Random Science News Thread

[Skyweir]

Still makes me smile every single time I see it

[Vraith]

Relevant to many recent and current discussions in various threads:

With extraordinary accuracy, these algorithms were able to predict and diagnose diseases, from cardiovascular illnesses to cancer, and predict related things such as the likelihood of death, the length of hospital stay, and the chance of hospital readmission. Within 24 hours of a patient's hospitalization, for example, the algorithms were able to predict with over 90% accuracy the patient's odds of dying. These predictions, however, were based on patterns in the data that the researchers could not fully explain.

And this study is no outlier

https://hbr.org/2018/05/how-health-care ... op-stories

[Skyweir]

Wow intriguing

[Vraith]

Y'all gotta go check this out, if for no other reason than the cool pic.

https://astronomynow.com/2018/05/18/tes ... 000-stars/

[samrw3]

Cool pic Broth

[Cord Hurn]

Y'all gotta go check this out, if for no other reason than the cool pic.

https://astronomynow.com/2018/05/18/tes ... 000-stars/

Love it!

[Sorus]

Ooooooo.....

One of these days I need to get out of the city and do some light pollution-free stargazing.

[Skyweir]

Awesome and didnt realise there was a nearby planetary system similar to ours.

[Savor Dam]

Ooooooo.....

One of these days I need to get out of the city and do some light pollution-free stargazing.

One of the closest really good places is east of San Jose and beyond the foothills separating the south bay sprawl from Mt. Hamilton...or it was thirty-some years ago. I devoutly hope the sprawl has not topped those foothill ridges and brought civilization to those rural valleys.

I've been too long away to be sure how things are there now, but there is no point in suggesting places further away from where you are, nu?

[Skyweir]

Ooooooo.....

One of these days I need to get out of the city and do some light pollution-free stargazing.

Come visit me downunder the skies are azure and the night sky clear as crystal.

I am a good host and will look after you well.

[Vraith]

And a little more space stuff. The first, stars with disks---the kind that theory says leads to planets. What I found strange is the ones shown are pretty close by [in space terms]. I'd have thought that things near us would be in roughly the same stage of evolution, we'd see few withing our viewing range.
And there have to be quite a few more---cuz these are just the ones with the right plane/orientation for us to get the right angle to see the rings/disk/gaps.
Pretty cool pics, anyway [though of course filtered and altered].

Second, adds to an older story---an eccentric has been spotted that provides more indirect math/orbital mechanics support for the new, big planet way out there in our system somewhere.

[[[aside/comment on posts above---I'm always surprised by the number of people who've never been where it's really dark---when they see it, the Milky Way so clear, and so damn many and much more intense stars, the "wow" or similar that comes out of their mouths]]].

https://www.quantamagazine.org/stellar- ... -20180521/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-wo ... -20180515/

[wayfriend]

---when they see it, the Milky Way so clear, and so damn many and much more intense stars, the "wow" or similar that comes out of their mouths

Indeed. Do not underestimate how effective this is when dating. Always bring a blanket.

more indirect math/orbital mechanics support for the new, big planet way out there in our system somewhere

If it's not called Planet X yet, it should be renamed so immediately.

[Vraith]

If it's not called Planet X yet, it should be renamed so immediately.

Heh...some places are calling it that.
The first people to do the math and publish about it called it Planet 9...
Apparently cuz it's the "real" number, since Pluto was demoted, but also [according to one of the lesser staff] because another of the plebes was a fan of "Plan 9 from Outer Space," and Nibiru was in the news, and s/he persuaded the others it was funny that way.
[[It's supposedly a big bastard, not quite Uranus in mass...hee hee...true and scatalogesque. All people who like space are at least half made up of a six-year-old's personality development. ]]

[Skyweir]

---when they see it, the Milky Way so clear, and so damn many and much more intense stars, the "wow" or similar that comes out of their mouths

Indeed. Do not underestimate how effective this is when dating. Always bring a blanket.

Ok that deserves a LOL

[Skyweir]

Brilliant pics .. lets hope they find the ... arm tip planet that will seal the deal for that theory planet

I thought it particularly interest that through the planets formation it evolves or develops to more organised complexity. .

Nice share V .. I love the diversity of this thread and forum.

Not a scientist

[Vraith]

This probably belongs more in the Close.
But it IS about science.
And the subject mildly disses Hawking and similars [like Deutsche's silliness about postmodernism] pronouncements.
And if I put it there, Hashi will never see it, and I think a couple things
in it will interest him.
Also---peter, there's a thing about your hero [for some reason] Ptolemy.
Unfortunately, the subject of the interview would land more on my side than yours, I think. Poor Ptole....

https://www.quantamagazine.org/question ... -20180524/

[Skyweir]

Interesting that Massimi sees her role as one of seeking a sense of absolutism, which doesnt strike me as according well with scientific progress or research.

Can an electron be ascribed "real" position and "real" momentum in quantum mechanics even if the formalism does not allow us to capture both? This is a profound philosophical question.

This I get.

Science has offered to philosophers of science new questions to ponder. Take, for example, scientific models. The exponential proliferation of different modeling practices across the biomedical sciences, engineering, earth sciences and physics over the last century has prompted philosophers to ask new questions about the role and nature of scientific models and how they relate to theories and experimental evidence.

Similarly, the ubiquitous use of Bayesian statistics in scientific areas has enticed philosophers to go back to Bayes' theorem and to unpack its problems and prospects. And advances in neuroscience have invited philosophers to find new accounts of how the human mind works.

Thus, progress accrues via a symbiotic relation through which philosophy and the sciences mutually develop, evolve and feed into each other.

Not a scientist .. but I am not convinced this agenda is reasonable or even practicable. And even less convinced as she uses truth, as universal truth or as she describes "gods eye view". True knowledge as opposed to untrue or half true knowledge. Ive never thought of science as so black and white. And there may not be one "truth" .. but many observable facts that point to a multi knowledge. I am with Hawkings .. not sure philosophers of science are relevant in scientific theory or in discovery models. I do see their value in the development of defensible methodology .. but theoretical scientists seem to have that covered.

I see perspectival realism as a realist position, because it claims (at least in my own version of it) that truth does matter in science. We cannot be content with just saving the observable phenomena and producing theories that account for the available evidence. Yet it acknowledges that scientists don't have a God's-eye view of nature: Our conceptual resources, theoretical approaches, methodologies and technological infrastructures are historically and culturally situated. Does that mean we can't reach true knowledge about nature? Certainly not. Does it mean we should give up on the idea that there is an overarching notion of scientific progress? Absolutely not.

[Philosophers of science] ... contribute to public discourse on the value of science and to make sure that discussions about the role of evidence, the accuracy and reliability of scientific theories, and the effectiveness of methodological approaches are properly investigated.

I agree but that is a limited role, adding value to the public appreciation of science, not necessarily of equal value to science and scientific research itself. A seeking to remain relevant in a scientific community and school that perhaps no longer sees the value of philosophy in the same way.

[Vraith]

Not a scientist .. but I am not convinced this agenda is reasonable or even practicable.

And even less convinced as she uses truth, as universal truth or as she describes "gods eye view". True knowledge as opposed to untrue or half true knowledge. Ive never thought of science as so black and white.

Ummm...I think you've misread a fair bit.
The first is not an agenda. It's a couple examples of thing that have happened, how they've worked...and, in context, a claim that such are good and valuable. It is certain folk in...heh..."pure science" that deny such...
Which leads to....
The second...yea, she agrees that science isn't that black and white---or even if it IS, we probably can't know it in that way. Again, it's a sector of scientists who see things through the lens you're critiquing.

On the last thing you said, I think you're ignoring a number of facts and functions---but that's a gigantic and multi-headed beast and definitely a Close field.
Just one of those, though---your statement is a bit like saying the science to create a car is the important thing. How cars work in the world is a petty detail. Or, the current Tank discussion on clones and ethics. That's just a quibble. The really important part is cloning knowledge/techniques.

It's obvious that some parts of the science community see no value in philosophy. But many do see value. I believe the second group is correct. [[there are really many other perspective/mixed views in the community, not just yes or no.]]

And, as an aside---in the SF world there are quite a number of writers that are also scientists. Nearly none of them think philosophical views are useless or low-value. And the ones that DO write terrible stories and don't last long. But that discussion doesn't belong here either.

And ANOTHER aside that doesn't belong here. Two things that overlap each other:
1)There's a common notion that learning to do math/think mathematically also helps people think logically. It's never been shown. The reverse has...teaching logic does aid in thinking mathematically.
2)Teaching science as it is commonly done has never been shown to improve thinking in general. Learning to think philosophically has been shown to improve thinking in general--and scientific thinking.
I think it should also be noted that science and its methods, at a fundamental level, are all embodiments/enactments of some philosophical perspective/commitments.]]

[Skyweir]

I am sure you are right.

I saw her demonstration of the value of philosophy in science as her agenda. Not an evil agenda or a malicious one. But that seems to be one of her points ... to demonstrate that philosophy has a role in this field. And for the most part while I agree .. I didnt like her summations of that role. In that it would lead to a conclusion of an ABSOLUTE truth, some gods eye truth.

To my mind, and it is not one of science, clearly lol .. but I see the role of philosophy in science a small, yet valuable one .. in providing new approaches to thought, analysis, critiquing perhaps even methodologies and challenging them, and sharpening them.

But by the end of the article I was impressed more by the articles title .... Questioning Truth, Science and the role of Philosophy. I think this is where the value of philosophy to science, lies. As to its value in the pursuit of science beyond that .. I see that role diminishing somewhat. Because it seems that she is looking for black and white conclusions .. this discovery means X .. when you know there are often multiple meanings, multiple XXs and a few VVZZPPs .. that perhaps are no longer resolved by that segmented discovery but are further clarified by future work.

If we have learned nothing from science, we would know at least that what in the past has served as a truth, has been replaced by more true truths

I think her opening statement sums the value of philosophy .. in assisting to make the case for scientific research projects.

She discusses philosophy's role in making sense of science and how if it all it relates to an objective reality.

Thats where she lost me.

Her work asks whether the process of science approaches a singular, true conception of the world, or whether it is content with simply describing physical phenomena, ignoring any sense of whether the stories it tells about the world are true.

"whether the stories it tells about the world are true"

We can ask exactly the same questions about the objects of current scientific theories. Are colored quarks real? Or do they just save the empirical evidence we have about the strong interaction in quantum chromodynamics? Is the Higgs boson real? Dark matter?

You have argued for a new position, called perspectival realism. What is that?

I see perspectival realism as a realist position, because it claims (at least in my own version of it) that truth does matter in science. We cannot be content with just saving the observable phenomena and producing theories that account for the available evidence. Yet it acknowledges that scientists don't have a God's-eye view of nature: Our conceptual resources, theoretical approaches, methodologies and technological infrastructures are historically and culturally situated. Does that mean we can't reach true knowledge about nature? Certainly not. Does it mean we should give up on the idea that there is an overarching notion of scientific progress? Absolutely not.

This brand of perspective realism seems set on the discovery of objective truth/s. But to my mind, if you were pursuing a solipsistic perspective Id prefer a methodological solipsistic approach. To me it makes greater sense and doesnt seek a one true truth. That approach seems to me to align better with my natural state of perpetual skepticism and scientific theory. Though I cannot claim to fully appreciate such things.

I could be way off and am happy to concede such. But after reading the article I could sympathise with Hawkings view.

Though I do obviously see some value in scientific philosophy. I suppose anything which drives questions is a good thing. I mean the article itself stated that all that matters is that it is of "some" use, and clearly it is.

it is not the job of philosophers to do science, or to give verdicts on one theory over another, or to tell scientists how they should go about their business. I suspect that some of the bad press against philosophers originates from the perception that they try to do these things. But I believe it is our job to contribute to public discourse on the value of science and to make sure that discussions about the role of evidence, the accuracy and reliability of scientific theories, and the effectiveness of methodological approaches are properly investigated.

I see that is where the value of scientific philosophy resides.

But who am I to offer an opinion in a field I know precious little about. From my limited understanding .. but regrettably it is my MO to jar at notions of assertions of absolutes, "true theory" "gods eye truth"... what have you

[Vraith]

But who am I to offer an opinion in a field I know precious little about.

You're whoever you are, who can say what you want.
As long as it's about science/tech for the most part.
Every person commenting here is or has been out of sight of their own real knowledge-shores at some point.
This isn't the TANK! [[heh...just ribbing ya, Hashi,]]---
But it isn't. People won't get snooty/snippety/mean in here...at least they never have that I've noticed.
And if they do, I'll delete their shit...or move it to the Tank. I've got a mouse and the power and I'm not afraid to use it.