry, that's just how laws work.
I thought you were moving out, after those last couple "incidents" with the island. No, don't get angry, it's just that you never pay your rent, and you break everything.
I know, we depended on you a lot during that whole spat we had with USSR, but come on, you never do any chores, you just sit there threatening us until one of us decides it's easier to do it than put up with your shit.