Schakel

Fucked up big time. Crystal Blue crashed because captain having sex

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

 

...

I guess it's a mixed bag.

I try to avoid cultural stereotypes as I find the reality is such a wide range that any “box” misses most of the population being caricatured. BUT all the same there do seem to be some general cultural differences/attributes that it’s a bit hard to ignore or deny but also socially dangerous to speak of.

I’m no expert on European cultures. I’ve lived in two European countries and through, work, family and friends been exposed to a few more. My experiences in Germany are mostly west Germany pre re-unification. I came away with an impression of a group of people deeply introspective about their history and searching for how to live in and contribute to the world in a positive way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Albatros said:

...

Now what's the link with Asterix  if you know those fabulous strips, you will see some kind of a parallel between those Belgian tribes and that little village in france defying Julius continuously ... the late Mr. Goscinny, the writer of the Asterix strips once conceded in an interview that the inspiration for Asterix came indeed from those Belgian tribes, but being a frog, he couldn't make it a Belgian story  so he moved it to france... plus que ca change

Oh Shit, you ruined the name of my first boat. Having grown up on Asterix, I named my fist boat “The Spirit of Alessia” after the last Gallic village under Vercingetorix to hold out against the Romans.  So I should have named it after an Eburoni or Morini village...ah the errors of my youth that I rue in my old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2019 at 1:30 PM, Ed Lada said:

It's OK my finny friend, I am only helping you out, trust me.

About the only thing possibly more difficult than figuring out women, is learning Polish.  They say Chinese is more difficult but I think that's largely in part because of trying to learn thousands of Chines kanji characters.  And you left the little line out of the L.  Polish has 2 Ls. the normal one and this one Ł.  The latter is pronounced like a W, because in Polish the W is pronounced like a V.  There is no V, Q or X in the Polish Alphabet.  There are however 2 As, 2 Es, 2 Ls, 2 Ns, 2 Os and 3 Zs.  And they don't like to use vowels.  Four consonants in a row isn't unusual and there are words with 5 in a row.  Szczecin (pronounced Shtetchin, see how easy) is a pretty typical spelling, that happens to be a port city in northwest Poland. Źdźbło is considered to be one of the hardest words to pronounce in Polish, even Poles have trouble with it.  It is the word for a blade of grass. Or maybe pięćdziesięciogroszówka is easier?  That's a 50 groszy coin, kind of like 50 cents.

Speaking Polish certainly will build up your tongue muscles.  That  leaves an opening for a comment, but I am sure someone will take it as sexist, so I shall refrain.

So study your Polish and come on over and we'll see about my debt to you.

my wife's original Polish last name had three Z's in it,  care to send a vowel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an actual fuck-up:

The russians are banned from competing in international sport events today
Russia doping ban
That is not funny anymore.
1112912504_Wada2.png.96988ae88b692e35bcfb86158760e35a.png
World Anti Doping Agency

The impact of this is hardly comprehensible for russian sport.
On the olympics they were good for 1010 Medals.
Only US of A has more.
Olympic Medal race by country

World championsships

In Dragon and 5.5 russians are quitte big.
Russian Dragon association

Russian 5.5

But they may compete under a different flag...

Russian International Sailing Federation

https://www.sailing.org/about/members/mnas/russia.php

These regatta's they are excluded from:

https://www.sailing.org/regattas.php

Russian RC44 team:


765574373_Tatatuvrusiansailingteam.thumb.jpg.86adbdabb5970157161f2a306963dc77.jpg

BRONENOSEC SAILING in RC44.
1623290268_BRONENOSECSAILING.jpg.8391df6e4823b43637f79290bb63add1.jpg
Russian officials have 21 days to lodge an appeal with the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport after the announcement from the antidoping agency, which convened for a special meeting near the International Olympic Committee’s headquarters in Lausanne.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KC375 said:

I’m not an historian as is probably obvious.

 

It seems to me – without rigours study or analysis – there are diametrically opposed approaches to winning the peace. Falling in between the end points doesn’t seem to work as well.

 

After the salting of Carthage there were no more Punic wars (so it turns out the whole salting thing is a bit of a myth but all the same Carthage was pretty much wiped out.)

 

Post WWII – the marshal plan and the integration of formerly waring states into things like the EU and NATO has produced the longest period of general peace on the continent (lots of problems at the margins in the Balkans, Crimea etc.).

 

Eradicate or embrace but avoid anything in between. If you don’t have the stomach for or ethically disagree with eradication then you need to embrace “nation building” or at least adopt sound post conflict reconstruction that leaves behind a functioning state anchored in the rule of law.

 

Imagine if there had been an effort at nation building in Afghanistan in 1989 after the US and Saudi Arabia had successfully funded and supported the defeat of the Russians. Instead, having bled the Russians (given them their vietnam) the US moved on. For the price of a few cruise missiles, maybe the twin towers would still be standing.

 

Imagine if the US had gone into Iraq planning from the beginning to leave behind a functioning society all the heart ache with ISIS might have been avoided.

 

I think your understanding is spot on.  

I am not sure what happened to American diplomacy and strategic outlook after the relative success of the 'peace' in western Europe, but I have some ideas.  

In Korea, the stalemate was probably the best possible outcome given the Chinese intervention, nobody wanted a war with China after WW II, especially.  It was ostensibly a UN led operation to save South Korea from the communist invasion in 1950, but in reality it was a US led war.  It is debatable if it was worth it or not, certainly the South Koreans thought it worthwhile and it probably was given the fanatic Kim family dynasty in the North..

We totally messed up in Vietnam, the first mistake was letting the French have Indochina back after WW II to bolster them and aver the danger of the French government becoming a communist one which was a post war possibility.  The biggest problem was that the South Vietnamese governments, and there were many, were just terribly incompetent and corrupt.  As long as we were providing troops, tremendous amounts of money and military aid, the governments were completely content to sit back, get rich, let us help fight the war and they got rich in the process.  The US was fixated on the now debunked 'Domino Theory" of the communist domination of Asia and were willing to do anything to stop the Reds.  The US was also deathly afraid that the Chinese would again intervene in the war as they did in Korea (Which turned out not to be true, the Chinese hated the Vietnamese and only helped them to embarrass the US and after the US war, China and Vietnam had their own little armed conflict.)  So the US tried the limited war concept which was a miserable failure from which we learned very little and gained nothing at the cost of 58,000 American lives and a few million Vietnamese lives, many of them civilians killed indiscriminately by both sides.  

After the skirmishes in Grenada and Panama came the Persian Gulf War.  The sole reason for that war was the liberation of Kuwait because of the oil.  Colin Powell, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, was adamant at leaving Saddam Hussein in power because he didn't want to destabilize the country and felt that Saddam learned a lesson and because a weak Iraq would only strengthen Iran  The 2003 war in Iraq was a complete mess.  Saddam is a bad guy and tried to kill my daddy was a sorry excuse to go to war.  It was Bin Laden and the Saudis that caused 9/11.  At least the justification to go into Afghanistan because Bin Laden was hiding there was somewhat defensible.  The entire thing about Saddam having nukes and large stocks of chemical and biological warheads turned out to be not true.  At this time Colin Powell was the US Secretary of State and while he bought into the whole WMD sham, he also cautioned President G. W. Bush about removing Saddam form power.  Although he is often credited with inventing the 'Pottery Barn Rule'., that is, you break it you bought it, he essentially said it in different words:

"It is said that I used the "Pottery Barn rule." I never did it; [Thomas] Friedman did it ... But what I did say ... [is that] once you break it, you are going to own it, and we're going to be responsible for 26 million people standing there looking at us. And it's going to suck up a good 40 to 50 percent of the Army for years. And it's going to take all the oxygen out of the political environment..."

And Powell was absolutely correct as we have seen. We went in there with far to few troops at the insistence of Donald Rumsfeld, then the Secretary of Defense, broke a bunch of shit, had an incompetent civilian as the head of the l Coalition Provisional Authority in the aftermath of the war and made a complete mess of things, which has lasted to this day.

I actually think we made some positive difference in the Balkans in Bosnia and Kosovo, the hatred runs deep and has for centuries there and our limited involvement seems to have helped bring some peace and stability to the region.

I think it isn't so much the inability to win the peace, although that's a big factor, but it's more a matter of not judiciously choosing where and when we deploy troops in 'limited' wars, which is in part a problem associated with today's asymmetric warfare.  In a world of nuclear weapons, total war is not an option.  The military recognizes the need for Special Ops type warfare which is highly effective but also necessarily covert.  They can't cover it well in the news media because a lot of what they do will never be known for security reasons.  That makes it hard to convince the folks back home where their tax dollars are going. I also thing the military is reluctant to give up some of their large, expensive toys in favor of scruffy warriors wearing beards.  I think they sometimes dream of the glory of winning set piece battles with huge amounts of armor and infantry facing down the enemy formations.  

It's a very difficult problem, in a very difficult world.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, schakel488 said:

I know they can be like that. I have great respect for Angela Merkel.
Phd in physics. political wonderwoman. She will have to  resign because she is in bad health now.
1415110217_AngelaMerkel.thumb.jpg.abab9ed545af7c724c047bbd82b9af1b.jpg
 

Yes, I also have great respect for Merkel.  She has been a moderate, steady guiding hand leading Germany through some difficult times with great success.  I think her detractors are mainly just sexist pigs that resent a powerful woman.  It will be interesting to see what happens when she is gone.  Germany is the stabilizing influence and the economic engine of the EU, a pretty remarkable thing given what happened 80 years ago in Germany.  Right up their with Adenauer in the post war German leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

It seems to me it all started with a horny boat captain.

Gotta love thread drift.  Drift hell, I think in this case the boat got caught in a vicious low, and was blown halfway across the Atlantic.

 

you know, i always wondered why they never patched those holes in the boat..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

my wife's original Polish last name had three Z's in it,  care to send a vowel?

Sorry, as you probably know I am the founder and CEO of the Vowels for Poland campaign, a non-profit charity.  We provide help for the vowel impoverished Polish children, as it's too late for the adults.  We need and use every vowel we can get out hands on.  Of course the damned French that are more vowel rich than any other nation, the Kuwaitis of the linguistic world as it were, have refused to answer even one of my emails.  The selfish salauds waste more vowels in a day then we see in a year over here!  I do love their wines though.

Send us your vowels people, no matter how old, banged up and overused they may be, we fix them up and recycle them.  We desperately need them.  Think of the children!  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

It seems to me it all started with a horny boat captain.

Gotta love thread drift.  Drift hell, I think in this case the boat got caught in a vicious low, and was blown halfway across the Atlantic.

 

Frome Hawaii?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

you know, i always wondered why they never patched those holes in the boat..

Because then there wouldn't be a reason for the wildly successful TV show!  

Imagine a world without Ginger and Mary Anne.  Inconceivable!   I was always a Mary Anne guy, how about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

Sorry.  :)

The French rivaled the British for wildly exaggerating their 'accomplishments' during the war.  At least the British didn't capitulate like the French. 

In 1939 the French Army was the largest, well equipped, most respected and powerful military force in all of Europe at the time.  Hitler feared and respected them.  Following the 8 month 'sitzkrieg' also know as the 'Phony War' after the invasion of Poland, ignoring his conservative generals, Hitler took a huge risk invading France via the Low Countries end run around the vaunted but useless Maginot line in 1940.  The Blitzkrieg tactic was born. 

The cocky French could read a map as well as anyone else, yet they ignored the obvious invasion route from the northeast via poorly defended Belgium.  A few German paratroopers landed on the top of the Maginot line to help neutralize it but with German attacking the rear of the poorly defended of the line, it was easily overcome.  So much for their 'impregnable' impressive barrier.  The German forces romped across France after the French rolled over and surrendered, and they pushed the small British Expeditionary Force to the beaches of Dunkirk.  One reason the Nazis didn't destroy the British at Dunkirk was that the Germans were pretty much exhausted at that point and needed some rest and resupply to be an effective fight force again.  So the British Army lived to fight another day.  If the French military actually fought the Nazis the history of the war would have been completely different.  Hitler had basically committed his entire military to the invasion, and if the French would have defeated them, which was entirely possible given their strength and numbers, Hitler's ambitions for the domination of Europe would have been ruined and Hitler would have been humiliated.  It was one of Hitler's most brilliant gambles.  Alas, unfortunately that didn't happen and the rest, as the say, is history.  ^_^

The French Resistance certainly did some damage to the Nazis, but not near as much as they would like us to believe.  To hear them tell it, just about every man woman and child in the country were valiantly fighting the Boche, not providing them with luxuries, wine women and song, which was closer to the truth.  Near the end of the war Hitler ordered the occupying German Army to destroy Paris but the general in charge of the occupation refused the order. 

Imagine how europe would look like today, if germany had stopped fighting england after dunkirk and left them alone...deciding to dig in, in france, and then fighting a one front war against russia...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

England wouldn't have left Germany alone.

After the Blitz and the failure to invade Germany more or less did leave England alone, only responding defensively to British attacks.

More or less.

They did try to starve them out with the U-Boats but otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2019 at 9:09 AM, NeedAClew said:

She got promoted? 

 

Probably started banging the owner, instead of the Captain!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Probably started banging the owner, instead of the Captain!!

Interesting how hard it is to find a picture of the male perp in this event.

In fairness the female participant also  works in movies so no surprise a few of her photos around but can anyone find photos of the men...any convincing photos of Jeremy "JJ" Piggott....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Interesting how hard it is to find a picture of the male perp in this event.

In fairness the female participant also  works in movies so no surprise a few of her photos around but can anyone find photos of the men...any convincing photos of Jeremy "JJ" Piggott....

 

 

EE7435DD-CA08-4658-9C90-D31B510792BF.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

 

EE7435DD-CA08-4658-9C90-D31B510792BF.jpeg

well certainly the perp in one part of the discussion on this bifurcated thread

Bifurcation is not uncommon on SA threads but trifurcation less so...still time left to innovate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Interesting how hard it is to find a picture of the male perp in this event.

In fairness the female participant also  works in movies so no surprise a few of her photos around but can anyone find photos of the men...any convincing photos of Jeremy "JJ" Piggott....

 

 

Doesn't look 46?  Probably an old pic.

Jeremy 'Jay' Piggott PhD Research - YouTube

Jeremy J. Piggott | PhD | Trinity College Dublin, Dublin ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

 

EE7435DD-CA08-4658-9C90-D31B510792BF.jpeg

Thanks for that.  :lol:

I am so relieved that I didn't derail the thread after all!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Doesn't look 46?  Probably an old pic.

...

I made the assumption that the skipper of Crystal blue was not also a researcher at Trinity College Dublin whose interests are:

My research focuses on several topical themes in fundamental and applied ecology, including the determinants of biodiversity structure and function from genes to ecosystems, the combined influence of multiple anthropogenic stressors on communities and ecosystems, and the management and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the face of global change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

Imagine how europe would look like today, if germany had stopped fighting england after dunkirk and left them alone...deciding to dig in, in france, and then fighting a one front war against russia...

We could 'what' if from now until eternity...

There were certainly some close close calls, some almosts, but ultimately it is what it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KC375 said:

I made the assumption that the skipper of Crystal blue was not also a researcher at Trinity College Dublin whose interests are:

My research focuses on several topical themes in fundamental and applied ecology, including the determinants of biodiversity structure and function from genes to ecosystems, the combined influence of multiple anthropogenic stressors on communities and ecosystems, and the management and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the face of global change.

 

Maybe he moved to Oz and got his Captain's license!!??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ed Lada said:

We could 'what' if from now until eternity...

There were certainly some close close calls, some almosts, but ultimately it is what it was.

What if the Pearl Harbour bombing never happened (it was much debated in the chain of command)....the what ifs could go on a long time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Maybe he moved to Oz and got his Captain's license!!??

That's possible that he moonlights in Oz but challenging as his most recent tweet from Dublin dates to Dec 6 and implies he is having some success in his academic carreer in Dublin Ireland and he appears happily maried with two children (others of course have stepped out with actresses...but I'm not ready to make that accusation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KC375 said:

That's possible that he moonlights in Oz but challenging as his most recent tweet from Dublin dates to Dec 6 and implies he is having some success in his academic carreer in Dublin Ireland and he appears happily maried with two children (others of course have stepped out with actresses...but I'm not ready to make that accusation).

 

Missus BB always says, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!!" :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Missus BB always says, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!!" :lol:

Richard Feynman (nobel in physics) after giving a speech at the AAAS had a great line - Humans have a felt need for an answer...they don't have a felt need for the truth.

He was referring to how badly news media (including scientific reports) would react to answers like "we don't know"...they would much rather a facile invention than the honest "gee that's a really good question that we have been working on for years but haven't got an answer".

I think the observation that people have "no felt need for the truth" seems true in general. A false comforting (or conforming) story is often more satisfying than an uncomfortable truth...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Richard Feynman (nobel in physics) after giving a speech at the AAAS had a great line - Humans have a felt need for an answer...they don't have a felt need for the truth.

He was referring to how badly news media (including scientific reports) would react to answers like "we don't know"...they would much rather a facile invention than the honest "gee that's a really good question that we have been working on for years but haven't got an answer".

I think the observation that people have "no felt need for the truth" seems true in general. A false comforting (or conforming) story is often more satisfying than an uncomfortable truth...

If humans are good at one thing, besides generally being assholes, it's the ability to create defense mechanisms.  A certain amount of it is necessary to protect ourselves from insanity, but there is that 'too much of a good thing' to be considered too.  As we said in the Army, "Sometimes you just have to tell the boss that the baby is ugly".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Richard Feynman (nobel in physics) after giving a speech at the AAAS had a great line - Humans have a felt need for an answer...they don't have a felt need for the truth.

He was referring to how badly news media (including scientific reports) would react to answers like "we don't know"...they would much rather a facile invention than the honest "gee that's a really good question that we have been working on for years but haven't got an answer".

I think the observation that people have "no felt need for the truth" seems true in general. A false comforting (or conforming) story is often more satisfying than an uncomfortable truth...

I read this two books from Richard Feynman. His biography is the second one and very worthwhile reading. The first one is not for beginners.
2050365115_Feynmanlecturesonphysics.jpg.7d67e8d94bc8f45db84368190d989f3e.jpg
1499753667_SurelyyourejokingMr.Feynman.jpg.7fcd5d8b1babe536689c1c220c7fc689.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As SA threads go this one has covered ground, irresponsible sexual practices and sexism, litigation and command environment, career progression technics, false identity, genocide, the uncertain nature of history, the uncertain nature of physics/the universe...maybe I was rash to say it had merely bifurcated.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, schakel488 said:

I read this two books from Richard Feynman. His biography is the second one and very worthwhile reading. The first one is not for beginners.
2050365115_Feynmanlecturesonphysics.jpg.7d67e8d94bc8f45db84368190d989f3e.jpg
1499753667_SurelyyourejokingMr.Feynman.jpg.7fcd5d8b1babe536689c1c220c7fc689.jpg

When I was in college, whenever you got confused in physics the answer was, "go down to the library and get the Feynman lectures."
Now that youtue exists, you can find much of his autobiography in the actual audiorecorded form! Much of the book is a transcription of a talk (lecture for fun) somewhere (Caltech?) called, "Los Alamos from Below."  Having read the book some 2 million times already, getting to hear Dick telling the story in his voice was just fantastic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KC375 said:

As SA threads go this one has covered ground, irresponsible sexual practices and sexism, litigation and command environment, career progression technics, false identity, genocide, the uncertain nature of history, the uncertain nature of physics/the universe...maybe I was rash to say it had merely bifurcated.

 

Yeah, isn't it great?  

The collective knowledge and experience of the SA community hive mind is awesome.

Fuck I love this place!  (probable LB 15 quote)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KC375 said:

As SA threads go this one has covered ground, irresponsible sexual practices and sexism, litigation and command environment, career progression technics, false identity, genocide, the uncertain nature of history, the uncertain nature of physics/the universe...maybe I was rash to say it had merely bifurcated.

 

Funny enough, my daughter had a Feynman anecdote yesterday. Her professor was a bit disappointed that almost the whole class failed the exam. And so he told the story of Feynman and the day he came into class and had the students playing a game. "Professor, why are we playing a game--not getting a lecture or something?"
The point was that class was all about "playing" with what you read, to understand it better. That you had to play to get there, and do the reading, and strtuggle. The professor was disappointed in the number of students who would come to him for help but only looking for, "how do that porblem (for the test). 

Teaching is hard but so is learning. -- and it ain't worth squat unless you come to understand rather than simply know.

I've had the discussion with her from time to time about all the blind spots in the educational system -- how thing are taught. For instance Algebra is a disaster--for no good reason. You already learned all the "properties" in grade school, when you learned to do long division and multiplication. But they don't teach it that way, do they!!!!"

Another example I talked to her about involved calculus, she nodded with a smirk, "they always give a simple problem."  RIGHT!  But what you really want to do is be sure that you understand it well enough to take any old DIFFICULT problem and solve it!

Then there is the "just memorize it."   Egregiously this is the problem with why kinetic energy is what it is (1/2 m v ^2). "Jut memorize it." So most people don't know *why* there is a square. So I took her on a journey--so we lift up a weight from here to that shelf--that was work---potential energy right?  OK got that . OK now it falls off the shelf. And when it gets where it was vertically before, the kinetic energy will equal the potential energy---and we can measure how acceleration works (^2) and so on.  "Did anyone ever teach that?"   "No."  "How many people thought that one out on their own.?"  "You, Dad."  LOL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

When I was in college, whenever you got confused in physics the answer was, "go down to the library and get the Feynman lectures."
Now that youtue exists, you can find much of his autobiography in the actual audiorecorded form! Much of the book is a transcription of a talk (lecture for fun) somewhere (Caltech?) called, "Los Alamos from Below."  Having read the book some 2 million times already, getting to hear Dick telling the story in his voice was just fantastic!

As a student he was one of the gods. I got to hear him a couple of times and it was always a pleasure. I think the talk he gave that I quoted/paraphrased from was the key note address at AAAS annual meeting in Washington in the late seventies or early eighties. One of the things that me struck was that not only a kid like myself was enthralled but even people with a gazillion peer reviewed publications were paying attention to him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Funny enough, my daughter had a Feynman anecdote yesterday. Her professor was a bit disappointed that almost the whole class failed the exam. And so he told the story of Feynman and the day he came into class and had the students playing a game. "Professor, why are we playing a game--not getting a lecture or something?"
The point was that class was all about "playing" with what you read, to understand it better. That you had to play to get there, and do the reading, and strtuggle. The professor was disappointed in the number of students who would come to him for help but only looking for, "how do that porblem (for the test). 

Teaching is hard but so is learning. -- and it ain't worth squat unless you come to understand rather than simply know.

I've had the discussion with her from time to time about all the blind spots in the educational system -- how thing are taught. For instance Algebra is a disaster--for no good reason. You already learned all the "properties" in grade school, when you learned to do long division and multiplication. But they don't teach it that way, do they!!!!"

Another example I talked to her about involved calculus, she nodded with a smirk, "they always give a simple problem."  RIGHT!  But what you really want to do is be sure that you understand it well enough to take any old DIFFICULT problem and solve it!

Then there is the "just memorize it."   Egregiously this is the problem with why kinetic energy is what it is (1/2 m v ^2). "Jut memorize it." So most people don't know *why* there is a square. So I took her on a journey--so we lift up a weight from here to that shelf--that was work---otential energy tight?  OK got that . OK now it falls off the shelf. And when it gets where it was vertically before, the kinetic energy will equal the potential energy---and we can measure how acceleration works (^2) and so on.  "Did anyone ever teach that?"   "No."  "How many people thought that one out on their own.?"  "You, Dad."  LOL

My kids are "neuroatypical" in varying ways. They are all in one way or another very accomplished but somethings they don't approach things the way most of their peers do.So I've spent a lot of time learning about learning. Which led me to conclude my parents were also neuroatypical (they both were senior staff at a leading medical school/teaching hospital - accomplished and very not normal at the same time - for which I'm eternally grateful).

One of the things I learned about learning is that education is a field were you can develop an extensive publication list and credibility without going through any rigorous peer review! A good sounding theory well articulated seems to get adopted and institutionalized without the supporting fact base that the theory is valid.

But when you come across someone who cares and really applies themselves to teaching it can be a god send, especially for the atypical kid. I knew I'd found the right school for one of my kids when the staff member showing us around talked about the number of different ways she tried to convey the same concept in the same class because different kids had different learning styles and different motivational needs.

I also came to appreciate how much a role my parents played in helping me - a trick my mom taught me to get through a challenging physics course was to work/struggle  on the toughest problem just before bed - and again immediately after waking up, when often enough it suddenly made sense. As parents we can engage with our kids in ways that maybe teachers should but can't 'cause they lack ability or time or interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

Funny enough, my daughter had a Feynman anecdote yesterday. Her professor was a bit disappointed that almost the whole class failed the exam. And so he told the story of Feynman and the day he came into class and had the students playing a game. "Professor, why are we playing a game--not getting a lecture or something?"
The point was that class was all about "playing" with what you read, to understand it better. That you had to play to get there, and do the reading, and strtuggle. The professor was disappointed in the number of students who would come to him for help but only looking for, "how do that porblem (for the test). 

Teaching is hard but so is learning. -- and it ain't worth squat unless you come to understand rather than simply know.

I've had the discussion with her from time to time about all the blind spots in the educational system -- how thing are taught. For instance Algebra is a disaster--for no good reason. You already learned all the "properties" in grade school, when you learned to do long division and multiplication. But they don't teach it that way, do they!!!!"

Another example I talked to her about involved calculus, she nodded with a smirk, "they always give a simple problem."  RIGHT!  But what you really want to do is be sure that you understand it well enough to take any old DIFFICULT problem and solve it!

Then there is the "just memorize it."   Egregiously this is the problem with why kinetic energy is what it is (1/2 m v ^2). "Jut memorize it." So most people don't know *why* there is a square. So I took her on a journey--so we lift up a weight from here to that shelf--that was work---otential energy tight?  OK got that . OK now it falls off the shelf. And when it gets where it was vertically before, the kinetic energy will equal the potential energy---and we can measure how acceleration works (^2) and so on.  "Did anyone ever teach that?"   "No."  "How many people thought that one out on their own.?"  "You, Dad."  LOL

What???  Algebra is nothing but long division and multiplication on steroids?  I wish I would have known that when I retook Algebra 2 in high school.  The worst part is I have never needed Algebra since then and that was more than 45 years ago. 

I taught in the Army.  First of fall you have to teach to the lowest common denominator, that is the stupidest person in the class.  The standard Army teaching method, no matter the subject, is; "Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you just told them."  Before we could teach our first class we had to attend a month of Army Instructor Training.  Then we had to pass a written and practical performance exam.  Then we had a month to practice and we had to teach our senior staff a one hour actual lesson from our curriculum while they pretended to be students.  They asked questions, they pretended to fall asleep, they talked to each other while I was talking, all of the things real students do.  If we passed all of that that then we were allowed to actually teach.  Everything we taught was on handouts, on slides we projected, and on our outlines that we taught from.  The saving grace is since I taught mental health and everyone in our branch knew a thing or two about human behavior, so we had a lot of latitude as long as we covered the stuff the Army way in one fashion or another.   So we would weave stories of our actual experiences out in the real Army, into whatever was in the lesson plan.  The students love to hear the stories.  After all there is never a dull moment when you deal with human behavior.  We all had plenty of stories.  They would listen in dead silence, their jaws dropping when I would  describe the condition the victim of a suicide by hanging that I had dealt with.  They couldn't get enough of the graphic details, the swollen, black protruding tongue, the ligature mark around the neck, they ate it up.  I would tell jokes that related to the subject.  I would bring candy and give the student s a piece if they answered a question, didn't matter what their answer was, at least they were participating.  I even would stick gold stars on their notes for a good answer, they loved that!  

Another thing with teaching is everyone has their own learning style so you have to mix it up to cover the visual learners, vs the concrete learners, etc.  Being a good teacher is not easy work, but it can be rewarding when you see the student's face light up when they 'get it'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, KC375 said:

As a student he was one of the gods. I got to hear him a couple of times and it was always a pleasure. I think the talk he gave that I quoted/paraphrased from was the key note address at AAAS annual meeting in Washington in the late seventies or early eighties. One of the things that struck was that not only a kid like myself was enthralled but even people with a gazillion peer reviewed publications were paying attention to him.

You were lucky to be exposed to someone like that.  Many students never have that chance and that's too bad.  It can be a life changing experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teaching is a profession.  My father is one.  My brother was the dean of education at a respected school.

It was beyond my ability.  I determined that in trying to help others with algebra in high school.

It made may want to slap sense into them.  Not a good thing for either of us.

Hello dog...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

Teaching is a profession.  My father is one.  My brother was the dean of education at a respected school.

It was beyond my ability.  I determined that in trying to help others with algebra in high school.

It made may want to slap sense into them.  Not a good thing for either of us.

Hello dog...

Good to know your limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

You were lucky to be exposed to someone like that.  Many students never have that chance and that's too bad.  It can be a life changing experience.

As I figured out later - luck had nothing to do with it. It was my dad. He would take me each year to the AAAS and other things like that. I always thought he was just dragging me along to avoid paying babysitters or something. I now realize that was his programme to expose me to different people and ideas... I remember as a boy sitting in an operting room theatre watching brain surgery - stuff like that just got you thinking and wondering.

I've tried to repay the favour to my kids.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KC375 said:

My research focuses on several topical themes in fundamental and applied ecology, including the determinants of biodiversity structure and function from genes to ecosystems, the combined influence of multiple anthropogenic stressors on communities and ecosystems, and the management and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the face of global change.

Advanced education seems to frequently do that to the English language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Advanced education seems to frequently do that to the English language.

I am losing patience with that kind of stuff the older I get, but bosses eat that shit up.
We are going to study the effects of storage battery solutions coupled with solid state inverters and line noise filters in both phase to phase and phase to ground configurations in mitigating the effects of line noise, lower than nominal voltage, failed grounds, and other issues and unreliabities experienced with electricity sourced from the commercial grid with special emphasis on cutover times on the data integrity of our servers to include error logging, errors both recoverable and unrecoverable in the RAID arrays, and the response time of system operators to various alarms and alerts generated.

OR............

Hey, I am going to yank the plug on the server rack over there and make sure the UPS kicks on in time and someone comes to see what is going on when the alert goes out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Advanced education seems to frequently do that to the English language.

Yes, academia does not seem to reward clear communication. Why say "caused by people" when you could say "anthropogenic stressors"...Sometimes the jargon is efficient communication mostly its about self satisfaction and excluding the unanointed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I am losing patience with that kind of stuff the older I get, but bosses eat that shit up.
We are going to study the effects of storage battery solutions coupled with solid state inverters and line noise filters in both phase to phase and phase to ground configurations in mitigating the effects of line noise, lower than nominal voltage, failed grounds, and other issues and unreliabities experienced with electricity sourced from the commercial grid with special emphasis on cutover times on the data integrity of our servers to include error logging, errors both recoverable and unrecoverable in the RAID arrays, and the response time of system operators to various alarms and alerts generated.

OR............

Hey, I am going to yank the plug on the server rack over there and make sure the UPS kicks on in time and someone comes to see what is going on when the alert goes out.

If you write it your way you won't have enough text to submit for a peer reviewed publication and "ordinary" people won't be impressed with how smart you are BUT they will actually understand you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cargo Cult Science

by RICHARD P. FEYNMAN

Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address.

 

During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency.  (Another crazy idea of the Middle Ages is these hats we have on today—which is too loose in my case.)  Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas—which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it.  This method became organized, of course, into science.  And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age.  It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how­ witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked—or very little of it did.

But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO’s, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth.  And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.

Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate why they did.  And what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much junk to talk about that I can’t do it in this talk.  I’m overwhelmed.  First I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences.  I went into isolation tanks (they’re dark and quiet and you float in Epsom salts) and got many hours of hallucinations, so I know something about that.  Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it’s a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn’t realize how much there was.

Cargo Cult Science.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2019 at 12:15 PM, SloopJonB said:

Not really - the waterfront rumour at the time was that that was the reason for the ferry Queen of the North running aground here, sinking and killing two people.

More than just dockyard gossip ... that scenario was expressly argued by the Crown attorney (see generally here and here).

On 12/5/2019 at 12:15 PM, SloopJonB said:

The OOW is currently in prison I believe.

I would imagine he is out of prison by now. He was sentenced to four years (upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada), but that was quite a few years ago.

That said, you are quite right in suggesting that criminal negligence causing death is no joking matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Cargo Cult Science

by RICHARD P. FEYNMAN

Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address.

 

During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency.  (Another crazy idea of the Middle Ages is these hats we have on today—which is too loose in my case.)  Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas—which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it.  This method became organized, of course, into science.  And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age.  It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how­ witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked—or very little of it did.

But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO’s, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth.  And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.

Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate why they did.  And what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much junk to talk about that I can’t do it in this talk.  I’m overwhelmed.  First I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences.  I went into isolation tanks (they’re dark and quiet and you float in Epsom salts) and got many hours of hallucinations, so I know something about that.  Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it’s a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn’t realize how much there was.

Cargo Cult Science.pdf

That was a great read and classic Feynman. It really is a scandal how much of scientific research is not scientific especially in the pseudo sciences - the "social sciences".

Quite broadly there is a replicability crisis  that is particularly pronounced in social sciences - the often cited Nature Human Behaviour article took 21 well known experiments and could not replicate results in a third of them and when they did find the same results the magnitude of the finding was about half as big. (in a simplistic way of viewing it they were able to find about a third of the total previously published effect - i.e. two thirds wrong - in very simplified terms)This is for peer reviewed publications in a respected journal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, KC375 said:

That was a great read and classic Feynman. It really is a scandal how much of scientific research is not scientific especially in the pseudo sciences - the "social sciences".

 

Quite broadly there is a replicability crisis  that is particularly pronounced in social sciences - the often cited Nature Human Behaviour article took 21 well known experiments and could not replicate results in a third of them and when they did find the same results the magnitude of the finding was about half as big. (in a simplistic way of viewing it they were able to find about a third of the total previously published effect - i.e. two thirds wrong - in very simplified terms)This is for peer reviewed publications in a respected journal.

 

Feynman REALLY digs in on the outrage of bad science. But sadly if you flood the world with it, it "wins." Just the thing Feyman feard has happened on a grand scale. Uh-oh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, KC375 said:

That was a great read and classic Feynman. It really is a scandal how much of scientific research is not scientific especially in the pseudo sciences - the "social sciences".

Quite broadly there is a replicability crisis  that is particularly pronounced in social sciences - the often cited Nature Human Behaviour article took 21 well known experiments and could not replicate results in a third of them and when they did find the same results the magnitude of the finding was about half as big. (in a simplistic way of viewing it they were able to find about a third of the total previously published effect - i.e. two thirds wrong - in very simplified terms)This is for peer reviewed publications in a respected journal.

Agreed, one of my favorite lectures. It appears in the book "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out". Also, its related to his theories about not knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Hey, I am going to yank the plug on the server rack over there and make sure the UPS kicks on in time and someone comes to see what is going on when the alert goes out.

I actually did that once after one of my programmers assured me he'd configured the servers to auto-recover and re-start the shipboard logging system after a power failure.

The servers didn't.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there some reason why they can't just blow the mainsheet on those huge multis?

There seems to be quite a bit of time between the "oh shit" moment and the point where they blow over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Feynman REALLY digs in on the outrage of bad science. But sadly if you flood the world with it, it "wins." Just the thing Feyman feard has happened on a grand scale. Uh-oh.

You are right. It’s not so easy to figure out how to “fix it”. I was on the advisory board of a very well respected (and well funded) medical research institute. A big part of the problem is governance or management of science by non-scientists or scientists who failed upward into management. Only a tiny fraction of the effort was actually devoted towards rigorous scientific pursuit. Some of the effort went into vanity projects dictated by the whims and ambitions of the lead scientist. He was a genius in his field who assumed he was equally as accomplished at anything else he put his thoughts to – a glaring delusion no one dared challenge him on. He thought he knew more about commercialization than successful VCs, he thought he knew more about people management than the people who actually had a followership...The board had neither the grey matter nor the courage and tenacity to challenge him.  

A big share of effort went into grant writing. How do you tailor your research to be meet the criteria of funding agencies. How do you tailor the description of your research to satisfy the reviewers.

How do you tailor your research to be “original” so worthy of publication. How do you divide up your investigative efforts to support three publications instead of one...No interest in research that might invalidate previously published findings...etc.

All this overseen by people who can’t read and understand the grant applications or publications....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Agreed, one of my favorite lectures. It appears in the book "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out". Also, its related to his theories about not knowing.

Great clip. One of the attributes of Feynman that I’ve found in most great problem solvers – he is supremely comfortable with ambiguity – he doesn’t seek to create it, he happily eliminates it if he can, but he is not distressed by its presence. If you are solving a worthy problem you can’t solve it all in one jump so you have to accept their are parts of it you haven’t mastered but you plan to figure out later...

Most people are not comfortable with ambiguity.

That is exactly what he was getting at with the felt need most people have for an answer but no felt need for the truth. Most people are very uncomfortable that they don't know the answers to the most important questions. They are happy to have answers as that makes them comfortable. They don't need the answers to be verifiable or even reasonably believable. That's how you get religion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

Talk about going seriously OT

 

11762756-3x2-700x467.jpg

 

 

NINTCHDBPICT000545029152.jpg

 

NINTCHDBPICT000545029151.jpg

 

 

 

 

Oh come on, you left out the best one

image.thumb.png.75c15c71864f2a3278ae2c214008a3e5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I actually did that once after one of my programmers assured me he'd configured the servers to auto-recover and re-start the shipboard logging system after a power failure.

The servers didn't.....

FKT

Which is exactly why you want to try unplugging when it's low risk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KC375 said:

You are right. It’s not so easy to figure out how to “fix it”. I was on the advisory board of a very well respected (and well funded) medical research institute. A big part of the problem is governance or management of science by non-scientists or scientists who failed upward into management. Only a tiny fraction of the effort was actually devoted towards rigorous scientific pursuit. Some of the effort went into vanity projects dictated by the whims and ambitions of the lead scientist. He was a genius in his field who assumed he was equally as accomplished at anything else he put his thoughts to – a glaring delusion no one dared challenge him on. He thought he knew more about commercialization than successful VCs, he thought he knew more about people management than the people who actually had a followership...The board had neither the grey matter nor the courage and tenacity to challenge him.  

 

A big share of effort went into grant writing. How do you tailor your research to be meet the criteria of funding agencies. How do you tailor the description of your research to satisfy the reviewers.

 

How do you tailor your research to be “original” so worthy of publication. How do you divide up your investigative efforts to support three publications instead of one...No interest in research that might invalidate previously published findings...etc.

 

All this overseen by people who can’t read and understand the grant applications or publications....

 

You're describing Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy 

"The Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. ......The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Is there some reason why they can't just blow the mainsheet on those huge multis?

There seems to be quite a bit of time between the "oh shit" moment and the point where they blow over.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KC375 said:

Great clip. One of the attributes of Feynman that I’ve found in most great problem solvers – he is supremely comfortable with ambiguity – he doesn’t seek to create it, he happily eliminates it if he can, but he is not distressed by its presence. If you are solving a worthy problem you can’t solve it all in one jump so you have to accept their are parts of it you haven’t mastered but you plan to figure out later...

Most people are not comfortable with ambiguity.

That is exactly what he was getting at with the felt need most people have for an answer but no felt need for the truth. Most people are very uncomfortable that they don't know the answers to the most important questions. They are happy to have answers as that makes them comfortable. They don't need the answers to be verifiable or even reasonably believable. That's how you get religion.

Agreed. Feynman was highly influential with my formative thinking when I was a student (and I am not by any means alone). Being comfortable with not knowing something releases from the binds of assumptive thinking.

Nowadays, with the internet, we have access to data like never before. We can simply look data up, read reports and peer reviewed papers. Because of that, we (society) are more informed than ever before, however as a consequence of misinformation/disinformation, entire sections of the populace get things wrong. One of the most effective techniques is to create doubt, so when things are known (such as with climate change), some of that knowledge gets obfuscated with manufactured debate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of the peer reviewed stuff is crap.

What you get on the internet is a tiny window into any actual field. You have to pay to get the good stuff.

The internet does not make effective armchair scientists It makes pretend scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KC375 said:

A big share of effort went into grant writing. How do you tailor your research to be meet the criteria of funding agencies. How do you tailor the description of your research to satisfy the reviewers.

I played a small part in a team that successfully got a research grant worth a few million dollars. The hoop jumping with the funding process and constraints placed upon the project lead to some very interesting (at least, to me) conclusions:

  • That the similar levels effort when placed into commercial activities raised more capital through profit.
  • Those who funded impacted the objectives which in turn impacted the viability of the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elegua said:

You're describing Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy 

"The Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. ......The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."

Jerry Pournelle was an interesting character.

Perhaps Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Much of the peer reviewed stuff is crap.

What you get on the internet is a tiny window into any actual field. You have to pay to get the good stuff.

The internet does not make effective armchair scientists It makes pretend scientists.

The whole field of academic publishing is a fascinating misapplication of markets.

You have academics whose career depends on their producing unpaid product for these publications whose review panels determine the future of the academic. The academic has typically been paid by the tax payer. The publishers then get to charge for distributing (now mostly via pdf) the product they got for free. The pay wall then limits access to a good that is or should fundamentally be a public good.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KC375 said:

The whole field of academic publishing is a fascinating misapplication of markets.

 

You have academics whose career depends on their producing unpaid product for these publications whose review panels determine the future of the academic. The academic has typically been paid by the tax payer. The publishers then get to charge for distributing (now mostly via pdf) the product they got for free. The pay wall then limits access to a good that is or should fundamentally be a public good.

 

Once upon a time I was an assistant to a scientist who was editor in chief of a few journals. You get a clearler window into the imperfections when you get inside the tower. All is not lost. However most probably is. Ha.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I played a small part in a team that successfully got a research grant worth a few million dollars. The hoop jumping with the funding process and constraints placed upon the project lead to some very interesting (at least, to me) conclusions:

  • That the similar levels effort when placed into commercial activities raised more capital through profit.
  • Those who funded impacted the objectives which in turn impacted the viability of the project.

Agreed.

One of the things I got the research institute I was involved with to do was create a "marketing team" whose job was to off load as much of the grant application work from the scientists. It slightly improved the win rate and freed up rare skills to do special stuff while getting more available skills who where better at writing pitchs to do much of the BS stuff.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Feynman was highly influential with my formative thinking 

He would be so proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Agreed. Feynman was highly influential with my formative thinking when I was a student (and I am not by any means alone). Being comfortable with not knowing something releases from the binds of assumptive thinking.

Nowadays, with the internet, we have access to data like never before. We can simply look data up, read reports and peer reviewed papers. Because of that, we (society) are more informed than ever before, however as a consequence of misinformation/disinformation, entire sections of the populace get things wrong. One of the most effective techniques is to create doubt, so when things are known (such as with climate change), some of that knowledge gets obfuscated with manufactured debate.

No.  There is more information, more easily available than ever before.  There is also this thing called social media.  If anything, people are more misinformed than ever before, and more people completely uninformed than ever before.  Many people have no idea what critical thinking is.  It's all just a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Much of the peer reviewed stuff is crap.

What you get on the internet is a tiny window into any actual field. You have to pay to get the good stuff.

The internet does not make effective armchair scientists It makes pretend scientists.

 

 Most research even paywalled stuff is accessible either by paying publishers or if you can't afford to via https://sci-hub.ltd

In the bolded bit you can replace internet with books and the sentence would still be valid. Access to knowledge dosen't magically transfer it into your head where you understand and use it intuitively. The internet is an invaluable resource to learn, teach yourself and collaborate with others. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

 

 Most research even paywalled stuff is accessible either by paying publishers or if you can't afford to via https://sci-hub.ltd

In the bolded bit you can replace internet with books and the sentence would still be valid. Access to knowledge dosen't magically transfer it into your head where you understand and use it intuitively. The internet is an invaluable resource to learn, teach yourself and collaborate with others. 

This is an interesting site, the Gutenberg project.
Gives acces to all the writers that have died and don't need their authorial rights and income any more,
Shakespeare, Socrates, Decartes and many others..
over 60,000 free eBooks
Gutenberg.thumb.PNG.971af6b34964437903afcf387530e47c.PNG
https://www.gutenberg.org/
available in +500 languages mostly by volunteers.
I strongly believe everyone should be paid on this planet, so  make a donation.


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KC375 said:

Agreed.

One of the things I got the research institute I was involved with to do was create a "marketing team" whose job was to off load as much of the grant application work from the scientists. It slightly improved the win rate and freed up rare skills to do special stuff while getting more available skills who where better at writing pitchs to do much of the BS stuff.

A properly run medical research lab is similar. You need an experienced grant writer who is not a scientist. You need a chief physician scientist who establishes the scientific basis. And 3 or 4 other mdphd and other lab assistants doing the physical work.

Trick is to get the NIH grant but also maintain sci integrity that u mentioned upthread being a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Elegua said:

You're describing Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy 

"The Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. ......The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."

Yeah - exactly why I quit a number of my jobs over the years.

One place I assembled a really good team of software, electronics and gear techs. All problem solvers. The mantra was 'what are we trying to achieve?'

My boss hated the lot of us because we often wouldn't dot the i's properly and upper management wasn't happy about it. Mostly it was some policy designed to hinder actually getting something done. OTOH he was first in line for taking the credit.

Eventually we'd all had enough & left.

I've got at least one of Feynman's books on my shelf too.

FKT

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites