I often get involved in discussion with people that center around various interpretations of scientific studies or papers in the soft sciences (climate science, biology...etc) that veer from objective analysis of the study or paper data being presented to assertions (on the part of those I am conversing with) that the underlying edifice of science is some how engaged in some conspiracy. I've often found it quite perplexing how people can draw that conclusion given the rigorous nature of scientific investigations and the pains to which scientists go to before drawing conclusions on acquired data. Sure , examples of failure to do this exist (Fleishman and Pons any one?) but they are exceedingly rare and if they do get to a peer review stage , are rightly cremated for the mistakes made. Yesterday, I engaged such a discussion with regard to one of the media darling "controversy" subjects , Anthropogenic Global Warming. Earlier this week, yet another massive study on climate d...
A chronicle of the things I find interesting or deeply important. Exploring generally 4 pillars of intense research. Dynamic Cognition (what every one else calls AI), Self Healing Infrastructures (how to build technological Utopia), Autonomous work routing and Action Oriented Workflow (sending work to the worker) and Supermortality (how to live...to arbitrarily long life spans by ending the disease of aging to death.)