User:Ancheta Wis/scratch page
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_guide xTools
"dry convective helical vortices" (DHCVs) [1]
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/whirlwinds-crystals-called-gravel-devils-spotted-andes-mountains
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2017/03/15/G38901.1.abstract
the microseismic fluctuations in the elastic vibration of Earth's crust at equilibrium,[2]
Wikipedian QM expert, Caroline Thompson (d.2006)
Required speed for an ABM, citation: Rather than a citation for "an ICBM simply moves too fast for these systems", I propose a geometric proof. Would this satisfy the editors? I could provide a sketch of the proof on the talk page, if the editors like. The article would then have a note, rather than a footnote. OK?
There are only a few exact solutions to Schrödinger's equation; the hydrogen atom's electron orbitals is one of them (source: R.P. Feynman, my lecture notes). It's an exact picture of the electron's shape, at various excitations. A spherical shape would be the most common shape for an electron at the lowest energy state. The mathematical form of Schrödinger's equation is called a functional.
Staddon (2017) argues it is a mistake to try following rules[16] which are best learned through careful study of examples of scientific investigation.
- The Method of Mechanical Theorems, or Archimedes' method is another example of the 'sense' I mean. Newton's method, and Grothendieck construction are other examples.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-harnessing-power-orbit-coupling-silicon.html
It may be useful to point out that Haskell development is evolving. At one time, monads were in the spotlight, but functors, applicatives, and monads show that there is a spectrum of 'monadic' behavior: "a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?" —humorously attributed to Philip Wadler. The interesting point about Haskell is that applications using monads are already out there in industrial settings as in Haxl.
after reading the article in its second pass, it is not Haskell-centric; the notation, I think, might be more like ML, or perhaps ordinary mathematical notation. Some of the lexemes, such as == I admit I read as 'is equal to', rather than = which in Haskell is 'is assigned to be'. If it were Haskell, the : would be :: instead, which means 'has type'.
- To me, the article is accessible, but some things in it have taken me literally years to understand. For example monoids, which feel simpler, I encountered after monads.
Once we have some more hardware allocated to the eqiad1 region we will start migrating projects in earnest. Here's what that will look like for each project as it is migrated:
- A warning email about impending migrations will be sent to the cloud-announce mailing list at least 7 days before migration.
- On the day of the migration: Instance creation for each migrating project will be disabled in the legacy 'eqiad' region. This means that Horizon will still show instances in eqiad, but creation of new instances will be disabled there.
- The current project quotas will be copied over from eqiad to eqiad1.
- Security groups will be copied from eqiad to eqiad1, and some rules (those that refer to 10.0.0.0/8 or 'all VMs everywhere') will be duplicated to include the new IP range in eqiad1.
- Then, the following will happen to each instance:
- The instance will be shut down
- A new shadow instance will be created in eqiad1 with the same name but a new IP address or addresses.
- The contents of the eqiad instance will be copied into the new instance. This step could take several hours, depending on the size of the instance.
- Any DNS records or proxies that pointed to the old instance will be updated to point at the new instance.
- The new instance will be started up, and then rebooted once for good measure.
- Once the new instance is confirmed up and reachable, the old instance will be deleted.
- You will want to check some things afterwards. In particular:
Verify that any external-facing services supported by your project are still working. If they need to be started, start them. If something drastic is happening, notify WMCS staff on IRC (#wikimedia-cloud)
- In some cases you may need to restart services if they're unable to restart themselves after a system reboot. For example, Wikimedia-Vagrant seems to usually have this problem.
- If you would like an early jump on migration, we have space to move a few projects now. In particular, if you would like access to the eqiad1 region so that you can start building out new servers there, please open a quota request here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/2880/
- The migration process for Toolforge will be utterly different -- in the meantime people who only use Toolforge can disregard all of this for the time being.
User:Ancheta Wis learn to speak 1/5 7:05 1# (attention, meaning, relevance, memory) fluently 2# 3 4 5 6 7 <--Chris Lonsdale Haskell 43:15 Fundamentals/C9-Lectures-Dr-Erik-Meijer-Functional-Programming-Fundamentals-Chapter-13-of-13 more his references, 59:00 @1:00:57 1:08:28 fixed-point_combinator in Haskell wikibook
Wikipedia server diagram Metawiki Wikimedia Phabricator /help Developer hub Wikidata wikitech tool labs
Hedonil/XTools xtools .php modules infrastructure
icinga.wmflabs server health via Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Labs#Operational_status, i.e., icinga ops status
Clark Glymour 1998 p.9: evaluate factor analysis by 5 steps
ghci mr = (. map) . (.) . reduce ---- foldr
Eric S. Raymond on SCCS RCS CVS SVN ... to follow how to rebuild a C type system
Resting_state_fMRI#Basics_of_fMRI
- "Dorsal and Ventral Attention Systems"
- Role of parietal regions in episodic memory retrieval: The dual attentional processes hypothesis
Thank you for your links, which I will try to enter into salience network.
- (2011) "The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity"
- Lindquist & Barrett (2010) follow-up:
- Gold & Shadlen (2007) "The neural basis of decision-making" is not open-text. Abstract says 'The study of decision making spans such varied fields as neuroscience, psychology, economics, statistics, political science, and computer science'
- (2015) "MCPH1: a window into brain development and evolution" ' the lack of MCPH1 leads to microcephaly'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Categorical_logic#Frege.2C_semigroups.2C_and_the_categorical_view categorical logic
Kleisli category for partial functions
- Restriction categories I: categories of partial maps
- [TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 146, December 1969 R Hindley 1969 THE PRINCIPAL TYPE-SCHEME OF AN OBJECT IN COMBINATORY LOGIC]
- Kleisli categories
- Kleisli categories
- Bartosz Milewski 10 things, haskell-syntax
'saliency detection in pulvinar' led to pp319-321 of Ch.13, Smythies, Edelstein, and Ramachandran "Hypotheses relating to the function of the claustrum" The Claustrum: Structural, Functional, and Clinical Neuroscience cf https://books.google.com/books?id=GvccAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&dq=saliency+detection+in+pulvinar&source=bl&ots=q9LuasK2rU&sig=Xt6DfGk4kuo8Mmc1jgUuFEdcum8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix79S61OHJAhUQ9GMKHTalBFoQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=saliency%20detection%20in%20pulvinar&f=false
Ian Hacking (Sep., 1988), "Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design", Isis Volume 79, Number 3 Vol. 79, No. 3, A Special Issue on Artifact and Experiment (Sep., 1988), pp. 427-451 p.432 "Stigler writes "Stigler writes 'The Peirce-Jastrow experiment [10 Dec 1883 - 7 Apr 1884] is the first of which I am aware where the experimentation was performed according to a precise mathematically-sound randomization scheme!' [as opposed to Fechner's subjective experiments (1850s) on himself with no assistant and as his own informant (like Galileo's measurements during Mass in the cathedral of Pisa in the 1600s)] " http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/354775
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A David Deutsch 2009 A new way to explain explanation
- David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation Youtube, Minute 13:24 -- "a good explanation is hard to vary. That hard-to-vary explanation needs to be testable. The truth consists of hard to vary explanations about reality."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDZ454K_lBY David Deutsch Minute 7:34 interference of single photon by other counterparts in multiverse
http://www.behavior.org/resource.php?id=102 critique of platt's strong inference
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html jose wukda 1998
https://www.amazon.com/Space-Time-Relativity-Cosmology-Jose-Wudka/dp/0521822807
Goldhaber & Nieto (2008) Photon & Graviton mass limits See Goldhaber 1975 Tacit assumptions
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Neglected_Argument_for_the_Reality_of_God
Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs
Elizabeth Asmis (1984) Epicurus' Scientific Method
Since we are seeing a revert war, might we consider:
- What good is it to rile up the editors of the article. What purpose is served by trolling the article? There are policies against this.
- "Clausewitz had many aphorisms, of which the most famous is 'War is the continuation of politics by other means.' " Might we think the Holocaust was war, but begun 10 years earlier?
- Francis Bacon noted "knowledge is power", and counted the invention of gunpowder as an advance of his civilization. Galileo figured out the equations of a falling body because he was paid to do so but they apply directly to gunnery tables. Think ENIAC.
- One of the inventors of a new mathematical notation which is just now being applied to the newest programming languages starved to death as a direct result of his membership in the Nazi party.
- The footnote #141 Kalman 1960 was applied directly to an aerospace defense application, as implemented in integrated circuits
- The new computer languages of the 1950s forward were applied directly to an aerospace defense application
- Elon Musk warns of the application of AI to a new world order. The internet is destroying our political institutions; must we wait any further before designating this as a theater of war?
I am being vague because these statements could be misused against the existing order. I for one wish to preserve the stability of the existing order. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Just cause your POV was refuted, nobody considers you "devastated" I take it you agree to inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC) The stuff you just cited purports to show how Trump and Russia were actively colluding. Clearly, it is relevant to the article: straightforward and to point. As I've already said, I have no problem with your proposed content—ADD IT RIGHT NOW. What I am emphatically against is including a section on Trump's "ties" without any explanation of what they mean or what impact they've had on the election. Is that clear enough? Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
700 BCE - 221 BCE
Ludwik Fleck, Thaddeus J. Trenn, Robert K. Merton, Fred Bradley, Thaddeus J. Trenn The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact
The Social Construction of Reality
The social contract
Bob Schieffer replacement for GOP
Mark A. Milley Jun23 2016, on Force regeneration: 18:43/1:00:45, using skeletal advisory brigades to regenerate brigades in 4-5 months. Total Army 37:30/1:00:45
19:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- The NPR states that the DoD intends to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons, as rebuilt from existing materials (thus remaining within the NPT). These would take years, but would be directly applicable to North Korea. I am re-reading to verify this. You probably remember the Little John and Honest John tactical nuclear weapons, which come to mind immediately as having ended the Cold War.
How appropriate that Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four doublethink is sopping up our attention — instead of ending an ongoing war which started in 1950[3] — which can still end badly. How bad does it have to get, for us to stop a 3rd generation dictator[4] who executes his own minister of defense in front of his own staff?[5]
- I see that Garry Kasparov, the chess master and Putin critic, states "The US president shouldn’t need to speak like a tyrant. But Trump’s still obsessed with legitimacy; hence his constant falsehoods about overwhelming victory and crowd size." accessdate=2017-02-12 I quote Kasparov because Spicer serves as Trump's voice to the media. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
ted 100 sites posets in haskell
China's preparations
[edit]China's preparations for nuclear war in North Korea[6] appear to be a message to Kim Jong Un. We now have the citations in place for a regime change in the North, [7] or a nuclear test in the North,[8] or a THAAD interception from either South Korea or Kodiak AK,[9] or an ICBM launch from the North, or re-nuclearization of the South,[10] or the defense of Seoul.[11][12] We need citations for Chinese resistance to reunification of North and South. We need citations for the North's execution of the citizens who build channels to China. We need more citations for the expected refugee flows into China or Siberia.[13]
< ref name=idUSKBN1AH2OU >https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-taiwan-defence-idUSKBN1AH2OU (JULY 31, 2017 / 7:15 PM) China's military confident, prepared to safeguard sovereignty: paper China Daily </ref >
In contrast, a CIA intelligence assessment notes that while the lofted trajectory of the 28 July 2017 Hwasong-14 test caused its breakup on re-entry, data “gathered from ground, sea, and air-based sensors” project that the re-entry vehicle could likely survive a lower-energy trajectory.[14] The 4 July 2017 Hwasong-14 re-entry vehicle survived re-entry down to an altitude of one kilometer.[14]
ASA(ALT) Weapon Systems Handbook 2018[15]
- Table of Contents ......................................................................2
- ASA(ALT) Mission Statement ....................................................8
- ASA(ALT) Organization .............................................................9
- DASA Acquisition, Policy and Logistics .................................10
- DASA Defense Exports and Cooperation .............................. 11
- DASA Plans, Programs and Resources .................................. 12
- DASA Procurement ................................................................ 13
- DASA Research and Technology ............................................ 14
- DASA Strategy and Acquisition Reform ................................ 15
- Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management ................16
- PEO Ammunition ..................................................................... 17
- PEO Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives ................. 18
- PEO Aviation ........................................................................... 19
- PEO Combat Support and Combat Service Support ............20
- PEO Command, Control, Communications-Tactical ..............21
- PEO Enterprise Information Systems .....................................22
- PEO Ground Combat Systems ...............................................23
- PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors ................24
- PEO Missiles and Space .........................................................25
- PEO Soldier .............................................................................26
- PEO Simulation, Training and Instrumentation .......................27
- Joint PEO Chemical, Biological, Radiological and
- Nuclear Defense ..................................................................28
- Army Rapid Capabilities Office ..............................................29
- U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center ...................................30
- U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command...........31
- HOW TO USE THIS BOOK .............................................32
- ACQUISITION CATEGORY I (ACAT I)/
- BUSINESS SYSTEM CATEGORY I (BSC I)
- Abrams Tank Upgrade — M1 .................................................36
- Apache Attack Helicopter AH-64D/E .....................................38
- Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) ................................40
- Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) ...................42
- Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) ............44
- Black Hawk Utility Helicopter — UH/HH-60 ..........................46
- Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (BFVS) — M2/M3 .............48
- Chinook — CH-47F ................................................................50
- Common Missile Warning System (CMWS), Advanced
- Threat Detection System (ATDS), Laser Detection
- System (LDS), Modernized Radar Warning Receiver
- (MRWR), Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures
- (ATIRCM) and Common Infrared Countermeasure
- (CIRCM) programs ...............................................................52
- Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station
- (CROWS) ..............................................................................54
- Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar — AN/TPQ-53 ............56
- Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) .........58
- Excalibur Precision 155 mm Projectiles .................................60
- Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) ...........................62
- Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Family of Systems ...........................64
- General Fund Enterprise Business Systems (GFEBS) ...........66
- Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-Army) ...........68
- Gray Eagle Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) — MQ-1C ......70
- Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS)
- Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition
- (DPICM)/Unitary/Alternative Warhead .................................72
- Handheld, Manpack and Small Form Fit (HMS) ..................... 74
- Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift and
- Evacuation System (HERCULES) Improved Recovery
- Vehicle — M88A2 ................................................................76
- Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck
- (HEMTT)/HEMTT Extended Service Program (ESP) ...........78
- HELLFIRE Family of Missiles ..................................................80
- High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) —
- M142 ....................................................................................82
- High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle
- (HMMWV) ............................................................................84
- Hydra-70 2.75 Inch Rocket Systems ......................................86
- Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2 –
- Intercept Block 1 .................................................................88
- Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army (IPPS-A) ...........90
- Javelin .....................................................................................92
- Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) ........................................94
- Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) ..........................................96
- Lakota Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) — UH-72A ....................98
- Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP) ...........100
- Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) — M270A1 ...........102
- Paladin Family of Vehicles (FOV) — M109A6 Paladin/
- M992A2 FAASV/M109A7 SPH/M992A3 CAT and
- Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) ........................104
- Palletized Load System (PLS) and PLS Extended
- Service Program (ESP) ......................................................106
- PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) ............................108
- Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) ............................................. 110
- Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (TUAS) —
- RQ-7Bv2 ............................................................................ 112
- Stryker Family of Vehicles (FOV) ........................................... 114
- Tactical Mission Command (TMC)........................................ 116
- Tactical Network Transport ................................................... 118
- Tactical Network Transport On-the-Move ............................ 120
- Tube-Launched, Optically Tracked, Wireless-Guided
- (TOW) Missiles ................................................................... 122
- ACQUISITION CATEGORY II (ACAT II)
- Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System
- (AFATDS) ............................................................................ 126
- Air and Missile Defense Planning and Control System
- (AMDPCS) .......................................................................... 128
- Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL) ...................................130
- Air Soldier System (Air SS) ................................................... 132
- Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT) ............134
- Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) .................................136
- Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and
- Surveillance System (EMARSS) ........................................138
- Enhanced Night Vision Goggle (ENVG) ................................ 140
- Enhanced Night Vision Goggle - Binocular (ENVG-B) ......... 142
- Fixed Wing ............................................................................ 144
- Force Provider Expeditionary (FPE) ...................................... 146
- Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control
- (FAAD C2) .......................................................................... 148
- Husky Mounted Detection System (HMDS) ......................... 150
- Instrumentable-Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement
- System (I-MILES) ............................................................... 152
- Joint Assault Bridge (JAB) ....................................................154
- Joint Battle Command-Platform (JBC-P) ............................. 156
- Joint Effects Targeting System (JETS) Target Location
- Designation System (TLDS)............................................... 158
- Joint Land Component Constructive Training Capability
- (JLCCTC) ............................................................................160
- Joint Warning and Reporting Network (JWARN) 1 ...............162
- Lightweight 155 mm Howitzer System (LW155) ...................164
- Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder (LLDR)
- AN/PED-1, AN/PED-1A and AN/PED-1B ...........................166
- Medical Countermeasure Systems (MCS) — Chemical
- Defense Pharmaceuticals (CDP) .......................................168
- Medical Countermeasure Systems (MCS) — Joint Vaccine
- Acquisition Program (JVAP) and Bioscavenger ................. 170
- Mine Protection Vehicle Family (MPVF), Mine Clearing
- Vehicle (MCV), Explosive Hazard Pre-Detonation (EHP) .... 172
- Nett Warrior (NW) .................................................................. 174
- Next Generation Chemical Detector (NGCD) ...................... 176
- Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) .......................... 178
- One Semi-Automated Force (OneSAF) ................................180
- Persistent Surveillance Systems-Tethered (PSS-T) .............182
- Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) ...............................................184
- Prophet ..................................................................................186
- Pseudolites ............................................................................188
- Range Radar Replacement Program (RRRP) .......................190
- Secure Mobile Anti-Jam Reliable Tactical Terminal
- (SMART-T) ..........................................................................192
- Sentinel Aerial Surveillance Radar —AN/MPQ-64 ...............194
- Spider — Command Destruct Networked Command
- Munition Dispensing Set: Increment 1A ............................196
- Tactical Electric Power (TEP) ................................................198
- ACQUISITION CATEGORY III (ACAT III)
- Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Targets .......................................202
- Ammunition — Medium Caliber ............................................204
- Ammunition — Small Caliber ................................................206
- Ammunition — Tank ..............................................................208
- Army Key Management Infrastructure (AKMI) ...................... 210
- Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) .............................. 212
- Army Watercraft Systems (AWS) .......................................... 214
- Artillery Ammunition.............................................................. 216
- Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) ............................................ 218
- Assured-Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT) —
- Dismounted .......................................................................220
- Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT) —
- Mounted/Anti-Jam Antenna System (AJAS) .....................222
- Battlefield Kitchen (BK) .........................................................224
- Biometric Enabling Capability (BEC) ...................................226
- Calibration Sets (CALSETS) Equipment ...............................228
- Camel II Unit Water Pod System ..........................................230
- Chemical Biological Protective Shelter (CBPS) — M8E1 .....232
- Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Dismounted
- Reconnaissance Sets, Kits and Outfits
- (CBRN DR SKO) .................................................................234
- Combat Service Support Communications
- (CSS Comms) ....................................................................236
- Common Bridge Transporter (CBT) ......................................238
- Common Hardware Systems (CHS) .....................................240
- Common Robotic System-Individual (CRS(I)) ......................242
- Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) Intercept
- Land-based Phalanx Weapon System (LPWS) .................244
- Defense Enterprise Wideband SATCOM System
- (DEWSS) ............................................................................246
- Early Entry Fluid Distribution System (E2FDS) .....................248
- Expeditionary Water Packaging System (EWPS) .................250
- Family of Engineer Combat and Construction Sets
- (ECACS) .............................................................................252
- Family of Weapon Sights — Crew Served (FWS-CS) ..........254
- Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV) .............................................256
- Guardrail Common Sensor (GRCS) ......................................258
- Heavy Equipment Transporter System (HETS).....................260
- High Mobility Engineer Excavator (HMEE) I and III ...............262
- Improved Environmental Control Units (IECU) ....................264
- Improved Ribbon Bridge (IRB) .............................................266
- Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS) .........................268
- Integrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE) ..........................270
- Intelligence Electronic Warfare Tactical Proficiency
- Trainer (IEWTPT) ................................................................272
- Joint Biological Tactical Detection System (JBTDS) ............ 274
- Joint Chemical Agent Detector (JCAD) — M4A1 ..................276
- Joint Effects Model (JEM) 1 and 2 ........................................278
- Joint Personal Dosimeter-Individual (JPD-IND) ....................280
- Joint Precision Airdrop System (JPADS) ..............................282
- Joint Service Aircrew Mask - Rotary Wing (JSAM — RW)
- MPU-5................................................................................284
- Joint Service Equipment Wipe (JSEW) .................................286
- Joint Service General Purpose Mask (JSGPM) —
- M-50/M-51 .........................................................................288
- Joint Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS) .................................290
- Joint Warning and Reporting Network (JWARN) 2 ...............292
- Laser Target Locator Module 2 (LTLM 2) ..............................294
- Light Capability Rough Terrain Forklift (LCRTF) ...................296
- Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar (LCMR) —
- AN/TPQ-50 ........................................................................298
- Line Haul Tractor ...................................................................300
- Line of Communications Bridge (LOCB)...............................302
- Load Handling System Compatible Water Tank Rack
- (Hippo) ...............................................................................304
- Man-portable Radiological Detection System (MRDS) ........306
- Man Transportable Robotic System Increment II
- (MTRS Inc II) ......................................................................308
- Medical Countermeasure Systems (MCS) — Biological
- Defense Therapeutics (BDTX) ........................................... 310
- Medical Countermeasure Systems (MCS) —
- Diagnostics ........................................................................ 312
- Medical Simulation Training Center (MSTC) ......................... 314
- Medical Support Systems and Evacuation (MSSE) ............. 316
- Medium Dozer — T-9 ........................................................... 318
- Mobile Maintenance Equipment Systems (MMES) ..............320
- Modular Fuel System (MFS) ..................................................322
- Mortar Systems .....................................................................324
- Motor Grader — 120M ..........................................................326
- Neurotrauma and Psychological Health (NPH) ....................328
- Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle
- (NBCRV) — Stryker Sensor Suites ....................................330
- Pharmaceutical Systems .....................................................332
- Radiological Detection System (RDS) .................................334
- Raven Small Unmanned Aircraft System (SUAS) —
- RQ-11B ...............................................................................336
- Render Safe Sets, Kits & Outfits (RS SKO) ...........................338
- Robotic Mine Flail — M160 ...................................................340
- Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (RAM) Warn ...................................342
- Route Clearance Interrogation System (RCIS) Type 1 .........344
- Scraper — 621G ....................................................................346
- Screening Obscuration Module (SOM) .................................348
- Small Arms — Crew Served Weapons (CSW) ......................350
- Soldier Protection System (SPS) ..........................................352
- Test Equipment Modernization(TEMOD) .............................354
- Transportable Tactical Command Communications
- (T2C2) ................................................................................356
- Unified Command Suite (UCS) .............................................358
- ACQUISITION CATEGORY IV (ACAT IV)
- Call For Fire Trainer (CFFT) Immersive System ....................362
- Call For Fire Trainer, Increment III (CFFT III) .........................364
- Combat Trauma and Acute Rehabilitation (CTAR) ...............366
- Communications Security (COMSEC) ..................................368
- Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) II ........................................370
- Family of Weapon Sights — Individual (FWS-I) ....................372
- Family of Weapon Sights — Sniper (FWS-S) ....................... 374
- Homestation Instrumentation Training System (HITS) ......... 376
- Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization
- Program (I3MP) ..................................................................378
- Multi-purpose Anti-armor Anti-personnel Weapon
- System (MAAWS) M3E1 ....................................................380
- Medical Communications for Combat Casualty Care
- (MC4) .................................................................................382
- Medical Countermeasure Systems (MCS) — Platforms
- for Rapid Integrated Solutions for Medical
- Countermeasures (PRISM) ................................................384
- Small Arms — Individual Weapons (IW) ...............................386
- Small Arms — Precision Weapons (PW) ..............................388
- ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY https://www.army.mil/article/212747/army_scientists_develop_computational_model_to_predict_human_behavior
- OVERVIEW .........................................................................392
- APPENDICES
- Glossary of Terms .................................................................404
- Systems by Contractor ......................................................... 410
- Contractors by State .............................................................421
- Points of Contact ..................................................................425
- .........^.........^.........^.........^.........^.........^.........^.........^.........^.........^.........^.........^
ASA(ALT) Weapon Systems Handbook 2018
[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
ASA(ALT) Weapon Systems Handbook 2018[15]
the Cārvāka epistemology states that whenever one infers a truth from a set of observations or truths, one must acknowledge doubt; inferred knowledge is conditional.[33] Lost: Bṛhaspati Sutra 600 BCE
The epistemology of Vaiśeṣika school of Hinduism, like Buddhism, accepted only two reliable means to knowledge - perception and inference.[34][35] Founder:Kaṇāda Kashyapa 2nd cent BCE
Nyaya school's epistemology accepts four out of six Pramanas as reliable means of gaining knowledge – Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāṇa (inference), Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy) and Śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).[36][37][38] Akṣapāda Gautama 2nd cent CE
- ^ Kurgansky, M., 2005, A simple model of dry convective helical vortices (with applications to the atmospheric dust devil): Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, v. 40, p. 151–162, doi:10.1016/j.dynatmoce.2005.03.001
- ^ 1/f noise as a source of the Earth's fluctuations
- ^ Reuters analysis
- ^ Vanity Fair accessdate=2017-02-12
- ^ North Korea Defence Chief Hyon Yong-chol 'executed'
- execution by antiaircraft gun accessdate=2017-02-12
- 2017-02-11 missile test
- ^ (25 July 2017) China's army looks like it's getting ready for something big to go down in North Korea
- ^ (27 July 2017) China holds live-fire aircraft carrier drill, builds massive border force as North Korean missile test looms
- ^ (28 July 2017) The inevitability of North Korea’s nuclear weapons
- ^ (25 July 2017) Coast Guard gives notice: Missile launch expected in Alaska
- ^ Absent a North Korean response to the request for de-nuclearization talks, South Korea has mooted its nuclear options: "If North Korea continues to conduct nuclear weapon and missile tests while the North Korean nuclear negotiations are sluggish, South Korea should decide whether to break the principle of denuclearization and start developing nuclear weapons," —Lee Jong-kul. Reported by John Burton (26 July 2017) "Moon's nuclear option" The Korea Times (a sister publication of Hankook Ilbo 한국일보)
- ^ (16 March 2017) How China could stop a US strike on North Korea — without starting World War III
- ^ Seoul Survivor: see especially the NEO "Noncombatant Evacuation Operations" (instructions for evacuation in the event of a "Fight tonight")
- ^ North Korean, Now a Texan, Tells of Life Under Oppression, and Escape
- ^ a b Ankit Panda The Diplomat (12 August 2017) US Intelligence: North Korea's ICBM Reentry Vehicles Are Likely Good Enough to Hit the Continental US
- ^ a b ASA(ALT) Weapon Systems Handbook 2018 Page 32 lists how this handbook is organized. 440 pages.
- By Modernization priority
- By Acquisition or Business System category (ACAT or BSC). The Weapon systems in each ACAT are sorted alphabetically by Weapon system name. Each weapon system might also be in several variants (Lettered); a weapon system's variants might be severally and simultaneously in the following phases of its Life Cycle, namely — °Materiel Solution Analysis; °Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction; °Engineering & Manufacturing Development; °Production & Deployment; °Operations & Support
- ACAT I, II, III, IV are defined on page 404
- ^ Aaron Mehta (February 5 2018) Pentagon confirms future year numbers in budget request $716b
- ^ Loren Thompson (12 Feb 2018) 5 Reasons The Army Must Keep Modernizing Today's Weapons While It Tries To Leap Ahead
- ^ Devon Marks (27 Mar 2018) Secretary Esper outlines Army goals for coming decade, including modernization, Futures Command
- ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (5 Apr 2018) Army Secretary: We Will Kill Programs To Fund Big Six
- ^ Mackenzie Eaglen (17 May 2018) Defense budget peaks in 2019, underfunding the National Defense Strategy
- ^ Aaron Mehta, Tara Copp, and Leo Shane III (3 Aug 2018) DoD reveals why there’s ‘not going to be another big’ budget increase in 2020
- ^ Ben Werner (August 22, 2018) Pentagon, Defense Industry Brace for Expected Dip in Future Funding
- ^ Peter Graham (25 Sep 2018) Report: Army Eyes $31.6B Funding Shift to Armored Vehicles, Helicopters in FY 2020 Budget Request
- ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (October 08, 2018) Army Moves $25B To Big Six, From New Tanks To 6.8mm Rifle
- ^ Jen Judson (October 9, 2018) US Army triggers start of possible ground mobility vehicle competition after long delay
- ^ Dan Goure (October 15, 2018) The U.S. Army Is Back Military modernization
- ^ DANIEL GOURE (October 18, 2018) Can Trump Rebuild The Military As Deficits Balloon?
- ^ Ms. Elyssa Vondra (Fort Jackson) (October 4, 2018) Post gets look at new fitness test
- ^ Ms. Stephanie Slater (TRADOC) (September 28, 2018) ACFT ensures Soldiers are lethal, physically conditioned
- ^ David Vergun (September 7, 2018) Army secretary: New fitness test measures combat readiness
- ^ David Vergun (October 10, 2018) Army moving to talent management approach to guide career paths
- ^ Army R&D Chief: ‘I Don’t Think We Went Far Enough’ – But Futures Command Can
- ^ MM Kamal (1998), The Epistemology of the Carvaka Philosophy, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 46(2): 13-16
- ^ DPS Bhawuk (2011), Spirituality and Indian Psychology (Editor: Anthony Marsella), Springer, ISBN 978-1-4419-8109-7, page 172
- ^ Eliott Deutsche (2000), in Philosophy of Religion : Indian Philosophy Vol 4 (Editor: Roy Perrett), Routledge, ISBN 978-0815336112, pages 245-248;
- ^ John A. Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791430675, page 238
- ^ DPS Bhawuk (2011), Spirituality and Indian Psychology (Editor: Anthony Marsella), Springer, ISBN 978-1-4419-8109-7, page 172
- ^ Gavin Flood, An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521438780, page 225
Skepticism started with Pyrrhonism 4th cent BCE ;
- Pyrrho (c. 360 to c. 270 BC) came to India and Persia
- with Alexander the Great (20/21 July 356 – 10/11 June 323 BCE) -
- Francisco Sanches (c. 1550 – November 16, 1623),
- Descartes (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650)
Mara Beller (2007) intellectual property, royal society p.27 http://www.jstor.org/stable/23354463?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
von Neumann, John (1956) "natural science took 1000 years to get anywhere" Collected Works von Neumann 6p.101, as cited on Rashid (Jul.,2007) p518 p518 via JSTOR]
Mackay, R.W., & Oldford, R.W., (Aug. 2000) p.277:"statistical method as we have described it (PPDAC) is not the same as the scientific method. It is about investigating phenomena as they related to populations of units." http://www.jstor.org/stable/2676665?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Jeffreys (1934) http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935474?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30025388 Tyler Cowen, ed. (1988) The theory of market failure: a critical examination 384pp. Reviewed in Public Choice pp295-7 by Richard Wagner (Jan 1991) 68 (1/3). In Cowen's selection, the 1st two essays are Samuelson 1954, Frances M. Bator 1958. Bator's -- Lighthouses, bees, bridges are illustrations of market failures that require govt remedy.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_18/PThy_Chap_18.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor%E2%80%93Hicks_efficiency improvement Kaldor Hicks_efficiency [2] Pareto efficiency game theory (in which there are winners and losers) Nash's solution of prisoner's dilemma what is Nash equilibrium?
Nomothetic and idiographic Deductive-nomological model Models_of_scientific_inquiry visual system http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dress-a-black-and-blue-debate-over-the-color-of-a-dress-stirs-social-media-1425063162?google_editors_picks=true
SEID http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-a-real-measurable-illness-researchers-1.2257005 cytokine
http://news.discovery.com/tech/photo-first-lights-captured-as-both-particle-and-wave-150302.htm
Charles Singer, How did Science Begin? http://www.jstor.org/stable/25371610?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
it has been known since Hume that "induction has no logical basis" (FP Ramsey's review, in Mind, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 128 (Oct., 1923), pp. 465-478 , of Wittgenstein TLP ). But induction is being mooted as the basis for generalization in science. Gauch 2003 proposes that Aristotle used induction, followed by deduction, in repeated steps to stabilize generalizations. This cannot be true, on the face of it, based on Hume. Others use Aristotle's thoughts about intuition as his basis for building generalizations. But Aristotle proposed some pretty bad generalizations which are taught in schools as counterexamples, today, such as teleological reasoning (which he instituted in spite of his own statements in Organon about the fallacy of affirming the consequent.)
What lessons can we take from this? One is the effect of overweening authority, which was used to execute Socrates, and to hold Aristotle in Plato's place, and blind Aristotle enough to institute Plato's teleological reasoning as the basis for biology for two thousand years, and to influence Galen's and Ptolemy's and Alhacen's theories of vision, and to hold even Catholicism in its sway for 700 years after Averroes. An impressive piece of science, which eventually fell of its own weight. And even after Hume's work, his views still call others to burn his 'wee bookies', to this day. Apparently, there is still market demand for overweening authority.
Rather than induction, C.S. Peirce proposed abduction as the basis for science. In order to accomplish this, some hold that arrays of Hypotheses are the missing pieces, while others hold that models ought to take the place of hypotheses.[1] The hypothetico-deductive model is one approach to model science. Platt's strong inference (1964) is a model of an array of alternate hypotheses to be tested by experiment.
- How do you propose to solve the structural problem? As the article stands, Aristotle could only fall back on intuition, which is hardly a reproducible method. Induction fails for the Stoics; their chief contribution, the continuum (See Sambursky) was an intuitive concept. Even Epicurus had a better method here. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- To elaborate, Alhacen understood quite clearly that he could understand something better through experimentation, even if his initial points of study were unclear to him. Alhacen's experimental setups allowed reproducible experiments. Even his failures. But this point is missing in Aristotle; Aristotle relied on intuition and induction to get ideas and did not understand strong inference (Platt 1964), for example. Strong inference is exemplified by the experiments on Spontaneous generation which was disproved by Francesco Redi 1688, and the experiments for the law of falling bodies (first from Galileo 1638). The Aristotelian version for falling bodies was demonstrably wrong; even his four causes were blind alleys, which served to mislead Alhacen. Not for lack of trying: Al-Farabi, formulator of the concept of future contingent, tried reading Prior Analytics 40 times and failed to understand it. (Rescher 1964 p.11)
So why don't we just say these things outright? And move on. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- is it wrong to bring up Platt 1964 strong inference at some point in the article? Both Francesco Redi and Galileo appear to be classic examples of Platt's model. In a related thought about alternative hypotheses:
- The best I can tell, the explicit appearance of hypothesis in an inquiry was a turning point in the history of scientific method (c. 1635). I think it was Cardinal Bellarmine who first directed Galileo thus. Because the requirement of truth in the ontology could be separated from the epistemology of an inquiry. Before that, there was always 'what is really out there?' getting in the way, rather than 'what is the functional form of the relation' governing the falling body. You see, from my point of view (thousands of years after Aristotle), the models of certainty were getting in the way. But Roger Bacon had the same problem, his writings being under the direct supervision of the Pope until about 1275. And there were Scholastics getting Papal backing for their thinking, not to mention sainthood.
- At about the same time (1660), the Royal Society's explicit airing of conflicts between scholars 'increased the temperature, or energy level' of the dialog in an inquiry. An institutionalized rivalry between parties: (Mara Beller 2007 p.27) via JSTOR
Science reawakened in 800 after a sleep of 600 years. -- Islamic Science reignited optics and Aristotle for Europe. In the meantime, Science had never been lost in China, which was overtaken by Europe, and which seeks to regain eminence for the next 500 years, as Europe stumbles, While America enters sleep state after the end of the supercollider.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23354463?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Wivagg http://www.jstor.org/stable/4451400?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Karsai & Kampis http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.9?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Speice & Colosi http://www.jstor.org/stable/4450823?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
McLaughlin http://www.jstor.org/stable/25504263?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2176001?seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents De partibus animalium, two methods: finality > necessity
Democritus -420 BCE
Aristoteles -350 BCE - Alhacen - Scholastics - ended with Kepler/ Francis Bacon, Descartes
Asmis, Elizabeth (1984) Epicurus' Scientific method 42 (January 1984), pp.386 Cornell University Press ISBN 978-0-8014-6682-3 pp.333-6 via JSTOR
In his lost work Kαvώv ('canon', a straight edge or ruler, thus any type of measure or standard, referred to as 'canonic'), Epicurus laid out his first rule for inquiry (p.20) in physics:'that the first concepts be seen, and that they not require demonstration (pp.35-47)'.
His second rule for inquiry was that prior to an investigation, we are to have self-evident concepts (pp.61-80), so that we might have the means to infer [έχωμεν οις σημειωσόμεύα] both what is expected [τò ποσμένον] and also what is non-apparent [τò άδηλον] (pp.83-103).
Epicurus applies his method of inference (the use of observations as signs, pp.175-196 -- summary p.333: the method of using the phenomena as signs(σημεīα) of what is unobserved) immediately to the atomic theory of Democritus. In Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Aristotle himself employs the use of signs (pp.212-224). But Epicurus presented his 'canonic' as rival to Aristotle's logic (pp.19-34).
Epicurus' Scientific method, fl -300 BCE
Stoicism fl -280 BCE - end of Rome, its canonical belief system
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/aristotle_on_th093021.html Aristotle on the Immateriality of Intellect and Will
http://books.google.com/books?id=-8A_auBvyFoC&pg=PA178&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false Maurolico's Photisme, Lindberg (1981) p.178 ch.9
http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v18/n11/fig_tab/6701578f2.html optic chiasma sketch from manuscript copy of Kitab al manazir (1083), in the Fatih collection, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul
http://www.academia.edu/6608048/The_Book_of_Optics_Ibn_Al_Haytham_Alhazen
- p.118 proposed an intromission theory of vision and validated his conclusions by empirical understanding deduced from scientific experimentation. This methodology expanded his understanding beyond the theoretical, which resulted in the incorporation of psychology to explain vision. ... He used optical raytracing to provide theoretical basis for the existence of rays.
- p.116 optic chiasm sketch from manuscript copy of Kitab al manazir (1083), in the Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul.
- p.119 1220-1230: 1st appearance in Latin translation in West in an encyclopedia, On the property of things, by Angelicus, cited 1260 (bacon explicit citation), 1278 (witelo, others not so much), 1280 (pecham)
- p.121 Alhacen's observations, using mirrors for magnification. Alhacen cited in Chaucer
- p.122 perspectivist pyramid interrpted by Alberti's picture plane
other ontologies
[edit]So, tracing back, the flow of knowledge appears to have been:
- Empirical, inductive discovery, traceable to Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mesoamerica
- Medicine (for healing)
- (Magic did not yet separate from science at this time)
- Study of astronomy (the first science)
- (Astrology did not yet separate from science at this time)
- Optics and vision (for physiology)
- Study of mathematics
- The rise of proof
replace ontology: Aristotelian with materialist Smith on Koyre
Nils Nilsson 2014 escape belief traps by exposure to criticism
Stiles 1942 personal habits/ prequisite for scientific method via JSTOR
Lester S. King 1984 Medical thinking via JSTOR
Harold N. Lee 1943 3 good pages 69-70 via JSTOR
Lawson 2010 A better set of questions ala Platt 1964's 4 steps via JSTOR
Donald S. Lee 1968 p.36 via JSTOR
Randall 1940 Padua ---> Galileo via JSTOR
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2855089?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Euclid's Optics] [http://philomatica.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Optics-of-Euclid.pdf fig.58 visual pyramid, eye looks down, positioned along Z axis
JSTOR:
- Smith, A. Mark (1988) "Ptolemy, Optics" Isis Vol. 79, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 188-207
- Smith, A. Mark (1996) Ptolemy's Theory of Visual Perception: An English Translation of the "Optics" with Introduction and Commentary Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 86(2) (1996) via JSTOR
- Smith, A. Mark (1999) Ptolemy and the Foundations of Ancient Mathematical Optics: A Source Based Guided Study Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series, 89(3) (1999) via JSTOR
A. Mark Smith (2004) "What is the history of Medieval Optics Really About?" via JSTOR
al-Haytham -> Kamal al-Din Hasan ibn Ali ibn Hasan al-Farisi ->? Latin translation for al-Haytham
Friedrich Risner, publ. 1572. Opticae Thesaurus: Alhazeni Arabis Libri Septem Nunc Primum Editi , Eiusdem Liber De Crepusculis Et Nubium Asensionibus . Item Vitellonis Thuringopoloni Libri X. Sabra, the authorship of Liber de crepusculis
Admiral Eugene of Sicily, translated Ptolemy's optics (he knew Greek (native), Arabic (fluent), and some Latin), Smith (1988), p.192, but who was the 1st translator of Alhacen into Latin? Gregor Reisch, Margarita philosophica (Basel 1504) - Tower of knowledge
Smith, A. Mark (1981), "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics" Isis 72(4) (Dec., 1981). via JSTOR, pp. 568-589 Alhazen -> Roger Bacon -> Witelo -> John Pecham ->
Grossteste's non experimental law of refraction
There is no doubt that Ibn Sahl understood the sine law of refraction (Harriot, Snell, Descartes, Newton) Alhacen didn't have Ibn Sahl's law of refraction Smith 2015
- Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. (2001), written at Philadelphia, "Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's De aspectibus, [the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāzir], 2 vols", Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 91 (4–5), Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, ISBN 0-87169-914-1, JSTOR 3657357 3657358 3657357, OCLC 47168716
{{citation}}: Check|jstor=value (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) cxvi: Alhacen is a synthesis; cxvii:revolution in optics started by Kepler, completed by Newton
hypothetico-deductive: 91,vol.1,p.cxv, 100.vol.1,p.c
- Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. (2001) Alhacen's Theory of visual perception : a critical edition, with English translation and commentary, of the first three books of Alhacen's De aspectibus, [the medieval latin version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāẓir], Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 2 vols: 91(#4 — Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text); 91(#5 — Vol 2 English translation). (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society), 2001. Books I-III (2001) Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text via JSTOR; Vol 2 English translation I:TOCp339-341, II:TOCp415-6, III:TOCp559-560, Notes 681ff, Bibl. via JSTOR
- Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. (2006) Alhacen on the principles of reflection : a critical edition, with English translation and commentary, of books 4 and 5 of Alhacen's De aspectibus, [the Medieval Latin version of Ibn-al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāẓir], Transactions of the American Philosophical Society: 2 vols: 95(#2 — Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text); 95(#3 — Vol 2 English translation). (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society), 2006. Books 4-5 (2006) Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text via JSTOR; Vol 2 English translation IV:TOCp289-294, V:TOCp377-384, Notes, Bibl. via JSTOR
- Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. (2008) Alhacen on Image-formation and distortion in mirrors : a critical edition, with English translation and commentary, of Book 6 of Alhacen's De aspectibus, [the Medieval Latin version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāzir], Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 2 vols: Vol 1 98(#1, section 1— Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text); 98(#1,section 2 — Vol 2 English translation). (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society), 2008. Book 6 (2008) Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text via JSTOR; Vol 2 English translation VI:TOCp155-160, Notes, Bibl. via JSTOR
- Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. (2010) Alhacen on Refraction : a critical edition, with English translation and commentary, of Book 7 of Alhacen's De aspectibus, [the Medieval Latin version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāzir], Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 2 vols: 100(#3, section 1 — Vol 1, Introduction and Latin text); 100(#3, section 2 — Vol 2 English translation). (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society), 2010. Book 7 (2010) Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text via JSTOR;Vol 2 English translation VII:TOCp213-218, Notes, Bibl. via JSTOR
Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with ..., Book I 91 Volume 1
- Alhacen book I, II, III
- I p355 5.39 eye anatomy shown in books on anatomy
- I p356 6.6 this is the accepted opinion of natural philosophers on how vision occurs
- I p360 6.18 footnote 60 experiment thus empirically ascertained
- I p363 6.24 explanation of focus on one item from an infinity of items
- I p366 6.36 explanation of focus by agreement with experiment
- I p367 6.38 "and all of these points become clear with experimentation"
- I p373 6.56 footnote 87 falsification of extromission theory of vision
- I p379 6.85 camera obscura
- I p379 6.86 And this can be tried anytime.
- pp376-7 6.69 footnote 99 (p410) image fusion in optic chiasm (Galen citation cxxxvi, intro -- Margaret Tallmadge May, 1968,trans. Galen's De Usu Partium Corporis Humani ) review
- I p377 6.69 diplopia -> image fusion
- transmission of forms to optic chiasm see book II 2.23-2.24 pp426-7
- II p423 2.30 from this experiment it will therefore be clear that ...
- II p443 3.53 from this experiment
- II p443 3.56 from these experiments, it is eminently clear that ...
- II p453 3.80 experiment in a darkened room which [subject] has not seen before
- fusion in chiasm book III 2.17, pp569-70
- III p573 2.25 Moreover everything we have discussed can be tested so that we will attain certainty over it.
- p574 figure 3.8: experimental setup (described in p573 2.26 cites comments which are in footnote 23, p633) to show diplopia down to the notch in the plaque for your nose to fit in. (builds up the geometrical setup in Ptolemy, Optics III,43 per Smith 1996, Ptolemy's Theory p147)
- III p578 2.50 thus, the reason that ... has been shown through deduction and experiment.
- III p585 2.74 ...He will see the situation was the same as the one where the experiment was carried out when ...
Smith 2015 from sight to light, reviewed, audio link
- http://www.jstor.org/stable/20617779 Khairandish 2009 Early Science and Medicine 14 79-104 Arabic words for 'exam, experiment, test, experience, tube, copper, illustration, cause, contradiction, demonstration, sense perception, comparison, syllogism'
R.A. Herman (1900) A treatise on geometrical optics Cambridge p.160 Newton's prism experiment camera obscura, imaged the sun, which subtends one half degree
other brain illusions
[edit]Al Seckel (2006), ULTIMATE BOOK OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS ISBN 9781402734045 "Perceiving What Is Not There"
[[File:New medical editor.ogv|thumb|thumbtime=2:59|right|320px|Welcome to Wikipedia and [[WP:MED|Wikiproject Medicine]]]] Take one lame and decrepit female hyena ... how to prepare a medicine, from Cairo Genizah
Gehirn map gyrus basal ganglia short arcuate fibers in cortex
Buchsbaum 1980 "A spatial processor model for object colour perception" Hsien-Che Lee 1986 "Method for computing the scene-illuminant chromaticity from specular highlights " van Trigt C. (1997 ) "Visual system-response functions and estimating reflectance." Wired (2015 ) "The Science of Why No One Agrees on the Color of This Dress" Color constancy Golz & Kiel (2002 ) " Influence of scene statistics on colour constancy" [ ( ) ""] [ ( ) ""]
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/people-willing-dismiss-evidence-psychology-brain-science/
http://gizmodo.com/octopus-eyes-are-crazier-than-we-imagined-1783195433
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/29/8206.full
| data | if | let | module | as |
| instance | then | in | import | hiding |
| type | else | case | infix | default |
| newtype | do | of | infixl | foreign |
| class | deriving | where | infixr |
User:49.205.218.102 (talk | contribs) User:89.164.107.42 (talk | contribs) User:Alan U. Kennington (talk | history | contribs) User:Alanscottwalker (talk | history | contribs) User:Ancheta Wis (talk | history | contribs) User:Ancheta Wis/1st Space Brigade (talk | history) User:Ancheta Wis/Definition (talk | history) User:Ancheta Wis/Land tenure (case) (talk | history) User:Ancheta Wis/PaJaMo experiment (talk | history) User:Ancheta Wis/Shmuel Sambursky (talk | history) User:Ancheta Wis/common.css (talk | history) User:Ancheta Wis/common.js (talk | history) User:Ancheta Wis/sandbox (talk | history) User:Ancheta Wis/scratch page (talk | history) User:Bob123345435577998578645636546486757566587667 (talk | contribs) User:BrownHairedGirl (talk | history | contribs) User:CoolSkittle (talk | history | contribs) User:Crazynas (talk | history | contribs) User:DannyS712 (talk | history | contribs) User:Evelynbreit (talk | contribs) User:Finnusertop (talk | history | contribs) User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk | history | contribs) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | history | contribs) User:GoldenRing (talk | history | contribs) User:Graeme Bartlett (talk | history | contribs) User:Hedonil (talk | history | contribs) User:Hodgdon's secret garden (talk | history | contribs) User:Inowen (talk | history | contribs) User:Johnuniq (talk | history | contribs) User:Legacypac (talk | history | contribs) User:Looie496 (talk | history | contribs) User:Manning Bartlett (talk | history | contribs) User:Moxy (talk | history | contribs) User:Primefac (talk | history | contribs) User:Prof. Carl Hewitt (talk | history | contribs) User:Quarkgluonsoup (talk | history | contribs) User:Ramadut (talk | contribs) User:Robert McClenon (talk | history | contribs) User:Simonmar (talk | history | contribs) User:TheDJ (talk | history | contribs) User:The Interior (talk | history | contribs) User:The Patriot Way (talk | history | contribs) User:The Transhumanist (talk | history | contribs) User:Truth19890604 (talk | contribs) User:UnitedStatesian (talk | history | contribs) User:Waggers (talk | history | contribs) User:X! (talk | history | contribs) User:Xamgore (talk | contribs) User:חופש (talk | contribs)
Lindberg 1976, theories of vision Alhazen's Synthesis .. Kepler .. Galileo thread documents a Lindberg statement vis a vis Kepler's familiarity with Alhazen
Author Charles_Sanders_Peirce Bowman L. Clarke (1977) Peirce's Neglected argument
Rate of language evolution is affected by population size
Greeno Moore Smith 1993 "Transfer of situated learning" Peel's principles
Christine Ladd-Franklin (1847-1930), as part of her Ph.D. dissertation in logic under C.S. Peirce, formulated a 16-row truth table[1] in form like that of Wittgenstein (1922) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Proposition 5.101.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4450956?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Hypothetico-Deductive&searchText=Reasoning&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DHypothetico-Deductive%2BReasoning%26amp%3BSearch%3DSearch%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3BglobalSearch%3D%26amp%3BsbbBox%3D%26amp%3BsbjBox%3D%26amp%3BsbpBox%3D&seq=14#page_scan_tab_contents Anton E. LawsonThe Generality of Hypothetico-Deductive Reasoning: Making Scientific Thinking Explicit
https://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif/seab0110.pdf nif interim report 10 jan 2000
http://ciog6.army.mil/Portals/1/ANCP/Army%20CIO-G6%20Overview%20%2817%20Feb%2015%29.pdf Army CIO/G-6
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/bmds/2014gmd.pdf
http://ed-thelen.org/digest1.html#p15
http://www.army.mil/article/133461/94th__32nd__263rd_AAMDC_Mark_Milestone_Supporting_UFG__14/
http://www.army.mil/article/166098/End_of_year__use_it_or_lose_it__budget_mindset_to_get_tossed/ new mindset for budget
In a related question, there appears to be a division of function between the "AMC" (materiel), "TRADOC" (training and doctrine), and "FORSCOM" (operations) aspects of the A
rmy; in the case of the THAAD batteries, for example, on Fort Bliss, the Army developed the materiel, trained the Soldiers, and deployed the units; in an Army example, 32nd Army Air & Missile Defense Command takes the lead in specifying, training, and deploying the equipment and Soldiers. But if the deployed THAAD batteries were to defend against a missile attack on the nation, Ninth Air Force directs the missile defense.
So for cyber, it appears, again, that the Army takes the lead in specifying, hardening, and deploying the system/ network, but in an operational event (probably not a hot war), joint DoD-level command takes over. True? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
DoD satellite swarms in play, Washington Post 10May2016
https://www.army.mil/article/169567/improving_army_readiness_for_the_21st_century Lt Gen Dail, formerly headed Defense Logistics Agency
http://www.wsmr.army.mil/Pages/newhome.aspx WSMR
https://www.army.mil/article/170918/two_years_of_hard_work_pays_off_for_soldiers_at_national_training_center 2 yrs for NG 1/34 ID to prepare a nationwide muster to NTC
https://www.army.mil/article/164377/Future_of_deployments__surge_ready_and_rotationally_focused/ readiness in FORSCOM
http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/us-completes-complex-test-of-layered-mis?articleId=USKCN0SQ2GR20151102&slideId=1091520709 THAAD U.S. completes complex test of layered missile defense system
https://www.army.mil/article/171316/us_to_deploy_thaad_missile_battery_to_south_korea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ErnJU_ghE 2015 THAAD FTO2 Event2a
2016ArmyReservePostureStatement .pdf cb1
Army_2020_Charts .pdf cb1
https://www.army.mil/article/176036/army_operations_tempo_near_wartime_high
https://www.army.mil/article/175469/changing_nature_of_war_wont_change_our_purpose
http://gao.gov/assets/660/654289.pdf
http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-07-1.pdf
Recently, Jin-Woo Han and Meyya Meyyappan (23 Jun 2014) Vacuum Transistor, NASA Ames Research Center, prototyped a 460 gigahertz, 10V device
- One of the things I really appreciate is the high degree of civility and self-control that the editors of this thread manifest; my thanks to everyone. One of themes that are paralleled in this thread is that many sources, such as
- Joseph Needham Science and Civilisation in China, during his posting to China during WWII, was given a large (I think it was 2000 volume) Chinese encyclopedia, which he shipped via diplomatic post back to Cambridge
- The various encyclopedias, such as one mentioned by Needham, a 400 000 volume (a one-of-a-kind) encyclopedia, belonging to an Emperor of China (who wrote some of it), or the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, or Pliny's Natural History, or Margarita Philosophica, or Diderot's Encyclopedia, or Encyclopedia Brittannica, or Smellie's, or Chambers, etc. is that the desire to see encyclopedic knowledge arises when the civilization attains enough leisure.
- The great library at Alexandria encapsulates this desire.
- Then once the writings are there in a library, and accessible, then the requirement for method arises, so clearly, the desire for a method to know just which of the books are any good arises. Thus a great accumulation of knowledge is a prerequisite.
- Needham grappled with this in his Grand Question, hypothesized a guess, and disproved by uncovering a lifetime of counterexamples (Science and Civilisation in China) to the null hypothesis that China produced neither science nor scientific method.
- Francisco Sanches, seeking to find an alternative to Aristotle, could only come up with Quod nihil scitur (that nothing is known), which is proof that our modern scientific method could not have been formulated by Alhacen, because Sanches, a French physician educated in Rome, who named Scientific method in a lost work, would have written about that method if he could have. When you read his work, it is extremely repetitious; his only contribution appears to be 'concentrate on the thing', and 'What?!!' (his favorite signature).
- Alhacen's devotion to truth and certainty, which he shows in Book of Optics, is a real milestone, but it isn't the modern method, because his respect for the 'philosophers', the 'mathematicians', the 'medical authorities' formed his investigations. He shows real strength of mind by disproving Ptolemy, but fails elsewhere. Why? By not taking on Aristotle?. Alhacen conscientiously concentrates on his subject, which is vision. Smith writes that Alhacen thus synthesized all of the knowledge of optics in one theory, and his writings are usable today, just as they were used by students of optics in the middle ages. It appears that this was a necessary step for progress in science.
- We now appear to have accepted that certainty is not attainable in science. Rather when we encounter an unfalsifiable belief, instutions arise to counter it. One example is the current belief in the US, that immunization against measles is bad, due to our respect for human individual freedom, which is leading to a public health response.
- One of the things I really appreciate is the high degree of civility and self-control that the editors of this thread manifest; my thanks to everyone. One of themes that are paralleled in this thread is that many sources, such as
- Since the organization of Aristotle's material is 40 BCE (Andronicus of Rhodes), this leaves the Epicurus material (namely letter to Herodotus, a summary by Epicurus himself) as pre-dating the organization of Aristotle's material. Perhaps the two POV's might be structured as a dialog? The question of Aristotle's Forms, which have been discredited since Kepler, overhangs all this.
- Currently, I am leaning toward beginning the Epicurus section on Epicurus' first point, which is to rely on sensation, while squarely based on atomic theory. I use Amis' organization, on the scientific method of Epicurusn (beginning with Epicurus' 'canonic' as a rival to Aristotle's logic), as my baseline. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- One of the little-remarked parts of Gauch 2003 is figure 2.5 on p.43, a reproduction of a bas-relief sculpture, by Luca della Robbia, of Aristotle the clean-shaven scholar, learning from Plato, the bearded mentor, in the traditional relationship of scholar and mentor (called today, one's advisor), a special relationship among scientists to this day. I have found it difficult to find citations for this fact, and figure 2.5 is part of only sparse documentation of this aspect of method/ process. (Some universities use the gowning at a Ph.D. ceremony to commemorate this. Other advisors walk across the stage with the newly minted Ph.D., other universities invite an eminent graduate to talk, to show the new Ph.Ds what they might aspire to.) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- There has been an evolution of terminology:
- Law: A statement to which we are subject, all of us, without exception. (As in Newton's laws of motion)
- Predicate: A logical statement, which can be evaluated.
- Axiom: A statement which is accepted without proof.
- Model: A statement which can be accepted, or not, without regard or fear for its consequence. A model is thus a resource to be used, exploited, and discarded.
- Hypothesis: A guess.
- Theory: A framework of statements, at times mooted as law, predicate, axiom, model, etc. The statements can be dated by their usage, as in 'Newton's laws'. The degree to which a framework applies to some domain needs to be stated, or else said framework is poorly constructed or even invalid. For example the size of the frame, the timescale of the sample, the number of samples, the sampling rate, any number of constraints apply, to a theory, or else it will be ignored.
- So, no, theory and model are not the same, and the usage of the terms reflects this. Otherwise their usage or confusion is a statement about the qualities of a writer who would dare to write poorly. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's a commentary on the power of the printed book, because Risner 1572 did the world a favor by making optics more accessible. I would expect that Galileo had Risner's book when he was designing his refracting telescope in 1609. The power of these print editions is worth an article, after the name question has been resolved. There is a cohort of men known by the names accorded them by their Latin translators, Alhazen, Averroes, etc. and in Latin translation they were pivotal for European civilization. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- In other words, leave out 'the first xxx' entries? They are pretty hard to establish, anyway. That brings us to 'what would be minimum statement of xxx?'. I would argue, the minimum ought to be
- Motivation for some science (i.e., for thermodynamics, what horsepower is required to lift water out of this coal mine?)
- What does this science aspire to explain?
- How much is actually explained by that science? (e.g., why do we need dark matter?)
- Boundaries for that science (i.e. does this science include 'display behavior?', does this science explain the tides?)
- --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- In other words, leave out 'the first xxx' entries? They are pretty hard to establish, anyway. That brings us to 'what would be minimum statement of xxx?'. I would argue, the minimum ought to be
chain reaction critical mass Critical mass (disambiguation) Salience kinetic corpuscularianism, the second transformation Chain of events Stability Solution (disambiguation)
To separate this thread from the previous, I document my findings from H. Floris Cohen (2010) How Modern Science Came Into The World: four civilizations, one 17th century breakthrough, which is a 'big-picture' survey, based on his (1994) The Scientific Revolution: a Historiographical Inquiry, upon which he builds, except for its last chapter, which was his 1994 view, and which is now replaced by his 2010 book.
0: H. Floris Cohen notes that history of science mixes the influences on 'science' into such a large pot, that its study has become inconclusive (Needham says 'bankrupt'). He argues that previous translations of primary sources, which translate a word as 'science', ought to translate it as 'nature-knowledge' instead. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- 'Athens' Aristotelian framework +
- 'Alexandria' Mathematical science +
- 'coercive empiricism' = mastery over nature Wm Leiss Domination of Nature
H.Floris Cohen — non-monolithic factors led to modern science
[edit]Citation: H. Floris Cohen (2010) How modern science came into the world: four civilizations, one 17th century breakthrough ISBN 9789089642394 . H. Floris Cohen is a Dutchman and historiographer. He might serve as a secondary or tertiary source for the article. He also wrote (1994) The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. The 1994 book started with 60 ideas which he reviewed for their influence on Scientific Revolutions. Its last chapter served as the basis for his 2010 book, which he began in 1994. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Vormeph, here is evidence directly contradicting your latest edit, which places English in the family of Negative Concord grammars:
William Labov (1972) "Negative Attraction and Negative Concord in English Grammar" Language 48(4) pp.773-818, has found that negative concord is a variable feature in English. In contrast, negative attraction to the word 'any' is invariant across all dialects of English. All attempts to remove 'not' from the phrase 'not any' are invariably rejected as nongrammatical.
The JSTOR citation: @article{1972
- jstor_articletype = {research-article}
- title = {Negative Attraction and Negative Concord in English Grammar}
- author = {Labov, William}
- journal = {Language}
- jstor_issuetitle = {}
- volume = {48}
- number = {4}
- jstor_formatteddate = {Dec., 1972}
- pages = {pp. 773-818}
- url = { http://www.jstor.org/stable/411989 }
- ISSN = {00978507}
- abstract = {The attraction of the negative to subject any is an invariant rule for all dialects of English, and appears to respond to the distributive and hypothetical features of this indeterminate. Negative concord, on the other hand, is a variable rule which distributes the negative rightward in response to affective factors. It is progressively extended from one dialect to another in an implicational series which initiates negation in new positions as the rule approaches obligatory status in the original environments.}
- language = {English}
- year = {1972}
- publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}
- copyright = {Copyright © 1972 Linguistic Society of America}
- }
In summary, the various dialects of English occupy the spectrum of use of negative concord, from none at all, to obligatory. It appears that you ought to revert your edit. On the bright side, you just might find support for your position in other articles published by Linguistic Society of America. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 05:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
One of the advantages of this article is that it explicitly lists some abuses of notation which in fact are being handled systematically by some of the functional programming languages such as Haskell. As humans, we subconsciously skip over the abuses, in poetic fashion, and get right to the point, or semantics. In Haskell, some of these formulaic expressions are in fact recognized as partially grammatical thunks (thought-chunks), and are held in abeyance by the compiler for filling-in at some point in the lifetime of the expression. Although Haskell allows Unicode, and could save away thunks such as
as humans, we parse this thunk as a "hungry operator" (to use Feynman's terminology) which doesn't bother us.
It may help to insert inline wp:tags, such as {{discuss}}, into the article to highlight just what needs to be explicitly expanded for the literal-minded readers among us.--Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
When following-up the page needed tag on the claim by Ben-Chaim 2004, I used JSTOR. The JSTOR review does not back up Ben-Chaim, but cites Westfall. I am inclined to drop Ben-Chaim in favor of Westfall (1980) Never at Rest. From my reading of Westfall, Westfall notes that when Newton was a child, he had a popular science book for children on how to do various mechanical projects, on a child's level, and he built the gadgets from the book: miniature mills, machines, carts, and other inventions. He certainly had a lot of time on the farm at Grantham, because he couldn't even watch his step-father's sheep, he was so preoccupied. His maternal uncle intervened to persuade his stepfather to send him to Trinity. By 1666, when Newton was 24, he was back at Grantham because of the plague scare. There, Newton formulated the inverse square law. Newton studied Opticks in his room at Trinity, etc. What Ben-Chaim attributes to Locke, etc. was 'in the air' of England. It was even obvious to the author of that children's book that Newton had. Newton had studied the same theorems we learned in Freshman Calculus from Isaac Barrow, who invented fluxions (differential calculus, independent of Leibniz). That's why Newton didn't claim Calculus as his own theory, even though Newton invented inverse fluxions (integrals), and wrote his book on fluxions so late. Westfall named Newton's biography Never at Rest because Newton's mind was never at rest.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2689412?loggedin=true&seq=10#page_scan_tab_contents 3 crises The Three Crises in Mathematics: Logicism, Intuitionism and Formalism
Lede image
[edit]
Location for discussion of the Lede Image. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The Feynman Lectures on Physics Chapter 5, Volume I, last diagram, maps distances to objects, ranging from the radius of a nucleus to the edge of the universe The previous chapters cover 1: & 2:the nature of things (the atomic theory), time, space, physical phenomena. 3:The relation of physics to other sciences 4:Energy So to me, the disputed image covers all this, and Chapter 5, Volume I, last diagram covers all the objects of the image, versus a distance scale. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is synthesis of material that was never meant to be condensed into one image, and is grossly misleading in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Since Feynman named the objects, he already condensed them in his image. But please explain how his image misleads us in general. Might it be that our mental image of manifold objects as one is misguided? Might it be that inclusion of formal objects in a manifold is misleading? Or simply that the image in the lede depicting formal models is bound to human scale? Or that the image in the lede depicting atoms is wrong? ? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is synthesis of material that was never meant to be condensed into one image, and is grossly misleading in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- The size of objects is not the same thing as the 'size' of where science applies, or how they are divided/structured. The whole thing is, simply put, not even wrong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have been assuming that we have the same kind of background; the article measurement#Standardization of measurement units is meaningful to me, and C. S. Peirce in my view, did fundamental meaningful work. I respect cogent views and would appreciate a statement where you might diverge from the view that scale in physics continues to be a commensurable concept. For example, the Rayleigh criterion of physical optics does not invalidate the measurement of the angular width of a star measured in an optical system and the Airy disk suffices to describe it. Again, where might scale matter to you in a description of the size of physical phenomena? If the realm of physics does not suffice, please state where that realm ceases to apply in your view. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- To be explicit, the scales I refer to range from the atomic nucleus outward. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to give an example to illustrate your objection. Here is an example of an antenna that operates at atomic scale rather than macro scale. How about providing the readers an example to bolster what you mean? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Spatial scale is an example of the form of reasoning used for the disputed image. What is unacceptable about this form of reasoning? How about providing the readers an example to bolster what you mean? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 12:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a citation for "the most important application of science"; might this be what you refer to? 13:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- As you might see, I am trying to understand just what domain of definition to which you might be referring, as in twenty questions. 15:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a real-world utilitarian error while modelling school-bus allocation which was intended to save money. But the school superintendent neglected to test the model against the stakeholders. Might this kind of public policy error be what you mean as an example?
- The size of objects is not the same thing as the 'size' of where science applies, or how they are divided/structured. The whole thing is, simply put, not even wrong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- You're having a discussion with yourself here. This is simple, this image is pure WP:SYNTH, and is an idiosyncratic mish mash of poorly organized ideas. This does not only concern individual elements of the image (many of which are wrong on their own, like the claim that Chemistry apply to nanometer-and-below scales, but rather its general organization, structure, and accuracy (like claims that it's meaningful to talk about social sciences as 'things that apply to scales of ~1 m' in the first place). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Good, it's tough to discuss without participants. Feynman volume I, chapter 3 discusses the fact of unknowns when discussing the relation of physics to other sciences and acknowledges that he is speaking at a very high level. Even so, he was able to speak to an increasingly large audience of professionals as the lectures proceeded, and his practice was to make his lectures as understandable as possible, with no mysterious gaps. The practice of free and bold estimation of quantities (even just the order of magnitude, when nothing else is known), as in the diagram, was and has been deliberately taught to physicists, as a basis for reasoning, certainly since Kepler and Galileo. I agree that the social sciences need more discussion per the diagram. Feynman's colleague, Murray Gell-mann's take is that complex adaptive systems need discussion, beginning with a measure for complexity. Gell-mann proposes that message-length between parties (in the disputed diagram: 1-2 meters in height, for humans) be considered in that measure.
- So it appears that a citation for your view, showing that the scale for chemical structures is wrong is in order, but Feynman I ch.5 shows agreement with his description for DNA (at 35 angstroms for the unit cell i.e. 3.5 nanometers)? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- There appear to be three arguments here concerning Efbrazil's image. Firstly, is the image original research; secondly, is the image misleading; thirdly, even if the image does not represent original research and is not misleading, is it appropriate for the lead in the Science article?
- Firstly, is it original research? As Ancheta correctly states above, the scale on the left of the image is similar to that in Chapter 5 of the Feynman lectures, so no originality there. The right of the image, listing different branches of science and the scale to which they apply, is to my mind pretty obvious if you link it to the concrete objects on the left - biology relates to cells and organisms and cells are an object marked on the scale. I don't think this counts as a violation of WP:SYNTH as it is not leading to conclusions that other authors have not reached (for the main, with the possible exception of social sciences, the links are a bit of a no-brainer).
- Secondly,is it misleading? I'm not really sure why Headbomb thinks it is misleading. It is a lighthearted arbitrary way to organize the disciplines within science and I don't really see how anyone is going to come to false conclusions by looking at it. You could argue about the precise position that things might appear on the scale, but anyone sensible should realize that positions on a logarithmic scale in essentially a cartoon graphic are going to be approximate. No-one is going to use this image as a concrete guide as to how big something is, surely? I'm happy to change my mind if Headbomb can give convincing reasons why it might mislead people.
- Thirdly, is it appropriate? There are many ways that you could choose to arrange the disciplines of science, and I don't feel that this way is particularly better or worse than any other. It is a cleanly presented attractive graphic that lists many of the fields of science according to one of many logical sequences, and for what it's worth, I like it. PeaBrainC (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- "lighthearted arbitrary way to organize the disciplines within science" exactly. This is an encyclopedia, not a lie to children handwavy "oh it's roughly like this, if you don't ask too much question". And one based on original synthesis of a source that never was intended to be synthesized that way. No one talks of social science at 'something that applies on orders of magnitude ~1m", or that geosciences apply from scales of 106 to 10∞ m. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- You're having a discussion with yourself here. This is simple, this image is pure WP:SYNTH, and is an idiosyncratic mish mash of poorly organized ideas. This does not only concern individual elements of the image (many of which are wrong on their own, like the claim that Chemistry apply to nanometer-and-below scales, but rather its general organization, structure, and accuracy (like claims that it's meaningful to talk about social sciences as 'things that apply to scales of ~1 m' in the first place). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Don't see your point really, what is your principal objection - are you saying typical size isn't a good measure? Typical speed would give something similar. Would you prefer something which distinguishes between the 'soft' and 'hard' sciences as in Purity? Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The principal objections are that this is a) original synthesis, because this organization of sciences isn't backed by reliable sources, it's taking a source and making it say things it didn't say, b) idiosyncratic, because no one organizes sciences in this way, and c) both factually wrong and misleading. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Headbomb Please see the replies timestamped with 14:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- The principal objections are that this is a) original synthesis, because this organization of sciences isn't backed by reliable sources, it's taking a source and making it say things it didn't say, b) idiosyncratic, because no one organizes sciences in this way, and c) both factually wrong and misleading. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Don't see your point really, what is your principal objection - are you saying typical size isn't a good measure? Typical speed would give something similar. Would you prefer something which distinguishes between the 'soft' and 'hard' sciences as in Purity? Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Could someone explain what this diagram has to do with Feynman and his lectures - I have the book on my desk since I'm looking up entropy. There are lots of other sources for the scales in the universe. Second, the diagram has arrows showing the physical sciences as only applying to objects earth size and larger and atomic size and smaller. Physics covers all scales (which is why Feynman has his scale in chapter 5) - think of electrical circuits, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics. Third, the other sciences don't fit neatly into such a scale either. Biological sciences deal with scales from viruses up to ecosystems up to the size of the earth. Social sciences aren't limited to the size of the human mind. Think of anthropologists studying whole societies. While there is an hierarchy of sciences in terms of how they depend on each other, this does not map to the scale of the universe. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- @StarryGrandma, at the scale of geology, I learned from User:Bruce Bathurst, a geologist, that his science is an application of thermodynamics; that when geological predictions are made, they stem from material processes, and can be searched for, as in astronomy. But, time is not the dimension of observation, space is the appropriate dimension, and a geological prediction is for known versus not yet known material objects. (It's not until we get to multi-messenger astronomy that geology has to acknowledge other material processes, not yet observed on Earth, and that the time of observation gets to be a factor.) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)
- The main problem with the image is WP:UNDUE on the mapping of branch to scale, when a branch doesn't fit in one scale it is omitted i.e. where's physics? Widefox; talk 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Physics covers all the scales. That is in the citation, and is also noted in the contribution above yours. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- But it ain't in the image. Nor is chemistry and classical mechanics something that apply at scales of 10−9 m or less. Or any other of the gross inaccuracies of the image. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, it's in the diagram: the atomic theory informs the entire diagram, starting with the atomic nucleus, and we see, at ascending scales, assemblages of material points, as in chemistry, which embody the objects shown, beginning with Feynman I Ch. 1 (The relation to classical mechanics is a theorem of Newton's Principia ( I. Newton, I. B Cohen, A. Whitmann (1999), p. 956 (Proposition 75, Theorem 35), as embodied in Earth-scale objects, where Newton proved it was possible to treat Earth as a point.) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Physics covers all the scales. That is in the citation, and is also noted in the contribution above yours. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- User:Ancheta Wis physics isn't in the image. That alone means it doesn't portray the branches of science. A non-starter. Anyhow, the selection of any mapping of branches of science to any property (not just size) would be an arbitrary selection that is UNDUE. i.e. this one is a bad version of Orders of magnitude (length), but we have many to choose from {{Orders of magnitude}}. The image has oversimplifications and is also wrong e.g. classical mechanics
...macroscopic...
is incorrectly in small scale. Widefox; talk 19:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- User:Ancheta Wis physics isn't in the image. That alone means it doesn't portray the branches of science. A non-starter. Anyhow, the selection of any mapping of branches of science to any property (not just size) would be an arbitrary selection that is UNDUE. i.e. this one is a bad version of Orders of magnitude (length), but we have many to choose from {{Orders of magnitude}}. The image has oversimplifications and is also wrong e.g. classical mechanics
- Please see above reply 19:38, 30 Sep. The Atomic theory is a better-founded starting point with a history dating back 2500 years. That is Feynman I Ch. 1. ff. "The expression of all scientific knowledge in a single sentence." Also, please keep the ref at the foot of this talk page section. Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)
- Reply to 21:51, 30 September 2018 @Widefox based on my reading of UNDUE, R. P. Feynman 1963 qualifies as a prominent adherent of the atomic theory, and even participated in its historical, practical application: the atomic bomb. (At the time that he published, quantum chromodynamics (viz., Murray Gell-mann's theory) had not yet been formulated.) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Pure WP:SYNTH, and synthesis that is not even wrong too. Physics is not the atomic theory, nor is atomic theory all of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The simple fact that the diagram occupies space in the article (the diagram spans an angular distance in the optical field of view of the reader) means that physics is part of the diagram. (Ibn al-Haytham Book of Optics is my citation)
- There are probably a dozen books with the word 'universe' in their title, written by physicists, that contradict your assertion. Their basic narrative starts with space, go on to time, then matter, and end up with sentience. --14:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that images be based on reliable sources, provided they don't imply something that isn't in the article text. You don't give much to work from but I guess your objection the is that the text gives no scale associated with the sciences. I tried a google images on 'science' and the firdt lot I got are straightforward images without text, for instance [3] and [4]. Might something like that be better? Have you any particular proposal? Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Leave the image out entirely as irredeemably bad, grossly inaccurate, and grossly misleading. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is simply not a constructive comment. We're encouraged to have a picture at the top of articles illustrative of the topic. Did you look at the images I linked to? Are those okay or if not why not? And please try to be a bit more articulate that 'irrdeemably bad' otherwise I rather feel like just ignoring your comments as coming from someone who can't think. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- We're encouraged to have pictures sure, this isn't license to put a factually wrong and grossly misleading picture just for the sake of having a picture. I have already detailed several problems with the image. And I'm not in the UK, so your links don't work. Plenty of accurate images exist to illustrate science (e.g. scientists at work, a famous scientist/philosopher of science, a famous experiment, a famous scientific icon, ...). There are also plenty of hierarchy/classifications of sciences that have been proposed, and this image comes nowhere any acceptable hierachies. The debate is not 'how can we save this image', the image is hopeless. The debate should be how can we accurately illustrate the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)File
- Synth and not even wrong covers it. A quick look at the original version shows where its gone wrong [5] - it had "physics" so it seems to have started at UNDUE and been corrupted, now unusable. Widefox; talk 21:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I replied to your UNDUE above with a citation to 'prominent adherent'.
- wp:Not Even Wrong is a judgement that needs a citation. Wolfgang Pauli used this phrase rhetorically, but that is only his narrative. "The atomic theory" is an example of such a concept, formerly vilified as hopelessly wrong, over thousands of years, but resurrected by Dalton two centuries ago. From atomic theory being mooted by the Presocratics to being judged 'not even wrong', then to being used in in a weapon in the twentieth c., remaining a threat to the globe, to this day, means that a 'Not even wrong' tag requires backup with a citation showing so.
- Perceptron is another example of a scientific concept that was attacked upon its publication, but which is now considered basic to unsupervised learning.
- Since the domain of physics is space, time (that is, motion and change), and matter (and now information (negative entropy)), it is possible to analyze just why space is a logical organizing principle, and Feynman 1963 justifies it.
- But where are the WP: policies justifying the mooted tag, because it's currently a red link. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- You were unable to access those images? They were just in the first few I got when I used Google to get images about 'science'. I'm rather surprised. One was on a BBC site and the other on a university site. I'm very surprised that you were blocked from accessing them. Is there a particular problem you can say something about, rather than just that they were in the UK? Anyway thanks for being a bit more expansive about the sort of thing which you miight find okay. Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Synth and not even wrong covers it. A quick look at the original version shows where its gone wrong [5] - it had "physics" so it seems to have started at UNDUE and been corrupted, now unusable. Widefox; talk 21:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- We're encouraged to have pictures sure, this isn't license to put a factually wrong and grossly misleading picture just for the sake of having a picture. I have already detailed several problems with the image. And I'm not in the UK, so your links don't work. Plenty of accurate images exist to illustrate science (e.g. scientists at work, a famous scientist/philosopher of science, a famous experiment, a famous scientific icon, ...). There are also plenty of hierarchy/classifications of sciences that have been proposed, and this image comes nowhere any acceptable hierachies. The debate is not 'how can we save this image', the image is hopeless. The debate should be how can we accurately illustrate the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)File
- That is simply not a constructive comment. We're encouraged to have a picture at the top of articles illustrative of the topic. Did you look at the images I linked to? Are those okay or if not why not? And please try to be a bit more articulate that 'irrdeemably bad' otherwise I rather feel like just ignoring your comments as coming from someone who can't think. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Leave the image out entirely as irredeemably bad, grossly inaccurate, and grossly misleading. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please see above reply 19:38, 30 Sep. The Atomic theory is a better-founded starting point with a history dating back 2500 years. That is Feynman I Ch. 1. ff. "The expression of all scientific knowledge in a single sentence." Also, please keep the ref at the foot of this talk page section. Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/75/20130520173056%21The_Scientific_Universe.png){kind=link}
- The fact that the image doesn't include physics seems like a pretty serious problem. For me, that completely rules it out as a possible lede image for the Science article. A scheme for organizing the branches of science that doesn't end up including physics as a branch has failed.--Srleffler (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thinking about it and looking at other images about 'science' I think not having any words in the lead image would be better. If the words and the scale are removed how does that work out? Just the five circles, and remove the words around the formal sciences one. Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Well that at least has hope of being something appropriate. I'd rather start from a blank slate and decide what the image should contain first, go from there to decide on what the elements of that image should be. The three main divisions we have in the article are a) natural sciences b) social sciences c) formal sciences. So going by that, we need three things
- Natural science -- obvious candidate here is the 3-electron atom (Bohr model), e.g. File:Atom-1222511.jpg (obviously not the only image that could be used)
- Formal science -- something from math or logic. Could be Euler's identity/Pythagoras' theorem, or perhaps a Rubik's cube or a platonic solid. Lots of choices here. (e.g. File:Rubik's_cube.svg)
- Social science -- something that illustrates society in someway. Possibly a handshake File:Hermandad_-_friendship.jpg (not the only handshake).
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- A Bohr model atom would still need neutrons, and the current Bohr atom image has both neutrons and protons
- A DNA molecule embodies the genetic code; DNA could represent a mathematical/logical form and a biological form at the same time
- Oxytocin molecules are released during social bonding, both among adults, and between mother and baby. It has been called the moral molecule --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 05:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Or you can shove protons + neutrons in a single thing called the nucleus. The main issue with the version in that image is that it's overlaid on top of File:CMS Higgs-event.jpg a Higgs event which detracts from what is an icon of science. Likewise DNA in no way represents a 'mathematical/logical form', and social sciences go beyond neurobiology, which is more natural science than social science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think anything is helped by going on about that a lithium atom would have 2 1s and 1 2s electrons rather than the three shown circling around together in those pictures. I think trying for some simple stylized graphics that everyone would recognize easily rather than any sort of accuracy should be the aim. Dmcq (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see that Sociology has a lead illustration of a network which could equally help for some formal science. Makes me think of an old song by Tom Lehrer ;-) but I think with a brain for the more physical things it works okay. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support the network diagram. Since the network is abstract, it applies to mathematical, logical, physical, biological, chemical, and social branches of science. It doesn't even have to occupy space, as it can even apply to framework cultures, language, etc. I never thought I would ever see space as a controversial topic, but here we are. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ C. Ladd (1883) "On the Algebra of Logic", p.62 which appeared in Studies in logic Johns Hopkins University, C.S. Peirce, ed.
- ^ R. P. Feynman (1963), The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.I, Chaps.1,2,3,4,&5.