Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/27/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I doubt that it is about control per se. Folks are alright is only presented on of those options, for example (i.e. when they have no control whatsoever). Moreover, when presented separately folks were fine with either choice in such a randomized trial. I suspect that it is the thought of getting something worse than someone else is something that is at least one of the reasons. In various psychological (and economic) tests (such as the ultimatum game, where on person decides the share of a given monetary amount and the second either rejects or accepts the deal) folks have been shown that folks would rather penalize unfair shares rather than accepting any amount of money (which would be the rational choice). Some similar thinking may play a role here. The corollary is that theoretically people may have less misgivings if they were specifically recruited to either group separately. However, that would make blind trials and accounting for placebo impossible as well as raise the issue of non-randomized selection. Edit: A bit off-topic though it may be a similar mechanism: It is interesting to speculate what other impact these things have in other personal and political decision making. As recent studies have shown, economic loss is, for example, surprisingly not a strong predictor for radicalization (and goes against traditional wisdom, which assumes a rational decision-process). Instead, fear of unfair treatment and status loss or that someone could take ones share, are stronger motivators. I.e. the perception of potential loss seems to be stronger than the actual loss, which is somewhat mind-blowing bit also implies that many standard political assumptions are wrong.
  2. 1 point
    “Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work (peers). It [aims to] function as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.” [Wikipedia, May, 2019] I am an electrical engineer with a PhD in semiconductor physics, who has been working in the industry for 25 years. Publications in my field of work are typically subject to a single-blind peer review, i.e. the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors, while for all other relations between the authors, reviewers and the editor the names are disclosed. Unfortunately, I have learned that many publications in my field of work are superficial, inconsistent, incomprehensible and even incorrect. Minor progress that could easily be summarized on 3-4 pages is unnecessarily blown up to 9-10 pages by some authors and reported data, results and conclusions are often contradictory. As an author, I have learned at the same time that the quality of the peer review has become rather poor. There are unfortunately many reviewers, who do not carefully read the papers that they assess. Some of them are so much biased by their own work or mainstream topics, that they are simply unable to comprehend papers addressing new or special topics. As a result, they complain about missing information, which is actually included and even extensively explained in submitted papers. While some reviewers find the length of a submitted paper too long, others even recommend to extend the same paper. Some reviewers criticise the vocabulary used by authors without having looked up the criticised terms in an English dictionary themselves. Some reviewers demand an extensive collection of references even when novelties are reported for the first time, i.e. when the corresponding topic has not been covered by other publications for whatever reasons so far. At the same time, these reviewers claim that the novelty disclosed to them in the submitted paper was “not new” without providing at least one single reference as proof. These reviewers ignore completely how difficult it is to prove a novelty on the one hand and how easy it is to prove the well-known on the other hand. – Now, a reader could object that “novelty” often depends on the individual perspective. So let me give you an example: A paper based on a recently granted patent was submitted subsequently to two journals (Elsevier and IEEE) in order to be reviewed by 7 reviewers. The patent was not listed as a reference in that paper. 5 reviewers considered the subject of the paper to be “not new” and none of those 5 reviewers provided any reference as proof. Some reviewers indiscriminately demand device simulations or special measurements, although the presented results have been obtained by other well-established methodologies and are absolutely plausible and consistent. Some well-known journals apply unequal criteria as the documentation of the instruments and methodologies used are concerned. In some published papers reporting results obtained by circuit simulation, the simulator used is not even mentioned, whereas in other submitted papers the results obtained by a specified state-of-the-art circuit simulator with production-level models are considered by the reviewer to be "crude". Some reviewers try to influence the topic or character of a paper. E.g. by the requirements they make, they urge the author(s) of an original research paper to revise that paper in order to become a tutorial. Some reviewers make far fetched speculations and fabricate reasons in order to deliberately reject an unwanted paper. To some reviewers and editors, the reputation or (assumed) ethnic background of the author(s) appears to be more important for their assessment than the contents of the submitted paper. Similar experiences have been summarised a few years ago by Richard Smith (“The peer review drugs don’t work”, 28 May 2015). All renowned journals and conferences point out the ethical guidelines authors have to comply with. However, as reviewers are concerned, it seems to me that they can act just as they want. While such journals and conferences are eager to point out the consequences for authors, who do not adhere to their ethical guidelines, it is very difficult for an author to submit a complaint about an unqualified review in order to have it independently and objectively assessed and (if needed) corrected. And if an author succeeds to submit a complaint about an unqualified review, the chances are good that the complaint is not carefully read and that the corresponding reviewer is even defended by the editor or the TPC chair. As a consequence, I doubt that nowadays the peer review still helps “to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility”. Quite the contrary, driven by the longing for recognition and the prestige of a high number of publications on the one hand and protected by the anonymity of the peer review process and by the lack of transparency and checks on the other hand, the original purpose of the peer review is more and more undermined by conceited and overconfident reviewers, busy and uncritical editors, and authority-biased and profit-driven publishers. This is no road to excellence, but to mediocrity. What can be done in order to improve the quality of the peer review? Here are a couple of proposals that you may want to comment or extend: Single-blind reviews are unbalanced and unfair. They should be replaced at least by double-blind or triple-blind reviews or even better by open reviews. For transparency reasons, reviewer guidelines should be added to the author’s kit of journals and conferences. As authors are required to provide references or conclusive proof for their statements and conclusions, reviewers should also be required to provide references or conclusive proof when they disagree. This is not only fair, but allows to resolve possible misunderstandings on both sides. If reviewers do not provide references or conclusive proof, their comments should be disregarded by the responsible editor or TPC chair. In order to prevent us from authority bias and personality cult, the number of extended abstracts a reviewer is allowed to review per conference should be limited to 10 and the number of full-sized papers a reviewer is allowed to review per journal or conference should be limited to 1 per month. Furthermore, scientists and academics should not be allowed to participate as reviewers in more than 4 and as editors or TPC chairs in more than 2 journals or conferences per year. In order to prevent journals and conferences from ethnic bias, editors and TPC chairs should select reviewers with diverse ethnic background to review submitted papers and extended abstracts. Regards Will
  3. 1 point
    Yes, yes, we know. Every crackpot thinks that their theory is going to change the world; that they will be acknowledged as a hero; that we will all look like fools, and so on. They can't all be right. (But they can all be wrong.) BTW you forgot to put the copyright notice on your posts to stop someone "stealing your idea"
  4. 1 point
    Perhaps we should have a referendum to sort it out (but this time, get the Leave camp to obey the rules).
  5. 1 point
    Not all new ideas are worth embracing. Ideas are easy. We see hundreds here from people with little or no understanding of the relevant science. One way to know if your idea is worth thinking further about or sharing is to test it. In physics, pretty much the only way of testing an idea is to check if it matches up (quantitatively) with the real world. That requires some mathematics. It doesn't need to be complete or final - many ideas use simplifications or approximations initially to do a "sanity check" (ie. is this idea even in the right ballpark). If you can't do that then you can't really provide any evidence to support your idea, so there is no reason for anyone else to consider it. Just because you like an idea, doesn't mean it is valuable. Also, if you don't have the background knowledge to develop even a rough mathematical model, then you probably don't know enough to judge if your thoughts/intuitions/guesses are meaningful. If you don't like the rules (that you agreed to when you joined) then you will have to post your idea elsewhere. There are science forums where your thread would be closed instantly because that sort of speculation would not be allowed. There are some that have similar rules to this one. And there are a few where you can post almost anything - but you will still get challenged by the members.
  6. 1 point
    With a third of the vote. Your original claim was that Farage's gain of 7% was impressive. It isn't. Especially considering how much support he gets from the UK press. You also said there had been "no wild swings". I'm not sure if a gain of 20% for one side and a loss of 20% by the other side counts as "wild" but it is certainly significant. If there were another referendum (which would apparently be "undemocratic") then it seems likely the results would be very different from last time. They got 55.6% compared to his 31.6%. Nearly twice as much. Just looked at the numbers again and, by coincidence, the Leave supporting parties have lost exactly 20 seats, while the Remain parties have gained exactly 20 seats.
  7. 1 point
    OK. You have pointed out that some of the Conservatives (9.1% of teh votes) would be pro brexit. And you have ignored the fact that some of the Labour voters (14.1% of the votes) would be anti brexit. So, let's try looking at it as scientists. The first thing to do is accept that we have poor, incomplete data. Any outcome will be an estimate. We do, however have additional data. For example, we know that, at the referendum, roughly 2/3 of Labour voters voted to remain. We also know that roughly half of Conservative voters voted for remain. Most people won't have changed their minds (there's data about that too, if you want to look for it). So we can, very roughly, allocate 2/3 of the 14.1% to Remain Remain gains 9.4% and Leave gains the other third i.e. 4.7% and very roughly 1/2 of the 9.1% to Remain which is about 4.5% and the other 4.5% goes to Leave. Pro Brexit goes up to 36.8 + 4.5 + 4.7 46% Pro Leave goes up to 38 + 4.5 + 9.4 51.9% Now, consider the original result was 52:48 in favour of Leave and then consider this assertion, brought about by only counting Tories as pro without counting Labour as anti. And contemplate the irony of
  8. 1 point
    Software? Is there any indication that this is feasible in the real world? Why would you choose this path instead of more widespread dissemination of existing birth control options? That will be very popular among a certain religious slice of the population. Who decides which people participate in this program? How do you know this?
  9. 1 point
    The world is right now too full of people willing to walk away, isolate, and tribalize when instead coming together and reminding each other of our shared humanity would be far better. No matter our politics, we still agree on at least 95% of what truly matters in life. Please don’t let the other 5% dictate the entirety of your future behavior. The only thing that drives out the darkness is light. The only thing that stops our continued separation is coming together. The only way to have fewer enemies is to have more friends. I’m sorry if I’ve played any role in offending you. I’m grateful you shared your opinion. I value your contributions here. I hope your goodbye was less of a farewell and more of a “until I see you next time.” I hope you know I’m sincere and my words authentic.
  10. 1 point
    Democracy may be many things, but brexit is the result of lying and cheating. Lying was writing on the side of a bus that we would gain £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. Cheating was not admitting that the bus cost money and should be included in the election budget. If this had been a football match and someone had cheated, we would be demanding a rematch. Shouldn't we hold politics to the same standards?
  11. 1 point
    What might possibly be construed as the “fish lineage of man” begins around the 1 minute point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W5hOJaFjxU
  12. 1 point
    As long as it is an orbit far enough from the Moon's, I expect it should be fairly stable. I'm not sure how the resonance would have an effect, possibly that could allow a closer orbit. (all probably what you knew or suspected already) Can we call this extra moon "Tanman"?
  13. 1 point
    Along with most other aspects of our life. Science doesn't need to answer any questions re the existence of anything we have no evidence for and which appears to be a stop gap answer and attempts in explaining that which science has not yet been able to explain. That's your prerogative. I prefer the support of evidence, or to simply admit that we are ignorant of all the answers at this time, but are ever so slowly chipping away at that ignorance and gaining more and more evidenced backed knowledge all the time.
  14. 1 point
    No, when has history ever happened twice? It's like trying to walk over the same river twice; at some point it didn't/doesn't have a bridge... Or water.
  15. -1 points
    I think you are addressing many points the society surely does not care about... I sure hope you will keep updating this specific thread :)
  16. -1 points
    Der Algorithmus zum Lösen der Überbevölkerung The Human race is growing at an alarming rate. In order to save the planet and it's inhabitants from the virus called humanity, we must take action. In my 37 years of research on being a human, I have come to many conclusions about this necessary step, which I would like to lay out here. I hope I can explain all of these very complex ideas in a way, that you can understand them at least to a fraction of the level that I do. First of all, you need to understand that the overpopulation of the human race is caused by many complex chemical reactions in the human body. The main reason causing this problem is that people keep producing more small humans, in technical terms babies. I have studied many ways to prevent this from occuring, for instance, creating programs to stop the sexual urges of the male population. This particular method has been started by Epic Games in their popular software Fortnite. I will not go into detail about this specific effort, because it is very complex and hard to understand. Another solution that I have been working on myself though, is the creation of viruses to combat the sexual reproduction by redirecting the sexual attraction of the infected from the opposite to the same gender. The first prototype is work in progress, the beta-name of this project is big gay. Even with all of these efforts, the population growth is still in the positive. Therefore I have concluded that attempts to stop reproduction will not be enough. Eventhough I have not come up with a concrete plan yet, there are ideas that seem promising. I will try to keep updating this topic for you, the readers. Sincerely Harald A. Kotinger
  17. -3 points
    When my name becomes synonymous with the discovery of; Mass turning to waves when disconnected from spacetime (QM floats above the fabric of spacetime), I'll use my celebrity to change some things around here.