Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 2) 144

The authority of science is based on the trust that is vested in the peer review.

I am speaking about science the method, where the only "authority" is empirical evidence gained through repeatable experiments. The authority you are speaking of is the institution (or community) of science.

Peer review is not a fundamental part of the scientific method. You are more than welcome to distrust all peer reviewed research and attempt to repeat or falsify the results yourself. Strictly speaking, the scientific method demands that we do just that, but we generally don't because it's highly impractical.

The hypothesis that peer reviewed science is true science, is falsified if even only 1 example can be found in which the theory isn't true.

I'm not sure what you mean by "true" science, but it seems that you have switched to another common meaning of the word, which is science the accepted body of knowledge. Just because something has been peer reviewed doesn't mean it automatically becomes a part of scientific knowledge. In other words, you're right, the hypothesis is false, but it's not the revelation you think it is.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 5, Insightful) 144

In fact, if we're truly practicing anything resembling science, we can have only one hypothesis in this situation: all peer-reviewed research may have been affected by faulty peer review processes.

Ah yes, the oft forgotten rule of science; we are only allowed to have one hypothesis. Oh wait, you just made that up.

Over 100 papers were allegedly improperly reviewed in this one journal alone. The only assumption we can realistically make is that this problem is far more widespread than we may believe.

This is like saying that since someone is found to be a serial murderer, we should assume that their neighbors are also serial killers. Even if we have no actual murders to tie them to, the only assumption we can realistically make is that this problem is far more widespread than we may believe.

So you have your hypothesis, that's fine. The next step is to find evidence that supports it, which comes before you assert that your hypothesis is the One To Rule Them All.

Comment Re:UBI is already a disaster (Score 1) 300

When I say systematic destruction, I don't just mean that their culture etc. is in decline due to broad sociological trends, but that there were active government policies where the goal was systematic destruction. Look up the Residential Schools system if you really care to know more. If it doesn't make you sick to your stomach there is something wrong with you.

Comment Re:UBI is already a disaster (Score 1) 300

What First Nations people get from the government is nothing like UBI. It's a much more complicated and insane system than that. Not to mention the generations of systematic destruction of their culture, language, and family structure through things like the Residential Schools system (which is, in all seriousness, the stuff of nightmares).

The national inquiry is about the rate at which they (particularly women) are disproportionately the victims of murder and abduction. It's primarily First Nations people (among others) who have been asking for such an investigation for the last few years.

Comment Re:This is going to take some work (Score 1) 106

Without reading Wikipedia, I can tell you exactly what a catalyst is, at least in the realm of chemistry. It is a substance or material which provides an intermediate state to a chemical reaction, lowering the overall energy required by that process and increasing the reaction rate.

Most chemical reactions have an intermediate stage, which is not always shown when we right the simplified reaction. For example, we might write a chemical reaction like this:

A + 2B => Z

What this implies is that 3 (1 A and 2 B) molecules "collide" with each other at the exact same instant, reacting to form Z. A collision such as this (even with many many particles) is so unlikely to occur that for practical purposes it basically never happens. In reality there is an intermediate state, i.e. the reaction takes place in more than one stage, perhaps like this:

A + B => Y
Y + B => Z
A + 2B => Y + B => Z
                                        ^intermediate state

See, here we don't have the problem of more than 2 molecules colliding at a time: A collides with B, producing Y, then Y collides with another B, producing Z.

Often the intermediate state is at a higher energy than the initial state (i.e. you must introduce energy into the system*). Catalysts provide alternative intermediate states (C = catalyst):

A + C => X
X + B => W
W + B => Z + C (Note: in this process our catalyst is completely recycled**)
A + 2B + C => X + 2B => W + B => Z + C
                                                    ^----------------^intermediate states

Although we have added an extra step to our overall reaction, it (presumably) takes far less energy to reach these states than the original state in the first reaction.

*This is true for all non-spontaneous reactions, whether they are exothermic or endothermic. This is why simply putting methane and oxygen together is not necessarily enough to produce combustion; you must introduce a source of energy, like a spark.

**This is not always the case, but an example showing this is much more complicated (actually any real-world example is very complicated, which is why I didn't bother).

Slashdot Top Deals

Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -- Sinclair Lewis