Comments for The Optimiskeptic http://optimiskeptic.com The butter knife of hopeful ideas, positive thinking, and measured skepticism Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:23:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on This is where bad science starts by Bill http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/21/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/#comment-79 Bill Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:23:00 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=59#comment-79 Kudos for an excellent analysis- error must be called out whether the perpetrator is 8 or 80 yo.... certainly before they go to Abu Dhabi!  I have something that I think should be added to the scientific discussion, that I've not seen brought forth on any site referencing Aidan's whole 'experiment' ("science project" is, possibly, a fairer term)   In brief:  straight from the American Museum of Natural History site, Aidan claims that his 'tree' array generated electricity for 12 1/2 hours during the winter.  However, note that his experiment was performed in New York, and the 'winter' test was in December --> giving the benefit of the doubt (southern New York, longest day in December), the onset of civil twighlight (morning) is 6:30a, and ends (evening) almost exactly at 5p.  That's only 10.5 hrs where there is any sort of natural light (and that's being extremely generous).  Looking at his results, the only explanation (for 12.5 hrs of solar power in 10.5 hrs of light) that I can come up with is that his results were [further] contaminated by artificial light sources. Looking at the bigger picture, one popular attitude about this project on the Internet suggests that it's wrong to criticize Aidan's results, e.g., "the effort should be lauded".  I'll simply point out the downside of the "effort is more important than results" camp with a link to a video that sums up where this thinking leads: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/you-can-do-anything/1379100 Kudos for an excellent analysis- error must be called out whether the perpetrator is 8 or 80 yo…. certainly before they go to Abu Dhabi!  I have something that I think should be added to the scientific discussion, that I’ve not seen brought forth on any site referencing Aidan’s whole ‘experiment’ (“science project” is, possibly, a fairer term)
 
In brief:  straight from the American Museum of Natural History site, Aidan claims that his ‘tree’ array generated electricity for 12 1/2 hours during the winter.  However, note that his experiment was performed in New York, and the ‘winter’ test was in December –> giving the benefit of the doubt (southern New York, longest day in December), the onset of civil twighlight (morning) is 6:30a, and ends (evening) almost exactly at 5p.  That’s only 10.5 hrs where there is any sort of natural light (and that’s being extremely generous).  Looking at his results, the only explanation (for 12.5 hrs of solar power in 10.5 hrs of light) that I can come up with is that his results were [further] contaminated by artificial light sources.

Looking at the bigger picture, one popular attitude about this project on the Internet suggests that it’s wrong to criticize Aidan’s results, e.g., “the effort should be lauded”.  I’ll simply point out the downside of the “effort is more important than results” camp with a link to a video that sums up where this thinking leads:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/you-can-do-anything/1379100

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Jeremiah C http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/21/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/#comment-78 Jeremiah C Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:10:00 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=59#comment-78 On another note, I challenge you to find all the incorrect uses of the comma in your post. On another note, I challenge you to find all the incorrect uses of the comma in your post.

]]> Comment on This is where bad science leads by Zachariah Wiedeman http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/25/this-is-where-bad-science-leads/#comment-77 Zachariah Wiedeman Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:48:00 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=98#comment-77 I get the idea you're being more sarcastic and snarky than serious, but I'll do my best to play although even though I do not watch "The Big Bang Theory" nor have I ever seen more than five minutes of the show actually (at this point, you're wondering, "Then how does he know I was referencing The Big Bang Theory?" Answer: I keep my ear to the ground. *wink*) What you're asking about is called Epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) which is basically the study of how to know truth. It is sad that the typical liberal arts education does not require students to take more philosophy classes - primarily those concerned with how to think (logic) and discern truth from fiction (http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/). As a result, even some of the brightest, most educated people out there easily fall prey to simple logical fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) - either in their acquisition of truth or in their presentation of it. But even those who are well trained in Epistemology will diverge on how to apply it and wind up at radically different places. It is wielded by both the religious (http://bit.ly/vhTTXD) and the non-religious (http://bit.ly/sS9xjB) quite handily to make their points. Perhaps there is a balance to be struck (http://www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/#H5)? Or perhaps Dr. Matt has a cheezy and 1997-looking web page on the subject (http://www.calldrmatt.com/TruthClaims.htm)? This is where knowing yourself and learning from your personal experiences in life can come in handy. And I mean actually LEARNING from your personal experiences rather than living your life as a series of reactions. Be an observer of yourself - get outside your head and peer in. Practice self-review and self-reflection on your life and what you've learned each day. Understand your worldview, your biases, and your drives - on the conscious and subconscious level. If you don't, you'll never really understand how you think and you'll never really be able to start the difficult task of "thinking better." I get the idea you’re being more sarcastic and snarky than serious, but I’ll do my best to play although even though I do not watch “The Big Bang Theory” nor have I ever seen more than five minutes of the show actually (at this point, you’re wondering, “Then how does he know I was referencing The Big Bang Theory?” Answer: I keep my ear to the ground. *wink*)

What you’re asking about is called Epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) which is basically the study of how to know truth. It is sad that the typical liberal arts education does not require students to take more philosophy classes – primarily those concerned with how to think (logic) and discern truth from fiction (http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/). As a result, even some of the brightest, most educated people out there easily fall prey to simple logical fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) - either in their acquisition of truth or in their presentation of it.

But even those who are well trained in Epistemology will diverge on how to apply it and wind up at radically different places. It is wielded by both the religious (http://bit.ly/vhTTXD) and the non-religious (http://bit.ly/sS9xjB) quite handily to make their points. Perhaps there is a balance to be struck (http://www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/#H5)? Or perhaps Dr. Matt has a cheezy and 1997-looking web page on the subject (http://www.calldrmatt.com/TruthClaims.htm)?

This is where knowing yourself and learning from your personal experiences in life can come in handy. And I mean actually LEARNING from your personal experiences rather than living your life as a series of reactions. Be an observer of yourself – get outside your head and peer in. Practice self-review and self-reflection on your life and what you’ve learned each day. Understand your worldview, your biases, and your drives – on the conscious and subconscious level. If you don’t, you’ll never really understand how you think and you’ll never really be able to start the difficult task of “thinking better.”

]]> Comment on This is where bad science leads by "Penny" http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/25/this-is-where-bad-science-leads/#comment-75 "Penny" Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:52:00 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=98#comment-75 I feel like Penny talking to Sheldon. Blatantly ignoring your bolded statement about "deferring to the experts. You are the expert." can I ask, would you be willing to suggest in the simplest and most specific terms possible a practical way for fuzzy uneducated thinkers like me (the type you rail about), who recognise some of the flaws in their thinking and harbour suspicions that there are probably many more, to improve the way they think about a given topic or presentation? Is there a simple step-by-step process, template or protocol you can suggest? Or is that request just symptomatic of my current limitations in thinking? I feel like Penny talking to Sheldon.

Blatantly ignoring your bolded statement about “deferring to the experts. You are the expert.” can I ask, would you be willing to suggest in the simplest and most specific terms possible a practical way for fuzzy uneducated thinkers like me (the type you rail about), who recognise some of the flaws in their thinking and harbour suspicions that there are probably many more, to improve the way they think about a given topic or presentation?

Is there a simple step-by-step process, template or protocol you can suggest? Or is that request just symptomatic of my current limitations in thinking?

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Jacob Kelly http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/21/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/#comment-69 Jacob Kelly Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:00:00 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=59#comment-69 One might wonder if perhaps looking at a daily scale you are correct.  Being that trees don't really phototaxis all that much it may be that within the context of an annual cycle by a static (unmoving) array would be closer to optimal.  With modern tech, we're not limited to a static array however, and thus I think you have a point.  I have no doubt that this is a subject worth debating over, learning more about, etc...and that's alot more goodness then most 40 year olds stir up. One interesting thought is this.  Imagine a tree and all it's leaves in your yard.  In the summer those tens of thousands of leaves are held up in such a way that the sun can hit most of them and do photosynthesis fairly efficiently.  Now imagine those same leaves on the flat plane of the ground and the surface area they take up. I should imagine you could (wlld guess) lay out leaves end to end, side to side, and have a flat plane of ground covered ~10 times the size the diameter of the branch area.  Yes, they will likely be more efficient (assume optimal daily angle), but if you then place 10 trees instead you would have roughly 100 times more leaves in a given space.  It makes sense why nature does this.  This make sense in this regard as well as in a competitive sense.  If the resources exist to  build panels in such a copious amount with little energy initially input to output, where reduced efficiency per cell is not the primary concern, but rather overall sunlight gathering, I just can't figure how a flat array would be more optimal.  As efficiency of the design of the cells themselves increase the flatter array might make more sense in a cost to benefit ratio. It seems to me, that just as in nature there are different optimal setups for different efficiencies/ environments etc..  I would say mathematics has some work to do.  I applaud the boy for thinking uniquely and challenging us to think, even if there are gaps in his arguments. Regarding the arguments about evolution, some level of optimization would occur just due to competition over time as others have stated.  It is likely an array which is near optimal for a tree given it's natural environment and limitations.  I would imagine the diffences in sequences regarding different species could be due to the latitudes, other conditions etc. in which the trees have primarily evolved.  I think the kid is to be praised for thinking well ahead of his age, and yes the media ran with it, as it often does without peer review etc....but hey, it wasn't published in Science or Nature, and I don't think you need to worry about science falling apart tommorow. I agree that the kid's idea should be challenged, albeit politely and with consideration of his age, and given the media attention.  I think an equal amount of praise for being such a curious, seeking mind should be showered upon him as the criticisms and I think that did come up short in your blog post.   One might wonder if perhaps looking at a daily scale you are correct.  Being that trees don’t really phototaxis all that much it may be that within the context of an annual cycle by a static (unmoving) array would be closer to optimal.  With modern tech, we’re not limited to a static array however, and thus I think you have a point.  I have no doubt that this is a subject worth debating over, learning more about, etc…and that’s alot more goodness then most 40 year olds stir up.

One interesting thought is this.  Imagine a tree and all it’s leaves in your yard.  In the summer those tens of thousands of leaves are held up in such a way that the sun can hit most of them and do photosynthesis fairly efficiently.  Now imagine those same leaves on the flat plane of the ground and the surface area they take up. I should imagine you could (wlld guess) lay out leaves end to end, side to side, and have a flat plane of ground covered ~10 times the size the diameter of the branch area.  Yes, they will likely be more efficient (assume optimal daily angle), but if you then place 10 trees instead you would have roughly 100 times more leaves in a given space.  It makes sense why nature does this.  This make sense in this regard as well as in a competitive sense.  If the resources exist to  build panels in such a copious amount with little energy initially input to output, where reduced efficiency per cell is not the primary concern, but rather overall sunlight gathering, I just can’t figure how a flat array would be more optimal.  As efficiency of the design of the cells themselves increase the flatter array might make more sense in a cost to benefit ratio.

It seems to me, that just as in nature there are different optimal setups for different efficiencies/ environments etc..  I would say mathematics has some work to do.  I applaud the boy for thinking uniquely and challenging us to think, even if there are gaps in his arguments.

Regarding the arguments about evolution, some level of optimization would occur just due to competition over time as others have stated.  It is likely an array which is near optimal for a tree given it’s natural environment and limitations.  I would imagine the diffences in sequences regarding different species could be due to the latitudes, other conditions etc. in which the trees have primarily evolved.  I think the kid is to be praised for thinking well ahead of his age, and yes the media ran with it, as it often does without peer review etc….but hey, it wasn’t published in Science or Nature, and I don’t think you need to worry about science falling apart tommorow.

I agree that the kid’s idea should be challenged, albeit politely and with consideration of his age, and given the media attention.  I think an equal amount of praise for being such a curious, seeking mind should be showered upon him as the criticisms and I think that did come up short in your blog post.  

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by timhombs http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/21/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/#comment-68 timhombs Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:31:00 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=59#comment-68 Right - that's why birds fly to the moon.  Oh, wait... Right – that’s why birds fly to the moon.  Oh, wait…

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Meet a 13 – year-old solar Panel developper - Okapitechnology.com | Okapitechnology.com http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/21/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/#comment-67 Meet a 13 – year-old solar Panel developper - Okapitechnology.com | Okapitechnology.com Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:28:12 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=59#comment-67 [...] That blog post, on a site called The Optimiskeptic, questions whether Dwyer used the right measurements to make his conclusions: I’m not entirely sure why Aidan thought that he could measure power intake by measuring voltage on his solar cells. I’m not entirely sure why the different arrangements yielded different voltage totals … I do know that solar cells are designed to convert energy from photons into potential energy in the form of electrons: ‘charging the battery.’ Levels of voltage have nothing to do with how charged that battery is, however, and at no time during his experiment was Aidan actually measuring how much power was being converted by each of the solar cell arrangements. [...] [...] That blog post, on a site called The Optimiskeptic, questions whether Dwyer used the right measurements to make his conclusions: I’m not entirely sure why Aidan thought that he could measure power intake by measuring voltage on his solar cells. I’m not entirely sure why the different arrangements yielded different voltage totals … I do know that solar cells are designed to convert energy from photons into potential energy in the form of electrons: ‘charging the battery.’ Levels of voltage have nothing to do with how charged that battery is, however, and at no time during his experiment was Aidan actually measuring how much power was being converted by each of the solar cell arrangements. [...]

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Anonymous http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/21/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/#comment-66 Anonymous Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:09:00 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=59#comment-66 Right, but apparently now Aiden is claiming he also improved upon overall sunlight exposure (thus, current). This is still mathematically impossible due to optimal calculations and is either the result of faulty measurements or the fact that he has more solar panels in his tree arrangement than his flat array. The second fact is going to negate the validity of his result every time since he's essentially comparing apples to apple trees. See link: http://www.americansolarenergies.com/blog/meet-a-13-year-old-solar-panel-developer Right, but apparently now Aiden is claiming he also improved upon overall sunlight exposure (thus, current). This is still mathematically impossible due to optimal calculations and is either the result of faulty measurements or the fact that he has more solar panels in his tree arrangement than his flat array. The second fact is going to negate the validity of his result every time since he’s essentially comparing apples to apple trees. See link: http://www.americansolarenergies.com/blog/meet-a-13-year-old-solar-panel-developer

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Anonymous http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/21/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/#comment-65 Anonymous Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:06:00 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=59#comment-65 Optimal angle means that the panel is facing a the direction which will allow it to collect the most possible sunlight on any given day. While optimal angle may be improved upon from minute to minute, it is calculated for a given day. Any deviation from that angle may improve sunlight collection comparing one point of time to another (i.e. at 12:45pm one may be at a more optimal angle than the other), but since the panel is stationary for the entire day, optimal angle is derived by calculating how to collect the most sunlight for the duration of the day. It is a mathematical maximum, it is a pretty simple calculation, and cannot be improved upon in this reality. Optimal angle means that the panel is facing a the direction which will allow it to collect the most possible sunlight on any given day. While optimal angle may be improved upon from minute to minute, it is calculated for a given day. Any deviation from that angle may improve sunlight collection comparing one point of time to another (i.e. at 12:45pm one may be at a more optimal angle than the other), but since the panel is stationary for the entire day, optimal angle is derived by calculating how to collect the most sunlight for the duration of the day. It is a mathematical maximum, it is a pretty simple calculation, and cannot be improved upon in this reality.

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Anonymous http://optimiskeptic.com/2011/08/21/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/#comment-64 Anonymous Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:02:00 +0000 http://optimiskeptic.com/?p=59#comment-64 Really? One's proclivity to make typos is directly relevant to the soundness of one's logical processes? Try arguing actual content, not syntax error. Really? One’s proclivity to make typos is directly relevant to the soundness of one’s logical processes? Try arguing actual content, not syntax error.

]]>