Newton's flaming laser sword (also known as Alder's razor) is a philosophical razor devised by Alder and discussed in an essay in the May/June 2004 issue of Philosophy Now.[6] The principle, which addresses the differing views of scientists and philosophers on epistemology and knowledge, was summarized by Alder as follows:[6][jargon]
In its weakest form it says that we should not dispute propositions unless they can be shown by precise logic and/or mathematics to have observable consequences. In its strongest form it demands a list of observable consequences and a formal demonstration that they are indeed consequences of the proposition claimed.
The razor is humorously named after Isaac Newton, as it is inspired by Newtonian thought and is called a "flaming laser sword", because it is "much sharper and more dangerous than Occam's Razor".[6]
Scientists find a "mitotic stopwatch" that lets individual cells remember something. //
How does something as fundamental as a cell hold on to information across multiple divisions?
There's no one answer, and the details are really difficult to work out in many cases. But scientists have now worked out one memory system in detail. Cells are able to remember when their parent had a difficult time dividing—a problem that's often associated with DNA damage and cancer. And, if the problems are substantial enough, the two cells that result from a division will stop dividing themselves.
A scan of archives shows that lots of scientific papers aren't backed up.
Back when scientific publications came in paper form, libraries played a key role in ensuring that knowledge didn't disappear. Copies went out to so many libraries that any failure—a publisher going bankrupt, a library getting closed—wouldn't put us at risk of losing information. But, as with anything else, scientific content has gone digital, which has changed what's involved with preservation.
Organizations have devised systems that should provide options for preserving digital material. But, according to a recently published survey, lots of digital documents aren't consistently showing up in the archives that are meant to preserve it. And that puts us at risk of losing academic research—including science paid for with taxpayer money. //
The risk here is that, ultimately, we may lose access to some academic research. As Eve phrases it, knowledge gets expanded because we're able to build upon a foundation of facts that we can trace back through a chain of references. If we start losing those links, then the foundation gets shakier. Archiving comes with its own set of challenges: It costs money, it has to be organized, consistent means of accessing the archived material need to be established, and so on.
But, to an extent, we're failing at the first step. "An important point to make," Eve writes, "is that there is no consensus over who should be responsible for archiving scholarship in the digital age."
A somewhat related issue is ensuring that people can find the archived material—the issue that DOIs were designed to solve.
Evidence shows that shoving data in peoples’ faces doesn’t work to change minds. //
But in all my years of working with the public, I’ve found a potential strategy. And that strategy doesn’t involve confronting pseudoscience head-on but rather empathizing with why people have pseudoscientific beliefs and finding ways to get them to understand and appreciate the scientific method. //
The word pseudoscience means “false science,” and that’s where my definition starts. Pseudoscience is a practice, a mode of investigation, that looks like science but misses the point. Or, as I like to phrase it, pseudoscience has the skin of science but misses its soul. //
The skin of science is visible to non-scientists; it’s what science looks like from the outside. That skin usually involves some combination of advanced jargon that’s generally indecipherable, the wielding of sophisticated mathematical tools for describing nature, and, of course, the fancy technical gear for making measurements and observations.
But these are just the tools of science; they aren’t what makes science so uniquely powerful. That's the scientific method. We’ve all learned the basics of the scientific method (make a hypothesis, test it, repeat), but it’s only in scientific training that you can acquire the skills necessary to put that method into practice. This—the scientific method and the skills to put it to use—is the real soul of science.
It involves skills like rigor, where we take our own statements seriously and follow them to their full logical conclusions. Or humility, where we learn to accept that any statement can be proven wrong at any time. There’s also fundamental skepticism, in that we allow the evidence to dictate our beliefs. Science is characterized by a spirit of openness, by requiring that methods and techniques be shared and publicized so that others can critique and extend them, and connectedness, which is a sense that statements we make must connect with the broader collection of scientific knowledge. Lastly, science persists in a constant state of evolution, where we always refine our beliefs and statements given new evidence or insights.
These qualities together make the scientific method work on a day-to-day basis. And while any individual scientist will fall short at one or more of these qualities for at least some—or, sadly, the entirety—of their careers, the practice of science is to always strive for these noble goals. //
The world is harsh, confusing, and unfair. Pseudoscience gives comfort, explanation, and predictability. //
So, the first step when confronting a pseudoscientific belief is to not bother arguing it. I have a personal rule: Unless someone asks me directly for my opinion, I don’t offer it. I’ll admit that sometimes I just can’t hold my tongue, but in the vast majority of situations, I’d rather preserve a relationship than drive a wedge into it just because someone isn’t adhering to strict scientific thinking. People believe all sorts of weird things, and the likelihood of me changing their minds—on UFOs, homeopathy, or whatever—is so small that it’s simply not worth the effort.
Instead, I try to practice what’s known as radical empathy. This is empathy given to another person without any expectation of receiving it back in return. I try to see the world through someone else’s eyes and use that to find common ground. Why do they believe in UFOs? Is it because they want mystery and wonder to be alive in this world? Hey, me too! Why do they buy homeopathic medicine? Is it because they desperately wish they could do something about their medical condition? Yeah, I hear that. Why do they get a palm reading? Is it because they could use some guidance through their complicated lives? Couldn't we all.
We need to find common ground and leverage that to share the joy, power, and beauty of science. //
Instead, if we’re going to win hearts and minds, we need to find common ground and leverage that to share the joy, power, and beauty of science. The worldview offered by science is breathtaking in its scope. One of the reasons I love the scientific worldview is its ability to see the inner workings of nature and understand the deeper levels that bring about our daily experiences. Science opens up the world and makes it knowable. Yes, there is always uncertainty; our beliefs are always provisional. That is a small price to pay for freedom, for the ability to change your mind when the evidence demands it and see the world with new eyes.
The scientific worldview is a gift. I’ve learned to not bother trying to convince someone to turn against their pseudoscientific beliefs. It rarely works, and it just makes science look bad. Instead, by finding common ground, admitting the limitations of science, and showcasing how science is a powerful force in the world, I hope to generate a positive image of science and its role in society.
Instead of getting into an argument, I would rather find a way to get someone to see the world the same way that I do: as a Universe filled with mystery and wonder, revealed by a powerful toolset for investigating those mysteries. I would rather people see behind the skin of science and understand, appreciate, and celebrate its soul. I believe that’s the only way to build trust—and hopefully help people listen to scientists when it really matters.
“We will make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles” - Thomas Edison
Edison was dreaming big when he said that. //
Belgium was dreaming big when they built the Atomium. It took 18 months to design and another 18 months to build. //
J'ai vu le futur. “I have seen the future.” These words are displayed inside the structure like a mantra for humankind. It’s not wrong. Consider the structures we admire the most: the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, the Pyramids, the Taj Mahal, the Easter Island heads, etc. We do not argue that these structures are too big. We visit them because they are so big, to marvel at their bigness.
For much of human history, we have tried to show our greatness, or to celebrate that which we have believed to be greater than us, through constructing large monuments.
So why are large-scale projects now so heavily criticised?
It may not surprise you that the idea that big is bad came from an anti-growth, anti-technology activist.
E F Schumacher wrote Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered in 1973. The book argues in favour of what Schumacher calls small, “appropriate” technologies as a superior alternative to the general ethos of "bigger is better". The latest edition of the book features a foreword by depopulation and degrowth activist Jonathon Porritt.
The book is a holy text for degrowthers, anti-progress activists, and Malthusians alike. It suffers from the recrudescence of the common fallacy of man versus nature, as Schumacher argues that “The system of nature, of which man is a part, tends to be self-balancing, self-adjusting, self-cleansing. Not so with technology.” //
What do I miss, as a human being, if I have never heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The answer is: Nothing. And what do I miss by not knowing Shakespeare? Unless I get my understanding from another source, I simply miss my life. Shall we tell our children that one thing is as good as another-- here a bit of knowledge of physics, and there a bit of knowledge of literature? If we do so, the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, because that normally is the time it takes from the birth of an idea to its full maturity when it fills the minds of a new generation and makes them think by it. Science cannot produce ideas by which we could live.”
Consider that last statement. “Science cannot produce ideas by which we could live.” And yet we have heating, lighting, telephones, the Internet, shoes, glasses, clothes, and so on, thanks to science - not Shakespeare (though I take no umbrage with the Bard). The greatest irony of this statement is that we only have books like Schumacher’s and Shakespeare’s thanks to science and technology.
That a prophet of such pessimism and blinkered thinking has influenced our ideas of large-scale technology ought to concern us. While activists argue against large-scale technological projects, note that when they consider the structures to be works of art the same argument is seldom made. For example, the construction of the Sagrada Família, the largest unfinished Catholic church in the world, began in 1882 and continues to this day. For the most part, people do not cry “it’s too big!” or “what about the cost?!” regarding the church. They allow it to be built. They want to see it finished. Similarly, the Notre-Dame is being rapidly rebuilt after it caught fire in 2019. //
The fact is that we need one - power plants - to have the other - the Sagrada Família, Notre-Dame, etc.
Back to the Atomium. With this single structure, Belgium depicted its love of physics through art. The country wanted to highlight and promote the post-war ideal of peacefully applying atomic research and other advancements in technology, and with over 600,000 visitors per year, the Atomium has achieved this aim. //
Schumacher and I do agree on one thing. He wrote: “To talk about the future is useful only if it leads to action now.” Indeed, we should act now and start building. Large-scale nuclear energy is needed to displace fossil fuels, and committing to it represents the veriest foresight. Without new power plants, we cannot hope to overcome the vicissitudes of tomorrow and maintain the progress that led us here, and beyond. Sometimes we need to dream big and build big. Or, to put it less elegantly, we should go big or go home.
Dr. Matthew Wielicki: “There’s a disconnect between what the science says and what the narrative in the mainstream media is….and what certain ‘activist scientists’ have been pushing.” Other scientists share his concerns. //
Occasionally we are asked why Legal Insurrection features so much science among the articles featuring court cases, legal analysis, and updates on our push-back against Critical Race Theory and Diversity-Equity-Inclusion in education.
While there are many reasons, perhaps the chief one is that true science is being twisted to support political narratives that are destructive, both to our nation and to humanity. For example, the Twitter Files shed light on the degree to which good information from epidemiologists and physicians was suppressed during the covid pandemic. //
Wielicki was born in Poland while it was still under communist rule, so he has a deep appreciation for freedom of speech and personal liberty. His parents worked at California State University- Fresno at a time when professors and students were allowed to have different opinions about the issues of the day.
Another believer in freedom in science is Roger A. Pielke Jr., who recently prepared an exceptional column on ten principles for effective use of math in policy research.
It was his eighth entry on torturing data that caught my eye. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/against-mathiness-part-2
I don’t know who said it, but there is an old adage that says if you torture data enough, it will confess. Simple methods, shared data, easily replicable, with clear meaning are always going to be preferable in policy settings to complex methods, unavailable data, impossibility of replication with unclear meaning. //
The hard sciences are canaries in the coal mine. If their data-driven conclusions, which should be experimentally reproducible, can be manipulated and massaged to promote ideological and/or political narratives resulting in elite policy objectives that affect us all, then no science (especially, it goes without saying, the social sciences) can be trusted.
If our leaders and our media want us to trust The Science™, then The Science™ must be trustworthy. Results must be replicated, data should be offered freely, and methodology must make sense.
Ultimately, though, I will leave the final word on the leftist march through the institutions—here, of science—to climatologist Judith Curry who confirms the climate “crisis” is manufactured. https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/amp/
We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”
“It’s a manufactured consensus,” climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.
She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”
…“The origins go back to the . . . UN environmental program,” says Curry.
Scientist Adelbert Ames created the mind boggling ‘Ames Window’ (1951)
Before we go on, let's be clear: No, we cannot “blow up” tornadoes, just as we cannot “nuke” hurricanes. It’s too complex, not to mention the likelihood of collateral damage.
But in a theoretical world without risk to lives or property, could you do it? I still don’t think so. Noted storm chaser Reed Timmer posted on X (formerly Twitter) over the weekend that the “explosion changed the thermodynamic gradients dramatically within the vortex and blew up the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.”
The C-C equation relates saturation vapor pressure to temperature. What is saturation vapor pressure? Vapor pressure is basically just that: What is the pressure of the water vapor in the air? But at a given temperature, there’s a maximum amount of moisture the air can hold. That would give you the saturation vapor pressure. Using C-C, we can determine that as temperature increases, the saturation vapor pressure of the air increases exponentially. In other words, warm air can hold much more moisture than cold air, and the relationship is exponential.
What does this all mean? Theoretically (very theoretically), the heat released from an explosion within the condensation funnel of a tornado would lead to a dramatic increase in saturation vapor pressure, thus decreasing the humidity in the vicinity of the funnel. You’re not adding more moisture to the equation, so all you’re doing is increasing temperature and increasing the air’s capacity to hold water—exponentially. All else being equal, you’ve decreased humidity, and because the air is no longer saturated, the condensation funnel (which you see when the air is saturated) visually disappears.
If the condensation funnel is our visual cue of a tornado and it disappears, then to the human mind, the tornado itself has disappeared. So you can actually blow up a tornado, right? Not quite.
"Simply modifying" Newtonian gravity to have it spread at finite speed does not work if the finite speed is the speed of light. It was attempted by Laplace in his Celestial Mechanics (1799), who found that the planets will promptly fly off their orbits and the Solar system will disintegrate in seconds, unless the propagation speed is 7×106
times greater than the the speed of light. This is because of the aberration of the direction of attractive force due to delay in transmission, see Resolving General relativity and Newtonian mechanics on a computer.
A more sophisticated modification follows from Mossotti's electromagnetic gravity hypothesis: electric attraction and repulsion do not balance each other exactly, and the difference is gravity. In 1864-72 Seegers, Scheibner and Tisserand experimented with applying the velocity and acceleration dependent correction to Newton's law imported from Weber's electrodynamics to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Around 1900 Lorentz, Einstein's precursor on special relativity, showed that under the Maxwell electrodynamics the Laplacian aberration problem is eliminated because the correction is of the order v2/c2
rather than v/c
that Laplace assumed, so the attraction between masses moving with constant relative velocity is always toward the instantaneous position of the other mass. It is the Lorentz invariance of the Maxwell electrodynamics that cancels the effects of transmission delay to the first order, as Poincare pointed out in 1905. See What 19th century developments contributed to the General theory of Relativity?
However, Lorentz's theory did not work either, and this time exactly because of the perihelion of Mercury. //
Einstein first mentions Mercury in a letter to Habicht in 1907:"At the moment I am working on a relativistic analysis of the law of gravitation by means of which I hope to explain the still unexplained secular changes in the perihelion of Mercury."
all the tags from https://b.plas.ml
1st-amendment 2nd-amendment 4th-amendment 5th-amendment 9/11 a8 abortion acl adhd afghanistan africa a/i air-conditioning amateur-radio amazon america american android animals anti-americanism antifa anti-semitism antiv antivirus aoip apollo apple appliances archaeology architecture archive art astronomy audio automation avatar aviation backup bash batteries belleville bible biden bill-of-rights biology bookmarks books borg bush business calibre camping capitalism cellphone censorship chemistry children china christianity church cia clinton cloud coldwar communication communist composed computers congress conservatives constitution construction cooking copyleft copyright corruption cosmology counseling creation crime cron crypto culture culture-of-death cummins data database ddt dd-wrt defense democrats depression desantis development diagrams diamonds disinformation diy dns documentation dokuwiki domains dprk drm drm-tpm drugs dvd dysautonomia earth ebay ebola ebook economics education efficiency electricity electronics elements elwa email energy engineering english environment environmentalism epa ethernet ethics europe euthanasia evolution faa facebook family fbi fcc feminism finance firewall flightsim flowers fonts français france fraud freebsd free-speech fun games gardening genealogy generation generators geography geology gifts git global-warming google gop government gpl gps graphics green-energy grounding hdd-test healthcare help history hollywood homeschool hormones hosting houses hp html humor hunting hvac hymns hyper-v imap immigration india infosec infotech insects instruments interesting internet investing ip-addressing iran iraq irs islam israel itec j6 journalism jumpcloud justice kindle kodi language ldap leadership leftist leftists legal lego lgbt liberia liberty linguistics linux literature locks make malaria malware management maps markdown marriage mars math media medical meshcentral metatek metric microbit microsoft mikrotik military minecraft minidisc missions moon morality mothers motorola movies mp3 museum music mythtv names nasa nature navigation navy network news nextcloud ntp nuclear obama ocean omega opensource organizing ortlip osmc oxygen paint palemoon paper parents passwords patents patriotism pdf petroleum pets pews photography photo-mgmt physics piano picasa plesk podcast poetry police politics pollution pornography pots prayer pregnancy presentations press printers privacy programming progressive progressives prolife psychology purchasing python quotes rabbits rabies racism radiation radio railroad reagan recipes recording recycling reference regulations religion renewables republicans resume riots rockets r-pi russia russiagate safety samba satellites sbe science sci-fi scotus secularism security servers shipping ships shooting shortwave signal sjw slavery sleep snakes socialism social-media software solar space spacex spam spf spideroak sports ssh statistics steampowered streaming supplement surveillance sync tarsnap taxes tck tds technology telephones television terrorism tesla theology thorium thumbnail thunderbird time tls tools toyota trains transformers travel trump tsa twitter typography ukraine unions united.nations unix ups usa vaccinations vangelis vehicles veracrypt video virtualbox virus vitamin vivaldi vlc voting vpn w3w war water weather web whatsapp who wifi wikipedia windows wordpress wuflu ww2 xigmanas xkcd youtube zfs