Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
When the World's Great Scientific Thinkers Change their Mind
edge.org — One hundred and sixty-five eminent thinkers, researchers, and communicators, at the annual request of the edge.org website, answered the following question: "What Have You Changed Your Mind About? Why?" Here are some examples of the ideas that they are re-evaluating.
MakiMaki- 1015 diggs
- digg it
- fudged71, on 02/12/2008, -13/+11I may have changed Lee Smolin's mind about time. Me and a friend were talking to him about quantum physics, and how time is related to everything. This was a year and a half ago. I'm not saying "for sure", but it is possible that we got him questioning the very essence of time in today's theories
- Papajohn56, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Yeah ok. And what is/was your major?
- fudged71, on 02/12/2008, -1/+10thank you for questioning my credibility, as you should. It was part of an international summer school for young physicists. Basically, the founder and CEO of RIM, Mike Lazaridis, made a large donation to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, and that money is partially put towards taking 100 of the best high school physics students from around the globe, to try to teach them the fundamentals of theoretical physics, in a two week period during the summer. So, to answer your question, no, my friend from England and I did not have university education. Keep in mind that Eistein's famous thought experiment about traveling alongside a beam of light was made at the age of 16. In no way am I comparing my knowledge or thought process to the great Albert himself, but I bring it up merely to point out that young age and curiosity sometimes leads to profound breakthroughs in the fundamentals of complex concepts.
But, in all honesty, Smolin did most of the talking. We merely suggested the hypothesis that time may not be necessary.
(to 'nospinhere' below me: ***** off)- nospinhere, on 02/12/2008, -12/+2Okay Al Gore, you are spening too much time on the internets (which you invented along with time itself) again.
- lukeev, on 02/12/2008, -5/+4like he said, ***** off.
- Delphium226, on 02/12/2008, -3/+3agreed, ***** off if you've got nothing intelligent to contribute.
- fudged71, on 02/12/2008, -1/+10thank you for questioning my credibility, as you should. It was part of an international summer school for young physicists. Basically, the founder and CEO of RIM, Mike Lazaridis, made a large donation to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, and that money is partially put towards taking 100 of the best high school physics students from around the globe, to try to teach them the fundamentals of theoretical physics, in a two week period during the summer. So, to answer your question, no, my friend from England and I did not have university education. Keep in mind that Eistein's famous thought experiment about traveling alongside a beam of light was made at the age of 16. In no way am I comparing my knowledge or thought process to the great Albert himself, but I bring it up merely to point out that young age and curiosity sometimes leads to profound breakthroughs in the fundamentals of complex concepts.
- nospinhere, on 02/12/2008, -9/+4Did you also invent the internet Al Gore?
- o0joshua0o, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4Al Gore didn't mean he literally invented the Internet. He meant that he is the one who made it possible for ordinary citizens to have network access, by developing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill")
- hiPpymIck, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2he also popularized the term 'information superhighway'
(from Wiki)
i heard his father in a previous generation of politicians was important
in the building of present US freeways or regular 'highways'
i thought that was a fun coincidence
- Papajohn56, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Yeah ok. And what is/was your major?
- tightscrummy, on 02/12/2008, -12/+4I doubt you did it with your grammar.
- SPThom, on 02/12/2008, -0/+6Yeah because the highly scientific/mathematically minded are HUGE grammar nazis, right?
- covertbadger, on 02/12/2008, -2/+2Actually yes, most of the really good scientific/math/tech people I've met have excellent grammar. It comes from having a mind that is naturally precise and correct, and adverse to accidental misinterpretation. In my experience, sloppy writers are sloppy coders too.
- nospinhere, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Do you critique the grammar of everybody you meet? I mean, if I met you at a dinner party would I have to turn over a 1000 word essay for you to critique before we have a conversation?
- covertbadger, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1No, and I don't know quite where you conjured that impression. I simply pointed out that in my experience most decent tech folk can write clearly and concisely. You seem a bit defensive for some reason?
If, however, I met you at a dinner party and your patterns of speech were as poor as some of the grammar I see around here, I doubt we'd have much of a conversation due to the fact that I wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about. - tightscrummy, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Of course not but in a text-only medium like this not taking the time to express yourself well is the equivalent of giving a speech in your bathrobe and underwear. If you did that and the audience laughed at you would you call them "fashion Nazis"?
- covertbadger, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1No, and I don't know quite where you conjured that impression. I simply pointed out that in my experience most decent tech folk can write clearly and concisely. You seem a bit defensive for some reason?
- noumuon, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1funny, i haven't noticed any leaning, in regards to grammar, with mathematically minded people, and as a math tutor for my college, i work with some amazingly gifted people. some are rather obsessive about how they write; some - like myself - don't care as much. none of us are grammar nazis.
- covertbadger, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1And yet, despite lack of capitalization and a few extra commas, your post is grammatically fine and contains no spelling errors. You may not consider yourself a grammar Nazi, but you can clearly write well, and since you're a maths tutor you've somewhat endorsed my point.
- nospinhere, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Do you critique the grammar of everybody you meet? I mean, if I met you at a dinner party would I have to turn over a 1000 word essay for you to critique before we have a conversation?
- covertbadger, on 02/12/2008, -2/+2Actually yes, most of the really good scientific/math/tech people I've met have excellent grammar. It comes from having a mind that is naturally precise and correct, and adverse to accidental misinterpretation. In my experience, sloppy writers are sloppy coders too.
- SPThom, on 02/12/2008, -0/+6Yeah because the highly scientific/mathematically minded are HUGE grammar nazis, right?
- omnithought, on 02/12/2008, -7/+16Take note: no question about evolution. Just sayin'.
- manicleek, on 02/12/2008, -5/+16because no educated, intelligent person can question it?
- brettmurf, on 02/12/2008, -1/+32Actually, every educated, intelligent person should question it. Then they should make up their mind and decide it seems pretty correct. The key is "Change their Mind" not if they questioned a belief.
- manicleek, on 02/12/2008, -5/+16because no educated, intelligent person can question it?
- Hobbes24, on 02/12/2008, -3/+6Einstein still disagrees with conventional atomic theory
"god doesn't play dice" (might not be word for word)
honestly, i think he still might be correct in that assumption, because it's strange to think everything else in the universe has a sublime order to it, but electron orbits and speeds.
i still think it's likely that we may simply not know how they work, but that they do follow a pattern- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7That comment was relating to quantum physics, not atomic theory.
- Hobbes24, on 02/12/2008, -4/+2no, electron orbitals are also related to atomic theory. look it up.
- Hobbes24, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2digg me down all you want, take a ***** course, you know i'm correct
- jclin, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1It's a matter of how loosely do you want to associate electron orbital theory (quantum theory) with atomic theory (= matter is made of atoms). If you believe that atomic theory also encompasses the characteristics of an atom, then I suppose you're correct. However, I would contend that quantum theory is "more correct", since quantum theory is about the "probability" (playing with dice) of an electron to be in a particular place (in relation to the nucleus, I suppose).
- Hobbes24, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2digg me down all you want, take a ***** course, you know i'm correct
- Hobbes24, on 02/12/2008, -4/+2no, electron orbitals are also related to atomic theory. look it up.
- tightscrummy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+19He hasn't changed his mind because he's been dead for +50 years.
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7yep, who knows what he might think if he was alive and thus able to change his mind. Science has come a long way since Einstein's day.
- Daz3, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6Despite what Einstein thinks about quantum physics and dice, the probabilistic quantum theories have been verified through experiment time and time again...
- kazimir22, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1yah...you should read up on the casimir effect. basically it says that particles are popping in and out of existence all the time.
and its measurable
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7That comment was relating to quantum physics, not atomic theory.
- TheTruthHurts, on 02/12/2008, -2/+8Wait , so scientist change their minds?
- omnithought, on 02/12/2008, -3/+26Yeah, kinda happens when they peer review things and if the evidence doesn't support the theory, the theory gets chucked, as opposed to someone thinking they have the ultimate answer and never changing their minds regardless of what evidence is discovered.
- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -3/+6peer review is generally BS. Publishing things in journals has way more to do with popularity, writing targeted to audiences, and high school lunch table-esque trend following.
- Mescaline, on 02/12/2008, -0/+6unfortunately it's the best we have
- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4Yes, because we don't try very hard to have otherwise. There has been more than one time in recent history where the whole industry has been accused of poor standards, and they all just decided to do better, and then did. For instance, there was an experiment where some researchers submitted random word generated articles of scientific jargon and got them published in several major journals. The standards amazingly went way up right after that... Miracle! Journals are perfectly capable of being far more accurate in their peer reviews. They don't do it because nobody pressures them to, so they therefore profit from being lazy.
If enough people stop with the defeatist "Meh, sucks to be us." mentality, and actually demand competence, we would GET competence.
It's the best we have because it's the best you are letting us have by not standing up for better. It's not the best we COULD have. - strangewill, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4Smurfsahoy, what are YOU doing to prevent this?
- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4Yes, because we don't try very hard to have otherwise. There has been more than one time in recent history where the whole industry has been accused of poor standards, and they all just decided to do better, and then did. For instance, there was an experiment where some researchers submitted random word generated articles of scientific jargon and got them published in several major journals. The standards amazingly went way up right after that... Miracle! Journals are perfectly capable of being far more accurate in their peer reviews. They don't do it because nobody pressures them to, so they therefore profit from being lazy.
- Mescaline, on 02/12/2008, -0/+6unfortunately it's the best we have
- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -3/+6peer review is generally BS. Publishing things in journals has way more to do with popularity, writing targeted to audiences, and high school lunch table-esque trend following.
- jacenat, on 02/12/2008, -1/+22isn't that the reason for science in the first place?
to change or refine views?- kaplanfx, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Yes, and this is what bugs me about the religious zealots who claim "science is the new religion". Science is not a religion, it is a carefully monitored and reviewed process which enables us to learn more about the universe we live in through careful calculated though and sensory experience (sometimes with the aid of tools).
- rawg, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1If you never change your mind then you never get any smarter. The process of learning something new means that you didn't know it yesterday.
- omnithought, on 02/12/2008, -3/+26Yeah, kinda happens when they peer review things and if the evidence doesn't support the theory, the theory gets chucked, as opposed to someone thinking they have the ultimate answer and never changing their minds regardless of what evidence is discovered.
- Trav3133, on 02/12/2008, -3/+31Nothing by Einstein, way to be misleading.
- alz0rz, on 02/12/2008, -8/+7Who is John Galt?
- Slavidskis, on 02/12/2008, -4/+9Just goes to show that we are still living in a time where anything can be discovered or disproved even though many think it has all been done.
- jacenat, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5when i was 16, i also suffered "there has been all done" syndrome.
but since then, there is not one single day i don't encounter a mystery.
it all depends on how long and close you are looking at things. - strangewill, on 02/12/2008, -2/+3Just goes to show us? I knew this the second I learned about the scientific method and how it was used...
- jacenat, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5when i was 16, i also suffered "there has been all done" syndrome.
- Murdats, on 02/12/2008, -9/+49sorry to bring this up but this is one of the many reasons that science supersedes religion.
scientists are not closed minded elitists (in general, the closed minded elitists are still closed minded and elitist)
but they base their beliefs on evidence, if the evidence shows something else, they will change their beliefs to take this into consideration.
as this article shows, you have scientists spending their life believing one thing, and readjusting that as soon as they are presented with new evidence related to that.
this is part of why I find science so beautiful.- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -4/+11don't be sorry to bring it up, it's a very important point. I'm glad people are finally addressing the "dogmatic science" argument that the religious seem so fond of. religion and science share many common goals, such as explaining the universe and our place in it. religion was our first (and worst) attempt at science and philosophy, its sad that in this age of knowledge and achievement, that people still cling to the primitive superstitions of our species' history.
- lukeev, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7Agreed, but science in general is certainly not yet free from dogmatic assumptions and bias, careers and reputations are at stake and let's be honest, smart people can still be assholes (intellect is not intelligence). Science is methodology, not a position or ideology.
- hiPpymIck, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1the funniest example i know of how scientists (and other intellectuals)
prove all too human - especially when they interact (haha) - is..
Headlong Hall by Thomas Love Peacock (1816)
set at a Welsh country squires houseparty.. with, for example,
Mr. Cranium and his lovely daughter, Miss Cephalis Cranium
Mr. Cornelius Chromatic, the most scientific of all amateurs of the fiddle, with his two blooming daughters, Miss Tenorina and Miss Graziosa; Sir Patrick O'Prism, a dilettante painter of high renown, and his maiden aunt, Miss Philomela Poppyseed, a compounder of novels written for the express purpose of supporting every species of superstition and prejudice; and Mr. Panscope, the chemical, botanical, geological, astronomical, critical philosopher, who had run through the whole circle of the sciences and understood them all equally well.
and
Mr. Foster, the optimist, who believed in the improvement of mankind; Mr. Escot, the pessimist, who saw mankind constantly deteriorating; Mr. Jenkison, who thought things were very well as they were; and the Reverend Doctor Gaster, who, though neither a philosopher nor a man of taste, had won the squire's fancy by a learned dissertation on the art of stuffing a turkey.
i think its hilarious
squashed version
http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/hea ...
- hiPpymIck, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1the funniest example i know of how scientists (and other intellectuals)
- lukeev, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7Agreed, but science in general is certainly not yet free from dogmatic assumptions and bias, careers and reputations are at stake and let's be honest, smart people can still be assholes (intellect is not intelligence). Science is methodology, not a position or ideology.
- eightballrj, on 02/12/2008, -2/+8@hmcook87
There certainly is a place for God in everything right? If not, you actually think that everything that is on the Earth and is in the universe happened by CHANCE? I have been both a BioSci/PreMed major and now am a Mech Eng student. So, I have been all over the sciences for most of my adult life. During that time, I have certainly studied how things have happened. I have studied evolution, physics, genetics, more physics, numerics, mathematics, still more physics, etc. Just because I know why, how, when something seems to have happened.... does that instantly mean that God had no part in its creation? He had no part in its design, functionality, and in some cases its intelligence? Is that not possible, if not obvious?- makkaveli19, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1added to friends list, i feel the same. :)
- bliz, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1overall I find that this article is not so much about scientific thinking but just the personal thoughts of scientists (including social scientists for which evidence can be subjective)
#1 "because of new facts" -- I would love to know which are the facts but I can't read the original Portuguese article.
#3 & 7's not based on evidence. rather it uses the lack of evidence to disprove of something. then again, they made no claim of such, so i assume it's just their opinion and IMHO it's better to have opinions than to sit on the fence all the time.
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -4/+11don't be sorry to bring it up, it's a very important point. I'm glad people are finally addressing the "dogmatic science" argument that the religious seem so fond of. religion and science share many common goals, such as explaining the universe and our place in it. religion was our first (and worst) attempt at science and philosophy, its sad that in this age of knowledge and achievement, that people still cling to the primitive superstitions of our species' history.
- sexydarin, on 02/12/2008, -17/+6scientists are closed minded elitists. Where in the hell have you been hiding? Why do you think it's so hard to change scientists minds once they are biased to a certain theory?
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -2/+17It's only hard to change their mind IF YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THEY ARE WRONG.
- sexydarin, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Even when the evidence is so overwhelming that it smacks them in the face, they will still cling to false theories
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -2/+17It's only hard to change their mind IF YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THEY ARE WRONG.
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -14/+2So many smart people always doing so many smart things. Yet, 25,000 people starve to death every day. Where are our priorities? Landing on the moon, Hubble Telescope, arguing how the war was won and if we've stopped evolving, who the ***** cares, figure that out when we are living in utopia, until then let's use our brain power to fix the problems we have right now.
- Sendai129, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9This is possibly the singles most ill-thought out comment I have ever read anywhere... It is in asking and pursuing these fundamental questions that make us human and make it possible to strive for a Utopian society. Have you ever heard of a great man by the name of Norman Borlaug? While he was off wasting his time thinking about genes and genetic mutation and all that stuff we "shouldn't give a ***** about", he managed to save OVER A BILLION PEOPLE with genetically modified plants. OVER A ***** BILLION PEOPLE. Scientists ask these sorts of questions so that they can understand the world around us so that it may one day be shaped into the world you speak of. The only way to achieve it is to first figure all this out and then with that knowledge we can make this a better world.
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -7/+0Well I can't say the same about your comment because I've read so much garbage posts and replies that it's hard for any of them to take the cake. However, I do appreciate you at least having an answer to my comment instead of blindly burying me like most brain dead small minded diggers. I never once said that all research and all questions were a waste. I firmly support any effort to wipe out disease, viruses or anything that is truly affecting us NOW. So do you really think what I said was "possibly the singles most ill-thought out comment"? Is saying we need to WIPE OUR STARVATION before we LOOK AT GALAXIES 20 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY, the worst most-ill thought comment you have EVER read?
- covertbadger, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Hey, why don't you round up all scientists and researchers into a big dungeon and whip them into doing what you think is right?
Face it, if someone is fascinated and driven by studying far-off galaxies, who the hell are you to tell them to commit themselves to a life of drudgery with some other problem they know nothing about and don't want to work on? Fascist.- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -2/+0Out of sight out of mind, huh?
- covertbadger, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3No, it's called freedom of choice. If someone wants to work on astronomy and contribute what they can to various famine charities, that's their choice. If they want to work on astronomy and completely ignore famine charities, that's their choice too, and you're in no position to condemn.
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -2/+0You know, covert, I read some of your other comments and I have to say I agree with everything I saw. You're an atheist who defends being an atheist. This I applaud. However, I have to admit to you, if I could put all of the scientists in a dungeon and whip them to solve the problem of poverty, I surely would.
- covertbadger, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Well I'm glad we agree on atheism, even if I don't quite see the relevance to this conversation. I must certainly would not use force to solve poverty, however, as that would be simply replacing poverty with slavery. There may be a moral imperative to solve the world's immediate problems, but that doesn't give anyone the right to enslave anyone whose priorities lie elsewhere.
- Sendai129, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0Renotibma, instead of putting all the world's scientists in a dungeon and force them to work out the world's problems I have another solution. We nuke all the third world countries. Keep a few of them as slaves to mass produce whatever we need and want. Reduce the world's population to 1/10 of what it is now. The first world countries will live like kings ruling over those who were too poor to feed themselves in the first place.
I take back my previous comment stating that what you said was the most ill thought out comment... your latest here tops it. You would condemn the best and brightest humans on the planet to slavery in an attempt to save the poor and wretched. How ass backwards is that? Simply because we have the ability to help people doesn't mean we have to. And it certainly doesn't mean that we should be forced to. The reason why we should help people is because it's the humane thing to do and because we want to see the world as a better place.
(Just in case anyone didn't catch it, my idea of nuking 90% of the population was not serious. It was to contrast the previous comment.) - renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -1/+0Sendai, you are a simpleton. You see things in black and white, where as I see things in scales. Would it be a bad thing to divert all funding from space exploration to poverty prevention? No, it would be the right thing to do. How can you possibly argue this point? What are your arguments?
- trainofthought, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1renoltibma, while you accuse Sendai of seeing in black and white, your argument also suffers from this. It's a false dichotomy to say that we have to focus on one thing at the expense of other things. We can do both (and more) at the same time.
Would it be a bad thing, do you think, if we diverted the relatively small amount of funding from space exploration to poverty prevention, only to end up getting hit by a super comet while we are still all trapped on the one planet? The space exploration could have provided a solution to that disaster otherwise. This is admittedly quite a dramatic example (although far more likely than someone who avoids certain areas of learning as "irrelevant" may know - it's actually a certainty and we are racing against time for solutions) in an attempt to provide you with a scenario where your suggestion may "possibly" not be the "right" (black/white?) thing to do.
Historically, solutions to problems tend to come from unexpected directions when scientists are allowed to follow their hunches and interests. I think this is worth keeping in mind. - renoitibma, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0trainofthought, well this is a valid point. I have thought about this. On the scale of things, the probability of the human race being killed off by a large comet or asteroid should be factored into the equation with alleviating human suffering. You should read this link: http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Lacks+Funds+to+Find+ ... This was on Digg once, but the source link is dead now, it states that NASA does not have the funding to track killer asteroids. So as you can see, as I originally stated, where are our priorities?
- trainofthought, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1renoltibma, thanks for the link. Yes, it's well known that NASA is way too underfunded. I can't see how this point (and that article) supports your argument that even more funding should be cut.
- renoitibma, on 02/15/2008, -1/+0Since NASA has been created it has been budgeted over 600 billion dollars, now this is a lot of money. In contrast asteroid deflection programs have only been budgeted over 50 million dollars. This just is one example of one government agency. With the point being our current direction does not focus on our current needs as a whole. I am simply providing a counter to your self-admitted dramatic example.
- trainofthought, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1600 billion dollars taken out of context does indeed sound like a lot of money. However, NASA is the smallest of the USA government agencies and their budget is not very big compared to the others. NASA's budget is 1% of the federal budget.
A better thing to object to (based upon fund allocation) might be the the war in Iraq which uses $11 million per hour! That's nearly $2 billion per week. And that actively creates poverty due to people's homes and infrastructure being bombed, etc. There are also other areas from which money can be divert (if that is the solution required) before yet again squeezing the good folks at NASA. Try tax exemptions for religions for starters.
Big numbers can be deceptive and are hard to grasp but think of 1 cent out of every tax dollar. That's theoretically what goes to NASA. There is no more "fat" to trim off their budget and there hasn't been for quite a while considering that we really do need to eventually (soon would be preferable) branch out from this speck of dust (cosmically speaking) if we envisage ourselves surviving past the near future. I wish this were just my opinion but unfortunately it is a fact. - renoitibma, on 02/15/2008, -0/+0The main reason people starve to death every day is in fact war. The money and resources spent on war and war prevention world wide is astronomical. However that's not going to change anytime soon. Pointing at NASA and saying they are the source of all our problems is absurd, I'm not saying that. I was just using them as an example of certain programs that seem ridiculous considering the current state of the world. Is SETI (no longer a NASA program) really going to to help starvation anytime soon? It's possible that some programs will eventually lead to technology that will help the problem, but I think a more direct approach would be more advisable.
The Food and Agriculture Organization should have a much larger budget and a recent report concluded that the organization is currently in a financial crisis. There are also lots of criticism of this organization, but I believe enough smart people and money could go a long way to fixing some of their problems.
Before we should even consider expanding to another planet or moon we need to fix our current problems here. How silly is it going to look when we have a colony on the moon and mars, meanwhile we are fighting wars and people are dying from starvation. This is exactly the direction we are headed, and in my opinion most people won't even give it a second thought. - trainofthought, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Okay, I'm going to console myself with the fact that you seem to have retreated to a slightly more reasonable position. Having done that though, I get the feeling you are now moving the goal posts a little in an attempt to seem like you are not even a bit swayed despite our reasonable discussion. We were definitely talking about NASA and there was no talk of you using them merely as an example. So you really meant SETI? Their purpose has very little to do with solving world hunger, indeed, but we were discussing the use of government funds not privately funded pursuits.
I'm not aware of the budget allocated to the Food and Agriculture Organisation or of the "recent report" you mentioned but did not link to, so I won't comment on that except to say that obviously I agree that solving world hunger is an extremely noble endeavour. Let's hope ignorance about GM crops does not hinder that too much.
Regarding the tired old "fix our planet first" argument I'll first direct you to an opposing view point http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1477 which explains the futility of that argument. A key quote:
"...did we fix Europe before embarking for the Far East and the Americas? Did we perfect an idyllic nomadic society before leaving the African plains? Waiting to get our 'house in order' will achieve nothing but guarantee the demise and eventual destruction of our planet, our ecosystem and our species. Going into space is one of the best things we can do to save our world, and ourselves."
"Fix us first" also came into the reasoning for ending the Apollo missions. Thirty years later, how did that go? Did it help? The best solution we can think of to avoid the various inevitable existential threats facing humanity is to get off this planet and no longer have all our eggs in one basket. Conceivably, some people may have benefited from the diversion of the Apollo funds, but at a cost of increasing the risk to humanity as a whole. Was it worth losing those 30 years of potential progress in space? Only time will tell I suppose, but the more time we let go by while being restricted to this single rock, the greater the odds are that we will never escape it.
Finally, another point to make is that NASA helps us understand our own planet within its wider context. Comparative Planetary Climatology looks at the climate on other planets and addresses the physical processes that determine environmental conditions, the stability against climate change, and the development of new experiments to further investigate these. By comparing the processes at work on other planets to those on our own planet we gain a deeper understanding of global change on the Earth. This is a huge boon to humanity, and has obvious relevance to subjects related to world hunger.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion renoitibma.
- renoitibma, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0"the more time we let go by while being restricted to this single rock, the greater the odds are that we will never escape it."
Can you back this statement up?
You don't want to put all of our eggs in one basket, so where is the other basket? Are we going to start a colony in another solar system? How do you propose we do that and how long do you think that is going to take to achieve?
You think NASA has such a small budget yet you also think they are our best hope. "The best solution we can think of to avoid the various inevitable existential threats facing humanity is to get off this planet", what are these "inevitable existential threats" and what is your plan for avoiding them?
If you look at my original statement I mentioned two examples from NASA, however that's not all I mentioned. It was just what I thought of off the top of my head in the heat of the moment, so when you say "We were definitely talking about NASA", no, you are mistaken, I was talking about anything that does not benefit the human race in the short term.
Here is the report about the FAO I mentioned, it is pdf and more than 400 pages long: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/012/k0827e_rev1.pdf
The link you provided that "explains" the futility of my "tired old argument" is laughable at best. It's preppy sci-fi that apparently you enjoy being spoon fed.
- Pixelante, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1I have an idea to reduce starvation. I'm going to kill you and put your corpse into a meat-grinder to feed some pigs.
- covertbadger, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2Hey, why don't you round up all scientists and researchers into a big dungeon and whip them into doing what you think is right?
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -1/+0Also interesting that Norman Borlaug himself said his work has been "a change in the right direction, but it has not transformed the world into a Utopia". Now Norman Borlaug is someone who I FULLY support and all of our money for research and development should go to people like Norman Borlaug, who are actually working to save the problems we have right now. He also says that we have to double the world food supply by 2050, this is where all our smart minds to be, working in areas that will directly benefit society in the near future.
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -7/+0Well I can't say the same about your comment because I've read so much garbage posts and replies that it's hard for any of them to take the cake. However, I do appreciate you at least having an answer to my comment instead of blindly burying me like most brain dead small minded diggers. I never once said that all research and all questions were a waste. I firmly support any effort to wipe out disease, viruses or anything that is truly affecting us NOW. So do you really think what I said was "possibly the singles most ill-thought out comment"? Is saying we need to WIPE OUR STARVATION before we LOOK AT GALAXIES 20 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY, the worst most-ill thought comment you have EVER read?
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4Furthering humanities understanding of the universe is what makes us worth saving in the first place.
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -3/+0Maybe saving us would further our humanity? How many children are you prepared to let die so we may gaze at distant galaxies? Is one or two ok? What about 1,000? What if I told you we can either build the Hubble Telescope and all of humanity can bask in the glory of unbelievably amazing images or save one starving child, which would you choose?
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7idiotic. if you asked me how many children i'd let die so i could build Hubble, I'd say "How on earth does the building of a space telescope kill children?" I mean, were the funds stolen from famine relief organizations? Were the bodies of small children used in the construction? Is NASA funded by the taxes of starving African families? Tell me how exactly you think your hypothetical would play out, because I think your going to struggle to find a link between space exploration and starving kids.
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -2/+0The Hubble Telescope has cost over $6 Billion up to this point. You can feed one child for 25 cents per day, you do the math.
- Pixelante, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0OK, we understand now. You hate astronomy. You hate astronomy because you hate astronomers.
What happened, renoitibma? Did the girl you were so desperately in love with ignore you and married an astronomer? Or maybe you were beaten up by the astronomy club in high school. Or do you sweep floors in some observatory and hate the people who made it in life while you're stuck forever with a menial job because of your lack of grades and sub-par IQ?
Since you have no power to change things, I suggest suicide. It's painless if done properly, you know. And nobody will ever miss you. You can't miss a nobody. - darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1By your logic, renoitibma, we should take all the money YOU don't need, including selling your PC, house, and car and use it to feed starving children.
Communism is so 50's, get with the times.- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0This is all you have to say? I'm talking about reduction in programs that do not directly benefit the human race in the short term in favor of programs which do. Apparently you have no problem that most humans are living lavishly while others are starving to death. Go on with your guilt free zippity do da life. Maybe you are right, maybe we should do all of those things, not only to me, but to everyone, if it is possible to do it in a way that would prevent 25,000 deaths per day, I would support it 100%.
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -3/+0Maybe saving us would further our humanity? How many children are you prepared to let die so we may gaze at distant galaxies? Is one or two ok? What about 1,000? What if I told you we can either build the Hubble Telescope and all of humanity can bask in the glory of unbelievably amazing images or save one starving child, which would you choose?
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5Why can't we land on the moon, build the Hubble telescope, study history (so we don't repeat it), while stopping people from starving to death at the same time. we have plenty of people, there's no reason why we need to stop scientific progress in order to address poverty.
- renoitibma, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0We can't do all of those things at once. This should be painfully obvious. If we could I wouldn't be making posts about this.
- sabach, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4I'm relatively certain that most of those people would continue to starve to death no matter how much money you threw at the problem.
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -1/+0Poverty is an unsolvable problem? 1000 years from now there is still going to be poverty?
- Pixelante, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Yes. And unfortunately there will be stupidity too. Even if you will have died by that time, thankfully.
- renoitibma, on 02/12/2008, -1/+0Poverty is an unsolvable problem? 1000 years from now there is still going to be poverty?
- Sendai129, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9This is possibly the singles most ill-thought out comment I have ever read anywhere... It is in asking and pursuing these fundamental questions that make us human and make it possible to strive for a Utopian society. Have you ever heard of a great man by the name of Norman Borlaug? While he was off wasting his time thinking about genes and genetic mutation and all that stuff we "shouldn't give a ***** about", he managed to save OVER A BILLION PEOPLE with genetically modified plants. OVER A ***** BILLION PEOPLE. Scientists ask these sorts of questions so that they can understand the world around us so that it may one day be shaped into the world you speak of. The only way to achieve it is to first figure all this out and then with that knowledge we can make this a better world.
- MaceSoul, on 02/12/2008, -12/+2They don't sound that smart to me. Giving up on a unified theory just because you can't figure it out in 20 years? That's ridiculous. It's probably complicated as hell and we may not have a brain that can wrap around it for another 150 years.
Half of them sound like they've got one foot in a Nazi new world order and the other foot up Al Gore's ass.- Croaton, on 02/12/2008, -1/+12Great job missing the point...
FTA: "Of course, had we the slightest experimental evidence in favor of unification, of supersymmetry and superstrings, I'd be the first popping the champagne open. But it's been over twenty years, and all attempts so far have failed."
After 20 years of study without an ounce of corroborating evidence it may be time to take a step back and see whats wrong. That doesn't mean "giving up"... it means that you refine your hypothosis and try to find answers with a slightly different approch.
Other then that you just resort to Godwin's Law... which, I'm sorry to say, just makes you look like and idiot...- MaceSoul, on 02/12/2008, -8/+1Yeha. Nice grammar, Einstein.
- Croaton, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0For someone who, out of the gate, resorted to Godwin's Law you sure made an exellent comeback... good job little Timmy
- MaceSoul, on 02/12/2008, -8/+1Yeha. Nice grammar, Einstein.
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5Funnily enough, it's you who don't sound so smart to me.
- MaceSoul, on 02/12/2008, -7/+1Coming from a person who uses the work "funnily", that doesn't bother me a bit.
- strangewill, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3The diggs have it, you're a dumbass.
- Croaton, on 02/12/2008, -1/+12Great job missing the point...
- deakBlue, on 02/12/2008, -2/+11So, turns out Simon Baron-Cohen (autism researcher) is Ali G's cousin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen#Fam ...
Respect.- wastedlife, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Yup, I remember writing an essay about Autism a few years ago and the journal's author was Baron-Cohen, S.
I joked that Borat was an expert in child psychology, then I found out it was his brother and wasn't sure what to think. - nickdngr, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2I could smack myself. I've read a lot of stuff by Simon Baron-Cohen (studying Psychology with emphasis on asd) and I never even thought of a/the Sacha Baron Cohen tie or looked it up. I should hand in my internet card.
- bruce86, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1I like how they always ask the developmental or evolutionary psychologist, who has no experience in dealing with social issues. Well, of course they are gonna default to the biological explanations. Its like going to the dollar store and be shocked that everything there is a DOLLAR!
- kaplanfx, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Well they are jews, chances are they were going to end up as either a doctor or a comedian.
- wastedlife, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Yup, I remember writing an essay about Autism a few years ago and the journal's author was Baron-Cohen, S.
- 40yrOldVirgin, on 02/12/2008, -2/+14They forgot Galileo. He used to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but he changed his mind because the Church told him to.
- ReadItAndWeep, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3They were asking LIVING scientists. Galileo wasn't available for an interview.
- 40yrOldVirgin, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9He was alive at some point, but he changed his mind about that too.
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -1/+8he didn't change his mind, the Catholics put him under house arrest. His opinion didn't change, he just wasn't allowed to express it anymore.
- ReadItAndWeep, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3They were asking LIVING scientists. Galileo wasn't available for an interview.
- ReadItAndWeep, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7Political correctness and science are heading towards a crossroads. It will soon be impossible to follow both simultaneously. I just wonder how the masses will respond after having been brainwashed by over 40 years of egalitarian propaganda.
- moletimer, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Good point, however, remember that social egalitarianism isn't the same as biological egalitarianism. I believe in social equality, but am still unsure about biological equality. Just saying.
- smacksaw, on 02/12/2008, -9/+8#11 Accepting "peer-reviewed" science as absolute truth.
I am so sick of people quoting peer-review. 95% of the people who mention it don't even know what it means and how problematic it is. The state of science today might be besieged by idiots spouting creationism and intelligent design, but peer-review "being enough" to fully convince people of anything is truly frightening. Whenever I hear someone say something is true or right because it's peer-reviewed I feel sorry for society.
On the rare occasion that someone uses words like "current data suggests" or "the best available testing" etc in regards to peer review is admirable. But in regards to climate change it's dangerous. Simply accepting peer review as an answer for everything and not continuing to look at all factors outside of human contributions to it is lunacy.- Croaton, on 02/12/2008, -3/+4I agree with you about the whole "absolute truth" thing. Science works with probabilities not absolute truths. Although, for many theories, the probabilities that they are wrong are negligable they may however be refined...
But... I think that when most people refer to the peer-review process in science they are pointing out the fact that the scientific principle is based on an open forum where evidence is scrutinised and have to stand the test of both time and "out-of-the-gate" critisism...
Is the peer-review process perfect? Absolutly not... temporary flaws and errors will always happen. But with the open forum these flaws and errors will be found and corrected.- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4You have a pretty stilted view of peer review processes. Its not some big oaken hall full of robed academics pondering and pacing about and pondering anything in an open-ended forum. There's really nothing open about it at all, in fact. An editor of a journal simply sends out copies of a submitted study to a couple of experts in the field, who rate it, and send it back. They don't all sit in a room together and talk it out. The editor takes their advice (just that, advice, not binding at all), and makes a completely business-oriented decision about whether this article will increase the prestige of the paper/sell subscriptions/fill out pages/not draw lawsuits/etc.
The vast majority of the time, peers involved in the process have no contact with one another at all, and once the paper is published, the process is already over. So I don't quite see where this "smoothing out over time" is coming from.
There's also no guarantee of scrutiny most of the time. These are professors and researchers with busy schedules. They don't set aside all day to read a potential study. They're going to read it barely more carefully in many cases than they read any other article, and give advice based on a few observations here and there, and an overall gestalt of quality.- Croaton, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0You are looking at the process as one isolated review which leads to full everlasting acceptance... this is wrong. Results of a study can be reviewed, found acceptable and published...
Later on someone refuting the first results put forth their own study... which proves the first study wrong and gives a stronger case in point. There will be some arguing and discussion over who is right with the resulting relevant attention of the relevant scientific community. More research will be published, reviewed and added to discussion... and finally one of the explenations will prevail... (atleast for the moment)
This is called scientific progress... this is the way science work. It is a system that gives us the best explenation of our natural world based on evidence/phenomenon we have collected/measured/observed.
- Croaton, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0You are looking at the process as one isolated review which leads to full everlasting acceptance... this is wrong. Results of a study can be reviewed, found acceptable and published...
- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4You have a pretty stilted view of peer review processes. Its not some big oaken hall full of robed academics pondering and pacing about and pondering anything in an open-ended forum. There's really nothing open about it at all, in fact. An editor of a journal simply sends out copies of a submitted study to a couple of experts in the field, who rate it, and send it back. They don't all sit in a room together and talk it out. The editor takes their advice (just that, advice, not binding at all), and makes a completely business-oriented decision about whether this article will increase the prestige of the paper/sell subscriptions/fill out pages/not draw lawsuits/etc.
- mOdQuArK, on 02/12/2008, -3/+11Let's see, if I'm a layman trying to decide which theories sound more credible, do I blindly accept some wild-assed theory from someone who might be crazy, a moron or have a conflict of interest, or do I put a little more credibility in an study which has at least been put through a standard process of criticism by the author's peers? Hmmmmm, it's so hard to make up my mind about this.
The only thing "dangerous" here is your idea that everyone has to be so "open-minded" that their brains fall out. It's certainly not perfect, but there are a bunch of damn good reasons why the peer review system was put together the way it is, and the only people trying to bypass it are the people who don't like it when it doesn't give them the results they want.- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5You completely missed the point of that post. He said he is worried about people citing peer review as a reason for something being true, and nothing else. Which is completely valid. Sure, peer review is better than not peer review. Nobody ever argued otherwise here. The problem is that people tend to perceive peer review as in itself sufficient as a package deal for accepting a study as true, which is highly dangerous. You should actually read studies yourself before believing them as absolute truth... pretty crazy concept, huh?
- smacksaw, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5smurfsahoy is on fire. He gets it.
Should the layman accept peer-reviewed agreements as the end of the discussion, or a launching point to ask new questions?
You have to understand - it's not credible if we simply stop at peer review. Peer review is like the break you take in a car race to gas up and change your tires. It's then you adjust your strategy.
The point is to constantly refine, not simply be satisfied. I think you are the person I am speaking of that is most dangerous because there's a point where you're satisfied. Peer review should ask as many questions as it answers. I don't think you really understand how it works, because if you did you would see the inherent flaws in the process.
Peer review should create dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction in peers testing the veracity of the science and also developing and refining the theories to always find something better. It should spur competition and spark imagination, not placate anyone.
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -3/+2Smacksaw, yours is the logic which suggests we should consider that orbital energy weapons destroyed the twin towers because there isn't 100% proof they didn't.
- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4By definition, peer reviewed studies, even if the process was 100% perfect, would be wrong 5% of the time. Add in the fact that it is highly imperfect, and that also many many studies have glaring problems that cannot possibly be detected even if the reviewer is godly (simply due to lack of all the details being given to them), and they're probably wrong 15-30% of the time, depending on the journal. More in some fields.
It doesn't even take complex statistics to figure this out for yourself. Pick any controversial topic and do a literature search, and you'll find dozens of articles that all directly contradict one another. If half say X and the other say not X, half are wrong. All were peer reviewed...
Peer review is a VERY weak reason to believe a study. READING the study is a good reason to believe or not believe a study. What YOU are saying is like saying that we should let everybody go free in guantanamo right now who are believed to have planned 9/11, because some guy had a theory suggesting otherwise, and some other guy with a PhD looked over his argument and couldn't find any glaringly obvious logical flaws.
I think the orbital energy weapons thing would be more logical than that, personally...- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2"By definition, peer reviewed studies, even if the process was 100% perfect, would be wrong 5% of the time."
Where did you get this 5% from?
"What YOU are saying is like saying that we should let everybody go free in guantanamo right now who are believed to have planned 9/11, because some guy had a theory suggesting otherwise, and some other guy with a PhD looked over his argument and couldn't find any glaringly obvious logical flaws."
I take it you're referring to Global Warming. This is an idiotic example.
The case for cleaner energy and reducing pollution is a no-brainer even if you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence in front of your nose.
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2"By definition, peer reviewed studies, even if the process was 100% perfect, would be wrong 5% of the time."
- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4By definition, peer reviewed studies, even if the process was 100% perfect, would be wrong 5% of the time. Add in the fact that it is highly imperfect, and that also many many studies have glaring problems that cannot possibly be detected even if the reviewer is godly (simply due to lack of all the details being given to them), and they're probably wrong 15-30% of the time, depending on the journal. More in some fields.
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4Peer review is currently the best process we have for validating and critiquing theories. If you have something better then i'm sure the scientific community would love to hear it.
- tdmckee, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2 I agree - What would smacksaw offer as an alternative? The peer review system may indeed be imperfect, but it's the best system we have to date of vetting the hard work of scientists in the public forum. True, there are those who can take advantage of the system by "gaming it" or practicing unethical behavior, and the system is set up in such a way that the pressure to publish on researchers is high, but nevertheless, it does serve to bring the quality of the published literature above what it would otherwise be in, say, a magazine or newspaper, where the editor alone makes the call.
And nobody should accept peer review as gospel - scientists are trained to be skeptical, and there's a lot of excellent scholarship out there as well as absolute crap - the onus is on the reader to read with a skeptical eye, and view that paper in the context of the other published data on the subject.
- tdmckee, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2 I agree - What would smacksaw offer as an alternative? The peer review system may indeed be imperfect, but it's the best system we have to date of vetting the hard work of scientists in the public forum. True, there are those who can take advantage of the system by "gaming it" or practicing unethical behavior, and the system is set up in such a way that the pressure to publish on researchers is high, but nevertheless, it does serve to bring the quality of the published literature above what it would otherwise be in, say, a magazine or newspaper, where the editor alone makes the call.
- Croaton, on 02/12/2008, -3/+4I agree with you about the whole "absolute truth" thing. Science works with probabilities not absolute truths. Although, for many theories, the probabilities that they are wrong are negligable they may however be refined...
- Papajohn56, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Here we go again with more humanities people trying to discuss quantum physics.
- mcduckov, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Didja know it was philosophers who originally came up with particle theory? Don't believe me? Look up where the word atomos came from.
- Elliuotatar, on 02/12/2008, -4/+27When the world's greatest scientific thinkers? What?
1. A PHYSICIST changed his mind about a HISTORY QUESTION.
2. A PSYCHOLOGIST changed his mind about a BIOLOGY QUESTION.
3. A PSYCHOLOGIST changed her mind about a PHYSICS QUESTION. (Or religion, take your pick.)
4. A PSYCHOLOGIST changed his mind about a PHILOSOPHY QUESTION. (Which he thinks is a biology question.)
5. A PHYSICIST changed his mind about PHILOSOPHY QUESTION.
6. A PHILOSOPHER changed her mind about a SOCIOLOGY QUESTION.
7. A PHYSICISIST change his mind about a PHYSICS QUESTI... oh wait.
8. A GENETICIST changed his mind about THE ENVIRONMENT.
9. AN ANTHROPOLOGIST changed her mind about EVOLUTION.
10. A BIOLOGIST changed his mind about BIOLOG... Oops again!
Only two of these "geniuses" were actually experts in the field they chose to formulate an opinion about and then later changed their opinion on. That would be like ME deciding that maybe string theory wasn't such a good idea after all.
Also, how in the hell do you call someone one of the greatest minds when it took her YEARS to decide that PARANORMAL STUFF DOESN'T EXIST after she'd done experiment after experiment that came up negative! That means she's exactly the OPPOSITE of smart.- digidevil, on 02/12/2008, -2/+2just what i was thinkin. load of bollocks, academics masturbating their egos.
- sirlancelot88, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7You've got a good point. However, human evolution is a biological anthropologist's field of study. So make that three experts instead of two.
- bruce86, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2I agree with you for the most part, But Psychologist are best equipped in testing the paranormal, because they have the most training dealing with people and how people are biased and may lie. When the government wanted to tests uri gellers "powers" they hired physicist and they deterimed he was a true psychic. Then the psychologist got in there and ripped Uri Gellers ass a new one, calling him a fraud.
- Elliuotatar, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2If a physicist determined he was a psychic, then they should revoke that guy's license to do science, because a simple double-blind test is all you need to do to determine that the guy has no abilities to speak of.
- bruce86, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Who do you think pioneered double blind test?
- Elliuotatar, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder?
- bruce86, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Who do you think pioneered double blind test?
- Elliuotatar, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2If a physicist determined he was a psychic, then they should revoke that guy's license to do science, because a simple double-blind test is all you need to do to determine that the guy has no abilities to speak of.
- hifidelity1, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Agreed... plus that fact that quite a few of these questions are "scientific" questions... the one on equality... the one on race... it'll depends on who your talking to. That's all.
- Papajohn56, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3Look up Bohmian Mechanics aka the Bohmian Interpretation. It has scientific backing that produces the same results as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Bohmian mechanics is completely deterministic, which conflicts with our current teaching of quantum mechanics. Why is it pushed to the side?
- bullrassler, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Because it has no testable differences to the standard theory? Think up an experiment that will give result A if Copenhagen is true, result B if Bohmian is true, do the experiment, publish the result, win a Nobel prize.
(Note: 'true' is shorthand for 'consistent with observed reality', not true in the logical sense. )
- bullrassler, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Because it has no testable differences to the standard theory? Think up an experiment that will give result A if Copenhagen is true, result B if Bohmian is true, do the experiment, publish the result, win a Nobel prize.
- Killwize, on 02/12/2008, -4/+1I hate articles like this. Soon they will change their minds again...
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3yep thats the beauty of science. pity religion isn't so open to progress eh? I always find it funny when scientist's willingness to correct their mistakes is portrayed negatively. Almost as if people think it would be better if they just stuck to their theories no matter what, just like say.... religion?
- cruik, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Wow there was some controversial stuff in there. Do you think its the smarter the person the more they accept politically incorrect realities like differences in race and gender or does their intelligence make them more elitist?
- known, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Always "Ask Why"and we will discover the unknown world....
- Spritti, on 02/12/2008, -2/+2What, exactly, does Mr. Dyson think caused japan to surrender and the end of world war 2 if it wasn't atomic bombs. Tuna sandwhiches??? Also, who is the psychologist in #4? Sasha Baron-Cohen's dad?
- ReadItAndWeep, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3Japan had already offered to surrender to the US before we dropped the bombs, but the US rejected it because they didn't like the terms of surrender Japan offered. Also, the US wanted to show their coming enemy, the Soviet Union, what their new toy could do.
- Spritti, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0ah that explains it, thanks for the info
- nickdngr, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1The psychologist in #4 is one of the leading authorities on autism spectrum disorder and Asperger's syndrome. There is a good possibility that his theories will be traced back as being the Rosetta Stone for understanding both. But hey, what does his opinion matter b/c his cousin is a famous entertainer, right?
- Spritti, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0wow, was just making a joke, not discrediting him. holy *****, touchy touchy
- ReadItAndWeep, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3Japan had already offered to surrender to the US before we dropped the bombs, but the US rejected it because they didn't like the terms of surrender Japan offered. Also, the US wanted to show their coming enemy, the Soviet Union, what their new toy could do.
- ofenza, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2It's "portuguese", not "portugese".
- ashlocke, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5Here are the full replies (and not just a 1 paragraph summary) :
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_15.html
I read a lot of them, and they're all fascinating.- digidevil, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1thank for the link man
- ashlocke, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Whoops, wrong link. Thats page 15, but heres the directory:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html#contribut ...
- daxsymbiont, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1most are trivial.
an interesting one is from "Helena ..", that men aren't smarter but more of the extremes. i.e. you hear of more 'bad' guys but also 'smart'. that's an interesting observation.
however, i could add without disagreeing with it, that while that may be true it's most probably greatly influenced and perhaps originating from *traditional male dominance. there's no 'natural' proof on it since while female mamals do stay a bit with their kids and don't run around they are hunters, strong and if you touch them they aren't defenseless. of course, it could be argued that the whole 'alpha male' ***** is a good source of the whole environment.- Pixelante, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0"you hear of more 'bad' guys but also 'smart'. that's an interesting observation."
We've been knowing this for years. Supervillains are usually male.- daxsymbiont, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1we know a lot of things. putting them into certain contexts is another matter.
- Pixelante, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0"you hear of more 'bad' guys but also 'smart'. that's an interesting observation."
- Cyberen, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Gee, nobody talking about #8?
What a shocker.
(cue the Manbearpig-referencing idiot) - Skardhamar, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Love the way Freeman Dyson (who is a physicist and a mathematician?!) explains how he changed his mind concerning the atomic bomb won the ww2. - Because of new facts.
- 3rdDay, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2This is fascinating but old. I submitted it a while back:
http://digg.com/general_sciences/The_2008_Edge_Ann ...
At least the had the good taste not to ask Bono. ;) - atmenterprises, on 02/12/2008, -3/+2So why does Al Gore cling to the anthropogenic global warming hoax when there's clearly evidence that supports that it's not happening or it's not caused by human activities?
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3Because the evidence you mention doesn't exist.
- atmenterprises, on 02/12/2008, -2/+1Like global warming?
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+3Because the evidence you mention doesn't exist.
- Notasheeple, on 02/12/2008, -2/+1WTF? This is all propaganda........who even cares about agenda driven opinions anyway?
- ShaneMcDeath, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1"There is an overbearing censorship to the way we are allowed to think and talk about the diversity of people on Earth. Officially we are all the same: there are no races. Flawed as the old ideas about race are, modern genomic studies reveal a surprising, compelling and different picture of human genetic diversity. What this all means is that, like it or not, there may be many genetic differences among human populations—including differences that may even correspond to old categories of 'race'—that are real differences in the sense of making one group better than another at responding to some particular environmental problem. "
well, duh. - okcomputer1982, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Hello Dr. Pagel,
I am a man who has tried as best as possible not to allow outside opinions to mar my personal sense of identity. There are simply too many things to think about in order to get through the day to day of life without having to constantly question your own humanity on top of it all.
Never-the-less, sometimes the pressure of outside opinion; in something I read, in what may be toss off as an innocuous comment, whatever; sometimes these things can't help but crush you, can't help but make you feel set in a straightjacket of circumstance that is seeming impossible to escape from regardless of accomplishment.
As a 25 year old American man of African decent, a 3rd generation Philadelphian, there have been many such instances lately. Mostly I try to toss these of as projections or simple ignorance. But in some cases, in cases where a long standing history of people who have skin color under some invisible threshold being judged as some strange other, are put forward as hard science, well...it's hard to not let that push you down.
I saw your comment, the last of a list of changes in the minds of great scientists in edge.org, and I couldn't help but ask for some clarification of your findings. I do applaud your attempt to suggest the need to explore the differences between racial groups. I personally think the first real step in the integration of humanity is to explore, celebrate and most importantly LEARN from each other as members of differing tribes have done for centuries. And I don't think your comments precludes that.
At the same time, to toss out a statement basically saying that different races (by virtue of their skin color) are essentially different species without any explanation is just irresponsible. It just begs for what a surprising amount of secular friends I have talked to have suggested to me about, say, blacks in america. Which is basically that genocide is justified. No joke, to my face I have been that the only way to get fix the problem of "those kind of" black people is to kill them because they are genetic predisposed to aggression or stupidity or whatever. And unfortunately, I think you statement does not necessarily preclude this interpretation either.
In an effort too fairly acess your statements, I humbly ask the following questions:
1) What are these genetic differences?
2) Has it been proven that there is a causal link between skin tone and these differences?
3) How have these results compared (if at all) to the difference of other, similar power-dynamic systems that are not based on skin tone(i.e. irish vs british, lower vs higher cast indias, warring african tribes, etc.)
4) Is there a hard and fast definition of what it means to be "white" (or black for that matter, as many negative racial stereotypes in america seem exclusive to the descendants of american slaves)? Irish, jew, southern italian and other culture groups acceptance into whiteness in recent decades seems to contradict the idea that the existence of a specific white gene is even possible. And if such a category has no firm definition, how can it have a true genetic expression?
Beyond the personal, as a researcher into new methods of education, this information would be valuable to me as I do my bit to make our hard fought dreams of a better society a reality. Do I think a perfectly just, egalitarian society is possible? Of course not. Perfection is, ultimately, impossible in any form for humanity. But I do believe we can, with hard work and an unshakable will, evolve asymptotically closer to such a conclusion each day.
I look forward to your reply.- Jibaku, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1"Most of what separates me genetically from a typical African or Eskimo also separates me from another average American of European ancestry." - James Sheeves
Don't give Pagel too much credit, he sounds like the Johann Blumenbach type of scientist to me. (Blumenbach was an anatomist who originated the concept of race within race (as I call it) by virtue of his private opinion that skulls from the Caucasus mountains were more beautiful than others. (Cultural Anthropology, William Haviland, pg 80) Skin tone is a result of how much melanin our cells produce, it certainly doesn't affect who we are. At least from the inside.
As you know. Just reaffirming. - ShaneMcDeath, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1With absolute respect. Why do you insist on complicating, what is, when you strip the ***** away, an extremely simple thing ? It really frustrates me, this subject.
When i watch a 100m sprint, i am able to note that the black athletes GENERALLY have more explosiveness when they sprint and because of this there are far more black athletes who do well in sprinting than asian/white for example. Of course, this is obvious in all the sports. I assume it's down to genetics. It's extremely clear for anyone to see who doesn't have an agenda.
I can say with absolute certainty that the average man is stronger than the average woman. It doesn't mean i have some issue with women, it's just what i see. I'm interested in the truth.- okcomputer1982, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1I think as someone who has not grown up in this community, particullar in america, simply tossing even athelic ability to solely based on gentics is a gross over-simplification.
Those who did well in basketball in my neighborhood tended to the ones, not just with the most talent, but those that worked the hardest. Fact is no matter how much talent you may have genetically, "85% of success is showing up." Generally in the America, black children have never had good educational services, diverse exposure to different fields or even the faith, based on these very assumptions, that they are CAPABLE of doing anything well other then sports, music or dance. And this idea, that dark skined people are somehow, by virture of there skin and their skin alone, are genetically predisposed to not be able to do certain things is exactly the assumption that caused slavery (and the holocast and the genocide of native americans and the cast system) to happen. It is the excense of racism.
I appershate your comments. But if you really are interested in truth, I really don't see how you can not complicate the issue? Our history IS complicated and like it or not, it has a long tail. We can't speak to the genetic differences between races until we control for this history. History is not *****, it is the basis for the what we are today.
- okcomputer1982, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1I think as someone who has not grown up in this community, particullar in america, simply tossing even athelic ability to solely based on gentics is a gross over-simplification.
- okcomputer1982, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Dear Mr Longmire,
I'll have to be brief but here are some quick replies.
> 1) What are these genetic differences?
Go to the Edge website story on this and you can find my full article. [avalible here: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_2.html] One difference, for example, is that many people of Northern European descent can digest milk as adults while many other adults cannot. This is a genetic difference.
> 2) Has it been proven that there is a causal link between skin tone and these differences?
No. That should be clear from my article.
> 3) How have these results compared (if at all) to the results of other, similar power-dynamic systems that are not based on skin tone(i.e. irish vs british, lower vs higher cast indias, warring african tribes, etc.)
The point I make in my article is that there are many differences emerging among human 'populations'. A 'population' is of course difficult to define, but for example people of Lapp descent would consider themselves a distinct population and they are, it turns out, one of the groups that can digest milk. So, nothing to do per se with skin colour, social status, etc etc.
> 4) Is there a hard and fast definition of what it means to be "white" (or black for that matter, as many negative racial stereotypes in america seem exclusive to the descendants of american slaves)? Irish, jew, southern italian and other culture groups acceptance into whiteness in recent decades seems to contradict the idea that the existence of a specific white gene is even possible. And if such a category has no firm definition, how can it have a true genetic expression?
No, there aren't. See above.
> Beyond the personal, as a researcher into new methods of education, this information would be valuable to me as I do my bit to make our hard fought dreams of a better society a reality. Do I think a perfectly just, egalitarian society is possible? Of course not. Perfection is, ultimately, impossible in any form for humanity. But I do believe we can with hard work and an unshakable will to evolve asymptotically closer to such a conclusion each day.
Good luck with this.
MP - okcomputer1982, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Dr. Pagel
I have read the full article and do have a fuller understanding of your meaning.
I agree with it in fact.
All I would say is watch your vocabulary, not for the sake of censorship, but for the sake of accuracy. As you say, your research seems to deal with the different evolutionary paths of specific isolated populations. Precisely because terms like black and white are so broad, I really don't see how your article suggests that "race" exists. To do this is comparable to saying that because there are people who display anti-social behavior that "demons" exist or more finely because economic disparity is a long standing fact in India that casts "exist". I don't disagree with your points, but you seem to be putting the horse in front of the cart on this one, resulting in lots of people taking your comments to mean something you did not intend and cannot prove. I would think as a scientist this is certainly against your intentions.
Thank you for your reply.
- Jibaku, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1"Most of what separates me genetically from a typical African or Eskimo also separates me from another average American of European ancestry." - James Sheeves
- skinturtle, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1"he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind....he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does."
- AvangionQ, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Science is all about adjusting theories to best match available data ... integrity is built into the scientific process ... if your theory is broken or revised by newly gathered information, as a scientist, you would rejoice that knowledge is increased ... you won't find that sort of thing so easily accepted in any other field ...
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by