0
   

to not be is unAmerican, nonDemocracy

 
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 10:56 pm
@oristarA,
DECEPTION IN THE WILD
HOMO SAPIENS IS NOT THE ONLY SPECIES THAT LIES. DISHONESTY ABOUNDS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2021 06:01 am
@oristarA,
What is the take-home lesson here? Be nice to dogs, and naturally, they will be nice to you. More broadly, animal duplicity may be carried out with awareness and sometimes even with emotional gus- to. For this reason, we may see something of our- selves in the dogs or in cuttlefish who give o false signals in mating and birds who mislead to steal food. And yet across species—including those animals who deceive in the absence of premeditated intent—the same individuals may act honestly in some cir- cumstances and connivingly in others. That Janus- headed nature may sound familiar to us, too.
oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2021 10:57 am
@oristarA,
Scientific American is worth to read ... a lot.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/

https://twitter.com/home










https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions

oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2021 04:38 pm
@oristarA,
How close can physics—the most fundamental of the sciences—bring us to an understanding of the foundations of reality? By George Musser
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2021 11:14 am
@oristarA,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05404-6
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2021 02:30 am
@oristarA,
If anything restores confidence that truth is within our grasp, it is that we can divide and con- quer. Although “real” is sometimes equated with “fundamental,” each of the multiple levels of de- scription in science has an equal claim to be con- sidered real. Therefore, even if things vanish at the roots of nature, we are perfectly entitled to think of things in daily life. Even if quantum mechanics is mystifying, we can build a solid understanding of the world on it. And even if we worry that we aren’t experiencing the fundamental reality, we are still experiencing our reality, and there’s plenty to study there.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2021 07:21 pm
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01552-X/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2021 08:06 pm
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03461-4
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2021 05:51 pm
@oristarA,
This is why even a small 50-qubit quantum computer can beat a massive classical supercomputer. “If you look at the West—the U.S., Europe—there haven’t been a lot of people talking about repeating [Google’s 2019] experiment,” Martinis says. “I admire, in China, that they want to do this seriously.”
China Is Pulling Ahead in Global Quantum Race, New Studies Suggest
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2021 07:14 am
@oristarA,
Their analysis leads Conway and Kochen to conclude that the physicists possess free will—and so do the particles they are measuring. “Our provocative ascription of free will to elementary particles is deliberate,” Conway and Kochen write, “since our theorem asserts that if experimenters have a certain freedom, then particles have exactly the same kind of freedom.” That last part, which ascribes free will to particles, threw me at first; it sounded too woo. Then I recalled that prominent
scientists are advocating panpsychism, the idea that consciousness pervades all
matter, not just brains. If we grant electrons consciousness, why not give them free will, too?
Quantum Mechanics, Free Will and the
Game of Life
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2021 08:08 am
@oristarA,
Forty years ago physicist Richard Feynman made a straightforward proposition:
Classical computers trying to simulate a fundamentally quantum reality might be outdone by a computer that, like reality, is itself quantum. In 2019 a team at Google led by Martinis realized this so-called quantum advantage by demonstrating that the company’s Sycamore system really could perform a specific, limited task exponentially faster than even powerful classical supercomputers (though a competing team at IBM disputed that Google’s achievement represented a true quantum advantage). A year later USTC researchers performed a similar experiment with a quantum computer made from photons.

Such a potential nightmare virus actually appeared last year: a variant called B.1.620 that was first seen in Africa. It carried the E484K mutation, along with a number of other spike protein mutations that might increase transmissibility. “With that alone you’d be going, ‘Oh my god,’” says Emma Hodcroft, a genetics researcher at the University of Bern in Switzerland. But the number of B.1.260 cases soon declined. “It’s clearly not quite as simple as you have all these mutations and you’re the worst thing around,” Hodcroft says.

Why Do Variants Such as Delta Become Dominant?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-variants-such-as-delta-become-dominant/



oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2021 10:22 am
@oristarA,
The COVID culture war: At what point should personal freedom yield to the common good?

In Anaheim, California, Disneyland worker Judy Hart, 62, says she’ll never get the COVID-19 vaccine because it’s “experimental.”

What about masks? Hart wears one while working retail sales at the most magical place on Earth, but nowhere else. “It’s against our freedoms,” she says. “And I’m not some religious weirdo who thinks it’s the mark of the beast.”

After more than 18 months of a pandemic, with 1 of every 545 Americans killed by COVID-19, a substantial chunk of the population continues to assert their own individual liberties over the common good.

This great divide – spilling into workplaces, schools, supermarkets and voting booths – has split the nation at a historic juncture when partisan factionalism and social media already are achieving similar ends.

It is a phenomenon that perplexes sociologists, legal scholars, public health experts and philosophers, causing them to wonder:

At what point should individual rights yield to the public interest? If coronavirus kills 1 in 100, will that be enough to change some minds? Or 1 in 10?

Today, millions of U.S. residents shun vaccines that have proven highly effective, and resist masks that ward off infection, fiercely opposing government restrictions.

Others clamor for regulation, arguing that those who take no precautions are violating their rights – threatening the freedom to live of everyone they expose.

In an online dialogue about the friction between liberty and the greater good, Clare Palmer, a philosophy professor at Texas A&M University, agreed that exercising a freedom to go maskless creates “catastrophic threats to the well-being of others."

“How much should government constrain citizens’ otherwise rightful activities to lower the risk?” she asked. “We may be entering a period… when countries will need to reassess their willingness to use the law to protect the most vulnerable and to advance the common good.”

No matter where one stands, it puts a new spin on the famous line delivered at America's founding by Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty or give me death."

‘An act of defiance’
Seldom in the nation’s past has a culture boundary been so clear-cut, or the clash between personal rights and public welfare been so polarized.

COVID-19 is now killing more than 2,000 Americans each week, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, with new infections topping 60,000 a day for the first time in more than three months. Nearly two-thirds of the nation’s counties are reeling from substantial or high transmission rates as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Against that backdrop, a striking paradox has evolved: About 99% of America’s COVID-19 deaths today are people who did not get shots. Yet, the unvaccinated – who are more susceptible to infection and more likely to spread the disease – also appear to be most resistant to wearing masks.

While the scientific research is evolving and medical messaging has been muddled, the vaccine has worked beyond expectations – “a huge celebration of effectiveness,” as Johns Hopkins notes – with limited side effects recorded so far.

That means getting shots saves lives.

It also means vaccines could prevent the mutation of more virulent coronavirus strains while hastening a return to economic and social normalcy. So, why do so many turn down the shots and shun masks? Is it a social syndrome that puts self-interest above the common good? Is it a stand for principle? Is it something else?

Michael Sandel, a Harvard professor of government who teaches a course on “ethics in an age of pandemics,” noted in the university’s gazette that mask wearing has emerged as “a new front in the culture wars.”

While covering one’s face is not difficult, mask opponents are driven by another concern: They don’t want government dictating their behavior. Put simply, Sandel said, the resistance is not about public health: “It’s about politics.”

“Even as the pandemic highlights our mutual dependence, it is striking how little solidarity and shared sacrifice it has called forth,” he noted. “The pandemic caught us unprepared – logistically and medically, but also morally. … (It) arrived at just the wrong moment – amid toxic politics, incompetent leadership and fraying social bonds.”

“It’s an act of defiance,” said Steven Tipton, a professor of sociology and religion at Emory University. “’'You can’t make me.' And I will enact my own freedom even if it kills me and others around me who I love.’”

Tipton co-wrote the book “The Good Society,” describing how America’s institutions have fallen from grace. He is among many who trace this viral distrust a half-century back to President Ronald Reagan’s quote: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

As economic inequities mushroomed and social isolation festered, Tipton said, average Americans came to feel betrayed by government, the marketplace and so-called elites. For them, rejecting science and spurning authorities is a statement of moral outrage rather than an act of selfishness. And that sentiment is encouraged in a social media echo chamber that bonds the disconnected.

In the end, however, COVID-19 has no politics or ethical code. The virus, acting on a principle of proliferation, has killed more than 4.2 million people worldwide – especially now those who didn’t get shots.

The moral, Tipton suggested: “Being a good citizen is being mutually responsible. If you believe in the gospels, wear your mask.”
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2021 10:48 am
@oristarA,
Mixed messages, lies and confusion
During World War II, the Greatest Generation forged unity with common goals. Americans tended victory gardens to overcome food shortages, volunteered for national defense and made personal sacrifices for the good of the country.

Today, in the face of a pandemic that already has killed more U.S. citizens than the big war, we block one another’s Facebook pages, stage anti-vax protests and in some cases attack one another for requiring or wearing masks.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/08/02/covid-culture-war-masks-vaccine-pits-liberty-against-common-good/5432614001/
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2021 07:03 pm
@oristarA,
From Vaccine Nationalism to Vaccine Equity — Finding
a Path Forward
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2021 09:19 am
@oristarA,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02125-1
0 Replies
 
lilliefishel
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2021 01:58 am
@oristarA,
amazing
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2021 10:36 am
@oristarA,
Has COVID taught us anything about pandemic preparedness?

https://www.bxvpn.com/download.html

https://www.bxvpn.com/index.html
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2021 09:32 am
@oristarA,
Lancet Editor: Half Of Science Is Wrong. An Underestimate?
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2021 09:50 am
@oristarA,
Lancet Editor: Half Of Science Is Wrong. An Underestimate?
BY BRIGGS ON MAY 27, 2015 • ( 40 COMMENTS )
I don't think we can save him!
I don’t think we can save him!

Half of science may be wrong? That may be an underestimate. But at least Richard Horton, the editor in chief of The Lancet, is in the right ballpark.

Ballpark? That might be the wrong metaphor. It implies a game with rules, winners and losers. Science may have been like that, once, but it’s now, far too often, a mechanism to provide support and cover for faddish politics and speculations.

The slide into the abyss is not new. Writing in 2003 in Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences1 Steve Goldberg said there “was a time when you could assume that an intelligent person looking for the truth was guided by the most basic of scientific intuitions: nature will give you a lift only if you are going her way.” That time is no more.

Particularly in sociology “we find large and increasing numbers of ideologues who act as if nature is not something to be discovered no matter what she should turn out to be, but a handmaiden whose purpose is to satisfy one’s psychological and ideological needs.” (It’s worth noting that Goldberg is a self-declared liberal.)

The situation is no better in medicine. Horton:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

Horton was at a “reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research” conference at which a colleague told him a fundamental truth: “poor methods get results”.

They do. They are also lucrative and career enhancing. Need I mention that welter of putrid “studies” which “show” the horrors that await us once global warming strikes? I’ll mention them regardless. It’s not just the nauseating “World Ends: Poor, Women, and People of Color Hardest Hit” nonsense, but our friends of the forest will feel the pain, too. Any animal which is cute, photogenic, cuddly, or delicious is promised to teeter on the precipice of extinction, but those which prick, bite, poison, main and kill or are pestilential will thrive. Global warming is selective.

Horton: “The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.” It is for good reason that that most valuable word endemicity is not dissimilar to enema.

Horton admitted journal editors “aid and abet the worst behaviours”. Why do they do this? Because of that idiot-pleasing quantification called an “impact factor”. No, it is not a measure of physical force, which would make sense, but a ridiculous pseudo-measure of how “influential” a journal is. Influence, I need hardly add, is value-free word. A Senator threatening to subpoena her enemies for producing research “designed to confuse the public” is influential. Right, Barbie?

Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale

End hypothesis testing now. Ban it. Purge it. Eliminate it. Consign it to the ever-growing fetid pile of failed intellectual ideas, along with socialism, empiricism, equality, atheism, and car alarms.

How to fix the system is a good question. Horton has a semi-workable idea: “remove incentives altogether.” Scientists, if you don’t already know, are expected to publish, publish, publish, which allows them to seek grants, more grants, and even more grants which pays their salary and provides overhead for their deans to lavish on their fiefdoms. But unless we ban scientists from publishing anything more than, say, one book or paper a year, this fix won’t stick.

One idea that is terrible is: “emphasise collaboration, not competition.” Good grief, no. If we enforced collaboration men would flee science faster than a democrat running from a Fox News camera.

The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first.

Ask me, I don’t think the system can be fixed. We have to let it burn itself out, like a tire fire.

————————————————————————–

1I’m shocked this essential book is no longer in print, except via Kindle. Finding even used copies is difficult.

Thanks to Nate West, Ken, and Dave Morris and anybody I might have forgotten who brought this article to our attention.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2021 03:37 am
@oristarA,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-lord-kelvin-nearly-killed-darwins-theory/
 

Related Topics

Is this comma splice? Is it proper? - Question by DaveCoop
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
Is the second "playing needed? - Question by tanguatlay
should i put "that" here ? - Question by Chen Ta
Unbeknownst to me - Question by kuben123
alternative way - Question by Nousher Ahmed
Could check my grammar mistakes please? - Question by LonelyGamer
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 04:50:40