By being humble and not insisting that a lack of evidence to you is equivalent to a lack of evidence to everybody.
How can one do a peer review without trying to reproduce the results?
Not if the editors and the reviewers start from the idea that *all* evidence is useful, not just reproducible evidence.
But that's not what those journals were made for, and, judging by the number of successful journals that take that approach, doesn't seem to be a very successful one.
Actually, many other observations *were* rejected prior to the evidence that was accepted. Evolutionary evidence, such as similar species separated by an ocean, the puzzle piece continental drift theory, mythical evidence such as Homer's Whirlpool, were all observations that were rejected by *modern* science that could have led to plate tectonics much earlier than it was accepted.
The observations were accepted, published, puzzled over. The species were puzzling, certainly, but there were other theorised mechanisms, the puzzle piece isn't actually that good a fit, myths don't always relate to the facts, overall there wasn't enough reason to believe that the continents just moved. Once the plates were discovered it all made sense of course - the plates are created and destroyed at the edges - but that idea didn't make sense until we knew about the mid-atlantic ridge and understood that the seafloor was spreading at the sides of it.
Not at all true- rice production in Bali is an example of subjective, religious observation producing a more accurate successful prediction than objective observation, which when applied produced a famine.
Religious how?
T'Chinook canoes are another example of successful subjective observation.
Anyone can observe whether a canoe works or not.
In fact, subjective observation worked for a huge amount of time in human history to do practical engineering.
Engineering is all based on observations that are entirely reproducible. Of course they often weren't, but they could have been.
I'm no longer sure that is ever true. But just to say for a second that it is- what does that matter? Why is experimental evidence *assumed* to be objective, when experiential evidence is not? In fact, shouldn't it be the other way around, since the controled experiment is set up to manage it's environment, where the observation by experience is not?
Reproducibility is key. If you have a reproducible experience, I'm sure that would be publishable. A controlled experiment is assumed to be reproducible because so far they always have been - which is why the controlled environment is specified so precisely.
It is, it's called education.
Education doesn't appear to mean people don't have religious beliefs.
But can a team really be said to be independent if the subjective degrees are the same?
It depends, but in this case, yes. Scientists get unexpected results all the time, so what their degree taught them doesn't really affect what they expect from a "serious" experiment - one where the result is essentially unknown, even though the theory may well have predictions. Of course scientists aren't perfectly objective - they're only human - but they will try. On the whole, they seem to succeed - we see more than enough contradictory results published.
Now you're getting the idea of why science is meaningless to some people.
Scientific language is usually very precisely defined, and used to mean what it means. Any unusual definition will be explained.
And yet, sometimes a new thing comes along and instead of actually even looking at it, it's rejected out of hand.
Sometimes, yes. And that's a bad thing, but an understandable one given the limited manpower and resources of most scientific institutions. If there is evidence for something, it will get attention - not perhaps as quickly as it should, but it will get it.
I lost a drive to ext3 (my first ever journalled FS), switched to reiser and have never looked back. No corruption in 3 years of having various numbers of systems. But whatever works for you (I've always avoided XFS because I like to put my bootloader in the superblock, less trouble when dual-booting with windows).
Reiser eats filesystems like popcorn. I have used it for around a couple of months on two boxes, and in both cases every file bigger than around 4KB went to hell; in one case on the whole filesystem and in a big subtree in the other.
Well, that's the opposite of my experience. When I got fed up with fsck times with ext2, I tried ext3 only to have it unreadably corrupted within a few months. Since then I've used reiser on every system I have, with no problems (including the same disk that was trashed by ext3).
I'll be damned if I ever give it another try, especially considering that other FSes trump it speedwise as well.
Not true on the whole, especially for small files. This benchmark is meaningless in relation to a modern system - drives like that and then 500mhz processor?
Considering that no species so far has survived the 100 million years that will take, I think that we can safely dispense with that as an option for now.
Trilobites made it through 300 million.
And yet, could be necessary for theories based on experiential instead of experimental evidence. A closed system does not allow out-of-system suggestions- which is a problem with ANY closed system. That's why Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI both spoke against fundamentalism.
How could you have peer-review of such a theory? It wouldn't make sense. It's not that you can't publish such things, just that you're looking in the wrong place to do so.
No, they're corporate grant-gathering entities.
They're rarely corporate at all. And surely at least in the present US climate they could gain more money by taking your approach.
The point is, by rejecting the particular observations, they missed a major theory. That's what you get when you limit evidence to only the experimental and not the experiential.
Observations weren't rejected, or certainly would never have been if the system were functioning as it is meant to (and by and large does). A theory was rejected while there was no evidence to support it, which is the sensible approach.
Worse yet, there are several examples of science conflicting with subjective observation. That's where evolution falls down for many people, for instance.
But there has never been successful prediction of the world based on subjective observation.
Why? What makes it more objective than experiential evidence?
The fact that it's the same for different observers - the very definition of objective.
Might experimental evidence only APPEAR to be objective- because we've limited the people accepted to judge it to only those brainwashed into certain degrees?
If there were brainwashing that effective, it would be used a whole lot more. Anyone can look at the experiment and usually you can reproduce it if you're willing to put the time and effort in. Sometimes these days something will require very expensive equipment, but there will be at least one independent team verifying the results.
Also likely a lie- the use of the word fact is far too loose in normal meaning.
It's normal meaning is the meaning of the word. If you're allowed to define words how you like, anything you say is true - and meaningless to anyone else.
Only the humble can learn new things- it would help if science was more humble.
Science is constantly learning new things.
I'm not saying don't teach it. I'm saying don't teach it as absolute fact. There's a difference. It's the difference between being open to questioning basic assumptions and being closed to such questioning. It's the difference between censorship and free speech.
It's not taught as absolute fact. Children are taught about the mistakes of science, the explanations that made sense and were useful for prediction but were eventually discarded and the experimental reasons why, like the luminous aether.
If you are absolutely certain that evolution is and always will be the only fact of how we got here, then by all means teach it as you would math.
Like Newtonian gravity, it may not always be the best explanation we have, but it will always be useful to make predictions and base their lives on. And we can't teach them anything better.
But if not- then allow other people to come up with other competing ideas.
Of course other people can. And if any of them had anything like the experimental support, explicative powers and predictive ability evolution has, I'd be the first to advocate their teaching to students. But they don't.
Some are equally confident in ID. Why should we put your confidence above their confidence?
Because my confidence is based on experiments you can reproduce for yourself and a method that has shown itself
Reiser4: Surprisingly, I didn't see Reiser4 really shine at a whole lot in the benchmarks. The massive mount time tells me it needs to be a local drive that only needs mounting the once. Just not sure what sort of data would be best on it.
Reiser4 now defaults to journalling everything - file data as well as metadata. If they left it like that, then no wonder it's slower - but it's the best choice if data integrity is important.
So divide the windows vulnerabilities by 5 and the linux ones by 400. But actually it won't really affect windows counts because the inflation of linux counts comes from different vendors announcing the problem at different times - something that won't happen with different versions of windows since they're all from MS.
You're pretty much talking nonsense, but you're right about one thing - throughout history, one of the most effective weapons around has been lumps of rock or metal moving at high speed. A "nuclear explosion" isn't something with substance, but it's completely redundant here - if you can get things moving close to c, just send an asteroid smacking into someone's planet. I would hope that common sense and the rarity of habitable planets would stop us getting into a war like that.
You could "rotate" to be moving through another dimension (or set of 3 dimensions). Not that I'm saying that's what's happening here. I think they mean "jump" in another dimension and then move normally.
I think the indeterminism will still be there - the whole theory seems based in trying to get relativity to work within quantum mechanics, which has indeterminism coming out of its ears. But it will certainly mean a major restructuring of the basic assumptions, probably similar to the introduction of QM. I remain sceptical until I've seen the experimental results, but if the predictions for masses of fundamental particles are as good as they say, this is certainly very exciting. The best thing is they have a proposed experiment to test it, so we should be able to find out reasonably soon whether this is right.
We survived somewhere between 5800 years and 1.8 million years without modern science. It's stupid to say that we can't survive without modern science, when modern science is less than 200 years old. Individual human beings may not survive- but that's natural selection for you.
As I said, if nothing else, when the sun dies we'll need it.
Exactly my point. You claim the system allows for questioning of basic assumptions, and then say it's nonsensical to question basic assumptions.
You're trying to question them at the wrong level. Questioning the existence of objective evidence in a peer-reviewed journal would be like questioning the existence of gravity when discussing characteristics of extra-solar planets we've found.
No, in fact, they wouldn't. They make money off of censorship; they're not going to abandon that money just because an alternative method is more successful.
Few journals are corporate money-making entities.
And that took what, a century? Tell me, was it right for the peer reviewed journals to reject papers on plate tectonics?
Since the theory was first seriously proposed, maybe fifty years, but as soon as evidence (from magnetometry) was found, it was less than a decade before it became the orthodoxy. When there was no evidence, yes, it was right for the journals to reject papers - anyone can come up with a nonsensical-sounding theory that explains a few particular observations better than the prevailing model, and until we started doing the magnetic measurements that was all plate tectonics was. I'm sure there were rejections that shouldn't have happened, but once the evidence was there, there was no difficulty in getting a paper published.
But only if that experimental evidence is objective.
Yes, of course. But so far all experimental evidence seems to be.
It was there at the council of Nicea- and is no longer there due to doctrinal development by the Councilar Method. You sure have a twisted view of Church History, but that's not surprising given your othodoxy against religion.
There's no orthodoxy here. My stance on religion is based solely on my personal experiences of it.
But we don't achieve the same result- if we did there would be no such thing as subjective evidence. Everybody sees the world slightly differently, and NO one view is absolutely correct. There is no single reality to discover; we all live in different realities.
I don't believe there is such a thing as subjective evidence. On what grounds do you claim our realities are different?
No it isn't- it referes to randomness and probability estimates, neither one of which are solid.
Yes they are. There is overwhelming evidence for them.
If you're going to teach anything at all to students, you'd better be absolutely certain, OR you'd better label your theories as only possibly correct. To call that which is NOT absolutely certain fact is a lie- and from what you're telling me, it's a malicious one.
It's not a lie, it's the normal meaning of the word. Students will see it used that way every day - I can't help thinking of the "Dettol protects: fact" adverts.
Well, that's a problem also then, if 2+2=4 is not a fact either (it isn't, but we'll get back to that). I simply disagree with lying in the classroom no matter what your justification.
I said almost - of what I was taught, maths is the sole exception to this. If we only taught what we were absolutely certain of, we would have virtually nothing to teach. Any student who is able to understand the concept will know almost nothing is absolutely certain.
Actually- learning the difference between truth and lies would be an incredible advantage in this world. We need more of that.
Agreed. But students also need to know about the world. Anything we're as confident of as we are of the sciences in question is something students should know.
I personally think using a game system for movie playback is dumb, but there is a % of people who will use it for that. I really can't see people buying either a 360 or PS3 just to watch movies on.
People don't buy it for the movies, but they're a nice extra. I play games practically every day, and watch a movie maybe once a month. It's not worth me getting a separate system to watch movies - but if the games console will let me do it, I'm interested.
Does anyone out there really think that young women are sitting around thinking "Hey, if I get pregnant, I can go through annoying hormonal shifts, then have a painful and mildly risky invasive procedure, then they can use my aborted fetus to do medical resarch! Hooray!"?
No, but what about the doctor advising her after she becomes pregnant? If he wants to do some research and get a paper published but needs some cells to do it, he has a motive to advise for an abortion even when it may not be in her best interests.
I'm sure some newspaper will soon start running headlines about how Pluto is "23% colder than anticipated."
That's something to applaud. Sure, it might not be that different - 23% colder than "really fucking cold" is also "really fucking cold" - but it would be accurate.
Most PCs are single-user. If you can make a better OS overall by assuming it's single-user, that's a better approach.
without a network-aware GUI
What do you mean by this?
a half-arsed network stack,
What was wrong with it? It seems to handle internet applications fine.
dismal hardware support
That's a reflection on its popularity rather than anything about the OS itself.
and couldn't handle more than a gig of RAM.
Any other OS from the same time period has a similar limitation. That would have been solved a long time ago had it been successful.
Cutting edge indeed.
You point me to something that does video playback as well on the same hardware. I'm seriously interested - I have a P1 to mess around with and another OS would certainly be fun.
Slashdot Mirror
How can one do a peer review without trying to reproduce the results?
Not if the editors and the reviewers start from the idea that *all* evidence is useful, not just reproducible evidence.
But that's not what those journals were made for, and, judging by the number of successful journals that take that approach, doesn't seem to be a very successful one.
Actually, many other observations *were* rejected prior to the evidence that was accepted. Evolutionary evidence, such as similar species separated by an ocean, the puzzle piece continental drift theory, mythical evidence such as Homer's Whirlpool, were all observations that were rejected by *modern* science that could have led to plate tectonics much earlier than it was accepted.
The observations were accepted, published, puzzled over. The species were puzzling, certainly, but there were other theorised mechanisms, the puzzle piece isn't actually that good a fit, myths don't always relate to the facts, overall there wasn't enough reason to believe that the continents just moved. Once the plates were discovered it all made sense of course - the plates are created and destroyed at the edges - but that idea didn't make sense until we knew about the mid-atlantic ridge and understood that the seafloor was spreading at the sides of it.
Not at all true- rice production in Bali is an example of subjective, religious observation producing a more accurate successful prediction than objective observation, which when applied produced a famine.
Religious how?
T'Chinook canoes are another example of successful subjective observation.
Anyone can observe whether a canoe works or not.
In fact, subjective observation worked for a huge amount of time in human history to do practical engineering.
Engineering is all based on observations that are entirely reproducible. Of course they often weren't, but they could have been.
I'm no longer sure that is ever true. But just to say for a second that it is- what does that matter? Why is experimental evidence *assumed* to be objective, when experiential evidence is not? In fact, shouldn't it be the other way around, since the controled experiment is set up to manage it's environment, where the observation by experience is not?
Reproducibility is key. If you have a reproducible experience, I'm sure that would be publishable. A controlled experiment is assumed to be reproducible because so far they always have been - which is why the controlled environment is specified so precisely.
It is, it's called education.
Education doesn't appear to mean people don't have religious beliefs.
But can a team really be said to be independent if the subjective degrees are the same?
It depends, but in this case, yes. Scientists get unexpected results all the time, so what their degree taught them doesn't really affect what they expect from a "serious" experiment - one where the result is essentially unknown, even though the theory may well have predictions. Of course scientists aren't perfectly objective - they're only human - but they will try. On the whole, they seem to succeed - we see more than enough contradictory results published.
Now you're getting the idea of why science is meaningless to some people.
Scientific language is usually very precisely defined, and used to mean what it means. Any unusual definition will be explained.
And yet, sometimes a new thing comes along and instead of actually even looking at it, it's rejected out of hand.
Sometimes, yes. And that's a bad thing, but an understandable one given the limited manpower and resources of most scientific institutions. If there is evidence for something, it will get attention - not perhaps as quickly as it should, but it will get it.
If science were not being
Well, as I said, not my experiences of them. But I agree windows reiserfs programs suck.
I lost a drive to ext3 (my first ever journalled FS), switched to reiser and have never looked back. No corruption in 3 years of having various numbers of systems. But whatever works for you (I've always avoided XFS because I like to put my bootloader in the superblock, less trouble when dual-booting with windows).
Well, that's the opposite of my experience. When I got fed up with fsck times with ext2, I tried ext3 only to have it unreadably corrupted within a few months. Since then I've used reiser on every system I have, with no problems (including the same disk that was trashed by ext3).
I'll be damned if I ever give it another try, especially considering that other FSes trump it speedwise as well.
Not true on the whole, especially for small files. This benchmark is meaningless in relation to a modern system - drives like that and then 500mhz processor?
Trilobites made it through 300 million.
And yet, could be necessary for theories based on experiential instead of experimental evidence. A closed system does not allow out-of-system suggestions- which is a problem with ANY closed system. That's why Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI both spoke against fundamentalism.
How could you have peer-review of such a theory? It wouldn't make sense. It's not that you can't publish such things, just that you're looking in the wrong place to do so.
No, they're corporate grant-gathering entities.
They're rarely corporate at all. And surely at least in the present US climate they could gain more money by taking your approach.
The point is, by rejecting the particular observations, they missed a major theory. That's what you get when you limit evidence to only the experimental and not the experiential.
Observations weren't rejected, or certainly would never have been if the system were functioning as it is meant to (and by and large does). A theory was rejected while there was no evidence to support it, which is the sensible approach.
Worse yet, there are several examples of science conflicting with subjective observation. That's where evolution falls down for many people, for instance.
But there has never been successful prediction of the world based on subjective observation.
Why? What makes it more objective than experiential evidence?
The fact that it's the same for different observers - the very definition of objective.
Might experimental evidence only APPEAR to be objective- because we've limited the people accepted to judge it to only those brainwashed into certain degrees?
If there were brainwashing that effective, it would be used a whole lot more. Anyone can look at the experiment and usually you can reproduce it if you're willing to put the time and effort in. Sometimes these days something will require very expensive equipment, but there will be at least one independent team verifying the results.
Also likely a lie- the use of the word fact is far too loose in normal meaning.
It's normal meaning is the meaning of the word. If you're allowed to define words how you like, anything you say is true - and meaningless to anyone else.
Only the humble can learn new things- it would help if science was more humble.
Science is constantly learning new things.
I'm not saying don't teach it. I'm saying don't teach it as absolute fact. There's a difference. It's the difference between being open to questioning basic assumptions and being closed to such questioning. It's the difference between censorship and free speech.
It's not taught as absolute fact. Children are taught about the mistakes of science, the explanations that made sense and were useful for prediction but were eventually discarded and the experimental reasons why, like the luminous aether.
If you are absolutely certain that evolution is and always will be the only fact of how we got here, then by all means teach it as you would math.
Like Newtonian gravity, it may not always be the best explanation we have, but it will always be useful to make predictions and base their lives on. And we can't teach them anything better.
But if not- then allow other people to come up with other competing ideas.
Of course other people can. And if any of them had anything like the experimental support, explicative powers and predictive ability evolution has, I'd be the first to advocate their teaching to students. But they don't.
Some are equally confident in ID. Why should we put your confidence above their confidence?
Because my confidence is based on experiments you can reproduce for yourself and a method that has shown itself
I meant best choice of those tested. I'd certainly like to see benchmarking of reiser4 against ext3 with data journaling.
Reiser4 now defaults to journalling everything - file data as well as metadata. If they left it like that, then no wonder it's slower - but it's the best choice if data integrity is important.
So divide the windows vulnerabilities by 5 and the linux ones by 400. But actually it won't really affect windows counts because the inflation of linux counts comes from different vendors announcing the problem at different times - something that won't happen with different versions of windows since they're all from MS.
Absolutely. I'd imagine that'd get the US to change its stance pretty quick.
You're pretty much talking nonsense, but you're right about one thing - throughout history, one of the most effective weapons around has been lumps of rock or metal moving at high speed. A "nuclear explosion" isn't something with substance, but it's completely redundant here - if you can get things moving close to c, just send an asteroid smacking into someone's planet. I would hope that common sense and the rarity of habitable planets would stop us getting into a war like that.
It's kinda nice to not have the star you're going to burn out before you get there.
You could "rotate" to be moving through another dimension (or set of 3 dimensions). Not that I'm saying that's what's happening here. I think they mean "jump" in another dimension and then move normally.
I think the indeterminism will still be there - the whole theory seems based in trying to get relativity to work within quantum mechanics, which has indeterminism coming out of its ears. But it will certainly mean a major restructuring of the basic assumptions, probably similar to the introduction of QM. I remain sceptical until I've seen the experimental results, but if the predictions for masses of fundamental particles are as good as they say, this is certainly very exciting. The best thing is they have a proposed experiment to test it, so we should be able to find out reasonably soon whether this is right.
As I said, if nothing else, when the sun dies we'll need it.
Exactly my point. You claim the system allows for questioning of basic assumptions, and then say it's nonsensical to question basic assumptions.
You're trying to question them at the wrong level. Questioning the existence of objective evidence in a peer-reviewed journal would be like questioning the existence of gravity when discussing characteristics of extra-solar planets we've found.
No, in fact, they wouldn't. They make money off of censorship; they're not going to abandon that money just because an alternative method is more successful.
Few journals are corporate money-making entities.
And that took what, a century? Tell me, was it right for the peer reviewed journals to reject papers on plate tectonics?
Since the theory was first seriously proposed, maybe fifty years, but as soon as evidence (from magnetometry) was found, it was less than a decade before it became the orthodoxy. When there was no evidence, yes, it was right for the journals to reject papers - anyone can come up with a nonsensical-sounding theory that explains a few particular observations better than the prevailing model, and until we started doing the magnetic measurements that was all plate tectonics was. I'm sure there were rejections that shouldn't have happened, but once the evidence was there, there was no difficulty in getting a paper published.
But only if that experimental evidence is objective.
Yes, of course. But so far all experimental evidence seems to be.
It was there at the council of Nicea- and is no longer there due to doctrinal development by the Councilar Method. You sure have a twisted view of Church History, but that's not surprising given your othodoxy against religion.
There's no orthodoxy here. My stance on religion is based solely on my personal experiences of it.
But we don't achieve the same result- if we did there would be no such thing as subjective evidence. Everybody sees the world slightly differently, and NO one view is absolutely correct. There is no single reality to discover; we all live in different realities.
I don't believe there is such a thing as subjective evidence. On what grounds do you claim our realities are different?
No it isn't- it referes to randomness and probability estimates, neither one of which are solid.
Yes they are. There is overwhelming evidence for them.
If you're going to teach anything at all to students, you'd better be absolutely certain, OR you'd better label your theories as only possibly correct. To call that which is NOT absolutely certain fact is a lie- and from what you're telling me, it's a malicious one.
It's not a lie, it's the normal meaning of the word. Students will see it used that way every day - I can't help thinking of the "Dettol protects: fact" adverts.
Well, that's a problem also then, if 2+2=4 is not a fact either (it isn't, but we'll get back to that). I simply disagree with lying in the classroom no matter what your justification.
I said almost - of what I was taught, maths is the sole exception to this. If we only taught what we were absolutely certain of, we would have virtually nothing to teach. Any student who is able to understand the concept will know almost nothing is absolutely certain.
Actually- learning the difference between truth and lies would be an incredible advantage in this world. We need more of that.
Agreed. But students also need to know about the world. Anything we're as confident of as we are of the sciences in question is something students should know.
But not absolutely accurately
None of those is useless, though I don't think they're all free. (If someone knows where I can get a free copy of OS/2, please tell me)
Every fortnight. But there's no anti that I'm aware of.
People don't buy it for the movies, but they're a nice extra. I play games practically every day, and watch a movie maybe once a month. It's not worth me getting a separate system to watch movies - but if the games console will let me do it, I'm interested.
The cells can be contaminated with animal proteins. If that happens it makes the tissues unsuitable for implanting into humans (because of rejection).
No, but what about the doctor advising her after she becomes pregnant? If he wants to do some research and get a paper published but needs some cells to do it, he has a motive to advise for an abortion even when it may not be in her best interests.
Oh. People still use that?
Surely 0 degrees, unless you're keeping it under high pressure or something?
That's something to applaud. Sure, it might not be that different - 23% colder than "really fucking cold" is also "really fucking cold" - but it would be accurate.
Your site crashes my browser (konqueror). Please fix it.
Become more opposed?
Most PCs are single-user. If you can make a better OS overall by assuming it's single-user, that's a better approach.
without a network-aware GUI
What do you mean by this?
a half-arsed network stack,
What was wrong with it? It seems to handle internet applications fine.
dismal hardware support
That's a reflection on its popularity rather than anything about the OS itself.
and couldn't handle more than a gig of RAM.
Any other OS from the same time period has a similar limitation. That would have been solved a long time ago had it been successful.
Cutting edge indeed.
You point me to something that does video playback as well on the same hardware. I'm seriously interested - I have a P1 to mess around with and another OS would certainly be fun.