Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-08 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

  Last week PLoS ONE received its first impact factor — a stunning 4.351.


 Stunning?  Nature = 51.15  Science = 47.72; and you're bragging about a
 4.351?

   This puts the open access journal in the top 25th percentile of ISI’s
 “Biology”


 There are many thousands of science journals, so that means there are many
 hundreds that are better than PLoS ONE; thus nobody, absolutely positively
 nobody, would publish an article in PLoS ONE that they thought was important
 if they could get it published in a better journal.


  where nobel laureates submit articles to.


 I imagine that Nobel laureates have posted lots of stuff on the internet to
 many different message boards over the years, but the question to ask is how
 many of those Nobel laureates received their prize for stuff posted to PLoS
 ONE? Zero. In contrast although I haven't counted it out I would estimate
 that 60% of all the Nobel Prizes given out since 1945 in physics or
 chemistry or medicine was for articles published in just 4 journals, Nature,
 Science, Physical Review Letters, and The New England journal of Medicine.

  PLoS ONE is the best known journal of the open-access movement,


 That's like being the most virile eunuch in the harem.

This is getting comically Freudian. :)


 I never even mentioned religion in this discussion.


   I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are
 about Science with a capital S.


   Wow, calling a guy known for not liking religion religious! Never heard
 that one before, at least not before the sixth grade.

  Well if you're that confident then this is a simple no risk way for
  you to make $1000, hey I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds it's easy money!  So 
  are
  you willing to put your money where your mouth is?


  No, I agree with you on the odds.


 But why do you agree with the odds? If a very low ranking journal got
 astonishingly lucky and published a paper of HUGE transcendental importance
 before much higher ranked journals then it's just a matter of time before
 the much higher ranked journals catch on and start publishing articles on
 that subject of their own. But I'll tell you what, because I like you for a
 limited time only I'm willing to increase the odds to 100 to 1; if you
 accept this bet before noon tomorrow on the east coast of the USA and if
 Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive article
 about life after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $10,000, if none
 of them do you only have to give me $100. But wait there's more! As a
 special bonus if you win not only will I give you $10,000 but I will also
 kiss your ass and give you 10 minutes to gather a crowd. Operators are
 standing by, don't delay.

  You don't understand what I'm saying at all.


 True, but the question is do you understand what you're saying at all?

What I'm trying to say is that I believe you do not distinguish:

A) Science the method of inquiry

from

B) Science the human institution

You put both in the same bag. By doing that you fail to apply A to B
and even A to A. This creates a blind spot. As for the scientific
journals, Russel was way more eloquent than me.

Telmo.

  John K Clark




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.

2013-04-08 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
 On 4/4/2013 3:35 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 4/3/2013 2:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

 You're making the same mistake as John Clark, confusing the physical
 computer with the algorithm. Powerful computers don't help us if we
 don't
 have the right algorithm. The central mystery of AI, in my opinion, is
 why
 on earth haven't we found a general learning algorithm yet. Either it's
 too
 complex for our monkey brains, or you're right that computation is not
 the
 whole story. I believe in the former, but not I'm not sure, of course.
 Notice that I'm talking about generic intelligence, not consciousness,
 which
 I strongly believe to be two distinct phenomena.


 Then do you think there could be philosophical zombies?

 Yes.


 Could it be that some humans are zombies, or do you assume that to be a
 zombie would mean being physically different from a human being?

I don't know.

 How would you
 operationally test a robot to see whether it was (a) intelligent

 I don't see intelligence as a binary property, but relative to goals.
 The classical answer for human-like intelligence is something like the
 Turing test, but I don't like it. I don't think that a generic AI
 should be measured by it's ability to fool us into making us think
 it's human. Instead I'd have to ask you first what do you want the
 robot for? Personally I would want robots to free Humanity from
 unwanted labor. This is a high-level goal that requires what I
 consider to be generic AI. Can it learn all sorts of tasks like
 driving a car, working in a factory, following fuzzy requirements, etc


 Yes, I agree with that.  I'd say intelligence is being able to learn to be
 competent at many tasks, but there is no completely general intelligence.

Agreed.

 I think for social beings it includes being able to explain, to give reasons,
 which implies some empathy.

No doubt. But could the ability to model other beings be sufficient
for empathy? A sort of dispassionate empathy? I think so.


 etc?

 (b)
 conscious?

 I don't believe that such a test can exist. I don't even think we can
 know if a glass of water is conscious.


 Have you ever been unconscious?

I don't know. All I know is that there are periods of my timeline that
I cannot remember. During college, there where a couple of incidents
that I cannot remember but my friends would tell you I was conscious.

Telmo.


 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Scientific journals

2013-04-08 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:24:12 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:38:24AM -0400, John Clark wrote: 
  
  
  But why do you agree with the odds? If a very low ranking journal got 
  astonishingly lucky and published a paper of HUGE transcendental 
 importance 
  before much higher ranked journals then it's just a matter of time 
 before 
  the much higher ranked journals catch on and start publishing articles 
 on 
  that subject of their own. But I'll tell you what, because I like you 
 for a 
  limited time only I'm willing to increase the odds to 100 to 1; if you 
  accept this bet before noon tomorrow on the east coast of the USA and if 
  Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive 
 article 
  about life after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $10,000, if 
 none 
  of them do you only have to give me $100. But wait there's more! As a 
  special bonus if you win not only will I give you $10,000 but I will 
 also 
  kiss your ass and give you 10 minutes to gather a crowd. Operators are 
  standing by, don't delay. 
  

 The top two journals have a policy of not even sending out half of 
 their submissions to peer review. This editorial rejection rate really 
 means that the next big thing will almost certainly not be published 
 in Science or Nature. Of course this leads to high impact factors for 
 those journals, as they're only publishing papers in established 
 bandwagon fields, with lots of people citing each other's papers. 

 What's somewhat disturbing is that a lot of middle ranked journals are 
 now doing the same 


This to me is revealing of the overall decline of science as tool of 
Enlightenment into it's corrupt, indulgence-selling era. The same thing can 
be seen with universities, as the prestige brand institutions are elevated 
beyond the reach of anyone but the most overprepared students from the 
wealthiest families, the value of a non-elite bachelor's degree level is 
falling beneath the level of the debt it incurs. The stage is now set for a 
kind of academic feudalism which is driven by careerism and accreditation 
rather than learning and understanding. The fallout of this is that no 
university can afford to support research outside of the bandwagon and 
science becomes little more than a clergy for corporate legal departments. 
Oh well, Western Civilization was a nice idea while it lasted.

Craig
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Free-Will discussion

2013-04-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 It does mean you could replicate World War II if you replicate the
 complex arrangement of matter. It does not mean you would necessarily
 understand it if you replicated it, any more than a photocopier
 understands the image it is copying. But if the photocopier were
 technically very good, the copy could be arbitrarily close to the
 original in the opinion of anyone who *did* understand it. Similarly,
 if you replicated World War II to a close enough tolerance the
 observers inside the replication would understand it and an external
 observer would understand it.


 Your view assumes that time is a generic plenum of duration, while I
 understand that it is precisely the opposite. Time is proprietary and
 unrepeatable subjective content. Experiences can be inspected and controlled
 publicly to a limited extent but no single event or collection of events can
 be repeated in the absolute sense since all events are eventually
 intertwined causally with all others. You want to make this about
 arrangements of matter but it is about experiences of time.

Where do you get the idea that subjective events cannot repeat? It
seems another thing that you've just made up, with no rational
justification.

 Matter is, indeed, not absolutely important for mind. What is
 important is the functional arrangement of matter. If this is
 replicated, the mind is replicated.


 By that assumption, if I arrange styrofoam balls in the shape of the
 molecules of a cheeseburger, then a gigantic person would be able to eat it
 and it would taste like a cheeseburger. If that were true, then we should
 see the same arrangements over and over again - giant ants the size of a
 planet, etc. Arrangement is only important because of the properties of what
 you are arranging. If you arrange inert blobs, then all that you can ever
 get is larger, more complex arrangements of inert blobs. No mind is present
 in arrangement.

Before we move to styrofoam balls, it's problematic that you don't
even accept  the modest assumption that the same matter in the same
configuration will yield the same behaviour and same subjective
states, such as they may be.

 This happens in the course of
 normal physiology, whereby all the matter in your body is replaced
 with different matter from the food you eat, but you still feel that
 you are you.


 That's because your lifetime is made of subjective experience, and
 experience is publicly accessible in a limited way as forms and functions.
 Your view confuses the vehicle of life with a producer of life.

If your lifetime is made of subjective experiences, the matter in your
body seems essential for these experiences to be realised. Disrupting
the form of this matter disrupts the experiences, while swapping the
matter for different matter in the same form does not.

 But why would a complex experience require a complex arrangement of
 matter?


 It doesn't require it, that is just the inevitable embodiment of it. If you
 want to play baseball, you play on a baseball diamond. The baseball diamond
 doesn't conjure baseball players to the field out of the aether (only in the
 dreams of Kevin Costner and functionalists does 'Build it and they will
 come. work out.).

But it does seem, at the very least, that building a person out of
matter builds the experiences. Use the same matter but disrupt the
form - no experiences; use different matter and keep the form -
experiences.

 The experience is primary, and why is to allow complex interactions and
 experiences as a kind of trellis to extend aesthetic qualities. If the
 experience supervenes on arrangement then you have to explain why there is
 any experience there to begin with, what it is, and how it comes to attach
 itself to 'arrangements'. You can't do that, but nobody can because it's
 incorrect.

Can you explain what use there is for bodies, why experience is
attached to them and disrupting the body disrupts the experience?

 The influences going back billions of years are just the means to
 create organisms now alive.


 Why do you think that there is a now? What causes it and where does it
 come from? Aren't the organisms now alive just the means to create organisms
 which will live in the future?

The organisms now alive purport to create organisms in the future, but
they might all be wiped out. The universe doesn't care and has no
purpose or function.

 It took billions of years of evolution to
 create cars, but if a car randomly fell together from scrap iron and
 so on in the exact form of a Toyota Corolla, it would function exactly
 the same as a Toyota Corolla despite never seeing the inside of a
 Toyota factory.


 That's because the Toyota doesn't feel like anything. If it did, then it
 would not feel like a Toyota since it had never been inside of a Toyota
 factory. It would, in the absence of other cars, roads, garages, etc feel
 like a collection of scrap iron would 

Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.

2013-04-08 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Monday, April 8, 2013 7:42:22 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: 
 wrote: 
  On 4/4/2013 3:35 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
  
  On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, meekerdb 
  meek...@verizon.netjavascript: 
 wrote: 
  
  On 4/3/2013 2:44 PM, Jason Resch wrote: 
  
  You're making the same mistake as John Clark, confusing the physical 
  computer with the algorithm. Powerful computers don't help us if we 
  don't 
  have the right algorithm. The central mystery of AI, in my opinion, 
 is 
  why 
  on earth haven't we found a general learning algorithm yet. Either 
 it's 
  too 
  complex for our monkey brains, or you're right that computation is 
 not 
  the 
  whole story. I believe in the former, but not I'm not sure, of 
 course. 
  Notice that I'm talking about generic intelligence, not 
 consciousness, 
  which 
  I strongly believe to be two distinct phenomena. 
  
  
  Then do you think there could be philosophical zombies? 
  
  Yes. 
  
  
  Could it be that some humans are zombies, or do you assume that to be a 
  zombie would mean being physically different from a human being? 

 I don't know. 


Sociopaths are emotional zombies. Corruption or addiction can make people 
into moral zombies.  Driving for a long time can make someone a highway 
zombie. Cults and brainwashing can make someone an intellectual zombie. 
There are many ways which aspects of personal human consciousness can 
become subconscious, sub-personal, and sub-human.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Free-Will discussion

2013-04-08 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Monday, April 8, 2013 8:53:58 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:

 On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 

  It does mean you could replicate World War II if you replicate the 
  complex arrangement of matter. It does not mean you would necessarily 
  understand it if you replicated it, any more than a photocopier 
  understands the image it is copying. But if the photocopier were 
  technically very good, the copy could be arbitrarily close to the 
  original in the opinion of anyone who *did* understand it. Similarly, 
  if you replicated World War II to a close enough tolerance the 
  observers inside the replication would understand it and an external 
  observer would understand it. 
  
  
  Your view assumes that time is a generic plenum of duration, while I 
  understand that it is precisely the opposite. Time is proprietary and 
  unrepeatable subjective content. Experiences can be inspected and 
 controlled 
  publicly to a limited extent but no single event or collection of events 
 can 
  be repeated in the absolute sense since all events are eventually 
  intertwined causally with all others. You want to make this about 
  arrangements of matter but it is about experiences of time. 

 Where do you get the idea that subjective events cannot repeat? It 
 seems another thing that you've just made up, with no rational 
 justification. 


Subjective events cannot  literally repeat for the same reason that 
historical events cannot literally repeat and you cannot step into the same 
river twice. All conditions are constantly changing so that it is 
impossible for every condition to be reproduced in a given frame of 
experience because what frames private experience is the relation with 
every other experience in the history of the universe, and to an eternity 
ahead.


  Matter is, indeed, not absolutely important for mind. What is 
  important is the functional arrangement of matter. If this is 
  replicated, the mind is replicated. 
  
  
  By that assumption, if I arrange styrofoam balls in the shape of the 
  molecules of a cheeseburger, then a gigantic person would be able to eat 
 it 
  and it would taste like a cheeseburger. If that were true, then we 
 should 
  see the same arrangements over and over again - giant ants the size of a 
  planet, etc. Arrangement is only important because of the properties of 
 what 
  you are arranging. If you arrange inert blobs, then all that you can 
 ever 
  get is larger, more complex arrangements of inert blobs. No mind is 
 present 
  in arrangement. 

 Before we move to styrofoam balls, it's problematic that you don't 
 even accept  the modest assumption that the same matter in the same 
 configuration will yield the same behaviour and same subjective 
 states, such as they may be. 


There is no same. There is seems the same by some standard of sensory 
interpretation. Configurations of matter don't yield any subjective states, 
any more than configurations of TV sets yield TV programs. The TV sets are 
built so that the programs can be watched. They have no meaning or use 
otherwise.


  This happens in the course of 
  normal physiology, whereby all the matter in your body is replaced 
  with different matter from the food you eat, but you still feel that 
  you are you. 
  
  
  That's because your lifetime is made of subjective experience, and 
  experience is publicly accessible in a limited way as forms and 
 functions. 
  Your view confuses the vehicle of life with a producer of life. 

 If your lifetime is made of subjective experiences, the matter in your 
 body seems essential for these experiences to be realised. 


Certainly. If you are going to watch the show, you need a TV set in working 
order.
 

 Disrupting 
 the form of this matter disrupts the experiences, while swapping the 
 matter for different matter in the same form does not. 


If you swap the matter in a TV set for cheese, it won't work, even if the 
cheese is in the same configuration. Maybe the TV set is constructed only 
of certain materials for good reasons, or maybe you can make a TV set out 
of cheese, but it receives different (more cheesy?) programs.
 


  But why would a complex experience require a complex arrangement of 
  matter? 
  
  
  It doesn't require it, that is just the inevitable embodiment of it. If 
 you 
  want to play baseball, you play on a baseball diamond. The baseball 
 diamond 
  doesn't conjure baseball players to the field out of the aether (only in 
 the 
  dreams of Kevin Costner and functionalists does 'Build it and they will 
  come. work out.). 

 But it does seem, at the very least, that building a person out of 
 matter builds the experiences. 


Says who? Has someone assembled a living person from scratch yet? Have we 
even cloned an adult into another adult without growing it first from a 
zygote?

Use the same matter but disrupt the 
 form - no experiences; use different matter and keep 

Re: NDE's Proved Real?

2013-04-08 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013  Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 What I'm trying to say is that I believe you do not distinguish:
 A) Science the method of inquiry
 from
 B) Science the human institution



And I am saying is you do not understand that only one of the following is
true:

A) Science can sometimes make predictions better than the law of averages
would allow.

B) Science is the only way to make predictions better than the law of
averages would allow.

And it is physically impossible for me to personally perform every
experiment that I'd like to, so I have no choice but to look to the human
institution of science to help me out, but that would be useless to me
unless I have reason to trust that the experiment was actually performed as
described, and that's where the web of trust comes in that you get from
journals like Nature and Science. When I read about some shit that somebody
I've never heard of typed onto a obscure part of the internet that I've
also never heard of about revolutionary experimental results that would
change everything if true there is no web of trust and thus I am not in the
least impressed because I know how to type too.

   John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Scientific journals

2013-04-08 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:55:22PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
 
 
 You want to bet? I mean it, I'll bet you that there is a 50% chance that at
 least one of the next Nobel Prizes will be for work first publised in
 Science or Nature and a 0% chance it was for stuff published in PLoS
ONE.

I will not be taking the bet, for the following reasons:

Firstly, we agree on the latter clause - there is an infinitesimal
chance that any particular named open-access journal (eg PLoS)
will scoop the Nobel prize - approaching zero in limit of an infinity
of journals, so the bet should only be about the first clause.

Secondly, it will take an enormous amount of effort to establish that
the research was in fact published first in Nature or Science, rather
than merely been cited there. It would involve reviewing all of the
thousands of journals out there (as historically, it is often the
second or third guy that thinks of an idea that gets the credit) to
see if anyone has published the idea in any form whatsoever. Its not
impossible - something like a Google Scholar scale of big data
computation will make it feasible, but it will require writing custom
tools, getting both of us to agree on the methodology, and well to be
frank - I have other things to do with my time.



 Those journals have not changed their policy in decades yet it's in them we
 first learned why the stars shine, that DNA contains the information in
 life and told us its shape and how it reproduced, told us about the
 existence of the neutron which led to nuclear bombs and power,  told us
 about the first animal to be cloned,  told us that continents moved, that a
 huge asteroid crashed into Mexico  66 million years ago, that most of the
 matter in existence is made of some strange invisible stuff, that neutrinos
 have mass and oscillate, that the universe is not only expanding but
 accelerating, that a quantum computer could factor numbers mush faster than
 a regular computer. All those big things were first published in Science or
 Nature, why is that going to change now that the world is awash in junk
 science articles?
 

I don't know that your first claim is correct Those journals have not
changed their policy in decades, but I do know that if the world is
awash in junk science articles now, and wasn't in the past, then it
is highly likely you'll need to change your policy to cope. Just like
we (almost) all use spam filters these days, but didn't 10 years ago.

The policy I'm referring to (editorial rejection based on perceived
interest or status) seems likely to be a reaction to the very junk
science problem you mention.

 
   What's somewhat disturbing is that a lot of middle ranked journals are
  now doing the same
 
 
 Because crappy articles vastly outnumber even mediocre articles, and there
 are not enough mediocre outside judges to read all the stuff that is sent
 to mediocre journals.
 

Yes - and believe it or not, I've seen plenty of articles in Nature
that I would have rejected as obvious crap if I was refereeing the
papers. I don't recall having read much in Science, fo some reason,
and I don't recall having read a Nature article for about 10 years so
- most of the stuff I'm interested in appear in specialty journals,
although usually I read them from arXiv.  Peer review is hardly
perfect, but doing without it would probably be worse.

What I am saying is in this wired world, where journal space is not a
scarce resource, papers should only be rejected for obvious scientific
reasons (which deals with most of the pseudo science rubbish,
actually), or for being off-topic (Science should quite rightly reject
humanities papers, for instance). Other papers, where there are doubts
or confusion, should be subject to the author adequately addressing
the referees' criticisms.

Furthermore, with Google, or Google Scholar, and arXiv, you don't need
the status of Nature or Science to make your article visible or
cited. Good science will get cited, no matter where it is published
(even arXiv articles get cited, where relevant). It does help for
visibility to network, network, network, of course - present at
conferences, seek out scientific leaders and establish relationships,
and so on - all of which can be hard work, but I seriously doubt a
Nature or Science article will help.

Where it clearly does help is in applying for tenure. Universities
love the prestige that Nature or Science brings. But I don't think
that helps science as a whole to advance

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe 

Great Scientist ≠ Good at Math

2013-04-08 Thread Craig Weinberg

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323611604578398943650327184

WSJ Article

Fortunately, exceptional mathematical fluency is required in only a few 
disciplines, such as particle physics, astrophysics and information theory. 
Far more important throughout the rest of science is the ability to form 
concepts, during which the researcher conjures images and processes by 
intuition.


The annals of theoretical biology are clogged with mathematical models 
that either can be safely ignored or, when tested, fail. Possibly no more 
than 10% have any lasting value. Only those linked solidly to knowledge of 
real living systems have much chance of being used.

Hehe


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.