I would like to point out that this very premise is a logical fallacy, appealing to ignorance to be exact.
"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric."
-http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html
You could argue that because we haven't proven it doesn't exist, life in space does exist. However, you could also argue the exact opposite, that because we haven't proven it does exist, it doesn't exist. Of course neither argument is valid, you can't use the lack of knowledge as proof.
"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric."
-http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html
You could argue that because we haven't proven it doesn't exist, life in space does exist. However, you could also argue the exact opposite, that because we haven't proven it does exist, it doesn't exist. Of course neither argument is valid, you can't use the lack of knowledge as proof.
Nobody was appealing to ignorance as proof. There are good reasons* to believe SR is true, and no experimental reasons that I am aware of to disbelieve it. Objections to SR are generally based on 'philosophy' ("I can't believe this is true") or ignorance ("I don't understand it, therefore it can't be true").
* Electromagnetism for a start: Maxwell's equations are Lorentz-invariant
* Electromagnetism for a start: Maxwell's equations are Lorentz-invariant
Check out this authors list on the latest LIGO results (a new record?), still nothing unfortunately.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.2788v2.pdf
He promotes the idea of partial breeds of similar descent. He takes all the zany theories from the "Protocols.." to Madame L, etc. and updates them to reptilian offspring.
There are some folks who assume since he is repeating much antisemitic nonsense that he is using veiled terms. He denies that. I suspect he knows it is all nonsense, but sells really well. He just repackages nonsense, aims it at imaginary villains and for very little work gets lots of publicity and some easy money.
Now the humor is in how people respond. Some get upset, most laugh and some believe!
The project lead of the lab with the too fast netrunios resigned his position. That seems excessive to me, but I am not there.
When you accept the authority, you also accept the responsibility. It may be harsh and excessive, but then again a considerable amount of time and money has been, for all intents and purposes, wasted. Tomorrow's another day.
True, but somehow we have all reached some expectations that everything is perfect and if it is not, some one else is at fault. I prefer to just man up and get on with the next task. Who knows, the guy could be a really great team leader. Or he could be a dud that they wanted out anyway. We will never know. It is not like when an exec knows about something wrong and hides it, or sets up an environment intentionally error prone. Big science is expediencies. Pay to play or go home.
I sooooo agree with this. But personal experience tells me it's often not that simple, and people want to waste more time pointing fingers. We will never know. Maybe he found himself a better gig.
The modern idea is that there is no such thing as an accident. Lawyers are now taught this. Elf'n'safety believe it. When a mistake happens someone must be blamed. "Lessons must be learned" - usually means more regulations. The result is a risk-averse culture which will make fewer great advances.
Of course, you can't blame the person who actually made the mistake because that would infringe his human rights and it isn't his fault - it is the bosses fault for not training him properly. So we also get a 'training' culture, where nobody is allowed to do anything unless they have a certificate saying that they have been trained to do it. That way the boss escapes blame: he can employ morons and let them loose on things they don't understand, but if they have attended 'training' then he is in the clear.
Of course, you can't blame the person who actually made the mistake because that would infringe his human rights and it isn't his fault - it is the bosses fault for not training him properly. So we also get a 'training' culture, where nobody is allowed to do anything unless they have a certificate saying that they have been trained to do it. That way the boss escapes blame: he can employ morons and let them loose on things they don't understand, but if they have attended 'training' then he is in the clear.
I understand what you're saying and agree with much of it, but I try not to be so cynical. When I worked on a drilling rig, I was appointed a safety coordinator and was taught then that there is no such thing as an accident. And I believe it to be true. But I also believe that it, like everything else, has to be put into context. On an oil drilling location, believing it can keep you alive and in one piece. But injuring yourself during recreation, getting zapped working with electricity, stubbing a toe hopping out of bed, working with subatomic particles in leading edge experiments... living is not without risk.
I sometimes had to work in a power station, and they take safety very seriously too. It can create anomalies though.
At one site the station manager was concerned by the number of 'lost time' accidents happening to contractor staff. He issued an edict that any more such accidents would result in the contract being terminated. The number of logged accidents fell to zero. Injured contractors were being smuggled out of the back gate, so the security staff on the main gate did not see them. This probably meant that they were less likely to get prompt medical help when needed. An example of strict safety culture reducing safety? This is where box-ticking always leads.
At one site the station manager was concerned by the number of 'lost time' accidents happening to contractor staff. He issued an edict that any more such accidents would result in the contract being terminated. The number of logged accidents fell to zero. Injured contractors were being smuggled out of the back gate, so the security staff on the main gate did not see them. This probably meant that they were less likely to get prompt medical help when needed. An example of strict safety culture reducing safety? This is where box-ticking always leads.
From Science, March 30:
snip...Ereditato, who leads a group from the University of Bern, and Autiero, head of a group at the University of Lyon in France, had been the public face of the controversial study for the past 6 months, but apparently colleagues were unhappy about the way they had handled the results. Specifically, there was discontent about Ereditato's management, says the source at OPERA, while the opposition to Autiero focused on the measurement itself....snip
j
Lots of interest it looks like. These measurement capabilities amaze me compared to audio circuits. If I remember correctly I read about some AD sensors with 10^-21 Farads! Hard for a Wisconsin farm boy like me to believe.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.