Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Science journalism: hyperbole vs.fact
179 views
Skip to first unread message
RSNorman
Nov 2, 2014, 7:36:19 PM11/2/14
to
A problem often discussed here relates to the overblown and
exaggerated claims about scientific findings as published in science
oriented news aggregations or blogs. The most recent has to do with
the post in "Oh those Randy Scots" about "Australian scientists have
tracked down the origins of the intimate act of sexual intercourse".
The quote itself comes not from a sciencey news source but from
Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-scientists-have-found-the-origins-of-sex-2014-10
Such sensationalist claims do attract attention and that attention
produces positive benefits, sometimes monetary, for the publisher, the
institution where the original research was done, and even for the
scientists involved in the research. However reading the actual
research paper shows a drastically more subdued tone and rather more
modest claims usually accompanied by suitable hedge words -- perhaps,
might, seems to suggest...
The problem is not new. I just received an article "Research Must
Pass an Ethical 'Smell Test'" by G. McKhann in "Brain in the News"
from the Dana Organization. This is a publication that aggregates
articles published in newspapers and magazines about brain research
and McKhann is the science advisor responsible for selecting articles
that both contain important science and also accurately represent that
science -- exactly the issues that confront us when we see science
papers in the news. The article in the Oct. 2014 issue of "Brain in
the News" is a republication that originally appeared in Nov. 2007 so
the problem is not new. The notion that scientific ethics is involved
relates to the fact that hyperbolic claims about medical research by
researchers connected to pharmaceutical or biotech companies often
bring enormous monetary rewards to those researchers. Sadly, little
monetary reward accrues to investigators in evolutionary biology.
Here is the relevant portion. The full text is at
http://www.dana.org/Brain_in_the_News/Research_Must_Pass_an_Ethical__Smell_Test_/
"The problems often start with how research findings are presented to
the public. I get an overview of this problem every month as we select
articles for Brain in the News. We wind up using about one in ten
potential stories. Part of the problem rests with investigators who
are touting a company, a product or simply themselves. I am sometimes
astounded at what prominent scientists will say to members of the
media—things they would never say in front of discerning colleagues."
"The media are equally at fault. The scientific expertise of many
science writers and editors is minimal. Nevertheless they are quick to
jump on a flashy story, even though it may be based on just a few
cases or be extrapolating basic findings to clinical problems in
inappropriate ways."
The moral is that you really have to be careful about what you read.
"I saw it on the internet so it must be true" The real content of
science is what is published in primary research articles, siomething
drilled into students in science education. Unfortunately, the
primary research literature (peer-reviewed journals) is exceptionally
dense, virtually impossible to understand without an enormous amount
of background learning, and incredibly tedious and boring prose to
boot. There does exist truly wonderful science journalism that
accurately and simply conveys the results of reseach. But you have to
be able to find the needles in the haystacks.
exaggerated claims about scientific findings as published in science
oriented news aggregations or blogs. The most recent has to do with
the post in "Oh those Randy Scots" about "Australian scientists have
tracked down the origins of the intimate act of sexual intercourse".
The quote itself comes not from a sciencey news source but from
Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-scientists-have-found-the-origins-of-sex-2014-10
Such sensationalist claims do attract attention and that attention
produces positive benefits, sometimes monetary, for the publisher, the
institution where the original research was done, and even for the
scientists involved in the research. However reading the actual
research paper shows a drastically more subdued tone and rather more
modest claims usually accompanied by suitable hedge words -- perhaps,
might, seems to suggest...
The problem is not new. I just received an article "Research Must
Pass an Ethical 'Smell Test'" by G. McKhann in "Brain in the News"
from the Dana Organization. This is a publication that aggregates
articles published in newspapers and magazines about brain research
and McKhann is the science advisor responsible for selecting articles
that both contain important science and also accurately represent that
science -- exactly the issues that confront us when we see science
papers in the news. The article in the Oct. 2014 issue of "Brain in
the News" is a republication that originally appeared in Nov. 2007 so
the problem is not new. The notion that scientific ethics is involved
relates to the fact that hyperbolic claims about medical research by
researchers connected to pharmaceutical or biotech companies often
bring enormous monetary rewards to those researchers. Sadly, little
monetary reward accrues to investigators in evolutionary biology.
Here is the relevant portion. The full text is at
http://www.dana.org/Brain_in_the_News/Research_Must_Pass_an_Ethical__Smell_Test_/
"The problems often start with how research findings are presented to
the public. I get an overview of this problem every month as we select
articles for Brain in the News. We wind up using about one in ten
potential stories. Part of the problem rests with investigators who
are touting a company, a product or simply themselves. I am sometimes
astounded at what prominent scientists will say to members of the
media—things they would never say in front of discerning colleagues."
"The media are equally at fault. The scientific expertise of many
science writers and editors is minimal. Nevertheless they are quick to
jump on a flashy story, even though it may be based on just a few
cases or be extrapolating basic findings to clinical problems in
inappropriate ways."
The moral is that you really have to be careful about what you read.
"I saw it on the internet so it must be true" The real content of
science is what is published in primary research articles, siomething
drilled into students in science education. Unfortunately, the
primary research literature (peer-reviewed journals) is exceptionally
dense, virtually impossible to understand without an enormous amount
of background learning, and incredibly tedious and boring prose to
boot. There does exist truly wonderful science journalism that
accurately and simply conveys the results of reseach. But you have to
be able to find the needles in the haystacks.
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 2, 2014, 7:46:19 PM11/2/14
to
Dale
Nov 2, 2014, 11:41:18 PM11/2/14
to
On 11/02/2014 07:31 PM, RSNorman wrote:
> A problem often discussed here relates to the overblown and
> exaggerated claims about scientific findings as published in science
> oriented news aggregations or blogs.
I don't know if the peer-review journals, and process, really add a lot
> exaggerated claims about scientific findings as published in science
> oriented news aggregations or blogs.
until a "breakthrough" makes it through, look at "the big bang", a
religious idea that was accepted by the mainstream sometime later by the
"establishment
--
(contact below)
http://www.dalekelly.org/
RSNorman
Nov 3, 2014, 6:21:18 AM11/3/14
to
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:41:05 -0500, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
There is an enormity of work that has to be done before any
"breakthrough" is possible. That break is really just a
reconsideration of all the earlier work that illustrates an increasing
and increasingly complex series of challenges and problems with the
existing theories.
Each individual paper is not at all earthshaking no matter how the
science journalists (and the scientists, themselves) portray it. A
significant portion may well turn out to be simply wrong. It is the
massive cumulative body of such papers that counts.
More to the point, the "big bang" was not at all a religious idea,
divine creation, that finally was accepted by the scientific
establishment. That notion is pure wish fulfillment on your part.
wrote:
"breakthrough" is possible. That break is really just a
reconsideration of all the earlier work that illustrates an increasing
and increasingly complex series of challenges and problems with the
existing theories.
Each individual paper is not at all earthshaking no matter how the
science journalists (and the scientists, themselves) portray it. A
significant portion may well turn out to be simply wrong. It is the
massive cumulative body of such papers that counts.
More to the point, the "big bang" was not at all a religious idea,
divine creation, that finally was accepted by the scientific
establishment. That notion is pure wish fulfillment on your part.
Dale
Nov 3, 2014, 11:11:17 AM11/3/14
to
On 11/03/2014 06:19 AM, RSNorman wrote:
> the "big bang" was not at all a religious idea
I heard it was on this group at some time, I think
> the "big bang" was not at all a religious idea
--
(my whereabouts below)
http://www.dalekelly.org/
Glenn
Nov 3, 2014, 11:31:17 AM11/3/14
to
"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:qpoe5ahlb1fuesk16...@4ax.com...
Sneaky O. Possum
Nov 3, 2014, 1:11:16 PM11/3/14
to
RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:qpoe5ahlb1fuesk16...@4ax.com:
Perhaps Dale is alluding to the fact that Georges Lemaitre, who is
often credited with originating the Big Bang hypothesis, was a Roman
Catholic priest. Since he was a religious guy, his ideas must have been
religious ideas, right? (That's sarcasm.)
--
S.O.P.
news:qpoe5ahlb1fuesk16...@4ax.com:
often credited with originating the Big Bang hypothesis, was a Roman
Catholic priest. Since he was a religious guy, his ideas must have been
religious ideas, right? (That's sarcasm.)
--
S.O.P.
jillery
Nov 3, 2014, 1:41:17 PM11/3/14
to
that the Universe had no beginning or end. And at least one
scientist, Fred Hoyle, explicitly opposed Big Bang cosmology partly
due to its religious undertones.
BBT never was religious dogma, but it was a lot closer to it than it
was to the scientific cosmology of the time.
--
Intelligence is never insulting.
RSNorman
Nov 3, 2014, 1:41:17 PM11/3/14
to
writes: "In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître
proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed
redshifts of spiral nebulae, and forecast the Hubble law. He based his
theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently
derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe." That surely
doesn't seem all that religious. Then, after Hubble confirmed a
universal expansion, "Lemaître proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome
primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began
with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" — what was later called
the Big Bang. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
Lemaitre clearly was well versed in general relativity and the
existence of singularities in that theory was well established. Priest
or no priest, it was all pure theoretical physics based on observed
astronomical and cosmological data.
Dale
Nov 4, 2014, 12:01:17 AM11/4/14
to
On 11/03/2014 01:06 PM, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Perhaps Dale is alluding to the fact that Georges Lemaitre, who is
> often credited with originating the Big Bang hypothesis, was a Roman
> Catholic priest. Since he was a religious guy, his ideas must have been
> religious ideas, right? (That's sarcasm.)
I guess I was having it both ways
> Perhaps Dale is alluding to the fact that Georges Lemaitre, who is
> often credited with originating the Big Bang hypothesis, was a Roman
> Catholic priest. Since he was a religious guy, his ideas must have been
> religious ideas, right? (That's sarcasm.)
holding science to the standard, leaving religion not
my bad
Jonathan
Nov 4, 2014, 8:26:15 AM11/4/14
to
news:tbhd5a5uvsbi2qlsn...@4ax.com...
> media-things they would never say in front of discerning colleagues."
Such is the overblown faith in modern objective science, which
has given us almost all the Horrors of Humanity going on two
centuries now.
The incredible ignorance of nature is the cause of Horror.
The notion that clearly defining initial conditions so that an orderly
and predictable system can be constructed, is at the very heart
of one tyrant, dictator or monopoly after another~
Humanity is still moving ahead [in spite] of objective mindsets.
The chaos you see on the Internet, is it hooey or is it truth?
Is the savior on mankind. A collective wisdom is forming
before our eyes, one could even say Nature - God is
returning to 'walk the Earth' once again.
We couldn't live in more exciting times. This is the time
in which humanity evolves to the next level.
Whatever that might bring, it can only be good as our faith
should be in the processes that produced things like life
and intelligence - Nature/God
Not deadly facts and figures.
Expand to understand!
s
>
> "The media are equally at fault. The scientific expertise of many
> science writers and editors is minimal. Nevertheless they are quick to
> jump on a flashy story, even though it may be based on just a few
> cases or be extrapolating basic findings to clinical problems in
> inappropriate ways."
>
> The moral is that you really have to be careful about what you read.
> "I saw it on the internet so it must be true"
I think it's more a matter of .."it's written by a Phd so it must be true"!
> "The media are equally at fault. The scientific expertise of many
> science writers and editors is minimal. Nevertheless they are quick to
> jump on a flashy story, even though it may be based on just a few
> cases or be extrapolating basic findings to clinical problems in
> inappropriate ways."
>
> The moral is that you really have to be careful about what you read.
> "I saw it on the internet so it must be true"
Such is the overblown faith in modern objective science, which
has given us almost all the Horrors of Humanity going on two
centuries now.
The incredible ignorance of nature is the cause of Horror.
The notion that clearly defining initial conditions so that an orderly
and predictable system can be constructed, is at the very heart
of one tyrant, dictator or monopoly after another~
Humanity is still moving ahead [in spite] of objective mindsets.
The chaos you see on the Internet, is it hooey or is it truth?
Is the savior on mankind. A collective wisdom is forming
before our eyes, one could even say Nature - God is
returning to 'walk the Earth' once again.
We couldn't live in more exciting times. This is the time
in which humanity evolves to the next level.
Whatever that might bring, it can only be good as our faith
should be in the processes that produced things like life
and intelligence - Nature/God
Not deadly facts and figures.
Expand to understand!
s
Jonathan
Nov 4, 2014, 8:36:14 AM11/4/14
to
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message
news:0I-dnTKvabHAUsvJ...@giganews.com...
>
> Nominated for POTM. You didn't disappoint :-)
>
from when people still thought the Earth was flat.
s
Jonathan
Nov 4, 2014, 8:41:14 AM11/4/14
to
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jmif5ah3l4ieu1773...@4ax.com...
some 15 billion years ago? Tomorrow is what matters to
humanity, what happens ...today is the far better information
for predicting tomorrow.
How things change or the effects matters for humanity, not
what things were.
We're still living in the heart of the scientific Dark Ages.
s
s
> Intelligence is never insulting.
>
RSNorman
Nov 4, 2014, 8:41:14 AM11/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 08:24:53 -0500, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:tbhd5a5uvsbi2qlsn...@4ax.com...
>
<snip>
>
>"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:tbhd5a5uvsbi2qlsn...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> The moral is that you really have to be careful about what you read.
>> "I saw it on the internet so it must be true"
>
>
>
>I think it's more a matter of .."it's written by a Phd so it must be true"!
>
>Such is the overblown faith in modern objective science, which
>has given us almost all the Horrors of Humanity going on two
>centuries now.
>
Perhaps the moral of the story is the you must read with
understanding.
And I should add that the Horrors of Humanity manage quite well with
or without objective science.
RSNorman
Nov 4, 2014, 8:46:14 AM11/4/14
to
made by the complexity theorists about having the solution to
everything. Actually, it is really not the theorists, themselves, but
their hangers on. It is exactly the same problem.
Chris Thompson
Nov 4, 2014, 9:21:14 AM11/4/14
to
Chris Thompson
Nov 4, 2014, 9:21:14 AM11/4/14
to
On 11/3/2014 11:09 AM, Dale wrote:
> On 11/03/2014 06:19 AM, RSNorman wrote:
>> the "big bang" was not at all a religious idea
>
> I heard it was on this group at some time, I think
>
"I read it on Usenet, so it must be true."
> On 11/03/2014 06:19 AM, RSNorman wrote:
>> the "big bang" was not at all a religious idea
>
> I heard it was on this group at some time, I think
>
Chris
VoiceOfReason
Nov 4, 2014, 10:16:14 AM11/4/14
to
> How things change or the effects matters for humanity, not
> what things were.
> We're still living in the heart of the scientific Dark Ages.
VoiceOfReason
Nov 4, 2014, 10:21:14 AM11/4/14
to
Nick Roberts
Nov 4, 2014, 4:41:14 PM11/4/14
to
In message <YpqdnSbwD8joSMXJ...@giganews.com>
From my reality-founded frame of reference, your comment also looks
like a throwback to an earlier time - after all, you reject evidence in
favour of mysticism and claim the high spiritual ground.
I'm not sure whether you would have made a good shaman, or just a very
credulous follower of one.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
like a throwback to an earlier time - after all, you reject evidence in
favour of mysticism and claim the high spiritual ground.
I'm not sure whether you would have made a good shaman, or just a very
credulous follower of one.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Nick Roberts
Nov 4, 2014, 4:41:14 PM11/4/14
to
Nick Roberts
Nov 4, 2014, 4:41:14 PM11/4/14
to
In message <6db55d20-fa4f-4c23...@googlegroups.com>
But jonathon doesn't care about that. In past posts he has demonstrated
an astonishing lack of curiosity about just about everything - he
substitutes a love of woo for curiosity.
> > How things change or the effects matters for humanity, not what
> > things were.
>
> Those who do not learn from the past...
>
> > We're still living in the heart of the scientific Dark Ages.
>
> Curious conclusion.
In jonathon's world, actually understanding anything is less than
helpful - after all, that is how reductionist science works.
It's much more important to make grandiose and profound-sounding
pronouncements than it is to learn something. He seems to regard this
as an advantage (at least, his total lack of understanding of
complex systems has never stopped him from going into woo mode).
an astonishing lack of curiosity about just about everything - he
substitutes a love of woo for curiosity.
> > How things change or the effects matters for humanity, not what
> > things were.
>
> Those who do not learn from the past...
>
> > We're still living in the heart of the scientific Dark Ages.
>
> Curious conclusion.
helpful - after all, that is how reductionist science works.
It's much more important to make grandiose and profound-sounding
pronouncements than it is to learn something. He seems to regard this
as an advantage (at least, his total lack of understanding of
complex systems has never stopped him from going into woo mode).
Sneaky O. Possum
Nov 4, 2014, 4:46:13 PM11/4/14
to
"Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote in news:YpqdnSbwD8joSMXJnZ2dnUU7-
ded...@giganews.com:
Another point in its favor!
--
S.O.P.
ded...@giganews.com:
--
S.O.P.
Paul J Gans
Nov 4, 2014, 6:56:13 PM11/4/14
to
>"The media are equally at fault. The scientific expertise of many
>science writers and editors is minimal. Nevertheless they are quick to
>jump on a flashy story, even though it may be based on just a few
>cases or be extrapolating basic findings to clinical problems in
>inappropriate ways."
>The moral is that you really have to be careful about what you read.
>"I saw it on the internet so it must be true" The real content of
>science is what is published in primary research articles, siomething
>drilled into students in science education. Unfortunately, the
>primary research literature (peer-reviewed journals) is exceptionally
>dense, virtually impossible to understand without an enormous amount
>of background learning, and incredibly tedious and boring prose to
>boot. There does exist truly wonderful science journalism that
>accurately and simply conveys the results of reseach. But you have to
>be able to find the needles in the haystacks.
and many other organizations in general have publicity departments.
Their aim is to present the university in a good light, attract
donations, grants, and publicity in general.
They constantly pressure research departments for "new" results
and researchers are constantly pushed to stay on the good side of
the "powers that be" to cooperate.
So a press conference is set up. The meeting is led by a press
officer, not the scientist(s). The press officer responds to questions
and who, if unavoidable, turns to the scientist for confirmation of what
he or she has just said -- clearly wanting a yes or no answer.
The general notion is that the scientist can't talk to the public in
any sort of understandable way. Only the press officer can do that.
This tends to create a lot of bad journalism and problems of the
sort described by RSNorman.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
RSNorman
Nov 4, 2014, 7:16:12 PM11/4/14
to
Even worse, the public relations offices tend to be closely associated
with the President's or Chancellor's office and anything that attracts
attention to the institution (non-scandalous, of course) is
immediately noticed by the administration. This can play a role come
promotion and tenure time where administration evaluations play an
important role. And it can play a more important role for annual
salary increment decisions where the decision is purely administrative
rather than academic. Even equipment money and space allocations can
be influenced. Faculty who play the humble role and let their papers
and conference presentations speak on their behalf get short shrift.
Jonathan
Nov 4, 2014, 8:01:13 PM11/4/14
to
news:3vlh5aduqgsptkv83...@4ax.com...
I'm defending apples, you're defending oranges. I realize you
understand the following definitions, btw, but others reading
might not.
"The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as
"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science
since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation,
measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing,
and modification of hypotheses."
"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific
method requires that one can test it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
There's a couple of fatal problems with the above cherished
scientific method when it comes to formulating natural or
universal law.
Let's start at the top....
Systematic observation!
The idea behind complexity science is that underlying all
evolving systems is a duality of opposing forms, just like
the duality of light. Where it's entirely up to the observer
whether a particle or wave (part or whole) is defining.
"Critically Interacting - System is information rich, neither
static nor chaotic"
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm#1.3
SO, no matter how systematically one observes all of the
natural world, the same problem remains...it's depends on
the observer (subjective) which form is seen at any given time.
Is neo-Darwinism driven by genetics or selection, for instance?
Is democracy defined by the rule of law, or it's opposite, freedom?
Which is the ...more important process?
The problem is just like the duality of light, that answer depends on
....The Observer! Not the object. This is not a minor detail to
the usefulness of objective science for understanding natural law.
Formulation of hypothesis
In any evolving system the output is always unique, nothing
ever repeats itself exactly, and the non-linear character of
evolving systems means there's no direct relationship
between cause and effect in nature.
Show me the objective hypothesis that would predict
the behavior of a market force?
"The properties of complexity and organization of any system
are considered by Crutchfield to be subjective qualities
determined by the observer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
When you go out into the real natural world and observe
(emergent) market behavior the first thing you learn, usually the
hard way, is that the behavior is just as dependent upon
our perceptions and how we believe it should behave
.....dependent upon the OBSERVER as much as anything else.
Testing of Hypothesis
Show me how to test something that's as dependent
upon subjective causes as objective?
The Nonlinear World
"Nearly all of the mathematics and science with which
we are familiar is presented in a linear form - that is, the
output of the equation varies in direct proportion to the
input y = f(x). This seems very natural to us, and we often
take for granted that the world works like this - a ball hit twice
as hard will go twice as fast... If this were not true then we
would have great difficulty in predicting anything
wouldn't we ?"
"It comes as a surprise to many people that the natural state
of affairs in the world is non-linear."
http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm
Natural law is derived from the EFFECTS!
Not from the causes!
If I want to figure out what the internal structure or
relationships are within a given evolving system, I have
to go disturb it, and observe it's reaction (effects) [future]
which will tell me what I need to know to predict that
unique and /overwhelmingly/ complicated natural system.
You can't simplify away a natural system without simplifying
away the crucial or co-equal emergent properties.
The notion of accounting for all the components
in utter detail to predict or understand nature is
a stone-age concept.
All of objective modern science is based upon
fatally flawed assumptions which complexity
science is repairing.
"God made no act without a cause,
Nor heart without an aim,
Our inference is premature,
Our premises to blame."
Jonathan
s
understand the following definitions, btw, but others reading
might not.
"The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as
"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science
since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation,
measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing,
and modification of hypotheses."
"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific
method requires that one can test it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
There's a couple of fatal problems with the above cherished
scientific method when it comes to formulating natural or
universal law.
Let's start at the top....
Systematic observation!
The idea behind complexity science is that underlying all
evolving systems is a duality of opposing forms, just like
the duality of light. Where it's entirely up to the observer
whether a particle or wave (part or whole) is defining.
"Critically Interacting - System is information rich, neither
static nor chaotic"
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm#1.3
SO, no matter how systematically one observes all of the
natural world, the same problem remains...it's depends on
the observer (subjective) which form is seen at any given time.
Is neo-Darwinism driven by genetics or selection, for instance?
Is democracy defined by the rule of law, or it's opposite, freedom?
Which is the ...more important process?
The problem is just like the duality of light, that answer depends on
....The Observer! Not the object. This is not a minor detail to
the usefulness of objective science for understanding natural law.
Formulation of hypothesis
In any evolving system the output is always unique, nothing
ever repeats itself exactly, and the non-linear character of
evolving systems means there's no direct relationship
between cause and effect in nature.
Show me the objective hypothesis that would predict
the behavior of a market force?
"The properties of complexity and organization of any system
are considered by Crutchfield to be subjective qualities
determined by the observer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
When you go out into the real natural world and observe
(emergent) market behavior the first thing you learn, usually the
hard way, is that the behavior is just as dependent upon
our perceptions and how we believe it should behave
.....dependent upon the OBSERVER as much as anything else.
Testing of Hypothesis
Show me how to test something that's as dependent
upon subjective causes as objective?
The Nonlinear World
"Nearly all of the mathematics and science with which
we are familiar is presented in a linear form - that is, the
output of the equation varies in direct proportion to the
input y = f(x). This seems very natural to us, and we often
take for granted that the world works like this - a ball hit twice
as hard will go twice as fast... If this were not true then we
would have great difficulty in predicting anything
wouldn't we ?"
"It comes as a surprise to many people that the natural state
of affairs in the world is non-linear."
http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm
Natural law is derived from the EFFECTS!
Not from the causes!
If I want to figure out what the internal structure or
relationships are within a given evolving system, I have
to go disturb it, and observe it's reaction (effects) [future]
which will tell me what I need to know to predict that
unique and /overwhelmingly/ complicated natural system.
You can't simplify away a natural system without simplifying
away the crucial or co-equal emergent properties.
The notion of accounting for all the components
in utter detail to predict or understand nature is
a stone-age concept.
All of objective modern science is based upon
fatally flawed assumptions which complexity
science is repairing.
"God made no act without a cause,
Nor heart without an aim,
Our inference is premature,
Our premises to blame."
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
Nov 4, 2014, 8:21:12 PM11/4/14
to
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:6db55d20-fa4f-4c23...@googlegroups.com...
the past into the future with the following mathematical
properties?
Nonlinear Science - Chaos Tamed
The terms "linear" and "nonlinear" are often made synonymous mathematically
with simple and difficult. Linear is a property of straight lines, of simple
proportions, of predictability and good behaviour. Nonlinear on the other
hand applies to systems that do unpredictable things, that cannot be solved
exactly and need to be approximated, the one-offs that don't fit the
expected pattern.
So now that we understand these terms, what things are nonlinear exactly ?
Answer - almost everything !
The Butterfly Effect
This phenomena is known as sensitivity to initial conditions, or the
Butterfly Effect. It arises because the errors that accumulate from each
collision do not simply add (as linear analyses assume), but increase
exponentially and this geometric progression rapidly diverges any initial
state to one that is unpredictably far from the estimate.
Let us compare the two formulae, y = f(x) and x = f(x).
Take first the equation ...y = x * n.
Suppose n = 2, then plotting for x = 1, 2, 3 we have y = 2, 4, 6
- a straight line, of slope n and linearity.
Now for ...x = x * n.
Again for n = 2, starting with x = 1 we have x = 2, 4, 8
- an exponential progression towards infinity,
if n = 1 we have 1, 1, 1 - stagnation
and for n = 0.5 we have 0.5, 0.25, 0.125 a progression towards zero.
Three very different behaviours from the same formula, dependent upon
the constant. If we assume that it is one then anything even slightly more
will take us eventually to infinity, any less to zero - our 'Butterfly
Effect',
sensitivity to initial conditions appears even for such a trivial formula.
http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm
All of objective reductionism is based on ...Y = X * N
But Nature follows....X = X *N
We need to start over from an entirely different
frame of reference.
s
RSNorman
Nov 4, 2014, 8:41:12 PM11/4/14
to
where to begin. And since this has been rehashed with you so many
times previously to no avail it is hard to know why I should even try.
Let me just say that the many researchers who actually apply
complexity theory to the real world (as opposed to those who study it
as an abstract mathematical theory) are firmly embedded in the
scientific process. They build models which is really formulating
hypotheses based on careful and accurate systematic observation and
test these models (hypotheses) to demonstrate their validity. The
models, of course, incorporate non-linear mathematics when
appropriate.
I should also add that the supposedly enigmatic and subjective
particle-wave duality you describe as being antithetical to
traditional science is the result of the that scientific method
carried out in exquisite and meticulous detail, exactly the thing you
reject.
Finally, the non-linear world is an ancient one. Go back to the late
1800's and Poincare and the early 20th century with van der Pohl.
Nonlinear systems are common in physics, chemistry, and biology and
have been studied mathematically for over a century. The
Lotka-Volterra equations going back to 1910 and 1920 are the starting
point for predator-prey interaction studies and are taught in all
basic ecoloty courses. The Hodgkin-Huxley equations for the mechanism
of the action potential in neurons are now over 60 years old and I
started teaching them almost 50 years ago. Non-linear thermodynamics
and chemical kinetics is as old with the work of Onsager and Prigogine
and the Belousov忙habotinsky reaction. All this work predated what
you call complexity theory and was firmly and absolutely embedded in
the classic scientific method.
So, once again, people who actually know complexity theory and do
complexity theory would be totally surprised and shocked at your
notion that the scientific method suffers from fatal flaws.
jillery
Nov 4, 2014, 8:46:12 PM11/4/14
to
the nature of observation. They're not the same thing. Of course
observing fundamental particles is going to change their behavior, but
that change is the same regardless of who makes the observations.
There's nothing subjective about it.
And all of your assertions below that are based on that bit of woo are
equally wrong.
RSNorman
Nov 4, 2014, 8:51:13 PM11/4/14
to
of the definition of non-linearity in mathematics, science, or
engineering. It demonstrates total ignorance of the mathematical
notion of chaotic systems. It is a horrendous misinterpretation of
what is really a difference equation and a linear one at that to
produce exponential growth and decay.
In short, Jonathan continues to demonstrate he really does not know
what he is talking about.
Roger Shrubber
Nov 4, 2014, 10:01:12 PM11/4/14
to
RSNorman wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 19:57:45 -0500, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is so much wrong with what you write that it is hard to know
> where to begin. And since this has been rehashed with you so many
> times previously to no avail it is hard to know why I should even try.
Yes.
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 19:57:45 -0500, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is so much wrong with what you write that it is hard to know
> where to begin. And since this has been rehashed with you so many
> times previously to no avail it is hard to know why I should even try.
> Let me just say that the many researchers who actually apply
> complexity theory to the real world (as opposed to those who study it
> as an abstract mathematical theory) are firmly embedded in the
> scientific process. They build models which is really formulating
> hypotheses based on careful and accurate systematic observation and
> test these models (hypotheses) to demonstrate their validity. The
> models, of course, incorporate non-linear mathematics when
> appropriate.
>
> I should also add that the supposedly enigmatic and subjective
> particle-wave duality you describe as being antithetical to
> traditional science is the result of the that scientific method
> carried out in exquisite and meticulous detail, exactly the thing you
> reject.
> Finally, the non-linear world is an ancient one. Go back to the late
> 1800's and Poincare and the early 20th century with van der Pohl.
> Nonlinear systems are common in physics, chemistry, and biology and
> have been studied mathematically for over a century. The
> Lotka-Volterra equations going back to 1910 and 1920 are the starting
> point for predator-prey interaction studies and are taught in all
> basic ecoloty courses. The Hodgkin-Huxley equations for the mechanism
> of the action potential in neurons are now over 60 years old and I
> started teaching them almost 50 years ago. Non-linear thermodynamics
> and chemical kinetics is as old with the work of Onsager and Prigogine
> and the Belousov忙habotinsky reaction. All this work predated what
> you call complexity theory and was firmly and absolutely embedded in
> the classic scientific method.
>
> So, once again, people who actually know complexity theory and do
> complexity theory would be totally surprised and shocked at your
> notion that the scientific method suffers from fatal flaws.
Not that I actually picture your opponent that way but perhaps
a bit like Hot Lips in the Movie version of MASH. Her cheering
on the football game is quite like somebody's cheering on of
complexity theory --- plenty of enthusiasm and an equal dose
of confusion about what is actually going on.
VoiceOfReason
Nov 5, 2014, 9:36:11 AM11/5/14
to
> ..how can we extrapolate
> the past into the future with the following mathematical
> properties?
Jonathan
Nov 5, 2014, 12:56:10 PM11/5/14
to
news:49ui5a99lemnrsut1...@4ax.com...
you completely dodge the questions and utterly refuse
to consider the implications of the concepts you 'claim'
to understand. It's clear your knowledge of these ideas
are as empty as your reply. Just tossing names around
is all you can do?
> Let me just say that the many researchers
Who?
>who actually apply
> complexity theory to the real world
One example of application please!
>(as opposed to those who study it
> as an abstract mathematical theory)
For instance who? Cite please?
>are firmly embedded in the
> scientific process. They build models
Who builds what models, exactly?
>which is really formulating
> hypotheses based on careful and accurate systematic observation and
> test these models (hypotheses) to demonstrate their validity. The
> models, of course, incorporate non-linear mathematics when
> appropriate.
>
Care to cite even one example? Of course not, just more pontificating!
> I should also add that the supposedly enigmatic and subjective
> particle-wave duality you describe as being antithetical to
> traditional science is the result of the that scientific method
> carried out in exquisite and meticulous detail, exactly the thing you
> reject.
>
Oh that clears everything up....not!
> Finally, the non-linear world is an ancient one. Go back to the late
> 1800's and Poincare and the early 20th century with van der Pohl.
> Nonlinear systems are common in physics, chemistry, and biology and
> have been studied mathematically for over a century. The
> Lotka-Volterra equations going back to 1910 and 1920 are the starting
> point for predator-prey interaction studies and are taught in all
> basic ecoloty courses. The Hodgkin-Huxley equations for the mechanism
> of the action potential in neurons are now over 60 years old and I
> started teaching them almost 50 years ago. Non-linear thermodynamics
> and chemical kinetics is as old with the work of Onsager and Prigogine
> and the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction. All this work predated what
about the concepts, or especially the implications.
> So, once again, people who actually know complexity theory and do
> complexity theory would be totally surprised and shocked at your
> notion that the scientific method suffers from fatal flaws.
>
Answer my questions! You can't!
No wait, it's too much trouble....right?
Show me the model or equation for a generic emergent property?
Is evolution driven by genetics or selection?
Which is the more important process?
How can I apply those concepts to any other evolving
system, say politics or business, for instance.?
I can answer these questions ...easily using complexity
science, you can't even ...start to answer them with
your practiced list of thinkers.
I'll wait for your excuses for why you can't answer the
simple questions above.
But it's like I'm talking to an alcoholic, until you understand
there's a problem, it's all a waste of time.
s
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 19:57:45 -0500, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> There is so much wrong with what you write that it is hard to know
> where to begin. And since this has been rehashed with you so many
> times previously to no avail it is hard to know why I should even try.
>
If it was so wrong, it should be trivial to show the error, yet
>
>
> There is so much wrong with what you write that it is hard to know
> where to begin. And since this has been rehashed with you so many
> times previously to no avail it is hard to know why I should even try.
>
you completely dodge the questions and utterly refuse
to consider the implications of the concepts you 'claim'
to understand. It's clear your knowledge of these ideas
are as empty as your reply. Just tossing names around
is all you can do?
> Let me just say that the many researchers
>who actually apply
> complexity theory to the real world
>(as opposed to those who study it
> as an abstract mathematical theory)
>are firmly embedded in the
> scientific process. They build models
>which is really formulating
> hypotheses based on careful and accurate systematic observation and
> test these models (hypotheses) to demonstrate their validity. The
> models, of course, incorporate non-linear mathematics when
> appropriate.
>
> I should also add that the supposedly enigmatic and subjective
> particle-wave duality you describe as being antithetical to
> traditional science is the result of the that scientific method
> carried out in exquisite and meticulous detail, exactly the thing you
> reject.
>
> Finally, the non-linear world is an ancient one. Go back to the late
> 1800's and Poincare and the early 20th century with van der Pohl.
> Nonlinear systems are common in physics, chemistry, and biology and
> have been studied mathematically for over a century. The
> Lotka-Volterra equations going back to 1910 and 1920 are the starting
> point for predator-prey interaction studies and are taught in all
> basic ecoloty courses. The Hodgkin-Huxley equations for the mechanism
> of the action potential in neurons are now over 60 years old and I
> started teaching them almost 50 years ago. Non-linear thermodynamics
> and chemical kinetics is as old with the work of Onsager and Prigogine
> you call complexity theory and was firmly and absolutely embedded in
> the classic scientific method.
>
No shit Sherlock! None of that shows you have the first clue
> the classic scientific method.
>
about the concepts, or especially the implications.
> So, once again, people who actually know complexity theory and do
> complexity theory would be totally surprised and shocked at your
> notion that the scientific method suffers from fatal flaws.
>
No wait, it's too much trouble....right?
Show me the model or equation for a generic emergent property?
Is evolution driven by genetics or selection?
Which is the more important process?
How can I apply those concepts to any other evolving
system, say politics or business, for instance.?
I can answer these questions ...easily using complexity
science, you can't even ...start to answer them with
your practiced list of thinkers.
I'll wait for your excuses for why you can't answer the
simple questions above.
But it's like I'm talking to an alcoholic, until you understand
there's a problem, it's all a waste of time.
s
Leopoldo Perdomo
Nov 5, 2014, 1:21:11 PM11/5/14
to
they still exist. That is a secondary consequence of needing money
and all that.
Eri
RSNorman
Nov 5, 2014, 1:36:11 PM11/5/14
to
http://www.santafe.edu/research/working-papers/
Try the Weizmann Institute of Science
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/complex/experimental.html
Try the University of Michigan Center for the Study of Complex Systems
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/cscs/research/publicationsandtechnicalreports
Try the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems
http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/index_en.html
For the role of modeling in applying complex system theory to
evolution see "Complex Systems Theory and Evolution"
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mm/EncycOfEvolution.pdf
Walter Bushell
Nov 5, 2014, 3:21:10 PM11/5/14
to
In article <1fd17661...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk>,
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether you would have made a good shaman, or just a very
> credulous follower of one.
In any event please don't squeeze the shaman.
> I'm not sure whether you would have made a good shaman, or just a very
> credulous follower of one.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Nick Roberts
Nov 5, 2014, 4:31:10 PM11/5/14
to
Sneaky O. Possum
Nov 5, 2014, 5:01:10 PM11/5/14
to
Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote in
news:1fd17661...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk:
> In message <YpqdnSbwD8joSMXJ...@giganews.com>
> "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:0I-dnTKvabHAUsvJ...@giganews.com...
>>
>> > Nominated for POTM. You didn't disappoint :-)
>> >
>> From my holistic frame of reference, it reads like a time-capsule
>> from when people still thought the Earth was flat.
>
> From my reality-founded frame of reference, your comment also looks
> like a throwback to an earlier time - after all, you reject evidence in
> favour of mysticism and claim the high spiritual ground.
>
> I'm not sure whether you would have made a good shaman, or just a very
> credulous follower of one.
I'm sure he would've made a crap shaman. Whatever you may think of their
techniques, shamans are their communities' equivalent of doctors: they
understand that they're expected to help people who have serious
problems, and they do their best to meet expectations.
Shamans don't have followers, as such. Perhaps you were thinking of cult
leaders? I'm sure Jonathan would make a crap cult leader. I don't think
he'd make a good follower, either - too argumentative.
Incidentally, there's no evidence that there was ever a time when most
people thought the Earth was flat.
--
S.O.P.
news:1fd17661...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk:
> In message <YpqdnSbwD8joSMXJ...@giganews.com>
> "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:0I-dnTKvabHAUsvJ...@giganews.com...
>>
>> > Nominated for POTM. You didn't disappoint :-)
>> >
>> From my holistic frame of reference, it reads like a time-capsule
>> from when people still thought the Earth was flat.
>
> From my reality-founded frame of reference, your comment also looks
> like a throwback to an earlier time - after all, you reject evidence in
> favour of mysticism and claim the high spiritual ground.
>
> I'm not sure whether you would have made a good shaman, or just a very
> credulous follower of one.
techniques, shamans are their communities' equivalent of doctors: they
understand that they're expected to help people who have serious
problems, and they do their best to meet expectations.
Shamans don't have followers, as such. Perhaps you were thinking of cult
leaders? I'm sure Jonathan would make a crap cult leader. I don't think
he'd make a good follower, either - too argumentative.
Incidentally, there's no evidence that there was ever a time when most
people thought the Earth was flat.
--
S.O.P.
RSNorman
Nov 5, 2014, 5:36:11 PM11/5/14
to
Jonathan -- back and forth getting nowhere. But you seem to prefer
explosions.
Tim Norfolk
Nov 5, 2014, 8:51:09 PM11/5/14
to
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 4:31:10 PM UTC-5, Nick Roberts wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
>
> So what follows:
>
> dR/dt = -k B
> dB/dt = -l R
>
> ?
>
> --
> Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
>
> Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
> can be adequately explained by stupidity.
sinh and cosh?
> So what follows:
>
> dR/dt = -k B
> dB/dt = -l R
>
> ?
>
> --
> Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
>
> Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
> can be adequately explained by stupidity.
joecumm...@gmail.com
Nov 6, 2014, 3:21:08 AM11/6/14
to
For X= 1,2,3
N=1
1=1,
2=2,
3=3
N=2
1=2,
2=4,
3=6
N=3
1=3,
2=6,
3=9
Please explain.
RSNorman
Nov 6, 2014, 7:36:08 AM11/6/14
to
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 00:18:59 -0800 (PST), joecumm...@gmail.com
wrote:
>Le mercredi 5 novembre 2014 02:21:12 UTC+1, Jonathan a écrit :
<snip>
>> All of objective reductionism is based on ...Y = X * N
>>
>> But Nature follows....X = X *N
>>
>> We need to start over from an entirely different
>> frame of reference.
>>
> X=X°N
>
>For X= 1,2,3
> N=1
> 1=1,
> 2=2,
> 3=3
>
> N=2
>
> 1=2,
> 2=4,
> 3=6
>
> N=3
>
> 1=3,
> 2=6,
> 3=9
>
>Please explain.
>
Jonathan clearly fails to understand anything he writes so he is
unlikely to be able to explain.
The only way it makes sense is that he is using the computer
programming equality symbol to indicate replacement rather than
mathematical equality. So X = X*N means "the new value of X is the
old value times N". An assumption is that you do this repeatedly, in
a loop. This is just a recurrence relationship and describes a first
order linear homogenous difference equation. The solution is that
after the k'th step X_k = X_0 * N^k. This is the difference equation
equivalent of a first order linear homogenous differential equation
producing exponential growth.
Jonathan concludes
absolutely nothing to do with initial conditions. It has absolutely
nothing to do with the butterfly effect. This example, and many
others he has done previously, are quite conclusive proof that
Jonathan knows not whereof he speaks.
wrote:
>Le mercredi 5 novembre 2014 02:21:12 UTC+1, Jonathan a écrit :
>> All of objective reductionism is based on ...Y = X * N
>>
>> But Nature follows....X = X *N
>>
>> We need to start over from an entirely different
>> frame of reference.
>>
> X=X°N
>
>For X= 1,2,3
> N=1
> 1=1,
> 2=2,
> 3=3
>
> N=2
>
> 1=2,
> 2=4,
> 3=6
>
> N=3
>
> 1=3,
> 2=6,
> 3=9
>
>Please explain.
>
unlikely to be able to explain.
The only way it makes sense is that he is using the computer
programming equality symbol to indicate replacement rather than
mathematical equality. So X = X*N means "the new value of X is the
old value times N". An assumption is that you do this repeatedly, in
a loop. This is just a recurrence relationship and describes a first
order linear homogenous difference equation. The solution is that
after the k'th step X_k = X_0 * N^k. This is the difference equation
equivalent of a first order linear homogenous differential equation
producing exponential growth.
Jonathan concludes
> Three very different behaviours from the same formula, dependent upon
> the constant. If we assume that it is one then anything even slightly more
> will take us eventually to infinity, any less to zero - our 'Butterfly
> Effect',
> sensitivity to initial conditions appears even for such a trivial formula.
This is simply a description of the exponential function. It has
> the constant. If we assume that it is one then anything even slightly more
> will take us eventually to infinity, any less to zero - our 'Butterfly
> Effect',
> sensitivity to initial conditions appears even for such a trivial formula.
absolutely nothing to do with initial conditions. It has absolutely
nothing to do with the butterfly effect. This example, and many
others he has done previously, are quite conclusive proof that
Jonathan knows not whereof he speaks.
Vincent Maycock
Nov 6, 2014, 9:26:10 AM11/6/14
to
settles down about his nonsense), let's check to see if Tim got the
right answer to this set of coupled differential equations. We solve
these kind by taking the derivative of one of the equations so that
we'll end up with the same variables in both equations.
Let's take the derivative of dR/dt; since dR/dt is equal to -kB, we
can write the derivative of dR/dt as -kdB/dt. However, another way of
writing the derivative of dR/dt is d^R/dt^2. So we have
d^2R/dt^2 = -kdB/dt;
after dividing through by -k, we find that dB/dt = -(1/k)d^2R/dt^2
The second equation is another expression for dB/dt, though; we can
see from that equation that dB/dt is equal to -lR. So we'll set our
two expressions for dB/dt equal to each other, which will give us a
single differential equation that we can then solve using standard
techniques:
dB/dt = -lR = -(1/k)d^2R/dt^2
Multiplying through by -k gives
d^2R/dt^2 = klR
We now have one of the most fundamental relations in all of
differential equations. If you don't know the solution to this
equation by heart, it might be that remedial work could be in store
for you until you get up to speed.
The solution (that is, R) will be an exponential function, because
these functions have the special property that when you take their
derivative, you get the same thing back again. So an equation
involving a function whose second derivative is the same thing as the
function itself (to within a constant of proportionality) is going to
involve exponential functions.
Or, the way they would teach it in diffy-eq, I guess, if you wanted to
be more rigorous about it, would be, try a trial solution of the form
R = e^rt, because you suspect exponentials are involved.
Take its derivative once and you get
dR/dt = re^rt, by the properties of the exponential function
Take its derivative again and you get
d^2R/dt^2 = r^2e^rt;
but because our trial solution was e^rt, this equation is the
same one as the one we were trying to solve if we set r^2 = kl; that
is,
d^2R/dt^2 = r^2 R is the same thing as
d^2R/dt^2 = klR
if kl is the same thing as r^2
So let's write that last one out as an equation so we can write our
solution in terms of the variables given us:
kl = r^2, so
r =(+/-) sqrt(kl)
We have two solutions, apparently, one for each sign.
So which one is the solution? The one where r = +sqrt(kl), or
the one where r = -sqrt(kl)?
The answer is that either will do, but serious mathematicians
generally want us to write the answer in the most general form
possible; that is, we want *the* solution rather than one of the
solutions that will work. To do this, we use the linearity property
of the differentiation operator and sum the two solutions.
We left out a multiplication constant on the trial exponential
solutions before we did the derivation for the value of r, because it
was really irrelevant at that point (because ignoring it was
equivalent to dividing the equation through by a constant, which
wouldn't affect anything; i.e., for our purposes at that time, the
trial solution R = e^rt and R = Ae^rt were really equivalent).
But when we sum these two solutions, we're going to have to deal with
the fact that those two constants we ignored did not have to be the
same, in general. We'll call one of them A and one of them B, that
is,
one of our solutions is
R1 = Ae^sqrt(kl)
and the other is
R2= Be^-sqrt(kl),
where we substituted the positive root value of r into the first type
of solution for R (which we've now denoted as R1, to distinguish it
from the general solution R, which, as I said, will be the sum of
these two possible solutions) , and the negative root value of r into
the second type of solution for R, which we call R2.
So let's sum the two to get our general solution:
R = R1 + R2 = Ae^sqrt(kl) + Be^-sqrt(kl)
That's it, and now we just need to find out whether that's the same
thing as the hyperbolic sine and hyperbolic cosine functions that Tim
was talking about. Which means, "What the hell *were* those things?
Sums of exponentials, right?" That would imply that Tim was right.
According to Google,
sinh = 1/2 (e^t - e^-t)
and
cosh = 1/2 (e^t + e^-t)
Which is the answer we derived, with A = 1/2 and B = -1/2 in one case
and A = 1/2 and B= 1/2 in the other.
So Tim was right, for suitable values of k and l, but I give him a
9/10 for not putting his answer in the most general form possible.
Tim Norfolk
Nov 6, 2014, 9:51:08 AM11/6/14
to
RSNorman
Nov 6, 2014, 10:21:09 AM11/6/14
to
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 09:25:41 -0500, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
wrote:
Why all that work?
Let me rewrite the equations using more ordinary variables and
parameters:
x' = -a y
y' = -b x
let k^2 = ab. Then we get
x'' = k^2 x
for which you can immediately write the general solution for arbitrary
A and B:
x = A e^(kt) + Be^(-kt)
or, if you prefer as Tim did,
x = A sinh (kt) + B cosh (kt)
Then it is trivial to compute y = -x'/a.
wrote:
Let me rewrite the equations using more ordinary variables and
parameters:
x' = -a y
y' = -b x
let k^2 = ab. Then we get
x'' = k^2 x
for which you can immediately write the general solution for arbitrary
A and B:
x = A e^(kt) + Be^(-kt)
or, if you prefer as Tim did,
x = A sinh (kt) + B cosh (kt)
Then it is trivial to compute y = -x'/a.
Nick Roberts
Nov 6, 2014, 3:36:07 PM11/6/14
to
In message <9p3n5at0d85fa8q6l...@4ax.com>
And after all that....
While the mathematics appears correct, the solution is not the most
interesting thing (to me) about the equations. From my perspective, the
most interesting thing is that the equations are an early attempt at
a mathematical model of combat.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws
But of course, jonathon knew that.
While the mathematics appears correct, the solution is not the most
interesting thing (to me) about the equations. From my perspective, the
most interesting thing is that the equations are an early attempt at
a mathematical model of combat.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws
But of course, jonathon knew that.
Nick Roberts
Nov 6, 2014, 3:36:07 PM11/6/14
to
In message <nlpm5a5m27ajn7o4k...@4ax.com>
I'd missed the reference to the butterfly effect in jonathon's original
post, so thanks for highlighting it.
As you say, pretty much every time he tries to give an example, or
tries to impress us with his grasp of the subject, he simply underlines
how shallow his comprehension really is.
post, so thanks for highlighting it.
As you say, pretty much every time he tries to give an example, or
tries to impress us with his grasp of the subject, he simply underlines
how shallow his comprehension really is.
RSNorman
Nov 6, 2014, 3:46:07 PM11/6/14
to
indeed, quite shallow.
RSNorman
Nov 6, 2014, 3:46:07 PM11/6/14
to
where one participant (the exponential growth term) drives the other
(the exponential decay term) to extinction. Ecologists taught that
using essentially those equations long before anybody ever thought of
complexity theory.
Walter Bushell
Nov 6, 2014, 9:41:07 PM11/6/14
to
In article <2cednQ6wka3a5sTJ...@giganews.com>,
(partial?) differential equations.
"Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The terms "linear" and "nonlinear" are often made synonymous mathematically
> with simple and difficult. Linear is a property of straight lines, of simple
> proportions, of predictability and good behaviour. Nonlinear on the other
> hand applies to systems that do unpredictable things, that cannot be solved
> exactly and need to be approximated, the one-offs that don't fit the
> expected pattern.
>
> So now that we understand these terms, what things are nonlinear exactly ?
> Answer - almost everything !
I'm a frayed knot. Linear systems are systems that obey linear
> The terms "linear" and "nonlinear" are often made synonymous mathematically
> with simple and difficult. Linear is a property of straight lines, of simple
> proportions, of predictability and good behaviour. Nonlinear on the other
> hand applies to systems that do unpredictable things, that cannot be solved
> exactly and need to be approximated, the one-offs that don't fit the
> expected pattern.
>
> So now that we understand these terms, what things are nonlinear exactly ?
> Answer - almost everything !
(partial?) differential equations.
William Morse
Nov 6, 2014, 10:41:07 PM11/6/14
to
On 11/02/2014 07:31 PM, RSNorman wrote:
> A problem often discussed here relates to the overblown and
> exaggerated claims about scientific findings as published in science
> A problem often discussed here relates to the overblown and
> exaggerated claims about scientific findings as published in science
>
> "The media are equally at fault. The scientific expertise of many
> science writers and editors is minimal. Nevertheless they are quick to
> jump on a flashy story, even though it may be based on just a few
> cases or be extrapolating basic findings to clinical problems in
> inappropriate ways."
>
> The moral is that you really have to be careful about what you read.
> "I saw it on the internet so it must be true" The real content of
> science is what is published in primary research articles, siomething
> drilled into students in science education. Unfortunately, the
> primary research literature (peer-reviewed journals) is exceptionally
> dense, virtually impossible to understand without an enormous amount
> of background learning, and incredibly tedious and boring prose to
> boot. There does exist truly wonderful science journalism that
> accurately and simply conveys the results of reseach. But you have to
> be able to find the needles in the haystacks.
>
Well said, and deserving of a POTM nomination. There was another good
> "The media are equally at fault. The scientific expertise of many
> science writers and editors is minimal. Nevertheless they are quick to
> jump on a flashy story, even though it may be based on just a few
> cases or be extrapolating basic findings to clinical problems in
> inappropriate ways."
>
> The moral is that you really have to be careful about what you read.
> "I saw it on the internet so it must be true" The real content of
> science is what is published in primary research articles, siomething
> drilled into students in science education. Unfortunately, the
> primary research literature (peer-reviewed journals) is exceptionally
> dense, virtually impossible to understand without an enormous amount
> of background learning, and incredibly tedious and boring prose to
> boot. There does exist truly wonderful science journalism that
> accurately and simply conveys the results of reseach. But you have to
> be able to find the needles in the haystacks.
>
example in the 26 September Science regarding a claim that a research
group had discovered convincing proof of cosmic inflation. Turns out
that there is considerable uncertainty about that claim. But the
researchers succumbed to the temptation to announce their results at a
press release.
Vincent Maycock
Nov 7, 2014, 6:01:06 AM11/7/14
to
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:18:59 -0500, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:
You mean why *show* my work? Primarily for purposes of clarity of
exposition.
>Let me rewrite the equations using more ordinary variables and
>parameters:
Yep, I thought the notation was clumsy as well, but decided to
continue with it to maintain continuity with the problem as originally
stated.
> x' = -a y
> y' = -b x
>
>let k^2 = ab. Then we get
> x'' = k^2 x
>
>for which you can immediately write the general solution for arbitrary
>A and B:
>
> x = A e^(kt) + Be^(-kt)
>or, if you prefer as Tim did,
> x = A sinh (kt) + B cosh (kt)
You really need to specify that those are two different A's and B's,
there, if you're going to write the solution in two different forms
like that.
The fact that the solution can be written as a linear combination of
sinh and cosh functions is only minimal improvement over the statement
that the solution is "some kind of exponential function," and I can't
allow Tim's grade to be improved on those grounds. You need to
specify the exact form of the solution for full credit.
>Then it is trivial to compute y = -x'/a.
True, it is trivial, but since any system of equations generally
implies that the student write down the values of all the unknown
variables in the system, we'll solve for the other unknown variable in
the original problem, B, explicitly in the interests of completeness.
In part 1 of the problem, we obtained the result:
R = R1 + R2 = Ae^sqrt(kl)t + Be^-sqrt(kl)t
The factors multiplying the exponential functions, A, and B, are
arbitrary both numerically and alphabetically -- that is, we don't
have to call them A and B, and B is already the name of the function
we're trying to solve for. So let's call the factor multiplying the
second exponential function (the one with the -sqrt in it, the one
that decays over time rather than blowing up) C instead of B. So
we'll rewrite R as
R = R1 + R2 = Ae^sqrt(kl)t + Ce^-sqrt(kl)t
= Ae^sqrt(kl)t + Ce^-sqrt(kl)t
after dispensing with the R1 and R2, since they were just there to
emphasize that the solution was a sum of two previous solutions.
With any system of two equations in two unknowns, when you have the
value of one of the unknowns, all you have to do to get the value of
the other one is submitted the value of the one you do know (R in this
case) into one of the equations that contains that previously unknown
variable as well as the one you don't know yet, (which again would be
B in this case).
So we've got R; let's look at our original system of equations to see
if we have an equation that contains R and B so we can solve for B,
since we have R already.
Oh, no! We don't have an equation for both R and B! This isn't *like*
algebraic systems of equations, where you can just back-substitute and
solve for the variable of interest, despite the fact that it's really
the same process involved.
We don't have an equation containing both R and B, but we do have an
equation containing B and the *the derivative of R,* which we can
calculate, since, after all we just solved for R explicitly.
So let's take the derivative of R, using the form we wrote it in after
we solved for it:
dR/dt = = Asqrt(kl)e^sqrt(kl)t - Csqrt(kl)e^-sqrt(kl)t
The equation we had containing B and R's derivative was
dR/dt = -k B
So we have one equation and one unknown, since we just calculated
dR/dt, which is the end-point of any systems of equations problem. We
treat dR/dt just like any other kind of algebraic variable and solve
for B using the laws of high school algebra:
B = (-1/k)dR/dt =
(-1/k) (Asqrt(kl)e^sqrt(kl)t - Csqrt(kl)e^-sqrt(kl)t),
We want to distribute the -1/k throughout the equation rather than
just leaving it hanging on the left-hand side of the equation in a
form that isn't symmetrical with the way we wrote the solution for R,
but because we have sqrt(k)'s rather than k's inside the parenthesis
next to the -1/k, we'll write -1/k as -1/(sqrt(k)*sqrt(k)), and use
the properties of square roots to cancel some things out (namely, the
square root of k's) in there.
B =
(-1/(sqrt(k)*sqrt(k))) (Asqrt(kl)e^sqrt(kl)t - Csqrt(kl)e^-sqrt(kl)t),
=- Asqrt(kl)/(sqrt(k)*sqrt(k))e^sqrt(kl)t +
Csqrt(kl)/(sqrt(k)*sqrt(k))e^-sqrt(kl)t,
so
B = -Asqrt(l/k)e^sqrt(kl)t + Csqrt(l/k)e^-sqrt(kl)t
Again, R was
Ae^sqrt(kl)t + Ce^-sqrt(kl)t
So those are the two unknown functions found in the original system of
differential equations, written in their explicit form.
wrote:
exposition.
>Let me rewrite the equations using more ordinary variables and
>parameters:
continue with it to maintain continuity with the problem as originally
stated.
> x' = -a y
> y' = -b x
>
>let k^2 = ab. Then we get
> x'' = k^2 x
>
>for which you can immediately write the general solution for arbitrary
>A and B:
>
> x = A e^(kt) + Be^(-kt)
>or, if you prefer as Tim did,
> x = A sinh (kt) + B cosh (kt)
there, if you're going to write the solution in two different forms
like that.
The fact that the solution can be written as a linear combination of
sinh and cosh functions is only minimal improvement over the statement
that the solution is "some kind of exponential function," and I can't
allow Tim's grade to be improved on those grounds. You need to
specify the exact form of the solution for full credit.
>Then it is trivial to compute y = -x'/a.
implies that the student write down the values of all the unknown
variables in the system, we'll solve for the other unknown variable in
the original problem, B, explicitly in the interests of completeness.
In part 1 of the problem, we obtained the result:
R = R1 + R2 = Ae^sqrt(kl)t + Be^-sqrt(kl)t
The factors multiplying the exponential functions, A, and B, are
arbitrary both numerically and alphabetically -- that is, we don't
have to call them A and B, and B is already the name of the function
we're trying to solve for. So let's call the factor multiplying the
second exponential function (the one with the -sqrt in it, the one
that decays over time rather than blowing up) C instead of B. So
we'll rewrite R as
R = R1 + R2 = Ae^sqrt(kl)t + Ce^-sqrt(kl)t
= Ae^sqrt(kl)t + Ce^-sqrt(kl)t
after dispensing with the R1 and R2, since they were just there to
emphasize that the solution was a sum of two previous solutions.
With any system of two equations in two unknowns, when you have the
value of one of the unknowns, all you have to do to get the value of
the other one is submitted the value of the one you do know (R in this
case) into one of the equations that contains that previously unknown
variable as well as the one you don't know yet, (which again would be
B in this case).
So we've got R; let's look at our original system of equations to see
if we have an equation that contains R and B so we can solve for B,
since we have R already.
Oh, no! We don't have an equation for both R and B! This isn't *like*
algebraic systems of equations, where you can just back-substitute and
solve for the variable of interest, despite the fact that it's really
the same process involved.
We don't have an equation containing both R and B, but we do have an
equation containing B and the *the derivative of R,* which we can
calculate, since, after all we just solved for R explicitly.
So let's take the derivative of R, using the form we wrote it in after
we solved for it:
dR/dt = = Asqrt(kl)e^sqrt(kl)t - Csqrt(kl)e^-sqrt(kl)t
The equation we had containing B and R's derivative was
dR/dt = -k B
So we have one equation and one unknown, since we just calculated
dR/dt, which is the end-point of any systems of equations problem. We
treat dR/dt just like any other kind of algebraic variable and solve
for B using the laws of high school algebra:
B = (-1/k)dR/dt =
(-1/k) (Asqrt(kl)e^sqrt(kl)t - Csqrt(kl)e^-sqrt(kl)t),
We want to distribute the -1/k throughout the equation rather than
just leaving it hanging on the left-hand side of the equation in a
form that isn't symmetrical with the way we wrote the solution for R,
but because we have sqrt(k)'s rather than k's inside the parenthesis
next to the -1/k, we'll write -1/k as -1/(sqrt(k)*sqrt(k)), and use
the properties of square roots to cancel some things out (namely, the
square root of k's) in there.
B =
(-1/(sqrt(k)*sqrt(k))) (Asqrt(kl)e^sqrt(kl)t - Csqrt(kl)e^-sqrt(kl)t),
=- Asqrt(kl)/(sqrt(k)*sqrt(k))e^sqrt(kl)t +
Csqrt(kl)/(sqrt(k)*sqrt(k))e^-sqrt(kl)t,
so
B = -Asqrt(l/k)e^sqrt(kl)t + Csqrt(l/k)e^-sqrt(kl)t
Again, R was
Ae^sqrt(kl)t + Ce^-sqrt(kl)t
So those are the two unknown functions found in the original system of
differential equations, written in their explicit form.
Vincent Maycock
Nov 7, 2014, 6:16:06 AM11/7/14
to
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 06:48:51 -0800 (PST), Tim Norfolk
Complex hyperbolics are just sines and cosines. They are not
solutions to this system of differential equations. See me in my
office for an oral evaluation of your understanding of the problem
involved.
It's no big deal, there will be doughnuts and coffee and some work on
the blackboard there; I mean, I was impressed that you scrawled down
more or less the correct answer on your paper, but your last statement
leads me to wonder about whether you know what the fuck you're doing,
here. Hence, the oral evaluation. If you pass, your grade will be
downgraded to an 8/10. If you fail, you'll re-take the exam.
solutions to this system of differential equations. See me in my
office for an oral evaluation of your understanding of the problem
involved.
It's no big deal, there will be doughnuts and coffee and some work on
the blackboard there; I mean, I was impressed that you scrawled down
more or less the correct answer on your paper, but your last statement
leads me to wonder about whether you know what the fuck you're doing,
here. Hence, the oral evaluation. If you pass, your grade will be
downgraded to an 8/10. If you fail, you'll re-take the exam.
RSNorman
Nov 7, 2014, 7:46:05 AM11/7/14
to
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 06:11:41 -0500, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
wrote:
What if either k or l (but not both) are negative? Your solution
fails but Tim has the subject completely covered. In the realm of
functions defined over the complex field, there is no difference
between sin - cos and sinh - cosh, they are both simple exponentials.
wrote:
fails but Tim has the subject completely covered. In the realm of
functions defined over the complex field, there is no difference
between sin - cos and sinh - cosh, they are both simple exponentials.
RSNorman
Nov 7, 2014, 7:46:05 AM11/7/14
to
researchers would succomb to that temptation. The institution
appliles strong pressure to do that and yielding to that pressure puts
you in good graces with the administration.
RSNorman
Nov 7, 2014, 7:56:05 AM11/7/14
to
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 05:59:08 -0500, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
We have rather strinkingly different approaches to how to deal with
this stuff. Trained as a mathematician I went for simplicity and
elegance. Not to mean this as an insult, but you seem to take the
approach of an engineer and bludgeon the thing to death grinding
through all the smallest details.
For student homework, "show your work" is appropriate but even here
the level of detail in the work differs strongly. A math student
would get full credit for simply pointing out that the general
solution to a second order linear homogenous differential equation
with constant coefficients was shown earlier to be a linear
combination of two exponentials and leave it at that.
The reason I posted as I did was that people who are familiar with
differential equations would see exactly what I meant. People who
were familiar once but now forgot would say, "Oh, yes. Now I
remember." People who did not know diffeq but did know calculus would
say, "Oh, yes, I can verify that that is the solution." And people
who did not know calculus would not be helped by your thorough working
out all the details. However a student in a class who was just now
introduced to the subject would have to see all that.
this stuff. Trained as a mathematician I went for simplicity and
elegance. Not to mean this as an insult, but you seem to take the
approach of an engineer and bludgeon the thing to death grinding
through all the smallest details.
For student homework, "show your work" is appropriate but even here
the level of detail in the work differs strongly. A math student
would get full credit for simply pointing out that the general
solution to a second order linear homogenous differential equation
with constant coefficients was shown earlier to be a linear
combination of two exponentials and leave it at that.
The reason I posted as I did was that people who are familiar with
differential equations would see exactly what I meant. People who
were familiar once but now forgot would say, "Oh, yes. Now I
remember." People who did not know diffeq but did know calculus would
say, "Oh, yes, I can verify that that is the solution." And people
who did not know calculus would not be helped by your thorough working
out all the details. However a student in a class who was just now
introduced to the subject would have to see all that.
0 new messages