The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

[RayDunzl]

Damn, get a twitter account.

 

[Tks]

Why, then, do I end up here, on a site owned by Intel, when I try to find the Thunderbolt spec?

Because USB4 isn't out yet and Intel came up with the TB3 spec, it doesn't mean they've abandoned it.. They still do the certification, and offer support for those looking to implement it in their products.

By that reasoning, all displays should be required to offer 8K resolution and 16-bit per component colour space, and all sources should be able to supply this. That makes no sense.

Okay so let me get this straight, so because I ask for clear advertisement practices or standards to hold true to the definitional intuitive understand of the word.. that allows consumers to know EXACTLY what they would be buying at a store without having to crack open a manual or seek third part validation tests, that is somehow silly and we should just keep specifications named identically between multiple products that you wouldn't be able to differentiate between one or the other at face value?

I'm sorry, but that is just hilarious.

On some level, I do agree with you that optional parts of standards can be annoying and confusing. Nonetheless, there is a place for this, provided it is done right. If it doesn't makes sense to require all devices to support a particular feature, a good spec will say something along the lines of "you may optionally support Feature X, and if you do, this is how it must be done." The HDMI spec isn't the best example here (the HDR formats are a mess), but at least it guarantees that any compliant source connected to any compliant display will show _something_.

Misleading advertising is a problem, but I think it's wrong to blame that on the specs. The advertisers will always find a way to misrepresent.

Again, you're having trouble tracking the conversation. It's not the spec that is at fault. It's the folks granting the certification badges that allow things to be advertised as such while not differentiating between one manufacturer's implementation of the spec, vs another. When you say: "you may optionally support Feature X, and if you do, this is how it must be done." as the thing that specification commissions should be doing, that is precisely my critique. That's precisely what they're not doing.

I'm a bit surprised I have to try so many ways of explaining this. How about we try something else. Can you tell me if you would have a problem if you were presented two products, both with a number "X Certified" stickers on them, and at the same time while at the store: understand that there is a possibility one company is providing more than the spec, while the other actually somehow fails the spec AND still gets the same sticker allowance to be used on their products?

You see absolutely no problem there because (somehow as your opening statement claimed at first) "by that reasoning all displays should be required to offer 8K resolution and 16-bit panels"?

So aside from the gross misunderstanding of the context I spoke of about HDMI 2.1 (just because the connector supports the bandwidth transfer, that doesn't necessarily entail the display needs to conform to the data transmission specification it's I/O is capable of, HDMI 2.1 isn't a panel standard). I would venture to guess your answer would be Yes to the first question, and No to the second. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[mansr]

Because USB4 isn't out yet

The spec is done since last August. We're still waiting for hardware support, though.

Again, you're having trouble tracking the conversation.

Yes, indeed. I am still puzzled as to what exactly you're upset about. Is it that two displays can both be HDMI compliant while not performing identically in every respect? Something else?

Can you tell me if you would have a problem if you were presented two products, both with a number "X Certified" stickers on them, and at the same time while at the store: understand that there is a possibility one company is providing more than the spec, while the other actually somehow fails the spec AND still gets the same sticker allowance to be used on their products?

Of course I don't think it's OK to claim compliance without actually meeting spec. Who's doing that? They should be named and shamed.

 

[Tks]

The spec is done since last August. We're still waiting for hardware support, though.

Yes I understand it was ratified, I was speaking in reference to explaining how TB3 itself isn't simply Intel's exclusive property anymore.

Yes, indeed. I am still puzzled as to what exactly you're upset about. Is it that two displays can both be HDMI compliant while not performing identically in every respect? Something else?

Of course I don't think it's OK to claim compliance without actually meeting spec. Who's doing that? They should be named and shamed.

Okay, let me draw a clear example of the problem one final time, with explicit example.

LG 2020 OLEDs don't support 48Gbps Transfer Rate, yet still advertise HDMI 2.1

Again, you seem to be unable to decouple the specification of the data transfer protocol, versus the specification for the performance aspects of a display. HDMI 2.1 cannot measure the "resolution" of a panel. What it does ensure that if I swap a panel, for a higher resolution one, then the video controller should still have no issues with for instance, transferring a full 48Gbps of data through the connector. The type of display isn't integral to the existence of the data transfer I/O and it's protocol itself.

The actual issue at hand is, if LG can advertise HDMI 2.1 connections... What exactly would be the minimum data transfer rate they'd have to cross under, for them to lose the ability to advertise HDMI 2.1? Can they provide 10Gbps, can they provide 5Gbps, is there any floor to the bandwidth transfer rate at all?

THIS is the crux of the issue. When minimums aren't defined, what exactly does the word "standard" even mean?

Again, I am going to repeat this one last time. Just because you have a display, that can only display up to 480p. That is completely independent of the data transfer specification portion of the HDMI 2.1 standard. Even if my display was 8K, but only was capable of 8-bit color, that also has nothing to do with the specification of the connectors being HDMI 2.1 certified. Likewise even if my display was 32K resolution with 18-bit color (ridiculous I know), that still has nothing to do with the connectors themselves being capable of certain specification. Please do not equivocate between these two separate issues.

Once more, in conclusion. This issue stems from not have minimum defined specifications for a standard, and also having "optional" portions yet still reward the same advertising rights even if one manufacturer is including a TV with better HDMI 2.1 compliance (like supporting DSC which is completely optional, and doesn't give you any benefit in terms of advertising stickers as long as HDMI is concerned).

This is a philosophical issue of diction. "Standard" should be a minimum threshold something needs to satisfy. That in the modern day is a concept that has been abandoned. And is what leads to these cluster fucks (and the same mess you readily accept HDR itself to be, which I was glad to see I didn't have to elaborate on, seeing as how it's plain as day).

 

[mansr]

Does that LG TV claim (in its E-EDID tables) to support any video modes using 48 Gbps data rate? If not, how would you ever notice whether or not the HDMI receiver is capable of that rate, and why does it matter? LG isn't selling you an HDMI interface for you to attach your own panel. They are selling the whole package, interface and panel.

 

[Tks]

Does that LG TV claim (in its E-EDID tables) to support any video modes using 48 Gbps data rate? If not, how would you ever notice whether or not the HDMI receiver is capable of that rate, and why does it matter? LG isn't selling you an HDMI interface for you to attach your own panel. They are selling the whole package, interface and panel.

Yes but the connector television does not support 48Gbps transfer rates, whether due to video controller, or interface. There is a lie being passed off here that wasn't clarified, nor is the HDMI forum saying anything about such a transgression.

(Sorry I had to edit this message)

 

[Robin L]

People are inherently stupid, what little knowledge we have is limited to those things that might be useful to us. But the gamut of potential knowledge is always greater than any human or human collective could possibly comprehend or document. The satire of Discordianism presents a model of religion that incorporates the concept that there is more random than ordered in creation. We want our supreme beings to organize things, we have a very difficult time with the concept that "God plays dice with the universe". There is more that whizzes past our tiny brains than is observed, and we bend that observation to what we think is useful to homo sapiens. And a major percentage of people refuse to accept rational conclusions if they somehow challenge pre-existing belief.

 

[mansr]

Yes but the connector television does not support 48Gbps transfer rates, whether due to video controller, or interface. There is a lie being passed off here that wasn't clarified, nor is the HDMI forum saying anything about such a transgression.

(Sorry I had to edit this message)

What is the lie?

 

[Snarfie]

Karl Popper always works fine for me if we talking sceince.
Falsifiability one of the most valueble lessons i learnd at college. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Ha ha next what we learned regarding behaviour economics was that markets tend towards balance and rationality. IMO one of the biggest falsifications ever learned as beeing thru.

 

[farcurse]

You don't think astronomers ever propose falsifiable hypotheses?

Theoretical physicists and cosmologists have come under recent fire for (it is accused) ignoring falsifiability in favor of 'elegance' and explanatory power of models.

Astronomers, AFAICT, not so much.

I think that this is a reasonable criticism, especially of string theory. The idea is straightforward, and if true it would unify quantum theories and general relativity. It turns out that the math underlying the theory is very difficult, and in particular it's hard to make quantitative testable predictions. Possible paths forward involve figuring out the math, or finding auxiliary predictions. One example for string theory is that it requires a new symmetry called supersymmetry. We have particle theories that incorporate supersymmetry, and these predict new families of particles. The simplest such models produce particles with properties that allow them to be produced at CERN in amounts that should be detectable. No one has found them yet, which is casting doubts on these models. It could be that the simplest models are not right, or it could be that supersymmetry is not a thing, which would kill string theory.

I guess my main point is that even for the most hard to falsify models, people are working hard to test them. Whether a theorist should think about falsifiable predictions before building theories is a philosophical question. However I think most would agree that to be valuable a theory has to have that property.

 

[Snarfie]

I think that this is a reasonable criticism, especially of string theory. The idea is straightforward, and if true it would unify quantum theories and general relativity. It turns out that the math underlying the theory is very difficult, and in particular it's hard to make quantitative testable predictions. Possible paths forward involve figuring out the math, or finding auxiliary predictions. One example for string theory is that it requires a new symmetry called supersymmetry. We have particle theories that incorporate supersymmetry, and these predict new families of particles. The simplest such models produce particles with properties that allow them to be produced at CERN in amounts that should be detectable. No one has found them yet, which is casting doubts on these models. It could be that the simplest models are not right, or it could be that supersymmetry is not a thing, which would kill string theory.

I guess my main point is that even for the most hard to falsify models, people are working hard to test them. Whether a theorist should think about falsifiable predictions before building theories is a philosophical question. However I think most would agree that to be valuable a theory has to have that property.

Dutch Nobel price winner Gerard het Hooft one of the leading string-theory scientist had some years ago an not so conventional approach to shed some light on the fact that we possible life in a holographic universe an possible consequence of string-theory. He is not waiting anymore if it is proven that strings exist (2 dimensional energy particles we all guess on the Planck scale). Because it is on the Planck scale we probably don't have the instrument that are refined enough to detect them as we did not have in the past instrument that could detect black-holes or gravitational waves. Fermi-lab did some years ago an attempt to prove Strings they failed because they probably don't have the sensitive instrument needed ha ha or strings do not exist.

Van het Hoofd is looking for the source of these strings he thinks it is our own black hole located at the middle of our milky way to be precise the event-horizon. More or less he thinks the information found in this event-horizon which is pure entropy (we think) could be reinstated (information will never be losed we presume) by let say a lens as you use also with a normal hologram. So he calculated is there room/space enough to consist all matter we see around us made of 2D strings. His conclusion based on his calculations was that it is possible. What i find interesting is that he is working on a hypotheses from which he assumed that it will be could be proven in the nearby future if instruments are sensitive enough. Also a way to practice sceince.


An abstract:

The quantum properties of black holes are compared with those of elementary and composite particles. As argued before by this author, it is desirable to search for a theory of black holes in which quantum mechanical "information" is not drained away by the horizon, but such a theory requires a drastically new approach in formulating general coordinate transformations with horizons in a quantum theory. It is subsequently shown that a closed string with string tension T = 1/8πG reproduces in a remarkable way the horizon fluctuations so that a new geometric interpretation of strings is suggested.

https://inspirehep.net/literature/231124

 

[BDWoody]

Because it is on the Planck scale we probably don't have the instrument that are refined enough to detect them as we did not have in the past instrument that could detect black-holes or gravitational waves.

That's about the sensitivity of many 'audiophile's' ears... Should get them on it. Unfortunately, Chuck Norris is busy doing whatever he wants.

 

[Snarfie]

That's about the sensitivity of many 'audiophile's' ears... Should get them on it. Unfortunately, Chuck Norris is busy doing whatever he wants.

Soundwaves beeing string particles that explains the law of attraction. Back to drinking

 

[BDWoody]

Soundwaves beeing string particles that explains the law of attraction. Back to drinking

Don't limit the amazingness. They are already beyond known physics...perhaps they are capable of so, so much more.

 

[Tks]

What is the lie?

I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not anymore. It’s a device purporting to support HDMI 2.1, when it fails to meet the specification.. it was after review and eye brows raised by the public, they decided to make a comment explaining this tidbit.

Is any of the things I am saying getting through to you, or are you going to keep asking single questions to replies you never acknowledge certain portions of, and simply just go and ask away constant questions that should have been clear to anyone with memory retention ability of the discussion occurring?

Based on your next reply, I’ll either give closing statements, or continue. There is no way you’re proceeding in good faith if you’re still asking questions like this. So I’ll be asking some questions now. This has gone on long enough, and I’ve assumed you’ve grasped things I’ve repeated multiple times. Let’s find out if you have.

I will repeat a question I haven’t gotten an answer for. I want it explained to me, even if LG or whoever, provides information pre-release, that their TV will support HDMI 2.1, at what point in your rational do you figure they should be disqualified form being able to use the sticker on their advertising of the device. I want an explanation on what you think companies ought be doing to satisfy being about to advertise a “standard” at which point they’de be allowed to use it in advertising material?

Next, do you think standards should be based on the understanding that a minimum threshold should be satisfied? If so, I want you to tell me what that threshold would be if you were for instance one of the people in the HDMI forum that agreed upon the specs for HDMI 2.1?

Lastly, do you think it makes sense to offer “optional” portions of a “standard” while also still not differentiating in terms of labels - the difference between a manufacturer fulfills the minimum supported portions of a standard, while still being granted the ability to advertise the product, no better, nor worse, than a competitor that supports the full specification with all options?

 

[ReaderZ]

The problem is especially apparent in physics, Sheldrake argues, suggesting that the laws of nature may not be fixed, regardless of widely held belief. He explains that scientists across the globe consistently record different measurements for the gravitational force or the speed of light. Despite this, they maintain that their variation is due to experimental error, and not an actual change in these so-called constants. “But what if the laws of nature vary throughout the day” suggests Sheldrake, urging scientists to analyse evidence instead of just accepting widely held “dogmas”. He goes further, explaining how physicists, in order to justify these figures, “make up” certain proportions of dark energy and matter to ensure that the calculations fit in with proposed models.

Stopped reading right there, just a clueless idiot, he has no idea how big of an achivement to be able to show speed of light varies, physist would die for it. Yet this idiot here think they do not investigate because of some dogma, well, they do.

 

[j_j]

Karl Popper always works fine for me if we talking sceince.
Falsifiability one of the most valueble lessons i learnd at college. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Ha ha next what we learned regarding behaviour economics was that markets tend towards balance and rationality. IMO one of the biggest falsifications ever learned as beeing thru.

Boy oh boy isn't that the truth. What we learned is that the monte carlo simulations of markets are right, they more or less instantly collude, become either monopolies or oligopolies, and the nonsense about the "invisible hand" is nothing but that. Nonsense.

 

[j_j]

Don't limit the amazingness. They are already beyond known physics...perhaps they are capable of so, so much more.

Yeah, well, an advert for a cable made of "elements not from this earth" passed my way yesterday.

The correspondent was confused when I pointed out that those cables HAD to be radioactive, as they must, if they are elements not found on earth.

 

[ReaderZ]

Yeah, well, an advert for a cable made of "elements not from this earth" passed my way yesterday.

The correspondent was confused when I pointed out that those cables HAD to be radioactive, as they must, if they are elements not found on earth.

Why? Earth already have all the possible non radioactive elements?

 

[j_j]

Why? Earth already have all the possible non radioactive elements?

Yes. All of the stable elements are observed on earth. It's a question of the nuclear binding force and the quantization of charge. Any element not on earth will have to be unstable, radioactive, and most likely short lived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_nuclide

Elements from Hydrogen to Bismuth (but no longer bismuth) are stable, with two exceptions. All likely attempts at stable promethium and technetium have been made, none are stable. Neither technetium or promethium is found natively on Earth but both have been synthesized.

All elements beyond Bismuth are unstable, and decay via radioactivity. While there is an oscillation in the degree of instability, with a stability peak at Uranium and Thorium that makes them almost stable, the next peak beyond that does not come close to stable, and it only gets worse from there.

And except for Technetium and Promethium, all elements below 95 have been found on the planet, including some unstable ones. The stretch between Bismuth and Thorium are pretty come and go, but the decay of Thorium and Uranium still create a bit of them, for a short while. A bit of Neptunium and Plutonium can happen, briefly, in Uranium ore. Beyond that...

So, if it's not found on earth, it's radioactive. VERY radioactive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes

And very, very heavy.