Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 27 Oct 2006 11:50 On 27 Oct 2006 00:59:35 -0700, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:23:25 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >> >In article <eok1k2tfnb8lj8uol8ns7h5a7ufilmi7me(a)4ax.com>, >> >jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... >> >> On 26 Oct 2006 00:49:23 -0700, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> >> >If you can present a viable theory that makes testable predictions then >> >> >you stand a chance of getting somewhere. Arguing against evolution on >> >> >the basis that it conflicts with your religion will win you no friends >> >> >at all on the science groups. >> >> >> >> I have no religion and I am arguing *for* evolution. But I'm mostly >> >> exploring how emotions affect intellectual processing and creativity; >> >> the news there looks mostly grim. > >If you want to post seriously in scientific newsgroups about a subject >it is encumbent on you to find out enough about it first to make >meaningful comments. For somebody else's definition of "seriously", I suppose. And I guess that "seriously" is the only mode some people permit themselves. >There are far too many "misunderstood geniuses" on >Usenet with crank theories to sift through them all. Maybe to read through them all. First-level sifting should be instantaneous if *you* are familiar with the subjects. One giveaway about crackpots is their voluminous, unreadable prose. My suggestion about evolution fits nicely into one sentence. That sentence provokes kilobytes of reaction, the sort of ratio that suggests I may be on to something. >There are several A-life simulators around for you to play with. A very >simple genetic one was described in SciAms mathematical games column in >the mid-80's. An easy programming exercise from scratch suitable for >undergraduate coursework. In the early 70's - not mid-80's - I designed one of the first commercial color computer graphics interfaces, a big pc board for the PDP-11, jammed with TTL and 1Kbit drams. We used it to display oil and product pipeline status, slugs of product, pump and valve states, stuff like that in realtime (I designed the data acq and supervisory control gear, and the modems too.) As soon as we got the board working, I coded a rather nice, very fast version of Conway's Game of Life (in PDP-11 assembly) and we wasted a lot of nights playing with that. It did impress me how very simple rules can enable complex and beautiful self-organizing systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life >Links to Alife simulator work are many eg > >http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/t.quick/alife.html > >> >Speaking as one who has no religion but who respects those who do, >> >I find your posts on this most thought provoking. Evolution is >> >apparent but doesn't explain all. > >And which part do you think evolution cannot explain? >Do you understand evolution or some Disneyfied version of it from the >US popular press. > >I note that engineers in particular do seem to have a big problem >accepting that gradual mutation and selection pressures can produce >major changes over geological timescales. Think of it like compound >interest. How much better is a design after 100 1% improvements? Maybe engineers appreciate that some mechanisms can be made far more efficient than 1%. How much better is a design after 100 5% improvements? Biologists seem to have a big problem accepting that evolutionary mechanisms could exist that are any more sophisticated than random mutation and selection. They seem afraid of being accused of anthropomorphizing DNA, so insist that it be maximally dumb, in alignment with 60-year old theory. > >> I agree about respecting believers. > >Depends what they believe. I reckon we need to crush the fundamentalist >"Believers" that want to burn our science books and take us back to the >middle ages. Science is under serious threat in the USA from the >extreme religious right. "Under serious threat?" That's plain silly. And crushing people who don't agree with you isn't nice. > >YECs are beyond redemption. With any luck there will be a special place >in Hell for them maintained at temperatures determined by the Biblical >specification and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. eg >http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/science/hell.html > >> The universe and life are >> enormous, stunning mysteries, and people who trivialize the mystery >> must live very monochrome lives. I wish I could find something that I >> could consider holy, but no luck so far. > >I don't think that any scientist would attempt to trivialise the >universe. They are just curious to figure out how everything works. >Major simulations are underway as we speak. > >OTOH Some religions claim to know "The Truth" (TM) and will refuse to >look at any evidence that conflicts with their own world view. Some sciences do that as well. That is, as some defender stated here, "only human." John
From: John Larkin on 27 Oct 2006 11:53 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:33:30 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >Just as an aside, who said Newtonian Gravity was "wrong?" > Did anyone call it "wrong?" Someone did call it "perfect." John
From: John Larkin on 27 Oct 2006 12:18 On 27 Oct 2006 07:45:57 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >[...] >> A bar is ideal for brainstorming. Having "important" people around, >> management or critical peers, makes people reluctant to expose >> uncertainty, and makes them formal and dogmatic. The alcohol or >> caffein may help to... altered states. > >Where I work we have an informal rule that nothing said over the lunch >table is to be taken too seriously. I actively work towards making >sure that new people understand this so that it doesn't change. >Technical subjects are often the lead in for bad puns and there are >many references to upsidasium and unobtainium but mixed in, some very >good ideas have gotten their start over lunch. > >There was even a case in the past where a new product came out of it. >It started off with someone in sales saying "someone needs an XYZ". >Before lunch was over we had figured out that if we took ABC and DEF >and put them in a weather proof box we would have a perfectly good XYZ. You can think this way all day, all the time, if the culture permits it. Even in meetings. John
From: John Larkin on 27 Oct 2006 12:26 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:30:37 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> Thanks for the clarification. I'm not only hip deep in allygaters, >> I think they're raining down. >> >> /BAH > > > Just wait till gator mating season when they make so much noise that >you can't sleep. :( I designed a subsonic acoustic monitoring system for the static tests of the S1B rocket engines at the Mississippi Test Facility. We mounted boxes on poles all over the countryside and FM'd the sounds back over dedicated phone lines. They accused my amps of having intermittent motorboating oscillations until they finally figured out that they were picking up the sound of bull alligator mating calls. The real reliability problem was locals shooting holes into our Hoffmann boxes. John
From: Michael A. Terrell on 27 Oct 2006 12:44
John Larkin wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:30:37 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> Thanks for the clarification. I'm not only hip deep in allygaters, > >> I think they're raining down. > >> > >> /BAH > > > > > > Just wait till gator mating season when they make so much noise that > >you can't sleep. :( > > I designed a subsonic acoustic monitoring system for the static tests > of the S1B rocket engines at the Mississippi Test Facility. We mounted > boxes on poles all over the countryside and FM'd the sounds back over > dedicated phone lines. They accused my amps of having intermittent > motorboating oscillations until they finally figured out that they > were picking up the sound of bull alligator mating calls. > > The real reliability problem was locals shooting holes into our > Hoffmann boxes. > > John They were probably shooting at the gators, and were so drunk they hit your equipment. Those Hoffman NEMA enclosures are fairly heavy steel. The Square "D" boxes are even thicker steel. I installed a complete 330 watt tube low band base station into a pair of their boxes, welded front to back to get the depth I needed. It weighed about 400 pounds before I installed the equipment. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |