All of jsbennett86's Comments + Replies

...it just goes to show you that if you write convoluted, dense academic prose nobody will understand it and your ideas will be misinterpreted and then the misinterpreted ideas will be ridiculed even when they weren't your ideas.

Joel Spolsky

2Oscar_Cunningham
Yeah, but that happens anyway.

To improve is to change, so to be perfect is to have changed often.

Winston Churchill

3Larks
(not sure what the opposite of perfection is)

A remarkable, glorious achievement is just what a long series of unremarkable, unglorious tasks looks like from far away.

— Tim Urban (I think) of Wait But Why on How To Beat Procrastination

Thanks. I just read the article, so I guess I was assuming it was new and wouldn't have been quoted.

4A1987dM
Why did you edit the text of the quote away rather than retracting the comment?

snip

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
3Vaniver
Dupe.

Sometimes I think that I'm surrounded by idiots everywhere. Then I remind myself that that's exactly what an idiot would think.

Abstruse Goose (alt text)

7gwern
The few times I have been in large groups of people objectively smarter than myself, I did not think anything remotely similar.

Him: We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.

Her: "Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.

Him: Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.

Randall Munroe - Time

Followed by:

Him: We walked along the sea for days and we didn't learn anything. Up here we're learning lots.

Her: We haven't learned why the sea rose.

Him: But maybe we were never going to.

Him: There's food and water here. I don't want to go all the way back down, walk along the sea for a few more days, then have to turn around.

Him: Maybe the sea is too big to understand. We can't answer every question.

Her: No, But I think we can answer any question.

A term that means almost anything means almost nothing. Such a term is a convenient device for those who have almost nothing to say.

Richard Mitchell - Less Than Words Can Say

0Mestroyer
Counterexample: "it".

Reality is one honey badger. It don’t care. About you, about your thoughts, about your needs, about your beliefs. You can reject reality and substitute your own, but reality will roll on, eventually crushing you even as you refuse to dodge it. The best you can hope for is to play by reality’s rules and use them to your benefit.

Mark Crislip - Science-Based Medicine

4ChristianKl
Reality cares about your beliefs. People who don't believe in ego depletion don't get as much ego depleted as people who do believe in it. People who believe that stress is unhealthy have a higher mortality when they have high stress than people who don't hold that belief.

If you cannot examine your thoughts, you have no choice but to think them, however silly they may be.

Richard Mitchell - Less Than Words Can Say

There's something here that doesn't make sense... Let's go and poke it with a stick.

The Doctor - Doctor Who

1elharo
Good one, though it would be nice to cite the exact episode. A little googling and I think this is from "Amy's Choice" (Episode 5.7) Also, I'd try to avoid ellipses in a quote unless you are in fact leaving something out. I suspect here you just meant it to reflect the doctor's speech pattern, but it's a bit confusing.

On the presentation of science in the news:

It's not that clean energy will never happen -- it totally will. It's just that it won't come from a wild-haired scientist running out of his basement screaming, "Eureka! I've discovered how to get limitless clean energy from common seawater!" Instead, it will come from thousands of scientists publishing unreadable studies with titles like "Assessing Effectiveness and Costs of Asymmetrical Methods of Beryllium Containment in Gen 4 Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors When Factoring for Cromulence Deca

... (read more)

I don't understand why we can't simply build an LFTR. I can't find anything online about why we can't just build an LFTR. I get the serious impression that what we need here is like 0.1 wild-haired scientists, 3 wild-haired nuclear engineers, 40 normal nuclear engineers, and sane politicians. And that China has sane politicians but for some reason can't produce, find, or hire the sort of wild-haired engineers who just went ahead and built a molten-salt thorium reactor at Oak Ridge in the 1960s.

From the alt-text in the above-linked comic:

Corollary: The most prolific people in the world suck 99% of the time.

The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.

Linus Pauling

0DanArmak
It's necessary, but not sufficient.

The example in the comic is not a good one. Of the choices on the board, E being proportional to mc^2 is the only option where the units match. You only need to have that one idea to save yourself the trouble of having lots of other ideas.

9A1987dM
Yes, but also being able to tell which of those ideas are good is even better.
7jsbennett86
From the alt-text in the above-linked comic:

From the alt-text in the above-linked comic:

Corollary: The most prolific people in the world suck 99% of the time.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.

Linus Pauling

Edit: another one captured by an old thread!

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
0jsbennett86
From the alt-text in the above-linked comic:

Every time you read something that mentions brain chemicals or brain scans, rewrite the sentence without the sciencey portions. “Hate makes people happy.” “Women feel closer to people after sex.” “Music makes people happy.” If the argument suddenly seems way less persuasive, or the news story way less ground-breaking… well. Someone’s doing something shady.

Ozy Frantz - Brain Chemicals are not Fucking Magic

Also from the review:

A pacemaker malfunction isn't automatically fatal. In most cases the patient's heart will still beat, although with an abnormal rhythm. The severity of a pacemaker problem depends on the type of malfunction as well as the severity of the patient's condition. EM interference can cause problems, but major problems are rare considering the amount of EM interference pacemaker patients are exposed to. Pacemakers are designed to minimize these problems. It's hard to believe that dozens of pacemaker patients with various heart conditions and different makes and models of pacemakers would simultaneously die from microwave exposure.

0HalMorris
Unless the 32 people used the same, or very similar, pacemakers, and somebody forgot to say that.

On scientists trying to photograph an atom's shadow:

...the idea sounds stupid. But scientists don't care about sounding stupid, which is what makes them not stupid, and they did it anyway.

Luke McKinney - 6 Microscopic Images That Will Blow Your Mind

The remark included the following as a footnote:

Even top-notch engineers and scientists will speculate wildly when they're off-the-record. We define on-the-record as those times when their written or oral communications are likely to be taken seriously and directly attributed to the scientist or engineer making them. Surely answering a direct question posed by a general would fall into this category.

It seems that 32 Bostonians have simultaneously dropped dead in a ten-block radius for no apparent reason, and General Purcell wants to know if it was caused by a covert weapon. Of course, the military has been put in charge of the investigation and everything is hush-hush.

Without examining anything, Keyes takes about five seconds to surmise that the victims all died from malfunctioning pacemakers and the malfunction was definitely not due to a secret weapon. We're supposed to be impressed, but our experience with real scientists and engineers indicates t

... (read more)
4A1987dM
See also the extra panel (hover onto the red button) in yesterday's SMBC comic.
6Desrtopa
32 people in the same ten block radius simultaneously dying of malfunctioning pacemakers seems so tremendously unlikely, I can't imagine how one could even locate that as an explanation in a matter of seconds.

The remark included the following as a footnote:

Even top-notch engineers and scientists will speculate wildly when they're off-the-record. We define on-the-record as those times when their written or oral communications are likely to be taken seriously and directly attributed to the scientist or engineer making them. Surely answering a direct question posed by a general would fall into this category.

Thanks. I didn't wanna post this much, but I was rather too attached to the passage to cut anything else out. Helps to have other eyes.

But when we have these irrational beliefs, these culturally coded assumptions, running so deep within our community and movement, how do we actually change that? How do we get people to further question themselves when they’ve already become convinced that they’re a rational person, a skeptic, and have moved on from irrationality, cognitive distortion and bias?

Well I think what we need to do is to change the fundamental structure and values of skepticism. We need to build our community and movement around slightly different premises.

As it has stood in the

... (read more)
8MixedNuts
Upvoted because I like Natalie Reed, but this is way too long. The key sentence seems to be

In every branch of knowledge the progress is proportional to the amount of facts on which to build, and therefore to the facility of obtaining data.

— James Clerk Maxwell

"Clear language engenders clear thought, and clear thought is the most important benefit of education." - Richard Mitchell, The Graves of Academe

Yes, you're right. You can defeat the paradox on mathematical grounds, without having to appeal to physics. But Zeno could have defeated it on his own without using any math, simply by realizing that his metaphor was not paying rent.

1Bugmaster
I think ArisKatsaris (on the sibling comment) is right: Zeno's whole goal was to prove that physics doesn't work (ok, he didn't call it "physics", but still), so using physics to disprove his paradox would be nonsensical.
0ArisKatsaris
Zeno's argument was that movement was an illusion, that all was one -- that was the point of his paradoxes. The fact that things seemed to move, in combination with his paradox, proved (to him) that reality was an illusion.

The telling of this paradox I most remember says, "Between point A and point B, there are an infinite number of points through which the arrow must pass. So it must take the arrow an infinite amount of time to pass through those points. How can the arrow get from point A to point B?"

This is the problem with mapping a mathematical metaphor onto reality: it doesn't always work. If the metaphor disagrees with the observation that the arrow does get from point A to point B, then it's not doing useful work.

In fact, modern physics tells us there is a s... (read more)

4Bugmaster
I thought the problem with the paradox was that the math was wrong. Even if we assume that there's an infinite number of points between A and B, the more points we have, the less time the arrow would spend on each point, so if the number of point is infinite, the arrow would spend an infinitesimal amount of time at each point. As it turns out, you need to know about time series and limits (and maybe l'Hopital's rule) in order to correctly calculate the total flight time of the arrow (or, rather, to prove that it does not change even when the number of points is infinite), because infinity is not a number, and neither is 1 / infinity. Zeno did not know about these things, though.

Who first called Reason sweet, I don't know. I suspect that he was a man with very few responsibilities, no children to rear, and no payroll to meet. An anchorite with heretical tendencies, maybe, or the idle youngest son of a wealthy Athenian. The dictates of Reason are often difficult to figure out, rarely to my liking, and profitable only by what seems a happy but remarkably unusual accident. Mostly, Reason brings bad news, and bad news of the worst sort, for, if it is truly the word of Reason, there is no denying it or weaseling out of its demands wit

... (read more)

Good point, and I didn't think of that when I said I couldn't see making your beliefs pay rent was of any use here. Of course, a Himba scientist and a Western scientist might still say, "We know the wavelength of the light diffracting off the sky. But is it blue or black?" This may just be a result of how an algorithm feels from inside.

I was sure that I had picked out the different square, only to find I was wrong. Looking back, I can't see any difference, really (and I suspect the original one I saw was due to a shadow on the screen). Nevertheless, the scientists do say that there is a difference between the square the Himba picked and the others. Some people can see weird things, like the polarization of light, so it's not a stretch to imagine they are more sensitive to different aspects of light than we are, and less sensitive to things like hue. I really wish the clip explained what the difference they were seeing was.

If the Himba were to design a color wheel, I wonder what it would look like.

While I was writing this post, I changed where I was going with the map/territory thing, and that led to me confusing myself. I'm not sure what I was thinking originally, other than that it seemed quite significant at the time.

True. New words help to highlight new distinctions, but you have to have a distinction for the word to apply to before it is useful. Otherwise, it either refers to nothing at all or the same distinction that another word illustrates.

Asking what color the sky is may show cultural differences (for example, many many cultures use the same words for blue and green, though they're perfectly capable of pointing out the difference between the two), but the demonstration with the colored squares suggests something different is going on with the Himba.

So the Himba ... (read more)

0DanielLC
All colors are distinct. It's a lot easier to just put them into several groups. This has been shown to be how people work. The idea that they do this with colors before they compare ones that they're currently looking at is surprising, but it's not impossible. A large portion of your brain is used for understanding what you see, so there's a lot of room for those shortcuts to take place, and a lot of benefit to having them. I suspect it's because of the other studies that they haven't mentioned. Perhaps they looked at tribes genetically identical to the Himba, and noticed that they notice colors based on their language. Perhaps this is just the most noticeable one, and other studies were with genetically identical groups. Perhaps they just know a lot more about how the brain works in general. I suggest reading Conjunction Controversy (Or, How They Nail It Down).

There was an atheist picnic at the park where I work. They were celebrating the rapture that was supposed to take place back in May (needless to say, they weren't too surprised when the rapture was called off). I got to speak with a few people, but most of the meetup groups were rather far for me to drive to on a regular basis.

Thanks for the links. I'm located in the DFW metroplex, but I could make a drive to a meetup elsewhere once in a while.

My name's Joshua Bennett, and I also came here after reading the Harry Potter fanfiction. I made a commitment to pursuing rationality after reading Richard Mitchell's book The Gift of Fire, and seeing even a fictional example of applied rational thinking got me excited. I know that, despite my best efforts, I am a terribly irrational person; I want to fix that.

In the past year or so I've thrown off (among other things) my fundamentalist Christian beliefs in pursuit of truth, and I now call myself an atheist and anti-theist. When people ask how I lost my fa... (read more)

0komponisto
Well, you've got Steven Weinberg. Not to mention a number of people here on LW.