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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:45 am   



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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Winfield Hill
Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:45 am   



bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote...
Quote:

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.


I'm not sure what the topic was.


--
Thanks,
- Win


Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:45 am   



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 12:03:37 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill wrote:
Quote:
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.

I'm not sure what the topic was.


For that you'd need to read the paper, all eight pages of it, but the abstract does clue you in.

It has been argued here that electronic circuit design is an art, although it does exploit a lot of scientific knowledge - a point of view that is reflected in the title of your textbook.

My superficial impression is that authors argue for the existence of an intellectual tool-kit consisting of 13 distinguishable items. Not everybody has all thirteen tools, but if you do well you nave most of them, and the subsidiary point is that a number of the tools can be acquired in art and craft courses, rather than regular STEMM training.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Robertson
Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:45 am   



On 2019/02/05 7:34 p.m., bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 12:03:37 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill wrote:
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.

I'm not sure what the topic was.

For that you'd need to read the paper, all eight pages of it, but the abstract does clue you in.

It has been argued here that electronic circuit design is an art, although it does exploit a lot of scientific knowledge - a point of view that is reflected in the title of your textbook.

My superficial impression is that authors argue for the existence of an intellectual tool-kit consisting of 13 distinguishable items. Not everybody has all thirteen tools, but if you do well you nave most of them, and the subsidiary point is that a number of the tools can be acquired in art and craft courses, rather than regular STEMM training.


And you might think these authors would have proof-read their paper
prior to sending it our for peer review':

-------------(quote)------------
A study of 38 male scientists found significant correlations between the
range of thinking tools used by a scientist and measures of achievement,
such as how many high-impact papers he or she published, and...
-------------(end quote)----------

"he or she"? when it was a part of the study that examined "38 male
scientists".

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

This is a paper for the anal retentive folks who have to know the
measure of everything...

John

bitrex
Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:45 am   



On 02/05/2019 07:49 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
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.

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


Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:45 am   



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 6:56:48 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
Quote:
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,

Quote:
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.

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.

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


Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:45 am   



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 5:33:14 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
Quote:
On 2019/02/05 7:34 p.m., bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 12:03:37 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill wrote:
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.

I'm not sure what the topic was.

For that you'd need to read the paper, all eight pages of it, but the abstract does clue you in.

It has been argued here that electronic circuit design is an art, although it does exploit a lot of scientific knowledge - a point of view that is reflected in the title of your textbook.

My superficial impression is that authors argue for the existence of an intellectual tool-kit consisting of 13 distinguishable items. Not everybody has all thirteen tools, but if you do well you nave most of them, and the subsidiary point is that a number of the tools can be acquired in art and craft courses, rather than regular STEMM training.


And you might think these authors would have proof-read their paper
prior to sending it our for peer review':

-------------(quote)------------
A study of 38 male scientists found significant correlations between the
range of thinking tools used by a scientist and measures of achievement,
such as how many high-impact papers he or she published, and...
-------------(end quote)----------

"he or she"? when it was a part of the study that examined "38 male
scientists".

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

This is a paper for the anal retentive folks who have to know the
measure of everything...


Of course it was peer-reviewed, and the paper will have been proof-read by the authors before it was published.

Professional proof-readers find about 95% of the typos in the stuff they check.

The rest of us find about 30% ...

The only anal-retentive individual involved here would appear to be you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Martin Brown
Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:45 am   



On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:
Quote:
On 2019/02/05 7:34 p.m., bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 12:03:37 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill
wrote:
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.

  I'm not sure what the topic was.

For that you'd need to read the paper, all eight pages of it, but the
abstract does clue you in.

It has been argued here that electronic circuit design is an art,
although it does exploit a lot of scientific knowledge - a point of
view that is reflected in the title of your textbook.

My superficial impression is that authors argue for the existence of
an intellectual tool-kit consisting of 13 distinguishable items. Not
everybody has all thirteen tools, but if you do well you nave most of
them, and the subsidiary point is that a number of the tools can be
acquired in art and craft courses, rather than regular STEMM training.


Their choice of 13 factors seems highly arbitrary to me. I reckon that
there are roughly 8 key factors that make someone a good scientist or
engineer (the latter also need good drawing skills):

Observation, Verbalisation, Listening, Visualisation
Logic, Intuition, Abstraction, Pattern Matching

In no particular order though the top line are mostly sensory and the
bottom line more abstract. I suspect it is pattern matching across a
wide range of experience and knowledge that facilitates creativity.

Quote:
And you might think these authors would have proof-read their paper
prior to sending it our for peer review':

-------------(quote)------------
A study of 38 male scientists found significant correlations between the
range of thinking tools used by a scientist and measures of achievement,
such as how many high-impact papers he or she published, and...
-------------(end quote)----------

"he or she"? when it was  a part of the study that examined "38 male
scientists".


I can think of one genetically male scientist who is now a leading
female scientist and has taken on feminist Germaine Greer and won.
Quote:

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


Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality. I recall one classic where the
Nature editor accidentally inverted the meaning of a sentence trying to
make it clearer in one of the major breakthrough papers in the field.

It was a standing joke and the authors agreed never to use a double
negative in any future scientific paper.

Quote:
This is a paper for the anal retentive folks who have to know the
measure of everything...

John


Very possibly.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:45 pm   



On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10:38:46 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
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.


NT

Martin Brown
Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:45 pm   



On 06/02/2019 12:00, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
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.

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.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:45 pm   



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 9:38:46 PM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
On 06/02/2019 06:33, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/02/05 7:34 p.m., bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 12:03:37 PM UTC+11, Winfield Hill
wrote:
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.

  I'm not sure what the topic was.

For that you'd need to read the paper, all eight pages of it, but the
abstract does clue you in.

It has been argued here that electronic circuit design is an art,
although it does exploit a lot of scientific knowledge - a point of
view that is reflected in the title of your textbook.

My superficial impression is that authors argue for the existence of
an intellectual tool-kit consisting of 13 distinguishable items. Not
everybody has all thirteen tools, but if you do well you nave most of
them, and the subsidiary point is that a number of the tools can be
acquired in art and craft courses, rather than regular STEMM training.

Their choice of 13 factors seems highly arbitrary to me. I reckon that
there are roughly 8 key factors that make someone a good scientist or
engineer (the latter also need good drawing skills):

Observation, Verbalisation, Listening, Visualisation
Logic, Intuition, Abstraction, Pattern Matching


So if you have a better scheme, and the research to support it, do write it up and submit it the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. It is a fairly high impact journal and the refereeing tends to be thorough.

The paper was one of a bunch from the "Sackler Colloquium on Creativity and Collaboration: Revisiting Cybernetic Serendipity"

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/6?etoc

It did happen to catch my attention.

<snipped John Robertson being trivial>

Quote:
Peer reviewed doesn't guarantee quality. I recall one classic where the
Nature editor accidentally inverted the meaning of a sentence trying to
make it clearer in one of the major breakthrough papers in the field.

It was a standing joke and the authors agreed never to use a double
negative in any future scientific paper.


Peer review doesn't guarantee perfection. It does seem to be the best procedure around for getting adequate quality.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:45 pm   



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:00:41 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
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.


Actually peer review delivers better quality than any other approach we know about, but NT doesn't like it because it tends to reject his favourite silly ideas.

Peer review doesn't deliver perfection, but it delivers sufficient quality for science as a whole to have made a great deal of progress since it was widely adopted.

NT will doubtless tell us that he knows a better approach, but that he isn't going to waste his time telling us about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin
Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:56:43 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:

Quote:
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.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:39:25 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
Quote:
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.

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.
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.
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
b) Criticising others is likely to get what I publish criticised
c) people working in the field but not having phd qualifications usually think their voice won't be heard
etc etc

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

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.

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

bitrex
Guest

Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pm   



On 02/06/2019 03:54 AM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
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.

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.

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"


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.


Goto page 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