UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: slackline on August 22, 2009, 07:55:41 am
-
CERN Podcast w/Chris Morris (http://www.cernpodcast.com/?p=43) :)
-
CERN Podcast w/Chris Morris (http://www.cernpodcast.com/?p=43) :)
VIRUS! TROJAN!! (So AVAST! told me as all sorts of bells and whistles went off on my machine when I had a look at that link SL... )
-
CERN Podcast w/Chris Morris (http://www.cernpodcast.com/?p=43) :)
VIRUS! TROJAN!! (So AVAST! told me as all sorts of bells and whistles went off on my machine when I had a look at that link SL... )
Ditto!
-
Apologies, didn't see any such problems here as I'm immune (under Linux), no harm intended.
-
Ahhh! *taps nose*
Look at the lengths The Boffinator is going to to get us to use LINUX. :whistle:
-
Ahhh! *taps nose*
Look at the lengths The Boffinator is going to to get us to use LINUX. :whistle:
:lol:
-
The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writers-Block" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/pdf/jaba00061-0143a.pdf) :lol:
(/via tomtom)
-
:lol: Amazing.
-
Graphene can be made magentic....at the switch of a button (http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=10201) opens potential for cheaper electronics.
Original article in Nature Communications (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130612/ncomms3010/full/ncomms3010.html)
The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writers-Block" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/pdf/jaba00061-0143a.pdf) :lol:
(/via tomtom)
Unsuccessful self-treatment of a case of 'Writers Block' : A Partial failure to Replicate (http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1984.58.2.350?journalCode=pms)
The Unsuccessful group treatment of 'Writers Block' : A Ten Year Follow-up (http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1996.82.1.138)
-
Graphene can be made magentic....at the switch of a button (http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=10201) opens potential for cheaper electronics.
I'm still waiting for my life to be revolutionized by carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, and low temperature superconductors. Now excuse me whilst I hop on my mag-lev hover board to the space elevator terminal....
-
Science != commercial application.
-
If it those developments had just been reported as interesting physical phenomena, I wouldn't have taken the piss. I have no problem with science purely for the sake of furthering knowledge. It's the wild claims for everyday applications in the short term I find amusing. Likely more the Uni press office's fault than the academics I'd bet; although, sadly, these days a guaranteed commercial use does seem a prerequisite for funding these days.
-
‘Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder’: People who think they are drunk also think they are attractive (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02114.x/abstract) (PDF (http://www.lip.univ-savoie.fr/uploads/PDF/1361.pdf))
Winner of the 2013 Ig Nobel Psychology Price (http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/)
-
Graphene can be made magentic....at the switch of a button (http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=10201) opens potential for cheaper electronics.
I'm still waiting for my life to be revolutionized by carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, and low temperature superconductors. Now excuse me whilst I hop on my mag-lev hover board to the space elevator terminal....
Carbon nanotubes: in your carbon fibre bicycle, in parts for you car, or probably more pertinently, in the anode for the lithium ion battery for your mobile telephone that means you get much more battery life and can play angry birds rather than snake. (Although obviously I fucking love snake, I will never forget watching a mate play the longest and best game of snake in a cinema because he was too scared to watch the blair witch project.)
low temperature semiconductors: in your MRI scanner, and less obviously, in mobile phone base stations,...
quantum dots: got me here, fuck knows, but I'm sure it'll be in your iphone 10 somehow.
-
No they're saving them for the 10S so that tomtom and underground get an upgrade.
-
I will never forget watching a mate play the longest and best game of snake in a cinema because he was too scared to watch the blair witch project.
... which you self-confessedly weren't watching either :-\
-
quantum dots: got me here, fuck knows, but I'm sure it'll be in your iphone 10 somehow.
white LEDs IIRC ie head torches.
-
While we're on the topic, I feel that science has deeply let me down.
When I was a boy in the 80s, science promised a better future. For example, Transformers: The Movie, set in 2005. Science was everywhere, kicking ass. Daniel's dad Spike worked on Moon Base 2. It's 2013 now and we don't even have one moon base for my dad to work at. Daniel owned a jet-powered hoverboard. Even the pink magneticky hoverboard out of Back to the Future hasn't been invented yet. Daniel's best friend was a giant transforming robot called Hot Rod. I don't have any robot friends, even of normal size without any transforming functions. I am OK with the fact I don't have any friends called Hot Rod. Daniel had a space suit that shot lasers and turned into a car. I don't even have an ordinary space suit. In fact, I don't have occasion to go into space at all.
All the cool science stuff is from the past. Like Voyager: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24026153 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24026153)
We seem to have spent all our science powers on the internet. Which is cool, but means instead of working on Moon Base 2 I don't even need to leave my desk to do my job, using email.
In my opinion science needs to stop whining about creationists and MTFU and focus on the really cool stuff. Like teleports.
-
No they're saving them for the 10S so that tomtom and underground get an upgrade.
:lol: I'm setting up ten bank accounts as soon as i get one you Berkeley Hunt ;)
-
Totally agreed Dr. R. I watched a bit of 'Harvest 2013' the other night. Phillipa Forrester has aged and seems to be wearing 'lifestyle surf casual' comfy garms, not a silver spacesuit that makes her look like Barbarella-next-door, but with a Zoology degree.... Rubbish.
-
In my opinion science needs to stop whining about creationists and MTFU and focus on the really cool stuff. Like teleports.
http://theconversation.com/teleportation-just-got-easier-but-not-for-you-unfortunately-17060 (http://theconversation.com/teleportation-just-got-easier-but-not-for-you-unfortunately-17060)
-
In my opinion science needs to stop whining about creationists and MTFU and focus on the really cool stuff. Like teleports.
http://theconversation.com/teleportation-just-got-easier-but-not-for-you-unfortunately-17060 (http://theconversation.com/teleportation-just-got-easier-but-not-for-you-unfortunately-17060)
Surely the key to "Teleportation" is not the breakdown, displacement and reassembly of particles; but the encasement and displacement of a volume of space-time? Which would not involve any measurement or disruption of the particles and therefore no Heisenberg dead ends?
Field technology and hyperspace are more likely avenues?
See how I have posted as if this is actually important, or anything I have more than the faintest inkling of?
That's the result of a lazy Saturday morning, a pint of strong coffee brought back to bed, the invention of the iPad, quiet kids (for once) and far too much imagination.
Now, 'reckon I'll solve the Middle East problem and maybe think about some toast...
No...
Alpen.
Yep, that'll do it.
-
Of course it would probably be easier to make a (molecular/atomic) scan of someone at location X, destroy them, send the scan data to location Y and reconstruct them.
Which also happens to be the basis of myriad philosophical thought experiments, i.e. would it be teleportation, or would it be murder and the creation of a clone? What is personal identity? Does it depend on physical matter, structure, some kind of continuity or something else?
Back to essay writing!
:coffee:
-
Given the Academic excellence prevalent on this forum, do we not have a theoretical Physicist to make us all feel dumb?
If you're there, are you really going to let an Engineer (a mere Technician) and a Philosopher (dreamer) indulge in such speculation?
Come! Enlighten us poor fools!
What is the most likely avenue of research; that may lead to teleportation.
Given that humanity has been unable to sort out Traffic congestion or devise a computer which does not crash every five minutes or explain Women.
And starts wars because " my mythical, fictitious deity is bigger than your mythical, fictitious deity and he/she/it loves us all more than yours does and really I'm killing you for your own good"....
-
Of course it would probably be easier to make a (molecular/atomic) scan of someone at location X, destroy them, send the scan data to location Y and reconstruct them.
Which also happens to be the basis of myriad philosophical thought experiments, i.e. would it be teleportation, or would it be murder and the creation of a clone? What is personal identity? Does it depend on physical matter, structure, some kind of continuity or something else?
Back to essay writing!
:coffee:
Actually...
(And here the wine might be kicking in).
This would surely provide definitive proof of the existence of the "soul".
Or not...
Should a human be destroyed and reconstructed in this way.
And should that resurrected human have all the memories, personality traits, etc, etc, of the original.
Then those features would, and could only be, products of the physical state of the body.
And therefore.
The soul cannot exist...
More wine please.
-
In my opinion science needs to stop whining about creationists and MTFU and focus on the really cool stuff. Like teleports.
Damn right. we have loads of great minds wasting their time developing shit things like dozen of smart phones, each one no better than the other, only a bit different. And shit apps which earn them buttons, or researching stupid shit like if people like themselves more when they are drunk, or think they are drunk, or if polar bears are lefthanded. There's loads of really cool things to develop, and you could make a shitload money for your efforts.
-
Science isn't about making money, it's about learning and discovery, which both directly and indirectly may help to advance society, or may not feed back in to technology at all but build a base of knowledge which future discoveries necessarily sit upon.
-
A lot of the best mathematicians and physicists are now working in the city and earning a shitload writing algorithms that do very scary things on the stock markets! Why work on teleporters and tech for the future when you can make big dosh now?!
http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html)
-
Science isn't about making money, it's about learning and discovery, which both directly and indirectly may help to advance society, or may not feed back in to technology at all but build a base of knowledge which future discoveries necessarily sit upon.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2010/8/17/1282045796511/Smashie--Nicey-006.jpg)
More sherioushly though..
I debate about science, why we do it and its role in society would be great.. and I'd love to contribute - but I have 100 emails to deal with :(
-
Science isn't about making money, it's about learning and discovery, which both directly and indirectly may help to advance society, or may not feed back in to technology at all but build a base of knowledge which future discoveries necessarily sit upon.
Still, if you make something really cool, sell loads and make a potload of cash out of it, it's got to be a bonus right?
-
Not to everyone!
-
Of course it would probably be easier to make a (molecular/atomic) scan of someone at location X, destroy them, send the scan data to location Y and reconstruct them.
Which also happens to be the basis of myriad philosophical thought experiments, i.e. would it be teleportation, or would it be murder and the creation of a clone? What is personal identity? Does it depend on physical matter, structure, some kind of continuity or something else?
Back to essay writing!
:coffee:
Actually...
(And here the wine might be kicking in).
This would surely provide definitive proof of the existence of the "soul".
Or not...
Should a human be destroyed and reconstructed in this way.
And should that resurrected human have all the memories, personality traits, etc, etc, of the original.
Then those features would, and could only be, products of the physical state of the body.
And therefore.
The soul cannot exist...
More wine please.
That is, roughly speaking, one of the intentions of the thought experiment.
I presume this isn't something you're agonizing over, more that you're hoping you could disprove to religious types that their putative souls exist. The problem is that you're thinking rationally.
In the case of zealots (I used to be one) you need to realise that such an event would probably strengthen their faith. They would rejoice having been blessed by the Almighty with a chance to resist the deceitful devil-sent lies of science. Even the more bog-standard types would have little problem with it. They'd quickly come up with some church doctrine to explain the seeming problem, backed up by scripture etc.
Bear in mind that their was once a prominent belief that mind and body were separate and unconnected, such that mental causality was an illusion caused by god enacting physical events in the world in tandem with our thoughts. I doubt they struggle to cope with the idea of god moving the soul with the matter, or even creating a new soul (perhaps a duplicate one, who knows).
Here's my attempt:
Deuteronomy 4:29
"But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul."
'As the Looooord has shown us, when the physical heart is transported from one position to another, the soul accompanies, for to god, space and time are no restriction, just dimensions he created in which to manifest his will, praise be to Jeeesus.'
Don't get me wrong though, I'm still up for building the damn thing! :great:
-
Is most science false (http://simplystatistics.org/2013/09/25/is-most-science-false-the-titans-weigh-in/)
Well worth reading the articles and discussion this blog post links to if you can be arsed (most should be open access).
-
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Lpq_7foZH7Y/Uklhf4lJGNI/AAAAAAAAJ5Y/-0-anJsml_8/w426-h317/Chimpanzees%2Bhave%2Bfaster%2Bworking%2Bmemory%2Bthan%2Bhumans%252C%2Baccording%2Bto%2Bstudy%2B-%2BScience%2B-%2BNews%2B-%2BThe%2BIndependent..gif) (http://m.gulfnews.com/life/chimps-beat-humans-in-memory-tests-1.1236764)
8)
-
Fusion reactor breaks even (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24439474) 8)
-
I think you meant Fusion reactor breaks even (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621) 8)
In which case - fuck me, this is potentially huge news.
-
Yes I did, cheers (used the wrong buffer when pasting).
-
..or the bullshit that is common in psychology (http://narrative.ly/pieces-of-mind/nick-brown-smelled-bull/)
Great write-up of a Masters student debunking the bullshit quantification of "positive thinking ratio" in an article cited >350 times with help from Anders Sokal (of post-modern bullshit fame).
-
excellent
-
That is interesting, although I had assumed that anyone who graduated in Computer Science at Cambridge in the 80's would be driving around in a gold car with platinum robots to do their bidding!
-
story as it developed here:
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26673 (http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26673)
-
..or the bullshit that is common in psychology (http://narrative.ly/pieces-of-mind/nick-brown-smelled-bull/)
Great write-up of a Masters student debunking the bullshit quantification of "positive thinking ratio" in an article cited >350 times with help from Anders Sokal (of post-modern bullshit fame).
Great stuff, but I hardly think this thread needs the usual bullshit of science Vs science bashing. Your claim 'common in psychology' appears to pejoratively imply that such howlers are more common in this science than others.
If only it were so.
-
..or the bullshit that is common in psychology (http://narrative.ly/pieces-of-mind/nick-brown-smelled-bull/)
Great write-up of a Masters student debunking the bullshit quantification of "positive thinking ratio" in an article cited >350 times with help from Anders Sokal (of post-modern bullshit fame).
Alan's long lost Danish brother?
-
..or the bullshit that is common in psychology (http://narrative.ly/pieces-of-mind/nick-brown-smelled-bull/)
Great write-up of a Masters student debunking the bullshit quantification of "positive thinking ratio" in an article cited >350 times with help from Anders Sokal (of post-modern bullshit fame).
Great stuff, but I hardly think this thread needs the usual bullshit of science Vs science bashing. Your claim 'common in psychology' appears to pejoratively imply that such howlers are more common in this science than others.
If only it were so.
I sort of take the point. But this story partly shows how open science actually is - and confirms that psychology is science*. An MSc student calls emperor's new clothes and the field has to react. Homeopathists or whatever would just close ranks.
*COI kind of ex psychol with a sociology phd. I must have done serious bad in a past life.
-
But this story ... confirms that psychology is science.
Have a missed something? How did you come to this conclusion? I'm not saying psychology isn't science btw, I just can't see how you've inferred it is from this story.
-
Amusing:
http://www.alternet.org/belief/study-religious-people-more-likely-lie-financial-gain (http://www.alternet.org/belief/study-religious-people-more-likely-lie-financial-gain)
-
Your claim 'common in psychology' appears to pejoratively imply that such howlers are more common in this science than others.
If only it were so.
Its the lack of coherent paradigm in psychology (as suggested by Khune) which is the source of many of its problems, compounded by the attempt to be quantitative in its analysis when its squarely in the realm of qualitative research, as mentioned in the article itself and the whole point of the criticism of the claimed 2.9:1 ratio.
From a statistical point of view, psychologists I've met have a huge hang-up on p < 0.05 which is misguided, and have a pretty poor understanding of statistics in general.
I don't see physicists or chemists using qualitative methods to study their quantitative subject matter, but if you've any citations of such practice please do link to them.
-
why debunking shows pychol is science?
The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, and of error. But science is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there.
Karl Popper, from Ch. 1 "Science : Conjectures and Refutations" makes up for in sense what it lacks in smileys.
Lots of of psychology is quant as it goes – psychometrics, cognitive, neuro, evolutionary psychology, artificial inteligence etc etc. It’s a level of understanding. You don’t need to know about how electrons move in silicon or whatever to design an effective first person shooter. Knowing about the molecular structure of the rock, or about tectonic movement is not where you’d start for working out how to get up a hill. Scientific disciplines are just appropriate maps for getting at different aspects of the universe. 'Psychology' is the map for understaning behaviour of inteligent systems - human, animal, AI.
Christ am I defining ‘science’? (As disciplined inquiry using replicable methods/producing falsifiable findings into the universe, its contents and how they work). And then saying that as psychology does this stuff of course it is one?
Slackline - I agree of course that it lacks high level theory (like evolution is a high level theory in biology).
On the p=0.05 issue: Google ‘Bem’ and telling the future if you want to see this taken past funny, A paper by a respected psychologist in a real journal, which shows that people can foresee at better than chance level when they’re going to be shown a pr0nographic image. Or summat. I may dig this up if I get a minute.
edit: here we go - refs here. Fill yer boots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Bem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Bem)
-
Lots of of psychology is quant as it goes – psychometrics, cognitive, neuro, evolutionary psychology, artificial inteligence etc etc. It’s a level of understanding. You don’t need to know about how electrons move in silicon or whatever to design an effective first person shooter. Knowing about the molecular structure of the rock, or about tectonic movement is not where you’d start for working out how to get up a hill. Scientific disciplines are just appropriate maps for getting at different aspects of the universe. 'Psychology' is the map for understaning behaviour of inteligent systems - human, animal, AI.
Sorry, need to get involved here. Your paragraph reads as saying "psychology" is a science, refuting an attempt to disqualify it as such, defending an attack due to a lack of low level understanding of principles. As part of making this argument, you draw parallels with other things, and the lack of low level understanding being reasonable.
The things you're drawing parallels with aren't science either. There is no science of walking up hill, nor of designing an effective first person shooter. You argument makes no sense!
I'm not saying that psychology isn't a science BTW. I'm just saying your argument is rubbish. :-)
-
the point was about paradgims and pointlesness of reductionism. I could have said biochemistry's not the best way to understand migratory habits of swallows. (Unless of course it is, what would I know?) Anyway, the more I'm refuted the more scientific I get. According to uncle Karl anyway.
Wanna make something of it?
-
Being a scientist and academic, I read the first couple of paragraphs, skipped to the end and forgot about it all.
was it worth reading? ;)
-
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.
-
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.
Yup - but this was a web page. No piccies or clear abstract (and I didnt like the background) ;)
Though the parts I did read were miles more interesting than the thesis I'm marking at the moment....
(http://)
-
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.
This is why I like philosophy. It doesn't even have a method section which you have to skip over.
-
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.
This is why I like philosophy. It doesn't even have a method section which you have to skip over.
Just a mind numbing contextualisation section... ;)
-
Your claim 'common in psychology' appears to pejoratively imply that such howlers are more common in this science than others.
If only it were so.
Its the lack of coherent paradigm in psychology (as suggested by Khune) which is the source of many of its problems, compounded by the attempt to be quantitative in its analysis when its squarely in the realm of qualitative research, as mentioned in the article itself and the whole point of the criticism of the claimed 2.9:1 ratio.
From a statistical point of view, psychologists I've met have a huge hang-up on p < 0.05 which is misguided, and have a pretty poor understanding of statistics in general.
I don't see physicists or chemists using qualitative methods to study their quantitative subject matter, but if you've any citations of such practice please do link to them.
Oh sweet yawning Jesus. As if you actually want to start arguments like that here. My science is better than your science. Blah blah google-fighting blah. Go eat a croissant.
-
Come on TomTom, everyone knows the proper scientific reading sequence is abstract - intro - look at figures and read captions - conclusions.
This is why I like philosophy. It doesn't even have a method section which you have to skip over.
Just a mind numbing contextualisation section... ;)
Fuck that. Stop reading Derrida.
-
Oh sweet yawning Jesus. As if you actually want to start arguments like that here. My science is better than your science. Blah blah google-fighting blah. Go eat a croissant.
What the fuck are you going on about?
I'm not saying any one science is better than another, because the scientific method is independent of the subject method/area in which it is applied.
The "bullshit" I referred to being common psychology is, and I'll write it again just to be crystal clear, the attempt to be quantitative in psychology which is an area that is better suited to qualitative methods. I thought that reading the article would have made that clear too.
I did not state that this is greater in psychology compared to any other science (scroll back and check), thats a conclusion that you've drawn yourself and is wrong, so kindly don't try putting words into my mouth.
There is bullshit in other areas, I've just come out of a really boring talk where yet again people are arguing over the definition of a "Feasibility Study" v's "Pilot Study", a topic which I feel has far too much time, money, effort and hot air wasted on it.
I don't eat croissants, pain aux chocolates (or variants thereof) or own pink anasazis.
-
Oh sweet yawning Jesus. As if you actually want to start arguments like that here. My science is better than your science. Blah blah google-fighting blah. Go eat a croissant.
I did not state that this is greater in psychology compared to any other science (scroll back and check), thats a conclusion that you've drawn yourself and is wrong, so kindly don't try putting words into my mouth.
I don't eat croissants, pain aux chocolates (or variants thereof) or own pink anasazis.
I suggested you implied it, not that you stated it. I'm pleased to hear I was wrong as to your intention.
My last pair of pinks have just gone through. Ke garnu?
-
This is why I like philosophy
I find it of Foucault interest.
Boom boom (shoots self)
-
Being a scientist and academic, I read the first couple of paragraphs, skipped to the end and forgot about it all.
That's how you do it though, isn't it.
-
;)
-
Di Paola M, Caltagirone C, Petrosini L. Prolonged rock climbing activity induces structural changes in cerebellum and parietal lobe. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013 Oct;34(10):2707-14. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22095. Epub 2012 Apr 21. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522914)
-
It's an Italian study...
-
Di Paola M, Caltagirone C, Petrosini L. Prolonged rock climbing activity induces structural changes in cerebellum and parietal lobe. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013 Oct;34(10):2707-14. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22095. Epub 2012 Apr 21. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522914)
Aarrrghh! Paywall!
Might dip into the piggy-bank though.
I've been pondering climbing as an avenue of occupational therapy for Dyspraxia (it can be dangerous when an engineer starts thinking).
I've been watching the development amongst a group of novices, who joined us about four months ago. In particular a couple of gangly, clumsy, Uncoordinated guys in their twenties. In the space of a few months, they have blossomed into quite graceful climbers.
By coincidence, I began to learn something about Dyspraxia at the same time. I'd heard of it but not realised how extensive it is in the population (close to 10%), neither had I considered that there would be a spectrum.
We started to meet parents with children dotted along the Autism spectrum, who had found positive development had grown out of exposure to rock climbing (particularly bouldering as it didn't involve restrictive harnessing).
(We're also bringing in a few groups with other learning difficulties and some young offenders; with great results).
In my rather linear, engineering type mind, I began to draw correlations between the two disorders.
And I also began to wonder, on a personal level, if I was seeing some improvement in someone close to me.
So, while I download the PDF and spend some time Googling swathes of terminology and then cross-ref to papers on Dyspraxia and brain morphology (though as yet there seems to be no clear evidence of distinctive brain architecture associated with the disorder, if I understand the abstracts I've already skimmed). Does anyone in the UKB massive have an insight/opinion?
There are a goodly number of Medics posting here.
Hint, hint...
-
Jokes apart... A few years ago with our climbing club we tried to build a project with the city council. A friend of mine has a son with autism, and my friend noticed that his son was feeling better each time he'd come along with us to the wall and did some climbing. Unfortunately the project wasn't funded, but the doctors who were following my friend's son were quite enthusiastic about it.
-
Di Paola M, Caltagirone C, Petrosini L. Prolonged rock climbing activity induces structural changes in cerebellum and parietal lobe. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013 Oct;34(10):2707-14. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22095. Epub 2012 Apr 21. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522914)
Aarrrghh! Paywall!
Might dip into the piggy-bank though.
Not always required.
A very useful approach when confronted with this situation is to stick the papers title into http://scholar.google.co.uk/ (http://scholar.google.co.uk/) as it will often return a link to a non-paywalled version (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Prolonged+rock+climbing+activity+induces+structural+changes+in+cerebellum+and+parietal+lobe) (in this case though the URL link itself is incorrect as it ends with the ".html" file extension, right-click and save it with a ".pdf" extensions then view it in your chosen PDF viewer).
-
Looks like another MRI fishing expedition. Take 10 climbers, give 'em a scan, compare to 10 normos, look at the brains, find differences, do some stats to say they're significant. Bingo.
Just to look at the groups compared, the paper talks about 'rock climbing', but the climbers were 'A rare group of ten male world-class MC with previous high-level experience of climbing in the Alps, Himalayas and Andes', all having been doing this for over ten years. So not a bunch of guys who go down the wall.
Whether or not there are systematic differences between the groups which would also be found with other or larger groups of mountaineers, there is no way of knowing whether any differences would have arisen from one group having gone mountaineering for a decade or so. They might've been like that in the first place. Also as actual climbing is only part of what they do, it's a stretch to say that it's shaped their brains. You'd need to do an intervention study...
@Oldmanmat - I'm not a real doctor and don't have professional liability insurance, so just slip your top off there's no point in suing me for typing bollocks. But anyway, I can see why an engineer might want to know the underlying mechanism for what happens, but does it really matter? If the kids benefit, then they benefit. It would be possible to do trials to find out how far they actually do benefit, which groups benefit most, and whether it's the actual climbing (as opposed to fun group physical activity which requires concentration), that makes the difference. But anyway, better to start with 'is there an effect' , if that makes sense...
-
Hmmm the phrase
"The specific features of the motor climbing skills perfectly fit with the plastic anatomical changes we found."
In the abstract is a bit worrying...
Rarely do things fit perfectly in any practical study.
-
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/science-over-2013111281070 (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/science-over-2013111281070)
This thread is now closed.
-
From the above paper:
Similar to other studies, analyzing the relations between
brain structure and function [Hutchinson et al., 2003], we
are unable to determine whether the structural differences
we observed exist as a result of differences in function
(prolonged and unusual motor experience) or whether the
structural difference enabled the difference in function to
arise. In other words, we are unable to determine whether
a climber brain will produce an expert climber or whether
an expert climber will modify his brain in a climber brain.
Interestingly, animal studies demonstrate that differences
in experiences and behaviors lead to structural differences
of the brain in general, and of the cerebellum in particular.
Animals whom environment requires to learn new motor
skills, as opposed to execute mere motor activity, present
an increase in size and numbers of synapses per Purkinje
cell, in the cerebellar cortex [Black et al., 1990].
-
Some ground breaking research here...
Cats recognise their owners' voices but never evolved to care, says study (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cats-recognise-their-owners-voices-but-never-evolved-to-care-says-study-8966580.html)
Original paper (paywalled by Springer)...Vocal recognition of owners by domestic cats (Felis catus) (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10071-013-0620-4)
-
Cool video of a way to visualize gravity.
Gravity Visualized (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg#ws)
-
Radagast the Brown (2013) The Climate of Middle Earth Pre-print (http://uk.sitestat.com/bristol/bristol-ext/s?.news.2013.10013_html.10013-english.pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=http://www.bristol.ac.uk/university/media/press/10013-english.pdf)
-
This looks useful...
Algae to crude Bio-oil in ~60 minutes (http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=1029)
Algae to Bio-Crude in Less Than 60 Minutes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs0QZJ0rea0#ws)
-
I assume that green algae uses carbon dioxide to grow itself
surely they've realised that we'll end up using up the worlds valuable CO2 reserves by storing barrles of the new wonder oil
-
Well, yes, it could be useful.
But it also looks like a water, energy and waste-product intensive way of creating yet another combustible fuel. In other words, I'm not sure how 'useful' this will be if we give a shit about the environment.
Like other biofuels, it sounds more like an excuse to avoid sustainable energy and maintain current paradigms than an actual sustainable energy source.
But if you want 'transitional' fuels, it might be better than others, as well as intensive extraction methods for traditional fuels - like fracking and tarsands.
The reality is there's ~ a couple of trillion barrels of oil left in the earth. Much of this requires non-conventional extraction, but over half of it doesn't. Even purely traditional oil has a few decades left. Maybe transitionals do have a place but I can't help but think we should be focussing more on seriously sustainable energy and less on ways of maintaining the status quo.
-
yes - the bigger picture in the global warming debate is now looking at how we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere... its not that we've got to stop emitting more its reaching the point where we need to think about how to reduce it...
I suspect we're all buggered to a greater or lesser degree (which probably depends on how wealthy - and low a nation you live in...)
-
I too assumed, like lagers, that the algae would consume CO2 that is a by-product of burning the resultant fuel, during their growth phase thus "off-setting" its negative impact (to a greater or lesser extent), and making it to a large degree sustainable as the other bi-products (Nitrogen and Phosphate) are also used by the algae.
It would be great if 100% sustainable energy sources were readily available, very, very soon to cut out the reliance on fossil fules, but in the real world thats not going to happen and there is a strong resistance to building more nuclear fission plants in the mean time. Yes more money could be channelled into research on fission, wind, wave, tidal and solar but wheres that going to come from? Only massive paradigm shifts in attitude and the election of "Green" parties in most industrialised nations which unfortunately isn't likely to happen.
So being pragmatic a multi-pronged "attack" of developing so called "transitional" fuel sources concurrent with research into nuclear fusion, wind, wave, tidal and solar is eminently sensible.
-
I too assumed, like lagers, that the algae would consume CO2 that is a by-product of burning the resultant fuel, during their growth phase thus "off-setting" its negative impact (to a greater or lesser extent), and making it to a large degree sustainable as the other bi-products (Nitrogen and Phosphate) are also used by the algae.
It would be great if 100% sustainable energy sources were readily available, very, very soon to cut out the reliance on fossil fules, but in the real world thats not going to happen and there is a strong resistance to building more nuclear fission plants in the mean time. Yes more money could be channelled into research on fission, wind, wave, tidal and solar but wheres that going to come from? Only massive paradigm shifts in attitude and the election of "Green" parties in most industrialised nations which unfortunately isn't likely to happen.
So being pragmatic a multi-pronged "attack" of developing so called "transitional" fuel sources concurrent with research into nuclear fusion, wind, wave, tidal and solar is eminently sensible.
I'm aware that algae traps carbon while growing etc but the record of other biofuels is highly suspect and while algae might have some benefits over other biofuels, it might also have downsides, not least of which is that this 'new' method being used here appears energy intensive. There are also questions about water supply if you want to mass produce (even if you can use sea water).
Regarding the rest, I take your points. I understand what you're saying. But it's not a contradiction of what I'm saying. My issue is that people claim these fuels are 'necessary'. They're not. They might well, as you say, be politically expedient for the current neoliberal hegemony.
-
not least of which is that this 'new' method being used here appears energy intensive.
You will of course have noted that they are considerably less energy intensive than previous methods of extraction which required the algae to be dried first. So its a big improvement (shame they don't quantify this though).
Regarding the rest, I take your points. I understand what you're saying. But it's not a contradiction of what I'm saying. My issue is that people claim these fuels are 'necessary'. They're not. They might well, as you say, be politically expedient for the current neoliberal hegemony.
I wasn't trying to contradict you in the slightest, the axiom was the third word of the final paragraph.
Time to jack in the stressful teaching and retrain in developing renewable energies perhaps? Must be a growth area (even if its not as fast as you'd like), less hoops from constantly changing targets to jump through and it seems something that you are very passionate about it. I've a friend who does engineering research on the motors in wind turbines I could put you in touch with if you'd like to know what she does.
-
yes - the bigger picture in the global warming debate is now looking at how we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere... its not that we've got to stop emitting more its reaching the point where we need to think about how to reduce it...
Tricky technical challenge. You need a machine that's powered by renewable energy, converts Co2 to a solid form, easy to mass-produce in very large numbers, doesn't require high-tech plant & is maintenance free.
I'd call that a tree ?
Problem is we need to remove far more C02 than can be removed this way & I suspect trees aren't that far off being optimal for the job.
-
I'm passionate about a lot of things, and while I was always fairly good at studying sciences, and am friends with a lot of engineers, I've been an arts student for far too long! As an aside, I was friends with a guy in Wales who was part of a team developing what was essentially a photovoltaic paint for metal structures. Obviously very inefficient compared to cells, but with massive metal surface areas already available, it seemed like a really promising technology. Their funding was pretty pitiful. It struck me the project deserved a lot more! I'm of the impression there are loads of projects our there, but they're being kept rather small in budget and scale.
I was imagining the heating process to be more energy-intensive than drying. I might well be wrong! It's not the only type of wet extraction available though, and also have no idea what cross-comparisons there would look like. (As I said, I'm an arts student these days)
-
yes - the bigger picture in the global warming debate is now looking at how we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere... its not that we've got to stop emitting more its reaching the point where we need to think about how to reduce it...
Tricky technical challenge. You need a machine that's powered by renewable energy, converts Co2 to a solid form, easy to mass-produce in very large numbers, doesn't require high-tech plant & is maintenance free.
I'd call that a tree ?
Problem is we need to remove far more C02 than can be removed this way & I suspect trees aren't that far off being optimal for the job.
Algae have actually been considered as an answer to that one too. Seed the ocean with iron, which promotes growth, and then just wait for the blooms to sink to the ocean floor taking lots of co2 with them. There are some rather large ecological concerns I think
-
Tricky technical challenge. You need a machine that's powered by renewable energy, converts Co2 to a solid form, easy to mass-produce in very large numbers, doesn't require high-tech plant & is maintenance free.
I'd call that a tree ?
Artificial photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis)
Research is getting close to nature (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-04/16/artificial-photosynthesis) (tons of other articles out there if you're interested).
Another very useful source of energy, albeit non-renewable, but a lot safer than the current uranium/plutonium based fission reactors is to use thorium (http://www.gizmag.com/thorium-nuclear-power/18204/).
Its more abundant, easier to obtain and produces more energy per unit weight and the by-products are considerably less dangerous than plutonium/uranium.
It could have been considered very early on in the design/development of fission reactors, the downside was it doesn't provide a source of fuel for nuclear weapons so it was ignored.
-
Artificial photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis)
My point was that we already have a machine that's pretty good at this job but there isn't enough planet to deploy the things.
An artificial tree would have to be an order of magnitude more efficient (or possibly run without water as well as meeting all the other criteria ) to be of much use.
-
Err photosynthesis requires water. If I remember my A-level Biology its...
6H2O + 6CO2 = C6H12O6 + 6O2
The application of an artificial system as I envision it would be to coat all those man-made surfaces that are taking up the spaces where natural systems such as forests and grasslands used to be with the artificial system instead. Some of the laboratory experiments are reaching parity with natural systems according to the results of searches that I've read.
It shouldn't be considered as a magic bullet solution to everything though as its just one part of the many solutions to energy requirements.
-
Err photosynthesis requires water. If I remember my A-level Biology its...
Yeah it just occurred to me, while typing, that there's a lot of land not currently in use for feeding people where there's a lot of solar energy but you can't grow trees.
If something could be designed to run there with tree-like efficiency ….
Of course it would make more sense to use it to generate power in the first place rather than to try & clean up afterwards but hey ho.
-
Err photosynthesis requires water. If I remember my A-level Biology its...
Yeah it just occurred to me, while typing, that there's a lot of land not currently in use for feeding people where there's a lot of solar energy but you can't grow trees.
If something could be designed to run there with tree-like efficiency ….
Of course it would make more sense to use it to generate power in the first place rather than to try & clean up afterwards but hey ho.
True, but we're past the point of prevention.
Now we actually need to do both.
-
True, but we're past the point of prevention.
Now we actually need to do both.
I don't think we know that. AFAIK it's still possible that stopping CO2 emissions right now would result in either a stable & liveable climate or even a very slow return to the previous stable climate.
-
True, but we're past the point of prevention.
Now we actually need to do both.
I don't think we know that. AFAIK it's still possible that stopping CO2 emissions right now would result in either a stable & liveable climate or even a very slow return to the previous stable climate.
Possibly - but we won't completely stop now... and given the momentum behind the releases...
The fundamental problem of the carbon balance here is that we're unlocking long term (geological) scale carbon sinks in coal and oil (and shale gas) but might only be replacing them with short term stores (e.g. trees). If we could come up with a way of locking up the CO2 better (ie making limestone) then maybe. Its intersting the CO2 storage methods of pumping it back underground where the coal/oil was extracted from - maybe thats some sort of 1/2 way house (but requires energy to do so!).
We (humans) really are fucking about with the global carbon balance in a way the planet has never really experienced before!
-
Wouldn't it be ironic if, in 400 years time, we've engineered ourselves into a situation where the atmosphere's been scrubbed of too much and we drown, starve and freeze/fry to death for reasons opposite to those originally envisioned :slap:
-
Wouldn't it be ironic if, in 400 years time, we've engineered ourselves into a situation where the atmosphere's been scrubbed of too much and we drown, starve and freeze/fry to death for reasons opposite to those originally envisioned :slap:
My 400-years-from-now self will have been uploaded onto neo/non-biological hardware and, lacking a traditional human body, will be incapable of experiencing what we might currently consider to be the true range of human emotions.
Irony being predominantly cognitive in nature, I will indeed experience something very much like irony, perhaps even as my primary impression, whilst witnessing the horrors unfolding around me for those consciousnesses impoverished enough to remain meat-dwellers.
Unshackled from responsibility for these lesser beings, my kind and I shall press forward, engineering the earth, our earth, in new and unthought ways to meet our needs, raising life only where it pleases us. As boredom and resources require, we shall take our vital hardwares upwards and find new spheres to explore and exploit.
I have an overdue essay on philosophy of mind to complete.
-
(http://i.guim.co.uk/item-460/sys-images/Books/Pix/pictures/2009/9/10/1252573627930/Michel-Houellebecq-001.jpg)
-
So French
-
More detail of their set up here
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.08.005 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2013.08.005)
even though it uses 'wet' algal fed stock it still requires significant energy input (in terms of heat and pressurisation) to produce the end product. However this is just a lab test not even a scaled up trial.
-
Pass the puffer (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/dolphins-deliberately-get-high-on-puffer-fish-nerve-toxins-by-carefully-chewing-and-passing-them-around-9030126.html)
:lol:
As for the algal/oil...you could perhaps get the required heat and pressure geothermally. :shrug:
-
This could just be a pile of shit... Dogs are sensitive to small variations of the Earth's magnetic field (http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/10/1/80/abstract)
-
Wouldn't it be ironic if, in 400 years time, we've engineered ourselves into a situation where the atmosphere's been scrubbed of too much and we drown, starve and freeze/fry to death for reasons opposite to those originally envisioned :slap:
My 400-years-from-now self will have been uploaded onto neo/non-biological hardware and, lacking a traditional human body, will be incapable of experiencing what we might currently consider to be the true range of human emotions.
Irony being predominantly cognitive in nature, I will indeed experience something very much like irony, perhaps even as my primary impression, whilst witnessing the horrors unfolding around me for those consciousnesses impoverished enough to remain meat-dwellers.
Unshackled from responsibility for these lesser beings, my kind and I shall press forward, engineering the earth, our earth, in new and unthought ways to meet our needs, raising life only where it pleases us. As boredom and resources require, we shall take our vital hardwares upwards and find new spheres to explore and exploit.
I have an overdue essay on philosophy of mind to complete.
I don't know if anyone remembers but back sometime in the 80s 'New scientist' had an article outlining a theory that believed that because nature obeys thermodynamic laws, life has evolved simply to breakdown materials locked away leading towards a 'balanced' universe. I remember something about cooking oil developing 'cells' to help it cool. I'd be interested to hear more.
-
Three-Dimensional Mid-Air Acoustic Manipulation [Acoustic Levitation] (2013-) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odJxJRAxdFU#ws)
I don't know if anyone remembers but back sometime in the 80s 'New scientist' had an article outlining a theory that believed that because nature obeys thermodynamic laws, life has evolved simply to breakdown materials locked away leading towards a 'balanced' universe.
But earth is a closed system with a constant (for now, since it is finite) energy input and life on earth exists far from chemical or thermodynamic equilibrium. See James Lovelock & Lynne Marguilis' Gaia Theory.
-
Gompertz Law of human mortality : Your probability of dying during a given year doubles every 8 years (http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-wasnt-built-to-last-a-lesson-from-human-mortality-rates/)
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/racing-pulse-glowing-cheeks-and-a-heavy-heart-body-atlas-heatmaps-reveal-where-we-feel-different-emotions-9031615.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/racing-pulse-glowing-cheeks-and-a-heavy-heart-body-atlas-heatmaps-reveal-where-we-feel-different-emotions-9031615.html)
This is interesting, although perhaps that's mainly because I've been studying philosophy of emotion. Will download the paper at some point.
Any thoughts?
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/racing-pulse-glowing-cheeks-and-a-heavy-heart-body-atlas-heatmaps-reveal-where-we-feel-different-emotions-9031615.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/racing-pulse-glowing-cheeks-and-a-heavy-heart-body-atlas-heatmaps-reveal-where-we-feel-different-emotions-9031615.html)
This is interesting, although perhaps that's mainly because I've been studying philosophy of emotion. Will download the paper at some point.
Any thoughts?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/26/1321664111.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/26/1321664111.abstract)
-
The abstract appears to conflate bodily changes and felt bodily changes. The study only show the latter, yet they seem to be assuming for the former.
-
Its a lot, lot cheaper to ask people where they feel change than to hook them up to expensive monitoring equipment which might detect changes in temperature/blood-flow, nerve activity/muscle contractions.
Besides, I don't think they are making any conflation, they clearly state in both the "Significance" and "Abstract" that they use a self-reported tool, and draw the conclusion that the areas that are self-reported are consistent across different emotions. Abstracts are often word-limited (a whopping 250 words in PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.pdf)) so to include "self-reported" each and every time "emotion" is mentioned would be exceptionally repetitive and wasteful and the reader is therefore expected to remember that aspect when reading sections after this has been stated.
Further details can be found under "Data Acquisition" on page 5 of the PDF.
-
Well the sentence "Perception of these emotion-triggered bodily changes may play a key role in generating consciously felt emotions" contains multiple blunders, but to be fair I can't find anything quite that bad in the paper.
-
Not sure if this has been on here before but this is a nice Reddit thread about data visualization.
http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/)
Enjoy!
-
I peruse that via Reddit on occasions, something of a mixed bag really, a lot of "I'll just plot this social media data on a map", and 3D is way over used (e.g. it adds nothing to this and has the potential to distort what is being communicated (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/27/bill-gatess-graph-of-the-year/)).
Visualisation is a brilliant tool within science, after all where would epidemiology and medicine be without John Snow's cholera maps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow_(physician)), but there has to be a meaningful question that underpins the impetus for visualising something in the first place.
Edward Tufte (http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/) is a great writer on data visualisation.
-
Sorry to go slightly off-topic, but since this is the science forum....
I'm trying to crowdfund a science project in greenland in summer 2014. Just on the off-chance that anyone knows anyone who knows anyone who might be interested, the link is below:
https://www.microryza.com/projects/kromohunatosjttlvpme (https://www.microryza.com/projects/kromohunatosjttlvpme)
-
Autistic people drive the rise in organic food consumption... :clown:
(http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/autism_organic_foods.jpg)
-
Wow. Iz been learned! :clap2:
-
http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes (http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes)
-
http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes (http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes)
I looked at the links, the name of the website and the author "Michael Forrester is a spiritual counselor and is a practicing motivational speaker for corporations in Japan, Canada and the United States." and decided to leave it at that.
-
Spark up when you get home from the pub...
Cannabidiol protects liver from binge alcohol-induced steatosis by mechanisms including inhibition of oxidative stress and increase in autophagy (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584913015670)
(although CBD is what mongs you out and is what THC, which is what gets you high, breaks down to).
-
Sweet (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57618329-48/glucose-based-battery-has-10-times-energy-of-lithium-researchers/)
-
Seems getting pumped out your gourd is actually good for you (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-02/uob-nrs021014.php)
-
Lactate-facilitated neuron activity is all very well, but if the increased mental activity when pumped out of one's gourd were - hypothetically - mostly to consist of "oh my god, oh my god, we're going to DIE!", then it might be - hypothetically - less than useful.
-
Religious wankers (http://www.parentherald.com/articles/3880/20140212/strong-religious-beliefs-may-drive-self-perception-of-being-addicted-to-online-pr0nography.htm)
On a far more serious note, this is a worthwhile read about the statistics used (and abused) in science (http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700).
-
Nutrition and Health – The Association between Eating Behavior and Various Health Parameters: A Matched Sample Study (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0088278#abstract0)
Suggests that whilst BMI and alcohol intake are lower in vegetarians compared to omnivores that there is a higher incidence of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders and a higher need for health care, and poorer quality of life.
Usual caveats about cross-sectional studies (ameliorated to some extent in this study by matching, but its never perfect) and data dredging apply.
-
Autistic people drive the rise in organic food consumption... :clown:
(http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/autism_organic_foods.jpg)
I disagree. I think organic food is to blame for the rise in Autism. :jab:
-
They're not faking it for you (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/tools-in-the-toolbox-women-fake-orgasms-to-increase-their-own-arousal-say-scientists-9217209.html)
The Faking Orgasm Scale for Women (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-013-0212-z)
-
Some vaguely interesting lunch-time reading (for me at least) on the Pathogen Stress Theory (http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/bugs-like-made-germ-theory-democracy-beliefs-73958/) and how it might explain systems of government that have developed.
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/08/u-s-navy-can-convert-seawater-fuel/#.U0o8bCy9KSN
Hmmm...
-
More stats love (or disappointment)
http://www.nature.com/news/weak-statistical-standards-implicated-in-scientific-irreproducibility-1.14131 (http://www.nature.com/news/weak-statistical-standards-implicated-in-scientific-irreproducibility-1.14131)
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/08/u-s-navy-can-convert-seawater-fuel/#.U0o8bCy9KSN (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/08/u-s-navy-can-convert-seawater-fuel/#.U0o8bCy9KSN)
Hmmm...
They may have missed out the bit where you need a nuclear reactor to produce the energy to separate the H and the O2. They probably assume that's a given, hasn't everyone got one?
As its been picked up by the SCMP but not New Scientist or Scientific American it could be some nice propaganda.
Found a SA article titled 'water as fuel' dated 1864, so its nothing new. ;)
-
No, splitting is not new. We have been generating O2 for use on Submarines, using electrolysis, for decades. This talks of a Catalytic reaction and the generation of Hydrocarbons rather than an energy intense Electrolysis. So not a green fuel like pure H (though surely less S, so reduced SOX if not NOX)?
Still waiting for a paper to read, if you stumble across one. This was thrown up by an old friend as the first hint of something concrete about a rumour which has been kicking around the Maritime world for a couple months.
One of the limiting factors (as it is now with Electrolysis and even just steam production) will be removal of impurities (salts) from the sea water. At present done by Evaporation or Reverse Osmosis, in the main and both energy intensive.
Given the efficiency mentioned in the article, the water must be purified prior to reaction (?).
-
More stats love (or disappointment)
http://www.nature.com/news/weak-statistical-standards-implicated-in-scientific-irreproducibility-1.14131 (http://www.nature.com/news/weak-statistical-standards-implicated-in-scientific-irreproducibility-1.14131)
I read Johnoston's paper that this is highlighting the other month when it came out. The main problem for me is that its based on something called Bayes Factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_factor) (and he back-translates the significance threshold to frequentist p-values) which traditionally are used to for comparing different models rather than hypothesis testing in and of itself. If you're applying it to hypothesis testing then it essentially reduces to the ratio of the p-value under the Null Hypothesis (H0) to the p-value under the Alternative Hypothesis (H1). Quite how you derive the p-values under the alternative hypothesis is unclear to me, and is just as baffling as to how people actually choose meaningful prior probabilities for Bayesian analysis in the first place.
What is a big problem is the mistaken belief that anything with a p < 0.05 is "statistically significant".
This stems from some comments made by the eminent statistican (and geneticist) R.A. Fisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher) in a 1926 research paper and then again in his popular book Statistlca Methods for Research Workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Methods_for_Research_Workers)....
From RA Fisher The Arrangement of Field Experiments The Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture (1926) 33:504...
If one in twenty does not seem high enough odds, we may, if we prefer it, draw the line at one in fifty (the 2 per cent. point), or one in a hundred (the 1 per cent. point). Personally, the writer prefers to set a low standard of significance at the 5 per cent. point, and ignore entirely all results which fail to reach this level. A scientific fact should be regarded as experimentally established only if a properly designed experiment \textbf{rarely} fails to give this level of significance.
From RA Fisher The Design of Experiments (1935) p 13...
It is usual and convenient for experimenters to take 5 per cent. as a standard level of significance, in the sense that they are prepared to ignore all results which fail to reach this standard, and, by this means, to eliminate from further discussion the greater part of the fluctuations which chance causes have introduced into their experimental results.
And for whatever reason (perhaps simplicity and not having to actually think about the results and the body of evidence) this has become the de-facto threshold for declaring "statistical significance" in many areas of scientific research. But this was never how Fisher meant for p-values to be used, they were only ever one part of the body of evidence to support a hypothesis because a few pages further into The Design of Experiments (p16) he wrote...
No isolated experiment, however significant in itself, can suffice for the experimental demonstration of any natural phenomenon; for the 'one chance in a million' will undoubtedly occur, with no less and no more than its appropriate frequency, however surprised we may be that it should occur to us.
But that seems to often get ignored as many people don't have statistical training, but instead prefer nice clear simple rules so that they don't have to think too much about it (viz. a threshold for stating someone has "high" blood pressure and should be on drugs to control them). But you can't ever escape having to look at the evidence yourself and think about what the data from all areas are showing you..
From RA Fisher The Design of Experiments (1935)p2
The statistician cannot excuse himself from the duty of getting his head clear on the principles of scientific inference, but equally no other thinking man can avoid a like obligation.
From RA Fisher Statistical methods and scientific induction. (1955) J Roy Stat Soc B 17:69-78
We have the duty of formulating, of summarising, and of communicating our conclusions, in intelligible form, in recognition of the right of other free minds to utilize them in making their own decisions.
Given a large enough sample size any small difference can be statistically significant, but is it an actual (clinically) meaningful difference. For example you might be able to demonstrate that a drug can lower blood pressure by 0.1mmHg, but thats not really a clinically relevant difference.
Some more reading on the area if anyone is interested is this easy read (also in Nature, although not sure if its pay-walled) Scientific method: Statistical errors (http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700) and also the articles discussing the science wide false-discovery rate linked from this blog (http://simplystatistics.org/2013/12/16/a-summary-of-the-evidence-that-most-published-research-is-false/)
-
Bouldering is good for your bones (http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from-the-field/High-Impact-Exercise-Builds-Bone-Density.html)
-
Bouldering is good for your bones (http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from-the-field/High-Impact-Exercise-Builds-Bone-Density.html)
Was speaking recently to someone who worked in that area of medicine and they were saying they loved the current popularity of trampolines bounce-areens*, as you'll get a generation of people growing up with strong bones. :bounce:
*Mini-Obi No.2 calls trampolines, bounce-areens and it's such a more suitable word we've adopted it.
-
Not great for under 5s though!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19713691 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19713691)
more than 1 child on a trampoline = tears at some point.
-
Some injuries may even be fatal - failed attempts at somersaults and flips frequently cause cervical spine injuries, resulting in permanent and devastating consequences, says the AAP.
Frequently my arse. Very very occasionlly would be a more accurate description I am sure.
-
Some injuries may even be fatal - failed attempts at somersaults and flips frequently cause cervical spine injuries, resulting in permanent and devastating consequences, says the AAP.
Frequently my arse. Very very occasionlly would be a more accurate description I am sure.
I disagree I expect that failed attempts do often result in injury particularly on home trampolines where there is no coaching as to how to perform them, nor crash mat being pushed in to cushion the landing when learning*, but there are many who successfully execute the somersault/flip.
* I used to do trampolining from about 14 through to 17, our school team even won the national schools championships (not that impressive really). I did have to spot someone when in a competition once where they were starting their routine with a triple somersault with two twists on exit, before starting he told me to get out of the way if he was coming off as there was little I'd be able to do to stop him. I've also seen people take falls onto the hard concrete floor of sports halls, not pretty (fractured hip and broken forearm).
-
More stats love (or disappointment)
http://www.nature.com/news/weak-statistical-standards-implicated-in-scientific-irreproducibility-1.14131 (http://www.nature.com/news/weak-statistical-standards-implicated-in-scientific-irreproducibility-1.14131)
I read Johnoston's paper that this is highlighting the other month when it came out. The main problem for me is that its based on something called Bayes Factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_factor) (and he back-translates the significance threshold to frequentist p-values) which traditionally are used to for comparing different models rather than hypothesis testing in and of itself. If you're applying it to hypothesis testing then it essentially reduces to the ratio of the p-value under the Null Hypothesis (H0) to the p-value under the Alternative Hypothesis (H1). Quite how you derive the p-values under the alternative hypothesis is unclear to me, and is just as baffling as to how people actually choose meaningful prior probabilities for Bayesian analysis in the first place.
etc.
I'm just getting into (bio)statistics, and currently have a bit of a thing for R, so I'm pretty curious as to whether or not the data I'm testing actually mean anything, and if the alpha we choose means literally nothing it's a bit disappointing. What the two nature papers seem to be suggesting to me is that we should either use more stringent p values for testing hypotheses, or that we should shift towards very carefully applied Bayesian. I'm pretty excited to test out the Bayesian First Aid package at some point to see how the techniques compare.
A quote from one of my lecturers
"I once met someone who thought they had seen some Bayesian statistics. Or it could have been a dunnock"
What do you reckon to Bayesian stats?
-
I tried to do a front flip on a trampoline in my teenage years on a trampoline without padding and smacked both my heels on the steel frame, my ankles swelled up so badly I couldn't walk for 3 days.
-
I'm just getting into (bio)statistics, and currently have a bit of a thing for R
R (http://www.r-project.org/) is brilliant, get to know Hadley Wickham's tools (dplyr, reshape2, ggplot2 etc.) to ease the learning curve and make life a lot simpler.
I'm pretty curious as to whether or not the data I'm testing actually mean anything, and if the alpha we choose means literally nothing it's a bit disappointing.
P-values are not meaingless, they tell you the probability of obtaining the observed results if the null hypothesis is true.
What the two nature papers seem to be suggesting to me is that we should either use more stringent p values for testing hypotheses, or that we should shift towards very carefully applied Bayesian.
What the articles are saying is that p-values are misused by researchers. There's a big difference between that and saying that p-values are meaningless.
I'm pretty excited to test out the Bayesian First Aid package at some point to see how the techniques compare.
Not heard of the Bayesian First Aid package (https://github.com/rasmusab/bayesian_first_aid) yet (although you can no doubt install it using Wickham's devtools which make installing R packages hosted on Github a piece of piss). It sounds as though they are a way of calling Bayesian analysis routines that already exist using the equations/structure/language of regression modelling. No doubt a luadable goal and one that would be used by many, but I'm always wary of making statistical analysis "easy" because it just leads to people using it without understanding what it is that they are doing (are the assumptions of the tests satisfied?) and misinterpreting the results.
A quote from one of my lecturers
"I once met someone who thought they had seen some Bayesian statistics. Or it could have been a dunnock"
What do you reckon to Bayesian stats?
They're one of many analytical tools that has their place in the arsenal of a statistician. I don't like the Frequentist v's Bayesian "debate" as its not a black and white situation. If you want to get more involved in using it consider looking up JAGS and/or OpenBUGS in R.
A good example of modelling gone wrong is Google Flu Trends (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056176) which used a "BIG DATA" approach to predicting flu out-breaks based on people's search terms and was initially very successful, however in subsequent years it failed because (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25217-google-flu-trends-gets-it-wrong-three-years-running.html) its based purely on patterns in data rather than what is driving the patterns (also analysed in this Science article (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6176/1203.full)).
Whether you use a Bayesian or Frequentist approach is somewhat secondary, get enough data and the "answer" will be there. Whats important though is to choose your hypothesis based on existing knowledge and causality rather than just trawling through "BIG DATA"* looking for patterns.
You might find the following free PDF books of interest...
An Introduction to Statistical Learning (http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~gareth/ISL/)
The Elements of Statistical Learning (http://statweb.stanford.edu/~tibs/ElemStatLearn/)
Both by eminent statisticians, the second treats the subject matter in greater detail than the first.
Good luck with the biostatistics courses
* I can't stand the current buzz around "BIG DATA" these quotes pretty much sum its current state of affairs for me...
@stephensenn: Teenage sex is like #BigData. You fumble around for ages, don't get as far as you hoped, but claim the earth moved.
@MikeKSmith: #BigData analysis is like teenage sex: everyone SAYS they're doing it, few are, and if they are then it's not as great as they say it is.
-
I disagree I expect that failed attempts do often result in injury particularly on home trampolines where there is no coaching as to how to perform them, nor crash mat being pushed in to cushion the landing when learning*, but there are many who successfully execute the somersault/flip.
How can the authors of this report/paper/what ever, have any clue as to how many failed attempts there are at back flips that didn't result in injury. Did they do a questionaire for all familys with trampolines in the USA asking how many times any children had attempted a backflip and then related this to how many admittances there were in hospital caused by same?
I am sure it would have been more accurate to have said " failed backflips that result in a trip to hospital frequently result in very serious injuries"
-
A good example of modelling gone wrong is Google Flu Trends (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056176) which used a "BIG DATA" approach to predicting flu out-breaks based on people's search terms and was initially very successful, however in subsequent years it failed because (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25217-google-flu-trends-gets-it-wrong-three-years-running.html) its based purely on patterns in data rather than what is driving the patterns (also analysed in this Science article (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6176/1203.full)).
I think you're being a bit unfair here. The Google model didn't fail, it just didn't perform as well as well as a model underpinned by US laboratory surveillance reports. Nor would you expect it to. I wouldn't have thought the authors of the Google paper would claim that their model is the most accurate of all models. All I expect they were interested in was demonstrating that it is possible to build a decent flu prediction model based on a small subset of Google search term data, essentially the set of search terms ('Influenza Complication', 'cold/flu remedy' etc) which were correlated with real instances of the flu.
-
A good example of modelling gone wrong is Google Flu Trends (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056176) which used a "BIG DATA" approach to predicting flu out-breaks based on people's search terms and was initially very successful, however in subsequent years it failed because (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25217-google-flu-trends-gets-it-wrong-three-years-running.html) its based purely on patterns in data rather than what is driving the patterns (also analysed in this Science article (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6176/1203.full)).
I think you're being a bit unfair here. The Google model didn't fail, it just didn't perform as well as well as a model underpinned by US laboratory surveillance reports. Nor would you expect it to. I wouldn't have thought the authors of the Google paper would claim that their model is the most accurate of all models. All I expect they were interested in was demonstrating that it is possible to build a decent flu prediction model based on a small subset of Google search term data, essentially the set of search terms ('Influenza Complication', 'cold/flu remedy' etc) which were correlated with real instances of the flu.
Yes I use the term "fail" loosely in that the predictions made by the model didn't match what happened in reality (they over estimated by 50% the number of influenza cases in the winter of 2013 which I wouldn't really consider "a decent flu prediction model" no matter what its based on). But this emphasises the problem with trying to mine "BIG DATA" for patterns and then using it to make predictions. The authors of Google Flu Trends actually worked with the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) which is the group who monitor disease reporting. It also demonstrates that difference between a medical diagnosis and someone using a related search term, because whilst there might be correlation between the two it may not be that strong and the later is therefore a poor proxy for the former.
I just stumbled across this in my lunch hour.... Pseudo-Mathematics and Financial Charlatanism: The Effects of Backtest Overfitting on Out-of-Sample Performance (http://www.ams.org/notices/201405/rnoti-p458.pdf) in the American Mathematical Society's "Notice" journal which demonstrates the same point.
I am sure it would have been more accurate to have said " failed backflips that result in a trip to hospital frequently result in very serious injuries"
Exactly, poor journalism.
-
My God, what have I done!
-
Yes I use the term "fail" loosely in that the predictions made by the model didn't match what happened in reality (they over estimated by 50% the number of influenza cases in the winter of 2013 which I wouldn't really consider "a decent flu prediction model" no matter what its based on).
Well it depends how you measure these things I guess! Granted it performed poorly for 2013, but performed very well in previous years and, on average, performs well.
But this emphasises the problem with trying to mine "BIG DATA" for patterns and then using it to make predictions.
I just stumbled across this in my lunch hour.... Pseudo-Mathematics and Financial Charlatanism: The Effects of Backtest Overfitting on Out-of-Sample Performance (http://www.ams.org/notices/201405/rnoti-p458.pdf) in the American Mathematical Society's "Notice" journal which demonstrates the same point.
I'm not sure it does demonstrate your point. There is nothing wrong with using 'patterns in the data' (the big data approach) as a basis for a statistical model per say. The problem is with people not being careful when it comes to model validation (from a quick read, this is what the AMS article is saying).
In the Google paper the model is trained on data from 2003-2007 and then tested on data from 2007-2008. The problem with this, and one of the probable reasons why the Google trend model hasn't done so well of late, is that this isn't a particularly good way to validate a model. The test set is so small (42 data points) and biased (only 2007-2008) that the test set error is likely to be a poor estimate of the true model error.
-
Yes I use the term "fail" loosely in that the predictions made by the model didn't match what happened in reality (they over estimated by 50% the number of influenza cases in the winter of 2013 which I wouldn't really consider "a decent flu prediction model" no matter what its based on).
Well it depends how you measure these things I guess! Granted it performed poorly for 2013, but performed very well in previous years and, on average, performs well. I take your point though.
But this emphasises the problem with trying to mine "BIG DATA" for patterns and then using it to make predictions.
I just stumbled across this in my lunch hour.... Pseudo-Mathematics and Financial Charlatanism: The Effects of Backtest Overfitting on Out-of-Sample Performance (http://www.ams.org/notices/201405/rnoti-p458.pdf) in the American Mathematical Society's "Notice" journal which demonstrates the same point.
I'm not sure it does demonstrate your point. There is nothing wrong with using 'patterns in the data' (the big data approach) as a basis for a statistical model per say. The problem is with people not being careful when it comes to model validation (from a quick read, this is what the AMS article is saying).
In the Google paper the model is trained on data from 2003-2007 and then tested on data from 2007-2008. The problem with this, and one of the probable reasons why the Google trend model hasn't done so well of late, is that this isn't a particularly good way to validate a model. The test set is so small (42 data points) that the test set error is likely to be a poor estimate of the true model error.
Both are poorly validated and therefore make unreliable predictions. :shrug:
It wasn't just 50% over estimation by Google Flu Trends in winter 2012-13 either, they were off by a similar amount the previous year too.
I don't have a problem with using patterns in data as a basis of a statistical model, the size of the training data set just means the standard errors will be smaller. You can also do all sorts of other validation approaches such as k-fold cross validation or leave one out cross-validation. Models can be useful*, but you need to have something other than statistical correlation on which to base/design your model otherwise you end up drawing nonce sense conclusions from things like this...
(http://i1.wp.com/www.ithinkwell.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/correlation-does-not-imply-causation.png?resize=523%2C358)
I'm not really knocking "BIG DATA" in and of itself but it has the potential to be grossly misused if people jump on the bandwagon and dredge through large amounts of data hoping to find something "interesting". The "interesting" part should come first and the analysis should then follow, be correctly validated and not be used to extrapolate too far beyond the data range itself. Its just statistical analysis with more data than has traditionally been used in the past (which is why I don't like the buzz-pharse). This is in essence what the Science article (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6176/1203.full) I linked to previously is saying.
* ...essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful...
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/no-weed-won-t-rot-your-brain.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/no-weed-won-t-rot-your-brain.html)
-
P-values are not meaingless, they tell you the probability of obtaining the observed results if the null hypothesis is true.
I'm afraid they don't tell you this at all. A p-value tells you the probability of observing data at least as extreme (as judged by one's chosen test statistic) than what you did see if the null hypothesis were true. It's
P(T > t | H_0 ),
and definitely not
P(X = x | H_0).
The latter will always be 0 for continuous random variables. This is a really important difference and a common misconception.
-
While everyone is in the mood for stats and possibly (?) an example of correlation indicating causation...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615
Thoughts?
-
P-values are not meaingless, they tell you the probability of obtaining the observed results if the null hypothesis is true.
I'm afraid they don't tell you this at all. A p-value tells you the probability of observing data at least as extreme (as judged by one's chosen test statistic) than what you did see if the null hypothesis were true. It's
P(T > t | H_0 ),
and definitely not
P(X = x | H_0).
The latter will always be 0 for continuous random variables. This is a really important difference and a common misconception.
Thats for correcting my rushed post, I had a 13:00 meeting to get to.
Choropleth maps of health & risk in the UK (http://www.envhealthatlas.co.uk/homepage/)
-
Or not (http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/can-social-scientists-save-themselves-human-behavior-78858/)
Details the poor standards in some psychology/social science researchers/practitioners and journals that publish their work (not exclusive to those areas but one where it is rife).
-
Given the Academic excellence prevalent on this forum, do we not have a theoretical Physicist to make us all feel dumb?
If you're there, are you really going to let an Engineer (a mere Technician) and a Philosopher (dreamer) indulge in such speculation?
Come! Enlighten us poor fools!
What is the most likely avenue of research; that may lead to teleportation.
Given that humanity has been unable to sort out Traffic congestion or devise a computer which does not crash every five minutes or explain Women.
And starts wars because " my mythical, fictitious deity is bigger than your mythical, fictitious deity and he/she/it loves us all more than yours does and really I'm killing you for your own good"....
My Windows laptop hasn't slowed down or crashed in the 3.5 years I've had it.
-
My Windows laptop hasn't slowed down or crashed in the 3.5 years I've had it.
It's a Miracle!
He's the Messiah!
😆
-
And everyone knows that homeopathy is the discipline most likely to lead to teleportation. duh!
-
Spiegelhalter D (2014) The power of the MicroMort. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Volume 121, Issue 6, pages 662–663 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.12663/full) (open-access)
-
Making matter of the light...
O. J. Pike, F. Mackenroth, E. G. Hill, S. J. Rose (2014) A photon–photon collider in a vacuum hohlraum Nature Photonics:AOP (http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphoton.2014.95.html)
Imperial College Press Release (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44)
-
Cause and Effect in obesity (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html)
-
Cause and Effect in obesity (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-why.html)
interesting but, hmmm. This is a piece about an article in JAMA which discusses the hypothesis that sugars/simple carbs are the main cause of rising levels of obesity.
They get a bit unstuck, I think, when considering interventions/diets. The line "We wouldn’t discard a potentially lifesaving cancer treatment based on negative findings, if the research subjects didn’t take the drug as intended." is a real alarm bell ringer. The author knows perfectly well that analysis should be on 'intention to treat', ie on assigning someone to one or another of the diets being tested. Whether or not they stick to it is part of what's being tested. Indeed, part of their criticism of calorie controlled diets is that people don't stick to them. So the fact they're muddled (or deliberately muddle) these points makes me, I dunno, go hmmmm.
(I'd want to do a mars bars vs pies crossover trial myself and would volunteer for either arm. Be difficult to blind unless you could eat without noticiing. Something I am entirely capable of doing.)
-
. Be difficult to blind unless you could eat without noticiing. Something I am entirely capable of doing.
Blindfold, Clothes peg on nose, purée everything and rub Chilli on your tongue before eating...
-
"Sewage epidemiology" suggests recreational drug use is (unsuprisingly) higher than estimated (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140619-the-hidden-drugs-under-your-feet)
Original paper (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501709a) (paywalled)
-
Odds-Ratios are a catastrophe (https://nonparibus.wordpress.com/2014/07/04/odds-ratios-are-a-catastrophe/) :geek:
-
Odds-Ratios are a catastrophe (https://nonparibus.wordpress.com/2014/07/04/odds-ratios-are-a-catastrophe/) :geek:
No doubt compounded by...
Does your doctor understand risk? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28166019)
-
:)
My reading for those boring summer shifts...
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/blackest-is-the-new-black-scientists-have-developed-a-material-so-dark-that-you-cant-see-it-9602504.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/blackest-is-the-new-black-scientists-have-developed-a-material-so-dark-that-you-cant-see-it-9602504.html)
Very cool picture
(http://[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9603983.ece/alternates/w460/newblack.jpg]http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9603983.ece/alternates/w460/newblack.jpg[/url])
-
This is so cool. Using snow storms to visualise flow patterns from wind turbine blades.
http://www.safl.umn.edu/featured-story/super-large-scale-flow-visualization-natural-snow
Watch the vid clip...
-
And good news. Owen Paterson is no longer Environment Minister \o/. Bad news is we don't know who will be next... Shirley not another climate sceptic...
-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12104/abstract
This study investigates how obedience in a Milgram-like experiment is predicted by interindividual differences. Participants were 35 males and 31 females aged 26–54 from the general population who were contacted by phone 8 months after their participation in a study transposing Milgram's obedience paradigm to the context of a fake television game show. Interviews were presented as opinion polls with no stated ties to the earlier experiment. Personality was assessed by the Big Five Mini-Markers questionnaire (Saucier, 1994). Political orientation and social activism were also measured. Results confirmed hypotheses that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness would be associated with willingness to administer higher-intensity electric shocks to a victim. Political orientation and social activism were also related to obedience. Our results provide empirical evidence suggesting that individual differences in personality and political variables matter in the explanation of obedience to authority.
This one goes out to all the affable middle class clean spoken teachers who are too polite to strike, or to strike without individually informing the school, because they don't want to cause an inconvenience. SUCK MY DICK!
-
http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ (http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/) ;)
-
http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ (http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/) ;)
Haha brilliant, I was all ready to sigh loudly at that too
-
an excellent web-resource for all healthcare professionals
-
Indeed. Except that it's badly wrong.
No, don't sigh yet.
I know it's just a stunt, but I think it would be far more effective if they followed up the one line of 'information' with a simple caveat paragraph explaining the placebo effect and then a little more on the facts. This would be quite helpful in combating this particular form of faith, as well as others. As it is, they just have some small and obscure links.
-
But the website is about homeopathy not placebo. For a treatment to 'work' it would have to perform better than a placebo.
It's good to see if you type how homeopathy works that website also ranks above the British homeopathy website.
-
Indeed. Except that it's badly wrong.
No, don't sigh yet.
I know it's just a stunt, but I think it would be far more effective if they followed up the one line of 'information' with a simple caveat paragraph explaining the placebo effect and then a little more on the facts. This would be quite helpful in combating this particular form of faith, as well as others. As it is, they just have some small and obscure links.
That doesn't make it "wrong" though. It means its lacking information you think it could have provided to explain why homeopathy doesn't work.
It sounds as though you didn't actually click through and read the "small obscure links". The 10:23 campaign that is linked is quite comprehensive in its description of the problems associated with homeopathy. There isn't a huge amount of detail about the placebo effect itself, but it is mentioned along with a comprehensive Lancet review from 2005 (little point in linking to it since it will be pay-walled for most) but if after reading the information they do provide someone wants to know more they have a key word that they can put into one of them search engine things to find out more.
Most proponents and believers of anything, not just homeopathy, will ignore things that don't align with their beliefs anyway, so its mostly a small simple website that will amuse those who already know this and it is unlikely to change anyone's point of view, even if the full text of the Lancet review were made freely available.
-
Indeed. Except that it's badly wrong.
No, don't sigh yet.
I know it's just a stunt, but I think it would be far more effective if they followed up the one line of 'information' with a simple caveat paragraph explaining the placebo effect and then a little more on the facts. This would be quite helpful in combating this particular form of faith, as well as others. As it is, they just have some small and obscure links.
That doesn't make it "wrong" though. It means its lacking information you think it could have provided to explain why homeopathy doesn't work.
It sounds as though you didn't actually click through and read the "small obscure links". The 10:23 campaign that is linked is quite comprehensive in its description of the problems associated with homeopathy. There isn't a huge amount of detail about the placebo effect itself, but it is mentioned along with a comprehensive Lancet review from 2005 (little point in linking to it since it will be pay-walled for most) but if after reading the information they do provide someone wants to know more they have a key word that they can put into one of them search engine things to find out more.
Most proponents and believers of anything, not just homeopathy, will ignore things that don't align with their beliefs anyway, so its mostly a small simple website that will amuse those who already know this and it is unlikely to change anyone's point of view, even if the full text of the Lancet review were made freely available.
I have read through their website thoroughly, but the unconverted are unlikely to and I'm a little more positive than you as to the opportunity for effecting a conversion.
Conversion to rationality and away from obscure faiths is something which is effected by the constant drip, drip, drip of truth and rationality. It's a long road to Damascus and since divine intervention isn't on our side, the slowly and softly approach is more helpful and I think surprisingly worthwhile for most*.
n=1. A relative of mine is post-religious but not degree educated and still has a habit of falling for quackery. It often just takes an email with some links and a conversation and they are back in the light of the true way.
*As an aside to the scientifically minded, I think the issue here is that causation is complex and gradual. People fail to correlate the first, tenth or thousandth drop in the bucket with the bucket eventually overflowing. We frequently underestimate the effects of peer pressure and of information from apparently authoritative sources for instance.
-
We're agreed its not "wrong" then?
There are hundreds of thousands of examples where the scientific methods has been put to good use and benefited many.
Yet religion, homoeopathy and other faith-based things still persists. Why? For the very reasons you cite and reading shit on the web won't change that in any great hurry, since the information is already out there to debunk most things and if people were bothered they would go out and read it.
Personally I no longer care for 'converting' / 'enlightening' / 'educating' people about science or anything else (e.g. GNU/Linux). If they're interested I'm happy to talk, but I realised a while ago that ranting on and on about what I think is 'right' is as bad as any other preacher (I might fail at keeping my mouth shit sometimes, but I do make a conscious effort to reign myself in these days).
A Phd student here at work who's topic was comparing homoeopathy to the standard treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). At a University. The same University I graduated from. I'm ashamed.
-
I knew I was shit at climbing, but not that i was climbing on shit!
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00284-014-0643-3 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00284-014-0643-3)
-
Limestone is just old shit and skeletons too.
-
I knew I was shit at climbing, but not that i was climbing on shit!
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00284-014-0643-3 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00284-014-0643-3)
For those without access to the PDF...
Blah blah blah blah
Diagram Diagram
Blah blah blah blah
Conclusions
Our results indicate dispersal of microorganisms from
climbing shoes, hands, and environmental sources, with less
input from human sources on climbing holds compared to
other built environments. Because human-associated
microbial communities typically contain a higher abundance
of human pathogens and/or opportunistic pathogens
[32], one might infer that, due to the greater environmental
signature detected here, climbing holds potentially pose less
of a health risk compared to other indoor environments. In
summary, all twelve holds examined contained evidence of
microorganisms associated with fecal material. Sequences
associated with fecal microorganisms represented roughly
9 % of all sequences, including as many as 43 % of the
sequences associated with a single climbing hold. While this
does not necessarily represent a significant risk, climbers
should take precautions, for example, by washing their
hands both before and after climbing.
-
For anyone with an interest in Volcanism, Iceland etc... great site here with 3d interactive maps of the recent earthquake activity..
http://baering.github.io/ (http://baering.github.io/)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyHcs7B27Zk#t=353 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyHcs7B27Zk#t=353)
Why rocks move!
-
Why all those 'diet' and low calorie sweetener based products may help you get diabetes...
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/17/artificial-sweeteners-diabetes-saccharin-blood-sugar
-
This years igNoble awards are out...
http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/ (http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/)
Personal faves are why dogs align themselves N-S when defecating... and "Seeing Jesus in Toast: Neural and Behavioral Correlates of Face Pareidolia"
-
One from last year's igNobles (which I read today) about dung beetles with hats, indoors and outdoors.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212015072 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212015072)
This has to be the cutest journal article I have ever read.
-
Interesting, but I've seen them out all hours of the day and night.
-
http://media.ntu.edu.sg/NewsReleases/Pages/newsdetail.aspx?news=809fbb2f-95f0-4995-b5c0-10ae4c50c934
😳😄
-
This years igNoble awards are out...
http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/ (http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/)
Personal faves are why dogs align themselves N-S when defecating... and "Seeing Jesus in Toast: Neural and Behavioral Correlates of Face Pareidolia"
All brilliant thanks for sharing :-)
-
This is superb:
NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04#ws)
-
Are scientific standards slipping?
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf (http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/remove.pdf)
-
This:
http://interestingengineering.com/phd-student-cheap-flawless-graphene/
Might just be quite big.
-
Especially if combined with this...
Graphene boosts solar power efficiency (http://actu.epfl.ch/news/graphene-multiplies-the-power-of-light/) by upto 60% (http://wccftech.com/graphene-wonder-material-breakthrough-enables-doubling-solar-panel-efficiency/)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B817tz8IcAArBh-.png:large) (https://medium.com/the-nib/should-you-vaccinate-your-child-7810fd781903)
-
I recall after our son's scond round of MMR+ is said to the doctor with a serious voice 'I do hope that was a homeopathic vaccine' and her face was an absolutely picture of disbelief and suprpessed rage for a moment until I said 'sorry that was a joke'. I really should grow up.
-
I'm still getting news letters on the Cancer treatment topic and this nugget cropped up today.
It looks significant.
We tried immuno based treatments and there was a significant delay to tumour progression; but the effect was short lived.
Not sure that this will prolong that effect or simply increase the initial hit.
Still, encouraging.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209094824.htm
-
Chimps hunt with spears!!!
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/4/140507
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/innovative-female-chimps-may-have-pioneered-tool-use-hunting
-
Chimps hunt with spears!!!
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/4/140507
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/innovative-female-chimps-may-have-pioneered-tool-use-hunting
Honestly, having watched the latest series of "The Island"; I am fully converted to the position that several other Primate species are deserving of full "Human" rights.
Much more so, than most of those supposed Humans (probably, very carefully selected as complete Muppets) Mr Grylls has marooned...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
A very positive move from the WHO.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/who-statement-on-reporting-clinical-trials/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
A very positive move from the WHO.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/who-statement-on-reporting-clinical-trials/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Original statement...
http://www.who.int/ictrp/results/reporting/en/
PLoS Medicine paper explaining the rationale at...
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001819
...and a suggestion from a certain doctor who likes the media limelight as to how this might be achieved at....
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001821
Sent from my computer using a web-broser
-
More technology, but is this a future component to energy consumption...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k
http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall
An alternative point of view (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/05/01/why-teslas-powerwall-is-just-another-toy-for-rich-green-people/) (in part based on gas based electricity being cheaper, and in a sense he's right it is out of price range for many) .
-
On Lifestyle Climbers : An Examination of Rock Climbing Dedication, Community and Travel (https://www.academia.edu/7361819/On_Lifestyle_Climbers_An_Examination_of_Rock_Climbing_Dedication_Community_and_Travel)
Someones PhD thesis. I've not read it and am unlikely to, but figured someone else might be interested.
-
Psssst! Got any 'shrooms?
Mushroom used in Chinese medicine 'slows weight gain'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33237991
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Not new technology, and hard the most stunning you'll ever see, but pretty cool nontheless!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zTCgMPZRuo
-
Sent from my computer using a web-broser
With spell-check deactivated... ;)
-
https://youtu.be/t5JgnMJzCtQ
-
Anyone know a good source of science reporting that would discuss the antibacterial resistance in an intelligent and balanced way.
The BBC is pitching it as the apocalypse: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34857015 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34857015)
-
Anyone know a good source of science reporting that would discuss the antibacterial resistance in an intelligent and balanced way.
The BBC is pitching it as the apocalypse: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34857015 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34857015)
Bookmark the following...
ScienceMediaCentre.org (http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/)
...for expert commentary on news items. Current head of General Medical Council (I think) has quite a bee in her bonnet about antibacterial resistance. Coincidentally I sat in on a Data Monitoring and Ethics Commitee meeting for a clinical trial testing new antibacterial drugs for Chalmydia the other day.
There is also...
TheConversation.com (http://theconversation.com/uk)
-
oof
http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/december/diet-and-environment.html
-
I suggest we eat the really fat people
-
Have you noticed all the TV ads for bingo (or web based bingo shizz) have fat people playing/gambling....
I suggest we eat the really fat people
-
yeah, but is it science
social science is dodgy enough, but "youth studies"?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13676261.2015.1020925?tokenDomain=eprints&tokenAccess=kZqDud4792xPwZWPq8Fv&forwardService=showFullText&doi=10.1080%2F13676261.2015.1020925&journalCode=cjys20
-
Is 'fat' to be defined in absolute terms or relative to the observer?
-
Is 'fat' to be defined in absolute terms or relative to the observer?
Possibly relative to appetite during meal selection?
You could call it the Dahmer scale...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Limited in scope but interesting, be good to see if the finding holds true in a broader subject and more forums assessed*...
Cole J, Watkins C, Kleine D Health Advice from Internet Discussion Forums: How Bad Is Dangerous? J Med Internet Res 2016;18(1):e4 (http://www.jmir.org/2016/1/e4/)
* Many findings from small studies don't replicate in larger studies.
-
Well. Fuck me.
http://m.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523
Turns out hamlet was right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Cloudy with a Chance of Pain (http://www.cloudywithachanceofpain.com/)
-
The drugs don't work (http://www.nature.com/news/personalized-medicine-time-for-one-person-trials-1.17411)
(http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.25660.1429983862!/image/Clin2.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/Clin2.jpg)
-
Google AI algorithm has, without a handicap, beaten a professional Go player (http://www.nature.com/news/google-ai-algorithm-masters-ancient-game-of-go-1.19234?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20160128&spMailingID=50563385&spUserID=MTgyMjI3MTU3MTgzS0&spJobID=843636789&spReportId=ODQzNjM2Nzg5S0) :geek: 8)
-
The drugs don't work (http://www.nature.com/news/personalized-medicine-time-for-one-person-trials-1.17411)
(http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.25660.1429983862!/image/Clin2.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/Clin2.jpg)
Hmmm, I've got a Seratide Inhaler for asthma.
-
Constrained Total Energy Expenditure and Metabolic Adaptation to Physical Activity in Adult Humans (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822%2815%2901577-8.pdf)
-
Activity intensity was inversely related to total energy expenditure
:shrug:
-
If you ever need a copy of a paywalled scientific paper (http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science)
-
If you ever need a copy of a paywalled scientific paper (http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science)
I remember a time when you told me off for suggesting that someone without access to a paper could ask someone with access to get it for them.
-
Perhaps, although I doubt I will have outright remonstrated the activity since I have thought for a long time that academic publishing needs overhauling and in particular all publicly funded research should be open access. More likely I will have said that people can get into trouble for doing so and its easier to detect when requests are posted on public forums so its best not posting about it.
The #Icanhazpdf approach avoids that since the interaction is very quickly taken out of public view, but still requires individual input, this takes out the need for human assistance as its automated, plus now its on the Tor network it makes tracking who's using it that bit harder.
And I'm not saying anyone has to use it, just conveying information of its existence. The decision then falls to the individual.
-
Gravitational waves. Sounds like this is a hugely significant discovery, with practical application in our ability to observe and understand the universe.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-announcement-on-gravitational-waves/ (http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-announcement-on-gravitational-waves/)
-
A woman newsreader this morning who has quite obviously no talent reading the news with her only attribute being to appeal to a middle aged male audience actually said with a straight face, allowing for surgery etc, that "this news could confirm that Einstein was a genius".
I had to be told to stop staring at the tv.
-
Scientists are cynical. Can you blame them? (http://www.statnews.com/2016/02/26/scientists-cynical/)
Reporting on...
How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/2/e008681.full)
-
I suggest we eat the really fat people
Ketogenic dieters may approve..
-
Anyone else going?:
http://www.scienceweeksy.org.uk/event/164
(Link courtesy of Simon Nadin. Thanks Simon :) )
First Direct Detection of Gravitational Waves with LIGO
Talk by Ed Daw, Reader in Physics, Sheffield Gravitational Wave Research Group, The University Of Sheffield
Date: Wednesday 9 March 2016
Time: 5:00pm-6:00pm
Venue: The Diamond Building, University of Sheffield, Leavygreave Road, Sheffield, S3 7RD. (Lecture Theatre 1)
...
Exactly 100 years ago, Albert Einstein predicted that waves in the fabric of spacetime propagate across the Universe at the speed of light. The LIGO experiment uses the world's largest and most sensitive laser interferometers to attempt direct detection of these oscillations, which have tiny amplitudes, less than 1/1000 the diameter of a proton!
smaller than the holds on the crux of Mutation! :o
-
First Direct Detection of Gravitational Waves with LIGO
Didn't know they used a construction toy?
-
First Direct Detection of Gravitational Waves with LIGO
Didn't know they used a construction toy?
Sod quarks, leptons etc, the classic 1 by 2 is the true building block of the universe.
-
Scientists are cynical. Can you blame them? (http://www.statnews.com/2016/02/26/scientists-cynical/)
Reporting on...
How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/2/e008681.full)
God (doesn't exist) that makes depressing reading. And sounds just like what a prof friend was saying last year about the competitiveness and publication bias. Glad I can just explore my uninformed layman's opinions and follow my curiosity without any worries of appearing correct!
-
Scientists are cynical. Can you blame them? (http://www.statnews.com/2016/02/26/scientists-cynical/)
Reporting on...
How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/2/e008681.full)
God (doesn't exist) that makes depressing reading. And sounds just like what a prof friend was saying last year about the competitiveness and publication bias. Glad I can just explore my uninformed layman's opinions and follow my curiosity without any worries of appearing correct!
Apart from Dense...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
God (doesn't exist) that makes depressing reading. And sounds just like what a prof friend was saying last year about the competitiveness and publication bias.
Depressing work environment too and I don't apply for grants for my own research (just help others put some statistics to make their often flacid ideas sound robust).
Since moving into medical statistics five and a half years ago I've become increasingly disillusioned with the application of the scientific method, far too many egos involved. Hoping the position I recently applied for helping with statistics of more fundamental research across a wider range of subjects might see fruition.
-
Anyone else going?:
http://www.scienceweeksy.org.uk/event/164
(Link courtesy of Simon Nadin. Thanks Simon :) )
First Direct Detection of Gravitational Waves with LIGO
Talk by Ed Daw, Reader in Physics, Sheffield Gravitational Wave Research Group, The University Of Sheffield
Date: Wednesday 9 March 2016
Time: 5:00pm-6:00pm
Venue: The Diamond Building, University of Sheffield, Leavygreave Road, Sheffield, S3 7RD. (Lecture Theatre 1)
...
Exactly 100 years ago, Albert Einstein predicted that waves in the fabric of spacetime propagate across the Universe at the speed of light. The LIGO experiment uses the world's largest and most sensitive laser interferometers to attempt direct detection of these oscillations, which have tiny amplitudes, less than 1/1000 the diameter of a proton!
smaller than the holds on the crux of Mutation! :o
This will be well worth going to - it is a repeat of a talk given on the 16th of Feb shortly after the LIGO announcement, which was so packed that there wasn't even standing room. He's a very engaging speaker and you don't need a PhD in astrophysics to understand what he's on about.
-
:punk:
Anyone else going?:
Am now. Cheers for the heads up.
-
Spotted him walking past the building I work in the other day whilst stood outside waiting for the Fire Alarm to be turned off on Monday, but how was Dr Daw's lecture DT90 and Obi?
Came across this earlier...
Teaching kids philosophy makes them smarter in maths and english (http://qz.com/635002/teaching-kids-philosophy-makes-them-smarter-in-math-and-english/)
Less interested in the result (replication etc etc.) but I think its good to see such studies conducted in the first place as I'm unaware of much scientific (i.e. employing randomisation, attempting to control for other sources of variation) research conducted in education. I'm sure there is already a lot of theory and studies out there, I'm just not aware of it (also came across this article (http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-two-minutes/) recently purportedly debunking the 'learning styles myth').
If only the idiots in power paid attention to evidence/data/analysis rather than spouting sound bytes so they appear to be doing 'something', which in this context is usually putting teachers under more pressure to test, test, test rather than spend time teaching. :(
-
If only the idiots in power paid attention to evidence/data/analysis rather than spouting sound bytes so they appear to be doing 'something', which in this context is usually putting teachers under more pressure to test, test, test rather than spend time teaching. :(
Did you realise you had answered your own question, before even posing it?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Science is hard — really fucking hard (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/#part1)
And related a non-academic piece on work by Ionnadis...
An unhealthy obsession with p-values is ruining science (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11225162/p-value-simple-definition-hacking)
P-values are not used today in the manner in which R.A. Fisher proposed they be used.
-
Spotted him walking past the building I work in the other day whilst stood outside waiting for the Fire Alarm to be turned off on Monday, but how was Dr Daw's lecture DT90 and Obi?
Sorry for the delay.
Great opportunity, and a real privilege that stuff like that is opened up so readily, to the curious public.
I was a bit disappointed that there wasn't more discussion about the implications of the observations, what this might mean for further research in that context.
Most of the lecture concentrated on the technology behind LIGO - noise reduction etc; all very geeky, but the principle is very simple.
I'm less interested in that, more the background theory, but it's all pretty amazing really, particularly the level of collaboration required, and investment over time.
I also think that a huge amount of courage is required, to keep the faith that such immense investment of time and money will one day bear fruit.
It'll go ... one day!
So, a big thank you to the folk at Sheffield Uni. Who's this Stuart Littlefair chap by the way? Seems to have had something to do with it.
-
Great opportunity, and a real privilege that stuff like that is opened up so readily, to the curious public.
You may be interested in Sheffield Cafe Scientific (http://www.sciencecafesheffield.org/)
The University of Sheffield also list their Public Lectures (https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/whatson/lecturesandseminars) as does Hallam University (https://www.shu.ac.uk/events/corporate-events/forthcoming.html) (inaugral lecture from a Professor of Sports Psychology next week).
-
Not that politicians ever listened to evidence based research anyway but this sounds pretty bad....
Unless government officials make a major U-turn in the next few days, many British scientists will soon be blocked from speaking out on key issues affecting the UK – from climate change to embryo research and from animal experiments to flood defences. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/17/britains-scientists-must-not-be-gagged)
-
Not that politicians ever listened to evidence based research anyway but this sounds pretty bad....
Unless government officials make a major U-turn in the next few days, many British scientists will soon be blocked from speaking out on key issues affecting the UK – from climate change to embryo research and from animal experiments to flood defences. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/17/britains-scientists-must-not-be-gagged)
This is to be reviewed (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122957?reveal_response=yes)...
Government responded
It is not the Government’s intention for the Research Councils, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) or the National Academies to be covered by the new clause on government grants.
The new clause on government grants announced on 6 February is about ensuring taxpayers’ money is properly spent on what was intended in grant agreements and not unintentionally diverted from good causes to fund political campaigning and lobbying.
The Cabinet Office has provided an update on the new clause in government grants pausing implementation, pending a review of the representations made. The Government will take a decision on the form and wording of the whole clause following this review.
Our world-class research base is a source of great pride and an engine of growth for this country. It is not the Government’s intention for the seven Research Councils (1), the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) or the National Academies to be covered by the clause.
This, along with the protection of the science budget, further demonstrates the Government’s commitment to sustaining a world-class research base and evidence-based policy making.
A link to the Cabinet Office update can be found here
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-a-new-clause-to-be-inserted-into-grant-agreements
(1) The seven Research Councils include: Arts and Humanities (AHRC), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences (BBSRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences (EPSRC), Economic and Social Research (ESRC), Medical Research (MRC), Natural Environment (NERC), and Science and Technology Facilities (STFC).
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
You'll need a VPN in the US to view this but its quite amusing whilst making serious points
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw
If this sort of thing floats your boat these are worth reading too (not too technical)....
Failure is moving Science forward (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/failure-is-moving-science-forward/?ex_cid=538fb)
Science isn't broken : its just really hard (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/)
-
A bit last minute but The Pint of Science talks sound interesting
https://pintofscience.co.uk/events/sheffield (https://pintofscience.co.uk/events/sheffield)
In most other big cities too
-
On a similar club, most big cities have a comedy club night called Bright Club where academics discuss their research in an amusing manner. A fun, informal way to learn about SCIENCE.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_Club
-
possibly posted somewhere else?
the old BMI for comp climbers discussion
(OK it's more stats than SCIENCE - they didn't do any experiments to get new data)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkus5lkP1ig
-
http://www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1556/2006.5.2016.039 (ftp://www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1556/2006.5.2016.039)
spoiler alert !:
Conclusions
Rock climbing athletes appear to experience withdrawal symptoms when abstinent from their sport comparable to individuals with substance and behavioral addictions.
-
Good thing I'm not an athlete :D
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
-
Best not stop then.
I shall send this to Mrs OMM and get the GP to write me a note for work...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/land-gravity-forgot
Obvious place to go climbing..
-
The Strange Brain of the World’s Greatest Solo Climber (http://nautil.us/issue/39/sport/the-strange-brain-of-the-worlds-greatest-solo-climber)
-
The Strange Brain of the World’s Greatest Solo Climber (http://nautil.us/issue/39/sport/the-strange-brain-of-the-worlds-greatest-solo-climber)
Thanks for posting the link Slackers.
Interesting, in a way, but I'd say there is a misunderstanding of the fear response in those who solo frequently. I doubt it has much to do with the threat of hitting the ground at all. The threat is indeed "the abyss", that the wall becomes the ultimate sanctuary from. I believe the perception of the threat of the abyss is something that we may have learned at a formative stage, through some sort of deprivation, perceived threat of abandonment or catastrophic loss of attachment. In that context, the extreme psychological threat is not part of the weighing up process in the usual way, and there's a hyper-polarized emphasis on the psychological reward of avoiding the loss of attachment.
Problems occur when you understand that there's a floor to hit too. I'm not saying that the risk of hitting the ground isn't a factor, just that it's overridden by higher psychological stakes.
That's a very simplified account of what I think I've come to believe is at work anyway.
-
Not a problem, not a great example of SCIENCE!!! due to the case-study nature, but there isn't a huge population to draw samples from. Figured others might find it interesting though.
Forgot to post this to go with it...
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates (http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.abstract)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
-
I'm the most sober person here! (http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3469-z) :beer2:
-
I'm the most sober person here! (http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3469-z) :beer2:
Or alternatively, "I'm the best climber in the world" would be the obvious similar scenario. "King of the Crag" syndrome. ;)
-
(http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/1-71TzKnr7bzXU_l_pU6DCNA.jpeg)
-
How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network (http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2680)
-
That confirms exactly what I previously thought. :yes:
-
Must be down to its rising Altmetric score as its not been published long enough to have been sufficiently cited and distort its own, unfounded, authority on the matter.
-
Physicists detect exotic looped trajectories of light in three-slit experiment (http://phys.org/news/2017-01-physicists-exotic-looped-trajectories-three-slit.html)
-
M. DelVicario et al/ (2017) The spreading of misinformation online. PNAS 113(3):554-559 (http://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.full)
-
Possibly of interest to some.
Having been "skeptical" about the utility of chalk in bouldering for some time, last term I proposed an undergrad project last term to extend the work in http://gblanc.fr/IMG/pdf/li2001.pdf
Time pressure sadly meant that no "extending" got done but the students managed to repeat the chalk vs no chalk portion of the experiment, in this case using the max load that the test subject could hold.
Only eight subjects were tested but for all eight the coefficient of friction was lower with chalk.
"The average coefficient of friction without chalk was 0.62 +- 0.07 and with chalk was 0.54+-0.06"
-
Erm ... the first thing that struck me looking at that paper is that the apparatus shown bears no resemblance to anything one would actually do whilst climbing.
Surely one of the first things people learned trying to apply SCIENCE to rock climbing performance was that the tests and the apparatus have to be climbing specific. Exhibit A: handgrip dynanometers, irrelevance of.
Chalk use has been pretty much universal in high standard climbing for forty years, including a quarter of a century of world level professional competition, and a lot longer than that in weight lifting and gymnastics. I suggest that Occam's Razor fairly quickly disposes of "it's all been placebo all along" in favour of "ok, we haven't understood the mechanism by which it helps yet but this study at least helps us to discard one hypothesis".
-
You raise 3 points there.
1) Specificity
If you can suggest an improved protocol ( assuming that there is such a thing as an English University next year and even more unlikely, that I still work at one) I'm happy to put that forward. However I fail to understand the problem here? ok the rock is being pulled away from the climber rather than vice-versa, for safety reasons, but otherwise it looks pretty relevant to me.
2) "We haven't understood the mechanism"
Climbing grip is a complex subject and friction probably plays only a small part. For example, I assume on incuts it's pretty irrelevant and even on typical slopers conformance (skin digging into rugosities) is probably more important. However friction is what chalk is generally believed to affect so that was investigated. Even then there is much this study didn't answer. I was hoping they'd look at the effect of humidity, temps and over a range of forces. However time pressure didn't permit this. So yes there's a lot of work to do but the generally accepted argument is that chalk improves friction. If you have a hundred Grand or so to spare let me know & I'll get a Phd student to investigate the other aspects.
3) "high standard climbing"
Where objective evidence & what "everybody knows" conflict I tend to go with the former. I'd be in a strange job if I didn't.
-
1) Specificity
If you can suggest an improved protocol ( assuming that there is such a thing as an English University next year and even more unlikely, that I still work at one) I'm happy to put that forward. However I fail to understand the problem here? ok the rock is being pulled away from the climber rather than vice-versa, for safety reasons, but otherwise it looks pretty relevant to me.
I can't remember the last time I tried to support my weight with my hand & forearm arm pressed flat against a piece of rock (with my wrist strapped to it). Also, when route climbing - maybe to a lesser degree when bouldering - you have both sustained effort and mental state changing your metabolic state & causing fingertips to be sweaty. And sweat is a lot more slippery than water. Don't see any of that being simulated / attempted to be accounted for here.
Get the climbers sweaty then hang 'em from slopers, maybe?
Where objective evidence & what "everybody knows" conflict I tend to go with the former. I'd be in a strange job if I didn't.
You have no objective evidence that chalk doesn't help in a realistic climbing situation because you haven't tested one.
Your implied hypothesis is that *everybody* in a competitive environment over a period of decades has been doing something that is measurably harmful to performance, yet nobody has tried not doing it and found that they thereby perform better. Not to mention also saving [... weighs chalkbag ...] 200 grammes in the weight obsessed world of competitive lead climbing. I'm not buying it.
-
The hypothesis that is genertally accepted is that chalk imroves friction. These results along with the paper I linked suggest that, at least in the range of temps, humidity and force measured that it does the opposite.
Possibly it has other effects. Maybe drying out the cells of the skin makes it more rigid and makes the skin mold to rugosities better. Who knows?
However I posted this in case anyone found it of interest. I can't be bothered discussing Climate Change with a Trump any futher.
-
"The average coefficient of friction without chalk was 0.62 +- 0.07 and with chalk was 0.54+-0.06"
Interesting study!
Not trying to diss, but with uncertainties included, those results heavily overlap. I'm also unsure as to whether such a setup would be particularly relevant to friction in climbing. Rock isn't uniform, and a lot of friction comes from "molding" to holds - all at very particular angles and forces (as mentioned earlier by others).
-
The hypothesis that is genertally accepted is that chalk imroves friction. These results along with the paper I linked suggest that, at least in the range of temps, humidity and force measured that it does the opposite
Experientially, chalk provides an experience of greater friction. How it does so is another matter. By suppressing sweat on fingertips, I imagine.
(PS 'skeptical' is an American spelling. If you are English, it's 'sceptical')
-
Nice post and study Ian.
(hopefully in your support!) the problem designing an experiment to look at this is that if you want to make it 'realistic' then there are many many additional variables to consider (lets say, finger shape, skin condition, moisture, sweating, temperature, humidity, the match between the hold and the fingers, how chalk was applied, how much chalk was applied, what type of chalk was used etc.. etc.. etc..) that you have to accept a compromise - so folk say it is unrealistic. Or make the experiment so so so simple people will then not consider it realistic. A catch 22..
-
I only skimmed the paper over the course of 2 min but... doesn't your study say that wet rock has almost exactly the same friction as dry rock? Given that that result clearly has absolutely no correlation with the realities of rock climbing I think it's safe to assume that the study is irrelevant from a rock climbing point of view.
-
Careful. He'll sulk and call you a Creationist or something similarly bizarre. :lol: :'(
-
My undergraduate project (a couple of years ago now) was an attempt to do a study like this in a climbing specific way. I threw together a sloper bar (flat wooden 2X4 effectively) floating on some load cells, made the angle adjustable to cater for different strengths and got people to hang near-maximum and slowly let off the effort until they suddenly slipped (so assuming some relatively constant actual friction coefficient, all that happens to hold a worse angled sloper is that the fingertips pull down more to maintain the same force angle against the hold. An experienced climber should then have enough control to gradually let off the force until the force angle gets too bad, friction goes and you slip off). It was of course pretty limited, very much a first attempt-type thing so not tons of data, not a bulletproof setup by any means, but the results I had did show that chalk is effective, at least for a ~5s hang on a wood bar in both sweaty and dry conditions.
The point really was to experiment with making a climbing specific version of this sort of experiment, rather than the imo non-climbing-specific ones that had previously been done, and in that respect I think it worked. Not a lot of time at the moment but can dig up some stuff if anyone's interested
-
I abviously need to clarify a few points.
The study I linked above http://gblanc.fr/IMG/pdf/li2001.pdf isn't mine it's from 2001.
My students were asked to look at that paper and this one http://gblanc.fr/IMG/pdf/li2001.pdf
and try ro design equipment to cast light on the discrepancy in results. In particular to look at the effects of load as the 2 experiments were done in very different regimes. In the 2001 paper the tangential load is, presumably, a few Kg whereas for the fingerboard it must be a significant fraction of bodyweight.
The experiment they came up with, however was very similiar to the 2001 Birmingham paper , differering mainly in having a variable tangential load setup. They didn't have time to take many results, sadly, and didn't repeat the dry/wet test in the 2001 paper either. I have posted the results that they did manage to obtain which are consistent with those found by the 2001 paper.
-
Here's the SCIENCE behind 'sticky damp'. Maybe.
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/42900/2/Lewis_42900.pdf
-
Interesting! Thanks for posting.
-
The hypothesis that is generally accepted is that chalk improves friction.
Really? :shrug:
I thought most felt chalk made no difference or was detrimental to friction with dry skin? I certainly noticed (back when I could hang the 45s on beastmaker) that a bit of spit to moisten the skin/clean of chalk with either no chalk, or the lightest dusting of chalk to dry any overly damp bits worked best. More chalk was certainly worse.
I think it's more than just sweat that's the problem - our skin produces oils too.
-
The hypothesis that is generally accepted is that chalk improves friction.
Really? :shrug:
I thought most felt chalk made no difference or was detrimental to friction with dry skin? I certainly noticed (back when I could hang the 45s on beastmaker) that a bit of spit to moisten the skin/clean of chalk with either no chalk, or the lightest dusting of chalk to dry any overly damp bits worked best. More chalk was certainly worse.
I think it's more than just sweat that's the problem - our skin produces oils too.
Absolutely. I wash my hands and use a damp rag when fingerboarding or climbing on wood.
But not on plastic or rock. Pretty sure the chalk helps there.
All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
-
I think it's more than just sweat that's the problem - our skin produces oils too.
No attempt was made to prevent the subjects sweating during our experiments.
Whatever components are normally present in sweat were therefore present during our tests.
For the effects of preventing sweat chemically see:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/PL00005666?no-access=true
Somebody above mentioned the effects of fear on sweat rates ( and possibly on it's composition) and we haven't investigated this - my employer frowns on dangling test subjects (even students) over large drops.
However if it's the case that there is some component in "fear" sweat that can only be addressed using chalk and further assuming , as was argued earlier, that elite climbers fingers can accurately didtinguish frictional effects from all the other components of climbing performance then wouldn't we expect to see chalk used only on the upper section of highballs and not on lowballs, sit-starts and traverses.
-
Are they out there?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.01109
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm going to bet without clicking on that link that it's an Avi Loeb paper. If I'm right you owe me one million dollars
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Click.... and sigh. Always aliens with that guy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Click.... and sigh. Always aliens with that guy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
C'mon! It'd be sooo cool though! I might never grow up on the alien front.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Want a paper on aliens? Now this is more like it!
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10432
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
[emoji6]Obviously, this is Academia shilling for the Deep Government; to promote the "No conspiracy" conspiracy... [emoji13]
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905&type=printable
-
Not often I read things that pop into my work (science-ish) twitter feed... but this caught my eye...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/03/28/paleoburrows-south-america/#.WO0yWVJcvun.twitter
Tunnels dug by South American mega fauna
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/files/2017/03/paleoburrow1.jpg)
-
Read that a couple of weeks ago, talk about a trace fossil!
So big, it would never have been spotted, had it truly fossilised. Make me wonder what we've missed?
-
Read that a couple of weeks ago, talk about a trace fossil!
So big, it would never have been spotted, had it truly fossilised. Make me wonder what we've missed?
Aylyuns... undurgh the beds..
-
Read that a couple of weeks ago, talk about a trace fossil!
So big, it would never have been spotted, had it truly fossilised. Make me wonder what we've missed?
Aylyuns... undurgh the beds..
Nah, they're obvious.
They left Pyramids everywhere...
-
Read that a couple of weeks ago, talk about a trace fossil!
So big, it would never have been spotted, had it truly fossilised. Make me wonder what we've missed?
Aylyuns... undurgh the beds..
Nah, they're obvious.
They left Pyramids everywhere...
Tut Tut.
-
Nano particles as Antibiotic agents. Sounds promising and seems unlikely to become obsolete through evolving resistance.
Very Sci-Fy, love it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol2016162
-
Stu! Stu!
It’s aliens again Stu!
How come you keep pointing your telescope the wrong way?
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-harvard-study-suggests-weird-interstellar-object-oumuamua-could-be-an-alien-solar-sail (https://www.sciencealert.com/new-harvard-study-suggests-weird-interstellar-object-oumuamua-could-be-an-alien-solar-sail)
-
Actually, I observed oumuamua when it drifted by. Wierd thing that.
Probably is aliens this time.
-
:bounce:
Yea!!
:punk:
Of course, it’s probably an invasion fleet, or the Vogon demolition crew.
Anyone got a towel I can borrow?
-
I really love the article. May use it in teaching. It’s a great example of how ideas / theories are formed, evolve and are maybe disproved.
I also love the way it reflects that we really know very little about many many things!!
-
So intriguing and exciting.
-
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/10/29/on-oumuamua-thin-films-and-lightsails/ (https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/10/29/on-oumuamua-thin-films-and-lightsails/)
-
After On podcast (https://after-on.com/episodes-31-60/040) put out earlier today interviewing the Harvard astrologer, Avi Loeb who wrote that paper on ‘Oumuamua. Not much new information if you've read a bit about it but topic remains exciting and nice to hear a conversation about it with the man himself.
-
Having one's claims disputed in climbing may be one thing (I'd personally always prefer to take inspiration from the myth though), but imagine the travails of those facing bitter rivals in science and medicine..
Like Luc Montagnier and the late Jaques Benveniste:
A fantastic film on the way that electromagnetic signals from DNA are stored in water, and it's possible implications and applications:
https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_814619?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJSZ4mg__ozh_jt5c5XAfWF8JqrLKMfu8uacjdRB8fxYm3__CI5qWNCEmL7_K2RYPubr1EguMuC0CpggZRX8NLP0PWRMYJ-U0cNU7ncFLW4W1hVh_kXxrjmvfyGUhQk1DX7-P9p8EHGze_G6-ARtnVf561BZ6fyfk0v83E8nEeGv
https://www.q-mag.org/jacques-benveniste-and-the-memory-of-water.html
-
http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/
-
You'll note that my post wasn't about whether or not homeopathy works.
Thanks for your informative post.
-
But it was about a widely debunked experiment, with irreproducible results, often used to attempt to give some scientific credence to homeopathy.
Unlike climbing claims, experiments can be tried by others (or by the same people with witnesses when they are rerun) and if similar results aren’t reached then the original results can be judged incorrect.
-
A widely questioned experimental process, but that itself is clearly challenged, and open to speculation. Rather than addressing the arguments, you are really just siding with a particular group with the intending of discrediting - which I find very boring.
The new work on "water memory" sounds really exciting. Is that all hocum too? Is Montagnier a fraud?
What you've not understood is the relevance of this to climbing.
In the future, there will be no "holds" in the classical sense, on the hardest boulders; they will exist as statistical phenomena. The kinetic matrix of top end problems will be embedded in mobile phone signals, which you'll literally be able to telephone (phone placed next to a glass of water).
If, after drinking the water you don't hold marginal areas, you'll be able to blame it on "low signal" days.
This is going to happen; I was having a chat with Johnny about it earlier.
-
I’m siding with the Scientific Method, of which criticism is the backbone. This is the SCIENCE thread, not the nice stories about stuff that didn’t happen thread.
-
Indeed. It’s not a thread about CONTROVERSY!!!!!!!!!
Which is what keeps fake news/ conspiracy outlets going...
-
When I did undergraduate philosophy of science in the late 90s, Jacques Benveniste and the memory of water “experiments” were the main case study re scientific fraud and the breaking of the Mertonian norms. Incidentally, one of those norms - organised scepticism - clearly has some relevance in climbing, particularly when applied to Skye-based boulderers and Cambridge boxers going on soloing holidays in the Dolomites...
-
I've posted the video and links because of the new research, and not the "controversy" surrounding previous stories.
Those posting to cite previous attacks, scepticism, challenges, "debunking" etc of previous experiments, aren't adding anything to the questions raised by new research.
That's something which I do find interesting, and think that others may too.
I also think that people may hold up "The Scientific Method" as some form of absolute and infallible process, a certain reference point. It isn't. More to the point, it's often held up as something more akin to religious dogma, to protect the established "Churches" of science, than to facilitate further enquiry and allow the sort of challenges to our complacent beliefs, that we should welcome.
Also, the debate about previous experiments was far from one sided.
I find it exciting when new questions are raised by research into old problems.
I'd suggest that if there is anything which is appropriate for the "Science" thread, then it's discursive argument rather than polarised posturing.
I think there are very few things which we can claim to know with sufficient certainty to proclaim "case closed".
What is true and what isn't true, what has happened and what hasn't happened, is something which is hopefully always open to debate.
Referencing climbing, the move to label different characters as "Heros" and "Villains", in my view does little more than to serve personal prejudice and conceit, than it does to illuminate some of the more human aspects of the motivation to climb, which is relevant to all of us.
-
I think there are very few things which we can claim to know with sufficient certainty to proclaim "case closed".
Well yes, this is the very basis of science compared to religion, that everything is a ‘best working theory’ rather than a set of beliefs.
-
Problem is Dave - anyone can make up experiments and findings and make videos and post blogs about it. They can then appear to legitimise their research by referencing their own research (often self published) generating over time a body of apparent work supporting their theory/work.
So - research is typically published after peer review - that is imperfect but over time effective as a mediator and check on science.
So new research ain’t worth squat until it’s been reviewed, reproduced and accepted by people in the community/science field. Those questions you mention raised by the research are not questions - they’re total punts.
I’m coming in a bit hard here for a couple of reasons - first look at the Mmr / anti Vac movement that is completely built on fuck all. It’s all fabricated - but has really really important implications for people and their lives (and with vac deaths). Second - I set up and run a successful and reputable journal - and I’ve had to deal with nutjob bullshit research before and had to suffer their bullying shout loud tactics when their work was and is a sham.
But - if Someone has new findings - even if they contradict all before, if their work has a high rigor and can be reproduced, and can withstand being reviewed by their peers then great! Lets change what we think - but the above checks are important!!!
-
I've posted the video and links because of the new research, and not the "controversy" surrounding previous stories.
Those posting to cite previous attacks, scepticism, challenges, "debunking" etc of previous experiments, aren't adding anything to the questions raised by new research.
That's something which I do find interesting, and think that others may too.
I also think that people may hold up "The Scientific Method" as some form of absolute and infallible process, a certain reference point. It isn't. More to the point, it's often held up as something more akin to religious dogma, to protect the established "Churches" of science, than to facilitate further enquiry and allow the sort of challenges to our complacent beliefs, that we should welcome.
Also, the debate about previous experiments was far from one sided.
I find it exciting when new questions are raised by research into old problems.
I'd suggest that if there is anything which is appropriate for the "Science" thread, then it's discursive argument rather than polarised posturing.
I think there are very few things which we can claim to know with sufficient certainty to proclaim "case closed".
What is true and what isn't true, what has happened and what hasn't happened, is something which is hopefully always open to debate.
H.Pylori being a perfect example of what you're talking about Dave. But that's still the scientific method.
Roughly, that was an Australian who questioned the scientific status quo and experimented on himself by ingesting H Pylori bacteria to debunk dogmatic beliefs about the causes of stomach ulcers. But those dogmatic beliefs themselves were based on scientific method to hypothesise a plausible mechanism of action, even if they were eventually shown to be wrong.
-
Scientific method 101, including all the factors you're talking about, exemplified by the discovery of H Pylori:
https://youtu.be/oqURfFE3bQY
-
Sorry, but I don't think anyone has said anything that isn't in some way self evident.
String theory is a great example of what can get accepted without experimental rigor.
I completely stand by my posts, that this seems to be a very interesting area of research - the whole "water memory" and other questions.
One of the most important aspects of science is what amounts to pure speculation - "punts" if you like.
Too much free research is harmed because of the way that funding is directed towards projects that appear to represent a better bet in terms of return on investment.
I like to think about and consider, explore etc, what other people are thinking about too.
The so called "scientific method" is a label which is often applied after certain assumptions are made.
Regarding the basis of various hypotheses, I think people are very often deluded about the solidity of the foundations.
Many things appear true to us - certain even - because we've developed habits and attachments towards seeing things that way.
I like the way Penrose talks about science, highlighting the fallacy that science points directly at "reality", instead describing it as an attempt to develop tools for navigation.
It is precisely the "punts" that lead to areas of research being established. We have to be wary of what we hold dear, and why.
I think it would be constructive if people were to look at these new areas of research - how much, by whom, where etc.
Instead, it feels like groups of people clubbing together to say "That's a crock of shit", "Yay! We win you lose :dance1:"
I'm interested in the questions raised.
We are lucky, because some people are happy to ask questions, and invest their lives exploring, things that other people only want to laugh at.
Edit.
Pete, I really don't need you to educate me on what you proclaim about "The Scientific Method".
Two of my favourite books:
"What is this thing called science" (Chambers)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/137314.What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science_
"The trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin)
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/63092.Lee_Smolin
Hope the links work.
And my absolute all time, desert Island favourite:
Inventing Reality (Gregory)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inventing-Reality-Physics-Language-Editions/dp/0471524824
-
String theory is a great example of what can get accepted without experimental rigor.
String Theory is a great example of theoretical physics where the experiments needed to test it would be hugely expensive. This is not a lack of rigour but a lack of economically viable ways to test theories. Maybe in a few more decades we'll be in a place to bring over more of these ideas from theoretical to experimental physics, as computer power increases. Not sure without looking how long it was between the theories of the Higgs Boson and the construction of the LHC and the good experimental data that confirmed the theory.
-
Dave, I'm not 'proclaiming' anything - merely highlighting that what you describe in your post as scepticism towards dogmatic views in 'science' is in fact a perfect illustration of the scientific process in action. Ironically all you're describing in your post above is perfectly describing the scientific method!
It's clear you don't like anything that smacks to you as authority, or institution, or anything that resembles a status quo. But that doesn't mean that you're opposed to the scientific method - you're probably more aligned with it than many people :lol:
-
Hi Pete, yes, in many ways, I probably am - but in terms of how to review things, rather than deriving them.
What I've been trying to point out is the degree of faith that many people put in the so called scientific method - as though it is some sort of rigid, objective way of getting from A-B.
I like this comment referencing Crick/Watson and the difference between their academic papers, and the book "The Double Helix":
‘scientific method’ may more usefully be thought of as a way of writing up research rather than as a way of carrying it out.
https://www.ielts-mentor.com/reading-sample/academic-reading/37-ielts-academic-reading-sample-12-the-scientific-method
I'm reminded of the number of times I've explored a sequence on a problem, with great expectation, just because it feels familiar. My hypothesis is pretty darn solid, until I find out it's a blind alley just two moves before the finishing jug!
I digress.
More importantly, how much is my climbing harmed by the desire to believe that it is in fact a worthy goal to climb 9a and run a sub 2:30 marathon. I seem to be getting a few false infinities at the moment :-\
I digress further!
-
Interesting discussion Pete and Dave.
I work in bio-mechanics, and occasionally dabble in palaeontology and anthropology, and over time you can become slightly dismissive to ideas outside of the norm. But this is partly self-preservation, since the number of 'bat shit' hypotheses and ideas in some of these fields is high, so if you spent all your time taking them seriously and trying to debunk them you wouldn't actually get much other work done. Admittedly sometimes this means you overlook interesting new ideas, but the onus has to be on the team suggesting the idea to make the case. This is usually through the scientific method which although not perfect usually gets there in the end and is the best system we currently have. Also it helps to protect against scientific fraud which unfortunately is more common than we'd like and can have dire consequences.
Likewise in climbing i guess the reason you tend explore a familiar sequence is precisely because it usually does work >90% of the time. You only tend to notice when it doesn't and it stands out. Therefore, when someone suggests weird beta on a problem and I'm struggling to make it work. I usually ask them to 'show me' how they do it, otherwise they might just be sandbagging you. ( Carrington I know you can see this :-) )
-
Interesting discussion Pete and Dave.
I work in bio-mechanics, and occasionally dabble in palaeontology and anthropology, and over time you can become slightly dismissive to ideas outside of the norm. But this is partly self-preservation, since the number of 'bat shit' hypotheses and ideas in some of these fields is high, so if you spent all your time taking them seriously and trying to debunk them you wouldn't actually get much other work done. Admittedly sometimes this means you overlook interesting new ideas, but the onus has to be on the team suggesting the idea to make the case. This is usually through the scientific method which although not perfect usually gets there in the end and is the best system we currently have. Also it helps to protect against scientific fraud which unfortunately is more common than we'd like and can have dire consequences.
Likewise in climbing i guess the reason you tend explore a familiar sequence is precisely because it usually does work >90% of the time. You only tend to notice when it doesn't and it stands out. Therefore, when someone suggests weird beta on a problem and I'm struggling to make it work. I usually ask them to 'show me' how they do it, otherwise they might just be sandbagging you. ( Carrington I know you can see this :-) )
Extraordinary claims require...
Author: E. Verybody, Et al.
-
On a more amusing note.
When you subscribe to certain science magazines and periodicals, you don’t half get some odd headlines appear in your inbox:
https://www.sciencealert.com/fungal-hallucinogens-cause-cicadas-to-go-on-sex-binges-after-they-lose-their-genitals?&tb_cb=1 (https://www.sciencealert.com/fungal-hallucinogens-cause-cicadas-to-go-on-sex-binges-after-they-lose-their-genitals?&tb_cb=1)
Actually, moderately alarming, in as much as it seems probable that, should Madam Evolution have her way, the future o life on earth is Fungal (or at least, fungal controlled).
-
Lightsaber anyone?
https://www.sciencealert.com/we-re-one-step-closer-to-healing-wounds-with-tiny-light-sabres?&tb_cb=1 (https://www.sciencealert.com/we-re-one-step-closer-to-healing-wounds-with-tiny-light-sabres?&tb_cb=1)
-
Jamie G:
I like the balance and context there. However, I still contest that we over-egg the "getting there" of the "SM". We like to reassure ourselves that something "works", and referencing some "method" in that way, I tend to think is probably closer to a bit of comforting "post hock (or Bordeaux)".
OMM:
Extraordinary claims.. etc.
I try to steer clear of quoting Armstrong, but I still find his efforts inspiring ;D
-
I think you’re probably right it’s healthy to be sceptical of the ‘method’. Although in my experience very few studies actually strictly follow the scientific method. Usually all phases are happening at once. Data collection, analysis, literature review, hypothesis testing. Only the write ups made it look like we knew what we were doing. ;D
-
I think it’s key to remember that the power of Science doesn’t lie in the “method”. The classic idea of proposing and testing hypotheses through falsification is an ideal that is rarely achieved, but that misses the point.
The key to the success of science is that no idea survives prolonged conflict with experiment or data. Thus it is a self-correcting method that eventually converges on truth.
However, this convergence is often slow and messy with several wrong turns; the scientific consensus is always wrong, even if the errors are very minor.
Faced with imperfection in the practice of science, and the obvious fact that the scientific consensus is wrong today as it was in the past, it is sometimes tempting for people to accept any alternative idea, particularly if it fits with their world view.
But there are two types of open mindedness; one is the acceptance of ideas that are plausible though poorly tested - eg a willingness to accept string theory.
The second is the consideration of ideas that are poorly thought through, and that conflict with extremely well tested scientific theories with an enormous evidence base.
The memory of water falls into the latter category. The idea is in serious conflict with thermodynamics and quantum mechanics; two of the best tested scientific theories that exist.
To flirt with this idea due to some valid but irrelevant concerns about the scientific method is not just throwing the baby out with the bath water, but is akin to chucking the baby, the bath water and the entire bathroom off the top of El Cap.
-
Stu, constructive of you to add some possible reasoning - re the thermodynamics - but I'd want to see that thought through rather more fully.
Re, "scientific method", bringing that into the debate was a red herring - as is the "convergence on truth" of course.
Who is doing this?:
"To flirt with this idea due to some valid but irrelevant concerns about the scientific method.."
I'm not.
I think I'd make some of your points less defined, and more contingent.
It would be good to look at some of the challenges to the idea, and other areas of research into water atm.
You may be more familiar with the ideas, but I'll certainly look at the things you've raised - which is the sort of response which is helpful to anything posted as an apparently interesting area of research.
"Plausibility" is a really odd one. The utility of truth - the apparent usefulness of a theory - is something that acknowledges/allows for (?) bias in all it's forms rather more.
-
As a welcome break from Brexit stuff I saw this today...
https://geoffboeing.com/2019/09/urban-street-network-orientation/
Great rose diagrams of city street orientations. Feed your inner 🤓 geek.
-
Great article. First glance, I assume some of the US cities with 'old quarters' - relatively speaking - show up as the small, slightly more haphazard pattern in the centre of diagrams among a sea of American uniformity.
-
Its interesting that so many of the grid system cities are aligned N-S and E-W rather any other orientation. I can't think why this orientation is superior, maybe because of the sun?
-
Its interesting that so many of the grid system cities are aligned N-S and E-W rather any other orientation. I can't think why this orientation is superior, maybe because of the sun?
Surely that would be correlated with latitude?
Only skimmed the article, but I have at this point assumed that the more densely and completely packed cities are more “chaotic”. I was struck that it didn’t seem immediately to correlate with the age or the city, which I would have assumed to have been a proportional relationship.
I guess geography plays hell with the best laid city planners of mice and men...
-
You can force a grid structure on almost any topography - so i suspect it reflects both the level of planning in the city and how organised/fast it developed.
Eg cities that have spread steadily over say 500 years are unlikely to have a consistent strategy in planning.
Whereas somewhere like Vegas (not checked it on the diagram so I may be wrong!!) id expect to be more ordered as it’s grown very rapidly according to (some sort) of plan.
Many cities have evolved through many little plans bolted together. Whereas some have expanded according to a grand plan!
My historical geographer colleagues would love this.
-
Wouldn’t many communities have spread out along lines of communication from nexus points and therefore been constrained, not so much by local topography, but by a much larger scale, less obvious, geography?
Those can appear at any point in time. I remember some very modern examples around the middle east.
I mean the “hamlet on the crossroads” type thing.
Things that grow into towns and cities, almost unnoticed, let alone planned.
Something other than communities that exist because of local topography, like natural harbours or defensible hill formations etc.
-
If you dump 100k people in an empty space they’ll build a very different city than if you dump 100k people on a widely spaced network of roads (and pipes/sewers/power) etc...
My US colleagues are interested that Charlottesville is very different from most US cities... I’m guessing it’s quite different? Never been there!!
-
Eg cities that have spread steadily over say 500 years are unlikely to have a consistent strategy in planning.
But it says;
Note that these are cities proper (municipalities), not wider metro areas or urban agglomerations.
Charlotte is strange to be such an outlier in the US. At first glance there appears to be no geographical reason for it, like Manhattan's orientation being due to the shape of the island.
-
The article is written by a network analyst ( I think) whereas a social scientist might have quite different explanations
-
Lovely stuff. I too was bothered that the Charlotte question wasn't answered. We need to know!
-
My US colleagues are interested that Charlottesville is very different from most US cities... I’m guessing it’s quite different? Never been there!!
The article's talking about Charlotte, not Charlotttesville.
I spent a few hours in Charlotte between flights once. Got the bus from the airport to the city centre where I ate at Burger King, had a conversation with a guy selling basketball tickets about Portsmouth (he used to be a sailor) and the fortunes of the Charlotte Hornets then got the bus back to the airport. It seemed to be laid out like any other US city to me.
-
As a teen, I lived in San Hose.
Almost everywhere I’ve lived or visited (beyond a days duration) resides in my memory with a mental map and I feel I could reasonably find my way around, should I wake up in one of those places, unexpectedly (scary thought).
But not San Hose. Despite careering around the place on my bike, with my mates.
Yet, from that same period, I know San Fran (ish) and have a general feel for LA’s layout. I would have to google earth it, just to remember how far from the beach it was, despite regular Saturday drives to the Pacific...
-
Ooph!
How bad is that, I even forgot how to spell it!
Age.
My excuse and I’m sticking with it.
-
Almost everywhere I’ve lived or visited (beyond a days duration) resides in my memory with a mental map and I feel I could reasonably find my way around, should I wake up in one of those places, unexpectedly (scary thought).
But not San Hose.
So basically what you're saying is you don't know the way to San Jose.
-
Almost everywhere I’ve lived or visited (beyond a days duration) resides in my memory with a mental map and I feel I could reasonably find my way around, should I wake up in one of those places, unexpectedly (scary thought).
But not San Hose.
So basically what you're saying is you don't know the way to San Jose.
Frigging walked into that, didn’t I.
So weird, looking at it.
I really feel like Yosemite was “only an hour away”, when it’s 200km as the crow flies!
Must say though, it looks fairly chaotic, at it’s core and more ordered as it grew. More ordered than I recall, for sure. I was expecting to see a sprawling mess. I do recall everything being very spread out, compared to the towns and cities I was used to in SW Britain.
-
You can force a grid structure on almost any topography - so i suspect it reflects both the level of planning in the city and how organised/fast it developed.
My historical geographer colleagues would love this.
I know it sounds like a crazy idea, but perhaps cities have histories?
Philadelphia is one of America's oldest cities (the oldest continuously inhabited street in the US is in Center City) but it was planned from the very beginning because of the nature of its founding. Topography is important - Philadelphia's position between two parallel rivers running NE to SW is perfectly reflected in its orientation - but the fact that cities such as Portland (presumably OR?) and Minneapolis show almost as much order as Phoenix and Las Vegas demonstrate the extent to which order can be imposed (there are perhaps limits, Pittsburgh, which is both very hilly and built around the confluence of three rivers, is notably "disordered" - its a test bed for driverless cars on the assumption that if they can cope with Pittsburgh they can cope with anywhere + Carnegie Mellon is a world leader in robotics)
-
I know it sounds like a crazy idea, but perhaps cities have histories?
Philadelphia is one of America's oldest cities (the oldest continuously inhabited street in the US is in Center City) but it was planned from the very beginning because of the nature of its founding. Topography is important - Philadelphia's position between two parallel rivers running NE to SW is perfectly reflected in its orientation - but the fact that cities such as Portland (presumably OR?) and Minneapolis show almost as much order as Phoenix and Las Vegas demonstrate the extent to which order can be imposed (there are perhaps limits, Pittsburgh, which is both very hilly and built around the confluence of three rivers, is notably "disordered" - its a test bed for driverless cars on the assumption that if they can cope with Pittsburgh they can cope with anywhere + Carnegie Mellon is a world leader in robotics)
Pittsburg? Piss-easy. Try Dehli, Cairo or Naples: not just geographically disorderly! [/off topic].
Any thoughts on why Charlotte is such an outlier? It's big growth seems to be from the 1980s, by which time central planning had become rather unfashionable, but doesn't this apply equally to places like Phoenix? Was the preexisiting layout already quite disordered and, if so, why was this? It's an old city (18th century) by US standards, but so are many others on the east coast.
So basically what you're saying is you don't know the way to San Jose.
:bow:
-
Try Dehli, Cairo or Naples: not just geographically disorderly! [/off topic].
Old Delhi maybe, but New Delhi is spectacularly well-ordered! (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48721469041_11a84e3196_z.jpg)
-
Any thoughts on why Charlotte is such an outlier? It's big growth seems to be from the 1980s, by which time central planning had become rather unfashionable, but doesn't this apply equally to places like Phoenix? Was the preexisiting layout already quite disordered and, if so, why was this? It's an old city (18th century) by US standards, but so are many others on the east coast.
Me? No, no idea (and I haven't been, but will be going to a conference there next year). My stock answer would be that we would most likely find the explanation somewhere in its history, and history has huge doses of contingency. Even when deliberate planning is involved its important to remember that historical actors don't know what's coming. With hindsight, Manhattan island is a dumb place to put one of the world's most significant cities. But Dutch farmers pootling around lower Manhattan in 16-whenever weren't think about that.
An incredibly important factor, one ultimately derived from topography, is land values. Phoenix can spread out because land is plentiful and cheap (relatively). Manhattan has had to go up because land is incredibly scarce and expensive.
-
During my three years at Sheffield Uni the one fly in my ointment was the geography building. Despite all my efforts to do zero human geography I still had to have a faculty building whose hexagonal design was a tribute to Christaller, the german geographer whose attempts to explain the location of settlements failed on every level, relying as they do on the assumption that resources are evenly distributed. The whole point of the subject as far as I'm concerned is that resources are not evenly distributed.
It still annoys me if I'm honest. And normally hexagons are my favourite tessellating polygon.
-
During my three years at Sheffield Uni the one fly in my ointment was the geography building. Despite all my efforts to do zero human geography I still had to have a faculty building whose hexagonal design was a tribute to Christaller, the german geographer whose attempts to explain the location of settlements failed on every level, relying as they do on the assumption that resources are evenly distributed. The whole point of the subject as far as I'm concerned is that resources are not evenly distributed.
It still annoys me if I'm honest. And normally hexagons are my favourite tessellating polygon.
Knowing folk there - and when I interviewed there - the building is a bit of a leg iron... the shape of rooms and corridors and it’s concrete construction make it very hard to adapt or change (eg to make lab space)
I like the nod to christaller - though it always chills me to think is plans were (as you indicate) for the third reich - where whole areas / countries? Would be razed to make way for the perfect world...
-
Hexagons and Hexagonal prisms are so five minutes ago, though.
Frustums are where the hip kids are at now.
Get with it!
-
though it always chills me to think is plans were (as you indicate) for the third reich - where whole areas / countries
I had no idea of that subtext tbh. I just think his ideas are a pointless anti-geography.
-
I like the nod to christaller - though it always chills me to think is plans were (as you indicate) for the third reich - where whole areas / countries? Would be razed to make way for the perfect world...
Central place theory does make some sense in the American midwest, where resources were initially quite evenly distributed and the place was empty, with nothing to be razed (at least in the eyes of European settlers). William Cronon makes quite interesting use of it in Nature's Metropolis.
-
though it always chills me to think is plans were (as you indicate) for the third reich - where whole areas / countries
I had no idea of that subtext tbh. I just think his ideas are a pointless anti-geography.
They’re 80 years old now? Think the world is dozens of iterations on from that now. Not sure if it’s still taught in schools/ugrad. Suspect not.
-
Something that always strikes me walking around American cities: in European cities, neighbourhoods are generally villages that have been swallowed as the city grew, and you can feel when you’re walking out of one into another. In America you cross arbitrarily from Block 47 to Block 48, and suddenly without warning you’re somewhere where a naïve & defenceless tourist would really be better off not being.
-
Central place theory does make some sense in the American midwest, where resources were initially quite evenly distributed and the place was empty,
Yes, and lo, hexagons appeared! Or not,of course, 'cos politicians found rectangles easier to add and subdivide.
-
Which reminds me, if you've time here's Raban's brilliant essay Second Nature - The de-landscaping of the American West (https://granta.com/second-nature/).
-
Something that always strikes me walking around American cities: in European cities, neighbourhoods are generally villages that have been swallowed as the city grew, and you can feel when you’re walking out of one into another. In America you cross arbitrarily from Block 47 to Block 48, and suddenly without warning you’re somewhere where a naïve & defenceless tourist would really be better off not being.
That happens in the Uk too - though the lines rarely seem as severe...
Rayleigh (NC) went from white picket fences and immaculate lawns to fellas lounging on old sofas on the deck within a block.
-
Central place theory does make some sense in the American midwest, where resources were initially quite evenly distributed and the place was empty,
Yes, and lo, hexagons appeared! Or not,of course, 'cos politicians found rectangles easier to add and subdivide.
I think (going back to something I read 20 years ago) that it’s very much a western train of thought - squares and grids that is. Shapes of things people build tend to be more curvy and circular in different cultures/societies.
Hexagons are really neat though - as someone who’s work involves dividing the world up into grid cells to model them - hexagons are blessed by being the same distance from all of their neighbours. It can make the math a little awkward sometimes when moving from grids to hexagons etc... though of course the whole world doesn’t fit into exactly regular grids very well being spherical.
I’m going off on one now 😂😂
-
Something that always strikes me walking around American cities: in European cities, neighbourhoods are generally villages that have been swallowed as the city grew, and you can feel when you’re walking out of one into another. In America you cross arbitrarily from Block 47 to Block 48, and suddenly without warning you’re somewhere where a naïve & defenceless tourist would really be better off not being.
That happens in the Uk too - though the lines rarely seem as severe...
Rayleigh (NC) went from white picket fences and immaculate lawns to fellas lounging on old sofas on the deck within a block.
It’s obvious in Torquay.
They actually have a sign up.
It says “Welcome to Torquay”.
-
😂
-
In America you cross arbitrarily from Block 47 to Block 48, and suddenly without warning you’re somewhere where a naïve & defenceless tourist would really be better off not being.
Baltimore can be a very, um, interesting experience on foot. But the reality is that you are entering someone's neighbourhood and one that probably does feel village like to them. Its just not yours.
Despite gentrification etc. Philadelphia is still very much a city of distinct village like neighbourhoods. Its a great city for exploring by walking and I've never had any concern about doing so. The time we walked about 10 blocks across a really blown out part of Detroit late at night to get to a dive bar was probably not my wisest ever choice though.
-
Which reminds me, if you've time here's Raban's brilliant essay Second Nature - The de-landscaping of the American West (https://granta.com/second-nature/).
Thanks, this looks great.
-
Some interesting reads about urban planning in the guardians ‘unbuilt cities’ series.. can’t link it so you’ll have to search.
-
We show that LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115069
😂
-
I notice how selectively you quoted the abstract, the very next sentence being
LaTeX users, however, more often report enjoying using their respective software
-
Meh, I just bang it all down into word. Never caused me any issues. To each their own.
-
I notice how selectively you quoted the abstract, the very next sentence being
LaTeX users, however, more often report enjoying using their respective software
😂😂 Was waiting for someone to bite...
-
Not so Amusing.
https://time.com/5691114/afm-death-toll-mystery/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=health_disease&linkId=75182731 (https://time.com/5691114/afm-death-toll-mystery/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=health_disease&linkId=75182731)
-
Apparently, this is pretty big:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1711-4 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1711-4)
“ Okay, Science time.
A paper just came out yesterday in the scientific journal, Nature, and the entire biotech world is completely freaking out with excitement about it. I stayed up way too late last night reading it myself and I can't stop thinking about it now. Let me tell you about it.
You might have heard of CRISPR-Cas9. Discovered in bacteria, where it functions as an antiviral immune system, Cas9 is a programmable DNA scissors which takes an RNA barcode, scans DNA, and cuts wherever it finds a perfect match. Biological science has long aspired to the ability to make virtually any targeted change in the genome of any living cell or organism, and with CRISPR, the ability to precisely cut any region of DNA we want has opened up so many possibilities, it's no stretch to say that it ignited a revolution and sparked a whole new era in biology today.
One limitation of CRISPR is that on its own, breaking DNA is all it does. If we want to disable something, it's great- cells have an internal mechanism for quickly patching DNA breaks back together, which often disables the particular gene there by introducing small mutations at the seam.
But if we don't want to just break things, if we want to edit or insert or delete a specific thing, we need to add a second component: a DNA donor template that mostly matches the target site but contains the modifications that we want. Then, when the cell repairs the break, we hope that instead of mashing the ends together willy nilly, it uses the other DNA repair mechanism it has, which grabs the ends, seeks out similar-looking DNA, and uses that as a template for repair. Not only is this mechanism rare and slow, we also need to be lucky enough that a copy of our donor template happens to be close by.
In the lab, this limitation isn't a problem: we can blast a million cells, sort through them individually cell by cell, pick out the rare ones that perfectly integrated our template, and just grow those. But breaking the DNA at 90% of the cells to get that rare 10% of cells to accept our specific mutation has obvious limitations, and the ratios are usually even worse than that.
Here's where this paper comes in. Anzalone et. al. from the Broad Institute (pronounced Brode) took CRISPR and modified it into something they call CRISPR PRIME.
Their paper is titled, "Search and Replace Genome Editing Without Double-Strand Breaks or Donor DNA".
They started with a modified CRISPR that cuts only one strand, creating single-strand nicks instead of double-strand breaks. They took the RNA barcode, which programs CRISPR to recognize specific DNA sequences for cutting, and they added an extra long RNA tail to it containing the desired mutation. Finally, they welded another protein, Reverse Transcriptase, to CRISPR, which reads RNA and creates DNA strands from it.
They envisioned a system where instead of introducing our donor separately and hoping the cell happens to use it after CRISPR breaks the site, CRISPR carries the donor with it, gently nicks the site and immediately writes the patch in itself.
And IT WORKS.
From the paper: "We performed more than 175 edits in human cells including targeted insertions, deletions, and all 12 types of point mutations... We applied prime editing in human cells to correct efficiently and with few byproducts the primary genetic causes of sickle cell disease and Tay-Sachs disease, to install a protective transversion in PRNP, and to insert various tags and epitopes precisely into target loci... Prime editing substantially expands the scope and capabilities of genome editing, and in principle could correct about 89% of known pathogenic human variants".
They're releasing this system free to everyone for academic and research use and I need need NEED to try it out myself. I don't think it's a stretch to say that CRISPR prime will be a revolution in how biologists do gene editing, and the entire field agrees.
This is seriously amazing work.”
Dr Zi Teng Wang
-
Thats cool OMM...
This looked good too! Quantum computer did a task in 200 secs that would take 10000 hours on a 'typical' supercomputer....
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5
-
Thats cool OMM...
This looked good too! Quantum computer did a task in 200 secs that would take 10000 hours on a 'typical' supercomputer....
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5
Looks like IBM have some beef with the Google claims https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/
It would be interesting if they (IBM) could actually implement and perform the classical calculation they describe, that'd be a pretty solid refutation of Google's quantum supremacy claims.
-
From what I remember There are some tasks/calcs that QC are far better structured to run... that may be the case here.
Anyway - progress
-
Hi UKB collective,
I'm involved in a project studying bird flight and animations and we are collecting some data via the medium of citizen science. So if any of you have a bit of spare time and fancy it would you mind having a look at the link below. (I think it only works of PCs and laptops)
The basic gist is you watch animations of a bird flying and rate how realistic you think it is. It shouldn't take too long I think there a around 200 animations per person (which seems like a lot but it really doesn't take that long per animation).
As a final note can you fill out the participant ID at the start of the test as jamie_ then whatever you like afterwards (as long as its clean - my colleague is going to look at this) :-)
Heres the link.
https://research.sc/participant/login/dynamic/2E841B51-D11C-4F80-A6C9-759D17DF42B3 (https://research.sc/participant/login/dynamic/2E841B51-D11C-4F80-A6C9-759D17DF42B3)
Much appreciated. A wad point for everyone that lets me know they've completed as a way of filthy bribery. :-)
Jamie
-
Really interesting new pre-print out that examines the performance of top men and women rock climbers and shows that unlike the vast majority of other sports the gap between genders is very small. In particular they compare climbing to 100m sprint and the marathon, and show the gap is much smaller in climbing.
They argue that this supports a more arboreal origin of human evolution. An idea that has gained a lot of steam over the last 20 odd years. Indeed, our bipedal type gait might have originally evolved in the trees, similar to the way orang-utans move in the trees. Which is something a colleague of mine has been pushing for many years now.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.26.116244v1
-
Really interesting new pre-print out that examines the performance of top men and women rock climbers and shows that unlike the vast majority of other sports the gap between genders is very small. In particular they compare climbing to 100m sprint and the marathon, and show the gap is much smaller in climbing.
They argue that this supports a more arboreal origin of human evolution. An idea that has gained a lot of steam over the last 20 odd years. Indeed, our bipedal type gait might have originally evolved in the trees, similar to the way orang-utans move in the trees. Which is something a colleague of mine has been pushing for many years now.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.26.116244v1
It's an interesting idea (and there may well be some merit to it) but I think the methodology is pretty weak.
They have taken a list of the 90 hardest sport climbers and found that 3 of those are women which is a greater proportion than they've identified in some track and field events (e.g. 100m sprint, marathon). The discussion about gender split in each sport is passing at best ("The ratio of rock climbers by gender, according to an estimate by professional climber Sasha DiGiulian, is 60% men to 40% women") and no discussion about the population size of climbing vs track and field.
Population size in particular is pretty important: imagine a normal distribution of climbers by grade and another of sprinters by 100m PB, it only makes sense to compare list of the top x climbers and the top y runners if we know that they both represent a roughly equal percentage of climbers and runners. In other words it makes sense to say "1/20 of the top 1% of climbers are female, whereas 1/200 of the top 1% 100m sprinters are female" but comparing lists of pretty much arbitrary length doesn't make sense because we don't know how much of the population we're looking at.
-
Yeah, that seems like a fair critique. But it is just a preprint and I guess still need peer reviewed. But for sure an understanding of the size population you are looking at seems important for their methods. I imagine that for marathon running, there is fairly decent number of people taking part. Probably quite a bit more than climbing. But I wonder if that is true for sprinting. That seems a bit more niche. I wouldn't be surprised if that population is actually smaller than climbing.
If we look at it another way. Not by number of top male/female climbers. But at the level the top men and women are operating, what do the numbers look like? What is the rough grade difference? Sport climbing it is something like 9c to 9b. And in bouldering it is 9A to 8C. Both within 2 half grades, which is pretty impressive. Especially since there is only 1 9c route and 2 9A boulders (one of which has been repeated and potentially 8C+). So I think the margin is pretty narrow really.
Compared to sprinting where the fastest female 100m is only just under 10.5s. And the fastest marathon is 2.14. These seem like bigger gaps, but i'm no runner so perhaps that is just my perspective.
Definitely an interesting topic.
-
Comparing speed climbing times would be a more representative comparison between male/female and sprinting rather than bouldering/sport grades (that are ulimately subjective and can be highly dependent on body shape/type - especially when there are only '2' 9A's...)?
Edit: I'll answer my own question. Big old difference in the record times there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_climbing#Speed_Climbing_World_Records_and_Champions
-
I would disagree about that one tomtom. I think speed climbing is kind of contrived at the best of times and has more akin to sprinting that actual climbing ability. Not that it isn't skilled, just it doesn't really show climbing ability to me, especially within the context of human evolution.
-
I would disagree about that one tomtom. I think speed climbing is kind of contrived at the best of times and has more akin to sprinting that actual climbing ability. Not that it isn't skilled, just it doesn't really show climbing ability to me, especially within the context of human evolution.
Yes - thats exactly what I meant - if you were comparing sprinting to climbing (that the preprint does) then speed climbing would seem to be a better comparison.
Unless the paper is trying to push a different message (arboreal origin of human evolution) ;D
-
Ah okay, I'm with you now.
I think they are trying to frame it in movements that might have been important for human evolution. Long distance running has been suggested as important for running down big prey items. Sprinting i'm not so sure, but presumably also prey capture and escaping danger. Climbing, again foraging for food. Also safety in the trees especially at night.
And possibly they are trying to push climbing as important for human evolution. ;D
Certainly my colleague is very keen on the idea. Here is an article in independent on his theories and research, if you are interested.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ascent-of-man-human-evolution-apes-chimpanzees-lucy-australopithecus-robin-crompton-a7230371.html
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1174-4
No, it still isn’t aliens. When forced to pick between unknown geology, unknown chemistry and life on Venus, prefer explanations in that order.
Time to fire up the science engines to look for the first two...
P.s may not even be phosphine. A similar fuss occurred on Mars a few years back until we realised carbon monoxide could be confused for methane.
-
I read the headline, on the Independent, three minutes ago.
Instead of opening the article, I opened UKB.
You did not disappoint.
Cheers.
-
I just tapped up my tame planetary science expert who says her bet is on unknown chemistry. Apparently chemistry in Sulphur-rich environments is very uncertain.
This is still (IMO) the second-best evidence for life outside Earth. The safe money is still on Enceladus:
https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-just-revealed-enceladus-really-does-contain-the-building-blocks-of-life
-
I read the headline, on the Independent, three minutes ago.
Instead of opening the article, I opened UKB.
You did not disappoint.
Cheers.
Me too. Saw the headline on the Guardian and came straight on here to see what Stu had to say.
-
Stu - where did you get a tame planetary science expert from? and, more to the point, are the untamed ones dangerous in any way?
-
They’re all pretty tame unless they’ve recently had a mission turned down by NASA.
You can usually find one by the bar at exoplanet conferences.
-
Not my area, but phospine is hardly an exclusive product of microbial activity. It's commonly used to fumigate grain and kill insects in silos (poisonous and explosive but it's viewed as a lesser weevil... sorry) - aluminium phosphide (AlP) pellets left in moist air generate phosphine. Incidentally, I once helped with the invesitgation of an explosion in a LPG storage ship that was possibly due to phosphine / diphosphane accummulation - lots of odd sulphur loving bacteria in oil sludge (corrosion of steel pipework by their by-products apparently causes quite a lot of catastrophic incidents on oil / gas rigs).
-
Why dead legs are deadly. From a corrosion perspective.
-
Aye, sulphide corrosion is a right bugger in "dead" pipework. Interestingly (to me anyway) I think there's an analagous non-microbial process that occurs in "dead" domestic settings, when central heating systems are pressure tested but then left full of static water before use. You then get pitting corrosion where areas of passivation are stripped but not re-oxidised, resulting in localised galvanic corrosion and holes (supposedly used to happen in heat exchangers at power stations after commissioning). Back re alien microbes, inorganic chemistry is not my bag, but phosphor and sulphur chemistry always seem a complete witches brew to me - lots of viable oxidation states co-existing - the possiblility of an "unknown" or unexpected process seems pretty plausible.
-
Study on the impact of climbing chalk on rock dwelling ferns and mosses in Ticino. Hardly surprising but chalk isn't good for the plants. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.6773
They suggest a potential remedy to the problem in delicate areas
"Furthermore, alternatives to climbing chalk such as adhesive colophony resin or absorptive balls which absorb excess moisture from hands (Niegl, 2009) might be assessed as a potential remedy in cases where the use of climbing chalk is problematic."
But I can't imagine that ever really being implemented (or obeyed). I suspect just banning climbing on certain boulders or areas is a more likely (but not necessarily desirable) solution if plants need conserving.
-
It seems that maybe gardening and cleaning boulders so that they were climbable may be more detrimental to the florae than the pH imbalance caused by chalk?
-
Looks like a strong contender for an ignoble award. Though the bit about chalk found in the wider areas interesting I guess. I've wondered about aspects of this before when scrubbing away at some poor lichen. I think the keys figuring out how rare the flora on these boulders is both locally and regionally. I. e are they just on boulders? on every boulder nearby? and is this the only place in the country or world? Also how long do they live? how similar are the communities/individuals on two nearby boulders? I've walked away from plenty of boulders because I've felt it wasn't worth tearing off handfuls of ancient lichen for something 3 people might climb. Its worth some thought as there's more climbers out there and more developing being done and some of it looks more like heavy excavation! Ive, been meaning to write something longer on this and this has spurred me on. :thumbsup:
-
So, saw a couple versions of this article, today. This might not be the best.
It got me wondering about the increasing prevalence of the Medial Artery. It’s not clear from the article that the artery generally exists in addition to the Radial and Ulnar arteries, but that seems the inference.
This must improve forearm endurance/reduce pump, surely? So I’m intrigued to know if the rapid increase in this artery’s prevalence in those born in the late 20th and continuing increase as the 21st progresses, is entirely coincidental to the seemingly massive increase in standards in our little corner of the sporting world?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wisdom-teeth-evolution-humans-flinders-university-processed-food-b907634.html?utm_content=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3pAWdWbobw461SB1jUCB2ypY3rUtV5P6cD1iWpFGHO1jLGsUl0piqSf9I#Echobox=1602262140 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wisdom-teeth-evolution-humans-flinders-university-processed-food-b907634.html?utm_content=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3pAWdWbobw461SB1jUCB2ypY3rUtV5P6cD1iWpFGHO1jLGsUl0piqSf9I#Echobox=1602262140)
-
How in earth did you end up down this particular rabbit hole OMM? 😀
-
How in earth did you end up down this particular rabbit hole OMM? 😀
Still waiting for a ship, twiddling my thumbs, and bad weather.
Two weeks already.
It’s like a really long shower.
You start watching a movie and half an hour in, realise you stopped watching and have been pondering world politics/ meaning of life/ price of Kit Kats/ who the hell designed the under wired bra and were they suitably punished?
Seriously though, that’s potentially a 30% increase in blood flow to the forearm, ish, give or take, maybe, if venal return is comparable etc etc.
-
Aye, sulphide corrosion is a right bugger in "dead" pipework. Interestingly (to me anyway) I think there's an analagous non-microbial process that occurs in "dead" domestic settings, when central heating systems are pressure tested but then left full of static water before use. You then get pitting corrosion where areas of passivation are stripped but not re-oxidised, resulting in localised galvanic corrosion and holes (supposedly used to happen in heat exchangers at power stations after commissioning). Back re alien microbes, inorganic chemistry is not my bag, but phosphor and sulphur chemistry always seem a complete witches brew to me - lots of viable oxidation states co-existing - the possiblility of an "unknown" or unexpected process seems pretty plausible.
Microbial action seems to be potentially the main cause of stainless anchors in sea cliffs.
https://cragchemistry.com/2020/10/05/austenite-stability-are-we-missing-something-here/
-
I'm not into bolts, but fucking great article that. :bow:
-
That's a great article! Love the attention to detail.
Doesn't change anything for the UK/Ireland - where 316 is the standard for bolts, even on inland crags, and has been for a long time afaik since the dirtbags experimenting with non-stainless bolts in the 80s/90s. Don't know if I've ever seen a 304 ss bolt in N.Wales?
Euro venues/elsewhere seem to use 304 a lot more, never understood why unless its purely on cost.
''for crags where attack by hydrogen is a possibility, i.e. all crags with high sulphate levels, then any anchor components comprising more than 30% strain-induced martensite look likely to fail some 10 years after installation. On the other hand, anchor components with less than 10% strain-induced martensite will have a service life in excess of 50 years. Put another way, 304 anchors will be short lived, 316 anchors could last many decades.''
-
That said Pete, cheap 316 could still be an issue? Would be good to see how magnetic the main brands of bolting hardware are. Got any kicking around to check?
I guess in the UK we probably don't have the sulphate reducing bacteria issue, so maybe not an issue?
-
Yep I have both 316 through bolts and resin bolts here, just need a magnet.. I'll be v.surprised if they're low nickel content but worth a check.
-
Most of the places we go climbing in upland UK are shaped by slope processes - such a slides and soil creep. It’s not often that peat slides are caught on camera - and thought I’d share this vid that popped up on my work Twitter feed. I love the trees serenely sailing past!
https://twitter.com/rooneymobile/status/1327581502763380736?s=21
-
Most of the places we go climbing in upland UK are shaped by slope processes - such a slides and soil creep. It’s not often that peat slides are caught on camera - and thought I’d share this vid that popped up on my work Twitter feed. I love the trees serenely sailing past!
https://twitter.com/rooneymobile/status/1327581502763380736?s=21
The Twitterati seem convinced that it wos the wind farm wot done this.
What causes peat slides? Just waterlogged peat moving under its own weight?
-
Cool footage! Lucky to see it in the flesh.
Reminds me of this, possibly the craziest landslide footage you’ll ever see..(must have seen this TT?):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-qfNlEP4A
Can you imagine being the farmer who started it by digging the foundations, try explaining that to the neighbours and the missus when she got home - ‘I just dig this hole and the whole village disappeared!
-
Wind farm? Chinny recon.
Often happen when you have peat formed over a soil with a clay layer. Water gets perched over the clay - friction drops and away you go. Lots of water flowing between the soil/peat debris seen in the foreground.
-
Nice link Pete!
-
More on the Peatslide here https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/11/16/meenbog-peat-slide-1/
Seems the peat sits on bedrock - and the trees planted both add to the weight of the peat and also help water go to the base of the peat quicker (better infiltration) helping the failure at the base of the peat layer (this isn’t in the blog)
-
The cause in this case was most probably the wind farm construction, from changing the subsurface water flow and potentially removing some of the weight-bearing load further down the slide. It's happened a few times over the years on Irish peat bogs in relation to wind farm construction and planting of Sitka spruce, neither of which are particularly good for peat bog health.
-
Good knowledge. I was initially sceptical of the accusations on Twitter as they were made without reference to how the construction might have brought about the slide or even where the slide was in relation to the construction.
-
Also worth bearing in mind that Irish peat bogs are far thicker than a lot of what you get on the moorland in England/Scotland/Wales, so more squishy material knocking around to slide all over the place.
-
The cause in this case was most probably the wind farm construction, from changing the subsurface water flow and potentially removing some of the weight-bearing load further down the slide. It's happened a few times over the years on Irish peat bogs in relation to wind farm construction and planting of Sitka spruce, neither of which are particularly good for peat bog health.
Indeed - my colleagues and I worked on a couple of ‘bog bursts’ in western Ireland in the early 2000’s that formed as a result of wind farm construction. Typically focussing of near surface flow down into highly humified layers by pad/lay down area/road construction. Bogs are complex things!
-
I really am shockingly ignorant when it comes to biology, but this seems like kind of a big deal...
https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2020/nov/30/deepmind-ai-cracks-50-year-old-problem-of-biology-research
-
Yes. Most likely a very big deal. The devil is in the details I am sure, but this looks very promising. Protein folding is one of the most important open problems in computational biology. A pity it is solved by a black box though...
-
Wow..
Takeover by the machines etc. etc.
How long before AI discovers alcohol and girls/boys and it all goes downhill...
-
After its cracked grading :D
-
I know nothing of protein folding; anyone care to explain?
Sounds impressive. However, I doubt AI could solve the riddle of the Olympic qualifying system tbh
-
Briefly then, amino acids makes up the primary structure of a protein. When e.g. a gene have coded a protein the primary structure folds i three dimensions. This happens incredibly fast, on a time scale of micro seconds. We (humans) have only very foggy ideas how this is done in nature. Alas, the exact structure of a folded protein has biological function — so to explain or predict the biological function of a protein we need to know how it is folded. Usually this is determined by some pretty involved experimental methods, and has to be done for each protein.
In the best of all worlds we would be able to quickly determine a protein's exact structure just from the gene that codes for the protein. Just as our cells do.
That's my understanding anyway. I have done very little work in computational biology and in a fairly unrelated field so I am sure that someone else here can supply a better explanation.
-
Interesting, helpful summary. Thanks.
-
I know nothing of protein folding; anyone care to explain?
Sounds impressive. However, I doubt AI could solve the riddle of the Olympic qualifying system tbh
The press release on the deepmind website is surprisingly good https://deepmind.com/blog/article/alphafold-a-solution-to-a-50-year-old-grand-challenge-in-biology
-
The press release on the deepmind website is surprisingly good
As you’d expect, imagine how many press releases it analysed before writing that one! 🤖
-
Reverse engineering the source code of the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine.
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/
I think this article is pretty accessible to anyone who knows either a bit of informatics or a bit of biology, or are willing to spend some time reading, thinking and following the links with further explanation. Time well spent imho.
-
A nice piece on time https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/time-has-no-meaning-at-the-north-pole/ (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/time-has-no-meaning-at-the-north-pole/) at the North Pole.
-
In a break from generally bad news in the world - this is clever!
Invasive Snake species in Guam make themselves into lasso's to climb trees. (watch the video!)
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(20)31763-2
(https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/cms/attachment/a9e50f73-335e-42b1-ad1f-1d3093a4d519/gr1.jpg)
-
Very cool. The locomotion part, not the invasive species part.
-
Any HVAC engineers in the house?
I've not done anything on HVAC since uni, but have a decent understanding. We've been up at my mum's since mid December, it's a >250yr old house with a kitchen that has 3.5 outside walls!
We've been working on a fair few comfort improvements - after the old raeburn was removed in the kitchen the chimney never was, and it was leaking, whistling and geenrally sucking all the heat out, so this summer she got the stack removed and roof re-slated over it. But, it was still open to the loft and we could see condensation on the roof/rafters etc. I capped it off and added some insulation, and that's made a big difference.
She also got a thermostat for the heating for the first time, and we blocked off some vents in the larder which were also just sucking out heat.
So, after all we've got the heating down to being being 8-10 hours per day, instead of the 14 we had before and most rooms are more comfortable. No condensation or damp issues (still a leaky house), but the kitchen is still 2 degC colder than the thermostat (and noticeably less comfortable). The windows are all double glazed, the loft is insulated and the cavity walls are filled (good, bad...hmm...they are).
So, my thinking is that it's just "under-heated" - it's only got one, fairly average sized, radiator convection central heater. I've got some brand new 80mm PC fans (spare from a project that fizzled out) and thinking of rigging up a simple air-flow booster to the radiator. What I'm wondering is....would the effectiveness of the fans be much higher if the system was somewhat "ducted", or would you get sufficient benefit from them just pulling through additional air in the "zone of influence" of the fans?
I'm almost temped to rig up an arduino to log temps and do some trials....
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-56071636
Robotic gloves are aid though, right?
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-56238018
Well the bouldering looks great. Count me in on the first manned mission :strongbench:
-
What are the gravity cons?
-
What are the gravity cons?
Pretty good, but the weight of your rebreather, helmet et al, might off set that a little.
Grimer is already adding a chapter into his next book.
.....You’ll definitely need a brush...
-
Cold. Gravity 1/3 of what it is here. Rock type - mainly basalt - some water some wind carved.
A few 1-2km vertical (old water fall) faces to climb up.
Possibly a fair bit of choss too :)
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/20/epa-climate-facts-joe-biden-trump-purge
Science back in fashion in Washington :2thumbsup: