swansont

The wind tunnels work because the air can’t escape sideways. You’d need to construct similar barriers around buildings, and you’d have to get air in via fans and conduits at and below ground level. There’s also the issue of air escaping into the buildings when people open the window to jump. Possible? Perhaps. Practical? No. How often do you need to escape a building by jumping? This sounds like a movie plot situation. Why not just issue base-jumping chutes that wouldn’t get used?

Yeah. The sci-fi equivalent of degaussing a sub. My friend didn’t want to add yet another made-up particle to the lexicon It was originally “exotic antibaryon sweep” (some un-named metastable particle) but it was edited, which caused some controversy but would be what the tech folks would probably call it http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/1043

I consulted with a friend who worked on the show. Helped on a couple of scripts. I don’t think the Kolvoord Starburst or baryon sweep are the issue here, but if they are, then yes. Those are my fault.

But your position suggests that you should use other methods. What is the reasoning behind this? We were discussing science, not medicine. Your citations could easily be interpreted as medical folks should be better versed in scientific rigor. How does that lead to the conclusion that there should be reports that no bias exists? Being more open should increase the reports of bias. This is deflection; you’ve not answered the question or addressed the point.

! Moderator Note What I believe is that this isn’t your blog, it’s a science discussion forum …and you’ve declared this to not be science. or philosophy Take care to address responses to your post. Otherwise you’re soapboxing, which is against the rules.

And I asked for you to name successful results from following an alternate path. The bias here, AFAICT, is the bias of using successful methods. Jeff Kukucka is an Associate Professor of Psychology Steve Dale’s affiliation is collabor8now; no expertise is given John P.A. loannidis has expertise in medical research, not science The authors in citation 7 are MDs. Why do you think that this is the case?

I just pulled out my non-US coins (many gathered from geocaching) and a surprising number are magnetic, including the Canadian twonie , quarter and nickel, Italian 500 L(bimetal, like the twonie), Iceland 1Kr and 5Kr, 1 Yuan (China?), French 1/2 and 1 Franc, Ecuador 5 cent, Netherlands 1 Guilder, and a few more not easily identifiable (but a few are probably Russian rubles)

One might wonder why you don't use a more relevant metaphor, or, better yet, actual examples of bias as opposed to providing quotes complaining about bias. "I think there's bias, and Charlie, Phil and Louise think so so" is far less compelling to me than "here's some research that clearly shows <a form of bias> and we know this because subsequent research come up with different results when the bias was mitigated" Preferably where the relevant examples are from all areas of science.

US coins, other than steel pennies from WWII, aren't magnetic. So magnet fishing isn't using the right bait for those coins. (even nickels aren't magnetic. Ni-Cu alloys require at least 56% Ni to show ferromagnetism at normal temperatures, and the coin is 25% https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.38.828 )

Star Trek shares a similarity with AI - not based in facts, but generating vaguely plausible-sounding jargon. It’s fiction.

From what I read: The time is inferred from the Larmor precession of the spin in the magnetic field of the barrier, which is inferred from the spin measurement after tunneling. IOW the particles going in are prepared in a spin state (up) and the spin precesses in the barrier, which puts them in a mixed state of up and down. You measure the spins, and the ratio of up/down tells you how much precession occurred, which depends on how long they were in the barrier region. Without seeing the paper itself I don’t know more. Since only a fraction of particles tunnel, there might be some systematic effect in play. I don’t know if they looked at the reflected particles. How far does the particle penetrate before it’s reflected? Does the precession effectively change the barrier height? Steinberg has a good reputation in the AMO community, but I know that not everyone is convinced that Larmor time is a measurement of the tunneling time.

One might infer from this that it’s not a crisis Also, you wrote “science” instead of “cognitive science” but your examples do not give support to this issue outside that area (and political psychology? You’re really desperate for citations) At least one more. It’s not the number, it’s the credibility. Eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable in legal proceedings, because it’s often not reliable. Eyes can be deceived, memory is fluid, and, given your thesis here, you should be painfully aware that confirmation bias plays a role in. Bigfoot doesn’t exist until there is credible evidence that it does. Just like the unicorn and pegasus. A platypus seems fantastic but we can actually capture them. Other fantastic beasts leave behind skeletons. Actual physical evidence. —- Approaching this from another tack: if one wants to consider dualist and spiritualist approaches, or altered states of consciousness, what successes can you point to that use these to explain the world around us?

Agree. There were articles years ago about FTL signals through an atomic vapor (Lene Hau was one of the researchers) when all it was was the light pulse shape was changed; the peak of the pulse moved FTL but you couldn't say that any photon did. This sounds similar in nature.

Beavers that have been raised in captivity have been observed to build dam-like structures even when there is no water, so for them it seems the instinct in built-in.

Yes, and plants don’t move around. A bunch of trees is still rather porous, so there would need to be a bunch of water flowing through to make a reservoir. i.e . there’s water there already. Can one say for sure this wasn’t coincidental?

Beavers have a pretty small brain, but I suspect that any elephants’ blocking of waterways by pushing trees into it is accidental rather than instinct. Elephants require a lot of food, so they wander around. Triceratops probably were similar. What would be the advantage of a dam?

! Moderator Note The account owners have been contacted to inform them some children have gained access the accounts

Sure. You could find out what conditions feel hot and correlate it with many factors (age, sex, weight, climate they are acclimated to) but what you can’t do is objectively say that it is hot because you feel hot. Without details, I can’t comment on what that would tell you, other than some people have that experience. Same as above. The issue with mystical experiences is the attribution of the cause, not that some people have such an experience. But I can subject anyone to a temperature of 25C, while one generally can’t induce a mystical experience. By not being specific you’re potentially mixing scientific and non-scientific effects. This is just as bad as your extrapolation from a specific to general behavior. QM is based on probability so outcomes sometimes happen and sometimes not, but the math means you can predict outcomes with precision.

Science doesn’t do subjective reality. I can’t examine data that only you can see (i.e. a subjective experience) and you can’t have a law of nature that only works for some people. A rock either falls or it doesn’t. Atoms either form a compound or they don’t. You can have subjective experiences; 25 C might feel hot to you but not to someone else, but the temperature being 25 C is objectively true. You might not like that this is the case (subjective) but your preferences are not science.

You devise experiments that don’t depend on it. Your position seems to be that you can’t, and yet we have a while bunch of science that works, and we know it works because we build technology based on it. These things wouldn’t work if the science was flawed. Science has a number of questions that took a long time to answer, and many are still unanswered. Not having an answer is not evidence that bias is the reason for that. I’m not dialed in to the state of cognitive science, so I don’t know the details of why certain models are not considered or if they were and subsequently rejected, but the latter does happen — incorrect conjectures are discarded all the time when the model does not match the evidence, and it has nothing to do with bias.

Dawkins does not refute what? We’re talking about subjectivity, so he’s equating subjectivity with itself? Science can only study that which can be studied with the methods of science. It doesn’t study metaphysics because it can’t. You keep steering this back to consciousness, which is a tiny, tiny slice of science, and pretending this issue is representative. It’s not. It’s been pretty successful at it. IOW, your issue is with one topic, and have not shown this concern applies to the rest of science. Lack of success in one area does not mean the endeavor has failed overall. You act as if this issue is stopping all of science from progressing, which is ludicrous.

An issue with a loop is that it needs to match up with the wavelength of the signal you are trying to detect. A few cm should be fine for signals of order of a GHz or so (30 GHz has a wavelength of 1 cm) but as the mismatch grows the detector efficiency goes down.

Except you haven’t supported this idea for many disciplines. Not knowing the answer is an acceptable position in science. And they only discuss the brain with computer analogies? Even as they say it doesn’t work like a computer? You said you believed they did, so one infers that you have reasons for this belief. I don’t believe this, and further I believe they don’t, because intelligent, rational people likely understand that there is personal preference, which is subjective. If you contend something is true, you must have evidence which leads to that position. If people reject science then science is not imposing a view. At best, it is suggesting a view. But it’s not even doing that. It’s setting up the boundary of what it can investigate. What impact can this possibly have on identifying a rock or mineral? This is your contention, so you own the burden of proof. People had ideas and thoughts long before they had any clue whatsoever about how the mind worked, and have had mistaken ideas about how it works, so this doesn’t seem to be an impediment outside of this very narrow slice of science. If we overturn every mainstream idea about the brain tomorrow, will that somehow make E=mc^2 invalid?

10 microns is mid-IR, beyond the range of standard silicon photodiode; the energy is too low. You’d need a more exotic type, like HgCdTe, or possibly some other material. Hamamatsu is one company I recall that makes photodiodes. 10 microns is in the thermal IR range; bolometers are one detector that are used. Such as in IR cameras; I have one from FLIR that attaches to my iphone Pickup loops can be purchased; I recall being shown one that were marketed to people checking their microwave ovens for leakage. (the person showing it used it to detect pulses from a step motor in a watch)

Repeating this strawman does not make it true, but if there are things not materialistic and mechanistic, how would they manifest themselves in a way that can be objectively observed and measured? Which it doesn’t. Some people reject science. How does the issue of living and consciousness affect the study of chemistry, physics and geology? Or even biology, outside of neuroscience?