Yaaay! We're doomed!
Wednesday, November 30
Same, Only Different
This blog now appears at
ai.mu.nu. Of course, it still appears at
ambientirony.mu.nu and even at
ambientirony.com.
I changed the default domain because there are an increasing number of blogs filtering referrers on the word "ambien". Which sucks.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
11:36 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Typekey has never heard of "ai.mu.nu".
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Thursday, December 01 2005 06:33 PM (CJBEv)
2
Typekey is poo.
I have no idea what it is complaining about, since it is registered for ambientirony.mu.nu, ai.mu.nu, and mu.nu itself.
Trial and error time, I suppose.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, December 01 2005 07:22 PM (AIaDY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Worst Website In The World
International Illustrator.
It makes an artform out of awfulness. Every page you stumble across scales unexpected pinnacles of unfriendliness. Apparently they have an online store. I sure as hell can't find it.
Look at this, which is a subsite of the above train wreck. There is exactly one link on the page, and it does nothing.
What the hell? I mean, seriously, what the hell? If this had somehow languished on someone's server since 1996 and I'd just now stumbled across it, I could understand, but the copyright dates are this year (and often, next year).
International Illustrator brings you all the best tubes, tuts, images, fonts, filters, tags and more!
Now you're just making things up. You sound like my granddaughter, and I
know she makes that stuff up.
Minus thirty trillion Pixy Points. Reformat your server, install Linux and, say, Joomla, and start again from the beginning, because what we have here is a failure to communicate. [You were going to say something with the word "fuck" in it, weren't you? You could tell? Well, yeah.]
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
08:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.
For A Few Comments More
So, I have this little program that converts Movable Type blogs, singly or en masse, into Minx blogs.* And I am trying out various queries to see how the database performs when it is actually using the indexes, and now and then adding a new index.
One of the indexes I added was on the number of comments on posts, so you can quickly see where the action is (or was). And the number one post, with 1633 comments, can be found here. I'm surprised the poor system survived.
MySQL takes 0.11 seconds to bring up those comments the first time; 0.03 seconds after they've been cached in memory. Whether this is a worthwhile achievement or not I will leave to Madfish's readers to decide.
* Not that I am working on Minx.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
02:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm in the midst of a 'Pixy-Lanche"... I'm thinking that the linked post must be a record for comments... I've checked some KOS and LGF posts and only a couple of those are over 1500... WooHoo for Madfish Willie!!
Posted by: Madfish Willie at Wednesday, November 30 2005 12:24 PM (dcX0a)
2
Admit it, you are working on Minx, aren't you?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward at Wednesday, November 30 2005 06:00 PM (sCYzS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tuesday, November 29
So...
How long has that stupid picture been sitting there anyway? Two weeks now?
Doh.
Note to self: WHM account transfer function trashes symbolic links.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
07:39 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What's the deal with that little picture anyway. Am I supposed to click it?
Posted by: Kevin at Sunday, December 04 2005 07:20 AM (Eq/i5)
2
Only if you want to. The little picture next to each post links to the category archive.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, December 04 2005 09:26 AM (ZrDos)
3
Doh! I guess I'm an idiot *blush* I clicked on two from different articles and got sent to the same article both times, which had nothing to do with the original articles.
So I assumed they were broken and gave up :)
Posted by: Kevin at Sunday, December 04 2005 01:54 PM (Eq/i5)
Posted by: Evan Cole at Thursday, December 08 2005 10:58 AM (bq1ZJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Grasshopper Learns Another Lesson
After loading a fresh copy of the database, you must analyse the tables before MySQL will do anything remotely sensible with the indexes.
If you fail to do this... DOH!
(Visualise that "DOH!" in 40-foot-high flashing red neon, with searchlights and helicopters flying overhead and police cars and fire engines and so on and so forth.)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
03:08 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Consider it so visualised
Posted by: Rob at Tuesday, November 29 2005 05:34 AM (9UJHr)
2
We were having a real issue with the performance of the MT trackback script - it was chewing up 200MB of memory at a time and taking several seconds to run. Not when someone sent us a trackback, but when someone looked up the trackbacks for a particular post.
I was wondering how MT could possibly be screwed up so badly, even if we are stuck on an old version. Turns out that it wasn't MT at all, but MySQL. When we moved servers, it lost all its statistics on the indexes,
so it stopped using them! (Insert as many exclamation marks here as you see fit. I think that three or four dozen should do.)
I ran a table analysis, and the problem simply went away. Of course, I didn't work that out directly. It was only when my standard index page in
Minx went from taking 0.01 seconds to 3.5 seconds that I really started to look at the database.
Now the only really poopy thing left with MT is the search script, which I may be forced to drag out behind the barn and shoot.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 29 2005 06:21 AM (3FPsg)
3
Oh yeah.
I realised that this was the problem with the trackback script just as I got to that point in the post. Hence the neon lights, fire engines, etc.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 29 2005 06:22 AM (3FPsg)
4
When you shoot it, make sure there are no witnesses.... ;)
Posted by: Susie at Tuesday, November 29 2005 08:13 AM (a0oF7)
5
I can visualize it, even if I don't understand it.
Posted by: RP at Tuesday, November 29 2005 05:29 PM (LlPKh)
6
That's why you should run MT on flatfile databases. No pesky index to think of!
Posted by: Jojo at Tuesday, November 29 2005 09:30 PM (vlKqG)
7
I'm a duck. I'm supposed to understand this?
As previously mentioned: I like pie.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Tuesday, November 29 2005 09:49 PM (mAAjO)
8
I understand pie. Mmm-mmm, pie!
Posted by: Wonderduck at Tuesday, November 29 2005 09:50 PM (mAAjO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
So, Grasshopper...
Why exactly have you provided a structure for monthly archives in your database when the system is entirely dynamic and is already indexed by date?
Because the sticky field overrides the date ordering.
But you could add a new index?
Well... yes.
And it would add, what, 10% to the thread table size?
Yes.
And it would allow monthly archives by category and stuff like that?
Yes.
And?
Done.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
12:13 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
Monday, November 28
A Grasshopper Achieves Enlightenment
The way to consistently achieve acceptable performance on full-text searches using MySQL* is to avoid full-text indexes at all costs.
The problem is threefold. Full-text indexes generally treat your text as one big splodge of data. Minx** is structured into recursive directories of sites containing recursive directories of folders containing recursive directories of threads, which contain posts and comments and various other type thingies, all of which are crosslinked like the great polymer of doom. There's all the structure you could possibly ask for when it comes to narrowing down a search. But if you use a full-text index, it searches the entire database first, and then looks at your selection. This wouldn't be a problem, though, were it not for the other two points.
MySQL somehow scatters its full-text index data all over the disk in bite-size pieces. If all the index data is in memory (and you can force that situation using a special SQL query), it is very fast. If it's not, then MySQL will gather up all its little pieces before doing anything with your search. This can take (literally) a minute. Once it's in memory, your search might take a tenth of a second, but the first time, it's likely to suck.
Finally, what with the time taken to scatter all those little pieces about, building the index in the first place takes forever. Add that one index and your database takes ten times longer to load.
How to avoid all this ugliness? Simple. Use brute-force searches. There are still some tricks there, for instance, that only indexed critera seem to be used to narrow the search before MySQL does the text match, so a carelessly defined selection can end up scanning the entire database. Also, MySQL is pretty darn slow at doing brute-force searches.***
Beyond that, the solution is to build your own search engine. Or use Google. But since I can search all of Ace's posts in about a second and all his comments in four, and since I can easily get it to restrict the search to, say, the last six months or whatever (proportionally reducing the search time) or expand it to multiple blogs or narrow it to specific categories... I think it's good enough to be getting on with.
And since that was the only problem I really still had with Minx** there is now nothing in the way of rolling out a preview release... Except that I have to move house first.****
* In the context of a large-scale blogging system.
** Which I am not working on. Not at all.
*** As it turns out, not really any slower than selecting all the text in the first place. So the problem isn't in the text search itself, which is something of a relief.
**** Yes, again. I don't want to talk about it. In fact, I don't know why I brought it up in the first place. Bah.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
11:10 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I'm sure you must have
some boxes that are still not unpacked? That should make it go a bit smoother...
Posted by: Susie at Tuesday, November 29 2005 08:17 AM (a0oF7)
2
Yes, that will help. Sigh.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 29 2005 08:25 AM (QriEg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sunday, November 27
Now That I Am Flu Nebraska
or, Winning A Battle In The War On Spam
If you're wondering where I've been these past few days, well, I've been busy snarking.
Snark! is the new MuNu trackback filter. It's based on the simple but elegant idea that if someone sends us lots of trackbacks, we don't want them. Unlike most people, I am in the position to collate trackback data from across two hundred blogs in real time. So if all at once someone sends three pings to Little Miss Attila and two to Ace of Spades and another four to, say, the the Llamas, I can simply say, "This is Spam, and I shall delete it forthwith", and do so.
We get a lot of spam. Tens of thousands of trackbacks a day. Thousands of comments. We are running MT Blacklist, and most of it gets summarily rejected. But. Movable Type is not the most sprightly of applications. It's a dynamically configured CGI app written in Perl. That's not a recipe for sparkling performance, and indeed, sparkle it does not. It chugs along like a diesel engine, a plough horse rather than a thoroughbred. It can take close to half a second, sometimes more, for Movable Type to decide to reject a trackback.
And when the spammers really get to work, we can receive a thousand trackbacks a minute.
Snark stops 99.8% of trackback spam before it even gets to Movable Type, and it does it very very efficiently. How efficiently? This efficiently:
Blacklist Entries: 23 (plus 61 manual entries)
Session Uptime: 6 hours 0 minutes
Pings Received: 3045
Processing Time: 0.50 seconds
3000 trackbacks stopped, 360 web pages updated, 360
blacklists exported, in the same time it takes Movable Type to do
one.
This is not a slam on Movable Type itself. The Perl script I use to simply log the incoming trackbacks takes 40 milliseconds, 0.04 seconds, to run. Snark can process the trackbacks a hundred times faster than the system can record them.
What I'm saying is that there are better ways to do things than CGI and Perl. PHP is a significant improvement in terms of performance, but not so much in terms of the language itself.
Python and persistent application servers are where the action is. I tried writing a blogging system exactly that way, but I was unfortunate in my choice of databases (I used Metakit, and it simply doesn't scale). Fortunately, Python SQL programming isn't as bad as all that - it's at least comparable with Perl or PHP.* CherryPy is a very neat way to organise such a system without needing any sort of CGI or PHP front end. And Psyco speeds up even text-processing applications by a good 50%.
Which is not to say that I am busy working on Minx again and hope to have something to show before the end of the year. Not at all.
Update: I've cleaned up the code a little - although it still makes multiple passes through the trackback list - and changed the order in which the filters are applied so that the volume filter comes first (that is, after the whitelist) and the blacklist comes last. That should make things even more efficient since the volume and age filters are O(1) and the blacklist is O(n). Now I just need another 10,000 trackbacks so I can do a comparison. Come in spammer!
Update: I finished the code cleanup and optimisation, and the spammers obliged:
Blacklist Entries: 24 (plus 60 manual entries)
Session Uptime: 13 hours 3 minutes
Pings Received: 11888
Processing Time: 0.50 seconds
I think this one's a keeper.
*In other words, about twenty years behind commercial systems.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
06:53 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 619 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I like pie.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Sunday, November 27 2005 11:34 AM (mAAjO)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, November 27 2005 07:29 PM (QriEg)
3
Pixy, you should put subtitles on posts like this.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Monday, November 28 2005 12:26 AM (KnWO3)
4
English is Pixy's second language--his first is Geek... ;)
Posted by: Susie at Monday, November 28 2005 10:32 AM (a0oF7)
5
Nah... I understand Geek. Whatever
that was, it wasn't Geek. Adminish, maybe.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Monday, November 28 2005 11:15 PM (mAAjO)
6
In non-Geek, what I am saying is this:
1. Instead of making a list of everything we don't want (the old way), now we just delete anything we get lots of and hope for the best.
2. So far this is working much much better than the old way for far less effort.
3. Yay!
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 29 2005 07:38 AM (QriEg)
Posted by: Susie at Tuesday, November 29 2005 08:18 AM (a0oF7)
8
Nice. Good application of common sense to technology.
When the two meet, anything is achievable.
Posted by: TallDave at Wednesday, November 30 2005 03:21 PM (r7SJo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Saturday, November 26
Cortona
It's a
where, not a what.
Spam - it's an education.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
02:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
Friday, November 25
Lawmaker
Pixy's First Law of Economics: Spam is whatever you have too much of.
If you are trying to identify what is and isn't spam, forget blacklists and bayesian filters. Go by volume. Of course, you have to be in a position to measure the volume, but if you are, that's it for the spammers.
According to Snark!™ duepunti.net currently has a spam ranking of 48. Even if they send me no trackbacks at all for the next hour, they will still be considered a spammer and anything that comes from them will be automatically deleted (and bump their rank up).
Now they're up to 62.8. Slow learners. Of course, I don't provide any feedback, I just null-route the bastards.
I was just thinking - I could post the Snark!™ stats as a public service. Make it (ugh) XML and people could import it directly. Real-time dynamic spammer detection.
First I have to stop Snark!™ going mad and dropping the ball. It did that last night and generated a gigabyte of error messages. I think a leetle bit more tweaking is in order.
Update: See the link above. It still falls over now and then, so you can expect the values to suddenly get reset to zero on occasion until I (a) get that fixed and/or (b) get it to store the spam rankings.
Update: I did (b), 'cause it's easier to add code than to fix what's already there. Not better, just easier.
Update: Okay, I think I've managed (a) as well. Turned out to be a couple of bugs that only occured when there were no trackbacks to be processed. This didn't show up in my testing, because that would mean going an entire minute without getting spammed.
Update: The spammers have gone quiet for now. This is probably the first time I've ever wanted to get spamflooded. The point is, the more spam we get, the better the filter works, and the better the data we can provide to others. We now have an IP address list as well, but because the spam died down just as I implemented that function, it presently contains exactly one address.
We receive well over a million trackbacks a month, so I'm sure we'll have a nice set of sample data coming down the wire soon enough.
Update: Change log sort of thingy. Though I really just added that link to test the whitelist.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
02:34 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 404 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Have I told you lately that you are brilliant as well as beautiful?
Posted by: Susie at Friday, November 25 2005 10:48 AM (a0oF7)
2
Not to mention the lovely accent, too.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Friday, November 25 2005 12:18 PM (mAAjO)
3
This is actually a nice heuristic. Trackback spammers who reduce the number of pings they send you defeat their own purpose, which is to hike their results in search engine results.
But if they continue to flood you with pings, you ban them simply because of sheer volume.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Friday, November 25 2005 12:43 PM (CJBEv)
4
Yep.
My initial thought was just to replace the Movable Type trackback script, which is nightmarishly inefficient. (It can use up to 200MB of memory!) Second thought was that nobody minds if trackbacks take a minute or so to appear, and if I sample trackbacks once a minute I can reject anything that we get more than, say, five copies of.
And when I did that, suddenly 99.5% of the spam was eliminated before it even reached the blacklist.
So I added some more tracking mechanisms, a "fading memory" effect so that people couldn't simply send us 4 spams per minute, a feedback system, and so it grew. It's now blocking 99.9% of spam with - as far as I can see - not one false positive so far.
MT Blacklist is blocking about 50% of the remaining spam, so the amount that is actually getting through is
tiny.
I'm getting twice as much trackback spam on my blog (which is running MT 3.15) than all 200 Snark-protected blogs put together. That's what I call economy of scale.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, November 25 2005 11:49 PM (AIaDY)
5
Minor update: MT's trackback script is only nightmarishly inefficient if your MySQL database happens to be screwed up. Which it was.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 29 2005 08:55 AM (QriEg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday, November 23
Off To Sleepy Bobo's
Brush my toothy-pegs,
Put on my piggy jim-jams,
And say "I'm off to Sleepy Bobo's".
Everybody does!
OSM, we hardly knew ye.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
08:45 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sweet Dreams, Dear Pixy--you've earned them!
Posted by: Susie at Wednesday, November 23 2005 11:14 AM (a0oF7)
2
Is it bad of me to want to tack "...and we hardly cared" onto the end of Pixy's post?
Posted by: Wonderduck at Wednesday, November 23 2005 03:33 PM (+rGmJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Monday, November 21
Testing...
PING!
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
01:21 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.
1
http://snipurl.com/k2im
:-)
Posted by: Wonderduck at Monday, November 21 2005 02:16 AM (KnWO3)
Posted by: Jim at Monday, November 21 2005 01:07 PM (oqu5j)
Posted by: Wonderduck at Monday, November 21 2005 09:04 PM (mAAjO)
Posted by: dhgmk at Tuesday, November 22 2005 01:03 AM (GT8oG)
5
Great. Spam I can't even read.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 22 2005 02:30 AM (AIaDY)
6
I think you need to ban someone's IP addy....
Posted by: Susie at Tuesday, November 22 2005 04:07 PM (a0oF7)
7
He's a charmer, isn't he?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 22 2005 05:42 PM (3FPsg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sunday, November 20
Hell No, We Won't... Er, What?
The best liveblogging of the withdrawal debate I've seen:
So, the entire last 6 hours in a nutshell is:
“Hell no! We won’t vote! oh, wait. We have to vote? Well, in that case, Hell no! You’re all wrong! We object! Do we still have to vote? Okay. We all vote on the same side you do.â€
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
At Euphoric Reality.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
04:55 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Susie at Sunday, November 20 2005 10:06 AM (a0oF7)
2
Just read it and relived it. That was kinda fun actually. Best line of the night, imho (from memory):
"So, tonight, let's not talk about exit strategy; let's not talk about timetables; let's talk about VICTORY."
Posted by: Tuning Spork at Friday, November 25 2005 01:49 AM (ZqFjh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Correcting Fluid
Original story by Liz Sidoti for Associated Press.
Additional editing for accuracy by Pixy Misa.
WASHINGTON - The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by the Republicans that was intended to fail. Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt, although it was exactly what they had wanted.
"Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democratic hawk whose call a day earlier for pulling out troops sparked stirred Republicans to respond to a nasty, personal debate season of Democrat attacks over the war pretty much everything.
The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal, after Democrats had failed in desperate attempts to stop the resolution coming to a vote.
"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will not retreat," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said as the GOP leadership pushed the issue to a vote over the protest of Democrats. [Hey, that paragraph didn't need any editing!]
It was the second time in less than a week that President Bush's Iraq policy stirred heated debate in Congress. On Tuesday, the Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal, and then scored an own goal by submitting their own bill for the same thing.
Murtha, a 73-year-old Marine veteran decorated for combat service in Vietnam, issued his call for a troop withdrawal unconditional surrender and the abandonment of the Iraqi people at a news conference on Thursday. In little more than 24 hours, Hastert and Republicans decided to put the question to the House.
Democrats, aghast that their bluff had been called, said it was a political stunt and quickly decided to vote against it in an attempt to drain it of significance.
"A disgrace," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame," added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, "not that there's anything wrong with that."
Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position — either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict living up to the reality of their own demands. They also hoped the vote could restore GOP momentum on an issue — the war — that has seen plummeting public support in recent weeks according to the same polls that predicted a comfortable win for John Edwards last November. [Kerry. What? Kerry was the presidential candidate, not Edwards. You're kidding. No, really, he was. Does it matter now? Guess not.]
Democrats claimed Republicans were changing the meaning of Murtha's withdrawal proposal. He has said a smooth withdrawal would take six months, although Murtha's own proposal called for an "immediate redeployment".
At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.
"He asked me to send Congress a message — stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message — that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said. Murtha is a 37-year Marine veteran.
Democrats booed and shouted her down — causing the House to come to a standstill. However, no pies were thrown.
Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the chamber's center aisle screaming that Republicans were making uncalled-for personal attacks. "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass. Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, apologised to the nation for the behaviour of the House Democrats, explaining that they were a bit tired and would "feel better after a nap".
"It's just heinous," Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., said of the Republican move. "Whatever that means. It's a good word, though. Heinous. I think it means they pulled this out of their ass.
"This is a personal attack on one of the best members, one of the most respected members of this House and it is outrageous," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "We never intended it to come to a vote."
A growing number of House members and senators, looking ahead to off-year elections next November, are publicly worrying about a quagmire in Vietnam. [Iraq! What? The war is in Iraq, not Vietnam. Iraq? Isn't that a desert? Well, yes, mostly. So how does it become a quaqmire? Isn't that a swamp or something? Oh, never mind.] They have been staking out new positions on a war that is increasingly unpopular with the American public according to the latest opinion polls, which we both know aren't worth diddly, has resulted in more than 2,000 U.S. military deaths - far fewer than any other major war - and has cost more than $200 billion, which would be enough money to rebuild half of New Orleans, at least until next year.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
01:01 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 771 words, total size 5 kb.
1
If, as the AP fairy tale...I mean article says, that this was is "increasingly unpopular", then why are Democrats whining? If anti-war sentiment is that strong, wouldn't that make this the easiest vote they ever cast? Unless anti-war sentiment ISN'T as "increasingly unpopular" as the Agenda Media have told us it is. Nawww. That couldn't happen, could it? Didn't think so.
BTW, check out my article summarizing the effect Murtha's announcement and Friday night's vote have had
by following this link.
Posted by: Gary Gross at Sunday, November 20 2005 03:25 AM (aX6J6)
Posted by: Susie at Sunday, November 20 2005 10:06 AM (a0oF7)
3
A very nice website !! Very well Done !!!
nokia6630
Posted by: velma at Tuesday, July 25 2006 03:03 AM (zMwc1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Saturday, November 19
Be Careful What You Ask For
House Republicans, showing vastly more political acumen than their Senate colleagues, have proposed that
American forces withdraw from Iraq immediately, and are bringing it to a vote.
The Republicans, of course, intend to vote against it. The point is to force the Democrats to go on record. Or to go on record refusing to go on record. As John Cole notes at the above link, it's time to shut up and vote.
I wonder if the Democrats even know what a petard is?
More at Let Freedom Ring and Bareknuckle Politics.
(via Insty)
Update: No End But Victory is liveblogging the debate, but I'm a bit confused as to what exactly is happening right now. One thing for certain: The Democrats are not happy bunnies.
Oh! Here we go. Looks like it's on for real now. I'm sure the Democrats are enjoying being held back past 8 o'clock while their words are thrown in their faces.
MuNu Views:
Ace of Spades
The Jawa Report
The Llama Butchers
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
08:44 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
Modest Proposal Number 317
America becomes part of Australia.
What you, the Americans, get:
- Leaders who actually say what they mean. Well, you've got Rumsfeld, but we've got Howard and Costello and Downer and lots more where they came from.
- Your President replaces our Governor General as head of state.
- A really big naval base in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
- Kangaroo steaks. Tastier and leaner than beef. And no BSE!
- Tim Blair.
- Holly Valance.
- Several thousand miles of beachfront property.
- The weather that California claims to have.
What we, the Aussies, get:
- Nuclear warships. We've always wanted some.
- Amazon.
- The Bill of Rights. Particularly the second one.
- Dave Barry.
- Condi Rice.
- A free trade agreement that really means it.
- Halloween and Thanksgiving. It's a long haul to Christmas down here, and they will break the monotony nicely.
As part of the merger, the Senates of both nations will be disbanded and auctioned off for charity.
What say you?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
06:18 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's a deal. Can you start Monday?
Posted by: Wonderduck at Saturday, November 19 2005 10:07 AM (HoSBk)
Posted by: Susie at Saturday, November 19 2005 11:31 AM (a0oF7)
3
Eh, there's that whole "subjects" thing. And I'm personally kind of attached to the Republic, or what's left of it.
But you're free to apply to join the US, if you want. Not sure if the Windsors would object. Do they actually make anything out of being your titular heads of state?
Posted by: Mitch H. at Saturday, November 19 2005 11:33 AM (iTVQj)
4
Eh, there's that whole "subjects" thing. And I'm personally kind of attached to the Republic, or what's left of it.
Already solved. See point 2 under America.
We still need to work out a national anthem. I propose
Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap by AC/DC. Or did New Jersey already take that one?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 19 2005 11:44 AM (QriEg)
5
Dibs on Ted Kennedy's liver!
Posted by: TallDave at Saturday, November 19 2005 03:58 PM (LD5EW)
6
TallDave, why would you want something which is clearly so far beyond its sell-by date?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Saturday, November 19 2005 07:38 PM (CJBEv)
7
Pixy - It's a deal! But what would we call it?
Steven - it's not every day you get a chance at a pre-pickled liver. Nice memento to keep in a jar on your desk...
Posted by: Kathy K at Saturday, November 19 2005 08:52 PM (+iiGP)
8
I vote a big yes there. Can i keep a couple of senators as pets? I promise to feed them weekly.
:-D
Posted by: tommy at Saturday, November 19 2005 10:29 PM (EhwJT)
9
I'd say it's a great idea. All except for the auctioning the Senate off bit. Nothing like adding to the national debt when we have to pay the highest bidder to take them off our hands. I've got a better idea, we just buy each of them a one way ticket to France.
Posted by: Eric at Saturday, November 19 2005 11:49 PM (bVq1X)
10
SDB,
Are you kidding? That has got to be the most powerful liver in the history of mankind. Why, the benefits to medical science alone are incalculable.
Posted by: TallDave at Sunday, November 20 2005 12:39 AM (H8Wgl)
11
Can we invade Canada then? We really need some decent domestic beer down here in Georgia and if we take over Canada, Labbatt's Blue won't be an import any more.
Posted by: Jim at Sunday, November 20 2005 01:57 PM (oqu5j)
12
Kathy K - The name of the new union should be the "United States of Australia"
The two land masses would be referred to as "Down Under" and "the Really *Really* Top End." Alternatively we could take a page out of the Kiwis book and call them the North and South islands.
The only thing I'd be worried about is the how the US would affect our economy, were ticking over quite nicely now, the sheer amount of debt we would incur scares me.
Posted by: Jonathan Wheare at Sunday, November 20 2005 09:27 PM (DHOFC)
13
Jim, what will you need
Canadian beer for?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, November 20 2005 09:31 PM (3FPsg)
14
Jim, Pixy's right. Tons of pubs have their own yummy micro-brews. At least when i was there last.
we can use the Labatts to wash our hair.
Posted by: matoko-chan at Sunday, November 20 2005 09:51 PM (LpE+2)
15
Why would we need Canadian beer when we could get Australian beer?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Monday, November 21 2005 03:03 PM (CJBEv)
16
I'm in on one condition. Kylie has to come with the deal.
Posted by: Dan at Monday, November 21 2005 11:13 PM (akwIr)
17
Can we smack the crap out of Ontario before we go?
Posted by: ClydeLane at Thursday, December 08 2005 03:03 PM (6A1+i)
18
Only one problem...have to learn a whole new language...
Posted by: David at Thursday, December 08 2005 03:35 PM (jrRV8)
19
Obvious when you think about. The only downside I can see is, uh, without a Senate we won't be able to keep our incompetents out of the private sector?
Posted by: Adam Greenwood at Thursday, December 08 2005 06:17 PM (w4Bx4)
20
Would soccer be called "soccer" or "football"? If "football," what would football be called?
Posted by: Jeannette at Sunday, April 23 2006 12:33 AM (8xaoo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sunday, November 13
Cows
Yes. Cows.
Update: No more cows. Well, no major cows. We are on the new servers, and things seem to be working well.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
03:02 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, November 13 2005 03:21 PM (QBWCV)
2
This is a test cowment.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Sunday, November 13 2005 04:19 PM (CJBEv)
Posted by: Wonderduck at Monday, November 14 2005 05:36 AM (HoSBk)
Posted by: Susie at Monday, November 14 2005 12:54 PM (a0oF7)
5
Brahma? Angus? Holstein?
The world needs to know!
Posted by: owlish at Monday, November 14 2005 08:37 PM (rzugH)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, November 14 2005 11:42 PM (AIaDY)
7
Which reminds me of what my dad called the "Flannel Isles": Jersey, Guernsey, Underwear and Socks.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, November 14 2005 11:43 PM (AIaDY)
Posted by: Susie at Tuesday, November 15 2005 02:25 PM (a0oF7)
Posted by: Wonderduck at Tuesday, November 15 2005 11:05 PM (KnWO3)
10
No Gurnseys? Only problem I'm having so far is that I can't make any updates or changes on previous posts... I have no permission.
Otherwise, things seem to be okay...
Posted by: That 1 Guy at Wednesday, November 16 2005 03:07 AM (Fzlxz)
11
That 1, I had the same problem over at Wonderduck's Pond (*cheap pop*)... I found that if I reposted the recalcitrant missive, it'd go up. YMMV.
Speaking of cows, did one sit on our host?
Posted by: Wonderduck at Wednesday, November 16 2005 09:18 PM (KnWO3)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, November 17 2005 02:49 AM (AIaDY)
13
Beef: It's what's for dinner.
Posted by: TallDave at Thursday, November 17 2005 10:56 AM (LD5EW)
Posted by: Wonderduck at Friday, November 18 2005 07:07 PM (HoSBk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Saturday, November 12
It's Not Science!
An argument I often find myself drawn into with adherents of astrology, creationism, dualism or other such fairy tales is the definition of Science. I use the capital letter here because these arguments are about the over-arching structure of the scientific system rather than any one scientist's efforts or any one scientific theory.
To save myself some time, I'll post my argument here, once, so that I can simply point any bewildered netizens I encounter back to it and say, read this.
What is Science? First and foremost, it is an attempt to understand the world. That is not surprising, but even in this there is a buried statement. If you are making an attempt to understand the world, you are making the statement that the world can be understood, that it is not random or arbitrary. This is shared by all attempts at understanding, even primitive concepts like animism and misapprehensions like the Cargo Cults.
Science sets itself apart from other such attempts in that it constructs a system, a rigorous framework, in which we can build our understanding. The framework is based on metaphysical naturalism.
For Science does not permit of just any explanation. Science seeks to explain the world in terms of the world. For any event we observe, Science seeks an explanation in terms of other events we observe. Events that we cannot observe are precluded from our explanations.
So, for example, we observe that if we leave a piece of rotting meat lying about, after a few days we find it crawling with maggots.
Hypothesis: Maggots spontaneously form from meat if it is left undisturbed.
Hypothesis: Maggots are planted in the meat by invisible immaterial demons.
We have two plausible explanations, but they can't both be true. Why does this matter? Well, it matters because we want to know which explanation is the correct one. We can perform tests - experiments - to see if our Theory of Spontaneous Maggotation is true. We can put the meat in a tightly sealed jar and see if our maggots generate.
And, as it turns out, they do not.
We can repeat the experiment, and we find that while maggots appear in unprotected meat, meat in the sealed jar remains maggot-free. We can vary the experiment, and find that even if we do not seal the jar, but merely cover it with a cloth, there are still no maggots.
This means that the first hypothesis is incorrect. This hypothesis required only meat and time, which have both been provided, but with no maggots resulting.
What about our demons then? Well, they are invisible and immaterial, so they clearly would not be stopped by something as simple as a cloth. But a cloth does prevent maggots. What does this mean in demon terms? It means that we have observed intances where demons do not create maggots.
And that's all we can say.
The difference here is that we know the first explanation to be incorrect. We know it for certain. It is wrong. It is false.
The second explanation? Well, maybe sometimes the demons are busy inflicting cholera on the people of the next village. We don't know.
The difference is that the first is a natural explanation, and the second is a supernatural one. Natural explanations derive from natural causes, and we can control natural causes. Supernatural explanations derive from supernatural causes, and we cannot control those.
The meat is there. We gave it time. No maggots appear, so spontaneous generation is false.
The demons may or may not have been there. They are supernatural; we cannot preclude them; we may not even be able to detect their presence. We do not know, nor can we ever know, whether the demons are the cause or not.
The Theory of Spontaneous Maggotification is a scientific theory, and it is wrong. The Theory of Devilish Wormonising is not a scientific theory, because we can never know whether it is wrong.
Science's utility lies in its unique ability to throw out its trash. This is known as falsification, and although it has been acknowledged since the dawn of science, it was not until last century that Karl Popper fully explained its role.
For a hypothesis or a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable, that is, we must be able to determine if it is false. On the other hand, there is no requirement for a scientific theory to be provable, and indeed they are not. A scientific statement can be provable; the predictions made by theories are a good example of this.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted that gravity would bend light in a certain way and by a certain amount. Observations by Sir Arthur Eddington confirmed this; the prediction was proved correct. This did not prove the Theory itself. It lent support to it, certainly, but that is all.
However, had it turned out that light was not bent by gravity, the Theory of Relativity would have been proved wrong, and discarded. It would have been falsified.
Now, back to our invisible demons. We know that if we cover the jar with a cloth, we don't get maggots. Is the cloth blocking the demons? That would make no sense, since the demons are supposed to be immaterial. Cloth or cork or wax stopper, all prevent the maggots, but none should present any barrier to our demons. (And we can note that wrapping people in cloth does little to prevent cholera.)
We can't say whether the demons are stopped by the cloth or just slacking, because we can't observe the demons. In fact, we have no direct evidence that the demons exist. We have postulated their presence from the existence of maggots, the corruption of wholesome meat. But now we have no maggots. Perhaps that flimsy layer of gauze really is an impassible barrier to maggot-demons.
Only... Now that we have no maggots, we have no reason to postulate the existence of demons at all. We haven't proved they're not there. The only sign we might have had of their presence is gone, but we said from the beginning that they were invisible.
And that's the problem with the Invisible Demon Theory. You can't ever know for sure that you're wrong.
Science, as we have said, is a systematic attempt to explain the world. And we know that for an explanation to be useful, we must be able to depend on it. Knowing that s = ut + ½at2 sometimes isn't really a big help.
But you can't prove that it's always correct. You can't test every situation, because there are infinitely many situations in which any theory might apply. A theory is supposed to tell you what to expect, so if all you ever do is test it, it's not much good.
You can't prove your theory, but what you can do is disprove it. We say, s = ut + ½at2 always. And we look for cases where it isn't. We can't ever hope to prove it true, but just one counter-example will prove it false. And if, over time, we find no such examples, we gain confidence in the theory. We would gain confidence too from a mass of confirming evidence, but there is a critical difference: In one case, we were trying to prove it right, and we didn't happen to stumble across anything to the contrary. In the other, we were actively seeking counter-examples, and despite our best efforts we couldn't find any.
Failure of falsification can offer much stronger support than mere confirming evidence.
So falsifiability inevitably arises as a key requirement if you wish to construct a rigorous system for explaining the world. You have to test your ideas, and this is the only reliable way to do so.
But falsification is impossible for theories deriving from the supernatural. Which means that any rigorous system for explaining the world must be naturalistic. It must preclude all supernatural causes, and forbear trying to explain supernatural events, because the former cannot produce useful explanations and the latter... cannot even be detected.
So Science, from humble beginnings as simply a concerted attempt to get the right answer, turns out to necessarily require both metaphysical naturalism as its foundation and falsification as its primary tool in seeking truth. And it is unique. There is only one Science. A system based on naturalism and using falsification to test ideas is Science. A system that fails of either of these is not.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
04:43 AM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1421 words, total size 8 kb.
1
I get all tingly when you write things like this...;)
Posted by: Susie at Saturday, November 12 2005 09:11 AM (a0oF7)
2
Good to know I haven't lost my touch. :)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 12 2005 10:02 AM (QriEg)
3
The way to find out if a theory is falsifiable is for it to tell us what
can't happen.
All falsifiable theories can make predictions of this form: It is impossible for us to ever see xxxxx. (Where xxxxx is something we can think of a way to look for.)
The demon theory of maggots can make no such prediction.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Saturday, November 12 2005 01:45 PM (CJBEv)
4
Yes. I'd like to tighten up the article, but it was after midnight and I decided to just post the darn thing. I'll come back and edit it some more when I'm done moving 200 web sites to our new servers.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 12 2005 05:08 PM (QriEg)
5
Excellent!
And you even avoided mentioning the misleading "Scientific Method" so dear to the hearts of grade school teachers.
I'd just add one thing: the thing that Feynman stressed in his Caltech commencement address Cargo Cult Science.
Science is based on honesty: absolutely witheringly brutal bend-over-backwards honesty, including brutal self-honesty.
I work with scientists daily, and interact with plenty on lists and newsgroups, and I've met a few who are NOT honest. Scientists are human, so the human habit of dishonesty cannot be ignored. The presence of dishonest scientists shows that it's critically important for us to always stress how large a role that honesty plays.
I might even put honesty above "an attempt to understand the world." There are many different attempts to understand the world (religion among them,) but what separates Science from all the rest is its incorporation of extreme backbreaking honesty. Science without honesty will turn into politics or religion. And I suspect that if religion adopted brutal honesty in all of its acts, then religion would quickly turn into science.
Posted by: Bill Beaty at Saturday, November 12 2005 05:46 PM (/7z+c)
6
Up until here you were excellent:But falsification is impossible for theories deriving from the supernatural.
The problem with the "maggot-planting demons" theory is not that the demons are supernatural. The problem is that the demons don't do anything we can observe, apart from putting maggots into meat. It's the absence of visible
effects that sinks the theory, not the appeal to invisible causes.
Consider the postulate, made in the 19th century, of a luminiferous ether as the medium for waves of light. The ether was not observable itself (because it doesn't actually exist) but scientists believed in it, because they could predict events correctly by assuming it was there. It was when Michelson and Morley tried to measure the Earth's motion with respect to the ether, and got the "impossible" result that the Earth wasn't moving at all, that scientists lost confidence in the ether's existence. The impossibility of observing the ether gave scientists no difficulty; it needed a failed experiment to raise doubts.
The essential part of doing science is to follow out a theory's logical consequences until one reaches an assertion about observable events, and then test that assertion against reality. That is "falsification". But a scientific theory can perfectly well include unobservable causes, provided that everywhere it predicts observable events, those events come to pass -- as with the luminiferous ether. (The spacetime 4-manifold of relativity, and the virtual particles of quantum field theory, are unobservable themselves also; no one denies their existence on that account.) So naturalism, being a limit on the causes one may suggest, is far from necessary to science; and might well prove an impediment to it, by stifling imagination.
A final point. If science were based on naturalism, as you suppose, it would not be evidence for naturalism. There are people who will disbelieve their own eyes rather than admit a favorite theory of theirs is wrong, but they aren't called as witnesses to their theory. It is only if scientists are prepared, given good evidence, to entertain supernatural causes, that their testimony against such causes, when evidence is absent, carries weight.
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Saturday, November 12 2005 08:36 PM (8LTnv)
7
The luminiferous ether (if it existed), space-time, and virtual particles can all be observed - by interaction. All natural observations are by interaction, so this is no distinction from anything else. So they are natural.
Invisible immaterial demons cannot be observed by interaction, by their very definition. That's what makes them supernatural.
So as I said, Science requires metaphysical naturalism, and you remain, as always, wrong.
If science were based on naturalism, as you suppose, it would not be evidence for naturalism.
It is the former, and since it works, it is the latter as well. If it didn't work, it would be evidence
against naturalism.
There are people who will disbelieve their own eyes rather than admit a favorite theory of theirs is wrong, but they aren't called as witnesses to their theory.
Which has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.
It is only if scientists are prepared, given good evidence, to entertain supernatural causes, that their testimony against such causes, when evidence is absent, carries weight.
Supernatural causes cannot be coherently entertained in any rigorous system of explanation of the world. If there are supernatural causes, a rigorous system of explanation is impossible.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 12 2005 08:52 PM (QriEg)
8
The problem is that the demons don't do anything we can observe, apart from putting maggots into meat.
That's what supernatural means!
If they had consistent and observable properties, that is, if they interacted with the Universe in a consistent and observable way, they wouldn't be supernatural. They also wouldn't be invisible immaterial demons.
The supernatural, by definition, interacts with the natural
inconsistently. That dynamites any chance of falsification.
You're still wrong, but I have to thank you for bringing up cogent points that I need to clarify.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 12 2005 08:56 PM (QriEg)
9
And I'll also note that dualism is the most fundamentally inconsistent metaphysical concept ever created. Science is utterly impossible under a framework of dualism.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 12 2005 08:58 PM (QriEg)
10
The luminiferous ether (if it existed), space-time, and virtual particles can all be observed - by interaction. All natural observations are by interaction, so this is no distinction from anything else. So they are natural. Invisible immaterial demons cannot be observed by interaction, by their very definition.
Well, no; as you described the theory, these immaterial demons interact with meat, which can be observed. So that doesn't capture the objection to theories like this. You seem to have realized this:
If they had consistent and observable properties, that is, if they interacted with the Universe in a consistent and observable way, they wouldn't be supernatural. They also wouldn't be invisible immaterial demons.
Unfortunately that doesn't capture the objection either; the demons' behavior, as far as we can observe them, is perfectly consistent, in that we can predict what they will do.
The real objection is, as I said before, that no inference can be reached from what the demons do to meat to anything else they might be expected to do. The theory yields no testable predictions, except for the one type of events it was built to explain; that is why it isn't scientific. But the supernatural aspect of the theory has nothing to do with that failure. A theory that maggots are generated in meat by interaction with a weightless, odorless gas named frammistine, which is inert to every substance except meat, would be non-scientific for the same reason.
On "science is based on naturalism": let's imagine a haystack, and two men who are asked whether there's a needle buried in the haystack. The first man answers, "A haystack, by definition, is made out of hay, not of needles; therefore I am certain there are no needles in this haystack." The second man says, "I have examined most of the hay in this haystack, and haven't found a needle; therefore I believe the part I haven't examined is not likely to have a needle in it." Which man would you call for to prove the absence of a needle: the first, or the second?
If science presupposes naturalism, it's parallel to the first man. If science is free to consider the supernatural, but hasn't found any compelling evidence of it, it's parallel to the second man. Science is far more convincing an advocate for naturalism if it reaches that position as a conclusion, than if it starts from there as a premise ...
Science is utterly impossible under a framework of dualism.
You mean, naturalism is impossible under a framework of dualism -- quite true, but not worth saying. But what you said is quite peculiar. One small miracle, however distant it may be from us in time or space, would undermine all our science and prove the cosmos to be irrational and incomprehensible? If we admit one ghost into the world, the laws of physics are a mere comforting delusion? Is it really true that unless all we survey fits into the same pattern, there is no pattern at all?
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Sunday, November 13 2005 05:01 AM (hc1pe)
11
Daaaaaaa-urrrrr... *scratching head*...
I like pie.
Y'know, I'm not a dumb person at all... at least, I don't
think I am... but there are times that I get into reading stuff like this and you can just HEAR my brain cells giving up in droves.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Tuesday, November 15 2005 12:27 AM (HoSBk)
12
Wonderduckling, the sound you hear is not surrender, but
growth.
;-)
Posted by: matoko-chan at Tuesday, November 15 2005 02:29 AM (cxYaY)
13
Michael, sorry, I've been busy and unable to correct your delusions these last few days.
One small miracle, however distant it may be from us in time or space, would undermine all our science and prove the cosmos to be irrational and incomprehensible?
Yes.
If we admit one ghost into the world, the laws of physics are a mere comforting delusion?
Yes.
Is it really true that unless all we survey fits into the same pattern, there is no pattern at all?
Yes.
Let's take a quick look at what Dualism says, okay?There are two realms of existence: Matter, the physical world; and Mind, the world of subjective experience. They are entirely separate and apart, and do not interact in any way... Except when they
do.In this fundamental internal inconsistency Dualism embraces the supernatural. That makes falsification impossible, because there is no requirement for
anything to be consistent anymore. And that makes Science impossible.
Michael, Naturalism is impossible under Dualism, and Science requires Naturalism, absolutely and indisputably. Dualism is an inane happy-land bywater of philosophy that is entirely useless for any sort of rational thought. I'll leave you to it.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 19 2005 01:42 PM (3FPsg)
14
Oh, and although I consider Idealism to be bunk,
some forms of Idealism
can support Naturalism. Of course, they are then intrinsically indistinguishable from Materialism, but them's the lumps.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 19 2005 01:45 PM (3FPsg)
15
Very nice, Pixy. Very nice, indeed.
Posted by: Neal at Saturday, November 19 2005 07:42 PM (pdiJG)
16
Let's take a quick look at what Dualism says, okay? "There are two realms of existence: Matter, the physical world; and Mind, the world of subjective experience. They are entirely separate and apart, and do not interact in any way... Except when they do." In this fundamental internal inconsistency Dualism embraces the supernatural. That makes falsification impossible, because there is no requirement for anything to be consistent anymore. And that makes Science impossible.
First: If that's what "Dualism" means, I'm not a Dualist. I do believe that Mind is more than Matter, but not that Mind's relations with Matter are lawless.
Second: Quantum mechanics, one of science's great triumphs, actually is Dualist as you define it. Systems of quantum particles and "measuring devices" belong to different classes of existence, and while the theory says precisely what happens when they interact, it does not even try to predict where and when interactions occur. Measurements, it would appear, are lawless intrusions into an otherwise determinate world of matter. Going by your definitions, then, quantum mechanics admits the supernatural and thus cannot be Science ...
You are no doubt ready to say "Oh, that just shows you don't understand quantum mechanics!" Please don't. This is exactly the view real working physicists take of quantum mechanics. The attempt to find a law for "measurements" that fits the observed facts is a prominent open problem in physics and a subject of current research. My point is, since quantum mechanics flatly contradicts Naturalism, it can hardly be said to presuppose it, and yet it makes a host of testable predictions, all of which have proved correct; so either one of the most useful theories ever conceived is not science, or science can dispense with Naturalism.
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Monday, November 21 2005 05:08 PM (8LTnv)
17
I do believe that Mind is more than Matter, but not that Mind's relations with Matter are lawless.
Which means what? Is Matter a subset of Mind? Is Mind bound by the same physical laws as Matter? What?
Quantum mechanics, one of science's great triumphs, actually is Dualist as you define it.
No it isn't.
Systems of quantum particles and "measuring devices" belong to different classes of existence, and while the theory says precisely what happens when they interact, it does not even try to predict where and when interactions occur.
That is completely wrong in every respect.
Every respect.
Measuring devices
are systems of quantum particles. The theory
does predict when and where interactions occur.
You don't understand Quantum Mechanics. Or, it appears, Naturalism, Dualism, or Logic.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, November 21 2005 07:06 PM (3FPsg)
18
Michael, further to my previous comment:
If you have a system of Matter, that follows a consistent set of laws, and a system of Mind, that follows its own consistent set of laws, and the interactions between Matter and Mind are
also governed by a consistent set of laws, it follows that you can replace the two domains and three sets of laws with a single domain of
Stuff and a single set of laws.
In other words, any internally consistent form of Dualism is in fact Naturalism. It is only Dualism if it is inconsistent, and that inconsistency makes Dualism worthless even as a philosophical concept.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, November 21 2005 07:47 PM (7X4Bl)
19
This is a wonderful post. Cogently and clearly points out the importance of naturalism in science and the absurdity of those who claim that science must accomodate the supernatural.
Posted by: Tanooki Joe at Tuesday, November 22 2005 12:18 AM (loZG3)
20
Pixy, search for "Wigner's friend" on Google, read some of the pages you'll get, and then try to tell me "measurement" is well-defined in quantum mechanics.
Measuring devices are systems of quantum particles.
Don't confuse reality with the model of it. Anything we call a "measuring device" is, in fact, a collection of elementary particles -- but, to make any use of quantum mechanics, we pretend our measuring devices are not controlled by quantum mechanics. If we didn't do that, the theory would make no predictions at all. Every interpretation of quantum mechanics is Dualist, because you have to split the universe into the measuring and the measured just to get started.
If you don't believe me, look up Lee Smolin -- who has said:I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it stands.
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Tuesday, November 22 2005 03:14 AM (hc1pe)
21
to make any use of quantum mechanics, we pretend our measuring devices are not controlled by quantum mechanics. If we didn't do that, the theory would make no predictions at all.
Eh? QM
theory makes predictions of the interactions between quantum paticles. It doesn't give a fig for measuring devices.
If you don't believe me, look up Lee Smolin -- who has said: [snip]
Michael, do you know the difference between interpretations of QM and QM itself? Because that's what Smolin is talking about. The Copenhagen Interpretation, the Many Worlds Interpretation, Transactional models and so on. Smolin finds them lacking; so do some other very reputable physicists; and other very reputable physicists disagree.
But the Interpretation is not the Theory, and is in fact
entirely irrelevant to the Theory. You do not need
any interpretation to successfully apply QM to a problem.
So your claim of Dualism in this case is, depending on how you wish to look at it, either completely wrong or entirely beside the point. You choose.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 22 2005 03:48 AM (AIaDY)
22
I looked up Wigner's Friend as you suggested.
As I said, you're confusing the interpretations with the theory itself. Tut tut.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 22 2005 03:52 AM (AIaDY)
23
And so was Wigner.
However, a conscious observer (according to his reasoning) must be in either one state or the other, hence conscious observations are different, hence consciousness is not material.
Wigner had absolutely no basis for claiming that consciousness cannot be in a superposition of states. There is
nothing in the mathematics of QM that suggests anything of the sort. Sorry, but even as a thought experiment this is complete bunk.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 22 2005 03:57 AM (AIaDY)
24
What's more, if the mind is magical and not subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics, and yet is able to interact with QM systems, you arrive unavoidably at the same sort of inconsistency that afflicts all forms of Dualism, and Science becomes impossible.
I really don't think Wigner thought it through.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 22 2005 04:03 AM (AIaDY)
25
I couldn't get back to this before now, sorry...
Let's deal with a concrete example of QM in action, the classic two-slit interference effect. We have a source of photons, a sensitive photographic film, and a screen with two pinholes placed between them. If we pose the question "What is the probability that a photon from the source will hit a given spot on the film?" QM gives an answer which (if we turn on the source and observe events) proves to be correct. But by posing that question we are implicitly assuming that, when a photon interacts with the film, it must hit one and only one spot on the film. And, if we take the film to be a system of quantum particles described wholly by Schrodinger's equation, that assumption isn't justified. For the photons in question, at the moment they interact with the film, are in a superposition of states; and when a quantum system in a superposition of states interacts with another quantum system, the result is not to reduce the first system to one of its constituents, but to put the other system into superposition.
The question "What is the probability that a photon from the source will hit a given spot on the film?", thus assumes that the film is not fully described by Schrodinger's equation. The problem with QM, as a conceptual scheme, is that there's nothing in the theory itself which says when, or even whether, you are allowed to make assumptions of that kind. That's what the interpretations are for: they fill a gap in the scheme. (Notice that there were never any "interpretations" for the equations of Newton, Maxwell, or Einstein. Their theories didn't have conceptual gaps to fill before they could be applied to reality.)
Wigner had absolutely no basis for claiming that consciousness cannot be in a superposition of states. There is nothing in the mathematics of QM that suggests anything of the sort.
Nothing in the mathematics, to be sure; but the mathematics of QM are not -- don't even claim to be -- a complete description of reality. The point of "Wigner's friend" is to bring out just where the mathematics falls short.
What's more, if the mind is magical and not subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics, and yet is able to interact with QM systems, you arrive unavoidably at the same sort of inconsistency that afflicts all forms of Dualism
Yes. That's what I meant by saying that QM is Dualist. To justify posing the questions that QM answers, you have to appeal to something that isn't subject to the rules of QM, and the actions of that something are not predictable. And that's also what Smolin meant by saying that QM is not a "final theory". A final theory would characterize the something, in addition to quantum particles.
Which brings us back to the original point. QM implies the existence of a class of being which it does not even attempt to describe, or to predict the behavior of, in order to explain the behavior of the entities it does describe. (The interpretations of QM are attempts to describe this other class of being.) Therefore it implies the falsity of Naturalism. And therefore QM cannot possibly presuppose Naturalism. If science must presuppose Naturalism, as you maintain, QM is not science -- even though it has been tested against reality in a host of ways, and has never been falsified yet.
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Monday, November 28 2005 06:19 PM (8LTnv)
26
About the "inconsistency" of Dualism: you are actually asserting, not that Dualism asserts a contradiction (which is what "inconsistent" means in my lexicon) but that Dualism makes no predictions that could be tested against observed events. "It's not right -- it's not even wrong", in short. Well, there's QM again, which a) is implicitly Dualist and b) makes many testable predictions ... Never mind whether QM is correct -- its very existence puts your philosophy in question.
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Monday, November 28 2005 06:41 PM (8LTnv)
27
I couldn't get back to this before now, sorry...
Not a problem.
But by posing that question we are implicitly assuming that, when a photon interacts with the film, it must hit one and only one spot on the film.
That depends on how you choose to interpret the question. If you interpret it in terms of Quantum Mechanical
theory, the question either implies nothing of the sort, or if you are strict in your interpretation, is not a valid question of QM.
For the photons in question, at the moment they interact with the film, are in a superposition of states; and when a quantum system in a superposition of states interacts with another quantum system, the result is not to reduce the first system to one of its constituents, but to put the other system into superposition.
Sure.
The question "What is the probability that a photon from the source will hit a given spot on the film?", thus assumes that the film is not fully described by Schrodinger's equation.
Depends on the interpretation.
Remember, QM is described by
mathematics, not by the English language. Actual questions in QM are also formulated mathematically. The confusion only arises because you are posing your questions in English, which is inherently sloppy.
Wigner had absolutely no basis for claiming that consciousness cannot be in a superposition of states. There is nothing in the mathematics of QM that suggests anything of the sort.Nothing in the mathematics, to be sure; but the mathematics of QM are not -- don't even claim to be -- a complete description of reality.I realise that.The point of "Wigner's friend" is to bring out just where the mathematics falls short.Except that Wigner's friend is based on an unfounded assumption, and does not address the mathematics of QM in any way - only the
interpretation of QM.What's more, if the mind is magical and not subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics, and yet is able to interact with QM systems, you arrive unavoidably at the same sort of inconsistency that afflicts all forms of DualismYes. That's what I meant by saying that QM is Dualist.Except that Wigner's friend does not address QM at all, only certain interpretations of QM, and specifically,
Wigner's interpretation. Which is clearly not internally consistent (by his own argument) and can be safely ignored. To justify posing the questions that QM answers, you have to appeal to something that isn't subject to the rules of QM, and the actions of that something are not predictable.No.A final theory would characterize the something, in addition to quantum particles.QM makes no assumptions of any such
something. Sorry, you are completely wrong.QM implies the existence of a class of being which it does not even attempt to describe, or to predict the behavior of, in order to explain the behavior of the entities it does describe. No. It does nothing of the sort.The interpretations of QM are attempts to describe this other class of being.Some
interpretations of QM - notably Wigner's - fall into this trap. QM itself does not. QM is a mathematical description of nature. It starts and ends with naturalism.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, November 28 2005 08:09 PM (AIaDY)
28
About the "inconsistency" of Dualism: you are actually asserting, not that Dualism asserts a contradiction (which is what "inconsistent" means in my lexicon) but that Dualism makes no predictions that could be tested against observed events.I am asserting nothing of the sort.
I am asserting that Dualism is inherently inconsistent.
As I said, Dualism asserts two spheres of existence, which do and don't interact.
If they interact consistently, they can be described more simply as a single sphere of existence, and it becomes Naturalism.
If they do not interact, then the statement is meaningless.
Only if the interaction is inconsistent is it Dualism.
As it is normally stated, Dualism is self-contradictory, but it is possible to state it such that it merely requires the
Universe to be inconsistent.Well, there's QM again, which a) is implicitly Dualist and b) makes many testable predictions ... Never mind whether QM is correct -- its very existence puts your philosophy in question.Except that you are persistently misrepresenting what QM actually says. There is no Dualism implied by QM. None whatsoever. Only the material.
Wigner tried to produce Dualism out of QM and immediately mired himself in contradiction, showing both that QM is
not Dualist in nature and Dualism is inherently inconsistent.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, November 28 2005 08:17 PM (AIaDY)
29
Remember, QM is described by mathematics, not by the English language. Actual questions in QM are also formulated mathematically. The confusion only arises because you are posing your questions in English, which is inherently sloppy.
Not so; I understand the mathematics involved, and the mathematical formalism of QM is Dualist. Take the photographic film and the photon. The position of the photon, when it reaches the film, is given in QM by a function from points on the film to "amplitudes", which are complex numbers; and the state of the film after the photon reaches it is, exactly, that function. Discovering this function from the state of "photon at light source" (also a function from positions to amplitudes) involves very advanced mathematics, but it poses no conceptual problems. Call this process "state evolution."
However, having that state does not answer the question "what is the probability of the photon reaching point A on the film?" To do that you take the norm of the amplitude at point A, which is a much simpler procedure in technical terms. But -- note this, please -- that step isn't described by the equations which describe the change from the "photon at source" state to the "photon at film" state! This step, state reduction, bears no resemblance to state evolution, except that both change the current state from one function to another. Moreover, the formalism does not specify when you are supposed to use state reduction, rather than state evolution.
That's the Dualism in QM: two different dynamical laws, exactly one of which applies at any given moment, and no rule saying when to use one or the other. All the interpretations of QM are Dualist because they exist to specify when state reduction is the right law.
The one apparent exception among them, the many-worlds interpretation, turns out to conceal a Dualist premise: for what it says is that state reduction never happens, and our belief that it does is an artifact of our perceptions. The problem is that on that account, as perception is a product of state evolution like all other events, it cannot distinguish pure states from superpositions. (Only state reduction can do that.) This means we should, sometimes, perceive a superposition directly -- a thing which never happens. To explain why this doesn't happen, you have to introduce a theory of perception, which brings the mind/matter version of Dualism back into science.
As I said, Dualism asserts two spheres of existence, which do and don't interact. If they interact consistently, they can be described more simply as a single sphere of existence, and it becomes Naturalism. If they do not interact, then the statement is meaningless. Only if the interaction is inconsistent is it Dualism.
Here you want "consistent" to mean predictable...
... showing both that QM is not Dualist in nature and Dualism is inherently inconsistent.
... and here you want it to mean not contradictory instead. Sorry, those are not the same thing. There are, for instance, sets of natural numbers with definitions quite free of contradiction, but whose members can't be predicted. If I remember the jargon from the theory of computation, these are the "recursively enumerable" sets. It's true that Dualism postulates a partly unpredictable universe, but the jump from "unpredictable" to "contradictory" is not justified by logic or observation.
Oh, and you're a bit confused about Wigner. Certainly he was arguing for a specific interpretation of QM, in which state reduction is caused by an interaction of mind with matter. But "Wigner's friend" is a sharpening of "Schrodinger's cat", which points out the implausibility of state evolution (as QM describes it) at macroscopic scales. The difficulty it raises is inherent to QM, and isn't confined to Wigner's favorite interpretation.
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Tuesday, November 29 2005 12:18 AM (8LTnv)
30
However, having that state does not answer the question "what is the probability of the photon reaching point A on the film?"As I said, it depends on how you interpret that question. QM is mathematics, and that question is English, so you
have to interpret it.That's the Dualism in QM: two different dynamical laws, exactly one of which applies at any given moment, and no rule saying when to use one or the other.Nonsense. Under QM, everything follows QM. There's nothing else.But -- note this, please -- that step isn't described by the equations which describe the change from the "photon at source" state to the "photon at film" state!Because it's not part of QM. It's an interpretation of the question, which
was not phrased in terms of QM.All the interpretations of QM are Dualist because they exist to specify when state reduction is the right law.That's an interesting assertion - but it has no bearing on QM
as a theory, only on whether the interpretations are of scientific value. And in fact it is wrong, as it is always possible to assume that state reduction does not happen. And indeed:The one apparent exception among them, the many-worlds interpretation, turns out to conceal a Dualist premise: for what it says is that state reduction never happens, and our belief that it does is an artifact of our perceptions. The problem is that on that account, as perception is a product of state evolution like all other events, it cannot distinguish pure states from superpositions.Rather, it means that there are no "pure states".(Only state reduction can do that.) This means we should, sometimes, perceive a superposition directlyThat is a complete non-sequitur.
All you have is superpositions of states interacting with other superpositions of states, ad infinitum. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that we would experience that directly, because
experience itself is a superposition of states.To explain why this doesn't happen, you have to introduce a theory of perception, which brings the mind/matter version of Dualism back into science.That objection is at least understandable. How does linear subjective experience arise from the infinite paralleism of MWI? Easy: MWI is no different mathematically from QM. It is merely an interpretation. The predictions are
identical to those of any other interpretation. The predictions of QM are perectly consistent with a biochemical brain generating a consciousness that has a single stream of experience (which is not quite how we actually experience the world, but anyway). The fact that under this interpretation wave functions never collapse
makes no difference. The mathematics works out the same regardless.Here you want "consistent" to mean predictable...Okay, here's the deal.
The concept of Dualism can be phrased in two ways. In one, the concept is inherently self-contradictory. In the other, the Universe is defined to be inconsistent.
Let's walk through it.
Dualism means there are two modes of existence.
If they interact in a consistent manner, there
aren't two modes of existence, and Dualism has contradicted itself.
If they don't interact at all, there aren't two modes of existence, and Dualism has contradicted itself.
Only if they interact inconsistently can Dualism even be a coherent philosphy. Because any rule binding the two existences proves the principle of Dualism to be false. Any rule at all. Dualism requires that the Universe act inconsistently, and therefore not be subject to Science - at all.The difficulty it raises is inherent to QM, and isn't confined to Wigner's favorite interpretation.No. As always, you are confusing interpretations with the theory itself.
Schroedinger's Cat held a useful lesson about QM: It teaches us that our preconceptions about how the world works do not apply to the quantum world.
Wigner's Friend however only teaches us that Wigner failed to understand Schroedinger's lesson. Wigner is mired in his preconceptions on the nature of consciousnss, granting it a special state when he had no scientific basis for this.
And you, Michael, are falling into the exact same trap. You claim that QM is dualistic because you have your notion of how the Universe works, and you have QM, and they are incompatible. The problem is, this doesn't mean that QM is dualistic; it simply means that
you are wrong. Your notions of the way things are, to which you ascribe the status of Reality, are in fact merely a stochastic model of QM processes. It's all QM; you, me, this conversation, Wigner and his friend, all of it described by the one set of equations. There is no more, and no more is needed.
(Well, until we bring gravity into it, anyway...)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 29 2005 07:15 AM (QriEg)
31
The one apparent exception among them, the many-worlds interpretation, turns out to conceal a Dualist premise: for what it says is that state reduction never happens, and our belief that it does is an artifact of our perceptions. The problem is that on that account, as perception is a product of state evolution like all other events, it cannot distinguish pure states from superpositions.
Rather, it means that there are no "pure states".
Well, technically the "pure" states in which a particle is 100% certain to be at one point are not physical. But states in which a particle is known to be less than a small distance away from one point with less than a small probability of error
are physical. The point is that state reduction tends to produce states of that kind, while state evolution does not.
All you have is superpositions of states interacting with other superpositions of states, ad infinitum. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that we would experience that directly, because experience itself is a superposition of states.
This calls for a deeper exploration of the math. Quantum states occupy a space of functions (called Hilbert space) which is a vector space, and the nearly-pure states form a basis for that space. As far as state evolution is concerned, there isn't anything special about that basis. Any set of states that spans Hilbert space contains just as good a basis, even a set whose members are all intricately mixed superpositions.
Observations, however, show that the basis of nearly-pure states is preferred by real particles. The many-worlds interpretation says this is an artifact of our mode of perception. What we perceive is a projection of the universe's true state into a subspace of the Hilbert space to which it belongs. But the fact that we perceive only along a subspace itself needs explanation. State evolution takes no account of subspaces or projections into them; if perception takes them into account, it cannot be a result of state evolution.
Put differently, if we the observers are only a quantum system, fully predictable by state evolution, then we should perceive the state of the rest of the universe as a whole. Our perceptions could not decompose that state into multiples of states in some basis, because the states in a basis don't physically exist. Decomposition of a state vector requires more information on the structure of Hilbert space than state evolution provides. To account for the fact that we perceive, not the whole state of the universe, but a component of it, we must invoke something outside the universe to provide the extra information.
The question which interpretations exist to answer is, why does observation of quantum systems invariably show those systems in nearly-pure states, and never shows them in superpositions? Or in more formal language: why are quantum systems always observed in states that are multiples of members of a particular basis, and never in linear combinations of these? The many-worlds interpretation "answers" it by transferring it out of the material realm and into a realm of subjective perceptions -- which is not, really, an answer at all. Indeed, not only does it appeal to an immaterial class of being (which makes it Dualist), it does so in a way that precludes any inquiry into that class. Your silly "maggot demon" theory gives more scope for investigation ...
On to the walk-through of Dualism:
If they interact in a consistent manner, there aren't two modes of existence, and Dualism has contradicted itself.
Substitute "fully predictable" for "consistent", and I agree to this.
Only if they interact inconsistently can Dualism even be a coherent philosphy. Because any rule binding the two existences proves the principle of Dualism to be false. Any rule at all.
Again I substitute "fully predictable" for "consistent" ... and the argument fails. Where is the contradiction in assuming a rule that specifies effects up to a point, but not in full? That's what state reduction does in QM: "Repeat this experiment many times, and the results follow this probability distribution."
The fact is, you won't accept any description of reality unless it's both comprehensive and deterministic. That drives you to the many-worlds interpretation of QM, because every other attempt to make sense of QM is not deterministic. But many-worlds isn't comprehensive, and can't be extended in any testable way to make it so. Which means it fails the falsifiability criterion. Insisting on absolute predictability is driving you away from interpretations that are open to refutation, and to one that both provokes further inquiry and denies the possibility of any results from such inquiry.
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Tuesday, November 29 2005 06:52 PM (8LTnv)
32
The debate on defining science is something that amazes me intellectually.
My scientific level of knowledge doesn't allow me to bring any argument about it but it makes me have some questions.
In regard of the Godel's Theorem, doesn't the pricnciple of Falsifiability lead to the conclusion that mathematics itself is not science? Therefore, considering that every matter known as scientific is not science as well because all of them use the results of mathematics ???
I'm puzzled.
Posted by: L_Raj at Monday, December 05 2005 10:47 PM (dahsf)
33
In regard of the Godel's Theorem, doesn't the pricnciple of
Falsifiability lead to the conclusion that mathematics itself is not
science?Well, you don't really need Godel's Theorem for this. Mathematics is not science in any case. Mathematics is mathematics.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, August 18 2006 04:22 AM (FRalS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Friday, November 11
Mind The Planet
Glenn Reynolds links to an article at Tech Central Station by Uriah Kriegel that
explains why ID is non-science rather than just bad science.
It's a good discussion of the notion of falsifiability, and how we distinguish scientific theories from other ideas. Unfortunately, he trips up when discussing Einstein's Theory of Relativity:
When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted. In 1919, 14 years after the advent of Special Relativity, the planet was discovered exactly where he said. The theory survived the test. But the possibility of failing a test -- the willingness to put the theory up for refutation -- was what made it a scientific theory in the first place.
It sounds like Einstein predicted the existence of Pluto - but Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930. What Kriegel is actually referring to is the orbit of
Mercury.
Astronomers had known since the 18th century that Mercury didn't behave as it ought. Its orbit could be calculated quite precisely using Newton's Law of Gravity, but it stubbornly refused to follow that orbit. It wasn't out by much, but it was enough. Some astronomers suggested that the difference might be due to the gravitational effects of another planet orbiting closer to the Sun (they even tentatively assigned it the name "Vulcan"), but no such body was ever observed.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity had nothing specifically to do with Mercury, but it did provide a prediction of Mercury's orbit which was slightly, but still significantly, different from that produced from Newton's Law. The calculations based on Relativity happened to fit Mercury's observed orbit as precisely as we could measure it - strong support for Relativity, but not a decisive test as Mercury's odd orbit was something we'd known about all along.
What happened in 1919, though, really was something new. One of the predictions of Relativity is that gravity not only affects the path of matter travelling through space, it actually bends light. Nothing in Newton's Law of Gravity suggested any such thing. In 1919, just after the end of World War I, a British Navy exepedition set out to observe a total solar eclipse off the coast of Africa. You see, during a total eclipse the light of the Sun is hidden and stars that are near the Sun (as observed in the sky, that is, nothing to do with their true locations) are visible.
Astronomers could measure very precisely the positions of these stars relative to one another. And then they could do the same thing again during the eclipse. Einstein predicted that because the light of these stars would be bent by the gravitational field of the Sun, that they would appear in different positions when observed during an eclipse. What's more, he was able to calculate just how great the difference would be.
The expedition, led by Sir Arthur Eddington, made the observations required, and Einstein was proved correct. He become a household name almost overnight.
More details here, courtesy of Penn State.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
08:53 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 548 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Nice catch. It's too bad Riemann never gets any credit, as Einstein himself said he never would have developed relativity without Riemann's previous work.
It's interesting too how many times Einstein, like most great thereoticians, was wrong after his initial spectacular success: refusal to accept quantum mechanics, the cosmological constant debacle, missing the expanding universe that his theories should have predicted...
Posted by: TallDave at Friday, November 11 2005 10:46 AM (giBEj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Reckon He'll Do
Peter Costello, Treasurer of Australia and likely our next Prime Minister:
If you are somebody who wants to live in an Islamic state governed by sharia law you are not going to be happy in Australia, because Australia is not an Islamic state, will never be an Islamic state and will never be governed by sharia law.
We are a secular state under our constitution, our law is made by parliament elected in democratic elections.
We do not derive our laws from religious instruction.
There are Islamic states around the world that practise sharia law and if that’s your object you may well be much more at home in such a country than trying to turn Australia into one of those countries, because it’s not going to happen.
I wasn't sure he would measure up to John Howard's example, but I think I'm starting to come round.
(via Tim Blair)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
07:00 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Can we have him as President of the US?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at Friday, November 11 2005 11:35 AM (0yYS2)
2
You may just get him. The poor man has been the next in line for quite awhile.
Posted by: Andrew at Friday, November 11 2005 07:26 PM (RWEVY)
3
Mind you, John Howard had to wait even longer.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, November 11 2005 10:25 PM (AIaDY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Thursday, November 10
If At First You Don't Succeed
Change the rules.
The Kansas Board of "Education" has adopted the anti-evolutionary "science standards" they have been pushing for some time. The standards are not even complete, but the six-member dingbat wing of the board pushed them through over the objections of the four-member sane wing.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
This will come as a surprise to every scientist and science teacher on the planet. Science
is the search for natural explanations of phenomena. That's the most fundamental definition of science; science explains natural events in terms of natural causes - i.e. other natural events.
That the Kansas Board of "Education" (or at least the dingbat wing thereof) would redefine science in this way can mean only one of two things: Either they are ignorant - and, since the facts of the matter have most certainly been presented to them, ineducable; or they are willingly participating in an act of fraud against the state's schoolchildren. I'm not sure Hanlon's Razor is sufficiently sharp for this one.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
08:45 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I predict Kansans will evolve to higher intelligence and throw the school board out, thus dealing a double blow to ID.
Posted by: TallDave at Thursday, November 10 2005 04:58 PM (giBEj)
2
It's going to the supremes. let them worry about it, thass what they're paid for.
Pixy, i'm reading this coolio new book--Quantum Evolution. between that and the approaching singularity, the IDists are going to have the top of their heads taken clean off. ;-)
Posted by: matoko-chan at Thursday, November 10 2005 10:56 PM (cxYaY)
3
Well, good news from Pennsylvania: All of the Dover school board members who were standing for re-election - which is 8 of the 9 - have been thrown out.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, November 10 2005 11:15 PM (AIaDY)
4
Including ALL of the idiot-wingers. Give it a few days and that stupid thing will be gone and buried.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Friday, November 11 2005 12:45 AM (KnWO3)
5
While I won't defend the Kansas Board of Education, that definition of science isn't right either. It should be: science is the search for
useful explanations of
natural phenomena. A theory that the motions of bodies are caused by the influence of angels would certainly not be a natural explanation -- but if somebody, in accordance with that theory, levitated himself by invoking the relevant angel's name, the scientific community could not just dismiss the theory on the ground that it appealed to supernatural causes. The reason why scientists are disinclined to consider the supernatural as an explanation for phenomena is, that appeals to the supernatural are seldom followed by otherwise inexplicable phenomena; not, as you seem to think, because science must exclude the supernatural a priori. If prayer were effective more often, scientists would have to study prayer.
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Saturday, November 12 2005 01:36 AM (8LTnv)
6
Michael - Sorry, but no.
Science is only possible within the framework of metaphysical naturalism. If people could levitate themselves by evoking the name of an angel then we would be well-advised to study that. But it would not be science.
Science requires that all natural (i.e. observable, measurable) events can be explained entirely in terms of natural (observable, measurable) causes. That whenever we can see something happen, it is caused by something we can also see (or otherwise detect and measure).
Science does indeeed exclude the supernatural
a priori; this is absolutely fundamental and yours is a dismayingly common misapprehension among non-scientists. Science does, as I note, have a very specific definition of "natural", and "supernatural" in terms of the philosophy of science is simply the obverse of that, and, according to science, an empty set.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 12 2005 04:05 AM (AIaDY)
7
1) By your definition of "science", no one who believes Christian doctrine can be a scientist;
2) Sir Isaac Newton believed Christian doctrine;
3) Therefore: you deny that Newton was a scientist.
If people could levitate themselves by evoking the name of an angel then we would be well-advised to study that. But it would not be science.
If people could levitate themselves by invoking the name of an angel, there could not be science as you define it, because metaphysical naturalism would be demonstrably false. But there would certainly be attempts to explain natural phenomena, which is science as
I define it.
I wonder if you realize that, on the point I chose to argue, you agree with the Kansas Board of Education, and I don't? The "nutbars" in Kansas are as convinced as you are that every scientist must cleave to metaphysical naturalism. Where they differ from you is, they think metaphysical naturalism is false -- and they are no more prepared to let falsehood pass unchallenged in the schools than you are.
Posted by: Michael Brazier at Saturday, November 12 2005 06:52 PM (8LTnv)
8
1) By your definition of "science"
It is not
my definition of Science. It is
the defintion of Science. There is only one Science, and it is as I have defined it here.
no one who believes Christian doctrine can be a scientist;
False.
You can believe in Christian doctrine and still be a scientist, even a great scientist. You just have to keep the Christian doctrine out of your scientific research.
That requires maintaining two different and contradictory metaphysical frameworks, but people are good at that.
And this is a problem specifically with religious
doctrine. Deism has no conflict with Science.
2) Sir Isaac Newton believed Christian doctrine;
And many other strange things, yes.
3) Therefore: you deny that Newton was a scientist.
No. Since your point 1 is entirely false, the syllogism fails.
If people could levitate themselves by invoking the name of an angel, there could not be science as you define it, because metaphysical naturalism would be demonstrably false. But there would certainly be attempts to explain natural phenomena, which is science as I define it.
Nobody cares how you define science, because you are wrong. Science as you define it has no value - see
my post above for a detailed explanation of why.
The "nutbars" in Kansas are as convinced as you are that every scientist must cleave to metaphysical naturalism.
Baloney.
They are trying to push Intelligent Design, which relies on supernatural forces, into the science classroom.
ID is not science. They Kansas Board of Education doesn't give a damn about the nature of Science; they just want to push their ideas on students no matter what the facts say.
Where they differ from you is, they think metaphysical naturalism is false
The evidence they present for this belief - the ID concept of irreducible complexity - has been comprehensively refuted, so I don't really care what they think.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, November 12 2005 08:32 PM (QriEg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday, November 09
Tuesday, November 08
Law Review
Pixy's Law of Editing
In any document preparation system, the ease of spotting errors is directly proportional to the difficulty of correcting them.
Thus if you are preparing a highschool newspaper using electric typewriters and actual cut-and-paste, you will notice immediately that you have used "affect" when you meant "effect", but will let it slide because it's too much effort to fix.
On the other hand, if you are using a million-dollar WYSIWYG prepress and workflow system, you will not notice that you have inserted the last three chapters of Lady Chatterley's Lover - upside down - into Introductory Linear Algebra until after 50,000 copies have been bound and shipped.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
09:29 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Though really this is just the point where the Law of Unintended Consequences intersects with the Law of Maximum Inconvenience.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 08 2005 09:53 AM (QriEg)
2
Welllll, it could have been worse - you could have inserted the last 3 chapters of Lady Chatterly into the Algebra text?! I tend to be optimistic. And who made the 'rule' that you have to hold the book the exact same way all the way through?
Posted by: nita at Tuesday, November 08 2005 10:51 AM (gm7Og)
3
So, ummmm, what are the
odds of that?
; )
Posted by: Chrissy at Tuesday, November 08 2005 06:24 PM (zJsUT)
4
Never worked in a bookstore, have you? :-)
It happens here at the Duck U. Bookstore at least once a semester... no, not Lady Chatterley, but upside-down chapters, missing chapters, WRONG chapters...
My favorite one was when I was working at a normal retail bookstore: 30 copies, pages 100-122 blank (except for the page number) and bound in upside-down.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Tuesday, November 08 2005 06:44 PM (+rGmJ)
5
So Pixi I'm afraid I may have used a pronoun of the incorrect gender when refering to you Friday. Sorry about that if I did. Stuff is screaming right along by the way good work.
Posted by: Howie at Friday, November 18 2005 10:50 AM (D3+20)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tenshi na Konamaiki
Megumi is the most beautiful girl anyone has ever seen. She's also an abrasive tomboy who will fight just about anyone for just about any reason. She wasn't always like this; in fact, she wasn't always a she...
On the one hand it's long (50 episodes), somewhat cliched (a boy cursed to grow up as a girl), a bit silly, and relies too heavily at times on Megumi Hayashibara's talents. And Megumi (the one in the story, not Hayashibara-san) is somewhat funny-looking.
On the other hand, the characters definitely grow on you (even Keiko, who starts out as a stock miss-rich-bitch), most of the episodes are enjoyable in themselves, it has some interesting twists and turns, and it all resolves itself in a very satisfying way. Even when you see what's coming (and there's some nice foreshadowing if you know what to look for) what you get isn't quite what you expected.
It hasn't been licensed yet, so right now your only option (assuming you don't speak Japanese) is to download the fansub. Which is, I'll add, very nicely done.
Other reviews: JASCII, AnimeNfo. Some of the reviewers don't like it at all, by the way, often for exactly the reasons I do. I you can get past the unusually un-cute character designs at the start, though, there's a lot there to enjoy.
One thing I'll add: Megumi Hayashibara was in her mid-thirties when she did this part, and at first it was weird to hear her voice coming from a fifteen year old girl. But within a couple of episodes it seemed the most natural thing in the world, and Megu-san is very very good at bringing her roles to life. Be warned, it is her Lina Inverse voice, and if that's going to have you expecting Dragon Slave at least once per episode you'll be disappointed.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
07:49 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Just remember to hang around after the credits on
Tenshi na Konamaiki. They have an irritating habit of putting thirty seconds to two minutes of anything from one-off gags to full-on plot elements after the credits are done rolling.
Love that show. Wonder if anybody is ever going to bother licensing it in the States? The manga seems to have bombed, which suggests "not likely".
Posted by: Mitch H. at Tuesday, November 08 2005 11:58 AM (iTVQj)
2
They have an irritating habit of putting thirty seconds to two minutes of anything from one-off gags to full-on plot elements after the credits are done rolling.
You tell me this after I have watched the entire series?
Blup.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, November 08 2005 06:06 PM (QriEg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
179kb generated in 0.4576 seconds; 70 queries returned 350 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.2-pink.