Technical Stuff
The Galileo Conspiracy: 5 Questions Your Science Professors Hope You Never Ask
Author: buzz42, 27/08
By Christopher BrownAs a young lad, I took on my first scientific experiment simply because I could. Like most curious youngsters who own walky-talkies, I could only resist for so long the urge to bury one of them (well behind enemy lines) in the bread aisle at the local grocery store, to see what startled shoppers might make of extroverted wheat. This, my first foray into the field of agorology -- the very scientific study of shopping, shoppers and shoppingcarts -- told me just what I needed to know.
Would they simply scurry off, fearing all that is both sourdough and articulate, or might they try to hunt down the source of the taunting loaves? The jovial, phoney French accent that greeted each customer in the aisle proved harder to maintain -- while trying hard not to laugh -- than I had anticipated. In the end, fear of the manager (bigcheesophobia) cut short the data-gathering event, but not before we -- Tony (my assistant) and I -- had learned far too much. We now knew the inside truth about science, kept hidden for many ages: it's a real kick in the pants.
Much time passed, and the California State University (at Hayward) received, and then quite foolishly approved, my application for admission. There I learned that the representatives of "science" bore the right to decide all matters of cultural importance; that scientists could provide the answers we need; and that science is "self-correcting," and so marches forward with unrelenting progress. Just look at the microwave ovens, and the GPS gadgets in our cars. Science carries the badge of authority in all matters of knowledge. Or so the story goes.
But then it happened. I took my first history of science class, and began studying the items that interested me, even if they weren't on the menu. Then came the individual study course in the philosophy of science. By then I had meandered into areas of study best dubbed "plainly unauthorized." Here, I had realized that the science textbook authors (and most of my science professors) had completely -- I believe the scientific term is -- "discombobulated" almost everything they had taught me in my science classes.
Oh, they managed the empirical details in the books well enough. Like motorcycle riders who smile too often, the experts had strained out the empirical gnats with an aggressive and precise toothpick. But conceptual camel-swallowing became the order of the day. In other words, their story of what science actually is, how scientists employ its methods, and what science can actually accomplish -- the whole story surrounding the details -- proved phonier than a well-modulated, French accent in a grocery store.
To help illustrate these well-educated fibs, which I have boiled down to five for the sake of brevity, I have put this section in the shape of a question and answer format. Here sit before the readers eyes THE five questions your science professors hope you never ask.
Question 1. Professor, isn't it true, that when you call a model or theory "true" merely because it makes accurate predictions that you in fact commit the fallacy called "affirming the consequent?"
Answer: You'd better believe it, Bucko. And nearly all scientists do this on a regular basis. Coincidentally enough, so do the textbooks these guys write. "If a mother, then also a woman" seems obvious enough. In logic, this takes the form, "If P, then Q." But reasoning in the reverse direction leads to trouble. "If a woman, then a mother [Q, therefore P]" doesn't ring true at all. Many women do not practice motherhood. Likewise, "If my theory is true, we should find 'Q' to be the case [If P, then Q] does not in any way validate the reverse, "We did find 'Q' to be the case, therefore my model is true [Q, therefore P]."
This is like the man who argues that "If it is bread, it does not talk. It does not in fact talk, therefore it must be bread." Imagine that: science professors make a career of reasoning that poorly, and your sandwich never said a word.
Question #2. Professor, isn't it true that many highly successful theories in the past gained the allegiance of entire scientific communities, only to suffer rejection later as so much molarky by the same group?
Answer: Yes. In fact Dr. Larry Laudan, former chair of the history and philosophy of science department at the University of Pittsburgh, wrote a book (Science and Values) where he catalogued over 30 such theories. He indicated that he could have lengthened his list extensively (and others have done this). These truth-status flip-floppers trounce about like a salmon on deck, where "true yesterday" becomes "false today." Here, truth comes with an expiration date like raspberry yogurt. And who knows, these theories may yet make a comeback -- only to get smoked again (as salmon are want to do).
This tells us that theoretical science shows itself fickle when it comes to truth-telling. In court, they call this "perjury," but let us avoid the unpleasantries of name-calling. One commentator on this problem recently put it quite sublimely in these words: "If the history of science were a single person, it would present to the world just that sort of person we should least want to see driving heavy machinery or carrying sharp objects."
Question #3. Professor, isn't it true that theories considered false today by the scientific majority, as well as in the past, have often turned out to be very useful? And doesn't this show that no established relationship between true theories and useful theories exists?
Answer: Yes, and yes. And this shows from the empirical facts of history that any theory might be highly useful, and yet utterly false, so that it's utility offers no real guide to whether or not it's true. And you guessed it: Dr. Laudan has a long list of these successful-but-false theories too. And he isn't the only one.
Question #4. Isn't it true professor that scientists often resolve the contest between rival theories by choosing the one as "more probably true" which appears either simpler or more elegant than the others, and doesn't this tell against the alleged "objectivity" of what is supposed to be a truth-seeking enterprise, reducing it to the status of a Miss America beauty pageant?
Answer: Yes, but don't tell my wife or she won't let me go to work either.
Question #5. Professor, isn't it true that various scientists working in different fields put to use a wide array of different methods, depending on factors like which field of study they work in, the nature of the claim under question at the moment, and the like? And doesn't this rather abolish the popular myth that anything like "THE" scientific method has ever actually existed?
Answer: Of course. Philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend at UC Berkeley wrote a book in the late 90's entitled "On Method," which proves just that point. Brain-scanning Neurologists do not do anything like what mechanics do when the latter search to find out how much pollution your car puts out. They use different instruments, and entirely different methods. Some methods involve developing computational models to run different stress-condition scenarios (structural engineers do this), while others amount to sticking a fancy wand up your car's tail pipe.
Conclusion: The heroic model of science -- with scientists in the driver's seat as the keepers of true knowledge -- amounts to a political ploy designed to exalt those with white labcoats as the final arbiters of truth about what kind of what this "really" is. But the kind of reasons scientists (and their textbooks) must invoke to prop up this flimsy mythology make no headway against the empirical facts known to students of the history and philosophy of the sciences. Moreover, if stripped of their technical jargon, and rendered in the common tongue, such half-baked reasons would not earn scientists a passing mark in a second-semester logic course at any decent college.
The way I see it, if you are going to try to fool people, you might as well go all the way, and head for the aisle with the heckling rye.
About the Author: Christopher Brown, a former radio talk-show host, attended the California State University, and then did hard time in seminary (Orlando, FL). He now manages the websites for Ophir Gold Corporation, at Writing With Power: http://scriberight.blogspot.com, or else OGC's Free Web Traffic at http://ophirgoldcorp.blogspot.com
Source: www.isnare.com
Review Of Best Air Purifiers
Author: buzz42, 16/08
by Dan FarrellPicking the best air purifier is a very difficult decision since the need of each allergy or asthma situation has different needs. Adding to this tough task is different allergens and different types of home pollutions are removed in different ways. Below are some comparisons of some of the more popular type of air purifiers.
Air Purifiers with HEPA (High Energy Particle Arresting) filters were originally developed for the atomic energy commission and are used in commercial clean rooms to remove particles of dust and other airborne pollution. This is a paper or polymer sheet with very tiny holes that allow airflow to pass though the material but not very much else. The holes are so small you need a lot of surface area for a reasonable amount of airflow to pass though the material. It is because of this that the medium is always folded in an accordion or zigzag fashion to get a lot of surface area in a small area. There is also a mixed version of the technology that one manufacturer uses where the holes in the HEPA filter are slightly larger to promote more airflow but the air is charged with electrostatic wands. Which then attracts any of the smaller particles that get thru the holes. HEPA Filters work well in the home for trapping particulates. The disadvantage is that the filters must be changed regularly (every 6-months to 5-years depending on the manufacturer). Before purchasing you would also want to review how much air by-passes the filter, fan noise, how long the filter is good for and finally price of both original unit and replacement filters. The review of any HEPA unit depends on the efficiency (how much air by-passes the filter), fan noise, filter life and price.
UV air purifiers use ultraviolet light. Ultraviolet light in the right intensity destroys the DNA of microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses. The disadvantage of a UV air purifier is that removes very few gas pollutants and no air particles. It would be necessary then to purchase a UV air purifier along with another type or one that combines with another filter system.
Ion Generator Air Purifiers are small air purifier devices that put out a stream of negatively charged Ions. These ions charge particulate pollution and when the particle bumps up against something it sticks due to the electronic charge. These devices are used on US submarines and in the poultry industry to keep the feather dust down.
These air purifiers do what they say but there are some very distinct disadvantages. Particulates end up on your walls so your walls turn black near the device. Secondly, since they typically do not have a fan they only work in a localized area. They also do nothing for gas pollution and some may put off some dangerous Ozone.
You can see just with the 3 examples above there are differences in air purifiers. Research and comparison shopping is necessary to find the right purifier for your specific case. Do not allow promotional hype to sway your judgment, picking the wrong air purifier is as bad as not having one at all.
For more infomation and links to air purifiers and air purifier reviews, go to: Air Purifiers
Article Source: Articles Galore
Saving The World With Forensic Science
Author: buzz42, 24/07
By Carl Walker
Forensic Science is the application of science in forensic studies, the forensic part of forensic science implies that it is to be utilized in some form or another with a court of law and is relevant to legal proceedings. Forensic Science is rapidly progressing to the point that the science fiction of today could well be the science reality of tomorrow.
Forensic Science has been around for many centuries. However, it was not until recently that advances in scientific research and scientific studies made this a true and individual aspect of forensic research. Recent studies and research have brought the field of forensic science to new heights and given it increasing credibility and importance as a deciding factor in many legal proceedings, where forensic evidence often outweighs the testimony even of witnesses on the scene.
Almost everybody has heard of DNA evidence or fluorescing as well as many other recent scientific developments in forensic science. While many of us get our information from television programs such as CSI, the reality is that forensic science is rapidly moving from the realm of television to the broader expanse of the real world. DNA evidence is now an important part of most legal proceedings involving any human body. Whether discussing fibers from hair, clothes or even something so mundane as dust, forensic science can often draw conclusions and point to irrefutable facts that often lead to convictions of criminals who, if not for forensic science, would be free to commit more atrocities.
Fibers can have a telling tale that can only be exposed by the use of forensic science. Carpet fibers are unique to makes and manufacturers. Gunpowder contains microscopic residue that can correctly identify the type of powder, the manufacturer of the shell and much more information. Simple particles of dust, when viewed by using forensic science can place items or individuals at definitive places often down to an exact time frame. Something that we may see as just a bug or insect can tell how long an item has been in a particular location. There are many factors that are explored with Forensic Science. The scientific conclusion offers irrefutable proof and can be an effective tool in the fight against crime.
Advances in science and in particular with forensic science are not only new and fascinating but are constantly improving and being refined. Not only is forensic science a great tool for today, but the future looks bright indeed. An interest in Forensic science may even help the underachiever of today take enough interest in science and related fields of study to turn around and study harder to become the next practitioner of forensic science tomorrow. Forensic science benefits society as a whole in many different ways.
Forensics HQ http://forensicshq.com/ investigates the world of forensics and crime scene investigation.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Carl_Walker
Who Knew That Gene Research Would Show Same Genes Act Different In Women And Men?
Author: buzz42, 23/07
By Nan Wood
Who knew is my favorite subject. Researching modern technology and its ramifications on the baby boomer generation can be a challenge. I am aware that there are genetic differences between men and women. This begins with the X and Y chromosomes.
A study at UCLA has found that thousands of genes behave differently based on which body they are in – male or female. This could be part of the reason that diseases affect the sexes differently and drugs work differently. The researchers were looking for genetic clues for diseases such as mental illness, obesity, diabetes and heart disease in humans. Did you know that humans and mice share ninety-nine percent of their genes?
The basic difference is the sex chromosome. The X and the Y chromosome account for less than two percent of the genes in the human body. More than half of the genes differ significantly between the sexes. This is true for all the primary functions of a wide variety of organs.
They decided that gender influences important genes with specialized roles such as drug metabolism in the liver. While the liver functions the same for males and females, they may work at different rates.
Aspirin seems to be more effective in preventing heart attack in men than women. Perhaps the females metabolize the aspirin faster, leaving little in the system to have an effect on heart attack.
This seems to indicate to me that we need to test drugs on both males and females to determine optimum effectiveness. We also need to independently research diseases in the sexes to find the best course of action for both males and females.
Gene therapy, research, and the effect of drugs on the sexes is ‘modern technology’ for the baby boomer. I am looking forward to learning more in the future.
Nan is an Accountant with an online presence RealEstateLady with an interest in GeneResearch.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Nan_Wood
Future Energy Concepts – The Fuel Cell
Author: buzz42, 22/07
With global warming, general pollution and rising fuel prices, our future energy needs are a hot topic. Fuel cells may represent a solution, one coming sooner than later.
Future Energy Concepts – The Fuel Cell
A fuel cell is a fairly vague phrase thrown around by those in the know and those that know relatively little. Regardless of the particular design, a fuel cell is essentially a cell similar to a battery in which a chemical process occurs to produce electricity. In this case, however, the fuel is hydrogen. The basic idea is to combine hydrogen with oxygen in a process that produces electricity. This electricity is then used as we would normally use it in our lives.
If you read the paper or watch the news, one would think the concept of hydrogen fuels in a new one. In fact, it is not. The first one was created in 1839. The problem, of course, was it was inefficient and there wasn’t much interest since fossil fuels were plentiful and our energy needs were tiny compared to today. It wasn’t until the 1960s that much interest was shown in the energy platform. As with many advances, NASA decided to use fuel cells to power the Gemini and Apollo spacecrafts. Unfortunately, the trick has been translating this limited use to wide spread applications in daily life.
A common misconception is a fuel cell represents renewable energy. Very clearly, it does not. It is a device, not an energy platform. It is like saying a hydroelectric dam is a renewable energy. The dam is a machine to harness a renewable energy resource, but not an energy source in and of itself. The fuel cell works much the same way. It is a methodology for harnessing energy from hydrogen. The particular method can be clean or dirty, to wit, one can use water or coal for the base material. Obviously, coal is not much help.
Fuel cells can be run, in theory, on any material containing hydrogen. This means renewable energy sources such as hydrogen, biogas, and so on. The primary goal is to focus on water and other renewable sources because of their inherent clean advantages. When hydrogen is used, for instance, it produces no tangible pollution or greenhouse gases. The byproduct, instead, is simply water.
There are a few hurdles that must be overcome before hydrogen fuel cells really become a viable energy platform. First, the technology is such that the fuel cells are far too large and heavy to be used for practical purposes. The infamous hydrogen car is not currently viable because of this, although test cars from primarily German manufacturers are being evaluated. The second problem is efficiency, which is to say fuel cells are not. Currently, fuel cells produce energy at a cost of about 10 times that of fossil fuels, and that is a positive estimate. Again, not a viable option.
While these may seem like significant hurdles, they actually point to the viability of hydrogen fuel cells as a power source. These problems are focused on technical aspects of delivery, not on whether the process works. If there is anything we are good at as a species, it is making technological breakthroughs. If we can build a hydrogen nuclear weapon, surely we can build a hydrogen fuel cell.
Rick Chapo is with SolarCompanies.com, a directory of solar energy companies. Visit us to read more articles on renewable energy.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Chapo
Sea Shell Sound Strategies Studied
Author: buzz42, 21/07
Have you ever noticed that sea shells have an interesting sound when you blow air thru them? Why is this? Yes we no this is because of the shape, however many times in nature things have a purpose beyond that which is observed; so, what is the purpose of the sea Shell sound strategy? Is there a reason for this? There probably is.
Consider if you will that the sound causes vibrational energy and the when the air blows through, sound or water then in a seashell it is pushed to the back of the seashell into a smaller and smaller space and in doing so this will increase the sound vibrations.
Do the little sea creatures, which live inside of sea shells use some sort of sound strategy to help them in some way? There are many ways that a small sea creature might use vibrational sound strategies to help them.
For instance it may allow them to take in larger amounts of sound waves or vibrations from a long distance and focus them so they can know if there is a predator approaching or if they should come out of their Shell to get their next meal.
Increasing the ability to hear or feel sound vibrations in the water or on the beach makes a lot of sense for a small sea creature. Perhaps there is more to the seashell sound strategy than we think. Please consider all this in 2006.
Lance Winslow
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow
