Blatantly political rant

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Dennis, I see your point about the glaciers, though I think the current trend is more sharply defined than that. It's an area in which reasonable people can certainly disagree; since there are so many other problems associated with pollution that is generated along with the CO2, not to mention the geopolitical instabilities around fossil oil, I'd say we're better off to act now to look for better energy sources. It seems we may be in agreement there, in any case.

We are. I concur on the need to reduce pollution and find alternative power sources. I simply don't see doing so as doing more than slowing the warming trend. One fruitful question to ask is "Okay. If the entire Earth was tropical when the dinosaurs roamed, why did things get cooler and glaciation occur?" The answer to that will shed light on why things are getting warmer.

(NB: I haven't Looked Stuff Up lately, and don't know what the currently proposed answers to that question might be.)

But then again, my willingness to accept ambiguity and try to see multiple sides of an argument may be another one of those unstated assumptions I absorbed from an early age-- my parents (particularly my mother) are much the same way.

I feel the same, though I suspect my father had more to do with it. Dad defined himself as an agnostic, but was careful to distinguish that from atheism. He didn't believe in God, but he also didn't believe there was no God. He had no evidence he could accept as valid one way of the other, and chose not to commit to one belief or the other. (He also read SF when he was younger, and there were old SF books lying around the house. I think the first SF I ever read was a copy of the classic Healy and McComas _Adventures in Time and Space_ anthology, which was the second SF collection to be issued as a hardcover book. I was young enough to not understand eveything I read in it, but the Sense of Wonder came through very clearly.)

I've also put some work into trying to deconstruct my assumptions over the years-- I think it's best to consider that an ongoing project, don't you?

Life is an ongoing project, so yes.
______
Dennis

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I feel the same, though I suspect my father had more to do with it. Dad defined himself as an agnostic, but was careful to distinguish that from atheism. He didn't believe in God, but he also didn't believe there was no God. He had no evidence he could accept as valid one way of the other, and chose not to commit to one belief or the other. (He also read SF when he was younger, and there were old SF books lying around the house. I think the first SF I ever read was a copy of the classic Healy and McComas _Adventures in Time and Space_ anthology, which was the second SF collection to be issued as a hardcover book. I was young enough to not understand eveything I read in it, but the Sense of Wonder came through very clearly.)

The only science fiction I think my parents had was 1984. But my mother was a reader, so there were certainly plenty of books around. (My father didn't read much-- a fact I never noticed as a kid! But he was an engineer and taught me all sorts of useful stuff about science, as well as making sure I saw the classic SF films.) I found SF by being intrigued by two Heinlein books at a school book fair (Between Planets and Space Cadet, I think.) Prior to that I'd read Ben Bova's End of Exile, borrowed from a library while visiting a relative in a different state, but I don't think I really knew that there was a whole category of SF at that point. But the two Heinlein books really gave me a shove in the SF direction. I attribute my decision to major in physics in college largely to reading Heinlein. (And I blame Tolkein for my decision to switch to linguistics mid-stream. )

Looking back, I think Heinlein ended up providing the basis for some of those unspoken assumptions we've been talking about, but I have to say I've been deconstructing and in some cases discarding some of those over the years, too. I think that would please him.

[pshrynk]

Now here is the way to do politics!

http://seantevis.com/kansas/3000/run...ce-xkcd-style/

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Now here is the way to do politics!

http://seantevis.com/kansas/3000/run...ce-xkcd-style/

i would donate 8.34$ to him, but i'm not allowed.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Actually, I follow C.P. Snow's falsifacation concept. Take all the fact you know on a particular item. Make a theory that covers all the facts. Then try to find facts that disprove the theory. When you do, make a new theory covering the old fact and the new facts. Repeat the cycle.

That's basically what Sontag said. Science is the process of disproving theories.

You never find the absolute truth this way. You just narrow the range of answers the truth is in. But you don't allow yourself to fall in the logical trap of treating a false premise as a true premise that you can't/don't question...

Well, hopefully you don't. It depends upon how much emotional capital you have invested in your theory. It's easy to class the stuff that doesn't prove your case as "experimental error", and avoid questioning your theory.

(Modern physics is probably in that kind of trap today. They have set certain things as constants, beyond question. If they are less than completely correct, then they're going down a blind alley, with no way out, because the guild doesn't allow the constants to be questioned....and then wonder why there hasn't been a new Einenstein in over a 100 years.)

People question the constants all the time, and there as assortment of "What If" games speculating what the results would be if certain constants had a different value. Fred Pohl calls them "Gosh numbers", as in "Because that constant has the value it does, life can exist in our universe. Gosh!"

But they are considered constants because no one has come up with other values that can be plugged into the equations in their place and yield meaningful results. Like other theories, they've survived repeated attempts to question them.

My concern is different. Science is supposed to be the process of accumulating facts, and coming up with a theory to explain them. It can falter when you come up with a grand theory first, then look for facts to justify it.
______
Dennis

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by jamesdmanley

i heart buddhists =)

Ah, thanks. We all heart the rest of you guys too.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I should have said "myth beat out most others". Sorry.

Ralph ... I have absolutely no idea what you meant by that. "Myth beat out most others."

Huh???

Oh .... never mind .... I see what you were talking about .... the big bang.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

(Modern physics is probably in that kind of trap today. They have set certain things as constants, beyond question. If they are less than completely correct, then they're going down a blind alley, with no way out, because the guild doesn't allow the constants to be questioned....and then wonder why there hasn't been a new Einenstein in over a 100 years.)

Yes and no and it depends. If you look at the case of solar neutrino oscillation, you will see that the theorists took issue with the actual data for a long time... not believing in oscillation, because it didn't fit with the theorys then in use. However, after a lot of time and experimentation, it was shown that the data was correct ... it was the theories that were wrong.

When any scientist falls too much in love with a theory, they run the risk of ignoring the data in favor of the theory. That's a trap that all scientists should be very wary of.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by nekokami

The only science fiction I think my parents had was 1984. But my mother was a reader, so there were certainly plenty of books around. (My father didn't read much-- a fact I never noticed as a kid! But he was an engineer and taught me all sorts of useful stuff about science, as well as making sure I saw the classic SF films.) I found SF by being intrigued by two Heinlein books at a school book fair (Between Planets and Space Cadet, I think.) Prior to that I'd read Ben Bova's End of Exile, borrowed from a library while visiting a relative in a different state, but I don't think I really knew that there was a whole category of SF at that point. But the two Heinlein books really gave me a shove in the SF direction. I attribute my decision to major in physics in college largely to reading Heinlein. (And I blame Tolkein for my decision to switch to linguistics mid-stream. )

There were lots of other books around the house besides SF. By the time I was old enough to be aware of such things. Dad's reading had dwindled to several newspapers (though I did once see him reading a pornographic novel). Mom read voarciously, and read to me, which is how I suspect I picked up the habit.

Looking back, I think Heinlein ended up providing the basis for some of those unspoken assumptions we've been talking about, but I have to say I've been deconstructing and in some cases discarding some of those over the years, too. I think that would please him.

I concur. A lot of Heinlein's writing can be analyzed as him systematically analyzing the assumptions he was raised with and asking "Does this make sense?" I think he'd be pleased to see others doing so, and not fussy about whether their answers matched his. What is important is not the answer: it's that you ask the question.
______
Dennis

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

(Modern physics is probably in that kind of trap today. They have set certain things as constants, beyond question. If they are less than completely correct, then they're going down a blind alley, with no way out, because the guild doesn't allow the constants to be questioned....and then wonder why there hasn't been a new Einenstein in over a 100 years.)

Yeah. That would explain Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and... oops.

I'm sure there are individual physicists who get emotionally attached to pet theories, and other individual physicists who are out there looking for ways to thoroughly test their theories, to the breaking point and beyond. The ones I know personally seem to fall into the latter category.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Mom read voarciously, and read to me, which is how I suspect I picked up the habit.

My mom meant to read to me. But by the time she thought it was appropriate, she says I was already reading, faster than she could read out loud. She did read to my younger brother.

I read to my younger daughter quite a bit, and she reads a lot now. I didn't get the chance to read to my older daughter much. She came to us when she was 11-12, and I didn't speak (or read) Chinese well enough to read to her for about another year. (I very much doubt anyone in China read to her.) I did read to her for a while, and she enjoyed that, but grew out of it too quickly for it to really take. She's still working on being able to read for pleasure. She sees us doing it (my husband and I are both avid readers), and wants to join in, but is still struggling with being able to read comfortably. I do my part by trying to find books she'll particularly enjoy-- whether or not they would appeal to me.

Both of my kids did go through a phase of reading to me, which I also encouraged. The research I've reviewed definitely supports the premise that reading with children early on is one of the strongest predictors of later reading enjoyment and academic success (which I interpret here as "comfort with learning," even though I know they aren't quite the same thing.)

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I read to my younger daughter quite a bit, and she reads a lot now. I didn't get the chance to read to my older daughter much. She came to us when she was 11-12, and I didn't speak (or read) Chinese well enough to read to her for about another year. (I very much doubt anyone in China read to her.) I did read to her for a while, and she enjoyed that, but grew out of it too quickly for it to really take. She's still working on being able to read for pleasure. She sees us doing it (my husband and I are both avid readers), and wants to join in, but is still struggling with being able to read comfortably. I do my part by trying to find books she'll particularly enjoy-- whether or not they would appeal to me.

Finding books that will appeal to non-reading kids is always a challenge. A few years back, I was a panelist on an SF convention item intended to be a tribute to the late Octavia Butler (who I knew a bit, from having been involved in arrangement to bring her in as a GoH at that con in an earlier year.)

A woman I spoke to at the con taught English in a community college in a mill town, where her students were non-readers, who read books about the latest sports or entertainment figures if they read anything. For whatever reason, Octavia's books connected with those kids, and they read them deliberately, for fun. (The best guess we could make was that Olivia's works all tended to concern the outsider, and these kids probably saw themselves as outsiders, effectively frozen out of the larger society by their economic and social position.)

You can't predict what will connect.

Both of my kids did go through a phase of reading to me, which I also encouraged. The research I've reviewed definitely supports the premise that reading with children early on is one of the strongest predictors of later reading enjoyment and academic success (which I interpret here as "comfort with learning," even though I know they aren't quite the same thing.)

They aren't, but they're related. Academic success requires reading. If you are happy and comfortable doing so, you'll find it much easier than if reading is a chore you do because you must, and you are more likely to do well in your studies.
______
Dennis

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

That's basically what Sontag said. Science is the process of disproving theories.
Dennis

Actually, the originator of falsification as a scientific method was Professor Sir Karl Popper in 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' [Logic der Forschung, 1934].
It has been widely influential and C P Snow has written about how he found it a liberating way of doing science; freeing the scientist from the need to make a great breakthrough.
The point is to avoid the problem of induction. No number of scientific observations can confirm completely the hypothesis that 'All swans are white': there might always be a black one somewhere now, or one that is born tomorrow. But one single observation of a black swan is sufficient to falsify the statement. The role of science is to construct testable hypotheses and attempt to falsify them. Successful scientific theories have resisted attempts at falsification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

That's basically what Sontag said. Science is the process of disproving theories.


Well, hopefully you don't. It depends upon how much emotional capital you have invested in your theory. It's easy to class the stuff that doesn't prove your case as "experimental error", and avoid questioning your theory.


People question the constants all the time, and there as assortment of "What If" games speculating what the results would be if certain constants had a different value. Fred Pohl calls them "Gosh numbers", as in "Because that constant has the value it does, life can exist in our universe. Gosh!"

But they are considered constants because no one has come up with other values that can be plugged into the equations in their place and yield meaningful results. Like other theories, they've survived repeated attempts to question them.

My concern is different. Science is supposed to be the process of accumulating facts, and coming up with a theory to explain them. It can falter when you come up with a grand theory first, then look for facts to justify it.
______
Dennis

That indeed is a major problem with physics today. Everybody want to find the TOE (Theory Of Everything) even though, Kurt Godel proved that there can be no TOE, at least in a mathematical sense, in 1931. (Sorry, I don't know how to make a umlat o.) Since Godel was not a physicist, he doesn't count to physicists, and off they go...

But the trap I'm talking about is more subtle. I went to a lecture by the late John Wheeler, on nothing. Literally. It was about zero vacuum energy, and how the calculations defining it and the reality measured didn't match by an order of 58th power. n x 10 to the 58th. Which everyone else ignores, because the quantum energy model work elsewhere so well. He gave the lecture to try to interest young physicists in the fundamental study of what the structure of vacuum really is, and maybe explain why the huge gap exists. But if you really start trying to analyse a vacuum, you bump up against C . (speed of light in a vacuum). And that's an immutable constant in physics. It and Plank's constant are sancrosant. If you suggest otherwise, you're unceremonially pitched out the door. So nobody studies what the structure of a vacuum really is, and how C is derived from it... (And the trap closes).

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Actually, the originator of falsification as a scientific method was Professor Sir Karl Popper in 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' [Logic der Forschung, 1934].
It has been widely influential and C P Snow has written about how he found it a liberating way of doing science; freeing the scientist from the need to make a great breakthrough.
The point is to avoid the problem of induction. No number of scientific observations can confirm completely the hypothesis that 'All swans are white': there might always be a black one somewhere now, or one that is born tomorrow. But one single observation of a black swan is sufficient to falsify the statement. The role of science is to construct testable hypotheses and attempt to falsify them. Successful scientific theories have resisted attempts at falsification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Arrgghh.... My philosophy of science class 3 decades ago was about both to them, and I got my wires crossed. It was Popper, not Snow. Vast apologies...