Jump to content

User:Ancheta Wis/scratch page: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 135: Line 135:


[http://www.politico.com/gallery/2017/07/20/the-nations-cartoonists-on-the-week-in-politics-002459?slide=16 cartoons]
[http://www.politico.com/gallery/2017/07/20/the-nations-cartoonists-on-the-week-in-politics-002459?slide=16 cartoons]

[https://getpocket.com/a/read/860292677 ted 100 sites]
===[[Nyaya]]===
===[[Nyaya]]===
the [[Cārvāka]] epistemology states that whenever one infers a truth from a set of observations or truths, one must acknowledge doubt; inferred knowledge is conditional.<ref name=kamal>MM Kamal (1998), The Epistemology of the Carvaka Philosophy, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 46(2): 13-16</ref> Lost: Bṛhaspati Sutra 600 BCE
the [[Cārvāka]] epistemology states that whenever one infers a truth from a set of observations or truths, one must acknowledge doubt; inferred knowledge is conditional.<ref name=kamal>MM Kamal (1998), The Epistemology of the Carvaka Philosophy, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 46(2): 13-16</ref> Lost: Bṛhaspati Sutra 600 BCE

Revision as of 09:16, 22 July 2017

--Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.sciencemag.org/file/2015-eppendorf-science-prize-neurobiology-winners?et_rid=99795579&et_cid=255498

Fixed-point theorem

"dry convective helical vortices" (DHCVs) [1]


https://www.sciencenews.org/article/whirlwinds-crystals-called-gravel-devils-spotted-andes-mountains http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2017/03/15/G38901.1.abstract

There are only a few exact solutions to Schrödinger's equation; the hydrogen atom's electron orbitals is one of them (source: R.P. Feynman, my lecture notes). It's an exact picture of the electron's shape, at various excitations. A spherical shape would be the most common shape for an electron at the lowest energy state. The mathematical form of Schrödinger's equation is called a functional.

User:Ancheta Wis learn to speak 1/5 7:05 1# (attention, meaning, relevance, memory) fluently 2# 3 4 5 6 7 <--Chris Lonsdale Haskell 43:15 Fundamentals/C9-Lectures-Dr-Erik-Meijer-Functional-Programming-Fundamentals-Chapter-13-of-13 more his references, 59:00 @1:00:57 1:08:28 fixed-point_combinator in Haskell wikibook

Wikipedia server layout, 2010

Wikipedia server diagram Metawiki Wikimedia Phabricator /help Developer hub Wikidata wikitech tool labs

Hedonil/XTools  xtools .php modules infrastructure


url to diff

icinga.wmflabs server health via Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Labs#Operational_status, i.e., icinga ops status

Clark Glymour 1998 p.9: evaluate factor analysis by 5 steps

ghci mr = (. map) . (.) . reduce ---- foldr

X!Tools for Type system

Type theory

Eric S. Raymond on SCCS RCS CVS SVN ... to follow how to rebuild a C type system

Git_(software)

SOA poster

fitness

Resting_state_fMRI#Basics_of_fMRI

Thank you for your links, which I will try to enter into salience network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Categorical_logic#Frege.2C_semigroups.2C_and_the_categorical_view categorical logic

'saliency detection in pulvinar' led to pp319-321 of Ch.13, Smythies, Edelstein, and Ramachandran "Hypotheses relating to the function of the claustrum" The Claustrum: Structural, Functional, and Clinical Neuroscience cf https://books.google.com/books?id=GvccAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&dq=saliency+detection+in+pulvinar&source=bl&ots=q9LuasK2rU&sig=Xt6DfGk4kuo8Mmc1jgUuFEdcum8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix79S61OHJAhUQ9GMKHTalBFoQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=saliency%20detection%20in%20pulvinar&f=false

Ian Hacking (Sep., 1988), "Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design", Isis Volume 79, Number 3 Vol. 79, No. 3, A Special Issue on Artifact and Experiment (Sep., 1988), pp. 427-451 p.432 "Stigler writes "Stigler writes 'The Peirce-Jastrow experiment [10 Dec 1883 - 7 Apr 1884] is the first of which I am aware where the experimentation was performed according to a precise mathematically-sound randomization scheme!' [as opposed to Fechner's subjective experiments (1850s) on himself with no assistant and as his own informant (like Galileo's measurements during Mass in the cathedral of Pisa in the 1600s)] " http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/354775

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A David Deutsch 2009 A new way to explain explanation

http://www.behavior.org/resource.php?id=102 critique of platt's strong inference

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html jose wukda 1998

https://www.amazon.com/Space-Time-Relativity-Cosmology-Jose-Wudka/dp/0521822807

Goldhaber & Nieto (2008) Photon & Graviton mass limits See Goldhaber 1975 Tacit assumptions

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Neglected_Argument_for_the_Reality_of_God

Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs

Replication_crisis

Fixed point (mathematics)

Just cause your POV was refuted, nobody considers you "devastated" I take it you agree to inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC) The stuff you just cited purports to show how Trump and Russia were actively colluding. Clearly, it is relevant to the article: straightforward and to point. As I've already said, I have no problem with your proposed content—ADD IT RIGHT NOW. What I am emphatically against is including a section on Trump's "ties" without any explanation of what they mean or what impact they've had on the election. Is that clear enough? Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

fix this

https://fas.org/2017/01/turning-a-blind-eye-towards-armageddon-u-s-leaders-reject-nuclear-winter-studies/

Hundred Schools of Thought

700 BCE - 221 BCE

Salience Rewriting

Serendipitous discovery

Ludwik Fleck, Thaddeus J. Trenn, Robert K. Merton, Fred Bradley, Thaddeus J. Trenn The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact

The Social Construction of Reality

Construals

The social contract

Whose measure of reality

Bob Schieffer replacement for GOP

Mark A. Milley Jun23 2016, on Force regeneration: 18:43/1:00:45, using skeletal advisory brigades to regenerate brigades in 4-5 months. Total Army 37:30/1:00:45


How appropriate that Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four doublethink is sopping up our attention — instead of ending an ongoing war which started in 1950[2] — which can still end badly. How bad does it have to get, for us to stop a 3rd generation dictator[3] who executes his own minister of defense in front of his own staff?[4]

I see that Garry Kasparov, the chess master and Putin critic, states "The US president shouldn’t need to speak like a tyrant. But Trump’s still obsessed with legitimacy; hence his constant falsehoods about overwhelming victory and crowd size." accessdate=2017-02-12 I quote Kasparov because Spicer serves as Trump's voice to the media. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump has won a crucial marketing and persuasive victory simply by convincing you that what he's saying and writing is his genuine voice and authentic personality. It's called building a clear and identifiable brand.

cartoons

ted 100 sites

Nyaya

the Cārvāka epistemology states that whenever one infers a truth from a set of observations or truths, one must acknowledge doubt; inferred knowledge is conditional.[5] Lost: Bṛhaspati Sutra 600 BCE

The epistemology of Vaiśeṣika school of Hinduism, like Buddhism, accepted only two reliable means to knowledge - perception and inference.[6][7] Founder:Kaṇāda Kashyapa 2nd cent BCE

Nyaya school's epistemology accepts four out of six Pramanas as reliable means of gaining knowledge – Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāṇa (inference), Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy) and Śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).[8][9][10] Akṣapāda Gautama 2nd cent CE

  1. ^ Kurgansky, M., 2005, A simple model of dry convective helical vortices (with applications to the atmospheric dust devil): Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, v. 40, p. 151–162, doi:10.1016/j.dynatmoce.2005.03.001
  2. ^ Reuters analysis
  3. ^ Vanity Fair accessdate=2017-02-12
  4. ^ North Korea Defence Chief Hyon Yong-chol 'executed'
  5. ^ MM Kamal (1998), The Epistemology of the Carvaka Philosophy, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 46(2): 13-16
  6. ^ DPS Bhawuk (2011), Spirituality and Indian Psychology (Editor: Anthony Marsella), Springer, ISBN 978-1-4419-8109-7, page 172
  7. ^ Eliott Deutsche (2000), in Philosophy of Religion : Indian Philosophy Vol 4 (Editor: Roy Perrett), Routledge, ISBN 978-0815336112, pages 245-248;
  8. ^ John A. Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791430675, page 238
  9. ^ DPS Bhawuk (2011), Spirituality and Indian Psychology (Editor: Anthony Marsella), Springer, ISBN 978-1-4419-8109-7, page 172
  10. ^ Gavin Flood, An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521438780, page 225

Skepticism started with Pyrrhonism 4th cent BCE  ;

Pyrrho (c. 360 to c. 270 BC) came to India and Persia
with Alexander the Great (20/21 July 356 – 10/11 June 323 BCE) -
Francisco Sanches (c. 1550 – November 16, 1623),
Descartes (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650)

Mara Beller (2007) intellectual property, royal society p.27 http://www.jstor.org/stable/23354463?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

von Neumann, John (1956) "natural science took 1000 years to get anywhere" Collected Works von Neumann 6p.101, as cited on Rashid (Jul.,2007) p518 p518 via JSTOR]

Mackay, R.W., & Oldford, R.W., (Aug. 2000) p.277:"statistical method as we have described it (PPDAC) is not the same as the scientific method. It is about investigating phenomena as they related to populations of units." http://www.jstor.org/stable/2676665?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Jeffreys (1934) http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935474?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30025388 Tyler Cowen, ed. (1988) The theory of market failure: a critical examination 384pp. Reviewed in Public Choice pp295-7 by Richard Wagner (Jan 1991) 68 (1/3). In Cowen's selection, the 1st two essays are Samuelson 1954, Frances M. Bator 1958. Bator's -- Lighthouses, bees, bridges are illustrations of market failures that require govt remedy.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_18/PThy_Chap_18.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldor%E2%80%93Hicks_efficiency improvement Kaldor Hicks_efficiency [1] Pareto efficiency game theory (in which there are winners and losers) Nash's solution of prisoner's dilemma what is Nash equilibrium?


Nomothetic and idiographic Deductive-nomological model Models_of_scientific_inquiry visual system http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dress-a-black-and-blue-debate-over-the-color-of-a-dress-stirs-social-media-1425063162?google_editors_picks=true

SEID http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-a-real-measurable-illness-researchers-1.2257005 cytokine

http://news.discovery.com/tech/photo-first-lights-captured-as-both-particle-and-wave-150302.htm

Charles Singer, How did Science Begin? http://www.jstor.org/stable/25371610?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

it has been known since Hume that "induction has no logical basis" (FP Ramsey's review, in Mind, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 128 (Oct., 1923), pp. 465-478 , of Wittgenstein TLP ). But induction is being mooted as the basis for generalization in science. Gauch 2003 proposes that Aristotle used induction, followed by deduction, in repeated steps to stabilize generalizations. This cannot be true, on the face of it, based on Hume. Others use Aristotle's thoughts about intuition as his basis for building generalizations. But Aristotle proposed some pretty bad generalizations which are taught in schools as counterexamples, today, such as teleological reasoning (which he instituted in spite of his own statements in Organon about the fallacy of affirming the consequent.)

What lessons can we take from this? One is the effect of overweening authority, which was used to execute Socrates, and to hold Aristotle in Plato's place, and blind Aristotle enough to institute Plato's teleological reasoning as the basis for biology for two thousand years, and to influence Galen's and Ptolemy's and Alhacen's theories of vision, and to hold even Catholicism in its sway for 700 years after Averroes. An impressive piece of science, which eventually fell of its own weight. And even after Hume's work, his views still call others to burn his 'wee bookies', to this day. Apparently, there is still market demand for overweening authority.

Rather than induction, C.S. Peirce proposed abduction as the basis for science. In order to accomplish this, some hold that arrays of Hypotheses are the missing pieces, while others hold that models ought to take the place of hypotheses.[1] The hypothetico-deductive model is one approach to model science. Platt's strong inference (1964) is a model of an array of alternate hypotheses to be tested by experiment.

  1. ^ D.J. Glass (2010) A critique of the hypothesis, and a defense of the question, as a framework for experimentation.
How do you propose to solve the structural problem? As the article stands, Aristotle could only fall back on intuition, which is hardly a reproducible method. Induction fails for the Stoics; their chief contribution, the continuum (See Sambursky) was an intuitive concept. Even Epicurus had a better method here. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
To elaborate, Alhacen understood quite clearly that he could understand something better through experimentation, even if his initial points of study were unclear to him. Alhacen's experimental setups allowed reproducible experiments. Even his failures. But this point is missing in Aristotle; Aristotle relied on intuition and induction to get ideas and did not understand strong inference (Platt 1964), for example. Strong inference is exemplified by the experiments on Spontaneous generation which was disproved by Francesco Redi 1688, and the experiments for the law of falling bodies (first from Galileo 1638). The Aristotelian version for falling bodies was demonstrably wrong; even his four causes were blind alleys, which served to mislead Alhacen. Not for lack of trying: Al-Farabi, formulator of the concept of future contingent, tried reading Prior Analytics 40 times and failed to understand it. (Rescher 1964 p.11)

So why don't we just say these things outright? And move on. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


is it wrong to bring up Platt 1964 strong inference at some point in the article? Both Francesco Redi and Galileo appear to be classic examples of Platt's model. In a related thought about alternative hypotheses:
The best I can tell, the explicit appearance of hypothesis in an inquiry was a turning point in the history of scientific method (c. 1635). I think it was Cardinal Bellarmine who first directed Galileo thus. Because the requirement of truth in the ontology could be separated from the epistemology of an inquiry. Before that, there was always 'what is really out there?' getting in the way, rather than 'what is the functional form of the relation' governing the falling body. You see, from my point of view (thousands of years after Aristotle), the models of certainty were getting in the way. But Roger Bacon had the same problem, his writings being under the direct supervision of the Pope until about 1275. And there were Scholastics getting Papal backing for their thinking, not to mention sainthood.
At about the same time (1660), the Royal Society's explicit airing of conflicts between scholars 'increased the temperature, or energy level' of the dialog in an inquiry. An institutionalized rivalry between parties: (Mara Beller 2007 p.27) via JSTOR


Science reawakened in 800 after a sleep of 600 years. -- Islamic Science reignited optics and Aristotle for Europe. In the meantime, Science had never been lost in China, which was overtaken by Europe, and which seeks to regain eminence for the next 500 years, as Europe stumbles, While America enters sleep state after the end of the supercollider.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23354463?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25371610?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=when&searchText=did&searchText=scientific&searchText=method&searchText=begin&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicResults%3FQuery%3Dwhen%2Bdid%2Bscientific%2Bmethod%2Bbegin%26amp%3Bfilter%3D%26amp%3Bsi%3D26&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Wivagg http://www.jstor.org/stable/4451400?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Karsai & Kampis http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.9?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Speice & Colosi http://www.jstor.org/stable/4450823?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

McLaughlin http://www.jstor.org/stable/25504263?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2176001?seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents De partibus animalium, two methods: finality > necessity

other schools

Democritus -420 BCE

Aristoteles -350 BCE - Alhacen - Scholastics - ended with Kepler/ Francis Bacon, Descartes

Asmis, Elizabeth (1984) Epicurus' Scientific method 42 (January 1984), pp.386 Cornell University Press ISBN 978-0-8014-6682-3 pp.333-6 via JSTOR

In his lost work Kαvώv ('canon', a straight edge or ruler, thus any type of measure or standard, referred to as 'canonic'), Epicurus laid out his first rule for inquiry (p.20) in physics:'that the first concepts be seen, and that they not require demonstration (pp.35-47)'.

His second rule for inquiry was that prior to an investigation, we are to have self-evident concepts (pp.61-80), so that we might have the means to infer [έχωμεν οις σημειωσόμεύα] both what is expected [τò ποσμένον] and also what is non-apparent [τò άδηλον] (pp.83-103).

Epicurus applies his method of inference (the use of observations as signs, pp.175-196 -- summary p.333: the method of using the phenomena as signs(σημεīα) of what is unobserved) immediately to the atomic theory of Democritus. In Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Aristotle himself employs the use of signs (pp.212-224). But Epicurus presented his 'canonic' as rival to Aristotle's logic (pp.19-34).

Epicurus' Scientific method, fl -300 BCE

Stoicism fl -280 BCE - end of Rome, its canonical belief system

Giambattista Dellaporta https://books.google.com/books?id=ySgCBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=dellaporta+refractione&source=bl&ots=MCUEJTTwW-&sig=Qh7oGg4vRcmvdoL5bkRdCU1tf7M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=23HJVNzLKcHGsQTWqICwDA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=dellaporta%20refractione&f=false

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/aristotle_on_th093021.html Aristotle on the Immateriality of Intellect and Will

http://books.google.com/books?id=-8A_auBvyFoC&pg=PA178&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false Maurolico's Photisme, Lindberg (1981) p.178 ch.9

http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v18/n11/fig_tab/6701578f2.html optic chiasma sketch from manuscript copy of Kitab al manazir (1083), in the Fatih collection, Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul

http://www.academia.edu/6608048/The_Book_of_Optics_Ibn_Al_Haytham_Alhazen

p.118 proposed an intromission theory of vision and validated his conclusions by empirical understanding deduced from scientific experimentation. This methodology expanded his understanding beyond the theoretical, which resulted in the incorporation of psychology to explain vision. ... He used optical raytracing to provide theoretical basis for the existence of rays.
p.116 optic chiasm sketch from manuscript copy of Kitab al manazir (1083), in the Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul.
p.119 1220-1230: 1st appearance in Latin translation in West in an encyclopedia, On the property of things, by Angelicus, cited 1260 (bacon explicit citation), 1278 (witelo, others not so much), 1280 (pecham)
p.121 Alhacen's observations, using mirrors for magnification. Alhacen cited in Chaucer
p.122 perspectivist pyramid interrpted by Alberti's picture plane

other ontologies

So, tracing back, the flow of knowledge appears to have been:

  1. Empirical, inductive discovery, traceable to Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mesoamerica
  2. Medicine (for healing)
  3. (Magic did not yet separate from science at this time)
  4. Study of astronomy (the first science)
  5. (Astrology did not yet separate from science at this time)
  6. Optics and vision (for physiology)
  7. Study of mathematics
  8. The rise of proof

replace ontology: Aristotelian with materialist Smith on Koyre

J. José Bonner 2005 via JSTOR

Nils Nilsson 2014 escape belief traps by exposure to criticism

Ervolini 2014 The bedrocks of professional investing—experience, judgment, intuition, and deliberation—rely heavily on the use of memory. via JSTOR

Stiles 1942 personal habits/ prequisite for scientific method via JSTOR

Lester S. King 1984 Medical thinking via JSTOR

Drew 1994: current papers mooting Platt's 3-step method (1964) fail to include alternate hypotheses, or truly exclusionary tests. Any new concept occurs via inductive thinking. via JSTOR

Harold N. Lee 1943 3 good pages 69-70 via JSTOR

Lawson 2010 A better set of questions ala Platt 1964's 4 steps via JSTOR

Donald S. Lee 1968 p.36 via JSTOR

Roelofs 1940 p.304 via JSTOR

Arthur John Ter Keurst and Robert E. Bugbee 1943 50 Q. multiple choice test on Scientific method via JSTOR

Randall 1940 Padua ---> Galileo via JSTOR

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2855089?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Euclid's Optics fig.58 visual pyramid, eye looks down, positioned along Z axis

JSTOR:

A. Mark Smith (2004) "What is the history of Medieval Optics Really About?" via JSTOR

blogger

al-Haytham -> Kamal al-Din Hasan ibn Ali ibn Hasan al-Farisi ->? Latin translation for al-Haytham

Sabra's publications

Friedrich Risner, publ. 1572. Opticae Thesaurus: Alhazeni Arabis Libri Septem Nunc Primum Editi , Eiusdem Liber De Crepusculis Et Nubium Asensionibus . Item Vitellonis Thuringopoloni Libri X. Sabra, the authorship of Liber de crepusculis

1st 3 chapters of Alhacen book I are methodology, not translated from Arabic to Latin -- aleph review 91.vol.1.ix

Admiral Eugene of Sicily, translated Ptolemy's optics (he knew Greek (native), Arabic (fluent), and some Latin), Smith (1988), p.192, but who was the 1st translator of Alhacen into Latin? Gregor Reisch, Margarita philosophica (Basel 1504) - Tower of knowledge

Smith, A. Mark (1981), "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics" Isis 72(4) (Dec., 1981). via JSTOR, pp. 568-589 Alhazen -> Roger Bacon -> Witelo -> John Pecham ->

Grossteste's non experimental law of refraction

Smith, A. Mark (1990), "Knowing Things Inside Out: The Scientific Revolution from a Medieval Perspective" The American Historical Review 95(3) (Jun., 1990). via JSTOR pp. 726-744

There is no doubt that Ibn Sahl understood the sine law of refraction (Harriot, Snell, Descartes, Newton) Alhacen didn't have Ibn Sahl's law of refraction Smith 2015

  • Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. (2001), written at Philadelphia, "Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's De aspectibus, [the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāzir], 2 vols", Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 91 (4–5), Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, ISBN 0-87169-914-1, JSTOR 3657357 3657358 3657357, OCLC 47168716 {{citation}}: Check |jstor= value (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) cxvi: Alhacen is a synthesis; cxvii:revolution in optics started by Kepler, completed by Newton

hypothetico-deductive: 91,vol.1,p.cxv, 100.vol.1,p.c

Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with ..., Book I 91 Volume 1

Alhacen book I, II, III
I p355 5.39 eye anatomy shown in books on anatomy
I p356 6.6 this is the accepted opinion of natural philosophers on how vision occurs
I p360 6.18 footnote 60 experiment thus empirically ascertained
I p363 6.24 explanation of focus on one item from an infinity of items
I p366 6.36 explanation of focus by agreement with experiment
I p367 6.38 "and all of these points become clear with experimentation"
I p373 6.56 footnote 87 falsification of extromission theory of vision
I p379 6.85 camera obscura
I p379 6.86 And this can be tried anytime.
pp376-7 6.69 footnote 99 (p410) image fusion in optic chiasm (Galen citation cxxxvi, intro -- Margaret Tallmadge May, 1968,trans. Galen's De Usu Partium Corporis Humani ) review
I p377 6.69 diplopia -> image fusion
transmission of forms to optic chiasm see book II 2.23-2.24 pp426-7
II p423 2.30 from this experiment it will therefore be clear that ...
II p443 3.53 from this experiment
II p443 3.56 from these experiments, it is eminently clear that ...
II p453 3.80 experiment in a darkened room which [subject] has not seen before
fusion in chiasm book III 2.17, pp569-70
III p573 2.25 Moreover everything we have discussed can be tested so that we will attain certainty over it.
p574 figure 3.8: experimental setup (described in p573 2.26 cites comments which are in footnote 23, p633) to show diplopia down to the notch in the plaque for your nose to fit in. (builds up the geometrical setup in Ptolemy, Optics III,43 per Smith 1996, Ptolemy's Theory p147)
III p578 2.50 thus, the reason that ... has been shown through deduction and experiment.
III p585 2.74 ...He will see the situation was the same as the one where the experiment was carried out when ...

Smith 2015 from sight to light, reviewed, audio link

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20617779 Khairandish 2009 Early Science and Medicine 14 79-104 Arabic words for 'exam, experiment, test, experience, tube, copper, illustration, cause, contradiction, demonstration, sense perception, comparison, syllogism'

R.A. Herman (1900) A treatise on geometrical optics Cambridge p.160 Newton's prism experiment camera obscura, imaged the sun, which subtends one half degree

other brain illusions

V3 Kanizsa triangle details

Al Seckel (2006), ULTIMATE BOOK OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS ISBN 9781402734045 "Perceiving What Is Not There"

Perceiving What Is Not There SUMMARY AND COMMENT | PSYCHIATRY November 10, 2008 "Perceiving What Is Not There" Jonathan Silver, MD reviewing Whitson JA and Galinsky AD. Science 2008 Oct 3. NEJM Journal Watch (Massachussetts Medical Society)

[[File:New medical editor.ogv|thumb|right|thumbtime=2:59|right|320px|Welcome to Wikipedia and [[WP:MED|Wikiproject Medicine]]]] Take one lame and decrepit female hyena ... how to prepare a medicine, from Cairo Genizah

Gehirn map gyrus basal ganglia short arcuate fibers in cortex

Buchsbaum 1980 "A spatial processor model for object colour perception" Hsien-Che Lee 1986 "Method for computing the scene-illuminant chromaticity from specular highlights " van Trigt C. (1997 ) "Visual system-response functions and estimating reflectance." Wired (2015 ) "The Science of Why No One Agrees on the Color of This Dress" Color constancy Golz & Kiel (2002 ) " Influence of scene statistics on colour constancy" [ ( ) ""] [ ( ) ""]

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/people-willing-dismiss-evidence-psychology-brain-science/

http://gizmodo.com/octopus-eyes-are-crazier-than-we-imagined-1783195433

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/29/8206.full


linear logic, argument

Lindberg 1976, theories of vision Alhazen's Synthesis .. Kepler .. Galileo thread documents a Lindberg statement vis a vis Kepler's familiarity with Alhazen

Samuel Sambursky, ed.

Author Charles_Sanders_Peirce Bowman L. Clarke (1977) Peirce's Neglected argument

Rate of language evolution is affected by population size

Greeno Moore Smith 1993 "Transfer of situated learning" Peel's principles

Christine Ladd-Franklin (1847-1930), as part of her Ph.D. dissertation in logic under C.S. Peirce, formulated a 16-row truth table[1] in form like that of Wittgenstein (1922) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Proposition 5.101.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4450956?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Hypothetico-Deductive&searchText=Reasoning&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DHypothetico-Deductive%2BReasoning%26amp%3BSearch%3DSearch%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3BglobalSearch%3D%26amp%3BsbbBox%3D%26amp%3BsbjBox%3D%26amp%3BsbpBox%3D&seq=14#page_scan_tab_contents Anton E. LawsonThe Generality of Hypothetico-Deductive Reasoning: Making Scientific Thinking Explicit

https://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif/seab0110.pdf nif interim report 10 jan 2000

http://ciog6.army.mil/Portals/1/ANCP/Army%20CIO-G6%20Overview%20%2817%20Feb%2015%29.pdf Army CIO/G-6

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/bmds/2014gmd.pdf

http://www.army.mil/article/142908/U_S__looks_to_boost_air__missile_defense_partnerships_in_Pacific__Central_Command_theaters/

http://ed-thelen.org/digest1.html#p15

http://www.army.mil/article/133461/94th__32nd__263rd_AAMDC_Mark_Milestone_Supporting_UFG__14/

http://www.army.mil/article/166098/End_of_year__use_it_or_lose_it__budget_mindset_to_get_tossed/ new mindset for budget


In a related question, there appears to be a division of function between the "AMC" (materiel), "TRADOC" (training and doctrine), and "FORSCOM" (operations) aspects of the A rmy; in the case of the THAAD batteries, for example, on Fort Bliss, the Army developed the materiel, trained the Soldiers, and deployed the units; in an Army example, 32nd Army Air & Missile Defense Command takes the lead in specifying, training, and deploying the equipment and Soldiers. But if the deployed THAAD batteries were to defend against a missile attack on the nation, Ninth Air Force directs the missile defense.

So for cyber, it appears, again, that the Army takes the lead in specifying, hardening, and deploying the system/ network, but in an operational event (probably not a hot war), joint DoD-level command takes over. True? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

DoD satellite swarms in play, Washington Post 10May2016

https://www.army.mil/article/169567/improving_army_readiness_for_the_21st_century Lt Gen Dail, formerly headed Defense Logistics Agency

http://www.wsmr.army.mil/Pages/newhome.aspx WSMR

https://www.army.mil/article/170918/two_years_of_hard_work_pays_off_for_soldiers_at_national_training_center 2 yrs for NG 1/34 ID to prepare a nationwide muster to NTC

https://www.army.mil/article/164377/Future_of_deployments__surge_ready_and_rotationally_focused/ readiness in FORSCOM

http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/us-completes-complex-test-of-layered-mis?articleId=USKCN0SQ2GR20151102&slideId=1091520709 THAAD U.S. completes complex test of layered missile defense system

https://www.army.mil/article/171316/us_to_deploy_thaad_missile_battery_to_south_korea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ErnJU_ghE 2015 THAAD FTO2 Event2a 

2016ArmyReservePostureStatement .pdf  cb1

Army_2020_Charts .pdf cb1

https://www.army.mil/article/176036/army_operations_tempo_near_wartime_high

https://www.army.mil/article/175469/changing_nature_of_war_wont_change_our_purpose

http://gao.gov/assets/660/654289.pdf

http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-07-1.pdf

Recently, Jin-Woo Han and Meyya Meyyappan (23 Jun 2014) Vacuum Transistor, NASA Ames Research Center, prototyped a 460 gigahertz, 10V device

One of the things I really appreciate is the high degree of civility and self-control that the editors of this thread manifest; my thanks to everyone. One of themes that are paralleled in this thread is that many sources, such as
  • Joseph Needham Science and Civilisation in China, during his posting to China during WWII, was given a large (I think it was 2000 volume) Chinese encyclopedia, which he shipped via diplomatic post back to Cambridge
  • The various encyclopedias, such as one mentioned by Needham, a 400 000 volume (a one-of-a-kind) encyclopedia, belonging to an Emperor of China (who wrote some of it), or the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, or Pliny's Natural History, or Margarita Philosophica, or Diderot's Encyclopedia, or Encyclopedia Brittannica, or Smellie's, or Chambers, etc. is that the desire to see encyclopedic knowledge arises when the civilization attains enough leisure.
  • The great library at Alexandria encapsulates this desire.
  • Then once the writings are there in a library, and accessible, then the requirement for method arises, so clearly, the desire for a method to know just which of the books are any good arises. Thus a great accumulation of knowledge is a prerequisite.
Needham grappled with this in his Grand Question, hypothesized a guess, and disproved by uncovering a lifetime of counterexamples (Science and Civilisation in China) to the null hypothesis that China produced neither science nor scientific method.
Francisco Sanches, seeking to find an alternative to Aristotle, could only come up with Quod nihil scitur (that nothing is known), which is proof that our modern scientific method could not have been formulated by Alhacen, because Sanches, a French physician educated in Rome, who named Scientific method in a lost work, would have written about that method if he could have. When you read his work, it is extremely repetitious; his only contribution appears to be 'concentrate on the thing', and 'What?!!' (his favorite signature).
Alhacen's devotion to truth and certainty, which he shows in Book of Optics, is a real milestone, but it isn't the modern method, because his respect for the 'philosophers', the 'mathematicians', the 'medical authorities' formed his investigations. He shows real strength of mind by disproving Ptolemy, but fails elsewhere. Why? By not taking on Aristotle?. Alhacen conscientiously concentrates on his subject, which is vision. Smith writes that Alhacen thus synthesized all of the knowledge of optics in one theory, and his writings are usable today, just as they were used by students of optics in the middle ages. It appears that this was a necessary step for progress in science.
We now appear to have accepted that certainty is not attainable in science. Rather when we encounter an unfalsifiable belief, instutions arise to counter it. One example is the current belief in the US, that immunization against measles is bad, due to our respect for human individual freedom, which is leading to a public health response.


Since the organization of Aristotle's material is 40 BCE (Andronicus of Rhodes), this leaves the Epicurus material (namely letter to Herodotus, a summary by Epicurus himself) as pre-dating the organization of Aristotle's material. Perhaps the two POV's might be structured as a dialog? The question of Aristotle's Forms, which have been discredited since Kepler, overhangs all this.
Currently, I am leaning toward beginning the Epicurus section on Epicurus' first point, which is to rely on sensation, while squarely based on atomic theory. I use Amis' organization, on the scientific method of Epicurusn (beginning with Epicurus' 'canonic' as a rival to Aristotle's logic), as my baseline. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
One of the little-remarked parts of Gauch 2003 is figure 2.5 on p.43, a reproduction of a bas-relief sculpture, by Luca della Robbia, of Aristotle the clean-shaven scholar, learning from Plato, the bearded mentor, in the traditional relationship of scholar and mentor (called today, one's advisor), a special relationship among scientists to this day. I have found it difficult to find citations for this fact, and figure 2.5 is part of only sparse documentation of this aspect of method/ process. (Some universities use the gowning at a Ph.D. ceremony to commemorate this. Other advisors walk across the stage with the newly minted Ph.D., other universities invite an eminent graduate to talk, to show the new Ph.Ds what they might aspire to.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


There has been an evolution of terminology:
  1. Law: A statement to which we are subject, all of us, without exception. (As in Newton's laws of motion)
  2. Predicate: A logical statement, which can be evaluated.
  3. Axiom: A statement which is accepted without proof.
  4. Model: A statement which can be accepted, or not, without regard or fear for its consequence. A model is thus a resource to be used, exploited, and discarded.
  5. Hypothesis: A guess.
  6. Theory: A framework of statements, at times mooted as law, predicate, axiom, model, etc. The statements can be dated by their usage, as in 'Newton's laws'. The degree to which a framework applies to some domain needs to be stated, or else said framework is poorly constructed or even invalid. For example the size of the frame, the timescale of the sample, the number of samples, the sampling rate, any number of constraints apply, to a theory, or else it will be ignored.
So, no, theory and model are not the same, and the usage of the terms reflects this. Otherwise their usage or confusion is a statement about the qualities of a writer who would dare to write poorly. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a commentary on the power of the printed book, because Risner 1572 did the world a favor by making optics more accessible. I would expect that Galileo had Risner's book when he was designing his refracting telescope in 1609. The power of these print editions is worth an article, after the name question has been resolved. There is a cohort of men known by the names accorded them by their Latin translators, Alhazen, Averroes, etc. and in Latin translation they were pivotal for European civilization. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


In other words, leave out 'the first xxx' entries? They are pretty hard to establish, anyway. That brings us to 'what would be minimum statement of xxx?'. I would argue, the minimum ought to be
  1. Motivation for some science (i.e., for thermodynamics, what horsepower is required to lift water out of this coal mine?)
  2. What does this science aspire to explain?
  3. How much is actually explained by that science? (e.g., why do we need dark matter?)
  4. Boundaries for that science (i.e. does this science include 'display behavior?', does this science explain the tides?)
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
lion, salient

chain reaction critical mass Critical mass (disambiguation) Salience kinetic corpuscularianism, the second transformation Chain of events Stability Solution (disambiguation)

To separate this thread from the previous, I document my findings from H. Floris Cohen (2010) How Modern Science Came Into The World: four civilizations, one 17th century breakthrough, which is a 'big-picture' survey, based on his (1994) The Scientific Revolution: a Historiographical Inquiry, upon which he builds, except for its last chapter, which was his 1994 view, and which is now replaced by his 2010 book.

0: H. Floris Cohen notes that history of science mixes the influences on 'science' into such a large pot, that its study has become inconclusive (Needham says 'bankrupt'). He argues that previous translations of primary sources, which translate a word as 'science', ought to translate it as 'nature-knowledge' instead. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

'Athens' Aristotelian framework +
'Alexandria' Mathematical science +
'coercive empiricism' = mastery over nature Wm Leiss Domination of Nature

H.Floris Cohen — non-monolithic factors led to modern science

Citation: H. Floris Cohen (2010) How modern science came into the world: four civilizations, one 17th century breakthrough ISBN 9789089642394 . H. Floris Cohen is a Dutchman and historiographer. He might serve as a secondary or tertiary source for the article. He also wrote (1994) The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. The 1994 book started with 60 ideas which he reviewed for their influence on Scientific Revolutions. Its last chapter served as the basis for his 2010 book, which he began in 1994. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Origins of humankind

@Vormeph, here is evidence directly contradicting your latest edit, which places English in the family of Negative Concord grammars:

William Labov (1972) "Negative Attraction and Negative Concord in English Grammar" Language 48(4) pp.773-818, has found that negative concord is a variable feature in English. In contrast, negative attraction to the word 'any' is invariant across all dialects of English. All attempts to remove 'not' from the phrase 'not any' are invariably rejected as nongrammatical.

The JSTOR citation: @article{1972

jstor_articletype = {research-article}
title = {Negative Attraction and Negative Concord in English Grammar}
author = {Labov, William}
journal = {Language}
jstor_issuetitle = {}
volume = {48}
number = {4}
jstor_formatteddate = {Dec., 1972}
pages = {pp. 773-818}
url = { http://www.jstor.org/stable/411989 }
ISSN = {00978507}
abstract = {The attraction of the negative to subject any is an invariant rule for all dialects of English, and appears to respond to the distributive and hypothetical features of this indeterminate. Negative concord, on the other hand, is a variable rule which distributes the negative rightward in response to affective factors. It is progressively extended from one dialect to another in an implicational series which initiates negation in new positions as the rule approaches obligatory status in the original environments.}
language = {English}
year = {1972}
publisher = {Linguistic Society of America}
copyright = {Copyright © 1972 Linguistic Society of America}
}

In summary, the various dialects of English occupy the spectrum of use of negative concord, from none at all, to obligatory. It appears that you ought to revert your edit. On the bright side, you just might find support for your position in other articles published by Linguistic Society of America. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


One of the advantages of this article is that it explicitly lists some abuses of notation which in fact are being handled systematically by some of the functional languages such as Haskell. As humans, we subconsciously skip over the abuses, in poetic fashion, and get right to the point, or semantics. In Haskell, some of these formulaic expressions are in fact recognized as partially grammatical thunks (thought-chunks), and are held in abeyance by the compiler for filling-in at some point in the lifetime of the expression. Although Haskell allows Unicode, and could save away thunks such as

as humans, we parse this thunk as a "hungry operator" (to use Feynman's terminology) which doesn't bother us.

It may help to insert inline wp:tags, such as {{discuss}}, into the article to highlight just what needs to be explicitly expanded for the literal-minded readers among us.--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2689412?loggedin=true&seq=10#page_scan_tab_contents 3 crises The Three Crises in Mathematics: Logicism, Intuitionism and Formalism

  1. ^ C. Ladd (1883) "On the Algebra of Logic", p.62 which appeared in Studies in logic Johns Hopkins University, C.S. Peirce, ed.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ancheta_Wis/scratch_page&oldid=791759725"