Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Underground Experiment Confirms Fusion Powers the Sun

dnavid Re:Thought that was obvious... ? (140 comments)

Of course deductions carry scientific weight, but they don't serve as meaningful evidence and instead as the basis of a hypothesis.

Genuinely logical deductions carry equal or greater weight as experiments. Logical deduction is part of the process of scientific analysis. Logical deduction is in fact the glue that connects otherwise disconnected scientific theories. Without logical deduction, scientific theories would be disconnected semantic dust.

Without the rules of math and logic, you can't do scientific analysis. Experiments are the data, logic and math are the engine. Its logic that tells us if the Earth is spherical its not cubical. No one does experiments to prove the Earth is not every other possible shape. Its logic that tells us that if the Earth has one shape, it cannot have another. No experiments are necessary. No one has tried to experimentally confirm the Earth is not a dodecahedron, or a torus, because those are logical impossibilities.

You are probably confusing genuine deductive logic for what people sometimes call deductions but are actually inductions or "common sense." Those typically fail often. But they are not true logical deductions. "Holmesian deduction" is not generally real logical deduction. But when you say science uses experiments to support a conclusion, on what basis do you declare those experiments support anything? Why does seeing X support Y? Without logical deduction, you can't get from here to there. Experiments don't tell you that X supports Y, experiments generate the X. Logical deduction connects X to Y. It is in fact two logical deductions that underpin two of the foundations of Science. If an assertion always leads to X, and an experiment demonstrates that X is false, then the original assertion cannot be entirely true. That's the principle of falsification. Conversely, if an assertion predicts a set of circumstances S, and the set S is distinct from all other similar assertions, then if experiments confirm all the elements of S, the probability that the original assertion is true increases with the size of S. That's the principle of confirmation. Try and do Science without variations of those deductions.

yesterday
top

Underground Experiment Confirms Fusion Powers the Sun

dnavid Re:And there is the matter of (140 comments)

But, again, neutrino oscillation can't nullify these results, because oscillation only makes neutrinos harder to detect (by changing their "flavor"). It doesn't create neutrino signals where none originally existed (at least not in this sense).

Sure it can: By "oscillating" other flavors of neutrino into the type they're looking for, when they weren't there in the first place (or not in sufficient number).

They'll need to look at the ratio of the various types and back-calculate to eliminate other possible signals, or combinations of them, to see if there is a way for other (possibly unexpected) reactions to produce a signal that looks like the ones expected and/or observed.

Yes and no. Yes, its possible for neutrino oscillation to take a different flavor neutrino than expected and oscillate its type to become one you were expecting. But neutrino oscillation doesn't alter energy. As a practical matter, I don't believe there exists a particle interaction that generates large amounts of muon or tau neutrinos at coincidentally the same energy as the proton-proton generated electron neutrino.

yesterday
top

Underground Experiment Confirms Fusion Powers the Sun

dnavid Re:And there is the matter of (140 comments)

And there is the matter of neutrino oscillation, which could in itself nullify these results.

Unlikely, because research has both confirmed the process of neutrino oscillation and allowed observers to account for the oscillation in neutrino measurements. Also, neutrino oscillation can only reduce the number of neutrinos you observe (relative to the amount you think you should), so neutrino oscillation cannot in any way erase a signal, it can only make a signal harder to detect. The problem with the neutrinos observed in the article in question is that they are the p-p neutrinos which have relatively low energy; about half as much as the next strongest neutrino type thought to come from solar fusion processes and significantly weaker than the neutrinos we were first observing when the solar neutrino deficit now attributable to neutrino oscillation was first discovered. That's what made them difficult to detect until recently.

But, again, neutrino oscillation can't nullify these results, because oscillation only makes neutrinos harder to detect (by changing their "flavor"). It doesn't create neutrino signals where none originally existed (at least not in this sense).

2 days ago
top

Underground Experiment Confirms Fusion Powers the Sun

dnavid Re:That's not how science works (140 comments)

Nothing has been proven. Scientists have long had a theory about how the Sun powers itself. That theory can be used to make predictions, such as the type of neutrinos that we should expect to see emanating from the Sun. An experiment was devised to test such a prediction, the hypothesis being that this type of neutrinos is being produced and thus will be detected. Having performed the experiment, we see that the results match what we expected, validating the hypothesis. This is important and significant, and it provides further evidence suggesting the widely accepted theory is accurate, but it does not -- nor can it -- constitute a proof.

Science is not about proof in the mathematical sense. Science is about amassing confirmation. To say something doesn't prove a theory in Science is like saying something doesn't prove a poem. Scientific proof is about sufficient confirmation of a theory as to make it the most useful and reasonable explanation for a set of observations.

In the case of solar fusion, the basic *idea* that the Sun is powered by fusion processes is sufficiently well demonstrated that its essentially a scientific fact: its "proven" as far as Science is concerned. But the precise mechanisms for that fusion and the precise way those processes generate energy is not yet perfectly understood. Without some means of direct observation of the core, it would be difficult to be certain that of all the possible fusion paths the current best candidate is actually happening would be difficult to determine in indirect ways. Solar neutrino observations give a way to perform direct observations of processes happening in the core, and that direct observation can significantly strengthen our confidence in the specific processes that are thought to happen in the core.

Science is always refining what we know, and not just expanding what we know. We can know, to within the limits of scientific certainty, that fusion generates the heat at the Sun's core without knowing for certain the precise particle interactions that occur as part of that process. Its also important to note that fusion is just the parent process believed to function in the core, and there are several different kinds of fusion (different interactions) that can and probably do generate heat in the core, and other processes also contribute that are secondary to fusion. Its a complex process. For example, the standard proton-proton cycle contains steps that generate gamma rays from fusing hydrogen and deuterium, gamma rays from annihilating electrons and positrons, decomposition (fission) of beryllium into lithium, fusion of beryllium into boron, and lots of other secondary reactions. So observations that can confirm both the individual reactions and their rough relative frequency can confirm the specifics of the theory while no on seriously thinks they would challenge the overall theory of nuclear fusion powering the Sun.

2 days ago
top

Underground Experiment Confirms Fusion Powers the Sun

dnavid Re:Thought that was obvious... ? (140 comments)

Yeah, but we didn't need to detect proton-proton neutrinos to know that fusion powers the sun, because we have myriad other indicators (spectrum, energy output, solar wind) that agree with the current theory. The fact that we have now seen proton-proton neutrinos is cool as hell, but this will never be "proven" significantly more than it currently is, unless science changes drastically to allow for deductive facts. Science allows for an inductive form of "proof" (something being so probable it will likely never be demonstrated wrong) that's less rigorous than the logical kind, and fusion in the Sun has long been under that label. For analogy, we didn't have to wait until Sputnik had orbited Earth to know that Earth was round (since that was known to academics 2000 years earlier), but it certainly made people feel more confident in that fact when it happened.

Science allows for deductive facts to carry scientific weight. I have no idea why you would think it does not.

Science uses both deduction and induction, because while induction is not as absolutely rigorous as deduction, its not possible to deduce the entire cosmos from first principles. One of the axioms of Science is that the universe is not completely random and operates on the basis of rules that govern its behavior, and those rules can be discovered through observation. Universal gravitation is an induction, because there's no way to deduce that gravity operates in the same way everywhere. The presumption is that its highly unlikely that gravity operates the same way in every place we directly measure it, and also operates in a consistent way in every place we can indirectly measure it, but somehow operates differently in every place we just happened to not directly or indirectly observe it.

All logical deduction must start with fixed axioms, and depending on what physical scientific laws you consider strong enough to be axiomatic, you can deduce a lot which is considered scientifically rigorous. For example, when we observe photons striking a detector, we *deduce* they were emitted from somewhere along the path the photon struck the detector. You could argue that's just an induction; that we're only guessing because that's how we've observed photons to behave in the past, but at some point that's sophistry, because it rejects the notion that Scientific reasoning can contain any axioms. Without some reasonable starting point - like being able to trust observations at all - you can't do Science at all.

Also, I doubt there exists any significant number of people who were suddenly more confident the Earth is an oblate spheroid after the launch of Sputnik than before. Nor am I sure how the launch of Sputnik demonstrates the Earth is approximately spherical better than all other demonstrations of that fact prior to Sputnik. Sputnik did not itself observe the Earth, and observers of Sputnik did not get significantly more information from Sputnik in a scientific sense that other observations of Earth's curvature prior to that point.

2 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

dnavid Re:Simple English Wikipedia will come in handy (476 comments)

From the article:

The UN panel since September has published three separate reports into the physical science of global warming, its impacts, and ways to fight it. The study leaked yesterday, called the “Synthesis Report” intends to pick out the most important findings and present them in a way that lawmakers can easily understand. (Emphasis mine)

Why do I have a feeling the report to the politicians will have to read a lot like the Simple English Wikipedia, to the point where it might not be a bad idea to get the writers for that on it.

I'm not convinced that even the "Drunk History" version would make a significant impact on politicians.

2 days ago
top

Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

dnavid Re:multi-drive RV tolerance?? (314 comments)

One of the SAN vendors we met with a while back was arranging their drives within each drawer in such a way that it supposedly minimized/neutralized the RV effect.

Its very difficult to completely remove the effect; even vibrations that don't seem particularly noteworthy or even noticeable by humans could be enough to throw a drive head a few dozen nanometers (and that's sometimes all it takes) in the wrong direction and reduce the read signal enough to cause a read/write retry. Chassis design can greatly help, but cannot always completely eliminate the problem. Drives that have a higher tolerance for those vibrations can still perform better even in properly dampened chassis.

2 days ago
top

Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

dnavid Re:Switched double speed half capacity, realistic? (314 comments)

Welp, seems my post was a bit misunderstood. I was actually thinking transfer rates. Say you have an 8TB drive with 6 platters - the option could be to pair up the platters and write alternate bytes to each, doubling sustained read and write.

It could also be an option to turn on when you start using the drive, and if it gets half-filled up, it should be possible to decouple them and get the full size.

The tendency for many consumers is to have an SSD boot drive and a platter storage drive - but that platter drive takes some time to fill up, why not double speed it until it's half full?

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the problem is that the hard drive head assembly moves as a single unit, which means all of the heads for all the platters must move in unison. But the precision required to move the heads to the precise spot on the tracks where the data is recorded is such that it would be too difficult to design the heads in such a way that when one was over its track, all of the others would be *guaranteed* to be over their tracks on their respective platters. To do this you'd need to have the heads each on their own arms with their own voice coils to keep them all on track simultaneously. But that would add enough cost to the drive, it would be cheaper to just buy two half-capacity drives and stripe them yourself.

Basically, I think its possible, but not economically logical to make hard drives in a way that would allow for this kind of in-box striping. That's what RAID is for.

2 days ago
top

Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

dnavid Re:multi-drive RV tolerance?? (314 comments)

Rotational Vibration (RV) is the vibration the drive experiences from the platters rotating at high speed. When you put a bunch of drives in a cage, some interesting harmonics build up which can shorten the life span of the drives further. Enterprise grade hard drives are built to better withstand these vibrations, lessening the chance of failure. (At least that is what their literature says -- personally I'd mount the drives using grommets or something like what Rackspace uses [rubber bands I think?]).

Actually, multi-drive rotational vibration tolerance is a design feature whereby the drive is designed to be capable of withstanding and tolerating induced rotational vibrations from outside the drive. Enterprise drives are normally designed to minimize the vibrations they generate and induce into their surrounding chassis. But on top of that, being able to dampen vibrations induced from the outside and function optimally can significantly improve the performance of the drives. In enterprise environments where performance is important, disk drives can theoretically tolerate a lot of vibrations by simply temporarily ceasing reads and writes until their read/write heads get back into alignment. But those pauses force the drive to wait for at least a full rotation before they can try again to read the same blocks. If this happens frequently the performance of the drive can be significantly degraded even if the drive lifetime isn't impacted. Multi-drive RV tolerance is not just about surviving the vibrations, its also about being able to function optimally without having to degrade performance when in a (relatively) high vibration environment, as is often the case in large high-density drive enclosures.

Without this feature, you can sometimes find your 4000 IOPS spindle array delivering only 2000 IOPS at random times, and not know why.

2 days ago
top

Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

dnavid Re:Global Warming? (273 comments)

interesting.... however the problem lies in the fact thats it is higher than they thought, meaning it COULD still be worse than they thought, meaning AGW MAY NOT be the doom and gloom some make it out to be. this little bit of information is not a gotcha moment, but it leads credence to the idea that we still have no idea

Scientists discover something new, which suggests they were wrong before, which means they could be completely wrong about everything. Just like when scientists discovered a new species of butterfly, proving we still have no idea if life exists on Earth.

Only for the subject of global warming can scientists discover a potentially new way in which climate change could accelerate over time due to man induced warming of the deep oceans, and that is used as evidence that maybe its not happening at all.

3 days ago
top

Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

dnavid Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (443 comments)

In the end, what this comes down to is whether we, as a society, should leave these kinds of decisions to government selected experts. You may be of the opinion that we should. But if you accuse people who disagree with you of being unscientific or corrupt, you have crossed a line.

I would also be perfectly happy with picking climatologists at random. The result would be about the same as picking physicists at random to decide whether gravity officially exists.

3 days ago
top

Google Wants To Test Driverless Cars In a Simulation

dnavid Re:so what is the problem? (172 comments)

I'd flip it around. An automated car should be required to pass both a road test and a bevvy of simulated scenarios.

Certainly. But the question was whether automated testing should be considered sufficient. I think I would do my own flip-around. I think if Google wants to change the California law that requires road testing to make it so that simulation testing is sufficient, then I think Google should donate the simulator, and if an automated car passes the simulation but fails in the real world in a way real world testing would have uncovered but the simulator did not, Google should be held liable for all damages associated with that failure. Under that circumstance, I would be inclined to trust that Google's simulators are a sufficient match to reality to consider substituting simulation testing for road testing.

If Google doesn't want to subject itself to that criteria, then that's a tacit admission the simulation is not guaranteed to catch all the problems real world testing can catch, and I would consider their proposal to be invalid on its face.

about a week ago
top

"MythBusters" Drops Kari Byron, Grant Imahara, Tory Belleci

dnavid Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept (359 comments)

Real scientists don't need to perform these shitty expriment and can solve the problem with basic thinking and most of the time basic arithmetic.

For some definition of "real." Some pretty far-out definition.

about a week ago
top

Google Wants To Test Driverless Cars In a Simulation

dnavid Re:so what is the problem? (172 comments)

Test in the fscking simulation and then test on the street. Win-win.

You don't need to ask for permission to test your car with simulations. You only have to ask for permission to replace real world testing with simulations. Personally, I'm not fond of replacing real world testing completely with simulations. The problem is that the point of testing software is to make sure the programmers have properly dealt with as many possible real world situations, and to reduce the likelihood the programmers haven't ignored an unexpected circumstance. Simulations can only test for what the simulation programmers have accounted for. Its substituting the system programmers' judgment for the simulation programmers' judgment. Its useful, but in my opinion insufficient.

about a week ago
top

33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater

dnavid Re:The real crime here (459 comments)

And what benefit does jail time give the public? Jail time for non-violent offenders is the stupidest, most useless thing we could do with these people. There are all sorts of public services that are in dire need of manpower. A shit ton of community service as a punishment is far far far more useful than just incarcerating people. I find it astonishing how primitive and archaic peoples' thinking is when it comes to punishments for crimes. Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.

So if I steal a hundred million dollars, the absolute worst case punishment I could receive in Anonymous Coward-ville is a billion years of community service? That's a better risk/reward ratio than any business opportunity I've ever been presented with. I'm in.

about a week ago
top

When Customer Dissatisfaction Is a Tech Business Model

dnavid Re:Free market (257 comments)

Don't worry guys, the free market fairy will take care of it.

The free market has taken care of it. Good customer service is expensive. Consumers have demonstrated that they are unwilling to pay additional money for good customer service. Successful companies have aborted customer service to keep prices low.

Something to keep in mind whenever someone says "the free market will take care of it." The free market doesn't solve problems. It "takes care of them."

about a week ago
top

Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

dnavid Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (443 comments)

I think a lot of people, even some actual scientists, do not understand the role of skepticism in Science. There's a difference between scientific skepticism and peanut gallery skepticism. Scientific skepticism is healthy.

Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions, often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.

I believe climatologists have a better understanding of economics than economists or politicians have of climatology.

I think the people best in a position to think about this problem rationally tend to be actuaries; insurance professionals. Insurance professionals have to apply imperfect knowledge and incomplete risk models and make economic decisions within that environment all the time. They don't always get it right, but moreso than most they tend to balance the two on at least large scales on some rational basis. Insurance companies tend to believe that the odds of economic damage due to climate change are high enough to be financially material. In other words they are tending to bet it is happening, will get worse, and they have to budget for that eventuality.

That doesn't mean they are right or that Scientific judgment should rest with actuaries. It simply means if the argument is that unless Scientists are 100% certain, and even if they are, they shouldn't be telling people how to spend their money, that's actually true to an extent. But they do have the right to advocate no different than anyone else does, and that advocacy tends to be based on something other than political ideology. And the actual people whose jobs it is to actually try to understand the risks on a technical level and also the economics on a macro level aren't siding with the skeptics. So the skeptics can't argue that presuming climatologists are correct is not economically practical to people who have to think about money. Scientific consensus has been pretty broad for quite some time, but in the last five years I've seen a shift even in areas like the broader business community and the military that ignoring the real risks that global climate change will have significant negative impacts is foolhardy. They aren't betting it *will* happen, they are doing what risk managers do: they have assessed the risk that the scientists are *close enough* to being right that its worth acting on that risk.

So yeah, scientists should do Science and economists should do Economics, but what the rest of the world should be doing is risk management. By the time 100% certainty for all aspects of all elements of climatology arrives, it will be History. But its way past the point where practical people with unbiased objective outlooks should be considering risk management: reducing the risks where possible and planning for the risks where necessary. And even the cold blood bean counters are starting to do that in earnest now.

about a week ago
top

Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

dnavid Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (443 comments)

Regardless of the role of skepticism, everybody seems to be overlooking one key point: If this paper were to turn out to be correct, current climate models are useless and will need to be completely reworked. Well, maybe not completely. Some more than others. But it would contradict some of the fundamental assumptions of most of those models.

Actually, that's not true, or at least its an exaggeration. If this paper is correct, what it actually says is that most of the models out there may have been basically correct, but missing an important parameter: an additional heat sequester due to deep ocean currents. No model is perfect, and when modelling a system as large and complex as the Earth, you have to work hard to simplify what you can to make the model work at all, while not oversimplifying to the point of eliminating the validity of the model's results. And most climatologists have known for a long time that the largest blind spot in most climate models is the Earth's oceans. That's why this sort of research even happens in the first place.

about a week ago
top

Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

dnavid Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (443 comments)

A lot of people don't the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. These climate change models are just hypothesis in software form. We won't able to run experiments for these hypothesis in our lifetimes, and in turn they will never reach the level of a scientific theory in our lifetime.

There's an oversimplified version of the Scientific Method that says we start with a scientific hypothesis, which is a conjecture or a guess, then we run an experiment, the experiment either contradicts the hypothesis or confirms it, and after X number of confirming experiments the hypothesis becomes a Theory. In practice, its more complicated than that and the transition from a conjecture to a theory is not binary. The theory of anthropomorphic global climate change is a large set of interlocking and overlapping smaller theories combined. For example, the theory of the greenhouse effect is strongly confirmed: different gasses in the atmosphere affect the absorption and radiation of infrared radiation in different ways, affecting the amount of net heat energy trapped on the surface of the Earth and lost to space. That's pretty settled. We can't, of course, experiment with thousands of different planet's atmospheres to test that theory in the simplified way, but we can do experiments on smaller scales and correlate them with Earth's atmosphere and the atmospheric conditions of other planets we can observe.

We know the first order effect of increased CO2: it tends to trap more heat energy. But that doesn't automatically mean global temperatures have to rise. That's the natural presumption, but Earth's surface is a complex environment. More heat energy could cause more clouds to form, causing a negative feedback effect which tends to slow or halt increased temperatures by blocking radiation from reaching the surface. The oceans have a huge impact on energy distribution on the surface of the Earth, and can sequester heat energy for a very long time in principle.

However, the net result of all of these various conjectures and theories in the aggregate is that the most logical explanation for the observed increase in global surface temperatures over time is the increase in CO2 caused primarily by human activity. That statement is less a theory, and more of an explanation for all the other smaller theories that individually explain small parts of the whole.

The transition from scientific hypothesis or conjecture rests not just with how many experimental wins the conjecture accumulates, but also the degree to which the conjecture accurately makes useful predictions and the degree to which it synergizes and accommodates other more well confirmed theories. We're never going to be able to experiment with other universes in all likelihood, but that doesn't mean the Big Bang will always be a scientific conjecture. Philosophers might make that claim, but the Big Bang is considered a genuine scientific theory because it makes testable predictions that are not just confirmable, but very powerful and wide-reaching. There's no obvious reason why we should observe the nucleosynthetic proportions we see in the observable universe, and yet the Big Bang makes very specific predictions about how much helium we should see relative to hydrogen. If the Big Bang was wrong, the odds of it making such a prediction accurately are extremely low. At some point, its not luck but skill, and in the same way at some point scientists decide a conjecture can't be that lucky, and therefore must, to a high degree of probability, incorporate some fundamental truth about the universe. It might not be precisely right, but it can't be completely wrong.

Over three hundred years after Newton published Principia, the theory of Newtonian gravity has held up remarkably well. Einstein didn't completely overthrow Newton, and after centuries its highly unlikely anything will: it simply makes too many predictions that are always confirmed. What Einstein did was modify Newton's theory, and only in extreme cases Newton could not possibly have tested. But its important to note that we don't trust Newtonian gravity just because of an abstract Scientific Method scorecard. We trust it as a scientific theory for a more practical reason: it works, and in all but the most extreme cases it always does. We still plot spacecraft trajectories with Newtonian gravity, to extremely high degrees of precision. Even if we couldn't test the fundamentals of Newton's theory (we can), it would still be a Scientific Theory for that reason.

about a week ago
top

Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

dnavid Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (443 comments)

Sweet, I can't wait for next week's alternate explanation!

Go ahead "consensus" troll mods - do your worst to bury every skeptic questioning sketchy science on this story. Then go look in the mirror and call yourself a rational scientist.

Science is about skepticism. Even climatologists that support the theory of man influenced climate change are constantly questioning the data, and looking at alternate conjectures. The very article referenced explicitly states that many of the theories that were presented to explain why global surface temperatures in the last decade did not track the apparent heat load global warming induced were inadequate, and the subject of further inquiry like the research cited. That's how Science works. But Science doesn't discover all the facts instantly and doesn't advance in convenient textbook chapters. It isn't skepticism that tries to characterize Science as just a bunch of random guesses, one after the other. That's just ignorance of Science. Science works by incremental and sometimes studdering progress forward. There are lots of things we know with certainty. We know carbon dioxide traps heat in Earth's lower atmosphere. We know human activities have dramatically increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The net result is an increased amount of heat absorbed by the Earth. What precisely happens to that heat in all of the complex thermal systems on Earth is still not well understood. But that doesn't mean the core principles are just random guesses. We're still discovering how 19th century chemistry works, but no one thinks that new chemistry discoveries mean chemistry is left-wing conspiracy.

The history of scientific progress looks no different for any other subject than it looks for 21st century climatology. Our understanding of gravity, of the germ theory of infectious disease, of quantum mechanics all followed similar discovery and learning curves. The only difference is that general relativity and Schroedinger's equation aren't subjects politicians can effectively argue about.

I think a lot of people, even some actual scientists, do not understand the role of skepticism in Science. There's a difference between scientific skepticism and peanut gallery skepticism. Scientific skepticism is healthy. When a scientist is skeptical of prevailing theories and conducts intellectually honest research aimed at probing that skepticism, that's always valuable. Science isn't a poll: if a scientific theory is correct, it will survive skeptical research. If its wrong, it will eventually be contradicted by the evidence. But when someone with no understanding of the facts or the research misinterprets the natural skepticism that is at the heart of scientific discovery by filtering it through their own "common sense" then they don't understand why science is successful overall, and really ought to shut up about it.

about a week ago

Submissions

dnavid hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

dnavid has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>