Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • Is Human/animal Hybrid A Possibility By Science?

    It is possible to transfer traits (we can do that) but genomes contain a great deal of error checking and redundancy, and proteins work together in a complex ‘cellular ecosystem’ where small variations can produce catastrophic consequences to the organism’s ability to survive. So to say we can cumulatively transfer traits between our species is probably true. But all attempts to cause inter-breeding have failed. (Yes, scientists, particularly one russian, have tried it.)

    So trait-addition and modification is probably not only possible but may be beneficial (so that we can live in harmony with large mammals in particular by pedomorphic/neotenic evolution as we have done with dogs.) But inbreeding is too ‘primitive’ a method because in all but outlying cases, the genomes would consider the ovum ‘defective’.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-human-animal-hybrid-a-possibility-by-science

  • Should The United States Switch To The Metric System?

    No. the metric system was a mistake. “Human Scale” measurements are superior.
    a thumb is an inch.
    A foot is a foot.
    A yard is an arm.
    A mile is a thousand paces.
    Fahrenheit is superior for temperature sensitivity.
    The only reason for the metric system was to make calculations easier.

    https://www.quora.com/Should-the-United-States-switch-to-the-metric-system

  • Is Human/animal Hybrid A Possibility By Science?

    It is possible to transfer traits (we can do that) but genomes contain a great deal of error checking and redundancy, and proteins work together in a complex ‘cellular ecosystem’ where small variations can produce catastrophic consequences to the organism’s ability to survive. So to say we can cumulatively transfer traits between our species is probably true. But all attempts to cause inter-breeding have failed. (Yes, scientists, particularly one russian, have tried it.)

    So trait-addition and modification is probably not only possible but may be beneficial (so that we can live in harmony with large mammals in particular by pedomorphic/neotenic evolution as we have done with dogs.) But inbreeding is too ‘primitive’ a method because in all but outlying cases, the genomes would consider the ovum ‘defective’.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-human-animal-hybrid-a-possibility-by-science

  • What Is The Minimum Yield Of A Nuclear Bomb? How Small Can We Make A Nuclear Explosion?

    It depends upon the fissionable material, but roughly 11–30lbs. It’s possible to make a backpack weapon of about 50–70 pounds and it’s ‘rumoured’ that the Russians tried to make one or more of them. That would (I am guessing) result in an explosion on the scale of 10–20 Tons of TNT. Which is a lot but it’s not all that impressive. Usually we measure weapons by the kiloton (1000 tons). Furthermore there is a sort of maximum value of practical nuclear weapons, because they get very heavy. So for example, US W-80 cruise missile yields 150kt.

    You would need about five of those for Manhattan, and I can’t imagine how many for los angeles (which is a huge territory).

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-minimum-yield-of-a-nuclear-bomb-How-small-can-we-make-a-nuclear-explosion

  • What Is The Minimum Yield Of A Nuclear Bomb? How Small Can We Make A Nuclear Explosion?

    It depends upon the fissionable material, but roughly 11–30lbs. It’s possible to make a backpack weapon of about 50–70 pounds and it’s ‘rumoured’ that the Russians tried to make one or more of them. That would (I am guessing) result in an explosion on the scale of 10–20 Tons of TNT. Which is a lot but it’s not all that impressive. Usually we measure weapons by the kiloton (1000 tons). Furthermore there is a sort of maximum value of practical nuclear weapons, because they get very heavy. So for example, US W-80 cruise missile yields 150kt.

    You would need about five of those for Manhattan, and I can’t imagine how many for los angeles (which is a huge territory).

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-minimum-yield-of-a-nuclear-bomb-How-small-can-we-make-a-nuclear-explosion

  • Why Are People So Sure The Current Experts In Science Can’t Be Wrong, When History Has Shown They Have Been Wrong Many Times Before?

    GOOD QUESTION, BUT NOT QUITE RIGHT.

    Because by and large, use of the scientific method (using observation and measurement to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit, eventually, incrementally, provides more and more precise descriptions of the universe – even if it is very often, two steps forward and one step back.

    Psychology was entirely pseudoscience. Social science is largely pseudoscience – and those findings that are not, are ‘unpleasant’, and avoided by the field. Much of mainstream economics is very close to pseudoscience, even if it is empirical. Most of political science is pseudoscientific nonsense. Most if not all of philosophy is pseudoscientific nonsense. However, if we look at the hard sciences, meaning physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science, and mathematics, those fields (particularly physics) have been best at not claiming falsehoods. Whereas all other disciplines excel at claiming falsehoods. We are primarily constrained at this point by the fact that we cannot produce tools to test those things we wish to – they’re too expensive or require too much energy, and we don’t have the technology yet.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-so-sure-the-current-experts-in-science-cant-be-wrong-when-history-has-shown-they-have-been-wrong-many-times-before

  • Why Are People So Sure The Current Experts In Science Can’t Be Wrong, When History Has Shown They Have Been Wrong Many Times Before?

    GOOD QUESTION, BUT NOT QUITE RIGHT.

    Because by and large, use of the scientific method (using observation and measurement to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit, eventually, incrementally, provides more and more precise descriptions of the universe – even if it is very often, two steps forward and one step back.

    Psychology was entirely pseudoscience. Social science is largely pseudoscience – and those findings that are not, are ‘unpleasant’, and avoided by the field. Much of mainstream economics is very close to pseudoscience, even if it is empirical. Most of political science is pseudoscientific nonsense. Most if not all of philosophy is pseudoscientific nonsense. However, if we look at the hard sciences, meaning physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science, and mathematics, those fields (particularly physics) have been best at not claiming falsehoods. Whereas all other disciplines excel at claiming falsehoods. We are primarily constrained at this point by the fact that we cannot produce tools to test those things we wish to – they’re too expensive or require too much energy, and we don’t have the technology yet.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-so-sure-the-current-experts-in-science-cant-be-wrong-when-history-has-shown-they-have-been-wrong-many-times-before

  • Look At This Very Artful Bit O Pseudoscience And Pseudorationalism

    As always, pseudoscience is an exceptional means of lying.

  • Look At This Very Artful Bit O Pseudoscience And Pseudorationalism

    As always, pseudoscience is an exceptional means of lying.

  • AT THIS VERY ARTFUL BIT O PSEUDOSCIENCE AND PSEUDORATIONALISM As always, pseudos

    https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-researcher-details-real-world-dangers-of-algo-1821129334LOOK AT THIS VERY ARTFUL BIT O PSEUDOSCIENCE AND PSEUDORATIONALISM

    As always, pseudoscience is an exceptional means of lying.Updated Dec 9, 2017, 1:00 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-09 13:00:00 UTC