Wednesday, February 13, 2008
At Last
After 12 years of paranoia and divisiveness, I now have some hope that the prevailing mood of this country will shift towards the positive.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Cold Fusion, Hot Tempers
M'kay, only a couple of weeks out of the box and I’ve hit a nerve with someone. It’s peculiar; I was sure that the first “you’re an idiot, Lamb” post would be from a Christian. Instead I have someone on the scientific side. (See comments from my previous post.)
Mr Rothwell, I do not need to do the things you suggest in order to have an opinion. I have absolutely no qualifications in the field, and hence no way of comprehending the slightest part of the evidence you proffer. However, to draw an analogy, I do not need to hold a doctorate in geology to be satisfied that the world was not created 6000 years ago, I don't need to be formally qualified in biology to know that the Garden of Eve is a fairytale, I don't need to have studied physics to know that gravity does not repel, and I don't need to be an astronomer to know that astrology is pure bunkum.
I am open to the possibility that cold fusion is an area of science that is simply in its infancy, and that it has yet to gain acceptance by the mainstream. The signs are against it, however. As an observer, it is clear to me that cold fusion research is a hotly-disputed area, defended by a comparatively small number of supporters and researchers, and dismissed as faulty science (at best) by the majority.
The majority could well be wrong. It would hardly be the first time in the annals of science. This, after all, is what science is about: finding out what rules the universe uses that aren’t immediately comprehensible or intuitive to us. While I’d love to have an argument about the actual physics point by point, I have to accept my evidence from those who are qualified to interpret the science into English for me, and the consensus view of the scientific community at this time is that cold fusion hasn’t been realised.
A telling point against the reality of cold fusion is that there is so much controversy about it, yet the mainstream scientific community remains unconvinced. Good science isn’t a matter of opinion. That is the point of the exercise, after all. If a hypothesis is being held up that the majority of the scientific community finds deep problems with because of bad or faulty experimental data, as is the case here, then my money’s on them.
“A negative view does not get a free pass.” Firstly, see my earlier analogy regarding creationism and astrology. Secondly, on the contrary, if a new hypothesis is put forward, it needs to demonstrate its validity. It is not sufficient to postulate, hold up some experimental data that can’t be verified, and claim validity. The Pons and Fleischman experiments were quickly found to be undemonstrative of the hypothesis of cold fusion. Quite simply, they were bad science. Perhaps well-meant and just misguided, but bad science nonetheless.
I’m not sure why Mr Rothwell is wasting his time here: it’s not me he needs to convince, it’s the scientific community as a whole. When that’s been achieved and cold fusion-generated power is a vital part of our energy grid (and incidentally solved the global warming crisis), he and any of his colleagues are welcome to guffaw and chant "I told you so!" until they crap their pants from sheer hilarity. For now, I'd suggest they go do something constructive, rather than attack a bystander who is not even part of the debate, but who just happened to express a view contrary to their own.
Mr Rothwell, I do not need to do the things you suggest in order to have an opinion. I have absolutely no qualifications in the field, and hence no way of comprehending the slightest part of the evidence you proffer. However, to draw an analogy, I do not need to hold a doctorate in geology to be satisfied that the world was not created 6000 years ago, I don't need to be formally qualified in biology to know that the Garden of Eve is a fairytale, I don't need to have studied physics to know that gravity does not repel, and I don't need to be an astronomer to know that astrology is pure bunkum.
I am open to the possibility that cold fusion is an area of science that is simply in its infancy, and that it has yet to gain acceptance by the mainstream. The signs are against it, however. As an observer, it is clear to me that cold fusion research is a hotly-disputed area, defended by a comparatively small number of supporters and researchers, and dismissed as faulty science (at best) by the majority.
The majority could well be wrong. It would hardly be the first time in the annals of science. This, after all, is what science is about: finding out what rules the universe uses that aren’t immediately comprehensible or intuitive to us. While I’d love to have an argument about the actual physics point by point, I have to accept my evidence from those who are qualified to interpret the science into English for me, and the consensus view of the scientific community at this time is that cold fusion hasn’t been realised.
A telling point against the reality of cold fusion is that there is so much controversy about it, yet the mainstream scientific community remains unconvinced. Good science isn’t a matter of opinion. That is the point of the exercise, after all. If a hypothesis is being held up that the majority of the scientific community finds deep problems with because of bad or faulty experimental data, as is the case here, then my money’s on them.
“A negative view does not get a free pass.” Firstly, see my earlier analogy regarding creationism and astrology. Secondly, on the contrary, if a new hypothesis is put forward, it needs to demonstrate its validity. It is not sufficient to postulate, hold up some experimental data that can’t be verified, and claim validity. The Pons and Fleischman experiments were quickly found to be undemonstrative of the hypothesis of cold fusion. Quite simply, they were bad science. Perhaps well-meant and just misguided, but bad science nonetheless.
I’m not sure why Mr Rothwell is wasting his time here: it’s not me he needs to convince, it’s the scientific community as a whole. When that’s been achieved and cold fusion-generated power is a vital part of our energy grid (and incidentally solved the global warming crisis), he and any of his colleagues are welcome to guffaw and chant "I told you so!" until they crap their pants from sheer hilarity. For now, I'd suggest they go do something constructive, rather than attack a bystander who is not even part of the debate, but who just happened to express a view contrary to their own.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Sharp Pointy Things
You may know that I’ve been having neck, headache, and what I like to call “stabby stabby head ow crap” pain for a few months now. I seem to have some soft tissue or muscle damage to my neck which is causing the other symptoms. I’ve been using over-the-counter ibuprofen, codeine and paracetamol (in varying combinations) to control the pain. The pain isn’t crippling; most of the time it’d be a 1 or 2 out of 10, but when the stabby-stabby head pains come in it’s really… um, painful.
I’ve been concerned about taking the daily limit of these over-the-counter meds for so long, so have resorted to patronizing a well-intentioned charlatan, aka the “alternative medicine” species of witchdoctor. Specifically, an acupuncturist.
I’m quite, quite skeptical about “alternative” medicine. Conventional medicine is science-based; i.e. find what works, test the results, get other qualified people to independently verify your findings, and you have a scientific result. Drug X works 80% of the time? Fine, that’s a pretty good result and worth the time to look at it further. Has that result been repeated in other studies by other people? If not, there’s a fairly big question mark over it. If the result cannot be verified by other independent researchers achieving the same result, it becomes non-science; it’s been demonstrated to be unproven and unrepeatable, as the “cold fusion” experiments of a few years ago became, because they could not be repeated by other researchers.
(This, by the way, is why we see so many conflicting media articles claiming that everything from coffee to caltrops will kill you stone dead yesterday; they’re reporting one, repeat one, published study which has not yet, and may well never be, independently verified by other researchers, and thus, is not as yet established science. This is also why scientists accept as fact Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Evolution. “Theory” in scientific parlance is a statement, or set of statements, supported by a huge body of good, solid empirical evidence from numbers of people working wholly independently of each other, and that predict what, given a particular set of circumstances, will occur next. Check Link. The Theory of Evolution is actually a tested, sound, and empirically verifiable model that explains and predicts genetic drift and mutation.)
Having the needles inserted into my feet, hands, eyebrow and scalp didn’t hurt; they’re so fine that unless you knew it was happening, you wouldn’t really notice. Cue some soft Chinese music and my friendly witchdoctor (quite a nice guy, and I’m not just saying so because he’s heavily into martial arts and could whip my pudgy self without breaking a sweat) departed into the next room to make some phone calls. He’s trying to recruit a front-desk person but doesn’t have one just now.
I finished the session without the headache that had plagued me all day, but no noticeable difference in my neck, which is the source of my woes. I’ve had better results from using a heat pack, and that’s infinitely preferable to shelling out a hundred bucks for some guy to stick needles into me. Oh, and I’m definitely not taking the Chinese herbs he gave me until I can check them out and get some proper medical advice. “It’s okay, they’re herbal.” Yeah, and so is quinine, mescaline and heroin.
Did someone say “trepanation”? No, I’m not that desperate.
I’ve been concerned about taking the daily limit of these over-the-counter meds for so long, so have resorted to patronizing a well-intentioned charlatan, aka the “alternative medicine” species of witchdoctor. Specifically, an acupuncturist.
I’m quite, quite skeptical about “alternative” medicine. Conventional medicine is science-based; i.e. find what works, test the results, get other qualified people to independently verify your findings, and you have a scientific result. Drug X works 80% of the time? Fine, that’s a pretty good result and worth the time to look at it further. Has that result been repeated in other studies by other people? If not, there’s a fairly big question mark over it. If the result cannot be verified by other independent researchers achieving the same result, it becomes non-science; it’s been demonstrated to be unproven and unrepeatable, as the “cold fusion” experiments of a few years ago became, because they could not be repeated by other researchers.
(This, by the way, is why we see so many conflicting media articles claiming that everything from coffee to caltrops will kill you stone dead yesterday; they’re reporting one, repeat one, published study which has not yet, and may well never be, independently verified by other researchers, and thus, is not as yet established science. This is also why scientists accept as fact Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and the Theory of Evolution. “Theory” in scientific parlance is a statement, or set of statements, supported by a huge body of good, solid empirical evidence from numbers of people working wholly independently of each other, and that predict what, given a particular set of circumstances, will occur next. Check Link. The Theory of Evolution is actually a tested, sound, and empirically verifiable model that explains and predicts genetic drift and mutation.)
Having the needles inserted into my feet, hands, eyebrow and scalp didn’t hurt; they’re so fine that unless you knew it was happening, you wouldn’t really notice. Cue some soft Chinese music and my friendly witchdoctor (quite a nice guy, and I’m not just saying so because he’s heavily into martial arts and could whip my pudgy self without breaking a sweat) departed into the next room to make some phone calls. He’s trying to recruit a front-desk person but doesn’t have one just now.
I finished the session without the headache that had plagued me all day, but no noticeable difference in my neck, which is the source of my woes. I’ve had better results from using a heat pack, and that’s infinitely preferable to shelling out a hundred bucks for some guy to stick needles into me. Oh, and I’m definitely not taking the Chinese herbs he gave me until I can check them out and get some proper medical advice. “It’s okay, they’re herbal.” Yeah, and so is quinine, mescaline and heroin.
Did someone say “trepanation”? No, I’m not that desperate.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Value-Adding
An essay from Kevin Kelly on what will add value for the consumer when limitless copies of a product are freely available on the 'net. I've been thinking along some similar lines, but hadn't devoted the braintime to flesh it out. I'm glad he's done it. The bad news is that advertising will become even more prevalent. Bleh.
Link
Link
What To Do With Bad Scripture?
It’s sometimes argued by Christians that the Koran commands Muslims to kill “the infidel”, including Christians, and that this is therefore evidence of the evil of that religion.
I’ve been unable to find that exact quote in the Koran. I can find snippets that certainly would support a view that the Koran encourages killing non-believers. I can also find Muslim websites explaining why the Koran does not encourage killing non-believers. Unsurprisingly, there’s a fair bit of logical squirming on those sites to justify what seems to be contradictory to the words of the Koran, but at least they make the very clear point that the Koran needs to be interpreted according to the societal context in which it was written, and they disown the inherited xenophobia.
Christians have exactly the same problem: much of the Bible advocates murder, slavery, rape, and may other acts abhorred by a modern moral code, and often these acts are advocated for the flimsiest of pretexts. A modern Christian will conduct some amazing theological feats of acrobatics to get around this. The most common is that the O.T. (in which most of these acts of barbarism are given holy sanction) was in some fashion replaced with the coming of Jesus and the New Testament’s moral code. This is an argument that deserves time and space for a full rebuttal, which I shan’t attempt here except to note that it’s extraordinary for any religion – including Islam – to publically state simultaneously that its holy book is the one, true, unadulterated Word of God, and every line and word in it is true and sacred, and in the next breath deny the relevance of three-quarters of it – yet still cherry-pick from it to justify anti-homosexuality, bigotry, and xenophobia. Evidently it is too much to expect consistency and rationality in religion.
I initiated this post with the object of underscoring that both Islam and Christianity have the problem of painting their creed as embracing and loving when their holy scriptures contain much that is the exact opposite. In light of the statements of both sets of scriptures, it is actually much to the credit of both Christianity and Islam as wholes that the vast majority of practitioners of both religions are peaceful, loving people who are guilty, at worst, of nothing more than being as prone to emotional outbursts as the rest of us. Please note that I am deliberately excluding such extremists as the Westboro Baptist Church or Al’Qaida from that statement, but those groups have as much relation to their “mother” religion as I do to a monkey – long ago there was a common ancestor, but that’s about it.
So in terms of holy exhortations to annihilate the non-believer, the score is about level. Please don’t use quotes from the other religion’s holy book to illustrate why the other, be they Christian or Muslim, are nasty, terrible people who secretly want to kill you the moment they can get away with it. The same argument can be used against you, and it is no more true of a typical Christian than of a typical Muslim.
If you truly wish to demonstrate the superiority of your faith, then it’s simple: take a lesson from the Buddhists and Taoists, take a deep breath, and stop espousing racism, xenophobia, and prejudice, for there is nothing that brings a religion more into disrepute than messages of hate.
Blind attacks on other religions without having the grace to acknowledge the same issues with your own comes a close second, however.
I’ve been unable to find that exact quote in the Koran. I can find snippets that certainly would support a view that the Koran encourages killing non-believers. I can also find Muslim websites explaining why the Koran does not encourage killing non-believers. Unsurprisingly, there’s a fair bit of logical squirming on those sites to justify what seems to be contradictory to the words of the Koran, but at least they make the very clear point that the Koran needs to be interpreted according to the societal context in which it was written, and they disown the inherited xenophobia.
Christians have exactly the same problem: much of the Bible advocates murder, slavery, rape, and may other acts abhorred by a modern moral code, and often these acts are advocated for the flimsiest of pretexts. A modern Christian will conduct some amazing theological feats of acrobatics to get around this. The most common is that the O.T. (in which most of these acts of barbarism are given holy sanction) was in some fashion replaced with the coming of Jesus and the New Testament’s moral code. This is an argument that deserves time and space for a full rebuttal, which I shan’t attempt here except to note that it’s extraordinary for any religion – including Islam – to publically state simultaneously that its holy book is the one, true, unadulterated Word of God, and every line and word in it is true and sacred, and in the next breath deny the relevance of three-quarters of it – yet still cherry-pick from it to justify anti-homosexuality, bigotry, and xenophobia. Evidently it is too much to expect consistency and rationality in religion.
I initiated this post with the object of underscoring that both Islam and Christianity have the problem of painting their creed as embracing and loving when their holy scriptures contain much that is the exact opposite. In light of the statements of both sets of scriptures, it is actually much to the credit of both Christianity and Islam as wholes that the vast majority of practitioners of both religions are peaceful, loving people who are guilty, at worst, of nothing more than being as prone to emotional outbursts as the rest of us. Please note that I am deliberately excluding such extremists as the Westboro Baptist Church or Al’Qaida from that statement, but those groups have as much relation to their “mother” religion as I do to a monkey – long ago there was a common ancestor, but that’s about it.
So in terms of holy exhortations to annihilate the non-believer, the score is about level. Please don’t use quotes from the other religion’s holy book to illustrate why the other, be they Christian or Muslim, are nasty, terrible people who secretly want to kill you the moment they can get away with it. The same argument can be used against you, and it is no more true of a typical Christian than of a typical Muslim.
If you truly wish to demonstrate the superiority of your faith, then it’s simple: take a lesson from the Buddhists and Taoists, take a deep breath, and stop espousing racism, xenophobia, and prejudice, for there is nothing that brings a religion more into disrepute than messages of hate.
Blind attacks on other religions without having the grace to acknowledge the same issues with your own comes a close second, however.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Would You Like a Brain With That?
A friend is often driven to work by her husband, and on the way they go through the drive-through at the nearby McDonalds to get a couple of coffees. The order is always for “two cappuccinos, one with one sugar”. Even a McD employee should be able to handle that without trouble, right?
At the pickup window they always have to ask “which one has the sugar?” Usually, no problem. “Oh, it’s that one.” Fine, deal closed.
This morning:
“Which one has the sugar?”
[Panicked] “I didn’t know which one to put it in!”
Oh. My. God.
At the pickup window they always have to ask “which one has the sugar?” Usually, no problem. “Oh, it’s that one.” Fine, deal closed.
This morning:
“Which one has the sugar?”
[Panicked] “I didn’t know which one to put it in!”
Oh. My. God.
Rules for Living
From the Immaculate Heart College Art Department:
1. Find a place you trust and then try trusting it for a while.
2. General duties of a student: pull everything out of your teacher, pull everything out of your fellow students.
3. General duties of a teacher: pull everything out of your students.
4. Consider everything an experiment.
5. Be self-disciplined. This means finding someone wise or smart and choosing to follow them. To be disciplined is to follow in a good way. To be self-disciplined is to follow in a better way.
6. Nothing is a mistake. There is no win and no fail. There is only make.
7. The only rule is work. If you work it will lead to something. It’s the people who do all of the work all the time who eventually catch on to things.
8. Don’t try to create and analyse at the same time. They’re different processes.
9. Be happy whenever you can manage it. Enjoy yourself. It’s lighter than you think.
10. “We’re breaking all of the rules. Even our own rules. And how do we do that? By leaving plenty of room for X quantities.” - John Cage.
1. Find a place you trust and then try trusting it for a while.
2. General duties of a student: pull everything out of your teacher, pull everything out of your fellow students.
3. General duties of a teacher: pull everything out of your students.
4. Consider everything an experiment.
5. Be self-disciplined. This means finding someone wise or smart and choosing to follow them. To be disciplined is to follow in a good way. To be self-disciplined is to follow in a better way.
6. Nothing is a mistake. There is no win and no fail. There is only make.
7. The only rule is work. If you work it will lead to something. It’s the people who do all of the work all the time who eventually catch on to things.
8. Don’t try to create and analyse at the same time. They’re different processes.
9. Be happy whenever you can manage it. Enjoy yourself. It’s lighter than you think.
10. “We’re breaking all of the rules. Even our own rules. And how do we do that? By leaving plenty of room for X quantities.” - John Cage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
