Shravana Ganga’s Post

Herewith one of my rare attempts at combining literature, philosophy and some physics/math thinking into an article "Embodying Science in Literature: Theoretical Fiction as Emergent Science in Art Practice" translated into Chinese as 文学作品中的具身科学: 理论 虚构作为艺术实践 中的 新兴科学. To be published as Semiotics of Industrial Art: between Technology, Politics and Senses (产业艺术符号学：在技术、政治与感官之间). Bogota: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Colombia Press published in collaboration with the International Association for Semiotic Studies (IASS-AIS). Early Career Researchers Series. I am more mid than early career now but this was an early career work I set aside until I was invited to submit a relevant piece to the edited volume. Some versions of it will appear in my book in progress that has been set aside but will be revived. Looking forward to its reception in the Chinese-speaking humanistic/philosophical/literary world once the volume it is published in is officially out. Original English version attached for reference and for those who don’t read academic Chinese. #artscience #literature #philosophy

#Science #technology #knowledge Science, derived from the Latin word *scientia* meaning "knowledge," is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge through testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It is a broad and dynamic field that encompasses a variety of disciplines, each dedicated to understanding specific aspects of the natural and physical world. Science relies on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and rigorous methodologies to uncover the principles governing the cosmos. This article provides an in-depth overview of science and its main fields. Read More Click the link below https://lnkd.in/eQguwvWX

REQUEST FOR BENEVOLENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEWS (1 of 3) Hello dear network, As you may know, I cultivate a versatile mind and besides my job as agent of AGC and Pujol and activities at the Belgolux Chamber of Commerce in Santiago, I dedicate myself to practical philosophy with Pointfulness. Science and philosophy and intimately linked together, so I use my education and my curiosity to think about reality and its conceptual grounds. Many years ago, when I was writing my book (page 15), I had an intuition about Pi, the irrational constant. Ten years later, I am publishing a two papers on this topic. As I am not a scientist in any way and as respect them very much, I am shy at contacting science people I do not know. This is why I would be very grateful if you could share my papers with a mathematician or a physicist you might know (the kind you can have a beer with) and give me some feedback. Here is attached the first paper of three : The dominant cosmological and physical models assume a continuous universe, where irrational numbers such as pi and square-root of 2 play fundamental roles. However, this assumption is inconsistent with quantum mechanics and the finite nature of observable measurements. This paper proposes a revolutionary perspective: the observable universe is fundamentally discrete, with rational fractions forming its foundation. Irrational numbers arise as approximations imposed by continuous frameworks, making them secondary abstractions. Using Dirichlet's Approximation Theorem, this work rigorously formulates the mathematical and physical implications of this paradigm, offering a cohesive argument that discreteness better aligns with physical reality. Thank you very much!

I find this image concept incredibly compelling. It captures not just the essence of the equation E = -mc², but also the enthusiasm for learning that is essential in the study of physics. The futuristic classroom setting indicates that science is always evolving, and it's exciting to think about how future generations will explore and understand these concepts. The energy emanating from the teacher and the students really highlights the dynamic nature of education. It’s encouraging to witness diverse individuals engaged in a profound discussion about energy and mass, which portrays science as an inclusive and collaborative endeavor. The inclusion of a character reminiscent of Einstein serves to connect the past with the present, reminding us that there’s still so much to discover and learn. Furthermore, the thought bubbles illustrating concepts connected to the negative implications of the equation provoke curiosity and critical thinking. It suggests that while we may understand the mathematics, we should also delve into the philosophical implications of such principles, particularly when they challenge our traditional views of energy and existence. Overall, the image not only promotes an understanding of E = -mc² but also inspires a love for exploration and inquiry in science, which is essential for advancing our knowledge of the universe. It beautifully encapsulates the ongoing dialogue between established scientific truths and the questions that remain unanswered. What a fantastic way to engage minds both young and old in the incredible journey of discovery!

Recommended food for thought for visual science communicators. 👇 "Metaphor is a window into how social and cultural forces shape science, everything from what we think science is to how it should be done, to who can do science is shaped by social and cultural forces. And that’s really evident when you start looking at the metaphors we use in science." https://lnkd.in/e-cgPazQ

Superconductor researcher loses fifth paper   Ranga Dias, the physics researcher whose work on room-temperature superconductors https://lnkd.in/g7iTDRsT has been retracted after coauthors raised concerns about the data, has lost another paper for the same reason.   In December, the Physical Review Letters journal published an expression of concern https://lnkd.in/gnhA5XbZ for the paper "Synthesis of Yttrium Superhydride Superconductor with a Transition Temperature up to 262 K by Catalytic Hydrogenation at High Pressures", https://lnkd.in/gVrYvj66 stating it was investigating concerns “regarding the origins and integrity of the transport data” in several of the paper’s figures “with the cooperation of the authors.”   On June 13, the journal retracted the paper. The notice states: "After repeated attempts to locate the raw data and obtain an authoritative account of its origins, Physical Review Letters concurs that the article is not supported by its data and that it needs to be retracted. Ranga P. Dias stands by the data in the aforementioned figures and table, and does not agree to retract the paper. The remaining authors regret any confusion or inconvenience caused to the scientific community."   Washington State University, where Dias obtained his PhD, is also investigating allegations of plagiarism https://lnkd.in/g6wZPvh6 in his thesis.   #article #research #journal #accusation #plagiarism #manipulation #retractionwatch #technologycenter

Superconductor researcher loses fifth paper   Ranga Dias, the physics researcher whose work on room-temperature superconductors has been retracted after coauthors raised concerns about the data, has lost another paper for the same reason. In December, the Physical Review Letters journal published an expression of concern for the paper "Synthesis of Yttrium Superhydride Superconductor with a Transition Temperature up to 262 K by Catalytic Hydrogenation at High Pressures", stating it was investigating concerns “regarding the origins and integrity of the transport data” in several of the paper’s figures “with the cooperation of the authors.” On June 13, the journal retracted the paper. The notice states: "After repeated attempts to locate the raw data and obtain an authoritative account of its origins, Physical Review Letters concurs that the article is not supported by its data and that it needs to be retracted. Ranga P. Dias stands by the data in the aforementioned figures and table, and does not agree to retract the paper. The remaining authors regret any confusion or inconvenience caused to the scientific community." Washington State University, where Dias obtained his PhD, is also investigating allegations of plagiarism in his thesis. #article #research #journal #accusation #plagiarism #manipulation #retractionwatch #technologycenter https://lnkd.in/dmnTM-P7

Everything wrong with Paul Feyerabend in 10 parts. Part Five: Theoretical incommensurability. 'The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual'. ............. Prima facie, the case of consistency condition can be dealt with in a few words. It is well known (and has also been shown in detail by Duhem) that Newton's mechanics is inconsistent with Galileo's law of free fall and with Kepler's laws; that statistical thermodynamics is inconsistent with the second law of the phenomenological theory· that wave optics is inconsistent with geometrical optics; and so on. Note that what is being asserted here is logical inconsistency; it may well be that the differences of prediction are too small to be detected by experiment. Note also that what is being asserted is not the inconsistency of, say, Newton's theory and Galileo's law, but rather the inconsistency of some consequences of Newton's theory in the domain of validity of Galileo's law, and Galileo's law. In the last case, the situation is especially clear. Galileo's law asserts that the acceleration of free fall is a constant, whereas application of Newton's theory to the surface of the earth gives an acceleration that is not constant but decreases (although imperceptibly) with the distance from the centre of the earth'. - Paul Feyerabend, 'Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge', 1975. Notes: According to Thomas Kuhn, (1922 – 1996), the unit of scientific thought and action is the paradigm, not the theory. A paradigm can include textbook presentations of theory, exemplary problem solutions, standard equipment, a methodology, a philosophy. Among the important paradigms of the history of science have been the Aristotelian, the Ptolemaic, and the Newtonian in physics. Chemistry before Lavoisier, and biology before Darwin, were pre-paradigm disciplines,not yet really scientific, for without the paradigm there is no normal science to accumulate information that illuminates the paradigm. The paradigm controls what counts as data relevant to testing hypotheses. There is according to Kuhn argued no observational vocabulary, no court of final authority in experience. Experience comes to us already laden with theory. Crisis emerges for a paradigm when a puzzle cannot be solved and begins to be treated like an anomaly. When the anomaly begins to occupy most of the attention of the figures at the research frontier of the discipline it is ready for revolution. Continued below ... ['Alexander von Humboldt und Aimé Bonpland in der Urwaldhütte', (Jungle Hut), Eduard Ender (1822-1883)]:-

Science is not about certainty Whenever I see this phrase "Science has proved.." I cringe 🤦🏻♂️ The scientist here says that, the very expression 'scientifically proven' is a contradiction in terms. And that: There is nothing that is scientifically proven. he goes on to say that: The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. Because we have biases or like he phrased it 'ingrained prejudices'. "In our conceptual structure for grasping reality there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment, we have a vision of reality that is effective, it's good, it's the best we have found so far. It's the most credible we have found so far, its mostly correct." I always say that science is a lens A lens that helps us see the world better but it's still not a perfect lens and it gives us as Carlo says here "a vision of reality" "We have a vision of reality that is effective, it's good, it's the best we have found so far." I really like this part as well "Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking, at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it's not certain. In fact, not only it's not certain, but it's the lack of certainty that grounds it." I think Carlo here describes the phenomenon perfectly Science is amazing and the things we're able to do with it are fascinating but we are able to do what we do because of how we deal with uncertainty. The following part is extra cool "Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure, but because they are the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they are the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody's criticism." https://lnkd.in/dEQ9yy-4.

https://lnkd.in/e6skTyRi I had a  problem with this article. Maybe I am missing the point, but to say "In our everyday world, probability probably does not exist" seems meaningless to me; I am maybe going to get hammered here, so note that Prof.  #DavidSpiegelhalter adds "but it is often useful to act as if it does", and I'm certainly okay with that! Also Prof. Spiegelhalter is a TOP expert here. In fact, he and his Cambridge colleagues have been my role models. Cambridge UK kept Bayesian probability alight through the dark ages in the 60s and 70s, and inspired me as a student to publish some of the first methods for predictions of protein structure based on Bayesian reasoning (data was sparse), with an appendix of formal proof written by UK Cambridge mathematician Pat Altham. But "There is no ‘true’ probability to compare...”, means what? Maybe part of my problem is because I am an information theorist at heart, and anything in the world that reaches into my head is no more or less tangible than anything else. Yes, the clearest example of probability as a real and pure concept, and surely the basis of probability in the everyday world, is in quantum physics. If the spin is initially up along the Z axis, and you measure it again, the result is always that it is spin up or spin down, and if you measure it many times at an angle to that axis, the proportion of ups to downs fits the probability formula for that angle. Similarly, if a patient with certain demographic and clinical factors will have a heart attack, maybe she won’t, but the hope is that a million will follow the formula so that we can try and prevent it.  I don’t see complexity as a fundamental difference (with a few caveats like wave function collapse, but then that or something is what happened on measuring spin). Prof. Spiegelhalter says quantum is an exception, but I was similarly once a Nature News & View Correspondent but on biomolecules, for roughly 5 years, and all that statistical mechanics in the behavior of proteins, water, pharmaceutical molecules looked pretty central to me (as well as experiment, of course). And that's mostly classical, not quantum! Is thermodynamic's Free Energy unmeasurable? Should we say, "except for physics?"  I don’t think so. I’d not want to choose from various therapies, pills, surgery etc., without knowing all the best estimates of all the probabilities/odds of benefit and risk. When I see estimates of the possible fatality rate for human-to-human transmission of bird flu’, thinking that it might not happen to me gives me little comfort. But then Prof. Spiegelhalter is the world's caring expert on such matters, so I’m not preaching there. It's just my philosophy, and probably really because after years of me trying to teach biostatistics, Evidence Based Medicine, and epidemiology to medical students, I fear that “probability probably does not exist" might add to excuses like “Sorry Prof., the dog ate my homework”.