Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • Why? Because on a large enough scale over large enough time, anything that can h

    Why? Because on a large enough scale over large enough time, anything that can happen will happen.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 19:50:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004812775766577152

  • Why? Because on a large enough scale over large enough time, anything that can h

    Why? Because on a large enough scale over large enough time, anything that can happen will happen.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 15:49:00 UTC

  • THE TRICK TO UNDERSTANDING STATISTICS ISN’T MATH – ITS ‘MARKETS’ (COMPETITION IN

    THE TRICK TO UNDERSTANDING STATISTICS ISN’T MATH – ITS ‘MARKETS’ (COMPETITION IN EQUILIBRATION)

    There is nothing in genetic charts that requires mathematics to understand, just like there are no mathematical statements that cannot be expressed in ordinary (natural) language, and therefore understandable.

    The vast majority of genetics is nothing other than statistical analysis.

    The vast majority of statistical analysis is a list of single-regression analysis (set of variables), and then organizing those ‘lines’ into supply demand curves.

    It’s the second part – supply demand curves – rather than trying to produce a single line (distribution) using complex mathematics that (a) leads to errors and (b) is so prominent in the data.

    Some of us intuitively understand this, or have been educated in markets or economics or the competition of life, or the competition of evolution such that we are not so easily fooled.

    But the average person still operates by intuition considering himself as the standard unit of measure when interpreting data – which is precisely the same as creating a complex series of regression analysis in an attempt to produce a single statement.

    Think about that a bit.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 07:30:00 UTC

  • On “mathiness” in Physics

    ON “MATHINESS” IN PHYSICS ‘Mathiness’ is a f–cking pseudoscientific plague. And people wonder why Hayek called the 20th century an age of mysticism, and I call it the age of pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness MATHINESS = SCIENTISM = PSEUDOSCIENCE = “LITERATURE” I think the pejorative “Scientism” refers to pseudosciences (overreach in particular), just as “Mathiness” Refers to pseudoscience (“Overreach”). FROM THE ARTICLE —“Physicists today “write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — you have all the trappings of science,” he says. “But for me, physics is all about making successful predictions. And that’s been lacking.””— —“Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed. And they’re not even good at that.”— THE ANSWER FROM ECONOMICS As far as I know the problem is (a) we have far too many unproductive academics paid to write papers rather than spending money on experiments. And (b) the low hanging fruit has been captured and we may not be able to (yet) capture and use enough energy to perform necessary experiments. SCIENCE IS THE DISCIPLINE OF TESTIMONY AND TESTIMONY REQUIRES OBSERVATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS REQUIRE TESTS Tests can be “PRE-dictive” if the production of the data is controlled, or “DE-scriptive” if the production of the data is uncontrolled. But if we don’t have an observation, and a system of measurement then we don’t have science.

  • On “mathiness” in Physics

    ON “MATHINESS” IN PHYSICS ‘Mathiness’ is a f–cking pseudoscientific plague. And people wonder why Hayek called the 20th century an age of mysticism, and I call it the age of pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness MATHINESS = SCIENTISM = PSEUDOSCIENCE = “LITERATURE” I think the pejorative “Scientism” refers to pseudosciences (overreach in particular), just as “Mathiness” Refers to pseudoscience (“Overreach”). FROM THE ARTICLE —“Physicists today “write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — you have all the trappings of science,” he says. “But for me, physics is all about making successful predictions. And that’s been lacking.””— —“Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed. And they’re not even good at that.”— THE ANSWER FROM ECONOMICS As far as I know the problem is (a) we have far too many unproductive academics paid to write papers rather than spending money on experiments. And (b) the low hanging fruit has been captured and we may not be able to (yet) capture and use enough energy to perform necessary experiments. SCIENCE IS THE DISCIPLINE OF TESTIMONY AND TESTIMONY REQUIRES OBSERVATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS REQUIRE TESTS Tests can be “PRE-dictive” if the production of the data is controlled, or “DE-scriptive” if the production of the data is uncontrolled. But if we don’t have an observation, and a system of measurement then we don’t have science.

  • ON “MATHINESS” IN PHYSICS ‘Mathiness’ is a f–cking pseudoscientific plague. And

    ON “MATHINESS” IN PHYSICS

    ‘Mathiness’ is a f–cking pseudoscientific plague.

    And people wonder why Hayek called the 20th century an age of mysticism, and I call it the age of pseudoscience.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness

    MATHINESS = SCIENTISM = PSEUDOSCIENCE = “LITERATURE”

    I think the pejorative “Scientism” refers to pseudosciences (overreach in particular), just as “Mathiness” Refers to pseudoscience (“Overreach”).

    FROM THE ARTICLE

    —“Physicists today “write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — you have all the trappings of science,” he says. “But for me, physics is all about making successful predictions. And that’s been lacking.””—

    —“Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed. And they’re not even good at that.”—

    THE ANSWER FROM ECONOMICS

    As far as I know the problem is (a) we have far too many unproductive academics paid to write papers rather than spending money on experiments. And (b) the low hanging fruit has been captured and we may not be able to (yet) capture and use enough energy to perform necessary experiments.

    SCIENCE IS THE DISCIPLINE OF TESTIMONY AND TESTIMONY REQUIRES OBSERVATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS REQUIRE TESTS

    Tests can be “PRE-dictive” if the production of the data is controlled, or “DE-scriptive” if the production of the data is uncontrolled.

    But if we don’t have an observation, and a system of measurement then we don’t have science.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 08:43:00 UTC

  • The Red Queen is the Enemy

    The Red Queen is the Enemy


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 15:27:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002209857716588552

  • Red Queen is the Enemy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesisThe Red Queen is the Enemy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 11:26:00 UTC

  • Red Queen is the Enemy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesisThe Red Queen is the Enemy


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 11:26:00 UTC

  • Um. Excuse me. Let me help you. There is no ‘bulletproof’ backpack or body armor

    Um. Excuse me. Let me help you. There is no ‘bulletproof’ backpack or body armor. Rifle bullets go thru body armor, walls, steel, concrete, trees. There is nothing that a series of bullets will not penetrate. The only solution is armed men with zero tolerance, and return to exhaustive exercise, and aggressive discipline including corporal punishment in the schools.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 09:29:00 UTC