Listen up, physics cripples
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Electrostatics and absurdities of modern physics
Next: All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories.
From: Brian Davis on 6 Jun 2010 07:46 On Jun 5, 2:28 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > If a peer-reviewed published paper's title cannot be > differentiated from machine-generated technobabble, then the > discipline is corrupt. This would strongly depend on who is doing the discrimination. My six- year-old would have a hard time separating intelligent design papers from ones written about evolution. I think there still might be a difference in the field's validity. For that matter, a whole lot of the adults around me have similar issues. Is that the fault of the field of study... or the level of comprehension of the reader? > Examine the local confluence of babbling idiots who cannot be > educated in the maths and will not acknowledge observed physical > reality. sci.physics is an Augean stables' dung heap. Taking sci.physics as prototype might be... slightly biased. Towards crazy idiots. -- Brian Davis
From: Brian Davis on 6 Jun 2010 14:45 On Jun 5, 12:11 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ > > Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make > the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. You know, having tried this (8/10 80%, with some wonderful options like "Relativity" as a title... yes, that one was false, ironic since I have a real paper with that title as well, making the whole game... humorously pointless)... I wonder how well any other field would do. Imagine novel titles, or psychology papers, or desert recipes. The fact that a reasonably smart text generator can produce apparently meaningful strings... really shows just about nothing. After all, I can speak in numerous languages without understanding what I'm saying... which hadly negates the fact that there really *are* folks who speak french, german, sanskrit, etc. -- Brian Davis
From: Uncle Al on 6 Jun 2010 15:02 blackhead wrote: > > On 5 June, 17:11, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ > > http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ > > > > Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make > > the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. > 38% to start - rejected title if it looked too long winded. > 62% - inverted above strategy. "8^>) Adds to 100%, too! -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Uncle Al on 6 Jun 2010 15:14
blackhead wrote: > > On 5 June, 17:11, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ > > http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ > > > > Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make > > the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. > 38% to start - rejected title if it looked too long winded. > 62% - inverted above strategy. "8^>) Adds to 100%, too! -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |