Climate of Complete Certainty

[Joe Gwinn]

FYI. On the ongoing Climate Change debate, I recently ran across a
relevant opinion piece in the New York Times, originally published on
April 28, 2017.

..<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html>

Brett Stephens moved mid-career from the Wall Street Journal to the
New York Times. This is his first article at the NYT. One assumes
that the NYT Editorial Board gave this maiden article the full
wire-brush treatment, and are satisfied with the result. Despite the
expectation that "heads will explode".

I plowed through the 1550 comments. A large number of people
complained about the article, and said that Stephens should be fired
or the like. A smaller number said that while they disagreed, they
were glad to see the other side of the debate published. Fewer said
that they agreed (this being very brave in the NYT community). The
most interesting comment was by "Grebulocities" in Illinois, posted
April 29, 2017: "I'm finishing up an MS in atmospheric sciences, and
this column is certainly correct. ...".

Also read the linked article written by Andrew Revkin; this is an
integral part of Stephens' article.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:08:00 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

FYI. On the ongoing Climate Change debate, I recently ran across a
relevant opinion piece in the New York Times, originally published on
April 28, 2017.

.<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

Brett Stephens moved mid-career from the Wall Street Journal to the
New York Times. This is his first article at the NYT. One assumes
that the NYT Editorial Board gave this maiden article the full
wire-brush treatment, and are satisfied with the result. Despite the
expectation that "heads will explode".

I plowed through the 1550 comments. A large number of people
complained about the article, and said that Stephens should be fired
or the like. A smaller number said that while they disagreed, they
were glad to see the other side of the debate published. Fewer said
that they agreed (this being very brave in the NYT community). The
most interesting comment was by "Grebulocities" in Illinois, posted
April 29, 2017: "I'm finishing up an MS in atmospheric sciences, and
this column is certainly correct. ...".

Also read the linked article written by Andrew Revkin; this is an
integral part of Stephens' article.

"Shattered" is a fun book. Fatheads fail again.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[bitrex]

On 2/7/20 5:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:08:00 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net
wrote:

FYI. On the ongoing Climate Change debate, I recently ran across a
relevant opinion piece in the New York Times, originally published on
April 28, 2017.

.<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

Brett Stephens moved mid-career from the Wall Street Journal to the
New York Times. This is his first article at the NYT. One assumes
that the NYT Editorial Board gave this maiden article the full
wire-brush treatment, and are satisfied with the result. Despite the
expectation that "heads will explode".

I plowed through the 1550 comments. A large number of people
complained about the article, and said that Stephens should be fired
or the like. A smaller number said that while they disagreed, they
were glad to see the other side of the debate published. Fewer said
that they agreed (this being very brave in the NYT community). The
most interesting comment was by "Grebulocities" in Illinois, posted
April 29, 2017: "I'm finishing up an MS in atmospheric sciences, and
this column is certainly correct. ...".

Also read the linked article written by Andrew Revkin; this is an
integral part of Stephens' article.

"Shattered" is a fun book. Fatheads fail again.

Hillary wasn't the correct type of fathead was the main problem.
Americans never got to know the real robot.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 17:07:03 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/7/20 4:08 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
FYI. On the ongoing Climate Change debate, I recently ran across a
relevant opinion piece in the New York Times, originally published on
April 28, 2017.

.<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

Brett Stephens moved mid-career from the Wall Street Journal to the
New York Times. This is his first article at the NYT. One assumes
that the NYT Editorial Board gave this maiden article the full
wire-brush treatment, and are satisfied with the result. Despite the
expectation that "heads will explode".

I plowed through the 1550 comments. A large number of people
complained about the article, and said that Stephens should be fired
or the like. A smaller number said that while they disagreed, they
were glad to see the other side of the debate published. Fewer said
that they agreed (this being very brave in the NYT community). The
most interesting comment was by "Grebulocities" in Illinois, posted
April 29, 2017: "I'm finishing up an MS in atmospheric sciences, and
this column is certainly correct. ...".

Me too. I'm finishing up three degrees in atmospheric sciences, matter
of fact.

Also read the linked article written by Andrew Revkin; this is an
integral part of Stephens' article.


"But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an
overweening scientism."

Oh, indeed. What doesn't the ordinary citizen figure they don't have a
right to do? What else is new?

So long as science provides new luxuries and comforts and better razor
blades with five blades and new gidgets at CES to gawp over I see no
indication Americans have any problem with sucking the last drop out of
science's teet. So long as those eggheads are working for them I hear
few complaints.

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were involved
or not. Often, they weren't.

The first world mostly tossed community and religion in

the trash long ago in favor of suburbs, online shopping, social media
and high-definition TV programs, nobody put a gun to anyone's head and
told them to do that.

The first real electronic component, the vacuum tube, could have been
conceived by a scientist, but wasn't. Science often follows invention,
scribbles some related equations, and then takes credit.

The ordinary citizen has no problem with any of science's pride when it
works for them. But God help those eggheads and academics if they should
ever say "What you're thinking is wrong." Over-weening? Saying "you're
wrong" one time is "over-weening"? After the same scientific methods
that was used to figure out why gave ya everything?

They thought science only worked for them, and for a long time that was
true. It's a big shock I expect to find out it probably doesn't.

Science gave us explosives and poison gas too.

That is to say the "ordinary citizen" in America is a glomping
personality-disorder case who in addition to very much disliking any
critique of things they expect they have a "right to do" will also do
just about anything for attention; just like being "pro-life" being a
"skeptic" is an easy job. You don't actually have to do much of anything
but say "I'm skeptical" and the gravy-train of attention flows in. Sure
beats reading!

According to climate science, we're all dead by now.

It's a beautiful, mild, clear day outside. I don't feel very dead.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[bitrex]

On 2/7/20 4:08 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:

FYI. On the ongoing Climate Change debate, I recently ran across a
relevant opinion piece in the New York Times, originally published on
April 28, 2017.

.<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

Brett Stephens moved mid-career from the Wall Street Journal to the
New York Times. This is his first article at the NYT. One assumes
that the NYT Editorial Board gave this maiden article the full
wire-brush treatment, and are satisfied with the result. Despite the
expectation that "heads will explode".

I plowed through the 1550 comments. A large number of people
complained about the article, and said that Stephens should be fired
or the like. A smaller number said that while they disagreed, they
were glad to see the other side of the debate published. Fewer said
that they agreed (this being very brave in the NYT community). The
most interesting comment was by "Grebulocities" in Illinois, posted
April 29, 2017: "I'm finishing up an MS in atmospheric sciences, and
this column is certainly correct. ...".

Me too. I'm finishing up three degrees in atmospheric sciences, matter
of fact.

Also read the linked article written by Andrew Revkin; this is an
integral part of Stephens' article.

"But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an
overweening scientism."

Oh, indeed. What doesn't the ordinary citizen figure they don't have a
right to do? What else is new?

So long as science provides new luxuries and comforts and better razor
blades with five blades and new gidgets at CES to gawp over I see no
indication Americans have any problem with sucking the last drop out of
science's teet. So long as those eggheads are working for them I hear
few complaints. The first world mostly tossed community and religion in
the trash long ago in favor of suburbs, online shopping, social media
and high-definition TV programs, nobody put a gun to anyone's head and
told them to do that.

The ordinary citizen has no problem with any of science's pride when it
works for them. But God help those eggheads and academics if they should
ever say "What you're thinking is wrong." Over-weening? Saying "you're
wrong" one time is "over-weening"? After the same scientific methods
that was used to figure out why gave ya everything?

They thought science only worked for them, and for a long time that was
true. It's a big shock I expect to find out it probably doesn't.

That is to say the "ordinary citizen" in America is a glomping
personality-disorder case who in addition to very much disliking any
critique of things they expect they have a "right to do" will also do
just about anything for attention; just like being "pro-life" being a
"skeptic" is an easy job. You don't actually have to do much of anything
but say "I'm skeptical" and the gravy-train of attention flows in. Sure
beats reading!

"I plowed through the 1550 comments"

As the author also seems to be aware of. Ka-ching!

 

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:2tor3f9g3o0eau0onuogai9s1t3kplkehc@4ax.com:

According to climate science, we're all dead by now.

Bullshit. But some show signs of brain death, when they deny what is
happening. You seem to be a charter member.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 9:34:27 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 17:07:03 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 2/7/20 4:08 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
FYI. On the ongoing Climate Change debate, I recently ran across a
relevant opinion piece in the New York Times, originally published on
April 28, 2017.

<snip>

They thought science only worked for them, and for a long time that was
true. It's a big shock I expect to find out it probably doesn't.

Science gave us explosives and poison gas too.

Explosives were around long before science had much to say about them.

Poison gas did rely on chemistry to get the gases in the first place, and on science to find particularly toxic chemicals.

People can exploit science to any number of bad ends, if they know enough about it. John Larkin doesn't.

That is to say the "ordinary citizen" in America is a glomping
personality-disorder case who in addition to very much disliking any
critique of things they expect they have a "right to do" will also do
just about anything for attention; just like being "pro-life" being a
"skeptic" is an easy job. You don't actually have to do much of anything
but say "I'm skeptical" and the gravy-train of attention flows in. Sure
beats reading!

According to climate science, we're all dead by now.

Not remotely true. It takes a complete ignoramus like John Larkin to come up with that kind of nonsense, and he probably got it from one of his denialist web sites, who are just as prone as Trump to invent nonsense about their opposition.

> It's a beautiful, mild, clear day outside. I don't feel very dead.

Intellectually, he's a zombie.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 18:59:59 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were involved
or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump. It's not working.

It is for the flyover folks. Enough to get him re-elected.

Check the employment stats.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were involved
or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump. It's not working.

As for 'scientists weren't involved', that's a hard sell. I'm reading these words
on a plate of glass adorned with a few million TFTs, based on the science of Bardeen, Brattain,
and Shockley (Nobel prize Physics 1956), illuminated by LEDs (Nobel prize Physics,
2014 to Nakamura et al), through the medium of the Internet (US National Science Foundation)
and worldwide web (from CERN).

Try "whether witches were involved or not. Often, they weren't" instead. I could believe that.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 2:34:59 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 18:59:59 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were involved
or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump. It's not working.

It is for the flyover folks. Enough to get him re-elected.

Perhaps. The Russians are going to have to spend quite a bit more on posting pro-Trump propaganda on social media to get him in again.

The security services should be primed to do a better job of stopping them this time around, but Trump has probably fired all the competent people.

> Check the employment stats.

Sure. Bush ignored a house-price bubble, produced the Global Financial Crisis, and Obama spent the next eight years getting the economy back on track (with very little help from the Republicans) and Trump waltzes in and claims the credit.

He's an obvious creep, but some Americans are too dumb to notice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Les Cargill]

whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump. It's not working.

Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Trumps' politics are an old strain that's been around since the
Know-Nothing party.

There is a film, a documentary titled "Hollywoodism" that
describes exactly how the two narratives of the Culture
Wars emerged. It goes widely ignored.

As for 'scientists weren't involved', that's a hard sell. I'm
reading these words on a plate of glass adorned with a few million
TFTs, based on the science of Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley (Nobel
prize Physics 1956), illuminated by LEDs (Nobel prize Physics, 2014
to Nakamura et al), through the medium of the Internet (US National
Science Foundation) and worldwide web (from CERN).

Technology is a distant cousin to science. We'd have had
no progress at all had Shockley not been dislodged. They were
not called the Traitorous Eight for nothing.

In truth, thousands, perhaps millions of individuals created
all this. We humans just like heroic narrative, much to our
peril.

Try "whether witches were involved or not. Often, they weren't"
instead. I could believe that.

--
Les Cargill

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

The first real electronic component, the vacuum tube, could have been
conceived by a scientist, but wasn't. Science often follows invention,
scribbles some related equations, and then takes credit.

What are you smoking? The vacuum tube was how science discovered
the electron. A few other devices (crystal rectifier diodes) were
known before that.

Useful vacuum tube amplifiers were designed by scientists, AFTER
understanding the electron. Clinton Davisson's Nobel prize in physics (1937)
was for explaining characteristics of a vacuum tube he repaired... while
he was improving them for Bell Labs.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 5:36:40 PM UTC+11, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

The first real electronic component, the vacuum tube, could have been
conceived by a scientist, but wasn't. Science often follows invention,
scribbles some related equations, and then takes credit.

What are you smoking? The vacuum tube was how science discovered
the electron. A few other devices (crystal rectifier diodes) were
known before that.

What science discovered were "cathode rays".

They had to pump their vacuum tubes down to remarkably low levels before they got to the point where the electrons emitted at the cathode could get all the way to the anode (and past it) without getting deflected by a gas atom.

After that they could identify them as "electrons" measure their mass and charge and so forth.

Lee De Forest inveted the triode in 1906, around the same time J.J. Thompson got the Nobel Prize in Phsyics for his 1897 measurements of the mass of the electron.

John Larkin's grasp of the history isn't entirely sound.

Useful vacuum tube amplifiers were designed by scientists, AFTER
understanding the electron. Clinton Davisson's Nobel prize in physics (1937)
was for explaining characteristics of a vacuum tube he repaired... while
he was improving them for Bell Labs.

Of course Lee De Forest was an inventor rather than a scientist, and only had a limited understanding of how it worked, but once he had found something useful, lots of people got interested in exactly how it worked.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DemonicTubes]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:08:10 PM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:

FYI. On the ongoing Climate Change debate, I recently ran across a
relevant opinion piece in the New York Times, originally published on
April 28, 2017.

.<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

Brett Stephens moved mid-career from the Wall Street Journal to the
New York Times. This is his first article at the NYT. One assumes
that the NYT Editorial Board gave this maiden article the full
wire-brush treatment, and are satisfied with the result. Despite the
expectation that "heads will explode".

I plowed through the 1550 comments. A large number of people
complained about the article, and said that Stephens should be fired
or the like. A smaller number said that while they disagreed, they
were glad to see the other side of the debate published. Fewer said
that they agreed (this being very brave in the NYT community). The
most interesting comment was by "Grebulocities" in Illinois, posted
April 29, 2017: "I'm finishing up an MS in atmospheric sciences, and
this column is certainly correct. ...".

Also read the linked article written by Andrew Revkin; this is an
integral part of Stephens' article.

The problem with being so certain is not just exposing your hubris, but can cause some embarrassment:

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-national-parks-gone-by-2020-signs/

Never put a date on your doomsday predictions.

 

[George Herold]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump. It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

Trump is loved here in 'Trump land' Western NY. It's like nothing I've
seen before. The Deli down the bottom of my hill sells Trump hats at
the check out.

George H.

Oh I didn't read the NY times article. There is much that is kinda 'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a gate keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.
GH

This was a master stroke, really.

Trumps' politics are an old strain that's been around since the
Know-Nothing party.

There is a film, a documentary titled "Hollywoodism" that
describes exactly how the two narratives of the Culture
Wars emerged. It goes widely ignored.

As for 'scientists weren't involved', that's a hard sell. I'm
reading these words on a plate of glass adorned with a few million
TFTs, based on the science of Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley (Nobel
prize Physics 1956), illuminated by LEDs (Nobel prize Physics, 2014
to Nakamura et al), through the medium of the Internet (US National
Science Foundation) and worldwide web (from CERN).


Technology is a distant cousin to science. We'd have had
no progress at all had Shockley not been dislodged. They were
not called the Traitorous Eight for nothing.

In truth, thousands, perhaps millions of individuals created
all this. We humans just like heroic narrative, much to our
peril.

Try "whether witches were involved or not. Often, they weren't"
instead. I could believe that.


--
Les Cargill

 

George Herold <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2d9c66ae-c1cc-4b6a-9ab2-4d0fbd7420f3@googlegroups.com:

Oh I didn't read the NY times article. There is much that is
kinda 'broken' in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a
gate keeper for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science
published. GH

peer review?

Where were the idiots that voted for the dangerous buffoon when it
was time to vet him BEFORE they decided to throw their hat in as a
party move? Big mistake. Showed a huge rift in what the republican
party is supposed to be over what the crafty, dishonorable jackasses
are doing. Over half the party needs to be FIRED and or JAILED.

The motherfucker would not pass even the leanest scrutiny. The
Trumpanzee retards who voted for the criminal level NYC landlord
shyster are obviously clueless about character assessment.

Peer reviewed my ass. If he were properly 'reviewed' the FBI would
have his ass roosting down at GITMO on bread and water, not lushing
it out at the whitehouse while he fucks the entire nation.

His fucktard son should go to prison too.

 

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump. It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....
Trump is loved here in 'Trump land' Western NY. It's like nothing I've
seen before. The Deli down the bottom of my hill sells Trump hats at
the check out.

Makes sense. In the culture (and financial) wars, T is on the side of
the working-class, not college indoctrinated, non-coastal folks. The
ones who keep us alive.

The Electoral College, and representation in the Senate, are good
ideas.

George H.

Oh I didn't read the NY times article. There is much that is kinda 'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a gate keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.
GH

Exactly. In some areas of study, having an unorthodox idea can be
career-ending. Peer review is one enforcement mechanism to suppress
genuinely new ideas. Of course, the more a science is subject to
experimental verification, the more tolerant it is of radical ideas.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 2/9/2020 1:47, Les Cargill wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Americans buy the products that work, whether Scientists were
involved or not. Often, they weren't.

Somehow, Americans bought President Trump.   It's not working.


Not just "somehow" - the guy's a master manipulator. He went "Boo!"
at the Republican Party and by the time they changed their pants, he was
the nominee. "Insane Clown President" covers this....

This was a master stroke, really.

Yes. But I think he clearly does not possess half the brains it takes
to mastermind what happened.
Who is the real puppeteer can only be speculated in a conspiracy
theory mode of course (I do not think it was the Russians though
they did some of the work, nor do I think it was anyone US based...),
we are unlikely to know the truth in our lifetimes.
I don't think Trump knows that himself either.

.....

As for 'scientists weren't involved', that's a hard sell.   I'm
reading these words on a plate of glass adorned with a few million
TFTs, based on the science of Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley (Nobel
prize Physics 1956), illuminated by LEDs (Nobel prize Physics, 2014
to Nakamura et al), through the medium of the Internet (US National
Science Foundation) and worldwide web (from CERN).


Technology is a distant cousin to science. We'd have had
no progress at all had Shockley not been dislodged. They were
not called the Traitorous Eight for nothing.

In truth, thousands, perhaps millions of individuals created
all this. We humans just like heroic narrative, much to our
peril.

Makes perfect sense to me, though me too like "we humans"
seem to like heroic narrative more than it is sensible. Well may
be not that much nowadays but I did for most of my life. It has its
positive impact... on society, makes you work harder chasing
the dream .

Dimiter

 

[bitrex]

On 2/10/20 1:36 AM, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:34:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

The first real electronic component, the vacuum tube, could have been
conceived by a scientist, but wasn't. Science often follows invention,
scribbles some related equations, and then takes credit.

What are you smoking? The vacuum tube was how science discovered
the electron. A few other devices (crystal rectifier diodes) were
known before that.

Useful vacuum tube amplifiers were designed by scientists, AFTER
understanding the electron. Clinton Davisson's Nobel prize in physics (1937)
was for explaining characteristics of a vacuum tube he repaired... while
he was improving them for Bell Labs.

The thermionic effect was discovered by Edison et al, the first
practical vacuum diode was Fleming, the first triode was De Forest, the
first research into what to _do_ with a triode that would make it more
than a novelty was Edwin H. Armstrong, and much of the early research
into vacuum-state electronics was formalized by Irving Langmuir.

Only one of these guys, De Forest, is the odd-man-out the rest almost
certainly fit the modern definition of "scientist"

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:26:19 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:17:51 -0800 (PST), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

...There is much that is kinda 'broken'
in science that many on the left don't want to see.
Take peer-review as one problem. Peer review can operate as a gate keeper
for ideas, and not to get the 'best' science published.

Exactly. In some areas of study, having an unorthodox idea can be
career-ending. Peer review is one enforcement mechanism to suppress
genuinely new ideas. Of course, the more a science is subject to
experimental verification, the more tolerant it is of radical ideas.

That's an oddly stilted view. The orthodoxy of 'an idea' isn't something that
really matters, because you don't publish 'an idea' unless it can be applied
to a puzzle, problem, or reality-as-we-see-it. String theory is often lambasted,
because it DOES apply to a puzzle (what is the mathematical basis of a consistent
theory of everything), but but does NOT apply in any clear way to our observations.

The replacement of planetary-motion epicycles with planetary-motion ellipses
was certainly not orthodox, but went smoothly; peer review had no damping effect.
The insertion of continental drift into planetary evolution was unorthodox, and
was only slowly accepted, because the evidences were scattered (literally,
all around the world) and a multiplicity of movement scenarios had to be evaluated
before one of them was found to fit.

The problem nowadays is NOT peer review; the problem is funding for 'basic' researches,
where a judgment call by a committee determines the future. It's impossible
to make progress without a team and multiple-year effort, sometimes (there's
no way to replace a Large Hadron Collider, for instance). Only a large chorus of interested
voices could get that funding accomplished- the SSC in the US got shouted down
in a Congressional session after a whisper campaign in the press, it
was not peer review that did the career ending there. A few US researchers
contributed to CERN's efforts, but not as members.

Peer review causing difficulty publishing is a common complaint, but there
are journals that will take... almost anything. Those don't make good reading.