Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Richard Feynman.


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,934 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 February 2019 - 07:16 PM

This astoundingly intelligent man, who sounded like a New Jersy mechanic, shows how to look at problems in a different way.

[Direct Link]


  • Cuboid, raymycoto and deemesis like this

#2 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,313 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 23 February 2019 - 12:52 AM

When I saw a teevee program about Feynman and his quest to go to Tanu Tuva, I fell in love with the guy.  It got me that I lived just a few miles away from him for years before I ever heard of him.   I wonder what he would have thought about my crazy-assed science, but he died just about the time I was figuring out the first of it.


Edited by Alder Logs, 23 February 2019 - 09:45 AM.

  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#3 Cuboid

Cuboid

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 573 posts

Posted 23 February 2019 - 07:12 AM

I read https://www.goodread...king-mr-feynmanin the not to distant past. Very entertaining.
  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#4 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,313 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 23 February 2019 - 09:47 AM

While science loves to have the face of Richard Feynman be the face of science (and I can't blame them) interestingly, this video dropped yesterday:

 

[Direct Link]


  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#5 deemesis

deemesis

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 130 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 23 February 2019 - 06:34 PM

I love listening to Richard Feynmans lectures. I always picture Ralph Cramdon coming out and smacking upside the head.


  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#6 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,934 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 24 February 2019 - 11:11 AM

While science loves to have the face of Richard Feynman be the face of science (and I can't blame them) interestingly, this video dropped yesterday:

 

[Direct Link]

 

 

Wow! I just watched that 2 days ago! Yeah, there is some real bad shit going on with the whole publishing and research bit that is gumming up a lot of what otherwise could be good work.  And who knows how much research that ought to be done, isn't...


  • clumsy likes this

#7 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,313 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 24 February 2019 - 12:19 PM

My big 'if' would be, what if I could sit in the pub with Feynman and suggest that we, for just that moment, not stand on the shoulders of Isaac Newton, and think what possibilities might open, if starting again from there?   I might expect to see him noticeably stop, eyes looking into a unknown and surprising distance, and then, perhaps a smile...


  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#8 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,934 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 25 February 2019 - 07:38 AM

When you watch him in an interview just going on about how to look at even some of the simplest things, you see that "child-like wonder" twinkle in his eyes that reminds you that not everyone "Grows Up". I love it! 


  • Alder Logs and Oneyedraven like this

#9 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,934 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 25 February 2019 - 09:55 AM

Two great quotes from Professor Feynman:
 
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
 
 "I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring."
 
Also...
 

"Feynman was using cannabis and LSD (interestingly enough) in John Lilly’s sensory deprivation tanks in the 50s and 60s. It enhanced his abilities to have out of body experiences, which is from where he drew all the information for his discoveries."


And then there is him playing bongo drums and singing about "Orange Juice"


[Direct Link]


Edited by SteampunkScientist, 25 February 2019 - 10:32 AM.


#10 clumsy

clumsy

    Mycophiliac

  • Free Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 08:59 PM

Published research should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
Randomized controlled trials (the "gold standard") are not applicable to all interventions.
Especially irreproducible are any claims in the realm of psychology
How could any credible scientist fall for the Stanford Prison Experiment?
Negative results, sometimes hard to publish, or harder to find, are useful.
Reproducibility in cancer research is also problematic.
Contaminated cell lines are a concern.
Peer Review does not guarantee quality.
How to spot bogus health claims, perhaps most claims are bogus!
Industry involvement in medical trials is not always reported.
Journalists are frequently misinformed.
Scientific information and misinformation are amplified through social media.
Transparent reporting standards help, and hype hurts.
Researchers sometimes fail to appreciate the effect of exercise.
Right-handed people are almost exclusively studied.
Funding sources, and the resulting conflicts of interest, are often not disclosed.
Sick, cold, overfed, and tired male lab rats may skew results.
Mice do, though, enjoy running wheels.
Mice are often a poor model of human disease except, maybe, cancer.
@justsaysinmice
The "forced swim test" for anti-depressive effects is bogus.
Studies on dissimilar people can limit applicability.
Poor methodology does not help.
Maybe start with correctly identifying cells used in research?
Food frequency questionnaires (the basis of much here) are fraught with peril.
Such are an example of observational studies.
The flawed peer review process, along with misuse of p-values (it's not hard!).
Outcome switching - oh, my!
At least be skeptical:  be wary of advice
It can be tricky, especially for the well educated
Even personal anecdotes (some are in this blog) can't be trusted
Bogus conclusions can be coaxed from good data
And "good" conclusions can be had by manipulating data.
Some studies here are preliminary, and many are wrong.
Single studies are especially suspect.
Self-reported questionnaires (vs. diagnostic interviews) are suspect.
Scientific taboos, like research on poop
 





Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!