Just because the post declared that it was causal, doesn't mean that it's so. The *only* way to determine causality is by running a controlled experiment - which seems a bit unethical here.
If we're going to compare anecdotal evidence: I've purchased the first generation iPod, iMac, and iBook, all without any troubles whatsoever... except the obvious fact that the second generation came out a few months later!
Do we own the right to our own image? I was always under the impression that anyone could photograph anything as long as they didn't break any laws to acquire it. Here is another interesting, related story of a couple guys charged with taking pictures of a girl on the beach in Sydney. They were charged with "offensive behaviour in public".
The question has always been why people in an *investigative* profession (e.g., police, law), where the ultimate result should be facts, concern themselves so much with the veracity of testimony. We would be better served, I think, with less testimony, and more facts.
There have been a bit of data collected in Australia on driving with hands-free headsets compared to regular mobile phones. The results suggest that the hands-free group do just as poorly (if not worse) than people with regular mobiles. This suggests that it isn't a matter of an occupation of one's limbs, but rather a division of attention. Interestingly, all drivers were shown to improve with practice - lending support to the generailsation of gaming experience.
...and do you think these libraries get the journals for free? Not a chance. Some subscriptions for a single journal cost millions (e.g., Science, Nature, Neuroscience, Vision). This really is a problem.
I'm not sure what journals you're submitting to, but the turnover rate for most journals in science are only a few months, and some just a few weeks. As an academic with a wife who works as an editorial co-ordinator for three journals, I think I have a bit of insight into the process, and you've greatly misrepresented the process.
Indeed, the process is flawed, but it's what we have at the moment. Blind reviews are lame, and blind authorship is even worse (where the reviewers have no idea who wrote the paper - but can quickly guess given their reference list). It's the editor's job, however, to ensure that the quality of the reviews are adequate. The peer review process certainly isn't without flaws, but I have yet to see a better process. If you have a better suggestion, please speak up.
On the topic of the availability of scientific publications on the web, this really isn't new. Many researchers already post their papers as pdf on the web, and Scholar Google provides instant access to them. I suspect he trouble seems to be with greedy publishers. Academics are expected to hand over their rights to the publishers to distribute their own work. Many don't look favourably on posting papers for download and are trying to stop it. This is a bit odd. They have the rights to the version of the paper *as it looks in the journal*. So if you take out a comma and repost it, you're fine. Or if you're a LaTeX user, you can create nicer looking documents than the publishers do! There's also the issue of reprints. Once upon a time, if someone requested a copy of the paper, you could send it to them. The publishers even provide a number of hard copies to do so. So many researchers have added a prompt to the user before downloading the document indicating that by clicking the download link to the article, they are requesting a reprint.
I thought I made myself clear. I'll give it another go:
Theories never become fact - it's called Hempel's paradox: If an instance X is observed that is consistent with theory T, then the probability that T is true increases. Given the theory "All ravens are black", we can go out and examine a squillion ravens, and observe that they are all black. After each observation, our belief in the theory "All ravens are black" will rise slightly, but it never becomes fact (i.e., 100% probable). What does science allow us to do? Falsify claims (ala Popper). It only takes one white raven to make the theory "All ravens are black" false.
Credentials have nothing to do with it. Opinions or theories are fine, it's what we do with these theories that define science. We can either go around flaunting our opinions trying to pass them off as fact, or we can test them. While we can't prove them true, we can certainly falsify them. General acceptance has nothing to do with it either. For example, in a single demonstration, Marshall demonstrated that stomach ulcers weren't due to the 7 deadly sins by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium and rid himself of them with antibiotics. This stood in stark contrast to the general acceptance of the scientific community.
Actually, he squandered his at one time vast fortune trying to *broadcast* power; that is, electronic devices would simply draw their power from the air; hence, no batteries needed, either!
Again, the onus is on the scientist rather than the journalists to set the record straight. Why not include a course or two on research methodology in journalism degrees and get it right the first time?
Really? And what's the basis for this claim? A sample size of one? I suspect that people who don't subscribe to superstitious beliefs (e.g., God) ought to be a decent indicator of scientific aptitude.
Well, the other problem is that they are often the only providers of information that the public has. If they report it incorrectly, or assume any kind of knowledge on their part, it can get confused.
I don't expect them to become experts per se. Public access to scientific information is often hindered by scientific jargon. Many people rely on journalists to provide access to scientific information by translating it into something that they can understand. To do so, it is essential that journalists reporting on science are capable of comprehending and explaining scientific matters.
Many efforts in analysing science communication result in similar criticisms of science journalism due to omissions of qualifying statements or relevant information, confusion of speculation and fact, over generalisation, inaccurate simplifications, misquotations, or unjustified emphasis and elaboration. At a minimum, journalism programs ought to include general science and specialised science journalism courses in their curriculum. In particular, subjects that develop skills in extracting and translating information from scientific journals, as well as exposure to the concepts of factual determinations.
There are many efforts directed at educating scientists about the journalistic process, but fewer that aim to educate journalists about science. One of the arguments for the imbalance is that it is more efficient for scientists to learn about media constraints than it would be for journalists to learn about science. Some argue that a lack of scientific knowledge on a journalist's behalf may actually benefit their interpretation of science publications, allowing the author to be less biased when translating the information for public consumption. Others believe that introducing science journalists to the scientific process will help to correct inaccuracies and omissions of important information in the media.
I wasn't remarking that there were not "too many" SUVs in Australia (there are!), but rather that it hasn't reached the proportion in Canada (and certainly not the US!)
I'm happy to pay a bit more to keep SUVs off the roads. I just moved from Canada (where petrol guzzlers are on the rise) to Australia (where there are very few SUVs). If paying an extra dollar or so at the pumps every couple weeks keeps them off the road, I'm more than willing. I honestly can't believe people still choose to drive those things.
The advertisement for the event reads: "1,000 songs in your pocket changed everything... Here we go again". Do you really think that Apple would release a phone that holds 100 songs? My bet is a video iPod and iTunes 5 that will provide music video and movie content through the iTunes Music Store.
Whatever algorithm they're using, it seems to be sensitve to the horizon line, colour, shading, orientation of the aircraft, etc. It seems to be operating at the level of a pigeon (who have been shown to discriminate photos depicting trees, water, and particular people - as well as art by Picasso and Monet. See http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/huber for other examples. It will be some time before algorithms can match on the basis of model numbers and such. It took humans quite a while to evolve a cortex to enable such fine discriminations.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity: How else might one determine causality (regardless of ease)?
Just because the post declared that it was causal, doesn't mean that it's so. The *only* way to determine causality is by running a controlled experiment - which seems a bit unethical here.
If we're going to compare anecdotal evidence: I've purchased the first generation iPod, iMac, and iBook, all without any troubles whatsoever... except the obvious fact that the second generation came out a few months later!
I'm from Canada and now I live in Australia. Neither country is listed in the study. Seems a bit strange.
Do we own the right to our own image? I was always under the impression that anyone could photograph anything as long as they didn't break any laws to acquire it. Here is another interesting, related story of a couple guys charged with taking pictures of a girl on the beach in Sydney. They were charged with "offensive behaviour in public".
The question has always been why people in an *investigative* profession (e.g., police, law), where the ultimate result should be facts, concern themselves so much with the veracity of testimony. We would be better served, I think, with less testimony, and more facts.
Remind me what's so unique about human neurons that cause people to fear that mice will somehow become conscious, thinking organisms?
There have been a bit of data collected in Australia on driving with hands-free headsets compared to regular mobile phones. The results suggest that the hands-free group do just as poorly (if not worse) than people with regular mobiles. This suggests that it isn't a matter of an occupation of one's limbs, but rather a division of attention. Interestingly, all drivers were shown to improve with practice - lending support to the generailsation of gaming experience.
...and do you think these libraries get the journals for free? Not a chance. Some subscriptions for a single journal cost millions (e.g., Science, Nature, Neuroscience, Vision). This really is a problem.
I'm not sure what journals you're submitting to, but the turnover rate for most journals in science are only a few months, and some just a few weeks. As an academic with a wife who works as an editorial co-ordinator for three journals, I think I have a bit of insight into the process, and you've greatly misrepresented the process.
Indeed, the process is flawed, but it's what we have at the moment. Blind reviews are lame, and blind authorship is even worse (where the reviewers have no idea who wrote the paper - but can quickly guess given their reference list). It's the editor's job, however, to ensure that the quality of the reviews are adequate. The peer review process certainly isn't without flaws, but I have yet to see a better process. If you have a better suggestion, please speak up.
On the topic of the availability of scientific publications on the web, this really isn't new. Many researchers already post their papers as pdf on the web, and Scholar Google provides instant access to them. I suspect he trouble seems to be with greedy publishers. Academics are expected to hand over their rights to the publishers to distribute their own work. Many don't look favourably on posting papers for download and are trying to stop it. This is a bit odd. They have the rights to the version of the paper *as it looks in the journal*. So if you take out a comma and repost it, you're fine. Or if you're a LaTeX user, you can create nicer looking documents than the publishers do! There's also the issue of reprints. Once upon a time, if someone requested a copy of the paper, you could send it to them. The publishers even provide a number of hard copies to do so. So many researchers have added a prompt to the user before downloading the document indicating that by clicking the download link to the article, they are requesting a reprint.
I thought I made myself clear. I'll give it another go:
Theories never become fact - it's called Hempel's paradox: If an instance X is observed that is consistent with theory T, then the probability that T is true increases. Given the theory "All ravens are black", we can go out and examine a squillion ravens, and observe that they are all black. After each observation, our belief in the theory "All ravens are black" will rise slightly, but it never becomes fact (i.e., 100% probable). What does science allow us to do? Falsify claims (ala Popper). It only takes one white raven to make the theory "All ravens are black" false.
Credentials have nothing to do with it. Opinions or theories are fine, it's what we do with these theories that define science. We can either go around flaunting our opinions trying to pass them off as fact, or we can test them. While we can't prove them true, we can certainly falsify them. General acceptance has nothing to do with it either. For example, in a single demonstration, Marshall demonstrated that stomach ulcers weren't due to the 7 deadly sins by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium and rid himself of them with antibiotics. This stood in stark contrast to the general acceptance of the scientific community.
How exactly do bits of the brain corresponding to events in the world *explain* anything? The fact that "the brain does it" isn't that surprising!
I don't reboot my Powerbook running OS X for weeks at a time!
Actually, he squandered his at one time vast fortune trying to *broadcast* power; that is, electronic devices would simply draw their power from the air; hence, no batteries needed, either!
Again, the onus is on the scientist rather than the journalists to set the record straight. Why not include a course or two on research methodology in journalism degrees and get it right the first time?
Really? And what's the basis for this claim? A sample size of one? I suspect that people who don't subscribe to superstitious beliefs (e.g., God) ought to be a decent indicator of scientific aptitude.
Well, the other problem is that they are often the only providers of information that the public has. If they report it incorrectly, or assume any kind of knowledge on their part, it can get confused.
I don't expect them to become experts per se. Public access to scientific information is often hindered by scientific jargon. Many people rely on journalists to provide access to scientific information by translating it into something that they can understand. To do so, it is essential that journalists reporting on science are capable of comprehending and explaining scientific matters.
Many efforts in analysing science communication result in similar criticisms of science journalism due to omissions of qualifying statements or relevant information, confusion of speculation and fact, over generalisation, inaccurate simplifications, misquotations, or unjustified emphasis and elaboration. At a minimum, journalism programs ought to include general science and specialised science journalism courses in their curriculum. In particular, subjects that develop skills in extracting and translating information from scientific journals, as well as exposure to the concepts of factual determinations.
There are many efforts directed at educating scientists about the journalistic process, but fewer that aim to educate journalists about science. One of the arguments for the imbalance is that it is more efficient for scientists to learn about media constraints than it would be for journalists to learn about science. Some argue that a lack of scientific knowledge on a journalist's behalf may actually benefit their interpretation of science publications, allowing the author to be less biased when translating the information for public consumption. Others believe that introducing science journalists to the scientific process will help to correct inaccuracies and omissions of important information in the media.
I wasn't remarking that there were not "too many" SUVs in Australia (there are!), but rather that it hasn't reached the proportion in Canada (and certainly not the US!)
I'm happy to pay a bit more to keep SUVs off the roads. I just moved from Canada (where petrol guzzlers are on the rise) to Australia (where there are very few SUVs). If paying an extra dollar or so at the pumps every couple weeks keeps them off the road, I'm more than willing. I honestly can't believe people still choose to drive those things.
The advertisement for the event reads: "1,000 songs in your pocket changed everything... Here we go again". Do you really think that Apple would release a phone that holds 100 songs? My bet is a video iPod and iTunes 5 that will provide music video and movie content through the iTunes Music Store.
Whatever algorithm they're using, it seems to be sensitve to the horizon line, colour, shading, orientation of the aircraft, etc. It seems to be operating at the level of a pigeon (who have been shown to discriminate photos depicting trees, water, and particular people - as well as art by Picasso and Monet. See http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/huber for other examples. It will be some time before algorithms can match on the basis of model numbers and such. It took humans quite a while to evolve a cortex to enable such fine discriminations.
Australians have tended to be rather anti-Windoze (see also http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/04/16/2311215.s html?tid=137&tid=175). Odd that Apple is dragging their heels with iTMS Oz.