Hyperbole much? Where did I say we shouldn't care that a plan is ill-conceived and counter-productive? But we should call out bad plans for the right reason. The wrong reason would be "the environment is just fine, and this program costs me money". The right reason is, "The environment can be protected more efficiently and without favoritism by this other method." The person I was criticizing was giving the wrong reason, and *that* is counterproductive.
Propose more efficient solutions, but don't act like there is no problem. That's all I'm saying. I don't see what's so hard about understanding that point.
Milton Friedman argued that the legal framework is already in place to deal with companies polluting the environment. It all boils down to private property. Few people pollute their own land and few people care if someone pollutes his/her own land.
Well, then either Milton Friedman was hopelessly clueless, or you're oversimplifying his position. My money's on the latter.
The legal framework is most certainly *not* in place to deal with companies polluting the environment. Since about 1850, governments have voided common law remedies on the grounds that economic growth (in the sense they want) is more important than respecting property rights. No, don't take my word for it, just listen to a prominent ultra-libertarian on the issue.
Yes, the private property framework *would* address the issue, if we lived in such a world. But we don't. And as long as we don't, we shouldn't be surprised if people demand stupid subsidies that attempt to protect the environment, using the best economics and policies they're aware of. Let's change that.
Whoa there. If you want to prevent atmospheric pollution caused by burning gasoline, a battery subsidy is not the correct way to do it....
Yes, on that, you and I are in perfect agreement.
That wasn't the point.
I accept that subsidizing specific technologies is not the way to go. What I reject is the attitude, exemplified by the poster I was replying to, that any and all subsidies like those for batteries are an example of slimy backroom giveaways. Yes, such subsidies are horribly inefficient way to address the problem. But the fact is, there is a serious problem, and it doesn't help the matter to equate half-hearted, ill-conceived attempts to protect the environment with "sleaze" and "giveaways".
Instead of deleting the entire valid concern used to justify such programs and then acting like battery subsidies are just a big gravy train, we should be identifying the fundamental structural problem that causes pollution in the first place -- specifically, the lack of internalizations of "environmental externalities" -- and addressing that problem directly.
So, ultimately, I agree with you, and I wasn't trying to defend battery subsidies; I was simply trying to point out that the poster was pretending like the problem they attempt to address doesn't even exist.
I can't believe crap like this gets modded insightful. Could you please apply your rational faculties to seriously addressing the issues instead of lashing out with the first thing that comes to mind?
First of all, I never once said or implied anything about people having an individual obligation not to pollute. As a matter of fact, I think it's quite pointless for an individual to hold back in a legal environment that doesn't attempt to internalize environmental costs, because all that would accomplish is to bid down the price of whatever resource the legal system *does* assign property rights in, and thereby make it easier and more rewarding to pollute.
I fault the *legal system*, and those with significant control over it, for not extending the principles of property to the environment. Specifically, the principles of well-defined rights, transferability, and internalization of costs and benefits.
What??? Property? Yes. Would it surprise you to know that my views would generally be recognized as ultra-right-wing capitalist? And yet, even I can see a "tragedy of the commons" arising.
Furthermore, at no point do my beliefs imply *anybody* ceasing to pollute. Rather, they imply the absolute minimum imposition on behavior -- specifically, capping the *total* pollution level in any respect at its sustainable level -- and allowing trading (pareto-improvements) from there.
Unless and until everyone can take the matters of pollution seriously -- and that includes soberly accepting the most economically efficient way to handle it -- the problem will just get worse.
You should stop trivializing the issue. Seriously.
Sure, and once the free market assigns clear, enforceable, transferable, sustainable dumping rights in the atmosphere, and thereby puts a market price on using the atmosphere as a dumping ground, we'll know exactly how wasteful -- or not -- it is to research energy-efficient technologies.
But as it stands, all we have is a "crony capitalist" subsidy to polluters through exemption from liability for harms to others.
Sheesh, man, it's fine if you disagree with environmentalist arguments, but could you at least acknowledge their existence?
And then there are those of us who use cable and are unaffected anyway. Yep, our HDTVs will continue to get the crappy low-quality signal until we upgrade to Time Warner's "HD package"! Yay!
Are you serious? What, are you an interface designer on Firefox or something? If I were to write a program like this, my first thought would be how to make it usable discretely. That would mean operable from your pocket, which in turn would mean:
-You keep the iPhone in your pocket such that it's on the front/outer side of your thigh. (Yes, I used the definite article with iPhone. Blow me, Dave Schroeder.) -You punch in the info via virtual buttons on the touchscreen. -The iPhone has vibrate, right? And different levels of it? Then give different levels of vibrate for whether you should hit or stand.
Oh, and by the way -- make it so I don't have to move my entire right hand out of position to choose an entry on Autocomplete... kind of defeats the purpose otherwise. Thanks.
P.S. No, I don't know if this is how it's actually done, I just don't see how it's so mystifying that it would be possible.
P.S.S. I recently downloaded Vimperator for Firefox and modded it so I can do all browsing from the keyboard with my left hand. Exceptions: Flash, typing posts, and... yep, Autocomplete.
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Yes, scientists should revise theories in light of new evidence. I wasn't criticizing that.
However, a theory can't just say what *is* possible. It also has to say what *isn't* possible. (As I said in another reply, explaining phenomena is easy. The hard part is to make sure you don't also "explain" non-phenomena.) When I criticize a theory for "permitting anything", I mean "permitting any conceivable observation", not "permitting exactly the observations we make and nothing else", the latter of which would be good. The former is just a cleverly disguised version of "anything's possible" or "nature works in mysterious ways". If your theory can "explain" any *conceivable* observation, that's not good; it's very, very bad.
And that was the criticism I made -- with standard evolutionary theory, if you include the handicap principle, you can explain (away) any feature, which makes it unscientific. All traits will *necessarily* fall into one of three categories:
1) It helps the organism survive/reproduce. 2) It burdens the organism, therefore signaling to the opposite sex that it's so fit it can survive even with that burden. This is the handicap principle.) 3) It's irrelevant, as other factors are more important.
Since this explains any conceivable observation, I say it is unscientific, and that is what the person I was original replying to was saying.
Anyone else ever been the unwitting cause of a circular citation?
One time at a debate tournament at a high school just south of Austin, Texas, I remarked to a friend, when walking between buildings, "Hey, check the layout of this place... it looks like the school was built on a former slave plantation."
A year later, I went to that same school for another tournament, and that same friend said to me, "Hey D/C, did you know that this school used to be a slave plantation?" And I said, "Oh really? Where'd you hear that?"
And then he thought for a second and said "... you."
He was the kind who prided himself on being able to know lots of stuff, which really made me question how careful he was in his "learning".
And Atario is calling me a troll to distract from his lack of a response.
I addressed his point very clearly and non-trollishly. My refutation was simply this: No, Virginia, there are no traits that cannot be "explained" by the union of standard evolutionary theory and the handicap principle, because all traits necessarily fall into three categories:
1) Obviously, that trait helps it survive/reproduce. 2) Obviously, that trait is helping to signal to mates how it can survive, EVEN with a huge, er, maladaptive trait. 3) Uh, I don't have to explain this, because, gee, I guess it's not important enough to make a difference.
In allowing all three possibilities, the theory permits anything and therefore gives a scientific explanation for nothing. This is directly contrary to what Atario has claimed, which was that, basically, nuh uh, scientists can't *really* explain away anything like that, because... um, it would sound dumb. Atario is wrong.
No, it is about getting noticed. It's a theory about signaling. And if no one notices the signal, the signal fails and there's no point.
Yes, which is why I said it's not the "getting noticed" per se (in itself) that the HP refers to. If you merely get noticed, and signal, that's not enough for the HP. For example, if I broadcast that I'm just below average, then that's getting noticed, and signaling my fitness level, but it's not what the HP refers to. The HP refers to specifically those cases where being burdened *reveals* greater fitness *because* of the survival in spite of the burden.
If you don't know what a Latin term means, that's okay, you can just look it up instead of trudging ahead with a strawman;-)
More specifically, it's about signaling fitness. It says "look, I can be really wasteful/ridiculous-looking/weird-acting and it still doesn't hurt me because I'm so awesome". Missing a leg would signal something rather different, I would think.
Sure, because your going off your gut feeling rather than following a rigorous theory, just like scientists who apply the HP in the context of evolutionary theory.
But about the leg: How would your opinion about the winner of a race change if you found out he did it with only one leg and no prosthetic? So again, you can argue *directly* from the HP that a tendency to cut off one's own leg can be adaptive in that it can provide an extremely powerful signal of fitness. "Wow, he can fight off those other males while missing a leg. What if I had his baby and kept both legs on!"
The reason scientists don't argue this is that in this respect, evolutionary theory doesn't actually predict anything until you already know the answer, and this wasn't the answer.
It is not the "getting noticed" per se that the handicap principle refers to, but the "being burdened and surviving anyway". So, a missing hind leg would fall under the handicap principle, even though it doesn't necessarily jump out at you.
But the deeper point is that "noticeability" isn't directly observable (and therefore not falsifiable) because, in order to know whether the opposite sex uses the handicap in rating a potential mate, you would have to know if that species has evolved more refined senses for detecting that trait or any reliable correlate. So how would I go about proving this negative? Thus you could indeed posit, under the handicap principle, that the inefficient cell membrane makes females hot for me because that affects my scent, and...
Untrue. It explains outlandish features, not "literally any"[1] feature. No one is going to argue that your misconfigured cell-wall protein #23425 makes the chicks hot and bothered for you.
So what? The point is that they could. The handicap principle allows you to make such an argument, which is why it permits anything and therefore does not count as a scientific explanation (let alone an explanation of "outlandish" features, whatever that means). The fact that scientists don't make such arguments[2] simply means that the theory they're really using has a little footnote that says "Unless Scientist Billy-Bob decides the theory doesn't apply"... which isn't very scientific either, when you think about it.
Alternatively, scientists have another "out" (i.e. escape from the rigors of falsifiability) in that they can say, "Well, I have no idea why this feature is here... but I guess it's just not significant enough to make a difference."
[2] Obviously, scientists wouldn't use that exact example, just one along the same lines.
It's not about the organism surviving, it's about the organism surviving long enough it passes on it's genes. Only the one that can do that continue on.
Irrelevant to the point, but thank you for repeating back to me the reasoning I just gave and cited in the rest of your post. My point is that the handicap principle, in combination with other claims postulated by evolutionary theory, doesn't allow for falsification (though, I will emphasize, other aspects of evolutionary theory are still falsfiable and scientific, I'm only pointing out one specific unscientific claim within the body of literature).
Look at what you just did: you used the handicap principle to "explain" why newborn peacocks don't have brilliant plumage. Unfortunately, I could use the HP to just the same argue that "Newborns with brilliant plumage are more likely to be attacked, so surviving up to sexual maturity despite having been born with the plumage provides a strong fitness signal to mates, which is why we see it in nature." Until you pointed out to me that this doesn't happen, despite it being permitted by the model.
Since HP plus "the fittest genes survive" can "explain" any feature, then it doesn't explain any feature. Does the bird have a burdensome tail? Handicap principle! Does it lack a big tail? Then that must lower its fitness too much! Just as long as you tell me the answer in advance! There is no observation that would falsify the theory since any feature necessarily can be classified as "helps it survive" or "makes it harder to survive and therefore gives a stronger fitness signal".
Remember, explaining phenomena is easy. The hard part is to not explain non-phenomena.
I have to agree with you. Whatever else is scientific about the theory of evolution, in the matters you discussed, it is not. I have made the same criticism myself, though obviously not in the academy.
I don't think you responsed to the mainstream explanation for peacock's tails though (taken from the Wikipedia "Handicap principle" article): The large tail is a signaling mechanism. It says, "look, I can survive... even with this big tail dragging me down". Thus, what the peacock loses in agility, it gains in being able to send accurate fitness signals and thus weed out those with less robust survival mechanism.
This explanation has been applied to human contexts, like bungie jumping, dangerous jobs, and the "Ghetto caddy": basically, despite their danger, they give the appearance of being able to survive against overwhelming odds, which serves as a fitness signal, and thus women would be evolved to be attracted to it. Supposedly, this is also why holding your hands up in front of you (ready to defend) makes women uneasy.
But where I basically agree with you is that, in proposing such an explanation, you destroy the explanatory power of evolution. The handicap principle allows you to "explain" literally any feature: either it helps the organism survive, or it helps the organism signal how it can survive even when burdened. This permits anything, so it explains nothing.
Generally the scientific model is the theory and the computer model simply an implementation of it in program form... Anyway, the theory is certainly not kept secret -- it's published in papers and discussed and argued over. That's the whole point of science!...The computer model though is generally not kept secret either. There's no need. The scientific theory is the key
I don't think what you're saying is quite right. For well-understood, well-exploited phenomena, like electronics, this might be correct. However, if current climatological theories uniquely determined a mathematical model, the only difference we would ever see between any two models would be minor, and wholly-attributable to the greater precision one model used.
In reality, scientists have to do a lot of parameter selection and curve-fitting. There is nothing with those techniques, but when abused, they can make the data say whatever you want. I could have a completely incorrect climate theory yet claim that certain historical parameters change in just the right way that the model's output matches all known data up until this year... and then silently release "updates" each year as I fail to correctly predict anything, yet insist you trust my current model, because all my colleagues agree with it. (Hey, sounds like Linux distros! j/k, j/k, don't mod me down)
So it's not enough to be able to point to textbooks and journals because there's still a lot in the way of "judgment calls" that have to be made when making a model, even once you know the scientific theory.
My standard for when a climate model has been appropriately "open-sourced" would be:
1) Anyone can download, edit, and run the model and all the source to arbitrary precision. (with an exception for the source code for 3rd party applications that are widely used outside of climatology, like Matlab.) 2) The source code is documented internally and externally, such that all functionality is explained. 3) All assumptions made in the model are justified by reference to a scientific publication, with preference for less specialized ones.
So, does such a model exist? If so, is it the scientific consensus and the one guiding and justifying public policy?
DISCLAIMER: None of the above reasoning is intended to justify inaction on global warming or rejection of science that brings bad news. If you are interpreting it that way, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah, it's ridiculous to call this a "sixth sense". Reading information from a hand-held device is not an additional sense.
Now, if we were still living 100+ years ago, when people were far more limited in what information they had access to at any given time, *maybe* you could get away with saying this is another sense. But considering that cognitive science researchers -- many probably at MIT -- have had significant success in giving people genuine additional senses (i.e. allow them to observe the world in some way without directly being told the information or thinking aboug it), it's extremely misleading.
For example, one time on slashdot there was a story about how scientists fed a compass-like transducer into some guy's nervous system, which allowed him to just "know" about changes in the earth's magnetic field or nearby magnets. And in Jeff Hawkins's On Intelligence, he talks about an experiment where they mapped a low-res black/white camera to an array of rods on someone's tongue that push down for black and let up for white, which allow the subject to see without his own eyes.
Not troll, just wrong. I learned the hard way that Apple doesn't quite adhere to the "all OS versions come with everything" standard. Recently, I was using my MacBook and I wanted to some quick calculations involving logarithms. So I looked in the Apps folder for Mac's calculator program. I opened it and set it to scientific. Then, thinking it would have the basic features on its bundled calculator that come with Windows, I opened the help feature and looked for the keyboard shortcuts (which I prefer using and which make a big difference when you're not using or don't have mouse availabe).
Nothing came up.
When I asked about that on a Mac help forum, first, they called me an idiot for claiming there are no keyboard shortcuts on Calculator. Then, after a while, I was able to convince them that there really weren't, partly because another poster confirmed that 10.4 doesn't have the Calculator shortcuts. Their solutions:
1) You idiot, if you need to calculate logarithms, you should have a real, pocket calculator. 2) You need to upgrade to a better OS version (10.5)... exactly the dilemma Mac fans love to say you'll never have.
Yes, I can understand if I want a feature that's completely new to Macs, like Time Machine, but *keyboard shortcuts on the calculator*? Something available over ten years ago on Windows? Basic functionally typically found on all programs? Considering Mac users' insistence that all Mac apps have easy keyboard shortcuts?
I know the "related stories" says this too, but just to get the ball rolling:
What this really means is that outside corporations cannot sell equipment to the state of Florida and expect to hide the workings of their machine by saying they are trade secret. It means the state has to give full disclosure concerning important and critical aspects of the case."
So, will this mean voting machine source code will have to be disclosed?
Personally, I'm most surprised that:
a) Governments don't require source code disclosure, at least for purposes of review, when they ask for bids or shop for equipment/software, b) It's so hard for them to find someone willing to meet a).
Right on. Linux promoters too often fail to look at it from the inexperienced user and think about what can be done to make it easier. Just the same, there's a tendency to view "just google it!" as a substitute for even the most basic help file. Keep in mind that for many problems, the user won't be able to connect to the internet, because that is itself the problem, so they should have *some* kind of help file they can refer to.
FWIW, I've tried to install Linux. I thought I was playing it safe by following the site's instructions, and only installing it to a separate partition so I could always fall back on Windows in case I needed help. Well, the installation procedure told me to do something that guaranteed that a failure of the install CD (which I thought I had safely hedged agains) would, in fact, cascade to my ability to use Windows, thus locking me out of my computer.
So, it's not just about thrownig up walls to newbies; it's a problem of alienating people who have a clue.
Alright, alright, *normally* I sympathize with eliminating gendered language, but seriously, there's not much you can do about this one. What *short* word even exists that encompasses both fanboys and fangirls? Nobody will have heard of it!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Hyperbole much? Where did I say we shouldn't care that a plan is ill-conceived and counter-productive? But we should call out bad plans for the right reason. The wrong reason would be "the environment is just fine, and this program costs me money". The right reason is, "The environment can be protected more efficiently and without favoritism by this other method." The person I was criticizing was giving the wrong reason, and *that* is counterproductive.
Propose more efficient solutions, but don't act like there is no problem. That's all I'm saying. I don't see what's so hard about understanding that point.
Milton Friedman argued that the legal framework is already in place to deal with companies polluting the environment. It all boils down to private property. Few people pollute their own land and few people care if someone pollutes his/her own land.
Well, then either Milton Friedman was hopelessly clueless, or you're oversimplifying his position. My money's on the latter.
The legal framework is most certainly *not* in place to deal with companies polluting the environment. Since about 1850, governments have voided common law remedies on the grounds that economic growth (in the sense they want) is more important than respecting property rights. No, don't take my word for it, just listen to a prominent ultra-libertarian on the issue.
Yes, the private property framework *would* address the issue, if we lived in such a world. But we don't. And as long as we don't, we shouldn't be surprised if people demand stupid subsidies that attempt to protect the environment, using the best economics and policies they're aware of. Let's change that.
Whoa there. If you want to prevent atmospheric pollution caused by burning gasoline, a battery subsidy is not the correct way to do it. ...
Yes, on that, you and I are in perfect agreement.
That wasn't the point.
I accept that subsidizing specific technologies is not the way to go. What I reject is the attitude, exemplified by the poster I was replying to, that any and all subsidies like those for batteries are an example of slimy backroom giveaways. Yes, such subsidies are horribly inefficient way to address the problem. But the fact is, there is a serious problem, and it doesn't help the matter to equate half-hearted, ill-conceived attempts to protect the environment with "sleaze" and "giveaways".
Instead of deleting the entire valid concern used to justify such programs and then acting like battery subsidies are just a big gravy train, we should be identifying the fundamental structural problem that causes pollution in the first place -- specifically, the lack of internalizations of "environmental externalities" -- and addressing that problem directly.
So, ultimately, I agree with you, and I wasn't trying to defend battery subsidies; I was simply trying to point out that the poster was pretending like the problem they attempt to address doesn't even exist.
I can't believe crap like this gets modded insightful. Could you please apply your rational faculties to seriously addressing the issues instead of lashing out with the first thing that comes to mind?
First of all, I never once said or implied anything about people having an individual obligation not to pollute. As a matter of fact, I think it's quite pointless for an individual to hold back in a legal environment that doesn't attempt to internalize environmental costs, because all that would accomplish is to bid down the price of whatever resource the legal system *does* assign property rights in, and thereby make it easier and more rewarding to pollute.
I fault the *legal system*, and those with significant control over it, for not extending the principles of property to the environment. Specifically, the principles of well-defined rights, transferability, and internalization of costs and benefits.
What??? Property? Yes. Would it surprise you to know that my views would generally be recognized as ultra-right-wing capitalist? And yet, even I can see a "tragedy of the commons" arising.
Furthermore, at no point do my beliefs imply *anybody* ceasing to pollute. Rather, they imply the absolute minimum imposition on behavior -- specifically, capping the *total* pollution level in any respect at its sustainable level -- and allowing trading (pareto-improvements) from there.
Unless and until everyone can take the matters of pollution seriously -- and that includes soberly accepting the most economically efficient way to handle it -- the problem will just get worse.
You should stop trivializing the issue. Seriously.
Sure, and once the free market assigns clear, enforceable, transferable, sustainable dumping rights in the atmosphere, and thereby puts a market price on using the atmosphere as a dumping ground, we'll know exactly how wasteful -- or not -- it is to research energy-efficient technologies.
But as it stands, all we have is a "crony capitalist" subsidy to polluters through exemption from liability for harms to others.
Sheesh, man, it's fine if you disagree with environmentalist arguments, but could you at least acknowledge their existence?
And then there are those of us who use cable and are unaffected anyway. Yep, our HDTVs will continue to get the crappy low-quality signal until we upgrade to Time Warner's "HD package"! Yay!
Are you serious? What, are you an interface designer on Firefox or something? If I were to write a program like this, my first thought would be how to make it usable discretely. That would mean operable from your pocket, which in turn would mean:
-You keep the iPhone in your pocket such that it's on the front/outer side of your thigh. (Yes, I used the definite article with iPhone. Blow me, Dave Schroeder.)
-You punch in the info via virtual buttons on the touchscreen.
-The iPhone has vibrate, right? And different levels of it? Then give different levels of vibrate for whether you should hit or stand.
Oh, and by the way -- make it so I don't have to move my entire right hand out of position to choose an entry on Autocomplete ... kind of defeats the purpose otherwise. Thanks.
P.S. No, I don't know if this is how it's actually done, I just don't see how it's so mystifying that it would be possible.
P.S.S. I recently downloaded Vimperator for Firefox and modded it so I can do all browsing from the keyboard with my left hand. Exceptions: Flash, typing posts, and ... yep, Autocomplete.
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Yes, scientists should revise theories in light of new evidence. I wasn't criticizing that.
However, a theory can't just say what *is* possible. It also has to say what *isn't* possible. (As I said in another reply, explaining phenomena is easy. The hard part is to make sure you don't also "explain" non-phenomena.) When I criticize a theory for "permitting anything", I mean "permitting any conceivable observation", not "permitting exactly the observations we make and nothing else", the latter of which would be good. The former is just a cleverly disguised version of "anything's possible" or "nature works in mysterious ways". If your theory can "explain" any *conceivable* observation, that's not good; it's very, very bad.
And that was the criticism I made -- with standard evolutionary theory, if you include the handicap principle, you can explain (away) any feature, which makes it unscientific. All traits will *necessarily* fall into one of three categories:
1) It helps the organism survive/reproduce.
2) It burdens the organism, therefore signaling to the opposite sex that it's so fit it can survive even with that burden. This is the handicap principle.)
3) It's irrelevant, as other factors are more important.
Since this explains any conceivable observation, I say it is unscientific, and that is what the person I was original replying to was saying.
Does this meant that my blind friends who use JAWS to read websites are breaking the law or infringing copyrights?
If you're siccing a giant shark on someone for not making their website accessible for the blind, then yes, I'm pretty sure you're breaking the law.
Anyone else ever been the unwitting cause of a circular citation?
One time at a debate tournament at a high school just south of Austin, Texas, I remarked to a friend, when walking between buildings, "Hey, check the layout of this place ... it looks like the school was built on a former slave plantation."
A year later, I went to that same school for another tournament, and that same friend said to me, "Hey D/C, did you know that this school used to be a slave plantation?" And I said, "Oh really? Where'd you hear that?"
And then he thought for a second and said "... you."
He was the kind who prided himself on being able to know lots of stuff, which really made me question how careful he was in his "learning".
And Atario is calling me a troll to distract from his lack of a response.
I addressed his point very clearly and non-trollishly. My refutation was simply this: No, Virginia, there are no traits that cannot be "explained" by the union of standard evolutionary theory and the handicap principle, because all traits necessarily fall into three categories:
1) Obviously, that trait helps it survive/reproduce.
2) Obviously, that trait is helping to signal to mates how it can survive, EVEN with a huge, er, maladaptive trait.
3) Uh, I don't have to explain this, because, gee, I guess it's not important enough to make a difference.
In allowing all three possibilities, the theory permits anything and therefore gives a scientific explanation for nothing. This is directly contrary to what Atario has claimed, which was that, basically, nuh uh, scientists can't *really* explain away anything like that, because ... um, it would sound dumb. Atario is wrong.
No, it is about getting noticed. It's a theory about signaling. And if no one notices the signal, the signal fails and there's no point.
Yes, which is why I said it's not the "getting noticed" per se (in itself) that the HP refers to. If you merely get noticed, and signal, that's not enough for the HP. For example, if I broadcast that I'm just below average, then that's getting noticed, and signaling my fitness level, but it's not what the HP refers to. The HP refers to specifically those cases where being burdened *reveals* greater fitness *because* of the survival in spite of the burden.
If you don't know what a Latin term means, that's okay, you can just look it up instead of trudging ahead with a strawman ;-)
More specifically, it's about signaling fitness. It says "look, I can be really wasteful/ridiculous-looking/weird-acting and it still doesn't hurt me because I'm so awesome". Missing a leg would signal something rather different, I would think.
Sure, because your going off your gut feeling rather than following a rigorous theory, just like scientists who apply the HP in the context of evolutionary theory.
But about the leg: How would your opinion about the winner of a race change if you found out he did it with only one leg and no prosthetic? So again, you can argue *directly* from the HP that a tendency to cut off one's own leg can be adaptive in that it can provide an extremely powerful signal of fitness. "Wow, he can fight off those other males while missing a leg. What if I had his baby and kept both legs on!"
The reason scientists don't argue this is that in this respect, evolutionary theory doesn't actually predict anything until you already know the answer, and this wasn't the answer.
Have you actually read anything about this?
Have you?
It is not the "getting noticed" per se that the handicap principle refers to, but the "being burdened and surviving anyway". So, a missing hind leg would fall under the handicap principle, even though it doesn't necessarily jump out at you.
But the deeper point is that "noticeability" isn't directly observable (and therefore not falsifiable) because, in order to know whether the opposite sex uses the handicap in rating a potential mate, you would have to know if that species has evolved more refined senses for detecting that trait or any reliable correlate. So how would I go about proving this negative? Thus you could indeed posit, under the handicap principle, that the inefficient cell membrane makes females hot for me because that affects my scent, and ...
Untrue. It explains outlandish features, not "literally any"[1] feature. No one is going to argue that your misconfigured cell-wall protein #23425 makes the chicks hot and bothered for you.
So what? The point is that they could. The handicap principle allows you to make such an argument, which is why it permits anything and therefore does not count as a scientific explanation (let alone an explanation of "outlandish" features, whatever that means). The fact that scientists don't make such arguments[2] simply means that the theory they're really using has a little footnote that says "Unless Scientist Billy-Bob decides the theory doesn't apply" ... which isn't very scientific either, when you think about it.
Alternatively, scientists have another "out" (i.e. escape from the rigors of falsifiability) in that they can say, "Well, I have no idea why this feature is here ... but I guess it's just not significant enough to make a difference."
[2] Obviously, scientists wouldn't use that exact example, just one along the same lines.
It's not about the organism surviving, it's about the organism surviving long enough it passes on it's genes. Only the one that can do that continue on.
Irrelevant to the point, but thank you for repeating back to me the reasoning I just gave and cited in the rest of your post. My point is that the handicap principle, in combination with other claims postulated by evolutionary theory, doesn't allow for falsification (though, I will emphasize, other aspects of evolutionary theory are still falsfiable and scientific, I'm only pointing out one specific unscientific claim within the body of literature).
Look at what you just did: you used the handicap principle to "explain" why newborn peacocks don't have brilliant plumage. Unfortunately, I could use the HP to just the same argue that "Newborns with brilliant plumage are more likely to be attacked, so surviving up to sexual maturity despite having been born with the plumage provides a strong fitness signal to mates, which is why we see it in nature." Until you pointed out to me that this doesn't happen, despite it being permitted by the model.
Since HP plus "the fittest genes survive" can "explain" any feature, then it doesn't explain any feature. Does the bird have a burdensome tail? Handicap principle! Does it lack a big tail? Then that must lower its fitness too much! Just as long as you tell me the answer in advance! There is no observation that would falsify the theory since any feature necessarily can be classified as "helps it survive" or "makes it harder to survive and therefore gives a stronger fitness signal".
Remember, explaining phenomena is easy. The hard part is to not explain non-phenomena.
I have to agree with you. Whatever else is scientific about the theory of evolution, in the matters you discussed, it is not. I have made the same criticism myself, though obviously not in the academy.
I don't think you responsed to the mainstream explanation for peacock's tails though (taken from the Wikipedia "Handicap principle" article): The large tail is a signaling mechanism. It says, "look, I can survive ... even with this big tail dragging me down". Thus, what the peacock loses in agility, it gains in being able to send accurate fitness signals and thus weed out those with less robust survival mechanism.
This explanation has been applied to human contexts, like bungie jumping, dangerous jobs, and the "Ghetto caddy": basically, despite their danger, they give the appearance of being able to survive against overwhelming odds, which serves as a fitness signal, and thus women would be evolved to be attracted to it. Supposedly, this is also why holding your hands up in front of you (ready to defend) makes women uneasy.
But where I basically agree with you is that, in proposing such an explanation, you destroy the explanatory power of evolution. The handicap principle allows you to "explain" literally any feature: either it helps the organism survive, or it helps the organism signal how it can survive even when burdened. This permits anything, so it explains nothing.
Generally the scientific model is the theory and the computer model simply an implementation of it in program form ... Anyway, the theory is certainly not kept secret -- it's published in papers and discussed and argued over. That's the whole point of science! ...The computer model though is generally not kept secret either. There's no need. The scientific theory is the key
I don't think what you're saying is quite right. For well-understood, well-exploited phenomena, like electronics, this might be correct. However, if current climatological theories uniquely determined a mathematical model, the only difference we would ever see between any two models would be minor, and wholly-attributable to the greater precision one model used.
In reality, scientists have to do a lot of parameter selection and curve-fitting. There is nothing with those techniques, but when abused, they can make the data say whatever you want. I could have a completely incorrect climate theory yet claim that certain historical parameters change in just the right way that the model's output matches all known data up until this year ... and then silently release "updates" each year as I fail to correctly predict anything, yet insist you trust my current model, because all my colleagues agree with it. (Hey, sounds like Linux distros! j/k, j/k, don't mod me down)
So it's not enough to be able to point to textbooks and journals because there's still a lot in the way of "judgment calls" that have to be made when making a model, even once you know the scientific theory.
My standard for when a climate model has been appropriately "open-sourced" would be:
1) Anyone can download, edit, and run the model and all the source to arbitrary precision. (with an exception for the source code for 3rd party applications that are widely used outside of climatology, like Matlab.)
2) The source code is documented internally and externally, such that all functionality is explained.
3) All assumptions made in the model are justified by reference to a scientific publication, with preference for less specialized ones.
So, does such a model exist? If so, is it the scientific consensus and the one guiding and justifying public policy?
DISCLAIMER: None of the above reasoning is intended to justify inaction on global warming or rejection of science that brings bad news. If you are interpreting it that way, you're doing it wrong.
Yes, a how-to for this would be very very very nice :-)
But then, I'd need to learn how to solder first, I never did that in the few EE courses I had to take.
Yeah, it's ridiculous to call this a "sixth sense". Reading information from a hand-held device is not an additional sense.
Now, if we were still living 100+ years ago, when people were far more limited in what information they had access to at any given time, *maybe* you could get away with saying this is another sense. But considering that cognitive science researchers -- many probably at MIT -- have had significant success in giving people genuine additional senses (i.e. allow them to observe the world in some way without directly being told the information or thinking aboug it), it's extremely misleading.
For example, one time on slashdot there was a story about how scientists fed a compass-like transducer into some guy's nervous system, which allowed him to just "know" about changes in the earth's magnetic field or nearby magnets. And in Jeff Hawkins's On Intelligence, he talks about an experiment where they mapped a low-res black/white camera to an array of rods on someone's tongue that push down for black and let up for white, which allow the subject to see without his own eyes.
Those are new senses. This device isn't.
Not troll, just wrong. I learned the hard way that Apple doesn't quite adhere to the "all OS versions come with everything" standard. Recently, I was using my MacBook and I wanted to some quick calculations involving logarithms. So I looked in the Apps folder for Mac's calculator program. I opened it and set it to scientific. Then, thinking it would have the basic features on its bundled calculator that come with Windows, I opened the help feature and looked for the keyboard shortcuts (which I prefer using and which make a big difference when you're not using or don't have mouse availabe).
Nothing came up.
When I asked about that on a Mac help forum, first, they called me an idiot for claiming there are no keyboard shortcuts on Calculator. Then, after a while, I was able to convince them that there really weren't, partly because another poster confirmed that 10.4 doesn't have the Calculator shortcuts. Their solutions:
1) You idiot, if you need to calculate logarithms, you should have a real, pocket calculator. ... exactly the dilemma Mac fans love to say you'll never have.
2) You need to upgrade to a better OS version (10.5)
Yes, I can understand if I want a feature that's completely new to Macs, like Time Machine, but *keyboard shortcuts on the calculator*? Something available over ten years ago on Windows? Basic functionally typically found on all programs? Considering Mac users' insistence that all Mac apps have easy keyboard shortcuts?
Yeah, and what's worse, they can't even get acronyms right:
practical fusion-powered spacecraft (PDF).
That should be abbreviated as PFS or PFPS, not PDF.
I know the "related stories" says this too, but just to get the ball rolling:
What this really means is that outside corporations cannot sell equipment to the state of Florida and expect to hide the workings of their machine by saying they are trade secret. It means the state has to give full disclosure concerning important and critical aspects of the case."
So, will this mean voting machine source code will have to be disclosed?
Personally, I'm most surprised that:
a) Governments don't require source code disclosure, at least for purposes of review, when they ask for bids or shop for equipment/software,
b) It's so hard for them to find someone willing to meet a).
Right on. Linux promoters too often fail to look at it from the inexperienced user and think about what can be done to make it easier. Just the same, there's a tendency to view "just google it!" as a substitute for even the most basic help file. Keep in mind that for many problems, the user won't be able to connect to the internet, because that is itself the problem, so they should have *some* kind of help file they can refer to.
FWIW, I've tried to install Linux. I thought I was playing it safe by following the site's instructions, and only installing it to a separate partition so I could always fall back on Windows in case I needed help. Well, the installation procedure told me to do something that guaranteed that a failure of the install CD (which I thought I had safely hedged agains) would, in fact, cascade to my ability to use Windows, thus locking me out of my computer.
So, it's not just about thrownig up walls to newbies; it's a problem of alienating people who have a clue.
Left off the sarcasm tag, did I? :-P
Alright, alright, *normally* I sympathize with eliminating gendered language, but seriously, there's not much you can do about this one. What *short* word even exists that encompasses both fanboys and fangirls? Nobody will have heard of it!!!