I really really really didn't want to get into this fray but I'm forced to based on one of Mel's "citations". My apologies, but this is going to be a rather long post which will likely turn off most readers. I won't be offended if you click the back button right now on you browser. However, I can't present it any other way to make my point clearly. I guarantee if you stay with me, you'lll learn a few things
I am a scientist (Ph.D in 1977 from Cornell in Biochemistry). I have not yet received my April, 2007 issue of Discover so I can't tell how out of context and/or wrong the quotes he attributed to Dr. Seth Lloyd and Dr. Murray Gell-Mann are. To wit mel's quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
In an article published for the April 2007 issue of Discover, Seth Lloyd, the MIT engineer, who developed the first quantum computer designs, and who has written for Scientific American, several books, etc said that
"I would bet that 99.8% of ideas put forth by scientists are wrong..."
Murray Gell-Mann quoted in the article "is fond of saying, "The job of a scientist is to generate wrong ideas as fast as possible."
Estimates are that as much as 30% of all scientific peer reviewed papers are wrong, and the fear is that the number may be higher.
(Much of what follows is readily available in Wiki)
I'll present a little background to help the reader. Dr. Lloyd is a world renowned Professor of Mechanical engineering at MIT. His research area is in the interplay of information with complex systems, especially quantum systems. He has made contributions to the field of quantum computation and proposed a design for a quantum computer. He refers to himself as a "quantum mechanic". Dr. Gell-Mann is a Noble Prize winning Physicist who works in the area of theoretical particle physics. He is best known for his work in discovering Quarks and the Quark model, The modern theory of the interactions of quarks is called quantum chromodynamics (QCD), and is based on Gell-Mann's work. So both of Mel's references are to scientists engaged in the work of theoretical physics, a breed apart in the universe of scientists. Theoretical physics employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics, as opposed to experimental processes, in an attempt to understand nature. Central to it is mathematical physics , though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena. The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations.
Performing experiments in Theoretical physics is not an easy thing to do. To study, create or prove the existence of certain sub-atomic particles, you need access to massive unbelievably expensive government funded structures called Particle Colliders. Only a few of these exist in the world. Hence, most theoretical physicists mainly theorize or attempt to mathematically prove the existence of their theories. If their theories pass a complex government/scientific peer review process, they may be able to test their theories in one of the Colliders. In stark contrast to the biological, chemical, social or behavioral sciences then, it is no trivial matter to come up with a theory, mathematically offer a rigorous defensible proof, convince the government and the review committees to go to Brookhaven National Laboratory or Fermilab and "do an experiment". To put it more crudely, It's a big mother f**ken deal to do an experiment in theoretical physics!
In the aforementioned disciplines, immunologists for example, can propose theories (if I knock out the gene for protein X, mice will not develop a certain type of autoimmune disease) , design experiments, test them, publish them and have their work peer-reviewed rather easily (Duh!) compared to theoretical physicists. In these disciplines, the statement that "I would bet that 99.8% of ideas put forth by scientists are wrong..." is pure unadulterated nonsensical gibberish. This is because there is a massive amount of verifiable and reproducible experimental data available in the biological sciences. See all the cures for certain types of cancers in recent years, the complete sequencing of the human genome, the conversion of AIDS to a chronic condition rather than a near 100 % fatal disease and the great discoveries coming out of stem cell research to name a few of the great leaps forward in medical science in the past ten years.
I'll close with " quantum mechanic " Dr. Lloyd's own words excerpted from an obit to his colleague Dr. Rolf Landauer. These words are probably the context in which he may have spoke the words in Mel's citation.
..."In any field of technology, let alone one that attempts to store information on subatomic particles, most ideas will probably not work. It is by identifying these wrong ideas that scientists and engineers winnow out those few ideas that are potentially right. Yet, despite the importance of mistakes in science, most published papers report work that is potentially right, rather than provably wrong. In such an environment, it is important for a field to have a mechanism for remembering past mistakes and for preventing them from recurring." ...
Theoretical physics employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics, as opposed to experimental processes, in an attempt to understand nature. Central to it is mathematical physics , though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena.
Thanks lfe2211 for these comments. I personally find it good even to just read some general remarks on this topic, especially for those who will never get a chance in their life to acquire scientific knowledge. I would like only to add that the goal of Theoretical Physics is not only to explain and predict physical phenomena, but to explain why the known laws of Physics are like that. This is an even more heavy challenge going deeper in the secrets of the nature than any other scientific discipline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211
Performing experiments in Theoretical physics is not an easy thing to do. To study, create or prove the existence of certain sub-atomic particles, you need access to massive unbelievably expensive government funded structures called Particle Colliders. Only a few of these exist in the world. Hence, most theoretical physicists mainly theorize or attempt to mathematically prove the existence of their theories. If their theories pass a complex government/scientific peer review process, they may be able to test their theories in one of the Colliders. In stark contrast to the biological, chemical, social or behavioral sciences then, it is no trivial matter to come up with a theory, mathematically offer a rigorous defensible proof, convince the government and the review committees to go to Brookhaven National Laboratory or Fermilab and "do an experiment". To put it more crudely, It's a big mother f**ken deal to do an experiment in theoretical physics!
At last, one had to explain this! And I would change the "no trivial matter" to "highly no trivial matter".
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211
In the aforementioned disciplines, immunologists for example, can propose theories (if I knock out the gene for protein X, mice will not develop a certain type of autoimmune disease) , design experiments, test them, publish them and have their work peer-reviewed rather easily (Duh!) compared to theoretical physicists.
After some point, Theoretical Physics is like Mathematics. You start with some assumptions and you go through a mathematical proof to your conclusions. I have to admit though that I don't like the way the physicists often handle the mathematical tools available to them. So, if the reasoning and computations are correct, the results will be correct, can be verified, get peer-review and published. That's why there is an important number of publications in peer-reviewed Theoretical Physics journals, that are of course correct and deal with very specialized aspects of the more general problems. The BIG problem appears when experimental verification comes forth, and it is this you are talking about I think.
You may notice that I never start it. My mistake is in responding to it in the first place.
So don't. Other than calling your assertion that LCDs save no table space silly there's nothing that needed your response anyway. Certainly not on the first post that spiraled into a general and baseless denounciation of the scientific community...
It wasn't my intent to get into yet another useless flamewar with you but I'm not going to not comment when you say something as silly as that LCD comment.
It wasn't my intent to get into yet another useless flamewar with you but I'm not going to not comment when you say something as silly as that LCD comment.
Takes two to have a flamewar.
What I am seeing here is that you are suggesting that melgross not continue a flame war, but that you have no problem continuing it. I've heard things like that are called a double standard. If you aren't willing to stop, you have no grounds to suggest that someone else stop.
In stark contrast to the biological, chemical, social or behavioral sciences then, it is no trivial matter to come up with a theory, mathematically offer a rigorous defensible proof, convince the government and the review committees to go to Brookhaven National Laboratory or Fermilab and "do an experiment". To put it more crudely, It's a big mother f**ken deal to do an experiment in theoretical physics!
Well...I wouldn't call it "trivial" to get an experiment done but it certainly is several orders of magnitude easier since the funding requirements are typically a couple orders of magnitude lower than booking time at Brookhaven or Fermi.
Even there, I'd guess that getting a space experiment done is harder to do. I worked on COBE (Smoot, Mather and Hauser were the PIs) and COBE was an effort from 1976 to 1998.
Apple trivia: the skymaps from COBE that folks saw at the AAAS was done on a Mac II converted over from COBE datasets in FITS format using modified NCSA code. The software design (structure charts) were done on three Apple Lisas.
What I am seeing here is that you are suggesting that melgross not continue a flame war, but that you have no problem continuing it. I've heard things like that are called a double standard. If you aren't willing to stop, you have no grounds to suggest that someone else stop.
No, I'm saying if he wishes not to respond to my posts that's fine. But that I'm not going to refrain from commenting as I did with the first two posts. The first was very neutral. The second only addressed his COMMENT as silly. I suppose I can not call it silly but geez...it was in my opinion.
I only made that comment because it seems the entire onus has been placed on me. As I said, it takes two but whatever makes y'all happy. Blame me if it makes ya feel better.
I only made that comment because it seems the entire onus has been placed on me. As I said, it takes two but whatever makes y'all happy. Blame me if it makes ya feel better.
I do think melgross was right in what he said, but didn't say it well, and didn't need to refer to his experience to make a case either, and I think that is considered a logical fallacy as well.
One problem I have is with some of the tone and your previous conversations make you look like a heckler with an axe to grind. I think your current argument with melgross really has far more to do with previous conversations than anything with regard to multitouch or keyboards.
Well...I wouldn't call it "trivial" to get an experiment done but it certainly is several orders of magnitude easier since the funding requirements are typically a couple orders of magnitude lower than booking time at Brookhaven or Fermi.
Even there, I'd guess that getting a space experiment done is harder to do. I worked on COBE (Smoot, Mather and Hauser were the PIs) and COBE was an effort from 1976 to 1998.
It seems that you are missing the non-financial part in what lfe2211 said.
Nice to make your acquaintance. It's good to know at least one forum member understood my rather lengthy complex post. Are you a mathematician? I'll be glad to have your input any time, pro or con.
Multi-touch is a technology invented for portable use. The advantage of a mouse interface (in non-portables) is that you can move your cursor on a 30" screen from the lower left to the upper right by only moving your hand from one edge of your mouse pad to the other.
In a portable, you don't have a lot of room for the larger interfaces like a mouse and keyboard. And THAT is where multi-touch is useful.
And when you have the precision of a mouse, why do you need gestures? With a mouse, I can easily click and drag the corner of a photo with a slight twitch of the hand, whereas with multi-touch, I'd have to lift both arms and make a huge pinching motions.
I know you are all excited for the iPhone, but cool it on the multi-touch. Think about why we don't have the click wheel as a computer interface for a moment and it might dawn on you why we don't need the multi-touch over what we have now.
Next person who mentions a multi-touch anything other than an iPhone... I'll multi-touch your mum. (JK)
Multi-touch is a technology invented for portable use. The advantage of a mouse interface (in non-portables) is that you can move your cursor on a 30" screen from the lower left to the upper right by only moving your hand from one edge of your mouse pad to the other.
In a portable, you don't have a lot of room for the larger interfaces like a mouse and keyboard. And THAT is where multi-touch is useful.
And when you have the precision of a mouse, why do you need gestures? With a mouse, I can easily click and drag the corner of a photo with a slight twitch of the hand, whereas with multi-touch, I'd have to lift both arms and make a huge pinching motions.
I know you are all excited for the iPhone, but cool it on the multi-touch. Think about why we don't have the click wheel as a computer interface for a moment and it might dawn on you why we don't need the multi-touch over what we have now.
Next person who mentions a multi-touch anything other than an iPhone... I'll multi-touch your mum. (JK)
Brilliant. You weren't content flaunting your complete and utter ignorance of MultiTouch in just one topic, you wanted to cross-post it in two.
Here's another bit of news for you, Einstein: Nobody's forcing you to read these topics. If you don't like it, don't read it. Nobody died and made you king, so you can't tell people what they can or can't post.
I really really really didn't want to get into this fray but I'm forced to based on one of Mel's "citations". My apologies, but this is going to be a rather long post which will likely turn off most readers. I won't be offended if you click the back button right now on you browser. However, I can't present it any other way to make my point clearly. I guarantee if you stay with me, you'lll learn a few things
I am a scientist (Ph.D in 1977 from Cornell in Biochemistry). I have not yet received my April, 2007 issue of Discover so I can't tell how out of context and/or wrong the quotes he attributed to Dr. Seth Lloyd and Dr. Murray Gell-Mann are. To wit mel's quote:
(Much of what follows is readily available in Wiki)
I'll present a little background to help the reader. Dr. Lloyd is a world renowned Professor of Mechanical engineering at MIT. His research area is in the interplay of information with complex systems, especially quantum systems. He has made contributions to the field of quantum computation and proposed a design for a quantum computer. He refers to himself as a "quantum mechanic". Dr. Gell-Mann is a Noble Prize winning Physicist who works in the area of theoretical particle physics. He is best known for his work in discovering Quarks and the Quark model, The modern theory of the interactions of quarks is called quantum chromodynamics (QCD), and is based on Gell-Mann's work. So both of Mel's references are to scientists engaged in the work of theoretical physics, a breed apart in the universe of scientists. Theoretical physics employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics, as opposed to experimental processes, in an attempt to understand nature. Central to it is mathematical physics , though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena. The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations.
Performing experiments in Theoretical physics is not an easy thing to do. To study, create or prove the existence of certain sub-atomic particles, you need access to massive unbelievably expensive government funded structures called Particle Colliders. Only a few of these exist in the world. Hence, most theoretical physicists mainly theorize or attempt to mathematically prove the existence of their theories. If their theories pass a complex government/scientific peer review process, they may be able to test their theories in one of the Colliders. In stark contrast to the biological, chemical, social or behavioral sciences then, it is no trivial matter to come up with a theory, mathematically offer a rigorous defensible proof, convince the government and the review committees to go to Brookhaven National Laboratory or Fermilab and "do an experiment". To put it more crudely, It's a big mother f**ken deal to do an experiment in theoretical physics!
In the aforementioned disciplines, immunologists for example, can propose theories (if I knock out the gene for protein X, mice will not develop a certain type of autoimmune disease) , design experiments, test them, publish them and have their work peer-reviewed rather easily (Duh!) compared to theoretical physicists. In these disciplines, the statement that "I would bet that 99.8% of ideas put forth by scientists are wrong..." is pure unadulterated nonsensical gibberish. This is because there is a massive amount of verifiable and reproducible experimental data available in the biological sciences. See all the cures for certain types of cancers in recent years, the complete sequencing of the human genome, the conversion of AIDS to a chronic condition rather than a near 100 % fatal disease and the great discoveries coming out of stem cell research to name a few of the great leaps forward in medical science in the past ten years.
I'll close with " quantum mechanic " Dr. Lloyd's own words excerpted from an obit to his colleague Dr. Rolf Landauer. These words are probably the context in which he may have spoke the words in Mel's citation.
..."In any field of technology, let alone one that attempts to store information on subatomic particles, most ideas will probably not work. It is by identifying these wrong ideas that scientists and engineers winnow out those few ideas that are potentially right. Yet, despite the importance of mistakes in science, most published papers report work that is potentially right, rather than provably wrong. In such an environment, it is important for a field to have a mechanism for remembering past mistakes and for preventing them from recurring." ...
Seth Lloyd
Department of Mechanical
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Excuse me. But, perhaps you didn't read all of what I said. The quotes were from the current issue of discover (April 2007) which I cited.
The quotes are from the article that HE WROTE. The quotes are either from what HE wrote, or the quote from Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann, which HE quoted in his article, though I have read it elsewhere.
The entire sentence of the quote from Dr. Lloyd is as follows:
"I would bet that 99.8 percent of ideas put forth by scientists are wrong and will never be included in the body of scientific fact."
He also states:
"The vast majority of scientific ideas are (a) wrong and (b) useless. The briefest acquaintance with the real world shows that there are some forms of knowledge that will never be made scientific."
He doesn't refer specifically to the physical sciences, but is speaking in general.
He then goes to discuss sequencing of the human genome, certainly not a matter of physics.
In this lengthy paragraph, which I'm not going to quote, he talks about citations, which as any in the scientific field knows, is something to live or die by (professionally).
He could have mentioned physics, or perhaps math, but instead, chose to mention biology, in contradiction to the idea put forth by you, though he is not refering to error in that paragraph, I cite it to show that his discussion is, again, not limited to physics and math.
The actual point to his article is not actually the correctness, or incorrectness of scientific work, but the dilution of it by non-scienfific writing, in the arts, etc.
Nevertheless, his quotes stand.
The information about the 30% incorrect papers was not stated as being a quote from Dr. Lloyd, but was from an article in Science I read several months ago where scientific fraud and error were being discussed. The discussion was centered around the matter of "doctoring" photos in papers. The article discussed the "enhancing" of images in astronomical work, which is not only accepted, if done properly, but is actually a requirement! Without such enhancement, many astronomical photo's are useless.
However, the doctoring of photos in the field of biology, and chemistry is showing itself to be a problem, and is one reason why scientists are concerned about invalid papers. We are familiar with several major papers that have been withdrawn because of it, among other problems, such as the lifting of data from other papers, as well as charts, etc.
Most fraud is assumed to go undetected, as are most innocent errors.
Other papers are simply wrong for many reasons, and go undetected by peer review.
Thank you for supplying the background of those two individuals, as I didn't intend my post to be lengthened by including it myself.
I would like to conclude that lest I give the impression of being anti science myself, nothing can be further from the truth. But, it must be acknowledged that both fraud, error, and poor experimental design, is a part of the scientific life, no matter how much the majority of scientific workers strive to be free from it.
As the editors of the major scientific journals such as Science and Nature plead mea culpa on their less than stellar records in detecting problematic papers, and strain to tighten up their checks, we must remember that the world of scientific inquiry is open to correction, while other areas are not.
A flat out denial that a particular paper may be incorrect in its conclusions, or even its design, just because it has been published, particularly if it is in a more obscure journal, where publishing papers is the lifeblood of that journal, is not helpful. I'm not referring to you here ife2211. But, that is what started this.
Thanks lfe2211 for these comments. I personally find it good even to just read some general remarks on this topic, especially for those who will never get a chance in their life to acquire scientific knowledge. I would like only to add that the goal of Theoretical Physics is not only to explain and predict physical phenomena, but to explain why the known laws of Physics are like that. This is an even more heavy challenge going deeper in the secrets of the nature than any other scientific discipline.
At last, one had to explain this! And I would change the "no trivial matter" to "highly no trivial matter".
After some point, Theoretical Physics is like Mathematics. You start with some assumptions and you go through a mathematical proof to your conclusions. I have to admit though that I don't like the way the physicists often handle the mathematical tools available to them. So, if the reasoning and computations are correct, the results will be correct, can be verified, get peer-review and published. That's why there is an important number of publications in peer-reviewed Theoretical Physics journals, that are of course correct and deal with very specialized aspects of the more general problems. The BIG problem appears when experimental verification comes forth, and it is this you are talking about I think.
While we seem to have gotten dragged far afield in a discussion about experimentation in physics, I can certainly agree that, today, most experiments in that field are so very costly, that this country has, almost criminally, destroyed the physics community here, by refusing to provide funding for the very expensive facilities required.
While the main facilities have either recently closed down, or will be doing so in the near future, other groups of countries continue to build. While we do take part in those works as well (the US will have the largest contingent when the new facility in Europe goes on line fairly shortly (fairly shortly means something different in the physics community than it does in other disciplines!)), we are subject to a dwindling base of resources here.
The same problem is seen relating to work in fusion.
Modern physics is also very different from most other sciences. Some theoretical advances (String Theories, anyone?) are proving difficult to design experiments around, though Dr. Randall is hopeful about some aspects of the new collider.
Multi-touch is a technology invented for portable use. The advantage of a mouse interface (in non-portables) is that you can move your cursor on a 30" screen from the lower left to the upper right by only moving your hand from one edge of your mouse pad to the other.
In a portable, you don't have a lot of room for the larger interfaces like a mouse and keyboard. And THAT is where multi-touch is useful.
And when you have the precision of a mouse, why do you need gestures? With a mouse, I can easily click and drag the corner of a photo with a slight twitch of the hand, whereas with multi-touch, I'd have to lift both arms and make a huge pinching motions.
I know you are all excited for the iPhone, but cool it on the multi-touch. Think about why we don't have the click wheel as a computer interface for a moment and it might dawn on you why we don't need the multi-touch over what we have now.
Next person who mentions a multi-touch anything other than an iPhone... I'll multi-touch your mum. (JK)
With regard to your reply to my lengthy post, I'll just let your own words speak for themselves. (BTW, have you figured out yet which Discover article is the traditional annual April "fake" entry? I'm on the road so I haven't seen my Discover copy yet).
With regard to your reply to PB's excellent reply to my post, we could start a whole forum on the excitement, promise and unimaginable brilliance of string theory, if it's even close to being correct. (I feel certain Albert E. is doing a jig somewhere in the universe).
My own perspective is that we are so fortunate to live in a truly great, exciting, unbelievably productive time vis-a-vis medicine, immunology, genomic science, stem cell science, physics (string theory), computer technology and information communication technology (i.e the internet)!
But alas, we digress from the intent of this forum.
With regard to your reply to my lengthy post, I'll just let your own words speak for themselves. (BTW, have you figured out yet which Discover article is the traditional annual April "fake" entry? I'm on the road so I haven't seen my Discover copy yet).
With regard to your reply to PB's excellent reply to my post, we could start a whole forum on the excitement, promise and unimaginable brilliance of string theory, if it's even close to being correct. (I feel certain Albert E. is doing a jig somewhere in the universe).
My own perspective is that we are so fortunate to live in a truly great, exciting, unbelievably productive time vis-a-vis medicine, immunology, genomic science, stem cell science, physics (string theory), computer technology and information communication technology (i.e the internet)!
But alas, we digress from the intent of this forum.
I'm not quite sure of your meaning there. If you are not happy with any of my reply, you certainly may respond, instead of hinting, and then leaving it in the air. I didn't say anything that hasn't been said to me, or that I haven't read in the journals.
I don't read all of the articles, only the ones of interest, but I'll go back and take a look.
I certainly agree with your second and third paragraphs.
It's sad that AI is so specialized that we don't have science reporting as they do at ARs.
Multi-touch is a technology invented for portable use. The advantage of a mouse interface (in non-portables) is that you can move your cursor on a 30" screen from the lower left to the upper right by only moving your hand from one edge of your mouse pad to the other.
In a portable, you don't have a lot of room for the larger interfaces like a mouse and keyboard. And THAT is where multi-touch is useful.
And when you have the precision of a mouse, why do you need gestures? With a mouse, I can easily click and drag the corner of a photo with a slight twitch of the hand, whereas with multi-touch, I'd have to lift both arms and make a huge pinching motions.
I know you are all excited for the iPhone, but cool it on the multi-touch. Think about why we don't have the click wheel as a computer interface for a moment and it might dawn on you why we don't need the multi-touch over what we have now.
Next person who mentions a multi-touch anything other than an iPhone... I'll multi-touch your mum. (JK)
You really have no vision do you? Or any real understanding of the practicalities of MT technology? A mouse or Wacom style pen may be precise, but there's only one point of contact with your onscreen objects, so you can only move one object or rotate one axis at a time. This may be fine in your little world, but to the design, music and film industry MT offers a huge advantage.
We don't have a click wheel on our desktops? Yes we do, it's called the scroll wheel on your mouse! That does exactly the same job and probably 90% of us use them.
Comments
But, but he started it.
I was gonna point that out, too
I am a scientist (Ph.D in 1977 from Cornell in Biochemistry). I have not yet received my April, 2007 issue of Discover so I can't tell how out of context and/or wrong the quotes he attributed to Dr. Seth Lloyd and Dr. Murray Gell-Mann are. To wit mel's quote:
In an article published for the April 2007 issue of Discover, Seth Lloyd, the MIT engineer, who developed the first quantum computer designs, and who has written for Scientific American, several books, etc said that
"I would bet that 99.8% of ideas put forth by scientists are wrong..."
Murray Gell-Mann quoted in the article "is fond of saying, "The job of a scientist is to generate wrong ideas as fast as possible."
Estimates are that as much as 30% of all scientific peer reviewed papers are wrong, and the fear is that the number may be higher.
(Much of what follows is readily available in Wiki)
I'll present a little background to help the reader. Dr. Lloyd is a world renowned Professor of Mechanical engineering at MIT. His research area is in the interplay of information with complex systems, especially quantum systems. He has made contributions to the field of quantum computation and proposed a design for a quantum computer. He refers to himself as a "quantum mechanic". Dr. Gell-Mann is a Noble Prize winning Physicist who works in the area of theoretical particle physics. He is best known for his work in discovering Quarks and the Quark model, The modern theory of the interactions of quarks is called quantum chromodynamics (QCD), and is based on Gell-Mann's work. So both of Mel's references are to scientists engaged in the work of theoretical physics, a breed apart in the universe of scientists. Theoretical physics employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics, as opposed to experimental processes, in an attempt to understand nature. Central to it is mathematical physics , though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena. The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations.
Performing experiments in Theoretical physics is not an easy thing to do. To study, create or prove the existence of certain sub-atomic particles, you need access to massive unbelievably expensive government funded structures called Particle Colliders. Only a few of these exist in the world. Hence, most theoretical physicists mainly theorize or attempt to mathematically prove the existence of their theories. If their theories pass a complex government/scientific peer review process, they may be able to test their theories in one of the Colliders. In stark contrast to the biological, chemical, social or behavioral sciences then, it is no trivial matter to come up with a theory, mathematically offer a rigorous defensible proof, convince the government and the review committees to go to Brookhaven National Laboratory or Fermilab and "do an experiment". To put it more crudely, It's a big mother f**ken deal to do an experiment in theoretical physics!
In the aforementioned disciplines, immunologists for example, can propose theories (if I knock out the gene for protein X, mice will not develop a certain type of autoimmune disease) , design experiments, test them, publish them and have their work peer-reviewed rather easily (Duh!) compared to theoretical physicists. In these disciplines, the statement that "I would bet that 99.8% of ideas put forth by scientists are wrong..." is pure unadulterated nonsensical gibberish. This is because there is a massive amount of verifiable and reproducible experimental data available in the biological sciences. See all the cures for certain types of cancers in recent years, the complete sequencing of the human genome, the conversion of AIDS to a chronic condition rather than a near 100 % fatal disease and the great discoveries coming out of stem cell research to name a few of the great leaps forward in medical science in the past ten years.
I'll close with " quantum mechanic " Dr. Lloyd's own words excerpted from an obit to his colleague Dr. Rolf Landauer. These words are probably the context in which he may have spoke the words in Mel's citation.
..."In any field of technology, let alone one that attempts to store information on subatomic particles, most ideas will probably not work. It is by identifying these wrong ideas that scientists and engineers winnow out those few ideas that are potentially right. Yet, despite the importance of mistakes in science, most published papers report work that is potentially right, rather than provably wrong. In such an environment, it is important for a field to have a mechanism for remembering past mistakes and for preventing them from recurring." ...
Seth Lloyd
Department of Mechanical
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Theoretical physics employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics, as opposed to experimental processes, in an attempt to understand nature. Central to it is mathematical physics , though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena.
Thanks lfe2211 for these comments. I personally find it good even to just read some general remarks on this topic, especially for those who will never get a chance in their life to acquire scientific knowledge. I would like only to add that the goal of Theoretical Physics is not only to explain and predict physical phenomena, but to explain why the known laws of Physics are like that. This is an even more heavy challenge going deeper in the secrets of the nature than any other scientific discipline.
Performing experiments in Theoretical physics is not an easy thing to do. To study, create or prove the existence of certain sub-atomic particles, you need access to massive unbelievably expensive government funded structures called Particle Colliders. Only a few of these exist in the world. Hence, most theoretical physicists mainly theorize or attempt to mathematically prove the existence of their theories. If their theories pass a complex government/scientific peer review process, they may be able to test their theories in one of the Colliders. In stark contrast to the biological, chemical, social or behavioral sciences then, it is no trivial matter to come up with a theory, mathematically offer a rigorous defensible proof, convince the government and the review committees to go to Brookhaven National Laboratory or Fermilab and "do an experiment". To put it more crudely, It's a big mother f**ken deal to do an experiment in theoretical physics!
At last, one had to explain this! And I would change the "no trivial matter" to "highly no trivial matter".
In the aforementioned disciplines, immunologists for example, can propose theories (if I knock out the gene for protein X, mice will not develop a certain type of autoimmune disease) , design experiments, test them, publish them and have their work peer-reviewed rather easily (Duh!) compared to theoretical physicists.
After some point, Theoretical Physics is like Mathematics. You start with some assumptions and you go through a mathematical proof to your conclusions. I have to admit though that I don't like the way the physicists often handle the mathematical tools available to them.
You may notice that I never start it. My mistake is in responding to it in the first place.
So don't. Other than calling your assertion that LCDs save no table space silly there's nothing that needed your response anyway. Certainly not on the first post that spiraled into a general and baseless denounciation of the scientific community...
It wasn't my intent to get into yet another useless flamewar with you but I'm not going to not comment when you say something as silly as that LCD comment.
Takes two to have a flamewar.
Viena
So don't. ...
It wasn't my intent to get into yet another useless flamewar with you but I'm not going to not comment when you say something as silly as that LCD comment.
Takes two to have a flamewar.
What I am seeing here is that you are suggesting that melgross not continue a flame war, but that you have no problem continuing it. I've heard things like that are called a double standard. If you aren't willing to stop, you have no grounds to suggest that someone else stop.
In stark contrast to the biological, chemical, social or behavioral sciences then, it is no trivial matter to come up with a theory, mathematically offer a rigorous defensible proof, convince the government and the review committees to go to Brookhaven National Laboratory or Fermilab and "do an experiment". To put it more crudely, It's a big mother f**ken deal to do an experiment in theoretical physics!
Well...I wouldn't call it "trivial" to get an experiment done but it certainly is several orders of magnitude easier since the funding requirements are typically a couple orders of magnitude lower than booking time at Brookhaven or Fermi.
Even there, I'd guess that getting a space experiment done is harder to do. I worked on COBE (Smoot, Mather and Hauser were the PIs) and COBE was an effort from 1976 to 1998.
Apple trivia: the skymaps from COBE that folks saw at the AAAS was done on a Mac II converted over from COBE datasets in FITS format using modified NCSA code. The software design (structure charts) were done on three Apple Lisas.
Vinea
What I am seeing here is that you are suggesting that melgross not continue a flame war, but that you have no problem continuing it. I've heard things like that are called a double standard. If you aren't willing to stop, you have no grounds to suggest that someone else stop.
No, I'm saying if he wishes not to respond to my posts that's fine. But that I'm not going to refrain from commenting as I did with the first two posts. The first was very neutral. The second only addressed his COMMENT as silly. I suppose I can not call it silly but geez...it was in my opinion.
I only made that comment because it seems the entire onus has been placed on me. As I said, it takes two but whatever makes y'all happy. Blame me if it makes ya feel better.
Vinea
I only made that comment because it seems the entire onus has been placed on me. As I said, it takes two but whatever makes y'all happy. Blame me if it makes ya feel better.
I do think melgross was right in what he said, but didn't say it well, and didn't need to refer to his experience to make a case either, and I think that is considered a logical fallacy as well.
One problem I have is with some of the tone and your previous conversations make you look like a heckler with an axe to grind. I think your current argument with melgross really has far more to do with previous conversations than anything with regard to multitouch or keyboards.
Well...I wouldn't call it "trivial" to get an experiment done but it certainly is several orders of magnitude easier since the funding requirements are typically a couple orders of magnitude lower than booking time at Brookhaven or Fermi.
Even there, I'd guess that getting a space experiment done is harder to do. I worked on COBE (Smoot, Mather and Hauser were the PIs) and COBE was an effort from 1976 to 1998.
It seems that you are missing the non-financial part in what lfe2211 said.
MacPro Multitouch
Nice to make your acquaintance. It's good to know at least one forum member understood my rather lengthy complex post. Are you a mathematician? I'll be glad to have your input any time, pro or con.
Stop it with all of this multi-touch jabber.
"Multi-touch this!"
"Multi-touch that!"
"Ohh - I bet we could Multi-touch that!"
"Yes! A multi-touch toilet flusher! Amazing!"
Multi-touch is a technology invented for portable use. The advantage of a mouse interface (in non-portables) is that you can move your cursor on a 30" screen from the lower left to the upper right by only moving your hand from one edge of your mouse pad to the other.
In a portable, you don't have a lot of room for the larger interfaces like a mouse and keyboard. And THAT is where multi-touch is useful.
And when you have the precision of a mouse, why do you need gestures? With a mouse, I can easily click and drag the corner of a photo with a slight twitch of the hand, whereas with multi-touch, I'd have to lift both arms and make a huge pinching motions.
I know you are all excited for the iPhone, but cool it on the multi-touch. Think about why we don't have the click wheel as a computer interface for a moment and it might dawn on you why we don't need the multi-touch over what we have now.
Next person who mentions a multi-touch anything other than an iPhone... I'll multi-touch your mum. (JK)
MacPro Multitouch
Hey, cool! If I could get a 15" one that could slide into my backpack, I'm sold.
Thought I might post here as well.
Stop it with all of this multi-touch jabber.
"Multi-touch this!"
"Multi-touch that!"
"Ohh - I bet we could Multi-touch that!"
"Yes! A multi-touch toilet flusher! Amazing!"
Multi-touch is a technology invented for portable use. The advantage of a mouse interface (in non-portables) is that you can move your cursor on a 30" screen from the lower left to the upper right by only moving your hand from one edge of your mouse pad to the other.
In a portable, you don't have a lot of room for the larger interfaces like a mouse and keyboard. And THAT is where multi-touch is useful.
And when you have the precision of a mouse, why do you need gestures? With a mouse, I can easily click and drag the corner of a photo with a slight twitch of the hand, whereas with multi-touch, I'd have to lift both arms and make a huge pinching motions.
I know you are all excited for the iPhone, but cool it on the multi-touch. Think about why we don't have the click wheel as a computer interface for a moment and it might dawn on you why we don't need the multi-touch over what we have now.
Next person who mentions a multi-touch anything other than an iPhone... I'll multi-touch your mum. (JK)
Brilliant. You weren't content flaunting your complete and utter ignorance of MultiTouch in just one topic, you wanted to cross-post it in two.
Here's another bit of news for you, Einstein: Nobody's forcing you to read these topics. If you don't like it, don't read it. Nobody died and made you king, so you can't tell people what they can or can't post.
I really really really didn't want to get into this fray but I'm forced to based on one of Mel's "citations". My apologies, but this is going to be a rather long post which will likely turn off most readers. I won't be offended if you click the back button right now on you browser. However, I can't present it any other way to make my point clearly. I guarantee if you stay with me, you'lll learn a few things
I am a scientist (Ph.D in 1977 from Cornell in Biochemistry). I have not yet received my April, 2007 issue of Discover so I can't tell how out of context and/or wrong the quotes he attributed to Dr. Seth Lloyd and Dr. Murray Gell-Mann are. To wit mel's quote:
(Much of what follows is readily available in Wiki)
I'll present a little background to help the reader. Dr. Lloyd is a world renowned Professor of Mechanical engineering at MIT. His research area is in the interplay of information with complex systems, especially quantum systems. He has made contributions to the field of quantum computation and proposed a design for a quantum computer. He refers to himself as a "quantum mechanic". Dr. Gell-Mann is a Noble Prize winning Physicist who works in the area of theoretical particle physics. He is best known for his work in discovering Quarks and the Quark model, The modern theory of the interactions of quarks is called quantum chromodynamics (QCD), and is based on Gell-Mann's work. So both of Mel's references are to scientists engaged in the work of theoretical physics, a breed apart in the universe of scientists. Theoretical physics employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics, as opposed to experimental processes, in an attempt to understand nature. Central to it is mathematical physics , though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena. The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations.
Performing experiments in Theoretical physics is not an easy thing to do. To study, create or prove the existence of certain sub-atomic particles, you need access to massive unbelievably expensive government funded structures called Particle Colliders. Only a few of these exist in the world. Hence, most theoretical physicists mainly theorize or attempt to mathematically prove the existence of their theories. If their theories pass a complex government/scientific peer review process, they may be able to test their theories in one of the Colliders. In stark contrast to the biological, chemical, social or behavioral sciences then, it is no trivial matter to come up with a theory, mathematically offer a rigorous defensible proof, convince the government and the review committees to go to Brookhaven National Laboratory or Fermilab and "do an experiment". To put it more crudely, It's a big mother f**ken deal to do an experiment in theoretical physics!
In the aforementioned disciplines, immunologists for example, can propose theories (if I knock out the gene for protein X, mice will not develop a certain type of autoimmune disease) , design experiments, test them, publish them and have their work peer-reviewed rather easily (Duh!) compared to theoretical physicists. In these disciplines, the statement that "I would bet that 99.8% of ideas put forth by scientists are wrong..." is pure unadulterated nonsensical gibberish. This is because there is a massive amount of verifiable and reproducible experimental data available in the biological sciences. See all the cures for certain types of cancers in recent years, the complete sequencing of the human genome, the conversion of AIDS to a chronic condition rather than a near 100 % fatal disease and the great discoveries coming out of stem cell research to name a few of the great leaps forward in medical science in the past ten years.
I'll close with " quantum mechanic " Dr. Lloyd's own words excerpted from an obit to his colleague Dr. Rolf Landauer. These words are probably the context in which he may have spoke the words in Mel's citation.
..."In any field of technology, let alone one that attempts to store information on subatomic particles, most ideas will probably not work. It is by identifying these wrong ideas that scientists and engineers winnow out those few ideas that are potentially right. Yet, despite the importance of mistakes in science, most published papers report work that is potentially right, rather than provably wrong. In such an environment, it is important for a field to have a mechanism for remembering past mistakes and for preventing them from recurring." ...
Seth Lloyd
Department of Mechanical
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Excuse me. But, perhaps you didn't read all of what I said. The quotes were from the current issue of discover (April 2007) which I cited.
The quotes are from the article that HE WROTE. The quotes are either from what HE wrote, or the quote from Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann, which HE quoted in his article, though I have read it elsewhere.
The entire sentence of the quote from Dr. Lloyd is as follows:
"I would bet that 99.8 percent of ideas put forth by scientists are wrong and will never be included in the body of scientific fact."
He also states:
"The vast majority of scientific ideas are (a) wrong and (b) useless. The briefest acquaintance with the real world shows that there are some forms of knowledge that will never be made scientific."
He doesn't refer specifically to the physical sciences, but is speaking in general.
He then goes to discuss sequencing of the human genome, certainly not a matter of physics.
In this lengthy paragraph, which I'm not going to quote, he talks about citations, which as any in the scientific field knows, is something to live or die by (professionally).
He could have mentioned physics, or perhaps math, but instead, chose to mention biology, in contradiction to the idea put forth by you, though he is not refering to error in that paragraph, I cite it to show that his discussion is, again, not limited to physics and math.
The actual point to his article is not actually the correctness, or incorrectness of scientific work, but the dilution of it by non-scienfific writing, in the arts, etc.
Nevertheless, his quotes stand.
The information about the 30% incorrect papers was not stated as being a quote from Dr. Lloyd, but was from an article in Science I read several months ago where scientific fraud and error were being discussed. The discussion was centered around the matter of "doctoring" photos in papers. The article discussed the "enhancing" of images in astronomical work, which is not only accepted, if done properly, but is actually a requirement! Without such enhancement, many astronomical photo's are useless.
However, the doctoring of photos in the field of biology, and chemistry is showing itself to be a problem, and is one reason why scientists are concerned about invalid papers. We are familiar with several major papers that have been withdrawn because of it, among other problems, such as the lifting of data from other papers, as well as charts, etc.
Most fraud is assumed to go undetected, as are most innocent errors.
Other papers are simply wrong for many reasons, and go undetected by peer review.
Thank you for supplying the background of those two individuals, as I didn't intend my post to be lengthened by including it myself.
I would like to conclude that lest I give the impression of being anti science myself, nothing can be further from the truth. But, it must be acknowledged that both fraud, error, and poor experimental design, is a part of the scientific life, no matter how much the majority of scientific workers strive to be free from it.
As the editors of the major scientific journals such as Science and Nature plead mea culpa on their less than stellar records in detecting problematic papers, and strain to tighten up their checks, we must remember that the world of scientific inquiry is open to correction, while other areas are not.
A flat out denial that a particular paper may be incorrect in its conclusions, or even its design, just because it has been published, particularly if it is in a more obscure journal, where publishing papers is the lifeblood of that journal, is not helpful. I'm not referring to you here ife2211. But, that is what started this.
Thanks lfe2211 for these comments. I personally find it good even to just read some general remarks on this topic, especially for those who will never get a chance in their life to acquire scientific knowledge. I would like only to add that the goal of Theoretical Physics is not only to explain and predict physical phenomena, but to explain why the known laws of Physics are like that. This is an even more heavy challenge going deeper in the secrets of the nature than any other scientific discipline.
At last, one had to explain this! And I would change the "no trivial matter" to "highly no trivial matter".
After some point, Theoretical Physics is like Mathematics. You start with some assumptions and you go through a mathematical proof to your conclusions. I have to admit though that I don't like the way the physicists often handle the mathematical tools available to them.
While we seem to have gotten dragged far afield in a discussion about experimentation in physics, I can certainly agree that, today, most experiments in that field are so very costly, that this country has, almost criminally, destroyed the physics community here, by refusing to provide funding for the very expensive facilities required.
While the main facilities have either recently closed down, or will be doing so in the near future, other groups of countries continue to build. While we do take part in those works as well (the US will have the largest contingent when the new facility in Europe goes on line fairly shortly (fairly shortly means something different in the physics community than it does in other disciplines!)), we are subject to a dwindling base of resources here.
The same problem is seen relating to work in fusion.
Modern physics is also very different from most other sciences. Some theoretical advances (String Theories, anyone?) are proving difficult to design experiments around, though Dr. Randall is hopeful about some aspects of the new collider.
MacPro Multitouch
This is the worst idea I've ever seen at AI.
Thought I might post here as well.
Stop it with all of this multi-touch jabber.
"Multi-touch this!"
"Multi-touch that!"
"Ohh - I bet we could Multi-touch that!"
"Yes! A multi-touch toilet flusher! Amazing!"
Multi-touch is a technology invented for portable use. The advantage of a mouse interface (in non-portables) is that you can move your cursor on a 30" screen from the lower left to the upper right by only moving your hand from one edge of your mouse pad to the other.
In a portable, you don't have a lot of room for the larger interfaces like a mouse and keyboard. And THAT is where multi-touch is useful.
And when you have the precision of a mouse, why do you need gestures? With a mouse, I can easily click and drag the corner of a photo with a slight twitch of the hand, whereas with multi-touch, I'd have to lift both arms and make a huge pinching motions.
I know you are all excited for the iPhone, but cool it on the multi-touch. Think about why we don't have the click wheel as a computer interface for a moment and it might dawn on you why we don't need the multi-touch over what we have now.
Next person who mentions a multi-touch anything other than an iPhone... I'll multi-touch your mum. (JK)
icfireball I completely agree with you 100%
With regard to your reply to my lengthy post, I'll just let your own words speak for themselves. (BTW, have you figured out yet which Discover article is the traditional annual April "fake" entry? I'm on the road so I haven't seen my Discover copy yet).
With regard to your reply to PB's excellent reply to my post, we could start a whole forum on the excitement, promise and unimaginable brilliance of string theory, if it's even close to being correct. (I feel certain Albert E. is doing a jig somewhere in the universe).
My own perspective is that we are so fortunate to live in a truly great, exciting, unbelievably productive time vis-a-vis medicine, immunology, genomic science, stem cell science, physics (string theory), computer technology and information communication technology (i.e the internet)!
But alas, we digress from the intent of this forum.
Mel,
With regard to your reply to my lengthy post, I'll just let your own words speak for themselves. (BTW, have you figured out yet which Discover article is the traditional annual April "fake" entry? I'm on the road so I haven't seen my Discover copy yet).
With regard to your reply to PB's excellent reply to my post, we could start a whole forum on the excitement, promise and unimaginable brilliance of string theory, if it's even close to being correct. (I feel certain Albert E. is doing a jig somewhere in the universe).
My own perspective is that we are so fortunate to live in a truly great, exciting, unbelievably productive time vis-a-vis medicine, immunology, genomic science, stem cell science, physics (string theory), computer technology and information communication technology (i.e the internet)!
But alas, we digress from the intent of this forum.
I'm not quite sure of your meaning there. If you are not happy with any of my reply, you certainly may respond, instead of hinting, and then leaving it in the air. I didn't say anything that hasn't been said to me, or that I haven't read in the journals.
I don't read all of the articles, only the ones of interest, but I'll go back and take a look.
I certainly agree with your second and third paragraphs.
It's sad that AI is so specialized that we don't have science reporting as they do at ARs.
Thought I might post here as well.
Stop it with all of this multi-touch jabber.
"Multi-touch this!"
"Multi-touch that!"
"Ohh - I bet we could Multi-touch that!"
"Yes! A multi-touch toilet flusher! Amazing!"
Multi-touch is a technology invented for portable use. The advantage of a mouse interface (in non-portables) is that you can move your cursor on a 30" screen from the lower left to the upper right by only moving your hand from one edge of your mouse pad to the other.
In a portable, you don't have a lot of room for the larger interfaces like a mouse and keyboard. And THAT is where multi-touch is useful.
And when you have the precision of a mouse, why do you need gestures? With a mouse, I can easily click and drag the corner of a photo with a slight twitch of the hand, whereas with multi-touch, I'd have to lift both arms and make a huge pinching motions.
I know you are all excited for the iPhone, but cool it on the multi-touch. Think about why we don't have the click wheel as a computer interface for a moment and it might dawn on you why we don't need the multi-touch over what we have now.
Next person who mentions a multi-touch anything other than an iPhone... I'll multi-touch your mum. (JK)
You really have no vision do you? Or any real understanding of the practicalities of MT technology? A mouse or Wacom style pen may be precise, but there's only one point of contact with your onscreen objects, so you can only move one object or rotate one axis at a time. This may be fine in your little world, but to the design, music and film industry MT offers a huge advantage.
We don't have a click wheel on our desktops? Yes we do, it's called the scroll wheel on your mouse! That does exactly the same job and probably 90% of us use them.
As for comments like this:
"Multi-touch this!"
"Multi-touch that!"
"Ohh - I bet we could Multi-touch that!"
"Yes! A multi-touch toilet flusher! Amazing!"
I am too polite to comment!