Future Regrets?

[4est_4est_Gump]

This seems to be a common sticking point. People hate science that disagrees with them.

Bullshit. I just addressed that.


There is verifiable and repeatable models of things with known and definable inputs versus models that attempt to predict chaotic events by excluding some of the more important strange attractors. Furthermore, even if you were Hari Seldon and could build such a model...,


It would not work unless you were in possession of the exact initial conditions of said model.

It is a small mind that says, "If you do not agree with my science, then you hate Science!" If I hate Science, why the fuck did I get a degree in it???

 

[RobDownSouth]

Neither of these posts answers my question. Let me rephrase it, because I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.

If I link you to a study, how can you tell by reading that study if it's science or "political science?" There must be some objective, quantifiable criteria you are using, if you're not engaging in political critique yourself. I want to understand those criteria. It looks like you simply dismiss any science that disagrees with you as "political." I do not wish to believe that of you.

Very simply, if the science agrees with his political agenda, it's "science", otherwise it's "political science".

"Gravity is only a THEORY".

 

[Peregrinator]

If you link me to a study, I have little to go on.

If you talk to me about an issue based upon a study, then I have a little more to go on.


Example: A study comes out linking salt to hypertension. Well, okay, I'm willing to consider it and wait for corroborating studies, but the press and those whom like to control what I do to my body then turn it into a news cycle and then it becomes a myth that lives on well past its debunking. As the saying goes, "A lie goes all the way around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on."

Too much science by lesser intellectuals is presented to us as fact, without verification. In science, today, sadly, you get notoriety, academic prestige and greater access to funding when you scare the pants off of people. Now about the other "interesting" aspects of my post...




On a side note, up in Princess Park we have either a Peregrin or a Cooper's who has taken up a post in the dead part of an old tree to declare his territory. He cracks me up because he is over 100' in the air and if I walk up my driveway, a comfortable 200' from the tree itself, he takes off in great alarm as if I were a clear and present danger to him (and his way of life).

So you base your judgement of the science on the media/popular reaction to it? That seems a little arbitrary. In your example, how do you know if the salt study is just science or "political science?" It seems your real objection is to the politicizing of science after the fact. Which, fair enough to a point, but after a few thousand studies come out, multiple independent lines of evidence, and they all point in the same direction, it seems like maybe there's some validity there.

Who's afraid of Stephen Hawking, or cancer researchers? You generalize about scientists and I think you have a reason for doing so, but you're being coy about admitting it.

Sounds like Coopers behavior to me. Do you have any mountains/cliffs/tall buildings nearby? Peregrines don't tend to post like that unless it's near a clutch of eggs, typically on a nest somewhere. Coopers and broadwings do it a lot.

Bullshit. I just addressed that.


There is verifiable and repeatable models of things with known and definable inputs versus models that attempt to predict chaotic events by excluding some of the more important strange attractors. Furthermore, even if you were Hari Seldon and could build such a model...,


It would not work unless you were in possession of the exact initial conditions of said model.

It is a small mind that says, "If you do not agree with my science, then you hate Science!" If I hate Science, why the fuck did I get a degree in it???

Well, YOU might not, but as I said, "people" do. We see it all the time. People have a really hard time shifting their views based on new information. Hell, this is why we still have religions based on nothing but ancient mythology.

As far as models, when they don't accurately reflect the past, you tweak them until they do. That's how you make them accurate. Would you just scrap them entirely? Why?

I thought your degree was in math. Oh, wait, you did compsci, too, no? Do you think your view of other sciences is influenced by your choice of scientific disciplines?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No.

You are going far afield.

I base all Science on its merits, pure and simple.



I live in a fucking forest. You know that. I think you missed the point. When Ishmael reads this exchange he will...



*chuckle*



To follow up, I base all social crusades on their merits too, no matter how much they try to pretend that they are 'scientists' or science based. Now about the other interesting aspects of my post, not just the axe which you are perpetually grinding. It must be a hatchet by now.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As far as models, when they don't accurately reflect the past, you tweak them until they do. That's how you make them accurate. Would you just scrap them entirely? Why?

I thought your degree was in math. Oh, wait, you did compsci, too, no? Do you think your view of other sciences is influenced by your choice of scientific disciplines?

No. To the first point (and indirectly to the second point) in telecommunications, we had to create models that reflected the hardware we were developing. If the model failed, we did not tweak it. We knew all of the math and inputs that went into it. If the model fucking failed, then we knew the hardware would fucking fail so we went back to the design of the hardware and when we thought we had that right, we would make a new model and test it. Other researchers could then use that model and test it with their own data. Any model which includes a hard-coded set of corrections is not a model, it is an agenda-driven machine designed to create a pool of funding. Our funding came from sound science because businesses were willing to invest in the hardware we created.

If the only entity willing to invest in your 'research' is government, you might be 'political' Science...

 

[EternalFantasies]

Um. Hmm. Life experiencee tells me otherwise.

Yea, conventionally speaking, i hear ya.

The short period of time after the effect is to use propranolol while it may still be effective.

 

[Peregrinator]

No.

You are going far afield.

I base all Science on its merits, pure and simple.



I live in a fucking forest. You know that. I think you missed the point. When Ishmael reads this exchange he will...



*chuckle*



To follow up, I base all social crusades on their merits too, no matter how much they try to pretend that they are 'scientists' or science based. Now about the other interesting aspects of my post, not just the axe which you are perpetually grinding. It must be a hatchet by now.

That's not what you said. When your position settles and you decide on what criteria you use, please let me know. We can take the example you posted, if you like; what is it about that particular Popular Mechanics article that convinced you it was science and not political science?

 

[Peregrinator]

No. To the first point (and indirectly to the second point) in telecommunications, we had to create models that reflected the hardware we were developing. If the model failed, we did not tweak it. We knew all of the math and inputs that went into it. If the model fucking failed, then we knew the hardware would fucking fail so we went back to the design of the hardware and when we thought we had that right, we would make a new model and test it. Other researchers could then use that model and test it with their own data. Any model which includes a hard-coded set of corrections is not a model, it is an agenda-driven machine designed to create a pool of funding. Our funding came from sound science because businesses were willing to invest in the hardware we created.

If the only entity willing to invest in your 'research' is government, you might be 'political' Science...

So in all this talk about models, you meant models of static, physical objects? No wonder we're cross-talking. I thought you meant system modeling, like in, say, tides and moon phases. You're talking about hardware mock-ups.

This incredibly cynical idea you have that people try to answer fundamental questions about the way reality works in order to create funding is prima facie absurd. Your "model" assumes that people work hard enough in high school to get accepted to college, then work hard enough at undergrad sciences to get accepted into Ph.D programs, then work hard enough at that in order to be hired into positions where they do research in their area of interest...something like 15 years of academia and science with little compensation, in order to create pools of fundimg at the cost of the credibility of themselves, their teams, and their entire profession?

What on earth could make you believe that?

 

[Peregrinator]

Yea, conventionally speaking, i hear ya.

The short period of time after the effect is to use propranolol while it may still be effective.

I no longer have any idea what you're talking about, beta blockers aside.

 

[EternalFantasies]

I no longer have any idea what you're talking about, beta blockers aside.

You don't click the little arrows?

Interesting perspective. I'm not sure that even if time were circular, that would erase regret.

Regret can only be erased within a few days maybe weeks after the regretful event took place.

Um. Hmm. Life experiencee tells me otherwise.

Yea, conventionally speaking, i hear ya.

The short period of time after the effect is to use propranolol while it may still be effective.

Meaning, unconventionally, what many people don't know, propranolol is a memory of a feeling eraser. You recall a bad memory, but don't get affected by it. = regrets erased.

It just has to be taken with a week, sometimes up-to 3 weeks.

 

[Lunation]

I was thinking about a psychologist I know who did some work at VA Hospitals. Whenever he would ask the older folk for advice, benefits of their experience, they almost always said that they would tell younger people to go and do the things they wanted so when they were old they wouldn't look back and say, "Geez I wish I had done that...."

I realised that a part of what motivates me is the desire not to have regrets like that in the future.

What will you regret not having done? What opportunities do you have now that you aren't taking advantage of, but want to? Why not?

I plan on being completely senile.

Nips the regret angle of aging right in the bud.

 

[Peregrinator]

You don't click the little arrows?









Meaning, unconventionally, what many people don't know, propranolol is a memory of a feeling eraser. You recall a bad memory, but don't get affected by it. = regrets erased.

It just has to be taken with a week, sometimes up-to 3 weeks.

No, in all my years on this forum, I've never once clicked one of those arrows. I have no idea what they do.

I see, off-label use. I was not aware. Beta blockers do some weird shit.

 

[Peregrinator]

I plan on being completely senile.

Nips the regret angle of aging right in the bud.

It's possible to imagine a certain blissfully unaware state arising from senility. I wonder if people find it relaxing after a while. I suppose once you got over the initial anxiety, it could be. This state is possible to achieve with various drugs, too, so if you don't ever get senile, you can always just use some combination of chemicals that works for you.

 

[Lunation]

It's possible to imagine a certain blissfully unaware state arising from senility. I wonder if people find it relaxing after a while. I suppose once you got over the initial anxiety, it could be. This state is possible to achieve with various drugs, too, so if you don't ever get senile, you can always just use some combination of chemicals that works for you.

I don't think it's very pleasant. My grandfather just thought he still worked in the hardware store he had kept for forty years and yelled about how he was being held prisoner.

Really I just dodged the question by taking it too literally. Which is a habbit of mine.

In essence it's more akin to the Nietzsche, "if you had to live this life over again infinitely would you still make the same choices," question.

Note though that I still haven't answered it. Talent!

 

[hsnh]

when they were old they wouldn't look back and say, "Geez I wish I had done that...."

I plan on being completely senile.
Nips the regret angle of aging right in the bud.

My grandfather just thought he still worked in the hardware store he had kept for forty years and yelled about how he was being held prisoner.

In essence it's more akin to the Nietche, "if you had to live this life over again infinitely would you still make the same choices," question.

Note though that I still haven't answered it. Talent!

Nice one.

 

[Peregrinator]

I don't think it's very pleasant. My grandfather just thought he still worked in the hardware store he had kept for forty years and yelled about how he was being held prisoner.

Really I just dodged the question by taking it too literally. Which is a habbit of mine.

In essence it's more akin to the Nietche, "if you had to live this life over again infinitely would you still make the same choices," question.

Note though that I still haven't answered it. Talent!

I've dealt with a fair few geriatric patients and yeah. It's not like they just relax into the misty present. They always have some skewed version of the past going on, like your grand dad did. They're frequent subjects for search and rescue, too, and we often find them wandering some place they knew as younger folks. One guy a couple years ago went missing near a lake in NH, his family's "camp," and was found a week later walking around his childhood home in North Carolina. No memory of how he got there. Honestly, it looks like a kind of hell most of the time.

Good old Nietzche. So many pithy lines, that one. Your quote always reminded me of the categorical imperative that that Kant was on about. Something like, "Will the future me appreciate and agree with this decision by the present me?" It's also functionally equivalent to that WWJD fad from a few years ago. Must be something universal in there somewhere.

Indeed. You're deflecting well enough to run for office. You're engaged, though, and engaging, and that counts for a lot around here.

 

[Lunation]

In a way we are our memories.

Maybe it's not so much about avoiding regret as being the best possible collection of memories.

Same basic concept. Slightly different skew.

 

[Noor]

I am having a flare right now and it's affecting some of my spatial memory among other things.
It comes and goes like when you have a fever. I keep losing things, losing lists.
It's only been a couple days and it's driving me insane. It's no fun at all.
Plus I am flushing, and despite what my friends say, it's not cute!
Nor is my losing things, not cute, it's disturbing!

On the plus side I get steroids! I can open jars.

 

[hsnh]

Indeed.

Maybe those who tend to experience regrets simply aren't able to manipulate their set of memories, to associate a different meaning to them as they gain more wisdom with years.

So they experience the same event in the same way, over and over again. (Like the first example).

 

[Saint Peter]

This seems to be a common sticking point. People hate science that disagrees with them.

It is only a sticking point if you are not willing to bend when presented with data that does not fit your agenda. Global warming is shit because I like the cheap energy from coal fired plants. Do we know why the ice caps are turning to slush? No. We gather bits and pieces. We make assumptions and prove those to be true or false. Go back to the table and repeat. That is what real science is about. Open to whatever you see under the microscope might change everything. Failure drives realignment and reconsideration.

There is a ton of politics involved in real, big scale science. It is not the picture that the science haters paint. Obama is not calling the people in lab coats and telling them where to point the telescope. It does not work that way.

 

[thør]

What does horse taste like? Any other interesting stuff? Where the hell are you?

It tastes like good meat. Seems to be common here in Japan. Bread crumbs on FB.

 

[Noor]

It is only a sticking point if you are not willing to bend when presented with data that does not fit your agenda. Global warming is shit because I like the cheap energy from coal fired plants. Do we know why the ice caps are turning to slush? No. We gather bits and pieces. We make assumptions and prove those to be true or false. Go back to the table and repeat. That is what real science is about. Open to whatever you see under the microscope might change everything. Failure drives realignment and reconsideration.

There is a ton of politics involved in real, big scale science. It is not the picture that the science haters paint. Obama is not calling the people in lab coats and telling them where to point the telescope. It does not work that way.

Sometimes they cut funding if they don't like the direction science appears to be going. I am watching that happen right now in medical science.

As far as astronomy, I think the most political free science is actually coming out of the Vatican right now. Their main observatory is in Arizona, strange, huh?

 

[thør]

You learn a lot more at science conferences than by reading the newspaper. And after conference, in the bar, you learn even more.

I am due at the bar in 2 hours.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So in all this talk about models, you meant models of static, physical objects? No wonder we're cross-talking. I thought you meant system modeling, like in, say, tides and moon phases. You're talking about hardware mock-ups.

This incredibly cynical idea you have that people try to answer fundamental questions about the way reality works in order to create funding is prima facie absurd. Your "model" assumes that people work hard enough in high school to get accepted to college, then work hard enough at undergrad sciences to get accepted into Ph.D programs, then work hard enough at that in order to be hired into positions where they do research in their area of interest...something like 15 years of academia and science with little compensation, in order to create pools of fundimg at the cost of the credibility of themselves, their teams, and their entire profession?

What on earth could make you believe that?

No, I'm talking about how it is possible to model systems where you can code all of the known inputs/factors as compared to a chaotic system, which I'm not even sure you understand the exact mathematical meaning of at this point, where the inputs cannot all possibly be included, so the researcher who attempts this nonsense tires to account for the one he thinks are important and then ignores everything else. This produces a flawed model. Economics has the same problem and it is why people who model economies of the past and then try to apply them to the future and create policy to manipulate the economy fail.

Don't get me started on the corruption and inflation created by government money in academia. It's like this, my teacher was visiting my school, a very busy place. He looked at me and said, in my day, our school had six good fighters, this place is full of women and kids.

"Sensei, I have six good fighters, you know them. Did you enjoy the shower and sauna after your workout?"

"Yes."

"Did you enjoy a cold drink in the lounge while you watched all the flat bellies around you?"

"Yes."

"All of that is thanks to those women and kids who want to get their black belt just to have another accomplishment on their resume."

Sensei nods, he sees the light.

We are producing all sorts of PhDs and while all of them might be hard-workers and every other positive attribute that you have lauded them with, but praise alone does not create brilliance. This Climate Science that you so fervently believe in is in its infancy and has yet to produce any result other than warning and fear, every single one of its "models" have failed for exactly the reasons I have been patiently outlining, but in your religiosity, your basic premise is, the Priests are right, so everyone else must be wrong and must hate Science. You are arguing from an emotional position which is why you have to keep constantly trying to put me down and twist what I am saying into something dark and menacing, a real threat to "Science."

You know that I was also trained in meteorology. They have been modeling hurricanes for far longer than than Climatology has even been a "discipline." That too is a chaotic system which is why there are at least six well-known models each of which has had its failures in predicting the path of any individual hurricane.

It's not that they can't account for all of the known factors, but there are also clearly some unknown, unaccounted for factors that all those hard-working, intelligent, well-trained, highly educated minds have yet to discover.

You keep talking about how the rest of that post was "interesting," but clearly you are only focused on one aspect of any discussion; how it affects your faith.

 

[Peregrinator]

Claiming that you are in a time of transition is clearly not the same thing as the transition between Mercantilism and Capitalism, so I don't have the slightest idea as to why you thought that it made any sort of a point.

What fracking damage? There are a lot of lies about it based in Political Science and I've addressed that repeatedly in your absence, and here is the go to rebuttal of all of that crap:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/g161/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593/

That is the Science, not the Political Science that spreads fear and disinformation in the hope of acquiring government funding to solve the problems they invent.

No, I have defended the free exchange of goods and services between individuals and supported a strong judiciary, as one of the few legitimate roles of central government, that upholds contracts and addresses harm done intentionally, or unintentionally by bad or incompetent actors. That which I object to which some people think is the only way to control business is the regulatory state which has no end, solves no problems, and is a hidden tax which robs a nation of its wealth which retards future technologies and industries. A regulation is a political reaction to something that has gone wrong. Now, it was either criminal or an accident. If it is criminal, there are criminal actions, if it was an accident the company/industry learns from it and faces civil actions by those harmed and all rational companies/industries do everything they can possibly do to avoid those costs and the damage they do to their brand. We don't need opportunistic politicians jumping into the process with their hair-brained ideas about how best to run industries that they have zero experience in.

I doubt highly that there are entrepreneurs, people who build and create who worship profit above all else. In fact the best example that I can think of of someone who puts profit upon that alter is George Soros who is actually unconcerned about creating destruction in his drive and compulsion to acquire wealth without provided any benefit to any person but himself.

My point was that all the depradations of so-called communist countries were justified by saying they were in transitional phases. Never in history has there ever been a country that actually had a true communist system in place. The closest I know of to such a thing was the Shakers in the 1800's. Which is not me defending communism; I think it's loathesome.

Your link is noted. Also noted is the damage ascribed to fracking that it doesn't address. It's easy enough to make lists of refutable points and then refute them. I see this done by anti-gunners all the time. It just doesn't paint a whole picture.

As you know, my objection to using the judiciary is that once the damage is done, it's done. I know of a man who owns forested land in NH. A rogue logging operation clearcut ten acres of his twelve acre parcel. According to the law, he was only due compensation equal to the value of the lumber. The value of the land for him was in its being a forest, not in its monetary value as a torn, destroyed plot of slash and dirt. That's a minor example, and comes near to something like resolution. Another example: the Exxon Valdes spill. Decades of litigation and the beach is still a mess. There are multiple reasons for this, but the beach is still a mess. Exxon's limitless wealth and its team of corporate lawyers successfully prevented Exxon from having to clean up the mess they made. This is how your system plays out. Without regulations in place, as well as inspectors and enforcement, you get Love Canal and the smog problem of the 1970's. With them, those issues are prevented, rather than responded to after the fact. Wetlands, raptor populations, cancer-causing food additives...the list is endless. Drug safety regulations. It just goes on and on.

As far as your doubts about profit worshipping entrepeneurs, I think there are some people who do those things specifically in order to get rich and some who do them because they are passionate about the thing they do. We can look to some examples, like Elon Musk and Martin Shkreli. I'm pretty sure it's the innovation that's Musk's primary motivator, and the cash that pushes Shkreli. Heck, the current president is one who worships profit pretty clearly, along with personal notoriety. He's never in his life done anything else but pursue those twin goals.