Author Topic: Anticipatory Thermo-Genesis  (Read 737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9558
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Anticipatory Thermo-Genesis
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2019, 11:57:25 AM »
I myself have spent as much as five minutes in ocean water in the middle of winter with no other protection than regular lightweight lycra swim shorts. (Actually cycling shorts, which I use as swim shorts since I don't like the loose-fitting swim shorts.)

Swimming with wet chamois... yuck.

Lycra is not chamois. Chamois absorbs and holds water. Lycra is an ultra-thin fabric that holds virtually no water at all. It stretches easily and moves with the body and does not bunch up in the crotch or ride up like loose-fitting shorts which can leave the dangling parts exposed. And it does not feel clammy when you get out of the water.

Maybe you're thinking of cycling shorts that have absorbent fabric inside. Mine don't.

You don't spend much time in the saddle, do you? 

I was probably 8 years old the one time I sat on a horse. What does that have to do with swim shorts?

You really don't spend much time in the saddle.

wiki
Quote
A bicycle saddle, often called a seat

And bike shorts are cut for sitting in the saddle, not walking or swimming, for that matter... 

Cultural differences. I have heard a bicycle seat called a saddle, but here in the U.S. it's almost always called a seat. "Saddle" almost always refers to what a horse rider sits on. I rode a bicycle for a few years, from around 1978 to around 1989 but was never good at it and I quit when I developed an inflammation in my IT band.

I find my old lycra cycling shorts to be the perfect swimwear. They do not become waterlogged or clammy in the least. In fact, they're far more comfortable for swimming than they ever were in the "saddle" of a bicycle. And they stay in place far better than any kind of loose swim shorts.

And I never imagined that my silly joke about swimming in winter (in Maui, in an ice-swimming thread) would lead to such a long digression off the topic.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8188
Re: Anticipatory Thermo-Genesis
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2019, 08:29:10 PM »
Can't really know unless we see studies.

Or unless we understand the underlying science.

No. Extrapolating from basic science in matters like these is not adequate, and is a hallmark of pseudoscience. If there's an effect, it can be tested, and we should not accept that it is real without doing so.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
    • jt512
Re: Anticipatory Thermo-Genesis
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2019, 09:12:17 PM »
Can't really know unless we see studies.

Or unless we understand the underlying science.

No. Extrapolating from basic science in matters like these is not adequate, and is a hallmark of pseudoscience. If there's an effect, it can be tested, and we should not accept that it is real without doing so.


We do not have to test a hypothesis if it is already ruled out by well-understood science.  For example, we don't have to test ESP, homeopathy, or whether the effect of low-carb diets cannot be accounted for by energy balance.  We know that all of these hypotheses are false.  All the time and money that has been spent on testing these hypotheses has been a total waste of resources.  The outcome of these experiments was a foregone conclusion.  Pseudoscience is characterized by the continuing insistence to test hypotheses that real science have already shown to be impossible.   That's why homeopaths and parapsychologists are still testing homeopathy and ESP. 
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8188
Re: Anticipatory Thermo-Genesis
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2019, 12:12:51 AM »
Can't really know unless we see studies.

Or unless we understand the underlying science.

No. Extrapolating from basic science in matters like these is not adequate, and is a hallmark of pseudoscience. If there's an effect, it can be tested, and we should not accept that it is real without doing so.

We do not have to test a hypothesis if it is already ruled out by well-understood science.  For example, we don't have to test ESP, homeopathy, or whether the effect of low-carb diets cannot be accounted for by energy balance.  We know that all of these hypotheses are false.  All the time and money that has been spent on testing these hypotheses has been a total waste of resources.  The outcome of these experiments was a foregone conclusion.  Pseudoscience is characterized by the continuing insistence to test hypotheses that real science have already shown to be impossible.   That's why homeopaths and parapsychologists are still testing homeopathy and ESP.

Perhaps I misunderstood you; is your argument for maintaining the null hypothesis in the absence of a plausible mechanism or evidence for this phenomenon? If so, I agree. But I do not consider that 'knowing' that the phenomenon does not exist, and I won't claim knowledge that it doesn't in the absence of evidence against it.

I had understood you to mean that it was possible to conclude now from understanding of basic science that the phenomenon does exist. That is what I do not agree with.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
    • jt512
Re: Anticipatory Thermo-Genesis
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2019, 12:03:23 PM »
Can't really know unless we see studies.

Or unless we understand the underlying science.

No. Extrapolating from basic science in matters like these is not adequate, and is a hallmark of pseudoscience. If there's an effect, it can be tested, and we should not accept that it is real without doing so.

We do not have to test a hypothesis if it is already ruled out by well-understood science.  For example, we don't have to test ESP, homeopathy, or whether the effect of low-carb diets cannot be accounted for by energy balance.  We know that all of these hypotheses are false.  All the time and money that has been spent on testing these hypotheses has been a total waste of resources.  The outcome of these experiments was a foregone conclusion.  Pseudoscience is characterized by the continuing insistence to test hypotheses that real science have already shown to be impossible.   That's why homeopaths and parapsychologists are still testing homeopathy and ESP.

Perhaps I misunderstood you; is your argument for maintaining the null hypothesis in the absence of a plausible mechanism or evidence for this phenomenon? If so, I agree.

I'm saying something stronger.  Namely, that if a purported phenomenon violates established science, we can rule it out with practical certainty.  That is, we don't need to test the phenomenon; we know, for all practical purposes, that it is false a priori.  As an example, several years ago some NASA biologists believed they discovered a bacterium in Mono Lake in California that could incorporate arsenic into its DNA in place of phosphorus.  But anybody who understood the physical chemistry of arsenic knew that that was chemically impossible; the resulting DNA would be unstable.  There was no good reason to test this phenomenon; it violated known chemistry.

 
Quote
But I do not consider that 'knowing' that the phenomenon does not exist, and I won't claim knowledge that it doesn't in the absence of evidence against it.

To continue with the arsenic-DNA example, the evidence against the hypothesis existed before the hypothesis: either arsenic can substitute for phosphorus in DNA, or all the pre-existing physical chemistry is wrong.  Do the Bayesian math.

Quote
I had understood you to mean that it was possible to conclude now from understanding of basic science that the phenomenon does exist. That is what I do not agree with.

We can sometimes do that too.  If established science says something has to happen, then it has to happen; otherwise, all the evidence that says it has to happen is wrong, and the probability of that for a well-established theory is negligible.  Thus, the hypothesis "substituting arsenic for phosphorus in DNA will make the DNA unstable" doesn't have to be tested.  Physical chemistry says it must.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2019, 12:55:17 PM by jt512 »
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain