EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

OT: science, technology engineering, mathematic and medical

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: science, technology engineering, mathematic and medical

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

bitrex
Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:45 pm   



On 02/06/2019 11:43 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:56:43 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has a second interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/6/1910.full.pdf

I'm not even sure that I should have labelled this post off-topic.


Cerebral-type engineers tend to find the arts and humanities deeply
terrifying; they've examined the various artifacts those disciplines
produce and can't determine their function. why anyone would expend so
much effort to produce useless things is deeply mysterious and inscrutable.

They usually do it for fame and money. Nothing inscrutable about that.
What's interesting (but not mysterious) is why they sometimes get fame
and money.


Why would an artist make art for fame and money? It's about the hardest
way to get fame and money there is! Is everyone who decides to make art
as a discipline a dullard who doesn't realize that financial or social
success for a particular individual in those fields is lottery-winning
rare? Might as well play the lottery!

Quote:
My concern about "art" is that anyone can call himself an "artist",
and that no art critic ever dares to say "that's bad and ugly."


Hahahahaha well I can see you've never read much art or music critique

Quote:
So, art becomes basically meaningless, random neural activity. But the
"artists" still demand respect and cheap rent.


To whom are the vast majority of artists so empowered over that they'd
be in any position to demand anything? The artists union has that much
clout? Hah

> There has been some great art, but 1000x more junk.

That's true

bitrex
Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:45 pm   



On 02/06/2019 11:43 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:56:43 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has a second interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/6/1910.full.pdf

I'm not even sure that I should have labelled this post off-topic.


Cerebral-type engineers tend to find the arts and humanities deeply
terrifying; they've examined the various artifacts those disciplines
produce and can't determine their function. why anyone would expend so
much effort to produce useless things is deeply mysterious and inscrutable.

They usually do it for fame and money. Nothing inscrutable about that.
What's interesting (but not mysterious) is why they sometimes get fame
and money.

My concern about "art" is that anyone can call himself an "artist",
and that no art critic ever dares to say "that's bad and ugly."

So, art becomes basically meaningless, random neural activity. But the
"artists" still demand respect and cheap rent.

There has been some great art, but 1000x more junk.



Not random neural activity. This is art:

<https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b9592a41033b9df0aa8801f611a7a23b.webp>

Of a very primitive sort but it's still art, to demonstrate a very
primitive reason for it: because all you take with you is what you leave
behind, and few people wish to be forgotten.

whit3rd
Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:45 am   



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 5:39:25 AM UTC-8, Martin Brown wrote:

Quote:
It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

The whole purpose of the scientific publication process is that once
something is published other researchers can repeat the same experiment
and either confirm or refute the claims made by the first group.


Refutation of claims, or confirmation by repeating observations, IS peer review,
just like the first-cut oversight of editors and reviewers before publication.
We've seen modern reviews of Gregor Mendel's statistics, for instance...
Peer review is open-ended, continuous, and perhaps eternal.

Clifford Heath
Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:45 am   



On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.


Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just less wrong.
Peer review is one way to start sorting out which.


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:45 am   



On Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:54:20 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
Quote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.

Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just less wrong.
Peer review is one way to start sorting out which.


I just wish it were effective in practice. The world would be a better place.


NT


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 12:39:25 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.


NT isn't all that cynical, if a trifle paranoid. He does seem to be a gullible twit who has fallen for a number of well-known health scams. Amygdalin seems to be one of them, but he's got just enough sense not to admit to the others.

https://www.webmd.com/cancer/amygdalin-cancer-treatment

Quote:
It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.


Not so much wrong as unhelpful.

Quote:
The whole purpose of the scientific publication process is that once
something is published other researchers can repeat the same experiment
and either confirm or refute the claims made by the first group.


If anybody can be bothered. It takes a fairly highly cited misleading paper to motivate a confirmation experiment, which is going to be hard to publish unless it fails to confirm some part of the original work.

Final year undergraduates do get stuck with running this kind of experiment - they don't really need the publication, and they do need the practice in running experiments.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 12:56:37 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:54:20 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.

Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just less wrong.
Peer review is one way to start sorting out which.

I just wish it were effective in practice. The world would be a better place.


It's remarkably effective in practice, and the world is a much better place than it was even a few decades ago.

Sadly, NT would prefer it to be a rather worse place, but one that he would like better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 3:43:29 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:56:43 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has a second interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/6/1910.full.pdf

I'm not even sure that I should have labelled this post off-topic.


Cerebral-type engineers tend to find the arts and humanities deeply
terrifying; they've examined the various artifacts those disciplines
produce and can't determine their function. why anyone would expend so
much effort to produce useless things is deeply mysterious and inscrutable.

They usually do it for fame and money. Nothing inscrutable about that.
What's interesting (but not mysterious) is why they sometimes get fame
and money.

My concern about "art" is that anyone can call himself an "artist",
and that no art critic ever dares to say "that's bad and ugly."


http://www.julianporterqc.com/on-the-arts/james-mcneill-whistler-1834-1903/

John Larkin doesn't know much about art, and even less about art criticism.

Quote:
So, art becomes basically meaningless, random neural activity. But the
"artists" still demand respect and cheap rent.


Most people - John Larkin is clearly excluded here - know enough about art and artists to distinguish between successful artists, who reliably produce works that many people like (not always the same people from work to work) and the residual population of aspiring artists, who don't.

> There has been some great art, but 1000x more junk.

Sturgeons Law is more generous - he only claimed that 90% of everything was junk. John Larkin - as an art critic - is clearly part of the 90%.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Clifford Heath
Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:45 am   



On 7/2/19 12:56 pm, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:54:20 UTC, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.

Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just less wrong.
Peer review is one way to start sorting out which.

I just wish it were effective in practice. The world would be a better place.


I'm glad I wasn't born a century ago.

I get to live twice as long, and ten times as well.

That seems pretty effective to me.

Clifford Heath.


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 3:21:33 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.


This is the guy who told us that anthropogenic global warming stopped in 1998.

NT's published claims suggest to me that he is decidedly gullible, and incapable of admitting that he has been mislead. His opinions should be treated with particular scepticism, not least because he is remarkably unwilling to specify the precise area where he thinks he has in-depth knowledge.

Quote:
The whole purpose of the scientific publication process is that once
something is published other researchers can repeat the same experiment
and either confirm or refute the claims made by the first group.

I assumed we all knew what peer review is. It's a nice idea but there are some issues with it in practice:
1. Research is routinely done for profit, and sponsoring companies inevitably pay researchers that give them the best results. It takes no genius to work out how that goes.


Industrial research is routinely done for profit (or as precaution against future loss). Academic research is largely motivated by a desire to get publications in high prestige journals, and citations for the stuff that gets published.

Pharmacy companies don't normally publish negative results, but that's the only obvious distortion in the process. Academics also find it hard to publish negative results.

> 2. Others can redo the experiment but seldom do unless paid to, which in most cases they aren't. When they are paid to they're under the profit motive, which encourages an awful lot of overlooking & more.

Only some of them are influenced by the profit motive. A large chunk of the motivation for publication is to get noticed - even in profit-driven industry.

Lying to get noticed does happen

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

but getting found out has catastrophic consequences.

Quote:
3. IRL when people spot problems, the normal response is not to publish a criticism. This occurs for a few reasons, including
a) I have plenty other things to do


True.

> b) Criticising others is likely to get what I publish criticised

False. An irritated author may react with a counter-blast, but that's another citation. "There is no such thing as bad publicity".P.T. Barnum.

Sloman A. W. “Comment on ‘A versatile thermoelectric temperature controller with 10 mK reproducibility and 100 mK absolute accuracy’ [Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80, 126107 (2009)] “, Review of Scientific Instruments 82, 27101 - 027101-2 (2011).

> c) people working in the field but not having phd qualifications usually think their voice won't be heard.

A Ph.D. is a remarkably narrow qualification. Mine is in Physical Chemistry, but my publications are entirely within the instrumentation literature. Editors couldn't care less whether you have a Ph.D. and everybody (you excepted) seems to know that.

> Great idea, but it doesn't work as well as one would hope.

If better than any other idea that anybody has come up with.

> What works best? Studies of very large numbers of people over many years where the author has no connection with their treatment and is not sponsored by interested parties. You've got much higher sample numbers, much longer study lengths & as much as practical of the money motive is removed. Imho such data gathering should be automatic across the board for any developed nation's health service. It doesn't solve all the problems but it's a lot better.

Cochrane collaboration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation)

It dates back to 1993, and a lot of what it does are meta-analyses of lots of data collected by people with an economic interest in knowing what happens to patients.

NT is absolutely right - for once - in saying that such data-gathering should be built into any developed nation's health service, but it has only recently become a practical option, and privacy issues do complicate the process.

https://www.myhealthrecord.gov.au/

> Ultimately one needs to be realistic about medical research. It's an inherently shall we say messy field, and believing what one is told is generally naive.

NT is choosy about what he is told, and what he chooses to believe. My impression is that he has made quite a few bad choices, and the even worst choice of sticking to them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 3:20:07 AM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
Quote:
On 02/06/2019 03:54 AM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 6:56:48 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has a second interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/6/1910.full.pdf

I'm not even sure that I should have labelled this post off-topic.


Cerebral-type engineers tend to find the arts and humanities deeply
terrifying;

Speak for yourself,

they've examined the various artifacts those disciplines
produce and can't determine their function.

A bizarre misconception. There are engineers who have never read a novel, but even John Larkin likes Jane Austen and P.G.Wodehouse. I do like Thomas Love Peacock, but he is a minority taste.

But the vast majority of art produced _never_ made or makes anyone any
significant money, and a good proportion of the stuff that did never
earned its creator any significant money or recognition in their own
lifetime.


So what. The median number of publications of authors of scientific papers is one. You've got to put something together before you can be sure it's rubbish (or at least not good enough to be worth doing more of - like the half-dozen revue scripts that I wrote when I was a graduate student, half of which were performed and got laughs, but not enough to lure me away from finishing my Ph.D.).

Quote:
I think most artists know going in to the discipline if the goal is even
to earn an income you can live on then taking the money you spend on art
supplies and using it to bet on horses or blackjack would be a more
rational choice.


It's a gamble, but at least you are betting on yourself. The rational choice comes after you've done enough to work out what kind of income it might earn you.

Quote:
Why anyone would expend so much effort to produce useless things is deeply
mysterious and inscrutable.

Books and plays are written because they are entertaining, and can be sold for money. Nothing mysterious or inscrutable about that.


> Emil Cioran opined "A book is a suicide postponed".

I tried to write a particularly irritating three year development exercise - plenty of drama - but decided that I'm no Tracy Kidder. Suicide didn't come into it at any point. The bits that were salvagable ended up here.

http://sophia-elektronica.com/At_Cambridge.html

Quote:
Perhaps some fashion of physical mind-virus, designed to gum up the
pure, harmonious mechanics of their clockwork-like pedigreed Aryan brains.

Einstein was non-Aryan, and played the violin. Feynman preferred bongo drums.

Didn't seem to gum up either of their brains.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin
Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:45 am   



On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:54:12 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam_at_please.net>
wrote:

Quote:
On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.

Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just less wrong.
Peer review is one way to start sorting out which.


Someone recently suggested that there should be journals that publish
failed experiments. That makes enormous sense.

Peer review would be fun too.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 4:17:01 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 11:54:12 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam_at_please.net
wrote:

On 7/2/19 3:21 am, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:

Was this peer reviewed? No one READ it before it was published, this is
on the front page.

Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality.

understatement of the century there.

You are *way* too cynical and paranoid.

It has always been the case that about 10% of everything in the peer
reviewed literature is not to put to fine a point on it wrong.

In the one medical subject I have some in-depth knowledge of, 99.9% is wrong. In medicine generally, the figure is 90 something percent.

Every description of reality is wrong. Some are just less wrong.
Peer review is one way to start sorting out which.

Someone recently suggested that there should be journals that publish
failed experiments. That makes enormous sense.


But probably not to publishers. Who is going to read them?

> Peer review would be fun too.

Peer review is never fun. It's a chore. Nobody likes doing it - which is why people as peripheral as I am get to do it from time to time - but it is accepted as a responsibility, if one that gets dodged quite frequently.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

bitrex
Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:45 am   



On 02/06/2019 09:54 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Quote:
So what. The median number of publications of authors of scientific papers is one. You've got to put something together before you can be sure it's rubbish (or at least not good enough to be worth doing more of - like the half-dozen revue scripts that I wrote when I was a graduate student, half of which were performed and got laughs, but not enough to lure me away from finishing my Ph.D.).

I think most artists know going in to the discipline if the goal is even
to earn an income you can live on then taking the money you spend on art
supplies and using it to bet on horses or blackjack would be a more
rational choice.

It's a gamble, but at least you are betting on yourself. The rational choice comes after you've done enough to work out what kind of income it might earn you.

Why anyone would expend so much effort to produce useless things is deeply
mysterious and inscrutable.

Books and plays are written because they are entertaining, and can be sold for money. Nothing mysterious or inscrutable about that.


Emil Cioran opined "A book is a suicide postponed".

I tried to write a particularly irritating three year development exercise - plenty of drama - but decided that I'm no Tracy Kidder. Suicide didn't come into it at any point. The bits that were salvagable ended up here.

http://sophia-elektronica.com/At_Cambridge.html


I guess I was expecting something like a novel but this reads like an
autopsy report.


Guest

Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:45 am   



On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:53:27 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
Quote:
On 02/06/2019 09:54 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

So what. The median number of publications of authors of scientific papers is one. You've got to put something together before you can be sure it's rubbish (or at least not good enough to be worth doing more of - like the half-dozen revue scripts that I wrote when I was a graduate student, half of which were performed and got laughs, but not enough to lure me away from finishing my Ph.D.).

I think most artists know going in to the discipline if the goal is even
to earn an income you can live on then taking the money you spend on art
supplies and using it to bet on horses or blackjack would be a more
rational choice.

It's a gamble, but at least you are betting on yourself. The rational choice comes after you've done enough to work out what kind of income it might earn you.

Why anyone would expend so much effort to produce useless things is deeply
mysterious and inscrutable.

Books and plays are written because they are entertaining, and can be sold for money. Nothing mysterious or inscrutable about that.


Emil Cioran opined "A book is a suicide postponed".

I tried to write a particularly irritating three year development exercise - plenty of drama - but decided that I'm no Tracy Kidder. Suicide didn't come into it at any point. The bits that were salvagable ended up here.

http://sophia-elektronica.com/At_Cambridge.html

I guess I was expecting something like a novel but this reads like an
autopsy report.


The project died, so it has to be an autopsy. The management errors that meant that we got the machine working too late were understandable, but still stupid (and fatal). A novel is a work of fiction, and the work is mainly fact, which did constrain the artistic expression.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: science, technology engineering, mathematic and medical

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map