You don't get into research for the money or fame. Most researchers get into it because they're genuinely interested and want to find answers, advance human knowledge, and help people. With that as your motivation, what point is there to lie?
Nice. If I happened to intentionally lie, at the end of the day the journal that publishes my paper will not lose face. I will.
In recent years it has failed to be a reliable system. All I can say is that when blatant scammers can repeatedly (and apparently easily) fool the New England Journal of Medicine, and Nature [...]
I read Nature and I still fail to see what you're on about. Give me specific examples that highlight the perceived "problems". If I google what you suggested I get a whole heap of results from popular media -- not exactly what I call reliable. Sure, journals (and peer-reviewed papers) are not immune to abuse; I just don't think this is a new "problem". To say that the system has "largely failed" is a bit extreme, in my opinion.
Jane, what are you talking about? Peer review means that others looked at your hypothesis, your methodology, your results and your conclusion. These peers could not see any obvious flaws and, therefore, it can be published. "Peer review" does not mean that any of the paper is correct; nor should the published paper be taken as gospel truth. It merely means that there were no obvious flaws in the preparation. Feel free to object or supersede it with your own studies. This is not new to "the past decade or two". It has always been the way.
a) Where did I say that I have an "education"? b) Why do you think that being sceptical is bad? c) If you think that by typing "skeptical" (mirroring the OP) was bad, then you miss the point. d) What did I say that sounded "elitist"? e) Where did I imply that all good scientists must think like me? (Apart from adhering to basic principles)
Radiant heat and reflection may also play a role. The list goes on. All this stuff needs to be eliminated or accounted for when you design your experiment. I am not disagreeing with you btw... just interested:-)
In pitch-dark rooms you sometimes can "feel" close walls or large solid objects.
Are you talking about rooms you're familiar with or unfamilar rooms? For example, say I blindfolded you and stuck you in with zero light and did not allow you to speak ('cause that may mean that you can use echoes as a cue) would you be able to tell where the walls were? If the answer is yes, then that needs to be investigated. Note also that, perhaps, your walking may produce subtle echo effects.
Further, I would say that being open to criticism and being able to accept that, move on and improve (based on the criticism) separates the mediocre from the brilliant. It doesn't matter how much knowledge you have. We all make mistakes and we all overlook things. We all say silly things now and again. Far too often I have met people who cannot accept criticism -- they take it as a personal attack. These people never make good scientists (in my opinion). Being sceptical also means that you have to be willing to provide constructive feedback. Often this can be done anonymously. It doesn't have to be anonymous, but for some reason (human nature?) anonymous review seems to work well -- perhaps it's because it seems less personal (it's not personal, it is commenting objectively, which is why I said "seems"). If we were not sceptical we wouldn't need peer review.
I agree 100%; it's exactly what I was saying. You have to be skeptical. Reputation goes a long way, but it would be foolhardy to accept something that someone says based on their reputation -- no matter how good their reputation is. Being skeptical is part of the bargain and necessary. "Necessary" is probably too light a word. Without skepticism everything falls apart.
Re:This was a "psychic" trick in the 70s.
on
Seeing With Your Skin?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Back then it was called "demo-optical perception."
I have read your comments before and can infer that you're very good in your field. You have pretty cool monitors anyway. My question is this: _Assuming_ that it is possible to "see" with skin, my guess would be that the 'resolution' would be the limiting factor. Obviously the skin can detect many wavelengths of light--I am having trouble jumping from this thought to the thought of the skin resolving those sensations into an image. You, rightly I think, say that you're skeptical, but you don't expand on any of your "very good reasons". I, for one, would love to hear some of these very good reasons (seriously).
I don't live in the US, but have read heaps about this topic. My real question is why the subject is even being considered being added to the US school curriculum. There are lame attempts and arguments that go along the line of we want to be "balanced", but, frankly, creationism is not accepted science (it doesn't even come close to science). It's great to debate these things (it broadens our minds), but schools should teach fact; not conjecture.
Evolution is not "fact" either (although the accumulated data supports the theory). If another theory comes along that explains the data better, then Darwin's theory will be superseded. This is how science works. Teaching crackpot "theories" in schools doesn't end up making people more objective. I would suggest that it teaches them to be more stupid. Teach critical thinking. Don't teach things that are not falsifiable. It's easy.
Thompson always wanted to own a Bar. Now, armed with multiple US Supreme Court rulings that no state bar can do what it has done to Thompson, he is set to own that Bar.
Actually, my best bet would be on "cognitive dissonance" rather than "conspiracy theory."
The best way to illustrate cognitive dissonance is via the classic experiment: you assign someone (e.g., a student) a Homer Simpson-esque job that's boring him to tears. Then you one day say he can stop doing it, you have something better to do with him. But you ask him if he can find a replacement for that previous crap job. You even offer a dollar if he does. So he'll go try to convince someone else that it's a great job to take. The fun thing is, after a while he'll have convinced himself too that it's a great job.
Apparently, having to reconcile between "I'm a nice and honest guy" and "I just lied to a bunch of people for a lousy dollar", he'll alter the latter to, basically, "yeah, well, it wasn't really a lie." Just to keep his mental model consistent.
That is very true. Cognitive dissonance basically refers to a "dissonance" (i.e. contradiction) between ones beliefs and actions. The dissonance is discomforting and, therefore, it makes sense that our minds formulate and mould beliefs to reduce the discomfort.
It seems to be a function of at least the mammalian brain. When you have two contradictory ideas in your model, one has to give. With humans, though, if one idea is too important to let go, something else has to give.
It has "to give" to relieve the mental stress. Actions that do not align with beliefs obviously cause negative emotions to arise. So, you're 100% correct. We (humans) do not like discomfort.
Even more fun is that the strength of the effect is inversely proportional to how sustainable or justifiable that action is. If you offer him a lot more money, he has the escape of, basically, "yeah, well, I needed the money. So I have my price too. Bite me." If it's a precondition to getting out of that crap job, same thing, he has an excuse. But when there's no excuse he can wrap his mind around, he'll alter the truth so he doesn't need an excuse.
The thing is there is no fu***** point. The article is basically an advertisment by someone who has no clue about computers. There is no way I would use CE when there are embedded OSs out there that put CE to shame. Do you see CE as a digital camera OS? No.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get into research for the money or fame. Most researchers get into it because they're genuinely interested and want to find answers, advance human knowledge, and help people. With that as your motivation, what point is there to lie?
Nice. If I happened to intentionally lie, at the end of the day the journal that publishes my paper will not lose face. I will.
In recent years it has failed to be a reliable system. All I can say is that when blatant scammers can repeatedly (and apparently easily) fool the New England Journal of Medicine, and Nature [...]
I read Nature and I still fail to see what you're on about. Give me specific examples that highlight the perceived "problems". If I google what you suggested I get a whole heap of results from popular media -- not exactly what I call reliable. Sure, journals (and peer-reviewed papers) are not immune to abuse; I just don't think this is a new "problem". To say that the system has "largely failed" is a bit extreme, in my opinion.
Jesus, do you take me for an idiot?
Of course not.
Oops... sorry, must have hit reply to the wrong message :-/
"Vague gray shapes. Big dots. Blurry edges."
"Can you see the door? Could you walk to the door?"
"Yeah, I could, if you want me to trip over things and fall down."
"That's a 5-by-5 display. Hold on," says Weiland, "I'm going to up your pixel count to 32 by 32."
Ok, it lost me there. Anyone who can assert where a door is using 25 pixels, without prior knowledge, is obviously delusional. :-)
Jane, what are you talking about? Peer review means that others looked at your hypothesis, your methodology, your results and your conclusion. These peers could not see any obvious flaws and, therefore, it can be published. "Peer review" does not mean that any of the paper is correct; nor should the published paper be taken as gospel truth. It merely means that there were no obvious flaws in the preparation. Feel free to object or supersede it with your own studies. This is not new to "the past decade or two". It has always been the way.
I cannot believe I am replying to this.
a) Where did I say that I have an "education"?
b) Why do you think that being sceptical is bad?
c) If you think that by typing "skeptical" (mirroring the OP) was bad, then you miss the point.
d) What did I say that sounded "elitist"?
e) Where did I imply that all good scientists must think like me? (Apart from adhering to basic principles)
Radiant heat and reflection may also play a role. The list goes on. All this stuff needs to be eliminated or accounted for when you design your experiment. I am not disagreeing with you btw... just interested :-)
Air flow may also play a role
In pitch-dark rooms you sometimes can "feel" close walls or large solid objects.
Are you talking about rooms you're familiar with or unfamilar rooms? For example, say I blindfolded you and stuck you in with zero light and did not allow you to speak ('cause that may mean that you can use echoes as a cue) would you be able to tell where the walls were? If the answer is yes, then that needs to be investigated. Note also that, perhaps, your walking may produce subtle echo effects.
Further, I would say that being open to criticism and being able to accept that, move on and improve (based on the criticism) separates the mediocre from the brilliant. It doesn't matter how much knowledge you have. We all make mistakes and we all overlook things. We all say silly things now and again. Far too often I have met people who cannot accept criticism -- they take it as a personal attack. These people never make good scientists (in my opinion). Being sceptical also means that you have to be willing to provide constructive feedback. Often this can be done anonymously. It doesn't have to be anonymous, but for some reason (human nature?) anonymous review seems to work well -- perhaps it's because it seems less personal (it's not personal, it is commenting objectively, which is why I said "seems"). If we were not sceptical we wouldn't need peer review.
I agree 100%; it's exactly what I was saying. You have to be skeptical. Reputation goes a long way, but it would be foolhardy to accept something that someone says based on their reputation -- no matter how good their reputation is. Being skeptical is part of the bargain and necessary. "Necessary" is probably too light a word. Without skepticism everything falls apart.
Back then it was called "demo-optical perception."
Citation needed. Oh wait.
He said he was skeptical. All good scientists must be skeptical. It has nothing to do with having "faith in your fellow scientists".
I have read your comments before and can infer that you're very good in your field. You have pretty cool monitors anyway. My question is this: _Assuming_ that it is possible to "see" with skin, my guess would be that the 'resolution' would be the limiting factor. Obviously the skin can detect many wavelengths of light--I am having trouble jumping from this thought to the thought of the skin resolving those sensations into an image. You, rightly I think, say that you're skeptical, but you don't expand on any of your "very good reasons". I, for one, would love to hear some of these very good reasons (seriously).
Is kind of more interesting than it turned out to be.
You're saying the same thing that I attempted and, obviously, failed to present. Thank-you for doing what I could not.
I don't live in the US, but have read heaps about this topic. My real question is why the subject is even being considered being added to the US school curriculum. There are lame attempts and arguments that go along the line of we want to be "balanced", but, frankly, creationism is not accepted science (it doesn't even come close to science). It's great to debate these things (it broadens our minds), but schools should teach fact; not conjecture.
Evolution is not "fact" either (although the accumulated data supports the theory). If another theory comes along that explains the data better, then Darwin's theory will be superseded. This is how science works. Teaching crackpot "theories" in schools doesn't end up making people more objective. I would suggest that it teaches them to be more stupid. Teach critical thinking. Don't teach things that are not falsifiable. It's easy.
It's not a debate it's arguing absurdity.
Yeah, well it was a response that was meant to be tongue-in-cheeck. Thanks for the response though Creepy-boy :P
Thompson always wanted to own a Bar. Now, armed with multiple US Supreme Court rulings that no state bar can do what it has done to Thompson, he is set to own that Bar.
Different kind of bar?
To summarise: manufacture a false belief (well, it may not be false) to cope with your views on the subject--avoid feeling "bad". Moraelin is spot on.
Actually, my best bet would be on "cognitive dissonance" rather than "conspiracy theory." The best way to illustrate cognitive dissonance is via the classic experiment: you assign someone (e.g., a student) a Homer Simpson-esque job that's boring him to tears. Then you one day say he can stop doing it, you have something better to do with him. But you ask him if he can find a replacement for that previous crap job. You even offer a dollar if he does. So he'll go try to convince someone else that it's a great job to take. The fun thing is, after a while he'll have convinced himself too that it's a great job. Apparently, having to reconcile between "I'm a nice and honest guy" and "I just lied to a bunch of people for a lousy dollar", he'll alter the latter to, basically, "yeah, well, it wasn't really a lie." Just to keep his mental model consistent.
That is very true. Cognitive dissonance basically refers to a "dissonance" (i.e. contradiction) between ones beliefs and actions. The dissonance is discomforting and, therefore, it makes sense that our minds formulate and mould beliefs to reduce the discomfort.
It seems to be a function of at least the mammalian brain. When you have two contradictory ideas in your model, one has to give. With humans, though, if one idea is too important to let go, something else has to give.
It has "to give" to relieve the mental stress. Actions that do not align with beliefs obviously cause negative emotions to arise. So, you're 100% correct. We (humans) do not like discomfort.
Even more fun is that the strength of the effect is inversely proportional to how sustainable or justifiable that action is. If you offer him a lot more money, he has the escape of, basically, "yeah, well, I needed the money. So I have my price too. Bite me." If it's a precondition to getting out of that crap job, same thing, he has an excuse. But when there's no excuse he can wrap his mind around, he'll alter the truth so he doesn't need an excuse.
Thus reducing the dissonance
I guess that nothing supports false-facts better than trying to debunk them. It's all a conspiracy after all.
It's actually not all that bad an error message. It gives you the chance to plug in a keyboard (if that was causing the error) and continue
The thing is there is no fu***** point. The article is basically an advertisment by someone who has no clue about computers. There is no way I would use CE when there are embedded OSs out there that put CE to shame. Do you see CE as a digital camera OS? No.
Replace the FPU? You might need a motherboard upgra... oh, no mattter... carry on