Moving towards scientific discussion [Archive]

Rduke55

02-05-2006, 01:25 PM

Hi all,
I was just thinking that there seems to be a lot of smart people on this forum that spend a great deal of time yelling the same things (arguing or debating are too strong of words for what goes on here a lot) the same subjects against the same people. Since there seem to be a fair amount of scientists and mathemeticians (I know Borodog is a physicist and Diebitter is/was an ecologist) on here I was wondering if anyone would be interested in a series of postings where someone posts a summary of a major development or finding in their field. Could be historical (I love the classics) or recent. Make it geared towards the educated lay-person. That way we could actually talk about something different from "There is no God!", "Yes there is - you're stupid!", "No you're stupid and if you read Joe Jack's treatise on monkeycrap you'd see you're stupid.", "Joe Jack was a child molester so you're stupid.".

I have some amazing stuff from my field that did not get the press in the popular media I feel they deserve (pushed aside for the normal CNN crap science "Eggs are bad!", Eggs are good!", "The secrets of living longer!").

Thoughts?

Borodog

02-05-2006, 01:51 PM

Post away. I will do the same when inspiration strikes. I've been thinking a lot about QED lately, so maybe I'll do that.

P.S. My Ph.D. is in astrophysics, but as you well know, I'm no longer in the field. So I'm fairly well out of touch with the latest and greatest. I need to renew some of my old subscriptions. I feel really disconnected and ill-informed lately. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Rduke55

02-05-2006, 01:55 PM

Well, I was going to start with a recent one but I think we all would benefit from discussing some of the classics that still are relevant (although it would be awesome to have some of those ones that didn't pan out in there - with the debunking of course - to get a perspective on how the field has evolved, etc.). Especially when you put them in context of the thought at that time, what came out of it, etc.

gumpzilla

02-05-2006, 02:31 PM

I think there are a couple of reasons why this isn't likely to happen.

1) It's very difficult for scientists to talk about science in a way that is at all enlightening for a lay audience. It takes a lot of work to try and make it clear.

2) It also takes a lot of work to follow it and understand it, usually. So I think a lot of people prefer flinging poop on the God front, where it seems that most of the people here have already heard all of the old arguments and not as much thinking is involved.

3) Given the existing state of affairs, I think there's a pretty strong disincentive for people to try and write up something interesting about actual math or science for the most part because it is less likely to garner lengthy discussion than the poop flinging.

diebitter

02-05-2006, 02:36 PM

I'm about to resubmerge myself into the field of memetics - something I lost track of 6-7 years ago, but was pretty hot on up till then. I'll post some summary/interesting issues about it when I've done some reading up. My first book arrived Friday, and I've got a couple more coming.

I've got background in AI and ecology too, so I'll give this some thought for those subjects too.

Nut4Dawgs

02-05-2006, 02:54 PM

die,

I've read some of your movie reviews and a few others where you weren't reaching for the OOT-type humor. I've enjoyed them. I'd like to read posts from you in the area of AI.

Rduke,

I agree with your thoughts and like your idea. Thanks.

diebitter

02-05-2006, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
die,

I've read some of your movie reviews and a few others where you weren't reaching for the OOT-type humor. I've enjoyed them. I'd like to read posts from you in the area of AI.

Rduke,

I agree with your thoughts and like your idea. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem with AI is I've been out of the field for 10 years, and haven't felt a moment's desire to even follow it. I could post under 'historical/classical' though for a review of the field up to 1994.

There are some great stories about the way humans reacted to early expert systems, and some of the decisions the systems themselves made.

EDIT: OMG I just read back that last sentence, and sound a tremendous geek. Ahh, well, so be it.

soon2bepro

02-05-2006, 03:28 PM

i've found almost every god-related thread that i've seen in my short time here to be enlightening in one way or another. even if just by making me think some things over a little better

Rduke55

02-05-2006, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
die,

I've read some of your movie reviews and a few others where you weren't reaching for the OOT-type humor. I've enjoyed them. I'd like to read posts from you in the area of AI.

Rduke,

I agree with your thoughts and like your idea. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem with AI is I've been out of the field for 10 years, and haven't felt a moment's desire to even follow it. I could post under 'historical/classical' though for a review of the field up to 1994.

There are some great stories about the way humans reacted to early expert systems, and some of the decisions the systems themselves made.

EDIT: OMG I just read back that last sentence, and sound a tremendous geek. Ahh, well, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a big AI fan and I'm a doubter that strong AI is possible, at least in my lifetime, but I'd love to see some discussion on it because one thing I think we got from AI's problems is a better perspective on the brain.

bearly

02-05-2006, 09:47 PM

hi.......good post and good luck. i have tried to be of help in the area of logic and conceptual analysis. my posts are the kiss of death. reading reccomdations....a thread killer. keep trying........please.........b

chrisnice

02-06-2006, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm about to resubmerge myself into the field of memetics - something I lost track of 6-7 years ago, but was pretty hot on up till then. I'll post some summary/interesting issues about it when I've done some reading up. My first book arrived Friday, and I've got a couple more coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please share any articles or good books etc that you come across. Books on this subject have been at the top of my mental to get list for a while.

Metric

02-06-2006, 01:39 AM

I agree that scientific expositions and discussion would be much more useful than the usual religious shouting matches. I would very much like to see the forum move in this direction. I have a background in general relativity and quantum field theory...

One problem, though -- I posted some thoughts on the statistical mechanics of cosmology a while back and got zero responses! On the one hand, I know these are interesting subject, but it is difficult to know if the posts are appreciated if nobody is responding -- it does tend to make me less interested in starting new threads on somewhat technical subjects.

Nut4Dawgs

02-06-2006, 02:08 AM

This is from the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

[ QUOTE ]
Philosophy of Statistical Mechanics

Statistical mechanics was the first foundational physical theory in which probabilistic concepts and probabilistic explanation played a fundamental role. For the philosopher it provides a crucial test case in which to compare the philosophers' ideas about the meaning of probabilistic assertions and the role of probability in explanation with what actually goes on when probability enters a foundational physical theory. The account offered by statistical mechanics of the asymmetry in time of physical processes also plays an important role in the philosopher's attempt to understand the alleged asymmetries of causation and of time itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

In all honesty, not only can I not contribute a single thing to this subject, I have a tough time even thinking about it. With zero response to your post, I must not be among a small group.

Can you pose a question/thought in a simple form that would spark the average reader's curiosity? Can you suggest a comparison of the philosophical thought with an everyday occurrence? In simple English?

I mentioned my interest in AI. I've been tinkering with computers and programming since the late 70's. I know just enough about programming and AI to be able to understand how Big Blue was able to "beat" chess masters. I know just enough about poker that I don't believe the same success can be obtained through AI. diebitter's ability to express himself in his movie reviews led me to believe he would do the same in the area of AI - inform, enlighten, entertain, pique curiosity/interest, spur thought/questions.

Would this be worth your effort/time? I don't know. I'd say it's 50/50. Either it will, or it won't.

Silent A

02-06-2006, 07:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering if anyone would be interested in a series of postings where someone posts a summary of a major development or finding in their field. Could be historical (I love the classics) or recent. Make it geared towards the educated lay-person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finishing my PhD in Hydrology. Somehow, I doubt anyone cares about the latest developments in this well established field of science.

But is anyone has a water question, ask away!

madnak

02-06-2006, 12:03 PM

Why exactly is it bigger when it's frozen? And everything else gets smaller when it gets cold.

tyrus72

02-06-2006, 07:53 PM

Secure communications using entangled photons is an interesting physics-based application currently being developed.

purnell

02-06-2006, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering if anyone would be interested in a series of postings where someone posts a summary of a major development or finding in their field. Could be historical (I love the classics) or recent. Make it geared towards the educated lay-person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finishing my PhD in Hydrology. Somehow, I doubt anyone cares about the latest developments in this well established field of science.

But is anyone has a water question, ask away!

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read some alarming articles about fresh water becoming a very scarce (and expensive) commodity in the fairly near future. Is there any truth to this?

Charon

02-07-2006, 08:29 AM

I'm about to follow a course in General Relativity, Tensor Analyses and Elementary Particle Physics. So I would certainly be eager to read some interesting stories about those subjects, although at the moment Im not too knowledgable about the subjects.

Unfortunately I havent read your post about statistical mechanics of cosmology since I dont read this forum much (due to the excessive religious debates; if it was more geared towards science I'll probably contribute more). I'll try to find it later when I get some more time.

Anyways, I find general relativity and quantum field theory tremendously fascinating subjects, so if you care to post some about these topics it will be very much appreciated!

Silent A

02-07-2006, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why exactly is it bigger when it's frozen? And everything else gets smaller when it gets cold.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ooo, questions. Not really a Hydrology question, but I'll look up my ice engineering notes ...

It all has to do with the shape of water molecules and how they organize into a crystalline structure. They form into a sort of 3-D hexagonal beehive like pattern with each molecule bonded to 4 other molecules. For a given HOH molecule, the O is bonded to two other H atoms and each H atom is bonded to an O atom. At freezing, the stable distance between two molecules is about 0.3 nm. This is greater than the average distance than liquid water and thus frozen water is less dense than liquid water.

If you want to know why it's 0.3 and not 0.2, you need to ask a chemist.

Edit: oh, and this only happens around the phase change. Once ice is frozen it gets more dense as it gets colder and liquid water gets less dense as it warms (above 4 deg C, which is another interesting quirk of water with subtle but very important consequences).

Silent A

02-07-2006, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have read some alarming articles about fresh water becoming a very scarce (and expensive) commodity in the fairly near future. Is there any truth to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on several factors, primarily where you live and what constitutes "expensive".

Strictly speaking, fresh water can only become more scarce (barring drastic changes in how poeple deal with water) since its supply is decreasing (due to pollution, salinization, and the depletion of ancient aquifers) and demand is increasing (primarily due to population growth). Climate change further complicates this by altering the water balance, but this depends on where you are. Some areas will be wetter, some drier. Some will get more rain but become drier because of increased evaporation due to increased temperatures (the place I live will probably experience this).

So, in most parts of the world, water will become more scarce and therefore more expensive. In some parts of the world it might get bad enough that small wars might be fought (emphasis on might). In many areas, places that uesd to do just fine will need to find new ways to distribute water (i.e. new water laws in places like Montana). In most, water will just get more and more and more expensive until people start to feel the hurt and start to conserve on their own.

I think a lot coud be said for being more pro-active now, but politically I just don't see it happening (at least not in North America).

madnak

02-07-2006, 05:48 PM

Ah, okay. It seems strange to me. But, what does a hydrologist study? How soon will we be able to make fresh water out of sea water?

Borodog

02-07-2006, 06:15 PM

SilentAcorns,

A thoughtful post, but I have to disagree with this:

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot coud be said for being more pro-active now, but politically I just don't see it happening (at least not in North America).

[/ QUOTE ]

As your post made clear, the economics of the situation dictate that being "pro-active" now would shift scarce resources away from currently more valuable uses. When water becomes more expensive, priorities will change, and resources will shift. Shifting resources before they are needed is wasteful.

Silent A

02-07-2006, 07:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
SilentAcorns,

A thoughtful post, but I have to disagree with this:

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot coud be said for being more pro-active now, but politically I just don't see it happening (at least not in North America).

[/ QUOTE ]

As your post made clear, the economics of the situation dictate that being "pro-active" now would shift scarce resources away from currently more valuable uses. When water becomes more expensive, priorities will change, and resources will shift. Shifting resources before they are needed is wasteful.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming the water market accurately considers all costs involved. In general, it doesn't. Water probably has the most screwed up market in existence. Supply/demand forces still operate but because existing markets are generally regulated so badly, and the nature of the hydrologic cycle makes it so difficult for a laissez-faire market to operate properly the end result is that the shifting of resources you speak of is too slow.

It's not that I don't think people/markets will react, I'm just convinced that it will be way slower than optimal.

tyrus72

02-07-2006, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In most, water will just get more and more and more expensive until people start to feel the hurt and start to conserve on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where's the problem again?

Borodog

02-07-2006, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SilentAcorns,

A thoughtful post, but I have to disagree with this:

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot coud be said for being more pro-active now, but politically I just don't see it happening (at least not in North America).

[/ QUOTE ]

As your post made clear, the economics of the situation dictate that being "pro-active" now would shift scarce resources away from currently more valuable uses. When water becomes more expensive, priorities will change, and resources will shift. Shifting resources before they are needed is wasteful.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming the water market accurately considers all costs involved. In general, it doesn't. Water probably has the most screwed up market in existence. Supply/demand forces still operate but because existing markets are generally regulated so badly, and the nature of the hydrologic cycle makes it so difficult for a laissez-faire market to operate properly the end result is that the shifting of resources you speak of is too slow.

It's not that I don't think people/markets will react, I'm just convinced that it will be way slower than optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guarantee you that central planning the water economy will be far, far less optimal than just letting the market do it. The more critical the demand becomes in an area, the higher the profits there become, the more incentive there is to rapidly shift capital and resources to the problem, and the more rapidly the problem is solved. Attempting to centrally plan a solution ahead of time can only result in waste, corruption, and shortages. All you have to do is look at our energy history to see this.

Silent A

02-07-2006, 07:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, okay. It seems strange to me. But, what does a hydrologist study? How soon will we be able to make fresh water out of sea water?

[/ QUOTE ]

A hydologist studies everything involved in the hydrologic cycle, on the surface, in the atmosphere, underground, lakes, rivers, snow, etc. This includes aspects of water quantity and quality.

As for your second question, the answer is: yesterday. It's only a problem of energy. You can'r filter out dissolved salts so you have to boil the water off and then condense it. Right now, it's bloody expensive because it takes a lot of energy to turn liquid water into steam. It's only worth the bother if you live in a really dry coastal area with tonnes of cheap energy (i.e. a place like Saudi Arabia). I think there are also places where they use sea water as a heat exchanger in power plants. This sea water is much warmer and so it takes less energy to turn it into fresh water. It's still really expensive though (several $/M3 last I heard).

purnell

02-07-2006, 07:42 PM

Borodog

02-07-2006, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guarantee you that central planning the water economy will be far, far less optimal than just letting the market do it. The more critical the demand becomes in an area, the higher the profits there become, the more incentive there is to rapidly shift capital and resources to the problem, and the more rapidly the problem is solved. Attempting to centrally plan a solution ahead of time can only result in waste, corruption, and shortages. All you have to do is look at our energy history to see this.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, it looks like now might be a good time to invest in the water business. You might call it proaction for capitalists. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THAT I can get behind. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

bearly

02-07-2006, 11:26 PM

bring it on........i have had a natural curiosity for over 50 yrs.............no reason to stop.........example: when i was falling to sleep last night i wondered: "what would the earth turn into w/ one great change---all the human beings would be dead in their tracks tomorrow?" my foolish answer was that rats would take over. i would like the thoughts of real scientists. logic, linguistics, and law don't qualify..................

tyrus72

02-08-2006, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
bring it on........i have had a natural curiosity for over 50 yrs.............no reason to stop.........example: when i was falling to sleep last night i wondered: "what would the earth turn into w/ one great change---all the human beings would be dead in their tracks tomorrow?" my foolish answer was that rats would take over. i would like the thoughts of real scientists. logic, linguistics, and law don't qualify..................

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That is a foolish answer.

Silent A

02-08-2006, 01:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guarantee you that central planning the water economy will be far, far less optimal than just letting the market do it. The more critical the demand becomes in an area, the higher the profits there become, the more incentive there is to rapidly shift capital and resources to the problem, and the more rapidly the problem is solved. Attempting to centrally plan a solution ahead of time can only result in waste, corruption, and shortages. All you have to do is look at our energy history to see this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing for any kind of central planning. Rather I lament the fact that neither central planning nor market forces work well. If all we're talking about is water for direct human uses (municipal, industrial, agricultural, etc.) I have no doubt that a reasonable market based solution exists. This includes getting people, industry, and farmers to leave dry areas.

My concerns are more for politics keeping such a reasonable solution from being realized until a lot of damage is done (no market system will recharge an ancient aquifer), and the likelihood any such market solution will totally ignore far more complicated environmental problems. Issues where dollar values are next to impossible to find, and especially issues involving private benefits resulting in public/environmental costs.

Borodog

02-08-2006, 01:39 AM

Fair enough. I'm no hydrologist, so I'm not going to tell you your business. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Peace out.

chrisnice

02-08-2006, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bring it on........i have had a natural curiosity for over 50 yrs.............no reason to stop.........example: when i was falling to sleep last night i wondered: "what would the earth turn into w/ one great change---all the human beings would be dead in their tracks tomorrow?" my foolish answer was that rats would take over. i would like the thoughts of real scientists. logic, linguistics, and law don't qualify..................

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That is a foolish answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not foolish at all. In fact probably the worlds greatest evolutionary scientist, Richard Dawkins would agree with you that rats and other vermon would quickly take over. In his wonderful book "The Ancestors Tale", he discusses this.

tyrus72

02-08-2006, 02:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bring it on........i have had a natural curiosity for over 50 yrs.............no reason to stop.........example: when i was falling to sleep last night i wondered: "what would the earth turn into w/ one great change---all the human beings would be dead in their tracks tomorrow?" my foolish answer was that rats would take over. i would like the thoughts of real scientists. logic, linguistics, and law don't qualify..................

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That is a foolish answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not foolish at all. In fact probably the worlds greatest evolutionary scientist, Richard Dawkins would agree with you that rats and other vermon would quickly take over. In his wonderful book "The Ancestors Tale", he discusses this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because every habitat man has moved into that wasn't already dominated by man is ruled by rats, right?

Matt R.

02-08-2006, 02:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bring it on........i have had a natural curiosity for over 50 yrs.............no reason to stop.........example: when i was falling to sleep last night i wondered: "what would the earth turn into w/ one great change---all the human beings would be dead in their tracks tomorrow?" my foolish answer was that rats would take over. i would like the thoughts of real scientists. logic, linguistics, and law don't qualify..................

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That is a foolish answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not foolish at all. In fact probably the worlds greatest evolutionary scientist, Richard Dawkins would agree with you that rats and other vermon would quickly take over. In his wonderful book "The Ancestors Tale", he discusses this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because every habitat man has moved into that wasn't already dominated by man is ruled by rats, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I see. We appear to have an internet know-it-all.

Did it occur to you that the habitats that man dominates may be slightly different than those that they do not dominate? And rats and other vermon may be better suited to the habitats where man is present? Thus, if man died off, the rats/vermon could "take over" these now vacant habitats since their prime competitors are gone? But, they are not suited to habitats where man is not present -- which is why you don't see them dominate there.

No... I'm sure it didn't occur to you actually. But you'll claim you didn't say it because it would be over our heads. That would be pretty funny actually...

I don't necessarily agree with Dawkins, and I haven't read his book. This is a nuisance post, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes -- now I'm trolling. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

DcifrThs

02-08-2006, 06:18 AM

two things going on in finance now that i think are interesting are the further and further refinements on yield curve estimation and Damadoran's amazing refinements and explanations and practical applications of all types of valuation to real world applications. Damadoran is a NYU projessor who publishes his spreadsheets, lectures, notes, and classes on his website:

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/

if you are into finance, you should read this page. so many great ways fo thinking about valuation.

as to the yield curve estimation improvements, there is a great deal of academic research in this area but the most innovative ones ive seen involve polynomial graphing functions called splines. specifically, exponential spline models of the term structure of interest rates.

good stuff.

i'll make a post of classic breakthroughs in finance also. fascinating field!

Barron

Nut4Dawgs

02-08-2006, 07:25 AM

So, this is now the Official Hydrology Thread? Water Conservation? Finance? Was this an Official Hijacking? Did someone's GPS hiccup and divert us? Is this the result originally envisioned by the OP?

<ul type="square"> /images/graemlins/smile.gif [/list]

Rduke55

02-08-2006, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bring it on........i have had a natural curiosity for over 50 yrs.............no reason to stop.........example: when i was falling to sleep last night i wondered: "what would the earth turn into w/ one great change---all the human beings would be dead in their tracks tomorrow?" my foolish answer was that rats would take over. i would like the thoughts of real scientists. logic, linguistics, and law don't qualify..................

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That is a foolish answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not foolish at all. In fact probably the worlds greatest evolutionary popularizer , Richard Dawkins would agree with you that rats and other vermon would quickly take over. In his wonderful book "The Ancestors Tale", he discusses this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Dawkins is nowhere near the best evolutionary scientist.

Borodog

02-08-2006, 12:30 PM