SAN JOSE — Sharks center Joe Thornton is still not quite 100 percent healthy as the unofficial second half of the year gets underway this weekend.Thornton, 39, dealt with an infection in his surgically repaired right knee in October and on Thursday, Sharks coach Pete DeBoer revealed that Thornton later suffered a broken toe. The Sharks returned to practice Thursday after an eight-day break off the ice and Thornton is expected to play Saturday at SAP Center against the Arizona Coyotes.For …
V & V. That’s shorthand in project design for “validation and verification.” Does the scientific method provide V & V? We are all taught to think that peer review, publication and replication help science to be self-checking, so as to avoid error. Some recent articles show that ain’t necessarily so. It may sound good in theory, but in practice, the ideal doesn’t always match the real.Publish and perish: In Nature (480, 22 December 2011, pp. 449-450, doi:10.1038/480449a) Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky reminded readers of the world’s premiere science journal that in science publishing, “The paper is not sacred.” Peer review needs to continue long after a paper appears in print, they argued. Their concern was prompted by a 15-fold increase in the number of retractions over the last decade. During the same time period, papers increased by 50%. This is not necessarily bad, Marcus and Oransky continue, because it indicates corrections are being made. But what about bad papers that don’t get retracted? They pointed out disturbing cases where peer review was poorly checked by journal editors, sometimes with “massive” numbers of errors in a paper, under the excuse that peer review is supposed to be secretive. Often readers are given no explanation for a retraction other than, “This paper has been withdrawn by the authors.” Notice how extensive the problem is in their words:Editors have many reasons to pay more attention to retraction and correction notices. For one, scientists often cite papers after they’ve been retracted, and a clear, unambiguous note explaining why the findings are no longer valid might help to reduce that. But, more importantly, a vaguely worded note that includes further claims from researchers whose work has been seriously questioned, in turn raises questions about the integrity of the journal itself, and about the overall scientific record.Marcus and Oransky pointed to new online methods that might reduce the number of mistakes making their way into the corpus of “scientific knowledge”—even the radical idea that the new methods may reduce the publication of scientific papers in journals. But their article raises other serious questions. Since World War II we have been led to believe that peer review provided the V & V science needed. How do we know that new, untested methods will do better? To what extent are mistakes entering the corpus because of peer pressure instead of peer review – the demands of universities to measure a scientist’s performance by how much he or she publishes? How can scientists keep up with the growing volume of publications? They raised additional questions:There are other hurdles. How should scientists treat papers that are hardly read, so are never evaluated post-publication? Does a lack of comment mean that the findings and conclusions are extremely robust, or that no one has cared enough to check? Including readership metrics alongside comments should help here.The authors could only hope that additional scrutiny and new methods will “make the scientific record more self-correcting.” That implies that the self-correcting nature of science we have been trusting is not doing a very good job.Replicate and perish: In theory, scientific errors are caught because other scientists try to replicate the experiment. This may have worked for high-profile claims like cold fusion, but how would someone replicate a discovery of the Higgs boson without a second Large Hadron Collider? Earlier this month, Science Magazine printed a special series on replication. In the introductory article, “Again and Again, and Again,” (Science, 2 December 2011: Vol. 334 no. 6060 p. 1225, doi: 10.1126/science.334.6060.1225 ), Jasny, Chin, Chong and Vignieri began, “Replication—The confirmation of results and conclusions from one study obtained independently in another—is considered the scientific gold standard.” That’s the theory. In practice, they found enough dross in the crucible to be worried: “New tools and technologies, massive amounts of data, long-term studies, interdisciplinary approaches, and the complexity of the questions being asked are complicating replication efforts, as are increased pressures on scientists to advance their research.” The series of articles that followed showed why replication is often unreachable in the real world. How do you get a rare animal, say an ivory-billed woodpecker (or a Loch Ness monster, for that matter), to appear on cue, so that an observation can be replicated? Unique experiences in the field challenge the gold standard: “although laboratory research allows for the specification of experimental conditions, the conclusions may not apply to the real world,” they said. Consider, also, the difficulty of replicating medical tests, which might involve thousands of patients in longitudinal studies lasting years. Other questions the authors did not mention could be asked. To what extent does a shared paradigm, or shared beliefs, decrease the motivation to attempt replicating a popular result? Remember the recent decade-long fraud by superstar Diederich Stapel (11/16/2001, 11/05/2011). More significantly, if science cannot live up to its own ideals of peer review and replication, what right does it have to claim epistemic superiority over other departments in the academy?Reduce and perish: How big does a sample have to be to arrive at a sound conclusion? That’s what Medical Xpress asked in an article, “The perils of bite-size science.” Two psychologists are worried about a trend toward shorter papers and smaller samples (a principle applicable to any scientific field, not just psychology). Yes, people may enjoy reading shorter papers—but now there are more of them, and publishers have to do more work, contrary to their hope that word limits would simplify things. Worse, since small sample sizes can lead to false positives and wrong conclusions, “two short papers do not equal twice the scientific value of a longer one,” the researchers argued. “Indeed, they might add up to less.”Yet the psychologists’ implicit contention that longer, more detailed papers are more reliable may not be true. In fact, they pointed to other factors that can undermine the credibility of any paper, short or long. Consider these three steps to misinformation: (1) “surprising, ‘novel’ results are exactly what editors find exciting and newsworthy and what even the best journals seek to publish”; (2) “The mainstream media pick up the ‘hot’ stories”; (3) “And the wrong results proliferate.” The trend toward bite-size science is leading scientists away from the healthy skepticism on which science depends, the authors believe.Form a consensus and perish: Scientists like to be objective, not subjective. But Andrew Curtis (U. of Edinburgh) argues that science cannot rid itself of subjectivity. In his essay “The Science of Subjectivity” published in the journal Geology (open access, Geology v. 40 no. 1 p. 95-96, doi: 10.1130/focus012012.1), he reminded geologists that subjectivity is built into the scientific method:While the evidence-based approach of science is lauded for introducing objectivity to processes of investigation, the role of subjectivity in science is less often highlighted in scientific literature. Nevertheless, the scientific method comprises at least two components: forming hypotheses, and collecting data to substantiate or refute each hypothesis (Descartes’ 1637 discourse [Olscamp, 1965]). A hypothesis is a conjecture of a new theory that derives from, but by definition is unproven by, known laws, rules, or existing observations. Hypotheses are always made by one individual or by a limited group of scientists, and are therefore subjective—based on the prior experience and processes of reason employed by those individuals, rather than solely on objective external process. Such subjectivity and concomitant uncertainty lead to competing theories that are subsequently pared down as some are proved to be incompatible with new observations.Curtis presented a fairly positivist view that science will guide itself from the subjective to the objective. Subjectivity can even be good for science. “Allowing subjectivity is a positive aspect of the scientific method: it allows for leaps of faith which occasionally lead to spell-binding proposals that prove to be valid,” for instance. (He did not provide statistics of valid vs. nutty spell-binding proposals). But he cautioned readers to realize that even quasi-objective methods, like the popular Bayesian analysis, have built-in subjective aspects.A study of how geologists arrived at a consensus pointed to the influence of group dynamics. One study showed that geologists were influenced to change their previously-solid opinions as a result of interacting with colleagues. A particular geologist changed his mind twice because of what the group did. Curtis pointed to several studies that illustrated similar kinds of group dynamics at work. What is the upshot?The above studies significantly influence the way one should interpret consensus-driven results. Consensus positions clearly may only represent the group opinion at one instant in time, and may not represent the true range of uncertainty about the issue at hand (e.g., Fig. 1C). This is disturbing because consensus is often used in the geosciences.As an example, he pointed to climate change: “IPCC conclusions are all consensus driven—positions agreed between groups of scientists.” While consensus formation may soften the bias of the overconfident, “the group consensus approach may also introduce dynamic biases … which are more difficult to detect without tracking the dynamics of opinion. ” What this means is that the herd mentality operates even in scientific meetings. It takes courage to be a lone ranger, but the maverick might be right.Better late than never? Sigmund Freud is a fallen superstar, once exalted within the triumvirate of modern movers along with Marx and Darwin. He has even been compared to Copernicus. His theory of psychoanalysis spawned a whole industry of couch-side therapists, using Freud’s new vocabulary that lent scientific credibility to his ideas. Guess what: psychoanalysis never existed. That’s what New Scientist reported, based on new revelations that have come to light in The Freud Files:The Freud Archives, a collection of letters and papers, were deposited at the US Library of Congress by Freud’s daughter, Anna, to put them out of reach of unofficial biographers. This move also locked away Freud’s patients’ versions of their own problems.But now, as primary material is made public, parts of the archive are declassified and his letters re-edited without censorship, the legend is “fraying from all sides”.Freud was a legend in his time, and apparently a legend in his own mind. This should sound alarm bells. How could a large portion of academia be duped for so long? What legends are we following today that will be exposed as tomorrow’s frauds?Science for dummies: In a strange paper that sounds like a script for Revenge of the Nincompoops, Peter Fiske invited the scientific community to “Unleash Your Inner Dummy.” That’s right; in Nature itself (Nature 480, 7 December 2011, p. 281, doi:10.1038/nj7376-281a), he argued that “There is something to be said for letting go of the mantle of expert.” Intelligence, intellect, and prestige are valued in academia, but nincompoops have all the fun:Ironically, always playing the expert can be limiting, in terms of both contributions to science and career options. Sometimes, playing the dummy can be liberating and help to reveal opportunities that would otherwise have been overlooked. Dummies ask questions that experts assume were answered long ago. Dummies explore subject areas in which they lack knowledge. Dummies listen more and talk less.The mantle of expertise, in other words, can be a choke rag. Loosen up, he says, and ask the dumb questions. It’s OK to kick a sleeping dogma:Becoming a dummy frees you from dogma. Developing expertise can often mean ingesting unquestioned assumptions and accepted facts. Such received beliefs can lead to unchallenged group decision-making and prevent a community from recognizing a path-breaking discovery — especially when it comes from someone outside the discipline.What a radical concept. Could it be that the next great idea will come from a dummy, someone not tied to the paradigm? It’s happened. Moreover, Fiske argues, “Embracing your inner dummy is also a powerful tool for communicating science.” Scientists in the role of expert talk down to the public and think all they need is facts, when maybe it would be good for them to humble themselves and “seek to understand the audience’s cultural and ethical perspectives.” Let’s hear it for thinking outside the box.This journey into the engine room of science has been brought to you by the dummies at Creation-Evolution Headlines, who are too stupid to realize that evolution is a fact, because the scientific consensus says so. But oh, do we have more fun. Come out, come out, ye Darwin Dogmatists, and see the beauty of the cultural and ethical perspectives. Loosen your tie that binds you to the consensus. Ask the dumb questions. Do some peer review on peer review. Check to see if peer pressure is undermining the pier on which the amusement park of science sits. Exercise your autonomy: doubt a publication, question a Project Scientist, vote against the crowd. Trust not in a flawed human enterprise. Freud has fallen. Marx has fallen. Darwin is next. Turn in your false gods for a true One. Recognize that while logical thinking, clarity and accuracy are noble traits, they are not the exclusive property of scientists – a word invented in 1832 by William Whewell for natural philosophers, ostensibly to energize their group dynamics, but has resulted in an elitist class of self-proclaimed experts who know more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing that really matters. You matter more than matter. It’s all about soul – the soul of science, which is faith in a unified, sensible, created order that points to its Source. Become a dummy in the world’s eyes, that you may begin to become truly wise (I Corinthians 2). (Visited 26 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… audrey watters Twitter is in the process of testing its self-serve ad platform with a few advertising agencies, according to a preview in MediaPost. One of the beta testers is Clix Marketing Founder David Szetela, whose clients using the new ad platform include investor Guy Kawasaki, who’s using the service to promote his forthcoming book, Enchantment: The Art of Changing Hearts, Minds, and Actions.Update: According to Twitter spokesperson Matt Graves, what’s described in the MediaPost story is not the company’s new self-serve platform. “While we have previously discussed plans to offer a self-serve offering for advertisers in 2011, this isn’t it,” says Graves. Rather, this is part of the Promoted Products offering, and involves working with an in-house sales rep. According to Szetela, advertisers must make a three month commitment to the new ad program, which lets advertisers create two types of campaigns: Promoted Tweets and Promoted Accounts.According to the MediaPost description of the program, an advertiser selects interests and keywords relevant to the campaign. It’s not exactly clear how some of the back-end works — how it assesses ad placement or user engagement. But Szetela speculates that “It would make sense for Twitter to use engagement rates as a way to rank ads or choose the ones to display.” What Szetela can say – and what makes sense in terms of the connections between user search and intent to purchase – is that the words advertisers set up in the keyword and interest fields will be used to trigger ads to match when those terms are entered into the Twitter search. There are several ad payment options, based on Pay for impressions (CPM), Exclusive for daily Promoted Trends, and Pay for engagement events (CPE). And this new platform will also contain analytics information.By adopting a self-service model, Twitter joins Facebook and Google AdWords in creating a system that makes it easy for advertisers to establish their campaign themselves and makes it easy (or easier) for Twitter to offer this sort of ad service without having to scale up its personnel to handle the requests.Szetela says that Twitter plans to open up the ad platform to other beta users in February, which will be exactly once year since MediaPost reported that the Twitter ad platform was “imminent.”A recent report posited that Twitter would triple its ad revenue this year – to $150 million. A successful self-serve ad platform would go a long way to boost those numbers. Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification Related Posts Tags:#twitter#web The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit
The process elimination is all but complete. Only the process of extinction remains for the champion Miami Heat. The San Antonio Spurs put them there. Resoundingly.Functioning at an efficiency that stunned most observers for the second straight game, San Antonio cut and spliced the Heat, embarrassing them again in a 107-86 shellacking in Game 4 for a commanding 3-1 series lead.A victory in San Antonio in Game 5 Sunday would avenge last year’s collapse to the Heat and give the Spurs their fifth championship.“I’m pleased that they performed as well as they did while we’ve been in Miami, and that’s about as far as it goes,” Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said. “Now we’ve got to go back home and play as well or better.”The Spurs smoked Miami in every conceivable fashion. LeBron James had 28 points, but they were inconsequential. Dwyane Wade looked beaten and had just 10 points. Meanwhile, everyone in a Spurs jersey scored, with Kawhi Leonard leading the way with 20 points and 14 rebounds. He was the best player on the floor again, after scoring 29 points in Game 3.“They smashed us,” James said. “Two straight home games got off to awful starts. They came in and were much better than us in these last two games. It’s just that simple.”Tony Parker added 19 points, and Tim Duncan had 10 points and 11 rebounds for the Spurs, who shot 57 percent from the field and are hitting 54 percent in the series. Boris Diaw was spectacular off the bench with 9 assists, and Patty Mills had 14 points off the bench.James, who battled cramps in Game 1, left the court and briefly returned to the locker room midway through the first quarter Thursday. But he had 10 quick points in the third quarter to bring Miami within 13. However, San Antonio pushed it to 81-57 after three and never looked back.
YS Sunitha ReddyTwitterYS Sunitha Reddy has slammed the reports that the differnce in her family led to the murder of father YS Vivekananda Reddy. She said that he wanted to see Jagan Mohan Reddy to become Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.YS Vivekananda Reddy, a former YSRCP MP from Kadapa constituency of Andhra Pradesh, was found dead at his residence on March 15. His family members alleged that his death was not natural. His personal assistant MV Krishna Reddy has also lodged a complaint with Pulivendula police expressing doubts over the nature of the death as blood clots were found in the bedroom and the bathroom.The AP government has formed a SIT to investigate this murder case. While the investigation process is underway, there are several speculations doing rounds in the media. His family was upset with the rumours and his daughter YS Sunitha Reddy has now held a press meet to clear the air and put all the rumours to rest.Addressing the media, YS Sunitha Reddy said, “My father’s sudden death has saddened me deeply, but the way media covered this issue has saddened me even more. My father was a great man and he was a great soul. You all know that he lived a life of dignity. Unfortunately, he was killed in the most gruesome way. By having all these loose takes after the incident, we are not giving dignity in death.”YS Sunitha Reddy expressed her concern over media not giving due respect to her father. She said, “I am sure you all love and respect him a lot. He is such a good man and I don’t know anyone who disliked him. By talking like this, aren’t we insulting him?”She added, “One thing that is creating a major problem is that we are not able to have fare investigation of this case. Don’t you think that all this talk will have an influence on the investigation that is going on? We need to identify the murderer. Isn’t that the most important task? If we intervene in this process, what will happen? The SIT has been formed and it has been working tirelessly. I can see that.”YS Sunitha Reddy also alleged that media is drawing a conclusion on this case even before the SIT does it. She continued, “Before even the SIT team releases anything, if you people speculated something on the financial issue and also drew a conclusion, won’t it affect the investigation process? If it is so, how will it be a fare investigation? Is there an effort to divert the issue and spread the wrong message?”It was rumoured that differences in the family was a reason behind the murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy. Talking about it, Sunitha denied family feud. She said, “My father’s dream was to see Jagan anna (brother) become the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. He has been working tirelessly towards this goal.”YS Sunitha Reddy added, “Then so much negative news spreading around that we have differences in the family. When we are in grief, you are spreading negativity about the family. Is this fare? It is absolutely trash and not true. My sinsiere request to you all and other people watching this press meet and politicians, Please show him the respect that you used to do, while he was alive.”
Two siblings and their maternal cousin drowned in a canal at Sheikhpara village in Kumarkhali upazila of Kushtia on Friday afternoon, reports news agency UNB.The deceased were identified as Salma Khatun, 5, Labony Khatun, 4, daughters of Saildul Islam of Sultanpur village and Mariam Khatun, 8, daughter of Shafiqul Islam of the village.Chairman of Char Sadipur union Tofazzal Hossain Manik said Saidul along with his wife and three children came to visit his father-in-law’s house on Thursday.Mariam along with Salma and Labony and two other minor children went to the canal around 12pm for taking bath. At one stage, they drowned in the canal.Mariam’s younger brother Abdullah rushed to the house and informed the family members.Later, the family members recovered the bodies of the three around 1:30pm, said Abdul Khalek, officer-in-charge of Kumarkhali police station.