I'm interested in exploring this further. Are you saying that not all scientific research is proven fact? This is certainly true. Some is proven, to our current understanding. What I mean by this is that science sits outside the realm of a priori or inherent truths... these are the preserve of mathematics. Scientific theories remain just that - theories - until they are proven, to our current understanding. By which I mean that Newton's laws of motion were 'proven' until Einstein came along. This sort of science is our best approximation to truth. Because scientific truths are a posteriori truths, i.e., they need to be proven, they need empirical evidence, and experiments need reproducible results.

But this doesn't mean that scientific truths are vague approximations. Some are, certainly, at the frontiers of science. But many - and arguably all of those used in engineering - are based on proven (to our current understanding) facts.

If I say you're travelling at 30 miles per hour, that's true. Or is it? No, it's an approximation, you're actually travelling at 30.1 miles per hour. But actually 30.1 is just a better approximation, really you're travelling at 30.097 mph, etc.

Any subsequent proof doesn't remove the previous truth, it just refines it. If our scientific understanding improves, we get a better approximation. Newton's laws of motion, for example, are perfectly adequate for most everyday engineering. But if you accelerate to say half the speed of light, they won't be a good enough approximation, and you'll need to apply relativity.

Please could you give me an example of where engineering goes against scientific truths?

I'm happy to answer these.

1) No. No country has put tungsten 'rods from God' into space.
2) No.
3) No.

You've tried to make this distinction before, and I've never understood what you meant. Engineering is just applied science, whether you're talking about chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, whatever. If you're saying that 'real world' solutions don't match theory, well, this is true only insofar as a theory, for simplicity, describes ideal conditions, whereas in the real world an implementation of a scientific theory may have to deal with external factors. For example, an electrical engineer may have to take steps to ensure that rats can't chew through his cables... but it's absurd and a false syllogism to conclude from this that electrical science doesn't mention rats, but electrical engineers have to deal with rats, therefore engineering isn't science.

This is a good point. Some people are more vulnerable than others, whether through circumstance or personality, and addiction is a real problem. It needs to be seen in the same way as other addictions, such as alcohol. Treatment and support groups are available, but I suspect that those most in need are reluctant to use them.

Yes. This is more evidence against those who say that Hamilton only wins because he has the best car.

Red Bull were told by the officials that he had to give the place back, and they passed the message on to Max. It wasn't Red Bull's decision.
Weirdly though, it might not have been an issue were it not for Red Bull earlier in the race complaining that the Mercedes cars were gaining an advantage by going beyond track limits at that exact same corner. Hamilton complained, but then changed his route to remain on the track... so when Max went off at the same point and gained a place, the officials didn't really have a difficult decision to make, they had to apply the same rule to Red Bull that they did to Mercedes.

This deserves a merit

Definitely, and it's great to see the top two teams so closely matched. Red Bull I think do have the better car, but Bottas was crucial to this race, giving Mercedes that 2:1 split strategy advantage early on. Superb work from Hamilton to just about keep Verstappen at bay at the end. Crazy last few laps.

The Ireland result was quite shocking, but I think the Turkey result is the biggest thing in this round of fixtures. A 3-0 away win vs Norway is quite an achievement, and it puts the Netherlands under huge pressure even this early on in the campaign. It already looks like their return fixture against Turkey could decide the group.

True I suppose, he does have limits. His attempted coup was quite half-hearted, and he distanced himself from the mob at the first sniff of trouble. It was mostly bluster and an attempt to save face after the election loss... but in the end he went more quietly than might have been anticipated.

Looks like we agree on most things after all
Venezuela is a good example, yes. Communist societies, or socialist fully-managed societies, are no good, and they fail because they are too easy to corrupt. Extreme left-wing is easily corruptible, and extreme right-wing (laissez-faire capitalist, a.k.a. libertarian) is easily exploitable. Neither works very well. The best approach*, I think, is a capitalist society governed by a left-leaning party... but not too left. The thing that works best will be the thing that is hardest to corrupt or exploit. Media misinformation needs dealing with, too, as this is the biggest corrupter of the democratic process.


It's difficult. But as above, I suppose. You probably can't eliminate advantage, but a system that controls it and reduces it to a more acceptable level would be an improvement on what we have now.



* Best approach that is workable today. Whereas best approach in a perfect (and post-scarcity) world would be something that includes a fundamental redefinition of the barometers of value and success, and removes the links to power, and to money, which is largely the quantification of power.

I chopped that bit of your post because I wasn't addressing that, I was addressing the 'passion of followers' bit. Also because I get sick of writing citation needed.
But here you go, you can have your 'biggest, clearest chunk of evidence' back:




[CITATION NEEDED]


... Unless you're referring to the 'my pillow guy' bit? Is that the same as satan-soldiers-fun-hat-guy from a while back?
If Trump has evidence, strange that he wasn't willing to present it in court.

I'll agree that some Trump supporters are extremely pro-Trump, and Biden doesn't elicit the same emotional response, either for or against. But this is immaterial in the context of an election. It's not about whose supporters are more passionately behind their guy. It's about who has enough voters to win seats.

---

Yes, he does appear to be struggling somewhat, and is likely too old for the office. His whole selling point really was "I'm not Trump"... which is great if you're a unifying compromise figure who can pull in sufficient numbers of voters... but then the strategy may unravel a bit once you win and move into office.

I wouldn't be surprised, either.

Red Bull do look to have the best package i) at the moment, and ii) in the heat and dry of Bahrain.
But this doesn't mean they are guaranteed the win, and it doesn't mean that they'll dominate the season. Mercedes are formidable and not easily beaten.

But... it does look closer than it has recently. There is cause for optimism that there will be some real competition this season. And also that Mercedes may struggle if the low/high rake issue is the cause of their under-performance.

You can repeat it as often as you like, but you need to supply some evidence.


The problem with clicking, as you advise, on images, is that you then lose the context.
Perhaps you could supplement the images with some context from this page: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-crowd-biden-trump-support-idUSKBN27F27Y

There were fewer people at Biden rallies because he didn't think that massive gatherings of close-packed people during a respiratory pandemic was a great idea. Whereas I'd imagine Trump just wanted pictures of a big crowd, regardless of whether it killed people.

Yes, scientists are still human, and egos can be a problem.

I'd say that the biggest challenge to scientific integrity is probably money, by which I mean scientific experiments funded by industry, where there is a clearly desired outcome. I'm not suggesting that links between science and business should be severed, that's a bad idea and it would impede progress... but certainly there should be more rigorous oversight of these purportedly impartial business-funded studies.

Real have also lost four points in the last five matches. They're six points behind Atletico, and with a worse goal difference. Atletico may have a harder run-in, but still, it's difficult to see how Real aren't in a worse position.
Barca may be a different story, four points behind and with a superior goal difference, and they're winning every game.

I think it will be close, but Atletico should still be favourites, closely followed by Barca, with Real in a clear third place.

It's great that the cars are close. I hope this carries over throughout the season and we see some real competition across the grid.
Bottas was complaining a bit, and Red Bull do look to have the best car (at least in Bahrain)... but I think it's clear that Mercedes have improved their car since the testing, and will be right up there at the top of grid. Difficult to determine at the moment how representative current performance is compared to the cooler tracks of Europe, though.

I think Mercedes may be right that the subtle rule changes for this season have impacted their low-rake design more than Red Bull's high-rake... in which case Mercedes could well be on the back foot all season, still up near the front of the grid, yes, but perhaps behind Max.

Yes, I think we agree that some degree of intervention is required, and that the aim of any intervention should be the benefit of the population.

I'm sure we also agree that communism is a bad idea. A system that ensures equality of outcome disincentivises innovation and entrepreneurship, stifles development, discourages energy and risk-taking and destroys free-thinking and creativity. On top of which, a system whose strength is premised on the power of collectivised labour is utterly outdated in our high-tech era of ever-increasing automation (even, now, automation of traditionally white-collar jobs). And from a crypto perspective, smart contract platforms will accelerate the trend and allow automation of whole industries.

The reason I am in favour of intervention is because I want there to be equality of opportunity. Unfettered capitalism means that those who already have power and wealth start from a huge advantage. If you're highly intelligent, highly creative, highly energetic, but you're born in a poor inner-city family, get sent to a failing school, don't pass your exams, have to take insecure low-paid jobs, then you never get a fair chance to fulfill your potential; you're condemned due to the innate inequality of the system. Conversely, if you're a lazy fool born to an ultra-rich family, you'll get sent to the best private school, be fast-tracked into a great job, then through the revolving door into politics and maybe even become prime minister or president, from where you'll do everything you can to maintain the unfairness that worked so well in your own favour.

Intervention is necessary in order to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance to achieve their potential. No intervention means that those who start with an advantage can maintain and increase that advantage for further generations. Slight intervention is like recycling your domestic plastics in order to fight climate change; it glosses over the problem, makes it look like it's being addressed, whilst at the same time having next to no effect.

We do also have Norway in the group, and Montenegro might snatch a draw against Turkey or the Netherlands.
But some matches do seem pointless... what is the purpose of having Gibraltar in a group? It's likely they'll end the campaign with zero points. Far better to have weaker teams play off against one another to see who then goes into a smaller group with the big teams. This would also improve fixture congestion for the big teams.

I've actually had the privilege in the past of being given CERN particle traces to analyse. It's quite something to see, before your eyes, direct evidence of these tiny pieces of reality.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge. It's those who pursue money who have a motivation to guard secrets and hide understanding... business people and politicians.


Yes, of course. I never thought I'd ever be discussing elementary particle physics with you, and that we would agree! But even beneath that, a 'particle' is not really a particle. And wave-particle duality is a simplification, too. It does seem that, beneath everything, the universe consists of fields, and it is the perturbations and interplay of these fields that manifest as matter.