AMD responsible for economic meltdown

[Robert Myers]

I lack confidence in proofs or analysis that
I can't see through from beginning to end.

And you call me professor?  This sounds very much like a
theoretical [mathematics] approach.  You've gone native!

I have no idea what you know of mathematics. Your comments so far
make me want to giggle at the idea of your introducing me into the
enchanted circle of mathematics.

I need premises and data, then I will perform my own analysis
or at least verifications.  Wading through someone else's
analysis is a didactic insult, and you are very likely to
fall into traps like hidden assumptions made the first time.
The video Jan posted is a neat example.

**Groan**. Line-by-line analysis.

A *proof* according to some accepted formalism is a proof. Everything
else is guesswork. Since, like most of us, you've taken plane
geometry, I assume you know what a *proof* looks like.

Proofs are available to us only under the most constrained of
circumstances, and even there we have good reason to have doubts.

You might complain this is not possible with CFD and similarly
complex computer models.  I've been dealing professionally with
such for 30 years and the rules are always the same: validate
the model and input against known conditions and step-outs.
Watch the tweaking.  When I can't, the model is just like a
Picasso -- maybe you like it, maybe you don't, but you have no
way to determine validity.  "Trust" is reliance, not validation.

The only thing validated by "validation" is the certainty of future
funding by the snakeoil salesman peddling it.

Possibly I was permanently soured by the military, which loves to
"validate" things. Once something is "validated," it becomes an
oracle, which is what the military (along with Wall Street) really
wants.

Once someone starts talking about validating (making valid?) computer
models, I stop listening.

The shuttle debris damage model is an example of a "validated"
computer model that led to spectacular miscalculation and death.

I've done some engineering in my life. You need a number, and you get
it any way you can. You don't have that number because it's
necessarily reliable, but because you *need* it to complete the
analysis. That's one reality of engineering. If the number you
grabbed out of the air leads to disaster, you don't start inventing
excuses about the housing market. You tried, and you failed. It
happens.

As to CFD models, I was introduced to CFD through spectral and
pseudospectral methods, where the connection between the differential
operators and their finite-dimensional representations is particularly
clean.

If you do non-trivial fluid mechanics, you eventually run into the
problem of renormalization. The nature of this problem is obscured in
most CFD models, but it is perfectly clear in pseudospectral
calculations: energy that has nowhere to go is aliased. Most CFD
models "solve" this problem by a crude and inapparent renormalization
that gives reasonable-looking results with an unknowable relationship
to solutions to the underlying differential equations.

Simply saying that the models are complex and therefore beyond
comprehension is a lazy evasion that reveals that the speaker doesn't
know what he's talking about.

There is tremendous value in orthogonal ("cold eyes")
analysis.  And for including diversity in general.
Omissions are usually worse than errors.

So why, exactly, are you so certain of your own methods and so quick
to sneer at anyone who does not recognize their universal validity?

Robert.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

So why, exactly, are you so certain of your own methods

I'm not.

and so quick to sneer at anyone who does not recognize
their universal validity?

But I do insist upon getting sufficient premises and data
to be able to judge others analysis. And become very
suspicious when they are withheld, as you often do.


-- Robert R

 

[Robert Myers]

But I do insist upon getting sufficient premises and data
to be able to judge others analysis.

Then, to judge by our interactions, you're going to be out of luck
when dealing with me. Nothing I say will ever satisfy you.

How we learn things and how we come to judge whether things are true
or false is a fascinating question that would perhaps take us into the
realm of cognitive science and thus not wildly beyond the subject of
computation, but there are no real answers to be had.

Physicists are notorious (to me) for reckless mathematics. How do
certain kinds of theoreticians decide whether some kinds of
propositions have credibility or not? I don't think I do. You (and
others here) apparently have access to some theory of knowledge that I
do not, because you apparently believe that you should be able to
judge the correctness of a proposition, no matter what level of
antecedent knowledge, intuition, or prejudice might be involved on
your part or that of the speaker. That you even *think* that you or
anyone else could really answer the questions you pose makes me not
even want to bother to try. It is *not* true that everything can be
explained to everybody, nor is it true that human knowledge advances
on firmly laid foundations of certainty.

We speculate, we ponder, we theorize. We think inexactly and we
reason inexactly. We conjecture recklessly, and not just on Usenet.
Whether you in particular are able to evaluate something with any
certainty measures as much about you as it does about anything that
was said. Your chronic appeal, whether as if to God or as if to the
rabble in the marketplace about what you take to be my inadequacies
when they are just as likely yours is past tiresome.

 And become very
suspicious when they are withheld, as you often do.

Suspicion is a fine thing. Contempt for what you do not understand or
do not understand to your own satisfaction is not.

Robert.

 

[Jerry Peters]

I'm not.


But I do insist upon getting sufficient premises and data
to be able to judge others analysis. And become very
suspicious when they are withheld, as you often do.


-- Robert R

You mean like Mann's secret algorithms and secret data for the GW
"hockey stick"?
That one always bothered me, I thought the very idea behind science
was that anyone with the proper skills and equipment should be able to
reproduce the result.

Jerry

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

You mean like Mann's secret algorithms and secret data
for the GW "hockey stick"?

Yes. See http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2004nov20_c.html

That one always bothered me, I thought the very idea behind
science was that anyone with the proper skills and equipment
should be able to reproduce the result.

That is the surface of the scientific method. Results must
be duplicateable or they are highly suspect. Cold fusion.

But there is more. Scientists should not get overly attached
to their theories, for the theories may be wrong. Ideally,
theories are formulated from data, not data sought to confirm
theories (some will always be found). The attachment clouds
their judgement and impartiality. Too many of the Global Warming
advocates like Mann have been seduced by their theories and have
invested their entire reputations in the theory.


-- Robert R

 

[Robert Myers]

But there is more.  Scientists should not get overly attached
to their theories, for the theories may be wrong.  Ideally,
theories are formulated from data, not data sought to confirm
theories (some will always be found).   The attachment clouds
their judgement and impartiality.  Too many of the Global Warming
advocates like Mann have been seduced by their theories and have
invested their entire reputations in the theory.

Physics has been working in reverse for a long time. Einstein
predicts the precession of the periheliion of Mercury, and it is
found. Expensive modern experiments are all driven by theoretical
predictions. Shots in the dark are a luxury no one can afford.

The thing that makes me most profoundly skeptical of the global
warming push is that the prediction appears just as the tools to make
it have become available.

Well, that's not exactly true. The identification of the mechanism is
over a century old. The appearance of hysteria has had to wait for
the availability of cheap computation. Oh, and a highly competitive
funding environment, where the only thing that gets funded is
hysteria.

Robert.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

The identification of the mechanism is over a century old.
The appearance of hysteria has had to wait for the
availability of cheap computation.

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc". A seductive theory, but the data is
out-of-phase. The acedemics who pushed GW have not been short of
computing power since the /360. From a purely "b#llsh!t baffles
brains" PoV, the best time to have launched GW was before PCs,
when people were a lot more credulous of computers (had fewer
personal experiences of GIGO). And fewer could challenge calcs.

Oh, and a highly competitive funding environment,
where the only thing that gets funded is hysteria.

This is neither proven nor disproven.


-- Robert R

 

[Jerry Peters]

Yes. See http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2004nov20_c.html



That is the surface of the scientific method. Results must
be duplicateable or they are highly suspect. Cold fusion.

But there is more. Scientists should not get overly attached
to their theories, for the theories may be wrong. Ideally,
theories are formulated from data, not data sought to confirm
theories (some will always be found). The attachment clouds
their judgement and impartiality. Too many of the Global Warming
advocates like Mann have been seduced by their theories and have
invested their entire reputations in the theory.


-- Robert R

Of course they shouldn't, but when you've invested much time and
effort into something, the temptation to go on believing it, even when
newer data tends to indicate that it's false, is just too great.

As for GW, I'm not sure that I'd promote it to a "theory". At this
point I would call anthropogenic GW a hypothesis, computer models
which assume that AGW is true certainly don't constitute "proof". And
of course correlation, which the climate science types are so fond of,
is not evidence of causation.

Jerry

 

[Jerry Peters]

Physics has been working in reverse for a long time. Einstein
predicts the precession of the periheliion of Mercury, and it is
found. Expensive modern experiments are all driven by theoretical
predictions. Shots in the dark are a luxury no one can afford.

Have you looked at string & super-string theory. The mathematics is
beautiful and the results predict the particles we detect, but the
basic theory is (currently) untestable, the energy levels that are
required are enormous.
I'm really waiting to see the results from the LHSC, if the Higgs
particle is detected. If it's not, that should certainly stir up the
pot.

The thing that makes me most profoundly skeptical of the global
warming push is that the prediction appears just as the tools to make
it have become available.

Well, that's not exactly true. The identification of the mechanism is
over a century old. The appearance of hysteria has had to wait for
the availability of cheap computation. Oh, and a highly competitive
funding environment, where the only thing that gets funded is
hysteria.

Not to mention the media. Is it some type of requirement that
journalism majors be totally ignorant of even the basics of science?
The media seems to believe that just because a group of "climate
scientists" proclaim that there's a "consensus" that the issue has
been resolved. Considering that there has been no warming since 1998,
and the last 2 years have shown a cooling trend, I'm amazed that no
one seems to be asking any questions.

Jerry

 

[Jerry Peters]

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc". A seductive theory, but the data is
out-of-phase. The acedemics who pushed GW have not been short of
computing power since the /360. From a purely "b#llsh!t baffles
brains" PoV, the best time to have launched GW was before PCs,
when people were a lot more credulous of computers (had fewer
personal experiences of GIGO). And fewer could challenge calcs.

But were the modelling techniques and climate knowledge available at
that time (mid to late 60's)? Also the 360 line was pretty puny by
modern standards. I have a 10 year old laptop with more computing
power, ram, and probably disk storage on it, than we had to run a
large bank on in the early 70's. Heck, it probably is more powerful
than most of the mainframes I've used, up until perhaps the late 80's.

Also, I seem to remember that in the mid to late 80's the worry was
global cooling, even among some of the current GW hysterics.

This is neither proven nor disproven.

I think I'd phrase it differently: the only things that get funded are
"politically correct" according to current thinking.

Jerry

 

[Robert Myers]

Have you looked at string & super-string theory. The mathematics is
beautiful and the results predict the particles we detect, but the
basic theory is (currently) untestable, the energy levels that are
required are enormous.
I'm really waiting to see the results from the LHSC, if the Higgs
particle is detected. If it's not, that should certainly stir up the
pot.

To the extent I understand quantum field theory, it's because many of
the mathematical techniques find application in classical contexts.
Maybe someone has found such an application for string theory, but
I've never come across it. My natural inclination is to side with the
skeptics: string theory is nothing more than a thesis and tenure
generator.

Physics is in bad shape. This is not really the place to discuss it,
except to observe that little is to be hoped for from improvements in
hardware.

I had hoped that pervasively available muscular hardware would lead to
a Renaissance in knowledge about computation. Alas, if anything, the
opposite seems to have happened, as it is now easier than ever to make
plausible-looking plots with no understanding at all.

I expect a null result from the LHSC. The future of particle physics
will be just as chaotic as the past. I'd be delighted to be proven
wrong.

Not to mention the media. Is it some type of requirement that
journalism majors be totally ignorant of even the basics of science?
The media seems to believe that just because a group of "climate
scientists" proclaim that there's a "consensus" that the issue has
been resolved. Considering that there has been no warming since 1998,
and the last 2 years have shown a cooling trend, I'm amazed that no
one seems to be asking any questions.

I started this thread because I could not go past what I regarded as a
teachable moment. Fashions in theory are everywhere, and people with
lots of money are just as gullible as anyone else when you come right
down to it.

Our entire society has been dumbed down, and one of the more
outrageous bits of propaganda is that the right is holding on to
intellectual respectability while the liberal types slide into some
kind of mush. Poppycock. Knowledge of Latin phrases and intellectual
rigor may even be negatively correlated.

Robert.