Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: hamdani yusuf on 14/02/2024 12:41:23
-
To be clear, everything I wrote here should not in any way change the validity of what I wrote in the other threads. They have their own independent justifications and falsifications.
I see the need for posting this thread to give a story behind what I've written in the other threads. Simply posting facts and figures do not seem enough to get people's attention and gain traction.
Usually, people are interested in something with story, especially when it's based on real life or related to their own lives.
Those who've read my threads in this forum may wonder, where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories, especially in physics, philosophy, and mathematics?
This thread is an anticipation to what may happen when my hypotheses and their justifications somehow get more attention and acceptance among science community and wider audience.
I'd like to prevent the spread of wild speculations and misinformation.\\
Like most people, I learned about science, technology, and philosophy from school/college, textbooks, and online sources, including wikipedia, quora, science web sites, and science forums.
To understand things, I tried to make a mental map of knowledge nodes with relationships among them. Once in a while I found something didn't add up. Something must be missing somewhere.
Sometimes the error turned out to be just a typo in textbooks or websites. Sometimes it was caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding in the part of authors of the article.
Often times, comparing different sources for the same topic can help identify where the errors come from, and how to fix it.
But there are times when I need to get a first-hand information by doing my own research and experiments.
In my workplace, I'm often involved in process safety review, feasibility studies for CAPEX and OPEX, also incident investigations, either as lead investigator or a contributor or adviser.
Those roles give me experience and train my neurons to understand things deeper than what's shown in the surface. The justification for the correct investigation is rather simple.
The error stops occurring, and no repeated case for a long duration of time.
-
A couple of questions that come to my mind when reflecting the current status of fundamental physics...
I have similar reasons to do science on YouTube.
-
This thread is an anticipation to what may happen when my hypotheses and their justifications somehow get more attention and acceptance among science community and wider audience.
The delusions of grandeur is strong with this one!
-
If one is trying to debunk established science, one needs to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It is obvious that you do not have that necessary understanding. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of attempts to falsify the status quo but to do so one has to be adept with the current understanding to challenge it.
-
I really enjoy jousting with HY.
On the one hand he writes a lot of philosophical bollocks but I keep the scientific grey matter active by trying to explain why he is wrong.
On the other hand, his kitchen table experiments display curiosity, ingenuity, some fine engineering, and acute observation - the ghost of Faraday still walks the earth!
And on the third hand, he remains a gentleman throughout any argument - something of a rarity online.
-
This thread is an anticipation to what may happen when my hypotheses and their justifications somehow get more attention and acceptance among science community and wider audience.
The delusions of grandeur is strong with this one!
I think success is a possible outcome. I'll just hope for the best, while being prepared for the worst.
-
If one is trying to debunk established science, one needs to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It is obvious that you do not have that necessary understanding. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of attempts to falsify the status quo but to do so one has to be adept with the current understanding to challenge it.
Perhaps being involved too much in established science has prevented modern scientists from thinking clearly about explanations for the experimental results.
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla
They're already convinced by some assumptions used in their mathematical model, and unwilling to abandon them to get a better model. They seem to be caught up into sunk cost fallacy.
-
I realize that I have my own blind spots, just like everyone else. That's why I tried to publish my ideas as soon as possible to be discussed with someone else in this forum, anticipating to prevent sunk cost fallacy.
What is a crackpot? But more importantly, why is a crackpot?
I'd like to know how my ideas are viewed from the other side. How much symptoms of crackpot do I have?
-
I think success is a possible outcome. I'll just hope for the best, while being prepared for the worst.
You can stop thinking success is possible. I can guarantee that you will not put forward a new viable theory in physics.
-
I think success is a possible outcome. I'll just hope for the best, while being prepared for the worst.
You can stop thinking success is possible. I can guarantee that you will not put forward a new viable theory in physics.
What's your guarantee?
-
I agree with Alan that Hamdani behaves in a gentlemanly manner despite my disagreement with his technical arguments. On the subject of Tesla and his quotes I disagree. Tesla was a brilliant engineer but he was totally out of touch with the rapidly advancing scientific knowledge of his era and this situation worsened with time.
-
What's your guarantee?
I just told you in the post (you won't come up with a new viable theory). If you mean why can I guarantee you won't come up with a new theory, the answer is because I have read your posts so I know that you do not have a good understanding of current physics therefore you will not be able to come up with something new.
If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.
Coming up with ideas and talking on discussion forums is fun, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you are advancing science, that would a bit crazy.
-
Perhaps being involved too much in established science has prevented modern scientists from thinking clearly about explanations for the experimental results.
I have no idea what you mean by "established science". There are numbers and formulae deduced from observation that are considered "good enough for engineering", in the widest sense of that phrase, but the business of science is to investigate phenomena where the textbook turns out to be self-contradictory or just not good enough. They're already convinced by some assumptions used in their mathematical model, and unwilling to abandon them to get a better model. They seem to be caught up into sunk cost fallacy.
That's politics, economics, religion and philosophy, not science. If the facts don't fit the model, the model is wrong - that's science.
-
I just told you in the post (you won't come up with a new viable theory).
Here's the definition of guarantee.
verb
provide a formal assurance or promise, especially that certain conditions shall be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction.
-
If you mean why can I guarantee you won't come up with a new theory, the answer is because I have read your posts so I know that you do not have a good understanding of current physics therefore you will not be able to come up with something new.
Many people have read my posts. You are the only one confident enough to guarantee that I will fail. Do you know something that they don't?
-
If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.
Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?
-
Coming up with ideas and talking on discussion forums is fun, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you are advancing science, that would a bit crazy.
Why so? Many of my experiments show that currently widespread explanations for physical phenomena don't provide correct predictions.
-
If the facts don't fit the model, the model is wrong - that's science.
Or something significant has been omitted from the calculation, like an unidentified planet. Bayesian inference and Occam's razor are useful to select the most appropriate models.
-
On the one hand he writes a lot of philosophical bollocks but I keep the scientific grey matter active by trying to explain why he is wrong.
What do you think is the biggest flaw in my arguments in philosophy, and what can be done to improve or correct it?
-
I agree with Alan that Hamdani behaves in a gentlemanly manner despite my disagreement with his technical arguments. On the subject of Tesla and his quotes I disagree. Tesla was a brilliant engineer but he was totally out of touch with the rapidly advancing scientific knowledge of his era and this situation worsened with time.
Which technical arguments do you think that I got wrong?
To maintain order, IMO it would be better to discuss technical issues in their respective threads. As far as possible, here we'll discuss non-technical things only.
-
Hamdani, I don't want to get into a slanging match with you but I will give you one example: the magnetic field is well understood as a relativistic correction to the electric field and vice versa. Attempts to tie it in to gravitation are wholly incorrect.
-
Or something significant has been omitted from the calculation, like an unidentified planet.
Not the same thing!
If you've missed something out of the calculation, that means that you have chosen (perhaps inadvertently) the wrong model.
Previously unknown planets were discovered precisely because the model was right and adding a few decimal points to the observation predicted the properties of a perturbing entity. One of my favorite examples of pushing a "good
enough" model was the remarkably accurate prediction of the physical and chemical properties of germanium from what was then a gap in the periodic table.
-
If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.
Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?
Put it round the other way. If you can resolve an anomaly, publish your observation or calculation and get an honorary PhD from an institution that wants to bask in reflected glory. But publish it in a peer-reviewed physics journal, not a chat forum!
-
Not the same thing!
If you've missed something out of the calculation, that means that you have chosen (perhaps inadvertently) the wrong model.
Previously unknown planets were discovered precisely because the model was right and adding a few decimal points to the observation predicted the properties of a perturbing entity.
That's precisely the case where discrepancy between model's prediction and observation doesn't necessarily mean that the model is wrong.
-
If you really want to try add something to physics then you should go to college and get a PhD in physics.
Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?
Put it round the other way. If you can resolve an anomaly, publish your observation or calculation and get an honorary PhD from an institution that wants to bask in reflected glory. But publish it in a peer-reviewed physics journal, not a chat forum!
I treat my ideas as memes, just like any others. The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas. Hopefully they will win or lose for their own merits. Whatever the final result, I'll win some or learn some.
-
Here's the definition of guarantee.
Thanks for the definition. I checked and my use of the word 'guarantee' matches up with the definition that you provided.
-
Many people have read my posts. You are the only one confident enough to guarantee that I will fail. Do you know something that they don't?
You have no idea how many people have read your posts nor do you know if they agree or disagree with you.
-
Why so? Many of my experiments show that currently widespread explanations for physical phenomena don't provide correct predictions.
This is just another example of your delusions of grandeur. I'll make another guarantee. If your experiment disagrees with established science then I guarantee that your experiment was faulty.
-
Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?
If that extremely specific thing is a physics 'thing', then the answer is yes.
-
The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas.
Science is not about competition, though there can be rewards for first publication or early exploitation of a discovery. Either your hypothesis stands up to experimental test and predicts something better than a previous hypothesis, or it doesn't.
-
I treat my ideas as memes,
The essence of a meme is that it gets promulgated by others, so you can't define anything as a meme until it has been distributed by third parties.
I have no evidence of anyone else promulgating (or even accepting) any of your ideas.
-
@Yusuf
It is Always a Pleasure sharing thoughts & ideas with you.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues
(all the best & tc)
ps - The greatest enemy of Knowledge is not Ignorance,
it is the illusion of Knowledge!
(Boorstin)
-
Strong psychoactive compounds?
-
Here's the definition of guarantee.
Thanks for the definition. I checked and my use of the word 'guarantee' matches up with the definition that you provided.
Where is the formal part?
-
Many people have read my posts. You are the only one confident enough to guarantee that I will fail. Do you know something that they don't?
You have no idea how many people have read your posts nor do you know if they agree or disagree with you.
At least more than one.
I find no one else has guaranteed something about my posts. Do you know someone else?
-
Why so? Many of my experiments show that currently widespread explanations for physical phenomena don't provide correct predictions.
This is just another example of your delusions of grandeur. I'll make another guarantee. If your experiment disagrees with established science then I guarantee that your experiment was faulty.
Don't you feel that delusion of grandeur yourself by making that guarantee? Do you think established scientific models never failed and never changed?
-
Don't you feel that delusion of grandeur yourself by making that guarantee?
No, I'm just a realist stating the obvious.
Where is the formal part?
I wore a tuxedo when I wrote the post.
This was fun but I am going to put this thread on ignore with the rest of your threads and let you bask in your delusions with out my annoying input. Have fun.
-
Do you think it's necessary, even for an extremely specific thing?
If that extremely specific thing is a physics 'thing', then the answer is yes.
Haven't you heard about contributors to discoveries in physics who were not a PhD?
-
The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas.
Science is not about competition, though there can be rewards for first publication or early exploitation of a discovery. Either your hypothesis stands up to experimental test and predicts something better than a previous hypothesis, or it doesn't.
That's the competition. Like it or not, our ideas compete for memory space in people's minds, as well as data centers.
-
I treat my ideas as memes,
The essence of a meme is that it gets promulgated by others, so you can't define anything as a meme until it has been distributed by third parties.
I have no evidence of anyone else promulgating (or even accepting) any of your ideas.
I've found some supportive comments on some of my YouTube videos.
-
ps - The greatest enemy of Knowledge is not Ignorance,
it is the illusion of Knowledge!
(Boorstin)
We won't make progress by thinking that currently established science is all there is to know.
-
Strong psychoactive compounds?
Perhaps caffeine.
-
Hi.
I had written a long reply but edited it and then just lost it.
Some brief points:
This forum just has a few people that usually try to help and give up some time. Most of them are not in a position to recommend your articles to the remainder of the scientific community. For example, I am not a TV presenter for a science show, or a journalist for a science magazine etc. I don't know about everyone who uses the forum but I think this is the situation for many of them.
Writing a forum post is not llikely to be a short-cut to getting something published in a recognised journal. As @alancalverd mentioned earlier, that's where you would want something to get to if you want to bring it to the attention of the wider scientific community. I don't think that heads of University physics departments read this forum very often. It's not a sensible place to go looking for new things. The recognised journals are the most efficient place to go looking.
With this in mind, you can relax a bit, it hardly matters if you present the most amazing new discovery in this forum written in the most professional way. There's no-one here to impress that could go on to do anything with your article like print it in the scientfic magazine for which they are the editor.
The main thing which this forum could offer is some discussion. Its not really an adversarial contest, you don't need to hate them if they disagree - they aren't going to stop your idea being published. Equally, you shouldn't lead yourself to think that their positive comments would generally increase the likelihood of your idea being published or widely spread - that probably isn't in their power either.
Hopefully, the discussion is usefull. It may suggest some alterations in your ideas and vice versa (you may suggest alterations to their ideas). That's what the forum can offer.
I see the need for posting this thread to give a story behind what I've written in the other threads. Simply posting facts and figures do not seem enough to get people's attention and gain traction.
It's not adversarial in this way. Gain traction with who? anonymous member 1 is probably someone like me and I can't publish your article OR prevent it from being published.
All I can do is give up some time to read something and possibly give some more time to write a reply.
Best Wishes.
-
NOT VERY SMART? IT'S BETTER TO BE CONSERVATIVE! - Jordan Peterson w/ Sam Harris, Douglas Murray
When we're living in an already complex society, being a conservative and having a herd mentality by following the crowd and go with the flow is advantageous in most cases. It requires less effort to make decisions.
But as long as we don't live in a perfect society, there will be some cases where having a critical thinking to act differently than the mainstream is a better option.
-
Writing a forum post is not llikely to be a short-cut to getting something published in a recognised journal. As @alancalverd mentioned earlier, that's where you would want something to get to if you want to bring it to the attention of the wider scientific community.
Being viral in social media is an effective way to get the attention of the wider scientific community. That's why I use YouTube and X.
-
In this video, we talk about what they don't want you to know about academic publishing.
0:00 ? why academic publishing is gamed
1:35 ? predatory journals (Think. Check. Submit: https://thinkchecksubmit.org)
5:25 ? science celebrities
7:14 ? the rules of author order
10:08 ? citation games
12:18 ? the power of politics
What would you add to this list?
-
Nature Neuroscience recently unveiled an 11k dollar open access publishing fee. Tristopher is upset.
-
I usually use forums for brainstorming, and look for feedback to improve my argumentation for my ideas. When I finished condensing them into more compact forms, I'll convert them into videos and upload them to my YouTube channel.
For simple experiments, I often simply uploaded them almost in their raw form without much editing, deeper explanation, nor other considerations. Especially when I think that they are interesting, or not already widely known.
-
The ones I posted here had won internal competitions in my mind. I'll just let them to compete externally with everyone else's ideas.
Science is not about competition, though there can be rewards for first publication or early exploitation of a discovery. Either your hypothesis stands up to experimental test and predicts something better than a previous hypothesis, or it doesn't.
That's the competition. Like it or not, our ideas compete for memory space in people's minds, as well as data centers.
Healthy competitions can be useful to improve ourselves, as well as our ideas. They can also increase our confidence, especially if we win at least some of them.
-
Being viral in social media is an effective way to get the attention of the wider scientific community.
Scorn, not attention, usually. And there is no "wider scientific community".
-
Being viral in social media is an effective way to get the attention of the wider scientific community.
Scorn, not attention, usually. And there is no "wider scientific community".
You get the attention before the scorn.
More general scientific community might be more appropriate. There are science researchers, including theoreticians and experimentalists. There are science communicators, science educators, science students, science bureaucrats who determine research funding, science enthusiasts who conduct independent research out of curiosity.
-
I see the need for posting this thread to give a story behind what I've written in the other threads. Simply posting facts and figures do not seem enough to get people's attention and gain traction.
Usually, people are interested in something with story, especially when it's based on real life or related to their own lives.
When I first uploaded my experiments about diffraction of light, which shows some results unexplainable using currently common explanations found in textbooks, I thought there would be more reactions from general science community. Many years have past and it seems that nothing has changed. Those results seem to be mostly ignored, and physics education goes on with business as usual. I tried to contact science communicators on social media like Youtube and Twitter (now X), but there's still no meaningful response.
Perhaps showing only weaknesses in currently accepted explanations without providing a better alternative cannot attract public's attention and initiate changes. That's why I continue the efforts in searching for better and simpler explanations.
-
I have seen nothing in your elegant diffraction experiments that disagrees with my textbooks. But they are mostly 60 years old.
-
I have seen nothing in your elegant diffraction experiments that disagrees with my textbooks. But they are mostly 60 years old.
Of course, because they don't mention following results:
- vertically tilted diffraction.
- horizontally tilted diffraction.
- non-diffractive edge using total internal reflection.
- non-diffractive slit using total internal reflection.
- half interference pattern from the combination of a non-diffractive edge and a diffractive edge.
- diffraction by polarizing edges.
- Interference pattern of double thick needles.
- Interference pattern of an aligned card.
How can they disagree with something that they don't say?
-
Nature Neuroscience recently unveiled an 11k dollar open access publishing fee. Tristopher is upset.
Over commercialization of academic institutions have caused many problems. Students debt, paper mills, predatory journals, and stagnation of scientific progress.
-
Of course, because they don't mention following results:
But they predict them all, using Huygens' construction.
-
Of course, because they don't mention following results:
But they predict them all, using Huygens' construction.
Show me Huygens' construction in a non-diffractive edge, which is the simplest case in my list.
Why can't the wave go to the area behind the obstacle?
-
Healthy competitions can be useful to improve ourselves, as well as our ideas. They can also increase our confidence, especially if we win at least some of them.
They can also improve our competitors, and the system as a whole. I remember that as a kid, I was quite competitive in academic skills, especially math and physics. I often represent my school in competitions for fields of study from urban village to national level from various organizers.
Those competitions gave me confidence that I can win some, but also lessons learned not to underestimate our competitors based on appearance.
-
Show me Huygens' construction in a non-diffractive edge
Show me a non-diffractive edge, and I'll show you fairies dancing on a pinhead. It's either an edge, or it's nondiffractive,
-
Show me Huygens' construction in a non-diffractive edge
Show me a non-diffractive edge, and I'll show you fairies dancing on a pinhead. It's either an edge, or it's nondiffractive,
Let's analyze the situation from the perspective of the laser pointer. Let's say the laser beam spotlight is 1 mm in diameter. Half of it passes through the transparent surface of the glass. Another half falls on the reflective surface. The boundary between those halves is the edge.
-
And how thick is the "edge"?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts#Engineers_and_inventors
i won't say anything more.
Not Required.
*Note of Appreciation*
For Everyone who spends Time in here and is Helping...
Thank You So Very Much!
-
And how thick is the "edge"?
How does it affect the Huygens' construction?
-
If it has a finite thickness, it isn't an edge, so you need an infinite number of Huygens constructions to predict the outcome. Better to simply note that as n→∞ so the diffraction pattern becomes less intense and more diffuse than two classic single-ray plots.
-
If it has a finite thickness, it isn't an edge,
Why do you think that an edge must have infinite thickness, which is physically impossible?
-
As usual, we need to distinguish between a model and reality.
"Huygens" is a very good model, using an idealised edge of zero thickness. In fact an edge could be no more than one atom thick and therefore correspond very closely to the model if the photon wavelength is greater than an atomic diameter - true for visible light but not for x-rays.
-
As usual, we need to distinguish between a model and reality.
Adequacy of a model depends on its applications. Flat earth model is good enough for building a house. Newton's model is good enough to send people to the moon and back.
-
lol
Watevr U both eat 4 brkfst, i'd lyk 2 eat it too!
plz cary on,
hav funn!
: )
-
Adequacy of a model depends on its applications.
And as you have shown, you can't apply Huygens usefully to a thick boundary.
-
Adequacy of a model depends on its applications.
And as you have shown, you can't apply Huygens usefully to a thick boundary.
It means that we need a more general model.
-
Not "we". Just you.
-
Not "we". Just you.
I don't think that I'm the only one.
If you choose to be ignorant of it, I can't force you to care.
-
I agree with Alan that Hamdani behaves in a gentlemanly manner despite my disagreement with his technical arguments. On the subject of Tesla and his quotes I disagree. Tesla was a brilliant engineer but he was totally out of touch with the rapidly advancing scientific knowledge of his era and this situation worsened with time.
Which technical arguments do you think that I got wrong?
To maintain order, IMO it would be better to discuss technical issues in their respective threads. As far as possible, here we'll discuss non-technical things only.
Mockery is a Terrible Tactic for Changing Minds
Sure, there are hard targets out there, but in the one-on-one exchanges about identity beliefs, there's likely a better way. Here's a clip by educator Melanie Trecek-King of www.thinkingispower.com..
let's use a better way.
-
Let's begin with your perspective. What unexpected observation have you made?
There's no way I can guarantee that nobody else has expected my observations. But at least I know they deviate from some mainstream textbooks.
I've made many experiments using laser and microwave transceiver, and some results that I think are unexpected by most people are as follows.
Non-diffractive edge and non-diffractive slit using total internal reflection.
Polarized diffraction by the edge of abortive polarizers.
Blocking mechanism of microwave by partial polarizers.
Conjoined twin polarizers.
Polarization twister of microwave.
Electrodynamic balance.
There are many questions I want to find out the answers, but I only have finite time to pursue them. For now, I'll just focus on a few of them, based on their importance/significance of their impacts, how much efforts are required, and how close or how likely I think I have the chance to solve them.
In mathematics, I'm investigating Riemann's Hypothesis.
In mathematics, the Riemann hypothesis is the conjecture that the Riemann zeta function has its zeros only at the negative even integers and complex numbers with real part 1/2. Many consider it to be the most important unsolved problem in pure mathematics. Wikipedia
I think I'm getting close to get it proven. And the reason why it hasn't been solved yet for so long is because of overthinking.
Another topic that I've been working on is about different sizes of infinity. Cantor's continuum hypothesis has caused a deep epistemological conundrum, according to an article in Quantamagazine.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-many-numbers-exist-infinity-proof-moves-math-closer-to-an-answer-20210715/
https://brilliant.org/wiki/infinity/
Infinity is the concept of an object that is larger than any number. When used in the context "...infinitely small," it can also describe an object that is smaller than any number. It is important to take special note that infinity is not a number; rather, it exists only as an abstract concept. Attempting to treat infinity as a number, without special care, can lead to a number of paradoxes.
Infinity is not a number!
I think the problem emerged from the flaw in Cantor's diagonalization proof.
Accepting the validity of diagonalization method comes with the cost of flawed and broken math. The diagonalization method contains loop holes like what we find in "proof" demonstrating that 1=2.
-
I've also been working to address widespread confusion between diffraction and interference. It might not be seen as physics problem itself, but rather a problem in science communication.
I also found a knowledge gap in the problem of twin paradox, where some physicists don't seem to agree about the best solution. I also have a question about symmetrically travelling twins which hasn't found a satisfactory answer.
Another significant question in physics that I want to answer is about the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. My experiment with electrodynamic balance seems to have a promising outcome.
-
In the field of philosophy, I'm interested in the most important question of all time: what is the universal terminal goal? Some people think that it's a thing of the past which has become irrelevant in modern world. But on the contrary, it's becoming even more important and urgent than ever with the quick advancement in the field of AI towards AGI and ASI.
Researchers in AI safety is struggling with the goal alignment problem. What should entities much smarter than all of humans combined should align their goals to? Should they align their goals with us, humans who created them? Or should we humans align our goals with theirs instead?
The question can't be answered without properly defining goal. It leads to the concept of consciousness, which also needs to be properly defined. Philosophers of the pasts have failed to reach a consensus because they haven't found workable definitions of those concepts.
-
Another important question in philosophy is about ethics or morality. Although its commonly used definition is fine, there are still persistent disagreements among philosophers. They haven't been able to close the gap in is and ought problem created by Hume's guillotine.
Hume stopped short at pleasure and pain as the ultimate causes of human decision making process as the subject of morality. If only he followed through with how those feelings could've emerged in the first place as a product of natural processes. He could've eventually found the universal terminal goal as the bridge that would close the gap between is and ought. It would have been easier to deal with nihilism and moral relativism.
-
Alignment between our goal and our decisions is a problem for any rational agents. Before making a decision, we need to consider the consequences of each available option. Cost of inaction in time should also be included in the consideration. That's why we need some sort of virtual universe.
Some neuroscience researchers have concluded that brains are prediction machines. They predict the consequences of each optional actions, and execute one with the most desirable outcomes.
-
That's why we need some sort of virtual universe.
You have the best one inside your head.
-
That's why we need some sort of virtual universe.
You have the best one inside your head.
I think it can still be improved, in terms of processing speed, information volume/capacity, robustness, interconnection with data sources and other units of virtual universes.
-
The questions listed above are some of the most important unsolved problems known to humanity, which have long been overdue.
Perhaps not many people are willing to spend their precious time trying to solve them. It might be caused by mediocre mindset. They think if they can solve those problems, someone else smarter than them who are more familiar with the problems must have solved them first, so why bother? Thus, solving those problems requires us to first overcome that mediocre mindset barrier. Only then we are willing to spend our time and effort to look for the solutions.
Some other people are not interested in the problems because they don't think that they have direct impact to their lives, so they just do their business as usual. Those thoughts must have reduced the number of potential solvers.
-
he thoughts of a very mediocre mind:
A lot of what you call unsolved problems are not problems but misunderstandings.
It's no big deal that some folk don't know the difference between diffraction and interference. At least anyone who has studied a bit of physics can use a Huygens construction to predict what you see.
There is no twin paradox, only a dogmatic reluctance to accept that classical mechanics is just a limiting case of relativistic mechanics.
Why should gravity and electromagnetism be related at all?
what is the universal terminal goal?
Wrong starting point. Why assume that there is or should be one? Anyway, ΔS > 0, whatever.
there are still persistent disagreements among philosophers.
without which, there would be no work for philosophers. Ethics and morality are human constructs, and change with time. Hardly worth the attention of a scientist, though it pays to know what is currently acceptable.
The goal of any machine is determined by its creator. The only problem with AI is determining exactly who is legally liable for its output, and that will be resolved by a decision in a court of law.
-
A lot of what you call unsolved problems are not problems but misunderstandings.
A lot of problems are caused by misunderstanding or miscommunication.
-
At least anyone who has studied a bit of physics can use a Huygens construction to predict what you see.
Huygens construction can't explain blocking mechanism nor non-diffractive edges.
-
Why should gravity and electromagnetism be related at all?
Why should they be separated instead?
-
Wrong starting point. Why assume that there is or should be one? Anyway, ΔS > 0, whatever.
Here's why.
Researchers in AI safety is struggling with the goal alignment problem. What should entities much smarter than all of humans combined should align their goals to? Should they align their goals with us, humans who created them? Or should we humans align our goals with theirs instead?
The question can't be answered without properly defining goal. It leads to the concept of consciousness, which also needs to be properly defined. Philosophers of the pasts have failed to reach a consensus because they haven't found workable definitions of those concepts.
You can choose to be ignorant and recuse yourself from trying to determine the universal terminal goal. But future ASI, with whatever terminal goal set to them by their developers will inevitably affect your life, or your successors, whether you like it or not.
-
The goal of any machine is determined by its creator. The only problem with AI is determining exactly who is legally liable for its output, and that will be resolved by a decision in a court of law.
Decisions in court of law are determined by the terminal goal set to their creation in the first place.
-
The questions listed above are some of the most important unsolved problems known to humanity, which have long been overdue.
Perhaps not many people are willing to spend their precious time trying to solve them. It might be caused by mediocre mindset. They think if they can solve those problems, someone else smarter than them who are more familiar with the problems must have solved them first, so why bother? Thus, solving those problems requires us to first overcome that mediocre mindset barrier. Only then we are willing to spend our time and effort to look for the solutions.
Some other people are not interested in the problems because they don't think that they have direct impact to their lives, so they just do their business as usual. Those thoughts must have reduced the number of potential solvers.
Doing all those things requires courage.
Courage is knowing what not to fear.
Plato
-
Why should they be separated instead?
Gravity only sucks. Electromagnetism can suck or blow. Qualitatively different effects imply different causes.
-
Why should they be separated instead?
Gravity only sucks. Electromagnetism can suck or blow. Qualitatively different effects imply different causes.
Why can't they affect one another?
-
We observe that they do, exactly as predicted by Einstein.
Science isn't about asking why, but how and how much (spacetime curvature).
-
Why should gravity and electromagnetism be related at all?
We observe that they do, exactly as predicted by Einstein.
Science isn't about asking why, but how and how much (spacetime curvature).
It looks like you've answered your own question.
-
The question was yours. You asked why can't they affect each other, and I pointed out that gravity certainly does affect em radiation, wholly predictably, but it doesn't imply that they are in any way similar or related.
-
The question was yours. You asked why can't they affect each other, and I pointed out that gravity certainly does affect em radiation, wholly predictably, but it doesn't imply that they are in any way similar or related.
Don't you realize that causation is a subset of relationship?
-
Water will extinguish a fire, does that mean they are in the same category? No.
-
Don't you realize that causation is a subset of relationship?
Whilst that superficial categorisation might impress a philosopher, science is about things that matter.
-
Water will extinguish a fire, does that mean they are in the same category? No.
How does it relate to one of my statement? Which one exactly?
-
Don't you realize that causation is a subset of relationship?
Whilst that superficial categorisation might impress a philosopher, science is about things that matter.
If you let fundamental errors unaddressed, you'll risk further miscommunications in the future.
-
#94 replies to #93.
-
Water will extinguish a fire, does that mean they are in the same category? No.
They are both elements in ancient natural philosophy in some regions.
-
That is precisely why I used such an example. This being a science forum we are interested in science, not philosophy. Water will affect fire but that does not mean they are related, one being a material and the other a combustion phenomenon. Similarly gravity affects em radiation but they are NOT related.
-
I dedicated this thread for non-technical discussion. If you are interested in further discussion on technical issues, let's do it in the original thread, by following the link below.
That is precisely why I used such an example. This being a science forum we are interested in science, not philosophy. Water will affect fire but that does not mean they are related, one being a material and the other a combustion phenomenon. Similarly gravity affects em radiation but they are NOT related.
I bring the discussion from my other thread, so we can go deeper on technical issues.
How do you explain positive result in my electrodynamic balance experiments?
-
I asked Gemini about an interesting quote.
This quote, "Everyone knew it was impossible, until a fool who didn't know came along and did it," is often mistakenly attributed to Albert Einstein. There's no evidence he actually said it [Quote Investigator].
The saying likely originated anonymously and has been circulating for some time.
-
I do not claim to be an expert on em phenomena, I am sufficiently knowledgeable to have made a living from engineering but that is my limit. To seriously challenge standard theories one needs explicit and extensive understanding of the subject matter- I don't believe either of us is in that category.
-
The saying likely originated anonymously and has been circulating for some time.
Typical bullshit from a chatbot. Statements cannot originate anonymously (everyone has a name) but are often quoted as such.To seriously challenge standard theories one need explicit and extensive understanding of the subject matter-
Or an interestingly anomalous discovery. HY claims to have made a few but so far his elegant experiments (I acknowledge practical genius) have all yielded to textbook explanations.
-
I stand corrected, thanks Alan.
-
Statements cannot originate anonymously (everyone has a name) but are often quoted as such.
But they can be published anonymously, especially when the author doesn't want his name to be associated with those statements, eg when they are considered controversial.
-
And your chatbot doesn't seem to know the difference between originating and publishing.
-
If a statement isn't published (in broad sense, which simply means it's made to be known by the public), or it's kept in private, we won't be able to discuss it publicly.
In the age of generative AI, every possible arrangements of words to form a statement could be produced anytime somewhere in the internet. It may not be important anymore which AI model produced it first, or who's the person who noticed it first.
-
You can get your knowledge from literature. You can collect a lot of condensed information with relatively low effort, based on experience of other people in the past. But this kind of knowledge is limited by their experience, and no new knowledge can be produced, other than what's already revealed by someone else. You also tend to follow their mistakes.
Alternatively, you can also get your knowledge from your own experience. It takes more effort to obtain useful information. You need to filter out noise from signal. You may need to produce your own instrumentation equipment, and it can cost significantly.
-
That's science.
-
I just like to share this useful information here.
Brain Hack: 6 secrets to learning faster, backed by neuroscience | Lila Landowski | TEDxHobart
Sharing the secrets to productive learning, backed by neuroscience. Dr Lila Landowski explains the methods which can be used to allow us to learn faster. Dr Lila Landowski is a multi-award winning neuroscientist and lecturer that expertly arms people with an understanding of how their brain works, to help them make better choices in their lives. She is also a Director of the Australian Society for Medical Research, a Director of Epilepsy Tasmania, as well as a regular guest expert science communicator for the ABC. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.
-
Studying Physics Without Studying Physics - Can You Do It On Your Own?
You have to go to university to study physics. Or do you?
Is there any way to self-teach, to study physics without having to study physics?
Content:
0:00 Intro - Could you?
1:42 It?s crazy how much you could do
4:11 It?s important to understand you need others
7:25 Still, could you do it?
-
There's no need to attend a university to study physics, but I rather think you have to study physics to understand physics.
Studying chemistry, for instance, might (should!) make you curious about some applications of physics but it won't help you calculate centrifugal force or magnetic fields. And I doubt whether time spent reading Shakespeare or Sanskrit texts would bring you any closer to understanding why the moon is where it is.
-
The Most Cited Paper of the Decade ? Can We Learn from It?
?Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization? ? is one of the most highly cited papers ever published. Moreover, this paper was written in 2014 by two PhD students! Let?s see why it became so popular and if we can learn anything from it.
00:00 Incredible number of citations
02:37 Authors of the ?Adam? paper
04:40 What is Adam method?
05:26 Let?s check the paper!
10:10 Can we learn from it?
10:38 YES
12:26 NO
13:52 Other highly cited papers
14:49 ?Adam? is an unusual paper
16:02 Attitude to research
17:15 Other features
I haven't written any formal scientific paper for years, so I guess it's time to relearn it.
-
I googled my name, and found my LinkedIn profile. I also found my Facebook page, which is mostly inactive.
I also looked for "hamdani yusuf lomba penelitian ilmiah remaja 1996", which returns some links to online libraries.
-
The book is a collection of scientific papers winning the Youth Scientific Research Competition 1996. I haven't read the physical book myself, even though I won the first place that year. Instead, I've already read some earlier editions from mid 80's to early 90's from a used bookstore near my school when I was still in junior high school. I guess it gave me a head start to prepare for the competition.
In 1995 I read an invitation to participate in the competition from the bulletin board in my high school, and decided to join in.
-
I've learned the hard way.
Why Facts Don't Change Minds
We often get into arguments with one another for millions of different reasons, but how often do we genuinely change the other persons mind? Most times, facts don't change minds. But if facts don't change minds, what does?
-
How to Change Someone?s Mind - 5 Rules to Follow
Are you searching for ways to change someone's mind to your way of thinking or methods to convince someone to your opinion? One of the things that we frequently try to do, but almost always fail is to change someone's opinion. We are so bad that, to a point, our relationships with our friends and family gets spoiled just because we are really bad at convincing the other person about our ideas and a opinions. In this video I am going to share with you how to change someone?s mind in a much easier way.
1) Never turn the conversation into an argument
2) Never say that you are wrong
3) Get the other person saying "Yes" as soon as possible
4) Let them talk a lot!
5) Let them think their idea is theirs
-
How can you change someone's mind? (hint: facts aren't always enough) - Hugo Mercier
Why do arguments change people?s minds in some cases and backfire in others? Hugo Mercier explains how arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, taking into account what the audience believes, who they trust, and what they value.
-
Don't confuse confidence with good. There are so many people out there that pride themselves in having enough confidence to challenge norms. People that believe in weird things like the moon not really being in space, that government officials are operating a pedophile ring and/or are reptilians in human avatars waiting for the right moment to start a revolution, or that there are flying penises, pride themselves in not "bah bahing like the rest of the sheep". These people get such a high kick of dopamine from their confidence, that there is no limit to what they'll challenge.
-
Don't confuse confidence with good. There are so many people out there that pride themselves in having enough confidence to challenge norms. People that believe in weird things like the moon not really being in space, that government officials are operating a pedophile ring and/or are reptilians in human avatars waiting for the right moment to start a revolution, or that there are flying penises, pride themselves in not "bah bahing like the rest of the sheep". These people get such a high kick of dopamine from their confidence, that there is no limit to what they'll challenge.
Words have their own distinct meaning. If you are confused, just look up their definitions from online sources.
Without confidence, people tend to be silent, and simply follow what is said by the authorities. Promoting the views of the authorities also need confidence. At least you are confident that you understand what they have said and not misrepresenting them.
Challenging the authorities needs more confidence, since it comes with even higher risks.
-
And never forget the Kruger-Dunning Principle. Ignorance breeds arrogance.
-
And never forget the Kruger-Dunning Principle. Ignorance breeds arrogance.
That's why I opened my data to be discussed here. If my ideas survive scrutiny, then it's for their merits, not necessarily because of me personally. If they are truly universal, then sooner or later someone else will come up with the same conclusions.
-
Keeping false information widespread and unchallenged is not a sustainable strategy. It may bring short term benefits for someone, but it will cause inefficiency and ineffective efforts in achieving the universal terminal goal.
-
Some universal ideas are still bullshit. God, aether, flat earth, the brotherhood of Man..... Scientific knowledge is not a matter of consensus, and the acquisition of scientific knowledge frequently involves questioning the validity of a consensus. No other "knowledge" is worth having.
-
Some universal ideas are still bullshit. God, aether, flat earth, the brotherhood of Man..... Scientific knowledge is not a matter of consensus, and the acquisition of scientific knowledge frequently involves questioning the validity of a consensus. No other "knowledge" is worth having.
They are not as universal as you might think.
At the moment of its discovery, only one or a few person has a particular scientific knowledge. Only when it's communicated to wider audience, more people will know about it. And only when most people who are confident enough to express their opinions have accepted it, it becomes the mainstream.
-
Still doesn't make it right, though.
-
And never forget the Kruger-Dunning Principle. Ignorance breeds arrogance.
The Irony of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
Examining the irony of the well-loved Dunning-Kruger effect. For further resources, see below.
Sources:
* The original study: Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.
* The mentioned 2013 study: Simons, D. J. (2013). Unskilled and optimistic: Overconfident predictions despite calibrated knowledge of relative skill. Psychon Bill Rev, 20, 601-607.
* The mentioned 2018 study: Sanchez, C., Dunning, D. (2018). Overconfidence Among Beginners: Is a Little Learning a Dangerous Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 10-28.
* More information by Dunning: Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 247-296.
Pictures taken from unsplash.com.
Chapters:
00:00 Mount Stupid
01:32 The Real Dunning-Kruger Effect
04:56 The Irony
-
You?d Be Surprised How Smart (Or Dumb) You Are | The Dunning-Kruger Effect
In this video, we explore the pervasive cognitive bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. What does this common phenomenon lead to, both individually and collectively? Can we overcome it? And if so, how?
0:00 Intro
1:28 Causes
2:44 Metacognition
5:02 Voices
8:48 Blinkist (sponsor)
-
I've quoted this elsewhere, but make no apology for repeating it. One of the many lifesaving aphorisms of the aviation industry:
After 100 hours, you know everything
After 1,000 hours, you know that you don't know everything
After 10,000 hours, you know that you can't know everything.
-
After 10,000 hours, you know that you can't know everything.
That's because our brain capacity is limited.
-
Find the research gap with AI in ONE day: Groundbreaking new process
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:45 - What is a research gap?
05:15 - How do I find a research gap?
06:54 - SciSpace
09:51 - Suggestions for your research gap
15:20 - Leveraging the power of AI
17:31 - Book a free call
-
That's because our brain capacity is limited.
No, it's because the atmosphere is inherently chaotic and the performance of a real airplane is not entirely predictable.
-
Apropos research gaps:
There is an infinity of things we don't know, and probably as many holes in what we do know.
There are very few things whose knowledge would be worth having, or holes worth filling.
Research is the last thing you should do when faced with a problem, and almost never worth doing in the absence of a problem.
-
Research is the last thing you should do when faced with a problem, and almost never worth doing in the absence of a problem.
No.
It's sometimes worth doing; I got paid to do it.
-
That's because our brain capacity is limited.
No, it's because the atmosphere is inherently chaotic and the performance of a real airplane is not entirely predictable.
Why it takes 10,000 hours to know these facts? Why can't they be introduced at the beginning?
-
Apropos research gaps:
There is an infinity of things we don't know, and probably as many holes in what we do know.
There are very few things whose knowledge would be worth having, or holes worth filling.
Research is the last thing you should do when faced with a problem, and almost never worth doing in the absence of a problem.
Research doesn't have to be done formally. It doesn't have to give monetary gain either. Sometimes curiosity is enough for a motivation.
-
Why it takes 10,000 hours to know these facts? Why can't they be introduced at the beginning?
If you told every prospective student pilot that they would spend their entire career or hobby time solving differential and vector equations in their head whilst hurtling at ridiculous speeds through an invisible, unpredictable medium populated at random intervals by potentially lethal rain, hail, snow, fog, birds, smoke....in a tin can propelled by occasional explosions of volatile gases, directed by total strangers sitting in darkened rooms towards a runway that might be flooded, shrouded in mist, or mysteriously "closed", they wouldn't take their first flight. It's even more fun with a nervous passenger.
There's a heck of a difference between remembering an aphorism and having the humility to accept it.
-
Why it takes 10,000 hours to know these facts? Why can't they be introduced at the beginning?
If you told every prospective student pilot that they would spend their entire career or hobby time solving differential and vector equations in their head whilst hurtling at ridiculous speeds through an invisible, unpredictable medium populated at random intervals by potentially lethal rain, hail, snow, fog, birds, smoke....in a tin can propelled by occasional explosions of volatile gases, directed by total strangers sitting in darkened rooms towards a runway that might be flooded, shrouded in mist, or mysteriously "closed", they wouldn't take their first flight. It's even more fun with a nervous passenger.
There's a heck of a difference between remembering an aphorism and having the humility to accept it.
There's a difference between imperfect knowledge and the total lack of it.
Hiding critical and important information from those who are affected is not a good practice. Ask the victims of 737max.
A better solution is to inform the risk, in terms of probability and severity from currently best knowledge. Then let them decide for themselves if it's still worth it.
-
Thus precipitating the death of the airline industry. Fact is that most problems are solvable and those that aren't entirely man-made (eg 737MAX auto trim, ATC-directed collisions....) pose an apparently acceptable level of risk.
I doubt that there would be much point in advising a student pilot that volcanic plumes can disable an airliner, and until it happened, I doubt that anyone had even thought about it.
Anyway, in response to neighbors complaining about aircraft noise, one local club has considered painting the trainers with the slogan "your cheap holiday started here".
-
I doubt that there would be much point in advising a student pilot that volcanic plumes can disable an airliner, and until it happened, I doubt that anyone had even thought about it.
There would be much point for those who would experience it. When history is forgotten, it tends to repeat.
-
That history will not be forgotten, but there's little point in presenting it to the teenager who walks into a flying club and says "I'd like to be a pilot." Lesson 1 is about Bernoulli and credit cards, not vulcanology and windmill restarts.
-
At the moment of its discovery, only one or a few person has a particular scientific knowledge. Only when it's communicated to wider audience, more people will know about it. And only when most people who are confident enough to express their opinions have accepted it, it becomes the mainstream.
Currently, my ideas only have limited attention. Only few people have known about them. Thus only few can take a look into them and checked for their validity and correctness.
If only there were more people involved, the review process could have been faster. Any error could have been found sooner. And the problems they posed could be addressed and solved.
Perhaps the exposure problem can be solved by involving influential figures. Just like the cases with Bose and Ramanujan.
-
Whether an idea is "mainstream" has no relevance to science. Most people who are confident enough to express their opinions, say that the evil they do is justified by the wishes and demands of a deity, but they are wrong.
The value of your (or anyone's) ideas is the extent to which they explain the status quo and predict the outcome of the next experiment. Nothing to do with consensus, everything to do with demonstrability.
"Influential figures" includes scum like politicians and religious perverts. Not the sort of company a gentleman scientist would wish to keep.
-
Whether an idea is "mainstream" has no relevance to science.
They do, at least in the form of research funding. Non-mainstream ideas are less likely to get public funding.
-
The value of your (or anyone's) ideas is the extent to which they explain the status quo and predict the outcome of the next experiment. Nothing to do with consensus, everything to do with demonstrability.
Or the limitations of the status quo, or where they fail to explain some phenomena.
Demonstrability will eventually lead to consensus. But the exposure to the public determines how fast the consensus is reached.
-
"Influential figures" includes scum like politicians and religious perverts. Not the sort of company a gentleman scientist would wish to keep.
Then just keep the "Influential figures" who are not scum.
-
Non-mainstream ideas are less likely to get public funding.
One of the great flaws of public funding, alas. Your brilliant hypothesis and amazingly simple experiment will be judged by lesser minds who prefer to sit on committees rather than get their hands dirty.
The way to get research funding is to find a private company with a problem whose solution will make money.
-
Then just keep the "Influential figures" who are not scum.
Can you name one, who isn't a competitor in your own field?
-
Demonstrability will eventually lead to consensus.
There is an enforced consensus (the BBC is not allowed to broadcast any criticism) that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for climate change. It has cost the taxpayer billions in conferences, executive jet travel to said conferences, academic salaries and electricity bills, but has never been tested or demonstrated.
-
Did Covid affect global CO2 level ?
Did it affect global temperature?
-
Then just keep the "Influential figures" who are not scum.
Can you name one, who isn't a competitor in your own field?
Can't you distinguish between competitors and scums?
-
Did Covid affect global CO2 level ?
A little bit
Did it affect global temperature?
no. There is evidence of a local effect after 9/11 when the ban on air travel in the USA eliminated vapor trails, but the effect is limited to areas that are frequently devoid of natural cloud.
-
Can't you distinguish between competitors and scums?
Of course. Some of my competitors are entirely honorable but we are not in the business of politics, religion, banking, or climate "science".
-
Research is the last thing you should do when faced with a problem, and almost never worth doing in the absence of a problem.
The problems I found need to be solved by scientific research are those where commonly taught explanations give predictions that differ from experimental results.
-
Good. It has often been said that thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics. In my book, all the best science begins with an engineering problem (I include medicine as a branch of engineering!)
-
Totally get where you're coming from. Sharing the backstory really helps people connect with and understand the context behind your theories. It makes the discussion more engaging and relatable. Plus, personal insights and real-life experiences add a layer of depth that raw data alone can?t provide.
-
And never forget the Kruger-Dunning Principle. Ignorance breeds arrogance.
That's why I opened my data to be discussed here. If my ideas survive scrutiny, then it's for their merits, not necessarily because of me personally. If they are truly universal, then sooner or later someone else will come up with the same conclusions.
Scientific breakthroughs by definition defy at least some aspects of established science.
The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine Hossenfelder is a very popular science communicator who focuses largely on topics in physics. Although much of her content is effective and without issue, there is an undercurrent of anti-establishment rhetoric that has grown immensely as of late, and it is an enormous problem. Sabine is a not a charlatan like most of my other targets, and this is not a hit piece, but rather commentary on this aspect of her work and how it came to be. If you are a fan of hers, consider this perspective.
The difference from pseudo science is about which aspects of established science were wrong.
-
The crisis in physics is real: Science is failing
In which I apologize that my videos sometimes lack nuance and explain why I think we are witnessing the failure of science.
-
I don't think there is such a thing as "established science".
There are books of established data, and these are continually refined to meet the needs of the folk who use them.
There is a body of scientific knowledge, which consists of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not yet been disproved. A few of these hypotheses have proved so robust that they are called "laws" but it is always accepted that they may only be valid as approximations over a given range of variables.
So what is the problem? I smell philosophy!
-
I don't think there is such a thing as "established science".
According to ChatGPT,
Established science refers to scientific knowledge, theories, or principles that have been extensively tested, repeatedly verified, and widely accepted by the scientific community. It encompasses findings that have been rigorously scrutinized through experiments, observations, peer reviews, and debates over time.
For example, foundational concepts like the laws of thermodynamics, the theory of evolution, and the principles of genetics are considered established science. While scientific understanding can evolve as new evidence arises, established science represents the best current understanding based on a robust body of evidence and consensus among experts.
What makes you think that it doesn't exist?
-
As usual, CHATGPT gives you the useless, childish answer it thinks you want. Just to pick up a small point: "debate" has no place in science. All scientific hypotheses are subject to mathematical or experimental disproof, and all scientific data is open for review.
Likewise the "theory of evolution" is a meaningless term coined by religious parasites and used by those who do not understand the business of science. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, not a theory. If there is no evidence of the existence of species A prior to a given date X, it must have either been created spontaneously at X or evolved from something else.
Lots of what politicians, journalists and civilians called "established science" has been proved wrong over time. No big deal - it just means the term has no value.
-
As usual, CHATGPT gives you the useless, childish answer it thinks you want. Just to pick up a small point: "debate" has no place in science. All scientific hypotheses are subject to mathematical or experimental disproof, and all scientific data is open for review.
What's the mature answer?
Haven't you heard about debate between Einstein and Bohr? Or Newton and Hooke?
-
Likewise the "theory of evolution" is a meaningless term coined by religious parasites and used by those who do not understand the business of science. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, not a theory. If there is no evidence of the existence of species A prior to a given date X, it must have either been created spontaneously at X or evolved from something else.
What's your source?
According to Gemini,
The exact origin of the term "theory of evolution" is difficult to pinpoint, as ideas about species changing over time predate its formal use. However, the term became widely recognized after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. This book presented the theory of evolution by natural selection, which revolutionized our understanding of life on Earth. While the term might have been used informally before, Darwin's work popularized it and solidified its association with the scientific concept of biological evolution.
It seems like your source of information isn't widely known.
Humans have the ability to create new species. Some even have synthetic nucleotide.
-
Lots of what politicians, journalists and civilians called "established science" has been proved wrong over time. No big deal - it just means the term has no value.
They were established before they were proven wrong. There's difference from theories that have never been established.
-
No Scientific Innovation Since the 1920s? Is Academia's 'Publish or Perish' Stifling Science?
Would someone like Einstein flourish in academia's "Publish or Perish"?
Gregory Chaitin is a pioneering mathematician and computer scientist, renowned for founding algorithmic information theory. Gregory published his first groundbreaking paper at the age of 15 and has been a key figure at the Institute for Advanced Studies, contributing extensively to the fields of metabiology and complexity theory.
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 - Intro
01:20 - Lack of Scientific Progress
06:22 - The Academic System
12:03 - Crisis in ?Fundamental? Physics
18:18 - Ancient Societies (Greece, Egypt, Alexandria)
23:05 - European Bureaucracy
27:08 - Albert Einstein
29:14 - Heterodox Experiments (Cold Fusion)
34:34 - Outro / Support TOE
-
Haven't you heard about debate between Einstein and Bohr? Or Newton and Hooke?
This is also a debate. Although it's unlike live political debates prior to elections where the participants respond to the arguments from their rivals in real time.
Is the famous black hole image "wrong"?
Do you remember the famous images of the supermassive black holes in the centre of the galaxy M87 and our own galaxy the Milky Way that were taken by the Event Horizon Telescope? Well this month a team of researchers based in Japan, have released a paper claiming that they can?t reproduce an image with a ring-like structure with the same data of the Milky Way?s black hole, and instead get something that looks a bit more like a blob. On top of that they published a claim back in 2022 that they also couldn?t reproduce the black hole image for the M87* data as well. Now the Event Horizon Team have responded saying they think the Japanese group of researchers have got it wrong. So there?s a lot to unpack here, and this video is going to cover a lot of ground starting first with 1) A quick recap on what you?re seeing in these black hole images 2) How the Event Horizon Telescope works and how these images are constructed 3) What Miyoshi, Kato & Makino are claiming is wrong with the images, and 4) The Event Horizon Telescope team?s response and where that leaves us.
00:00 - Introduction
02:44 - Ground News AD
04:50 - A quick recap on the radio light you?re seeing in these black hole images
07:19 - How the Event Horizon Telescope works (VLBI) and how these images are constructed
10:08 - What Miyoshi, Kato & Makino are claiming is wrong with the images
15:25 - The Event Horizon Telescope team?s response and where that leaves us
22:28 - Bloopers
-
What's the mature answer?
Reply #160 above.
-
I certainly agree that geniuses are being silenced, though there is a subtle difference between a politically convenient consensus (economic growth is good, we need more people, climate change is anthropogenic....) and an actual conspiracy to do harm, even if the outcome is the same.
As for "publish or perish", I have grave doubts about the value of 95% of what is published or presented in my fields of interest. Photons travel in straight lines until they interact with something, and if you wouldn't do it to your nearest and dearest, it isn't ethical. But I still have to go to conferences and read papers where the bloody obvious is repeated ad nauseam for the greater glory of the presenter.
-
The object of a debate is to convince your audience of the rightness or wrongness of a statement by presenting opposing views and selected evidence. The object of scientific review is to examine the fit between all available evidence and hypothesis.
-
Darwin did not present evolution as a theory. As your chatbot correctly says the term became widely recognized after Charles Darwin published ..... AFAIK the term does not appear in Origin of Species.
What Darwin said is exactly what I said: evolution is an observation, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that evolution plus natural selection can lead to the dominance of new species and the extinction of others. The idea that environmental pressure of any sort can drive evolution remained absurd until very recently.
The religious scum who opposed Darwin coined the term "theory of evolution" to cast doubt over any suggestion that the world was not created in seven days for the benefit of homo sapiens.
-
What's the mature answer?
Reply #160 above.
This one?
I don't think there is such a thing as "established science".
It sounds like a hopeless and self defeating position.
-
The object of a debate is to convince your audience of the rightness or wrongness of a statement by presenting opposing views and selected evidence. The object of scientific review is to examine the fit between all available evidence and hypothesis.
Boltzmann and Mach are involved in a heated scientific debate.
In the serene town of Duino, Italy, on September 5, 1906, physicist Ludwig Boltzmann took his own life. The reason was constant criticism for his belief in atoms?a concept most scientists of his era dismissed.
Boltzmann was among the first to use atoms and molecules to explain the mysteries of thermodynamics?ideas that eventually formed the foundation of quantum mechanics. Despite this, he had to face massive criticism from his colleagues, mostly from Mach and Ostwald. Mach believed that since atoms could not be observed, they are not scientific theories. Shortly after his death, Boltzmann's ideas got widespread acceptance mostly due to the work of Einstein and Planck.
0:00 - 1:44 Intro
1:44 - 2:50 Early life and education
2:50 - 12:43 Boltzmann?s work on Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
12:43 - 20:17 Boltzmann's allies and rivals
20:17 - 22:47 Death and Legacy.
-
The religious scum who opposed Darwin coined the term "theory of evolution" to cast doubt over any suggestion that the world was not created in seven days for the benefit of homo sapiens.
What's your evidence that the term "theory of evolution" was coined by religious persons?
-
ChatGPT explains about theory.
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence, observations, and experiments. It provides a framework for understanding and predicting phenomena, often integrating multiple hypotheses and laws that have been tested and confirmed.
Key Aspects of a Theory:
1. Explanatory Power: A theory explains why and how something happens. For instance, the theory of evolution explains how species change over time, and the theory of gravity explains how objects are attracted to each other.
2. Based on Evidence: Theories are not mere guesses; they are built on repeated observations, data, and experimental results. For example, the germ theory of disease is based on substantial evidence showing that microorganisms cause illness.
3. Testable and Falsifiable: A theory can be tested and potentially disproven by evidence. If new evidence contradicts it, scientists may revise the theory or develop a new one.
4. Predictive Power: A strong theory can make accurate predictions about unknown or future phenomena. For example, the theory of general relativity predicts the behavior of objects in gravitational fields, which has been confirmed by observations.
The Difference from Hypotheses and Laws:
A hypothesis is an initial, testable statement or prediction. A theory, in contrast, is a well-developed explanation.
A law describes a fundamental relationship in nature, often mathematically (e.g., Newton?s law of gravitation), but it doesn?t explain why that relationship exists ? which is where theories come in.
In essence, a theory is a comprehensive and reliable model for understanding the natural world, refined through rigorous testing and evidence.
-
What's your evidence that the term "theory of evolution" was coined by religious persons?
The fact that Darwin didn't use the term but his critics, the most vocal of whom were religious parasites or infected by religion, did.
-
from: alancalverd on 08/11/2024 13:16:03
I don't think there is such a thing as "established science".
It sounds like a hopeless and self defeating position.
On the contrary. It underlines the fact that science is a dynamic process of investigation and refinement, which from time to time generates useful data and hypotheses, none of which are claimed to be immune from scrutiny and revision. Unlike politics, philosophy, economics and religion.
The dangers of "established science" are underlined by the current debate in COP29 where folk who live in overpopulated, ecologically fragile areas are demanding that those who don't, pay them to continue doing so.
-
his belief in atoms?a concept most scientists of his era dismissed.
Given that Democritus posited the notion of atoms 2000 years earlier, chemists had been using Dalton's more precise atomic theory for almost 100 years, and Doebereiner and Mendeleev organised atoms into a periodic table with predictive properties by 1870, I find this statement less than credible.
-
What's your evidence that the term "theory of evolution" was coined by religious persons?
The fact that Darwin didn't use the term but his critics, the most vocal of whom were religious parasites or infected by religion, did.
Afaik, his proponents also use the same term.
-
On the contrary. It underlines the fact that science is a dynamic process of investigation and refinement, which from time to time generates useful data and hypotheses, none of which are claimed to be immune from scrutiny and revision. Unlike politics, philosophy, economics and religion.
The dangers of "established science" are underlined by the current debate in COP29 where folk who live in overpopulated, ecologically fragile areas are demanding that those who don't, pay them to continue doing so.
Established doesn't necessarily mean final, complete, nor unchanged permanently. Some theories can be widely accepted for decades, centuries, or even millenia before being superseded.
-
his belief in atoms?a concept most scientists of his era dismissed.
Given that Democritus posited the notion of atoms 2000 years earlier, chemists had been using Dalton's more precise atomic theory for almost 100 years, and Doebereiner and Mendeleev organised atoms into a periodic table with predictive properties by 1870, I find this statement less than credible.
But we found out that atoms can be divided further into subatomic particles.
-
Afaik, his proponents also use the same term.
I never have, because it is meaningless. Evolution is an observation. Evolution of species can be considered a very sound theory, but as there is no consistent definition of species, it isn't a useful one.
-
But we found out that atoms can be divided further into subatomic particles.
And there's the divide between chemistry (the behavior of atoms and molecules) and physics (the behavior of pretty much everything bigger than a molecule or smaller than an atom). But it doesn't detract from the fact that "atoms" were scientific currency in Boltzmann's lifetime.
-
What do you think is the biggest flaw in my arguments in philosophy, and what can be done to improve or correct it?
One argument is that you don't need philosophy to perform an experiment. The experiments you've been doing are the product of your curiosity.
I once pulled a lawnmower apart, completely, because nobody told me I didn't have to if I wanted to fix it. I was 8 years old though. So you could say I learned a lot from that one. But I don't remember thinking about the Zen of lawnmower maintenance, or much at all except how to dismantle.
-
Given that the observable answer to "Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?" is "chatbots", maybe you should stop.
-
Afaik, his proponents also use the same term.
I never have, because it is meaningless. Evolution is an observation. Evolution of species can be considered a very sound theory, but as there is no consistent definition of species, it isn't a useful one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
On the Origin of Species (or, more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)[3] is a work of scientific literature by Charles Darwin that is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. It was published on 24 November 1859.[4] Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection although Lamarckism was also included as a mechanism of lesser importance. The book presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had collected on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation.
In his book, Darwin proposed a hypothesis, and collected evidence that verified it. He also tested alternative/competing hypotheses, which were refuted by the evidence. His work is qualified as a modern scientific theory. So, why can't we call it a scientific theory?
-
But we found out that atoms can be divided further into subatomic particles.
And there's the divide between chemistry (the behavior of atoms and molecules) and physics (the behavior of pretty much everything bigger than a molecule or smaller than an atom). But it doesn't detract from the fact that "atoms" were scientific currency in Boltzmann's lifetime.
You can say that atomic theory was already established by then.
-
One argument is that you don't need philosophy to perform an experiment. The experiments you've been doing are the product of your curiosity.
The philosophy is not for motivating an experiment. It's to know why should we accept or reject a proposition. How do we know that something is true or false. What should we pursue in our lifetime.
-
Given that the observable answer to "Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?" is "chatbots", maybe you should stop.
Which chatbot do you know that challenged established theories? which theories?
-
I see the need for posting this thread to give a story behind what I've written in the other threads. Simply posting facts and figures do not seem enough to get people's attention and gain traction.
Simply stating facts and figures, as well as showing statistics can't usually change people's mind. We also need to provide background context, and their implications, especially when they're related to people's lives.
-
Given that the observable answer to "Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?" is "chatbots", maybe you should stop.
Which chatbot do you know that challenged established theories? which theories?
I never said it had.
I said that's where you get your confidence.
You ask the bot the wrong question, get an irrelevant answer and think it supports your "new idea".
-
I never said it had.
I said that's where you get your confidence.
You ask the bot the wrong question, get an irrelevant answer and think it supports your "new idea".
Which question?
-
I never said it had.
I said that's where you get your confidence.
You ask the bot the wrong question, get an irrelevant answer and think it supports your "new idea".
Which question?
Is molecular motion frictionless ?
-
I never said it had.
I said that's where you get your confidence.
You ask the bot the wrong question, get an irrelevant answer and think it supports your "new idea".
Which question?
Is molecular motion frictionless ?
I already had the confidence before asking that question.
-
You can say that atomic theory was already established by then.
So your chatbot was wrong about Boltzmann. No surprise. GIGO.
-
So, why can't we call it a scientific theory?
Evolution is no more a theory than fire is a theory - it is an observation. The theory Darwin advanced is that speciation is a result of evolution and circumstance. His opponents wanted their customers to believe that speciation was ordained by the Sky Fairy 6000 years ago.
Even the most radical creationist cannot deny that he doesn't look exactly like both of his parents. That's evolution - a fact. Whether he is related to an orang-utan, or indeed whether an orang-utan is significantly different from a creationist, depends on the evolution of species - a reasonable hypothesis, except that there is no rigorous definition of "species".
-
You can say that atomic theory was already established by then.
So your chatbot was wrong about Boltzmann. No surprise. GIGO.
It wasn't a chatbot. It's a YouTube video.
-
The theory Darwin advanced is that speciation is a result of evolution and circumstance.
Then just call it Darwinian theory of evolution. In contrast to Lamarckian theory of evolution.
There's also Lorentzian theory of relativity which have some differences from Einstein's.
-
No. Evolution is not a theory.
Darwin's theory is of speciation and does not suggest the underlying mechanism of evolution, merely that circumstance may favor the survival of particular characteristics.
The Lamarckian theory of the mechanism of evolution lacks any rationale or evidence.
-
No. Evolution is not a theory.
Darwin's theory is of speciation and does not suggest the underlying mechanism of evolution, merely that circumstance may favor the survival of particular characteristics.
The Lamarckian theory of the mechanism of evolution lacks any rationale or evidence.
Why can't it be both?
There are facts of electromagnetism, and there are theories of electromagnetism.
-
Science is in trouble and it worries me
Innovation is slowing, research productivity is declining, scientific work is becoming more disruptive. In this video I summarize what we know about the problem and what possible causes have been proposed. I also explain why this matters so much to me.
Clarification to what I say at 3:10 -- As with the previous figure, the blue lines show the growth in the yield, see figure title and axis label. Sorry for expressing this so vaguely.
00:00 Intro
00:33 Numbers
06:33 Causes
10:32 Speculations
16:25 Bullshit Research
22:06 Epilogue
-
Why can't it be both?
Because it isn't. We know it happens (fact known to everyone, for ever) and when it happens, we observe changes in DNA codes (fact discovered in my lifetime). But there is (so far) no usefully predictive theory that tells us what to expect when an organism evolves.
-
scientific work is becoming more disruptive.
It is supposed to be. There's no point in confirming what you already know. The value of research is the extent to which the result surprises you.
-
Why can't it be both?
Because it isn't. We know it happens (fact known to everyone, for ever) and when it happens, we observe changes in DNA codes (fact discovered in my lifetime). But there is (so far) no usefully predictive theory that tells us what to expect when an organism evolves.
Things like glyphosate resistance were predicted.
-
I guess it's a reasonable expectation that some mutants might prosper where the majority fail, and that's certainly the case for bacteria, but you'd be hard pressed to describe the survivor's DNA in advance of finding it.
If you have a toxin that targets a particular byte of genetic code, obviously any survivors wouldn't have that byte in a vulnerable form, but what else would be predictably different? And since that difference was present and statistically insignificant previously (we are talking about survivors, not new creations) does resistance mean the evolution of a new species, or just selection within an existing one?
-
Why can't it be both?
Because it isn't. We know it happens (fact known to everyone, for ever) and when it happens, we observe changes in DNA codes (fact discovered in my lifetime). But there is (so far) no usefully predictive theory that tells us what to expect when an organism evolves.
Georgia can be the name of a state. It can also be the name of a country.
Likewise, evolution can be the name of some set of facts. It can also be the name of some theories.
-
There's no point in confirming what you already know. The value of research is the extent to which the result surprises you.
Some research is still necessary to convince the sceptics. They need more accessible evidence, something that they can relate to what they already know.
-
Likewise, evolution can be the name of some set of facts. It can also be the name of some theories.
There's a big difference between "can be" and "is".
As I live in England, have played for an English club, and have not had a trial for any other national side, I can be a Test cricketer. But I'm not and never will be.
-
Some research is still necessary to convince the sceptics.
Dangerous point of view! The business of science is scepticism!
Policy-based evidence-making may result in the extermination of homo sapiens.
-
It is supposed to be. There's no point in confirming what you already know.
Are you familiar with the story of Galileo dropping things from the Tower of Pisa?
He knew from a thought-experiment what the outcome would be...
-
Some research is still necessary to convince the sceptics.
Dangerous point of view! The business of science is scepticism!
Policy-based evidence-making may result in the extermination of homo sapiens.
How do you make decisions without being convinced about the expected results first?
-
Like most people, I learned about science, technology, and philosophy from school/college, textbooks, and online sources, including wikipedia, quora, science web sites, and science forums.
I have to admit that chatbots are also my information sources now. They can save time to search and read TLDR documents, but verification and cross checks are still necessary.
-
How do you make decisions without being convinced about the expected results first?
Courage is knowing what not to fear.
Plato
High voltage, high current and high frequency (65000Hz) through the body of Dr Irwin Moon!!!
Amazing Physics Experiments from Dr Irwin Moon. In this video you can see High voltage, high current and high frequency (65000Hz) through the body of Dr Irwin Moon! Also you can see many high voltages experiments. Finally you can see a resonance experiment. Enjoy!!!
-
There are many questions I want to find out the answers, but I only have finite time to pursue them. For now, I'll just focus on a few of them, based on their importance/significance of their impacts, how much efforts are required, and how close or how likely I think I have the chance to solve them.
Here's an updated task list, sorted for the importance to future society.
Identifying the universal terminal goal.
Identifying the universal moral standard.
Building an accurate and precise virtual universe, which includes:
Unifying gravity and electromagnetism in a physical model.
Building a more intuitive model to describe propagation of light and how it interacts with matter.
Solving some long standing math problems like Riemann Riemann' hypothesis and Cantor's continuum hypothesis.
-
High voltage, high current and high frequency (65000Hz) through the body of Dr Irwin Moon!!!
High current through the body? I think not. Skin effect is significant at 65 kHz and any current greater than 10 mA through the heart can be fatal.
-
How do you make decisions without being convinced about the expected results first?
Only economists and politicians are convinced about the results before doing the experiment. And they blame everyone else if it turns out wrong.
Good recent example after the UK election whitewash: every Tory politician interviewed on the radio said he was let down by the Party, and every Party agent said they were let down by the politicians.
-
He knew from a thought-experiment what the outcome would be...
And Aristotle, the Pope, and everyone else, knew from a thought-experiment that it would be something else. The difference is that Galileo did an actual experiment that could have disproved his theory - that's science.
-
He knew from a thought-experiment what the outcome would be...
And Aristotle, the Pope, and everyone else, knew from a thought-experiment that it would be something else. The difference is that Galileo did an actual experiment that could have disproved his theory - that's science.
That's why physical experiments are still needed.
-
The reproducibility crisis and other problems in science | John Ioannidis
John Ioannidis discusses his famous 2005 paper "Why most published research finding are false" and assesses how much progress we've made since then.
Has the research environment significantly improved?
Twenty years ago, Stanford professor John Ioannidis shocked the scientific world by publishing evidence demonstrating that the majority of published scientific claims are false. It was hugely influential and led to the widespread recognition of a 'replicability crisis' in science. Join John Ioannidis to hear first-hand how he thinks things have moved on from his initial research and what he thinks needs to be done to rescue science from its falsehoods.
John Ioannidis is a physician-scientist, writer and Stanford University professor who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology and clinical research. Ioannidis studies scientific research itself, meta-research primarily in clinical medicine and the social sciences.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics.
00:00 Introduction
00:25 Original paper
02:40 Ever-accumulating data sets
04:30 Biases in science
05:27 Statistical significance
07:55 Three types of scientists
09:48 Megajournals
11:30 Paper mills
-
High voltage, high current and high frequency (65000Hz) through the body of Dr Irwin Moon!!!
High current through the body? I think not. Skin effect is significant at 65 kHz and any current greater than 10 mA through the heart can be fatal.
Skin is a part of body.
-
But not the heart. And is mostly dead. "Around" is not the same as "through". 200 volts DC hand-to-hand is potentially lethal if the source impedance is less than 1000 ohm.
-
The reproducibility crisis and other problems in science | John Ioannidis
Big problem in medical research is the poor quality of input material. Huge variability of tolerance and robustness even among "normals", and every patient is by definition abnormal.
Secondary problem of applied research (i.e. clinical medicine) is the expectation of recovery as the norm (every "failure" makes headlines) despite the variability not only of the input patient and condition thereof, but also his subsequent behavior and environment.
Statistical significance is just that - it doesn't guarantee individual outcomes. So a billion people not dying from COVID is not seen as a triumph of vaccination, but one associated cardiac death, though statistically insignificant, can set the entire program back.
-
A New Physics Breakthrough Could Change Everything
?New physics? is a catch-all term for fundamentally new discoveries in physics (such as dark matter, quantum gravity, or a theory of everything) which push the boundaries of how we understand our reality. How could new discoveries in these areas of research affect our lives? Let?s take a look at what knowledge and practical use we could potentially gain.
If we can learn something from Alpha Zero, AI models initially learn from human knowledge. But at some point, human knowledge becomes more of obstacles from further advancements. It's likely because of some false assumptions are tightly embedded in existing knowledge and no one is willing to discard them.
AI models with access to physical reality can break that limitations. But of course it comes with its own risks.
-
new discoveries in physics (such as dark matter, quantum gravity, or a theory of everything)
Wrong. These are hypotheses, not discoveries.
-
new discoveries in physics (such as dark matter, quantum gravity, or a theory of everything)
Wrong. These are hypotheses, not discoveries.
What makes them different?
-
You really need to learn about the scientific method. It's what distinguishes honest men from priests.
-
You really need to learn about the scientific method. It's what distinguishes honest men from priests.
Honest men make mistakes sometimes.
But the opposite should be called conmen.
String Theory Isn?t Dead
Heard anything of string theory lately? Well, there have been a few developments. Apparently it?s not dead, going by a recent review article. The article also lists all the things that string theorists have learned recently. And they indeed learned something. Let?s take a look.
-
3 steps to finding confidence | Kris Kelso | TEDxOldHickory
The common advice of ?fake it til you make it? can actually hurt you more than it helps, but there?s a better approach. In this TEDxOldHickory talk, Kris Kelso explains how to develop ?Humble Confidence? and avoid the temptation to be fake when the stakes are high. Kris Kelso, PCC, is a Keynote Speaker, author, and a two-time company founder.
He has worked with hundreds of entrepreneurs, business owners, and their leadership teams as a coach, facilitator, and mentor, and speaks to audiences around the world. He is the Dean of Entrepreneurship at the Professional Christian Coaching Institute, a Faculty Coach at Heroic Public Speaking, an advisor and instructor at the Nashville Entrepreneur Center, and is a contributing writer for Fast Company Magazine, Yahoo Finance, and The Nashville Business Journal. He and his wife have three sons and live in a suburb of Nashville, Tennessee.
-
Honest men make mistakes sometimes.
But the opposite should be called conmen.
Priests never make mistakes. They speak with absolute certainty about things you will never know to be wrong.
-
Honest men make mistakes sometimes.
But the opposite should be called conmen.
Priests never make mistakes. They speak with absolute certainty about things you will never know to be wrong.
We know that the earth is older than ten thousand years.
-
Ah, my son, it all depends on what you mean by a year. Genesis is an allegory, and in the eyes of the Creator what you call a year is more like a nanosecond..... Why else would Man have this instinctive desire to prostrate himself before God every 7 days?
-
People need some break from routine activities.
-
The Huge Flaw in Quantum Mechanics Few Physicists Take Seriously
Some comments on the video.
Penrose is one of the only people that speaks coherently about these matters. Everyone else is lost in mathematical details until they cannot explain what Wednesday means..
Just like Einstein said when Minkowski "mathematized" special relativity: 'Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more'
He correctly points out the cheat of the QM and then introduces one of his own, just as bad 😅
This quote was cut form the interview: "Unfortunately, if you were to take out the old cheat and replace it with a new cheat, you'd end up with Herpes."
He has the confidence to say what most others don't.
-
People need some break from routine activities.
Such as kneeling before a parasite every 7 days?
-
People need some break from routine activities.
Such as kneeling before a parasite every 7 days?
Like sleeping or going to a vacation.
-
Those diversions are generally benign or even curative. Religion is evil.
-
Those diversions are generally benign or even curative. Religion is evil.
How do you define evil?
Is there benefit of religion?
What makes it survive in society?
-
Tom Campbell Critiques Theories of Reality
-
How do you define evil?
inherently harmful
Is there benefit of religion?
only to the sellers of the product, and those who promote conflict based on religion.
What makes it survive in society?
bad people
-
bad people
Why can't good people defeat the bad people?
-
only to the sellers of the product, and those who promote conflict based on religion.
Weapon manufacturers and smugglers often benefit from conflicts, even though they don't share the same religion as the conflicting sides.
-
This is from a debate I have in the comment section of a YouTube video.
I am not the one who is confused here. I perfectly understand that work is forced times distance or, for a rotational system torque times angle of rotation. My point is that there is no reason to express torque in units of energy per angle of rotation. The fundamental nature of torque is force acting at a distance. Not all torques result in work being done. Only if the torque is accompanied by a rotation then there is work being done. There is no reason to include the concept of work associated with torque for the situations where there is no work being done.That is, such as the case where the torque is applied statically. Newtons and meters are fundamental units in the SI system. Torque is readily defined in terms of these fundamental units. There is no need to introduce additional units such as radians.
Furthermore your suggestion that I am confused and my confusion would be cleared up by looking at variables speed devices is quite condescending. I have been engineer for more than 50 years. I worked with and designed vehicle power trains, including those that had continuously variable and infinitely variable speed transmissions. In my work I worked with advanced power trains including those for hybrid vehicles and
I have co-authored numerous SAE papers on the subject, and have taught thousands of Mechanical Engineering students. I am confident that I am not confused about the fundamental nature of torque.
The first knowledge that any conscious entity can have is their own existence while they are thinking about it. In the end, our confidence in our specific knowledge depends on how it supports our continued existence. We can lose our confidence in that specific knowledge if it contradicts some other knowledge that we're more confident in.
-
We can lose our confidence in that specific knowledge if it contradicts some other knowledge that we're more confident in.
Plenty of people have died because of their confident knowledge of a god, or the importance of a politician.
-
bad people
Why can't good people defeat the bad people?
Because the bad people have armies of idiots who are prepared to kill anyone who thinks for himself.
-
Weapon manufacturers and smugglers often benefit from conflicts, even though they don't share the same religion as the conflicting sides.
But without that religion, there would be no conflict or market, and without weapons, the conflict would fade away. By supplying one side or even both, you are promoting the basic cause of the conflict.
-
Weapon manufacturers and smugglers often benefit from conflicts, even though they don't share the same religion as the conflicting sides.
But without that religion, there would be no conflict or market, and without weapons, the conflict would fade away. By supplying one side or even both, you are promoting the basic cause of the conflict.
Russia vs Ukraine doesn't seem to be caused by religion.
-
Politics is another form of parasitism, and when it involves the armed invasion of territory for reasons of "nationhood" it is as execrable as religion. Indeed it would be difficult to distinguish psychologically between nationalism and sectarianism.
-
Academia Is Beyond Broken - And No One Wants to fix it!
Academia is broken. That?s a phrase we hear more and more, but what does it actually mean? Why is academia broken, and how did it reach this point?
In this video, I explore the realities of working in higher education today, based on a major new report that gathered insights from over 4,000 academics, faculty members, and administrators. Their experiences paint a clear picture of a system that is struggling?one where burnout is the norm, not the exception, and where toxic workplace dynamics have become deeply ingrained.
A toxic work culture doesn?t emerge overnight. It builds slowly, fed by unrealistic expectations, a lack of proper leadership training, and a structural design that encourages competition over collaboration. In academia, success is often a zero-sum game?if one researcher secures funding, another misses out. This scarcity-driven mindset fuels environments where backstabbing, overwork, and fear of failure take precedence over actual intellectual progress. It?s a system that claims to value knowledge and innovation but often rewards those who play the bureaucratic game best.
Many academics report feeling trapped in a cycle of increasing demands with decreasing support. Instead of hiring replacements when staff leave, institutions simply distribute the extra work among those who remain. The result? A workforce drowning in administrative tasks, unable to dedicate enough time to the research and teaching that should be at the heart of their careers. Employee morale suffers as universities prioritize performance metrics, rankings, and funding over the well-being of their staff.
Perhaps the most concerning part is that this problem isn?t new. For years, academics have raised concerns, but meaningful change remains elusive. Universities continue to operate as businesses, focused on growth and reputation rather than fostering environments where research and education can truly thrive. So, if academia is broken, can it ever be fixed? That?s the question we need to start asking?before it?s too late.
................................................
▼ ▽ TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Intro
00:43 Welcome
00:59 Toxic Work Environment
04:39 Increased Workload and Burnout
08:01 Lack of Recognition and Appreciation
11:37 Corporitization of Higher Education
13:02 Impact on Teaching and Research
14:44 Conclusion
14:49 Outro
And some comments seem to confirm that this is not an outlier.
As a tenured faculty staff in the UK, I confirm that I spend more time and prioritize applying for funding and grants than doing research and publishing. I keep the latter to a minimum and spend most of my time pondering the language of funders and making my reserach 'investable'. UTTERLY SOUL CRUSHING. If I don't tick the box of funding, I will never progress in my career. In fact, applying for funding is part and parcel of HR's expectations!
I was always planning of becoming a professor but the closer I got to realizing that goal the more I realized I was burnt out so I left academia. I have friends that continued on and from what they tell me I?m glad I got out when I did.
As a PhD student, i'm living paycheck to paycheck every month with zero savings in my bank account, and i dont even have a car. Atleast US citizens or PRs can work outside without any restrictions and take a leave of absence for atleast a semester..but as an international student we can't. So our situation is even worse than just a consequence of "Academia being broken", we are also affected by a broken immigration system.
Thanks for posting this! As an academic, I can confirm that the toxicity is absolutely stupefying. Bullshitification is the perfect term that encapsulates everything that?s gone wrong. The leadership in my Department and College operates on smoke and mirrors, using faculty and students as stepping stones to climb the administrative ladder. Just this year, our College Dean secured a higher-level position elsewhere after gutting programs and removing faculty and student opportunities. Does she care? Not a chance. She got rewarded for the 'initiatives' that looked great on paper while leaving chaos in her wake.
Administrative bloat has turned what was once a deeply fulfilling career, something I lived and breathed, into an endless bureaucratic nightmare. For instance, it now takes months just to purchase something as simple as an online workshop. I could go on and on. Even with tenure, I could theoretically flip them the bird whenever I want, but it?s hard not to keep pushing back and trying to fix things as I truly do care. The problem? Nearly every time I do, I end up feeling like smashing my head against a wall. Presenting evidence is fundamental in research, yet completely irrelevant in the broader workings of academia. They just don't give a sh1t. The hypocrisy is maddening.
Thanks for making this video. It was just refreshing to know I'm not alone with the BS. I just wish there was a way to fix it.
So I'm not alone here.
As an adjunct professor who is advocating for the learning revolution, I thank you dearly Andy Stapleton for commuinicating all of this. You are the best.
Yep jealousy, stealing other's ideas, backstabbing is a big problem. Although, this is not limited to academia.
I left. Was working on a PhD and decided to get the MS and leave. My lab was becoming dysfunctional, my department was mismanaged and was mismanaging money. They had to fire 17 faculty and post-docs. It?s insane.
Imagine having an ADJUNCT assistant doing all your teaching for you while you spend all your time on the paid lecture circuit?college is a total rip-off.
It?s been broken since the late eighties. It?s just that the problem is that now it is just becoming impossible to hide
All "education" has become a business, with profit as the goal, so actual teaching/learning is no longer important.
wow so accurate from my experience in Canadian higher ed...more people need to watch this....
I am a first year PhD student. I wrote the whole paper... completed the 95% of the work including journal finding and then my professor became the first author. Does this happen a lot in academia, too?
Sorry, the uk is worse, its broke now too, betting too much on overseas students. Losing my job hss given time for reflection. All that seems to matter is teaching more students, research time cut to nothing and the ladder pulled up by estimated academics. Maybe i will never return but i will desperately miss the discipline of research....
This is the most brutally honest and painfully accurate takedown of academia I?ve seen in a long time. The delivery is sharp, relentless, and laced with just the right amount of dark humor to make you laugh while simultaneously wanting to scream into the void. Every point is dead-on?the toxic work culture, the burnout, the corporate infestation of universities turning them into money-chasing bureaucratic nightmares. The bit about stale cake as appreciation? Perfect. I hated myself for pointing out an earlier video I didn't like, this one I did like and so kudos. Of course what a little person like me thinks may not be statistically significant, but I may be in the soon to be extinct homo thinkus.
What makes this so good is that it?s not just an angry rant; it?s a well-researched, articulate breakdown of why higher education is eating itself alive. The way it builds up from the survey data to real-world experiences hits hard because it?s not exaggerated?it?s just the truth that no one in leadership wants to admit. If you've ever worked in academia, this will feel like someone has read your mind, condensed all your frustrations, and handed them back to you in a perfectly packaged PowerPoint of doom. And if you haven?t? Well, congratulations on dodging a bullet.
15:01 Things seemingly never change. But they can, and in some cases do. When they do change for the better, it always involves a ground-up push (actually, a FIGHT) for change.
You mention Graeber in your video. That guy (may he RIP) was an amazing philosopher and scholar. You ought to present more about what he says; crucially, HOW to change things. As well as WHY this bullshittification exists. Which ties into the "how" to change it above.
Basically, power never yields power willingly. It has to be fought for. This is where radically democratic (which means member-led) unions are necessary. And to topple and replace the university system with something better will require a national, or perhaps, international movement led by such unions (and not just in academia).
And, with respect, I do take issue with the title of your video. People DO want to change it who work or have worked within academia. Don't you?
I didn't go the academic route after grad school. Thinking about spending the next few decades teaching unmotivated 19-year-olds just didn't sound too appealing. But I still managed over 120 publications, 20 patents, etc. On the other hand, I really didn't quite get to do exactly what I wanted to do, but it was close enough. I can't imagine what it's like in academia today. From everything I've heard, it's why we have the word "soul-crushing" in English. I'm fairly sure that I made the right choice.
Wow this resonates!
I left academia in part because of the issues described here.
Thank you very much for highlighting the issues in academia, which has been alienating true scholars. This has been causing huge loss for all humanity.
I agree 100%.
The only thing I'd add is that more papers means a lot more BS you need to go trough, leading to a lot of wasted resources and time.
30+ years in education in the US. 20 in higher ed, full time.
Education is broken. Leadership is dysfunctional. The pet projects of each new administrator, the new initiatives that keep getting recycled every couple years.
The diplomas are barely worth the paper they?re printed on. Maybe not even that much. I?m getting out soon. Not retiring (I don?t have that luxury at this point), but it?s not worth the cheap paycheck that barely covers my bills.
Looking forward to the freedom from the institution, even while nervous of the future.
Yeah! 6th year Ph.D student here and the struggle is real
All grades and schools have pretty much let me down. I feel like I wasted so much of my life to be ?educated? and groomed to their version of adulthood. They failed and I am still try to figure everything out. I?m 48 and scared in lieu being older and still skidding my wheels trying to find a career that I can be successful at. It?s hard because I learn differently than others and learning in a classroom never prepared me for the real world. Learning in the job is the only way for me, but that?s another tricky situation. Anyway, I guess I?ll just keep trying..
This is why I choose to pursue a research path in industry. Academic system is beyond help.
Too often academia is exactly what it shouldn?t be. Academics should be dedicated to finding the truth, to asking the right questions, instead it?s often dedicated to building people?s reputations, there?s a really dreadful "apprentice" system in lots of universities and people will actually try to torpedo research that disagrees with their own, so they can keep their reputation.
Honestly, some academic departments make Corporate boardrooms of big companies look good in terms of behaviour.
Academia is broken because it?s become focused on nonsense issues. The infantalization of the students is borderline psychotic where nearly everyone gets ?A?s, abundant safe spaces, and pervasive trigger warnings, it feels like a kindergarten. Along with the constant investigations of faculty who dare to step away from the pervasive permissive narrative makes for an environment that has laregly broken from reality testing. Furthermore add in these academia bubble majors that will do very little for the student after graduation other than burden them with overwhelming debt and we find higher ed out of touch at a highly unethical level. The poor students who are being ?sold a bill of goods? after having their financial future demolished. We are in serious need of a new paradigm.
This is straight out of Tom Sharpe?s *Wilt*?a world where academia is less about knowledge and more about surviving an absurd bureaucratic hellscape run by incompetents and backstabbers. Wilt trudged through a university department filled with petty rivalries, clueless administrators, and a system so broken that doing actual work was a liability. This video feels like an update to that world, except now the stakes are even higher, the burnout is real, and the joke isn?t funny anymore because people?s careers and mental health are on the line.
I?m a recently employed assistant professor at a UK university and I?m approaching my 1 year probation meeting. I didn?t land a single grant last year despite writing for several. Needless to say I?m a bit worried!
I lecture for 3 world top 1% universities and I couldn't agree more with everything you've said.
Salaries especially are miserable while universities keep investing money in new buildings and rental accomodation
The funny thing is, youtube video can do 80% of the work that those univerisites are doing. Obsolete system that will die
I live this and what i`ve done is work, give classes, drink my coffe and back home as fast as I can. I`ve trying to not interact with co-workers (professors) cause is extremely toxic, with gossip, complains against other professors, complaints against administration etc., Only hour I`m happy is when I interact with students otherwise I already had given up.
My department wants to pump out papers and make phd students graduate as fast as possible. This way they get the "recognition" through papers and save money by making them graduate faster. One student finished his phd in 18 months...
-
So nothing special about academia, then. Except that some of its members seem to think they should be insulated from reality.
-
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/breakthrough-prize-winner-gerard-t-hooft-says-quantum-mechanics-is-nonsense/
. If the situation proceeds in such a way that every new breakthrough requires a 10-fold, or even larger, increase in the machines? size, power and costs, then clearly we won?t get much beyond where we are now. I cannot exclude such obstacles standing in the way of progress, but the history of science suggests, in such a case, progress will simply go in different directions. One may not only think of precision improvements but also [think of] totally different avenues of discovery such as cosmology and black hole physics.
But I would like to advise to the new generation of scientists: don?t worry about that, because the real reason why there?s nothing new coming is that everybody?s thinking the same way!
I?m a bit puzzled and disappointed about this. Many people continue to think the same way?and the way people now try to introduce new theories doesn?t seem to work as well. We have lots of new theories about quantum gravity, about statistical physics, about the universe and cosmology, but they?re not really ?new? in their basic structure. People don?t seem to want to make the daring new steps that I think are really necessary. For instance, we see everybody sending their new ideas first to the [preprint server] arXiv.org and then to the journals to have it published. And in arXiv.org, you see thousands of papers coming every year, and none of them really has this great, bright, new, fine kind of insight that changes things. There are insights, of course, but not the ones that are needed to make a basic new breakthrough in our field.
I think we have to start thinking in a different way. And I have always had the attitude that I was thinking in a different way. And particularly in the 1970s, there was a very efficient way of making further progress: think differently from what your friends are doing, and then you find something new!
I think that is still true; however, I?m getting old now and am no longer getting brilliant new ideas every week. But in principle, there are ways?one could argue about quantum mechanics, about cosmology, about biology?that are not the conventional ways of looking at things. And to my mind, people thinking in such novel ways is not happening enough.
-
Could you give an example of the novelty or difference you?re referring to?
Sure. My way of thinking about the world, about physics, about the other disciplines related to physics is that everything should be much more logical, much more direct, much more ?down to Earth.?
Many people who write papers on quantum mechanics like to keep some sense of mysticism about it, as if there?s something strange, something almost religious about the subject. I think that?s totally false. Quantum mechanics is based on a mathematical method used to describe very ordinary physical effects. I think the physical world itself is a very ordinary one that is completely classical. But in this completely classical world, there are still too many things that we don?t know today, there are ?steps? we?re basically missing on our path to deeper understanding.
-
Quantum mechanics was invented because it turns out that you can't map reality onto classical continuum mechanics with sufficient precision to make accurate predictions. Similarly for relativistic mechanics, though in that case the theory was developed before the observations that supported it.
So any attempt to analyse or predict reality from a purely classical standpoint is at best an approximation, and at worst, more wrong than starting from a quantum/relativistic axiom.
The test of quantum or relativistic physics is whether, for large objects and low speeds, it approximates to what we observe in the mesoscopic everyday world, and for small objects and high speeds it gets us closer to what actually happens.
So far, both approaches have proved very robust, so anyone who thinks the physical world itself is a very ordinary one that is completely classical
is directing himself away from understanding, not towards it. Ordinary, obviously; classical, obviously not.
-
Quantum mechanics was invented because it turns out that you can't map reality onto classical continuum mechanics with sufficient precision to make accurate predictions. Similarly for relativistic mechanics, though in that case the theory was developed before the observations that supported it.
So any attempt to analyse or predict reality from a purely classical standpoint is at best an approximation, and at worst, more wrong than starting from a quantum/relativistic axiom.
The test of quantum or relativistic physics is whether, for large objects and low speeds, it approximates to what we observe in the mesoscopic everyday world, and for small objects and high speeds it gets us closer to what actually happens.
So far, both approaches have proved very robust, so anyone who thinks the physical world itself is a very ordinary one that is completely classical
is directing himself away from understanding, not towards it. Ordinary, obviously; classical, obviously not.
The claim for better understanding can only be supported by better prediction for the behavior of a system from the first principles with less assumptions and free parameters.
-
Wrong. There is no way you could predict the existence, never mind wavelength, of x-ray fluorescence from a classical model. Nor indeed the behavior of protons in an MRI machine, or electrons in a tunnel diode.
-
The claim for better understanding can only be supported by better prediction for the behavior of a system from the first principles with less assumptions and free parameters.
And, as Alan pointed out, it is supported.
-
Quantum mechanics has turned out to be one of the most spectacularly successful theory in terms of predictions.
-
Wrong. There is no way you could predict the existence, never mind wavelength, of x-ray fluorescence from a classical model. Nor indeed the behavior of protons in an MRI machine, or electrons in a tunnel diode.
Perhaps some ingredients are still missing. Or some assumptions made in the classical theories of the past are false.
-
Quantum mechanics has turned out to be one of the most spectacularly successful theory in terms of predictions.
What are the others?
Quantum mechanics is often hailed as the most successful theory in physics?capable of explaining the behavior of atoms, particles, and light itself. But what happens when we ask it to predict something as basic as the shape of a molecule?
In this episode, we explore a surprising truth at the heart of quantum chemistry: quantum mechanics doesn?t naturally produce structure?it requires help. From the Born-Oppenheimer approximation to computational constraints and empirical corrections, we dive into the hidden scaffolding that makes quantum models work.
We?ll unpack how structure in molecules and nuclei is not derived from first principles but instead imposed through assumptions and approximations. What does this mean for the limits of quantum theory? And could it suggest that something deeper?something structural?is being overlooked in our models of matter?
Join us as we challenge the standard narrative and ask: does quantum mechanics really explain structure?or just approximate it well enough to get by?
00:00 Introduction
01:51 Quest to Model Molecules
02:59 N-Body Problem
04:27 Born-Oppenheimer Approximation
06:02 Solving Schr?dinger?s Equation Without the Approximation
07:46 Limits & Assumptions
09:39 Why is this a Problem?
10:45 Electron Orbitals
15:06 Quantum Mechanics and the Nucleus
17:51 The 3 Domains & Structure
19:47 QM & Visible Structure
Can it still be improved further?
-
Perhaps some ingredients are still missing. Or some assumptions made in the classical theories of the past are false.
Yes. The assumption that continuum mathematics is always predictive and explanatory.
-
How I Became Particle Physicists? Enemy #1
I didn?t plan on becoming particle physicists? enemy number one, but somehow I have. Here?s how it all happened.
A little conversation in the comment section.
here?s the thing, is she wrong on this point that a lot of investment is going into something that is already outdated and there?s a lack of progress etc? no, but the reason people get mad is this: she is carrying water for the anti-science people - the problem is not that too much is going into a failed collider it?s that way more investment should be going into science so that other avenues are also pursued, instead her argument will be used by bad faith actors to tear down and privatize research
Sorry, but the argument that something can be misused intentionally by other people doesn't hold any weight on what she does and should continue to do. The anti-science promoters will find someone or something else anyway with or without Sabine, this is what they do. By this logic we should not have gas stoves or even kitchen knives because they can be misused, intentionally or not.
I am an ex-particle physicist. I consider your criticism of particle physics and its direction to-point and well needed. After all - if you were wrong it should be easy for the community in question to come with their own, fact based arguments. This is an argument within a scientific community, not a political party.
-
Amateurs Solve a Famous Computer Science Problem On Discord
A team of amateurs recently came together in an online collaboration called the Busy Beaver Challenge to pin down the value of BB(5), the fifth "busy beaver" number ? a notoriously difficult problem in theoretical computer science. The busy beaver problem, or ?game,? involves finding the Turing machine with a given number of states that runs for the longest series of steps before halting. Using collaborative tools and the Coq proof assistant to verify their work, the team proved that BB(5) equals 47,176,870. The landmark result explores the limits of computation and the boundaries of what is knowable in mathematics.
--------
CHAPTERS
00:00 What is the Busy Beaver problem?
01:05 How does a Turing machine work?
02:35 Programs that halt versus getting stuck in endless loops: the Halting Problem
04:38 How to play the Busy Beaver game
05:26 BB(1), BB(2), BB(3), BB(4) solutions
06:38 The Busy Beaver Challenge tackles BB(5)
07:31 The history of the search for BB(5)
08:10 The Busy Beaver Challenge methodology
08:48 Coding 'deciders'' to shorten the list of contenders
09:49 Mysterious contributor confirms BB(5) solution
10:09 Coq proof of BB(5)
10:54 Is BB(6) solvable?
--------
-
If one is trying to debunk established science, one needs to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It is obvious that you do not have that necessary understanding. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of attempts to falsify the status quo but to do so one has to be adept with the current understanding to challenge it.
Perhaps being involved too much in established science has prevented modern scientists from thinking clearly about explanations for the experimental results.
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla
They're already convinced by some assumptions used in their mathematical model, and unwilling to abandon them to get a better model. They seem to be caught up into sunk cost fallacy.
In my own experience, over the years, from High School and University forward into jobs and private exploration, I picked up all types of science data and observations, that do not fit the standard models and theories. Conceptually, these data, alone, are reason enough for some changes, but often nothing changes with all change resisted. Even in science, it may be safer to run with the herd, than take a detour, since science is a good job, that pays the bills, and the term crackpot, does into allow as many promotions, as just going along.
For example, is everyone aware that DNA, has a double helix of water, intertwined in the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix? The DNA is not bioactive, without this water, but this water is rarely, if ever, shown in textbooks.
I was to trying to post pics and links but neither appear to work. I will need to do it verbally.
What is presented in nearly all biology textbooks is not bioactive; old mythology of DNA. There are more hydrogen bonding sites on the base pairs of DNA, earmarked for water, than for the base pairs. Commonsense math shows the priority. Yet the misinformation version of DNA lingers and is indoctrinated in schools from a young age.
If textbooks presented this extra double helix of water, students would ask why is it there? Now if you attempt to explain why, it appears you are the one who is out of touch with reality. If it is not broke, which it is, do not try to fix it.
However, seeing the eventual need for an update, this data did lead to a more water centric or co-partner model for life and evolution. But again, the old is still not seen as flawed, since empirical is good enough. Most of the breakthroughs in life science, are due to better technology seeing more details, which previously got fudged into averages, to be ignored, rather than predicted in advance by a better theory; bureaucracy of science.
As another example, since about the year 2000, or so, there has been lots of provocative science data of the inner earth, that does not fit nor was predicted by the standard models. These studies will get published, since it was good science, but the bigger pendulum did not swing, because of this new data. The new data remains at the margins as a specialty,
For example, the mantle contains as much water as the surface. However, this water is in an exotic phase of water called super ionic water, that is also part of a larger mantle mineral phase. Water has also been found all the way to the earth's core and appears to be reacting with the core. We really are a water planet, but not just at the facade of the current theories. The current models are too shallow to use this state of the art data. But nothing changes and any attempt to present change is resisted.
The Bureaucracy of science is like a giant ship, that takes a long time to turn. Truth in science, which is like the rudder, is only part of the science ship. Science is also has the huge inertia of money, jobs and even politics. Science does not have it own money to do pure science, but it still needs donations from Government and Private sector, who also have their own needs. University science research would be hard pressed without these donations. While even university company politics has an impact of who gets what.
Climate Science, for example, broke down by political party, with the party in power having control over the means to collect which data to publish. With a change in the political landscape, now science will follow the money the other way; new truth. While politicians are not always scientists but have the power of the purse over science.
Innovative thinkers are often pushing the rudder of science, but there is too much inertia to divert the ship, in the needed direction in a reasonable amount of time. The ship is so heavy with others needs, besides the rudder, innovators fall by he wayside before the turn; smaller partial turn.
Understanding the nature of the ship of science, I decided to do conceptual modeling. This became a way to use provocative data already available while looking at foundation premises of science on which all else depends.
What I found is all area of science has a few fundamental assumptions on which all the rest is built upon. Like a house that was build in sand, it was designed only to get so tall and so heavy, but it was never optimized to get too tall and too heavy. When it was overbuilt, cracks will start to appear, as the foundation sinks under the weight of the bureaucracy. Today, we generate more data, than analyze the data to advance existing theory. We add more clutter and weight and the house sinks further under its own inertia.
I work to anticipate what is needed and also try to avoid being part of inertial bloat. I use a rudder of science with a light weight ship that can turn and maneuver.
-
Every up and coming scientist wants to make their name with some new discovery and this idea that science is resistant to change is nonsense. And Hamdani has so far failed to convince anyone.
-
Every up and coming scientist wants to make their name with some new discovery and this idea that science is resistant to change is nonsense. And Hamdani has so far failed to convince anyone.
Which of my ideas are you interested in?
What does it take to make you convinced?
-
None of your ideas interest me as you have not produced anything of value in your attacks on well established science.
-
"Explain it to me like I'm five..." okie dokie
You?ve heard the phrase: ?If you can?t explain it to a 5-year-old, you don?t understand it.? But what if that idea is not only false but harmful? In this video, we dismantle one of the most repeated myths in science communication, explore why some truths resist simplification, and reveal what real understanding actually looks like. If you care about learning deeply, or teaching well, this is a must-watch.
-
To save me the bother of watching the entire video, please list a few truths that "resist simplification". And beware - simplification is not necessarily the key to explanation.
-
None of your ideas interest me as you have not produced anything of value in your attacks on well established science.
Interests and values are subjective. I don't try to force mine to others.
In my experiments I tried to present simple and easily reproduced facts. They can be interpreted in many different ways according to different frameworks and underlying assumptions.
-
To save me the bother of watching the entire video, please list a few truths that "resist simplification". And beware - simplification is not necessarily the key to explanation.
You can't express a rank 2 tensor in a single number, except in very special cases.
-
The Trump administration's plans to slash science funding could end up liberating researchers from the corrupting influence Dwight Eisenhower warned about.
In his iconic 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned Americans about the military-industrial complex?but that wasn?t all. He also cautioned against a growing "scientific, technological elite" dominating national policy through federal funding.
What happens when science becomes politicized? When peer review rewards conformity, not discovery? And when government grants replace private innovation?
This video dives into the hidden costs of federally funded science?and explores how private labs, bold inventors, and decentralized innovation have historically led to the biggest breakthroughs, from Edison and the Wright Brothers to Silicon Valley and AI labs today.
-
What happens when science becomes politicized?
Doom, but not as bad as when politics ignores science.
When peer review rewards conformity, not discovery?
Doom. And reams of useless papers.
And when government grants replace private innovation?
Massive profits and indefinitely delayed projects. Problem here is that you get political kudos from announcing a grant for the investigation of X, but by the time your contractor has proved that X = Y the public has lost interest in it, and the market has moved on to Z. Things were a bit different in the past, particularly in wartime, when government funding was for a required product, but the European Union insisted that governments should not fund "near-market research" (state aid being anathema to free trade on a level playing field) so there's no incentive to bring any project to completion, and the accountants who defend the country insist on buying a cheap foreign widget instead of making a good one at home.
-
When someone becomes part of the elites, either political, economic, scientific, or technological, they have the opportunity to misuse their power for personal benefits at the costs of the whole society. What we need are more effective evaluation methods and feedback mechanism to achieve long-term goals. Scientific integrity and critical thinking are necessary.
-
Who defines the long term goals?
-
Who defines the long term goals?
At first, they are generated randomly. Evolutionary process then select those who are more aligned with the universal terminal goal.
While pursuing their long term goals, they also need to react to current situation at hand so they can still survive long enough to achieve those goals, or relay the tasks to their successors.
-
It has been pointed out to you that there is no universal terminal goal.
-
It has been pointed out to you that there is no universal terminal goal.
Maybe you you can't find one because you pointed at the wrong way.
The method to determine the universal terminal goal is straightforward. First, you define the word goal by making relationships with other defined concepts, and determine what makes it different from everything else. What are the necessary conditions for a goal to exist which makes goal impossible to exist without them. I've discussed it in my other thread about the universal terminal goal. You can discuss it in more detail there.
-
No need for my input as Alan has comprehensively debunked the concept of a "universal terminal goal". The only terminal outcome, as opposed to goal, is the heat death of the universe.
-
No need for my input as Alan has comprehensively debunked the concept of a "universal terminal goal". The only terminal outcome, as opposed to goal, is the heat death of the universe.
Outcome can be different from goal.
Before you can define goal, you can't meaningfully discuss about it.
-
When I first approached the task of creating a research proposal, the sheer scale of it felt overwhelming. My initial thought, like many others, was, "How can I start my research proposal?" It?s a common question because the beginning stages can often be the most challenging. Understanding the fundamentals of how to write a research proposal is more than just an academic exercise; it?s about learning to articulate a vision and a plan with clarity and precision.
-
Preparing for your PhD defense can feel overwhelming. It?s one of the most important academic milestones you?ll face, and yet many students go in without a clear plan for how to approach it.
-
Outcome can be different from goal.
If you know the inevitable outcome, any other goal is irrelevant.
How can I start my research proposal?
State the problem, say why it is important for the customer to know the answer, say what you want to do, with which, and to whom, in order to come up with an answer, and state your price and delivery date. If the solution looks like a product, explain how you will take it to market and how we will split the profits. Don't waste my time, or yours, with anything else. AI will just pad it out with irrelevant bullshit.
Preparing for your PhD defense can feel overwhelming.
Read your own thesis and ask yourself "how do I know this?" or "why did I do this? " at each stage. The examiner can't ask anything else! AI will try to add a hundred references you haven't read, and thus open up a hundred traps if the examiner actually reads any of them.
-
Outcome can be different from goal.
If you know the inevitable outcome, any other goal is irrelevant.
What you think you know might turn out to be false.
-
Are you prepared to bet on any other outcome than the heat death of the universe? What inside knowledge do you have?
-
Are you prepared to bet on any other outcome than the heat death of the universe? What inside knowledge do you have?
We don't know for sure if the universe will expand forever after the big bang or will bounce back and start a new one.
The phrase "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is a common idiom that suggests being optimistic about outcomes while also being prepared for potential negative consequences. This phrase is often attributed to various sources, including:
Possible Origins
1. *Ancient wisdom*: Similar sentiments can be found in ancient philosophies, such as Stoicism.
2. *Proverbial expressions*: The phrase resembles various proverbial expressions across cultures, emphasizing prudence and preparedness.
Notable Associations
1. *Benjamin Franklin*: Some attribute this phrase to Benjamin Franklin, although there's no definitive proof.
2. *Clich?*: The phrase has become a clich?, widely used in everyday language to convey a sense of cautious optimism.
The phrase "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" encourages a balanced approach to uncertainty, combining positivity with practical preparedness.
-
What's an experiment in psychology where people tend to conform with their peers even when they're wrong?
Chatgpt
A classic psychology experiment that demonstrates how people tend to conform with their peers even when they know the group is wrong is the Asch Conformity Experiment, conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s.
The Asch Conformity Experiment (1951)
Setup:
A group of participants is shown a standard line and then asked to choose which of three comparison lines matches it in length.
Only one participant is the actual subject; the rest are confederates (actors in on the experiment).
The confederates are instructed to give the wrong answer on certain trials.
Key Finding:
Even when the correct answer is obvious, about 75% of participants conformed to the group at least once by giving the wrong answer.
Overall, participants conformed to the incorrect group answer about one-third of the time.
Significance:
This experiment revealed the powerful influence of group pressure and how individuals often conform publicly, even if they privately disagree?a phenomenon known as normative social influence.
Would you like a modern variation or real-world application of this phenomenon as well?
Yes please
Great! Here's a modern variation and a real-world application of the Asch conformity effect:
---
🔬 Modern Variation: Brain Imaging and Digital Conformity
Study: Berns et al. (2005) ? Using fMRI to study conformity
Setup:
Participants were asked to rate the attractiveness of faces. They were shown other people's (fake) ratings and then asked to rate the faces again while undergoing fMRI brain scans.
Findings:
Participants often changed their ratings to match the (fake) group consensus.
Brain scans showed activity in areas involved in visual perception, not just social reasoning?suggesting that group influence can actually change what people perceive, not just what they say.
Significance:
This shows that conformity isn?t just a social or behavioral phenomenon?it can affect our perception and cognition at a neural level.
---
🌍 Real-World Application: Social Media and Online Reviews
Example:
On platforms like Amazon, Yelp, or Rotten Tomatoes, people often conform to popular opinions, even if their personal experience or preferences differ.
Key Mechanism:
If a product or movie has overwhelmingly positive reviews, new users are more likely to rate it higher?even if they didn?t enjoy it much.
This is an example of informational social influence (assuming the group must be right) and normative pressure (wanting to avoid being the outlier).
Real Consequence:
Groupthink in digital spaces can lead to viral misinformation, herd behavior, or cancel culture, where people adopt opinions without critical thinking.
---
Let me know if you'd like an example in education, politics, or organizational settings too?conformity plays a big role there as well.
Yes please
Sure! Here are three more real-world examples of conformity in education, politics, and organizations, each illustrating how peer or group influence can shape behavior?even when it's irrational or incorrect.
---
🎓 Education: Classroom Peer Pressure
Example:
A student in class knows the correct answer to a question, but all the other students give the wrong answer. The student may go along with the group to avoid standing out or being embarrassed.
Conformity Type:
Normative social influence ? the desire to fit in and be accepted.
Consequence:
Reduced critical thinking
Discouraged independent reasoning
Reinforcement of incorrect beliefs or group biases
✅ Teachers can counter this by encouraging dissent, asking for anonymous answers, or promoting a culture of intellectual humility.
---
🗳️ Politics: Groupthink and Party Loyalty
Example:
A politician or voter privately disagrees with their party?s stance on an issue but still supports it publicly to avoid backlash or being labeled a traitor.
Conformity Type:
Normative and informational influence ? wanting to fit in and assuming the group is better informed.
Consequence:
Policy stagnation
Polarization
Suppression of new or moderate ideas
✅ Encouraging open debates, anonymous voting, or bipartisan dialogue can reduce conformity pressure.
---
🏢 Organizations: Corporate Groupthink
Example:
In a team meeting, a leader proposes a flawed idea. Team members may stay silent or agree, even if they have doubts, because everyone else seems on board.
Conformity Type:
Groupthink ? a psychological drive for consensus at the cost of realistic appraisals.
Consequence:
Poor decision-making
Missed risks or opportunities (e.g., NASA?s Challenger disaster)
A toxic culture where dissent is punished
✅ Good leaders actively solicit dissenting views and create safe spaces for disagreement.
---
Would you like these expanded into a presentation, infographic, or teaching material?
Are there references for these real world examples?
Yes! Here are references and sources for each of the real-world examples of conformity in education, politics, and organizations:
---
🎓 Education: Peer Pressure in Classrooms
✅ Reference:
Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207?236.
↳ Discusses how teachers and students often conform to departmental or classroom norms, even when they conflict with individual beliefs.
Edelman, A., & Levine, R. (1989). Peer influence in the classroom: A brief review of the effects of group norms on academic performance and behavior.
↳ Shows how classroom group norms can influence academic behavior and answer correctness.
---
🗳️ Politics: Groupthink and Party Conformity
✅ Reference:
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink.
↳ The classic study on how political decision-making can suffer from groupthink (famously applied to Kennedy?s Bay of Pigs fiasco).
Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808?822.
↳ Found that people often shift their stance on policy issues depending on their political party?s position, not the issue?s merit.
---
🏢 Organizations: Corporate Groupthink
✅ Reference:
Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis?s groupthink model: The key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascos. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 185?209.
↳ A deeper dive into how groupthink manifests in businesses and organizations.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: Lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 105?115.
NASA Challenger Disaster Case Study:
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA.
↳ Documents how conformity and normalization of deviance led engineers and managers to stay silent on known shuttle flaws.
---
If you're building a presentation or paper, I can help format citations or gather direct quotes from these sources. Would you like that?
-
Please don't fill cyberspace with third-party crap.
-
Please don't fill cyberspace with third-party crap.
Those are real scientific researches that show real danger to the society, thus need to be identified, acknowledged, and addressed.
-
Some of us watch the news, or even have experience of real life. Your chatbot produced nothing remotely new.
-
Some of us watch the news, or even have experience of real life. Your chatbot produced nothing remotely new.
You don't seem to realize that nowadays most news are produced using AI, at least in some parts.
-
Which is why you should stick to broadcasters with a known code of verification. BBC, ITV, Reuters, Global, tend to be factually reliable even if they have a bizarre notion of "balance".
-
Which is why you should stick to broadcasters with a known code of verification. BBC, ITV, Reuters, Global, tend to be factually reliable even if they have a bizarre notion of "balance".
Some Youtubers promote Ground News to find the balance and compare the news among different news outlets, their political leaning, or affiliations. But in the future, you can build your own AI agents to work for your behalf verifying and falsifying news in real time using your own hardware.
-
Why Systems Thinking Is the Most Powerful Tech Skill
Most people think the best way to level up in tech is to learn a new language or framework.
But what if the real game-changer? is learning how everything connects?
In this video, we break down systems thinking?a powerful skill that helps you zoom out, map complexity, and anticipate second-order effects across software, AI, cybersecurity, and climate tech. 🌍💻
You?ll learn:
What systems thinking actually is (with real-world examples)
Why AI, climate tech, and cybersecurity demand it now more than ever
How it makes you more employable and helps you see around corners
Simple ways to build this skill (no degree required)
From cascading bugs in backend systems to feedback loops in recommendation engines?tech is a system. If you can see the whole map, you?ll design smarter solutions, avoid catastrophic mistakes, and stand out from the crowd.
🎯 Whether you?re an engineer, product manager, founder, or curious builder?this might be the skill that changes how you think.
-
Some Youtubers promote Ground News to find the balance
How sad. You might try to balance published or broadcast opinions, but there is no "balance" of truth. Either the sun goes round the earth, the earth goes round the sun, or they both orbit their barycenter. Yet people have died for asserting the truth in the face of human stupidity.
-
What happens when you share an idea?
Episode 1: Learn how to identify the qualities that make an idea worth sharing with an audience.
--
This is episode 1 of the animated series, ?Public Speaking 101.? Ideas change everything ? and since language lets us share our ideas, learning how to use it well gives speakers the power to inspire people and even change how they think. This 11-episode course will teach you how to identify, develop, and share your best ideas, while mastering essential communication skills along the way.
How to uncover your best ideas
Episode 2: Uncover your best ideas by exploring your unique experiences, interests, and perspective.
--
This is episode 2 of the animated series, ?Public Speaking 101.? Ideas change everything ? and since language lets us share our ideas, learning how to use it well gives speakers the power to inspire people and even change how they think. This 11-episode course will teach you how to identify, develop, and share your best ideas, while mastering essential communication skills along the way.
My own comment on the second video.
Here's a list of my ideas so far:
- the universal terminal goal.
- universal moral standard based on UTG
- magnetism as an electrogravity effect.
- generalized polarization as the key to solve electromagnetic radiation at frequency beyond microwave.
- quantization of mass and electric charge as the cause for quantization of radiation.
- distinction between geometric and rotational radius in unit analysis to improve consistency in SI standard for rotational quantities.
- difference between diffraction and interference of light.
- a sci-fi novel series to trigger curiosity, critical thinking, and love of science and philosophy among young people.
-
One of your ideas is half-right, one other is already well known. But a good novel that makes kids think would be very welcome.
-
A New Kind of Physics is Waiting to be Born
Larry Forsley tells us the true story of the Fleischmann Pons cold fusion announcement that sent the physics community into a tailspin for the next few decades.
A comment to the video.
They collapsed the electromagnetic field when they turned off the current Amperage went to 0 and voltage went to infinity. This used to make electric substations blow up until Charles Proteus Steinmetz discovered electromagnetic hysteresis.
And my response.
But I thought the calorimeter blow up when the power was turned back on.
-
I've not heard of an electric substation emitting neutrons when switched off.
Indeed, since hysteresis has been a concern of power transformer designers ever since AC transmission was proposed, and voltage spikes induced from a collapsing magnetic field have been used for medical "therapy" and gas ignition systems for almost 200 years, it would be surprising if Pons and Fleischmann were unaware of the phenomenon.
-
Scientific research has big problems, and it's getting worse
Today I have a few words about some well-known and maybe not-so well known problems with scientific research and what others have said about this.
Some comments on the video.
?It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.?
Journalist Upton Saintclair in 1934.
It turns out that that scientist are not totally above the rest of human vices.
There is also what I call the ?research inertia? when a popular field quickly becomes saturated, researchers collectively drift into a new area that?s similar to the old trend but less relevant. For example, topological insulators giving rise to topological photonics, or graphene morphing into all kinds of other 2D materials.
One big reason is funding: it?s very hard to get a grant that doesn?t fit a coherent ?story? with a research group?s past work (and yes, they literally call it a story). This forces the entire field to evolve together, but often at the cost of the original motivation. The strategy also works well because there is a large pool of prominent scientists which keep citing each other. Researchers don?t really have other choice though. It's very hard to make a big jump.
-
Why Critical Thinking Is Disappearing | The Rise of Collective Stupidity
In a world overflowing with opinions, algorithms, and noise ? why is clear thinking vanishing?
This video uncovers the uncomfortable truth behind the disappearance of critical thinking and the rise of what philosophers now call collective stupidity ? a condition where we stop questioning, start conforming, and lose our capacity for truth without even realizing it.
💡 In this deep dive, you'll explore:
How information overload, digital media, and education systems are rewiring your brain
Why society conditions us not to think ? and who benefits from that
How thinkers like Carl Jung, Noam Chomsky, and Daniel Kahneman warned us decades ago
The final truth: why critical thinking is not just an intellectual skill, but a spiritual act
This video isn?t meant to comfort. It?s meant to wake you up.
💬 When was the last time you truly thought for yourself?
Comment below. Share your mind. Be part of the quiet revolution.
-
Not a new phenomenon. Critical thinking was and still is outlawed by religion, and has been voluntarily set aside by voters ever since the invention of political parties.