I assumed it was because it motivated people into becoming much more productive.

I have no more than glanced at the paper. The following may therefore be a dumb question, in which case I apologize.

It seems as if one of the following must be true. Which?

1. The arguments of this paper show that classical mechanics could never really have been a good way to model the universe, even if the universe had in fact precisely obeyed the laws of classical mechanics.

2. The arguments of this paper show that actually there's some logical incoherence in the very idea of a universe that precisely obeys the laws of classical mechanics.

3. The arguments of this paper don't apply to a universe that precisely obeys the laws of classical mechanics, because of some assumption it makes (a) explicitly or (b) implicitly that couldn't be true in such a universe.

4. The arguments of this paper don't exclude a classical universe either by proving it impossible or by making assumptions that already exclude a classical universe, and yet they somehow don't show that such a universe has to be modelled quantumly.

5. I'm confused.

Do we have (long-term) members with near 50% karma?

Not many. The average controversial poster (by my totally-not-objective-at-all standards) seems to hover around 70%, with only a few people below that and usually not by much; preliminary and non-rigorous investigation points toward total karma ratios of between 73% and 66%, weighted towards the high end, plus one outlier in the mid-50s. There are a couple of less-well-established individuals closer to parity, but it seems that striking a close balance between approval and disapproval and developing thick enough skin to stick around anyway is harder than it sounds.

It might be interesting to note that of those I looked up, almost everyone had 30-day karma ratios lower than their total karma ratios: 60% wasn't unusual. I don't know if this points toward more recent controversy or a tendency for people to grow more outspoken or more contrarian over time.

The Logical Positivists were, to my mind, the greatest philosophers ever, and it's a shame they have been the target of so much unfair criticism. Of course they were wrong on many issues, but their attitude towards philosophy, knowledge and political action is unsurpassed.

What the logical positivist position on political action? Are you talking about things like getting evolution out of science classes, or are you talking about something else?

The representatives of the scientific world-conception resolutely stand on the ground of simple human experience. They confidently approach the task of removing the metaphysical and theological debris of millennia. Or, as some have it: returning, after a metaphysical interlude, to a unified picture of this world which had, in a sense, been at the basis of magical beliefs, free from theology, in the earliest times.

The increase of metaphysical and theologizing leanings which shows itself today in many associations and sects, in books and journals, in talks and university lectures, seems to be based on the fierce social and economic struggles of the present: one group of combatants, holding fast to traditional social forms, cultivates traditional attitudes of metaphysics and theology whose content has long since been superseded; while the other group, especially in central Europe, faces modern times, rejects these views and takes its stand on the ground of empirical science. This development is connected with that of the modern process of production, which is becoming ever more rigorously mechanised and leaves ever less room for metaphysical ideas. It is also connected with the disappointment of broad masses of people with the attitude of those who preach traditional metaphysical and theological doctrine. So it is that in many countries the masses now reject these doctrines much more consciously than ever before, and along with their socialist attitudes tend to lean towards a down-to-earth empiricist view. In previous times, materialism was the expression of this view; meanwhile, however, modern empiricism has shed a number of inadequacies and has taken a strong shape in the scientific world-conception.

Thus, the scientific world-conception is close to the life of the present. Certainly it is threatened with hard struggles and hostility. Nevertheless there are many who do not despair but, in view of the present sociological situation, look forward with hope to the course of events to come. Of course not every single adherent of the scientific world-conception will be a fighter. Some, glad of solitude, will lead a withdrawn existence on the icy slopes of logic; some may even disdain mingling with the masses and regret the ‘trivialized’ form that these matters inevitably take on spreading. However, their achievements too will take a place among the historic developments. We witness the spirit of the scientific world-conception penetrating in growing measure the forms of personal and public life, in education, upbringing, architecture, and the shaping of economic and social life according to rational principles. The scientific world-conception serves life, and life receives it.

• Hans Hahn, Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap, The Scientific Conception of the World: The Vienna Circle, 1929.

Actually, the grad student population generally was more racially diverse than the undergraduate population

That's not the same as having more blacks, (by "black" I mean someone of sub-Saharan African decent, dark-skinned Indians have different IQ statistics).

but I did go to grad school at an Ivy, not terribly long ago, and that does not match my recollection of the racial make-up there.

Yes, affirmative action isn't used for grad school in STEM fields (at least for now).

(there being no way to measure talent directly). VAuroch is pretty obviously of the opinion that admissions criteria are poor measures of talent

I would be interested to know what people consider to be better "measures of talent" than those usually considered by admissions office.

VAuroch is pretty obviously of the opinion that admissions criteria are poor measures of talent, and that in particular minorities are more likely to score poorly on the admissions criteria for reasons other than talent.

Even if that were true, affirmative action is based on admitting a certain percentage of blacks. Thus unless he (or you) are claiming that the average black has more talent than the average white, the amount of talent a black needs will still be less than the amount of talent a white needs.

What on earth are you talking about? The way affirmative action works, is that the cutoff for blacks is lower than the cutoff for whites.