You are totally not paying attention. Apollo 13 is an example that science is not all-good to absolute precision the way you said. Science can go wrong. Bad science exists and it's necessary to distinguish it from the good. This is a necessary distinction. Moreover, science itself cannot make this distinction. Philosophy can.
Maybe there's no bad science, but there are bad scientists?
And please let us tell between science and application, right?
Mod edit: fixed quote.
You are actually quoting me, but I am not sure you expect an answer from me.
Are you sure it was you? I'll edit!
Science ,
in latin ; Scientia = Knowledge .
Consciousness will produces science
and Science Will produces Consciousness .
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi61.tinypic.com%2F9vjolw.jpg&hash=faa33d64903fdce6731e20ae512ea0e0" rel="cached" data-hash="faa33d64903fdce6731e20ae512ea0e0" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i61.tinypic.com/9vjolw.jpg)
To observe is a tricky term actually. Sometimes we could think we observe something, which something could actually happen to either not be or be something else.
Science usually resorts to measuring and experiment -- to back up initial observations.:idea:
Can anything cease to exist simply because nobody's watching? :sherlock:
Hey! probably! Can you remember a user on MyOpera named "payitfwrd" on something like that? He participated in D&D and even had an off-site email -- then he disappeared along with ALL his posts made in the Forums. Remember?:)
Can anything cease to exist simply because nobody's watching? :sherlock:
Then you know what?
A crucial question could be: did it exist in the first place? Perhaps that first time you thought you saw it -- it was just a mirage? ;)
Yes. That's why relating existence with observation is again utter... :-X
Hey! probably! Can you remember a user on MyOpera named "payitfwrd" on something like that? He participated in D&D and even had an off-site email -- then he disappeared along with ALL his posts made in the Forums. Remember?:)
So if all of my posts disappeared, along with my account, would I not exist? :right:
Existence is indeterminable if nobody can possibly tell a difference.
Mandi is a witch!
Why are all new towels waterproofed and with what and how do I get rid of it?
Chew them to break the surface tension.
Why are all new towels waterproofed and with what and how do I get rid of it?
The towels or the waterproofing?
Yes
Why are all new towels waterproofed and with what and how do I get rid of it?
Call me odd, but I wash stuff before I put it to use. Which should get rid of just about anything pretty effectively. ;)
It was a question I intended to post in the Silly Question thread and was not intended to be taken seriously.
I must have been half asleep to have posted it here.
Sorry about that.
Not at all! Seriously, they might make them such intendedly: lest otherwise you'd buy a towel that has absorbed all shit possible from where it has gone through.
It was a question I intended to post in the Silly Question thread and was not intended to be taken seriously.
I must have been half asleep to have posted it here.
Sorry about that.
As usual. You'll be happy to know that I don't take any of your posts seriously.
Just had a gnoseological discussion with two believers advocating for me to stand the religious vigil instead of night sleeping. Went well:)
To observe is a tricky term actually. Sometimes we could think we observe something, which something could actually happen to either not be or be something else.
Science usually resorts to measuring and experiment -- to back up initial observations. :idea:
Measuring in experiments ain't what it used to be in science. Quantum physics has turned that 'Arse'n'Sauce' on it's head!!
Imagine a quasar — a very luminous and very remote young galaxy. Now imagine that there are two other large galaxies between Earth and the quasar. The gravity from massive objects like galaxies can bend light, just as conventional glass lenses do. In this experiment the two huge galaxies substitute for the pair of slits in the famous two slit experiment; the quasar is the light source. Just as in the two-slit experiment, light — photons — from the quasar can follow two different paths, past one galaxy or the other.
Suppose that on Earth, some astronomers decide to observe the quasar. In this case a telescope plays the role of the photon detector in the two-slit experiment. If the astronomers point a telescope in the direction of one of the two intervening galaxies, they will see photons from the quasar that were deflected by that galaxy; they would get the same result by looking at the other galaxy. But the astronomers could also mimic the second part of the two-slit experiment. By carefully arranging mirrors, they could make photons arriving from the routes around both galaxies strike a piece of photographic film simultaneously. Alternating light and dark bands would appear on the film, identical to the pattern found when photons passed through the two slits, which showed that light can act as both particles and as a wave depending on whether the photons were being detected (watched).
Here's the odd part. The quasar could be very distant from Earth, with light so faint that its photons hit the piece of film only one at a time. But the results of the experiment wouldn't change. The striped pattern would still show up, meaning that a lone photon not observed by the telescope traveled both paths toward Earth, even if those paths were separated by many light-years. And that's not all.
By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make — whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously — the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed.
In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the above delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.
The conjecture is, we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself — and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.
Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe?
The entire universe is filled with events where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. It is suspected that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter that could record its activities. The universe could be a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed. (This last part is not even a theory yet in physics because quantum theory is not yet complete—it is simply food for thought.)
To observe is a tricky term actually. Sometimes we could think we observe something, which something could actually happen to either not be or be something else.
Science usually resorts to measuring and experiment -- to back up initial observations. :idea:
Measuring in experiments ain't what it used to be in science. Quantum physics has turned that 'Arse'n'Sauce' on it's head!!
Imagine a quasar — a very luminous and very remote young galaxy. Now imagine that there are two other large galaxies between Earth and the quasar. The gravity from massive objects like galaxies can bend light, just as conventional glass lenses do. In this experiment the two huge galaxies substitute for the pair of slits in the famous two slit experiment; the quasar is the light source. Just as in the two-slit experiment, light — photons — from the quasar can follow two different paths, past one galaxy or the other.
Suppose that on Earth, some astronomers decide to observe the quasar. In this case a telescope plays the role of the photon detector in the two-slit experiment. If the astronomers point a telescope in the direction of one of the two intervening galaxies, they will see photons from the quasar that were deflected by that galaxy; they would get the same result by looking at the other galaxy. But the astronomers could also mimic the second part of the two-slit experiment. By carefully arranging mirrors, they could make photons arriving from the routes around both galaxies strike a piece of photographic film simultaneously. Alternating light and dark bands would appear on the film, identical to the pattern found when photons passed through the two slits, which showed that light can act as both particles and as a wave depending on whether the photons were being detected (watched).
Here's the odd part. The quasar could be very distant from Earth, with light so faint that its photons hit the piece of film only one at a time. But the results of the experiment wouldn't change. The striped pattern would still show up, meaning that a lone photon not observed by the telescope traveled both paths toward Earth, even if those paths were separated by many light-years. And that's not all.
By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make — whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously — the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed.
In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the above delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.
The conjecture is, we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself — and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.
Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe?
The entire universe is filled with events where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. It is suspected that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter that could record its activities. The universe could be a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed. (This last part is not even a theory yet in physics because quantum theory is not yet complete—it is simply food for thought.)
The source of most of the above? Why? Because credit should be given.
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse (http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse)
The source of most of the above? Why? Because credit should be given.
Exactly! (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/ThumbGood.gif) Besides it says so in the posting rules (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=rules).
Acknowledge the source of the information, image or data you use in a post and provide a link to the source if available. Do not copy and paste whole articles.
since there is no truth , there is only perception .
i more liked to use Socrates , n/or Plato Perception .
Socrates :
What about someone who believes in Science things, but doesn't believe in the Science itself and isn't able to follow anyone who could lead him to the knowledge of it? Don't you think he is living in a dream rather than a wakened state? Isn't this dreaming: whether asleep or awake, to think that a likeness is not a likeness but rather the thing itself that it is like?"
Glaucon : "I certainly think that someone who does that is dreaming."
Socrates : "But someone who, to take the opposite case, believes in the Science itself, can see both it and the things that participate in it and doesn't believe that the participants are it or that it itself is the participants--is he living in a dream or is he awake?
Glaucon : "He's very much awake."
Exactly! (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/ThumbGood.gif) Besides it says so in the posting rules (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=rules).
Apparently, rules are for fools.
Exactly! (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/ThumbGood.gif) Besides it says so in the posting rules (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=rules).
Yup, my bad. I had copied the link, just forgot to paste it in.
rules are for fools? Kind of wide open oddity that one.
Einstein's speech
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td2SReWxogY[/video]
I salute the banned member that has created such an interesting thread. :wine:
When someone starts speaking about science, instead the recent arrival "I wanna be the science defense man no matter how ignorant I am" I would like to post a few posts about this interesting theme.
Ugh that long and repetitive word 'awesome yet again. Must be the first word ex-colonists learn.
I think it's awesome you noticed this before its first birthday.
(No Americans were involved in the naming of this topic.)
Have a nice day.
(No Americans were involved in the naming of this topic.)
Don't confuse us with facts.
Like so much else exported ensbb3 it includes such pointless words in just about every country. Bad enough we get dumped with 'awesome' even in my hobbies but it includes other damn words like 'law enforcement' and others, etc. However the 'awesome' word is the most ridiculous and if used in my life I tell folk not to continually use it.
And they'd ignore you, too.
No unlike a contingent here they are intelligent respond to my leadership skills and much else. Well done for letting me have the opportunity of admitting that. Those that continually use the word to the point of being over the top and weakened the expression are not of my world and thank heavens for that. 8)
No unlike a contingent here they are intelligent respond to my leadership skills and much else.
I'm sure the NPC's think you did an awesome job. Just don't make them late for work. :left:
Well you lot bleat about the English language but do it no credit yourelves. In politics, religion, social matters, sports the word 'awesome' is so regular it is like kids talk.
Those that continually use the word to the point of being over the top and weakened the expression are not of my world and thank heavens for that.
I might agree with you on this point,
Howie… "Awesome" is a word whose meaning has lapsed into banality. (Somewhat like Scotland has become the stepchild of England: lost and forlorn! If only it could have become a Soviet Republic, way back when!) Why -do you think- has the concept of awe become so incredibly difficult to understand in today's world?
I'll suggest a reason:
Science has so often succeeded, and provided so much prosperity and so many "creature" comforts, for so long that there is hardly anyone left who remembers a time when "progress" wasn't presumed to be the norm…
Yet most people have little (or nothing!) to do with making this happen.
You yourself seem to use a computer (of sorts) and, yet, I doubt you've ever built -let alone, designed- one. (Don't feel that I'm picking on you personally: I've never "built -let alone- designed" a car or TV… :) ) But don't you too take such things for granted?
Younger people are not as impressed by "progress" as you or I would be… But -in that- they are not being very different from us.
(Remember "indoor plumbing"? :) What a God-send!*)
Okay. Now, to the topic:
What the heck does Apollo 13 have to do with Science?
I know, the impetus for such missions was exploration, and scientific knowledge… (If you want to be non-confrontational!) But the failures of that particular moon-shot were technological. And human ingenuity overcame them — just barely.
It hadn't anything to do with good or bad science.
There was nothing about Science that came under scrutiny — except for the few individuals who said, "You're spending money that WE NEED!"
(Isabella probably had to deal with such…)
I assume -when
Belfrager called this topic one he'd like to pursue- that he meant the implication(s) of its title. (But I may have taken him wrong…). Myself, I would like to discuss how Science continues the human sense of Awe!
Is it merely the "we're such wee meaningless accidents of blind evolution"? I don't think so. (Feel free to disagree…) Is it that most of what we think we know is now incomprehensible — by the great majority of us? Again, I think not. Perhaps it is…that we and reality seem to persist, together.
(Someone: Call a Philosopher!)
The more we learn about our "surroundings" — the more confused we become. And yet our confusion offers our peculiar way of persisting openings through which we might learn more. And, perhaps, glean enough…
——————————————————————————————————————
• Many years ago, in discussion with a Punjabi proprietor of a liquor store, the topic of hygiene came up. Specifically -although I have no idea how (perhaps he'd read a magazine article…)- he asked me, "How did your early settlers wipe their butts?"
Having never considered the question before, I blurted out: Leaves?!
He said, "Ha! Uncivilized."
"Well," I said, "How did your ancestors…?"
He said, simply, "We
washed!"
I gave it a few moments' thought and said: "That might explain the frequent out-breaks of Cholera…"
(He never spoke civilly to me again…)
=================================================
(There was a poem -almost done- that I'd wanted to post — but it's gone! Oh, well.)
Interesting reflections there. Have you noticed another expression used everywhere and not the creation of any one country - that of people saying (even very important folk) "you know" every few words.
Space i have little interest with re the science world. Waste of time and money as well....you know.
How about the Awesomesauce of Sauces?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f9/b0/6d/f9b06dc3635bba15a5c86b8997262824.jpg)
Interesting reflections there. Have you noticed another expression used everywhere and not the creation of any one country - that of people saying (even very important folk) "you know" every few words.
Sweating the small stuff the way you do, can shorten your life due to increased stress.
Space i have little interest with re the science world. Waste of time and money as well....you know.
Simply NOT true. "It is estimated that the total economic benefit of each dollar spent on the space program has been between $8 and $10. Compare that to Americans spending more than $35 billion a year on pizza or the national total annual economic cost of tobacco exceeding $250 billion and you can see that our return on our NASA investment is rather high.". (http://www.utexas.edu/know/2014/07/21/anniversary-shows-us-that-nasa-and-space-exploration-are-worth-their-costs/) :knight: :cheers:
Myself, I would like to discuss how Science continues the human sense of Awe!
I find this (http://htwins.net/scale2/)to be quite awesome myself. (Edit: the scale goes both ways--which is more awesome? I find the micro scale more incomprehensible.)
The more we learn about our "surroundings" — the more confused we become. And yet our confusion offers our peculiar way of persisting openings through which we might learn more. And, perhaps, glean enough…
Confusing today...High School science tomorrow (and the beat goes on...). :knight: :cheers:
Space i have little interest with re the science world. Waste of time and money as well....you know.
I know.
And little interest in writing coherent Scottish sentences, you know?
Will add you to the list of dancers and excusing answer folk.
Confusing today...High School science tomorrow (and the beat goes on...).
Would you care to discuss the "high school" versions of the theory of evolution? :) (Darwinian natural selection…)
When you say "the High School science of tomorrow" you must know you mean "dumbed-down versions of political views that appropriate even more dumbed-down versions of science"…
Yes, the beat goes on: Demagogues speak to the ignorant masses.
I assume -when Belfrager called this topic one he'd like to pursue- that he meant the implication(s) of its title. (But I may have taken him wrong…). Myself, I would like to discuss how Science continues the human sense of Awe!
What I meant is that I would like the thread to be much more about Science as the application of Man's gift of Reason and how and why it's so important, together with Philosophy.
Confusing today...High School science tomorrow (and the beat goes on...).
Would you care to discuss the "high school" versions of the theory of evolution? :) (Darwinian natural selection…)
When you say "the High School science of tomorrow" you must know you mean "dumbed-down versions of political views that appropriate even more dumbed-down versions of science"…
Yes, the beat goes on: Demagogues speak to the ignorant masses.
I appreciate your insight on many subjects Oakdale, but it sounds here as though you expect the future accountants, professional hair dressers and iron workers of America and the world to have a working knowledge of particle physics in order to lead a meaningful and productive life on this planet. I don't believe there is sufficient time or necessity to teach 'in depth' about any high school subject (unless a student shows great propensity to do so), so they get what you so wittily call the 'dumbed down version'--how dumb of
you. By your own admission, you have only a 'dumbed down version' on the History & Evolution of Ass Wiping--care to discuss quantum theory with your liquor clerk too? (Surely you have not the time for that then...lol, [neither would I]). I believe that the subjects taught in school are meant to arouse individual appeal and to see where student interests and talents lie about basic subjects. Any one person can go beyond basic high school knowledge as needed or as it pleases him/her, of course.
How practical would it be for all people to know the intricacies of Darwinian Natural Selection and Molecular Neuroscience and Quantum Mechanics and Modern Architecture and Combinatorics and Clothing Design and Basket weaving and Cosmetology and ad nauseum? How much does anyone really know about
"everything" Qakdale? Certainly (or merely), not enough to satisfy your ass. :knight: :cheers:
Malthusianism and Social Darwinism, leading back to eugenics…is what I expect. Nothing you've said leads me to think you'd be against such.
Does the Population Bomb still scare you? Do you watch the seconds tick, on the Doomsday Clock? Is the Climate Catastrophe something that gives you the willies?
Science is not "at risk". It will survive the puerile idolatry of your like.
Science may of course survive hover how it is used is another moral matter.
Science may of course survive hover how it is used is another moral matter.
There is much truth in that. Nuclear weapons, germ warfare, intercontinental ballistic missiles, etc. are the toxic offspring of science.
Maybe there's no bad science, but there are bad scientists?
And please let us tell between science and application, right?
:up:
Application of science it's not science, it's (when it applies) ethics.
Someone "against" science would be equivalent to someone against reasoning.
Religion/Science opposition and "debate" it's proper of low educated people and geographically only remaining today in the prairies of the new world where it seems to be florescent. And Glasgow.
Good or bad is Concepts that made by Human .
i assume ..
in the human Psyche structures , everything that give benefit is good .
and everything that do not give any benefit is bad .
But Nature is not Human .
i think... everything in Natural Realities manners nor Naturwissenschaften is Good .
Malthusianism and Social Darwinism, leading back to eugenics…is what I expect. Nothing you've said leads me to think you'd be against such.
Does the Population Bomb still scare you? Do you watch the seconds tick, on the Doomsday Clock? Is the Climate Catastrophe something that gives you the willies?
Science is not "at risk". It will survive the puerile idolatry of your like.
Ok, so this is what Oakdale expects of high school science (✓)...next!!
Long range population and population growth predictions to 2050 are not as bad as you may think according to this 2014 U.N. report (http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/Concise%20Report%20on%20the%20World%20Population%20Situation%202014/en.pdf) (see figure II, pg. 12 for quick ref). As education and socio-economic conditions improve worldwide, global fertility levels are expected to decline to replacement levels (1.99), by 2100. See 2012 U.N. chart here. (http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/WPP2012_Wallchart.pdf)
Global warming is more of a concern and life on Earth may significantly change. However, due to recent NIPCC reports (http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/global-warming-not-so-bad-at-all-really-says-nipcc-report-and-thousands-of-references/), I have reason to be confident that humans will survive handily--though perhaps not entirely unscathed (the degree to which no one is certain). Our food supply is not in danger as is no form of life on earth seriously threatened, including aquatic life. The global warming doomsday scenarios for the past 30 years have simply not come true. Despite this fact, we can expect similar predictions from alarmists, such as yourself, to continue even though the present outlook is not nearly as bad as once expected.
In my estimation, and that of many dedicated scientific teams worldwide studying population and climate change, your doomsday predictions are unfounded, unhelpful, dispiriting and just plain tiresome. Get your placard if you must, stand on a corner dressed in white robe, (let 'ur beard grow for effect), and put on the same clown show pedestrians have been watching in the streets for centuries--whatever floats your boat. (Btw, I do hope that ticking in your head clears up). :knight: :cheers:
James, you're just too much… :)
:up:
I especially liked this:
The global warming doomsday scenarios for the past 30 years have simply not come true. Despite this fact, we can expect similar predictions from alarmists, such as yourself, to continue even though the present outlook is not nearly as bad as once expected.
In case anyone else has forgot (or was unaware…) of my position re CAGW, let me be clear:
The models employed by the IPCC-surveyed agencies and institutions have made predictions that have, in fact, failed… This implies that those models are
wrong.
It follows that basing policy decisions upon them is wrong-headed and anti-scientific.
Put another way: We do not have a
hiatus; we have
data. Preferring such models to the data is a symptom of — religious devotion…rather then scientific purity.
Put another way: We do not have a hiatus; we have data. Preferring such models to the data is a symptom of — religious devotion…rather then scientific purity.
Why is your 'scientific purity' and expertise(?) in this matter better than that of the best scientific minds from around the globe who have been studying this for decades? And just how did you get to be such an expert on analyzing data and predicting climate change? Where did you study and what is your total number of years of experience as a professional in this field? Apparently, you think that the expert teams on this panel are all just being pigheaded (why?), when perhaps it's just the other way around--ever consider that?
Lots of scientific theories and models fail, but much is learned from failure--wouldn't you agree? Do you think the IPCC panel did not take failures into consideration in their final analysis? Climate change forecasting must surely be one of the most inexact sciences there is today and at least
I won't pretend to be an expert on it or propose to know better. You are a victim of your own 'catastrophic thinking' Oakdale; you love to ruminate about irrational, or at least unlikely, worst-case outcomes. Do you ever even consider best-case possibilities or are those just too dull and unexciting for you? The sky is not falling my friend, much as you would like to say it is. :knight: :cheers:
Why is your 'scientific purity' and expertise(?) in this matter better than that of the best scientific minds from around the globe who have been studying this for decades? And just how did you get to be such an expert on analyzing data and predicting climate change? Where did you study and what is your total number of years of experience as a professional in this field? Apparently, you think that the expert teams on this panel are all just being pigheaded (why?), when perhaps it's just the other way around--ever consider that?
In other words: "If you're not a priest, what allows you to interpret scripture?" :)
When I was young a focus of mine was Philosophy of Science; now that I'm old, having tried to keep up, I find myself still interested.
You pack a lot of BS into your extended "refutation" of my view… (Which you seem not to understand? :) How quaint!) Care to support the predictions of any AOGCMs? Or their
ad hoc explanations for their failures?
I certainly want such modeling to continue, to get better and better. But a political determination of their efficacy is — shall we say,
verboten? (At least, counter-productive; if science is the aim…)
When James Hansen thought he'd explained the current atmospheric conditions of Venus via a run-away greenhouse effect, he knew he had a winning career path! (Have you considered his hypothesized dynamic for Mars?) And he did what many pseudo-scientists do: He fudged and dissembled…
And extrapolated to Earth.
(If you don't know the story of his 1988 congressional testimony — you're too uninvolved to have an opinion, unless you can read and defend his published work; which I doubt sincerely!
If Gavin Schmidt can't convincingly do it, I doubt you will get beyond "em, er, ah"…)
Lots of scientific theories and models fail, but much is learned from failure--wouldn't you agree?
Not so often; no.
Wrong-headed theories have to be dynamited from their porticoes… If the pillars cannot stand on their own, they cannot support the awning…
But you -as an adherent to the scientific method- would… What? Exempt technocratic presumption, for the Greater Good?
Spoken like a true Progressive!
I don't know,
James, what you
really think about the 97%-consensus about CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) . (I do know that you have no expertise that goes beyond
blind faith; else you would have mentioned it, supported it, and argued for it vociferously.) If I disagree with
most scientists, that means I'm wrong? :) How is that different from enforcing Dogma…?
(Isn't science "about" what can be proved…?)
There is an old-fashioned way of viewing science: Hypothesis -> Theory -> Prediction -> Data. These constrain the enterprise: If the data don't support the predictions, the theory is wrong; and the hypothesis is ill-posed.
(I know that's complicated. Get used to it!)
When Sociology replaces Philosophy of Science, you get — people like you.
Oakdale; you love to ruminate about irrational, or at least unlikely, worst-case outcomes. Do you ever even consider best-case possibilities or are those just too dull and unexciting for you? The sky is not falling my friend, much as you would like to say it is.
The Best-Case Scenario is — that poseurs and grafters and grant-glommers will lose their sponsors.
I presume -until you tell me otherwise- that you're against that.
I won't hold my breath… :)
I can think of more than a few people who could benefit from this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530103.700-first-human-head-transplant-could-happen-in-two-years.html#.VO72ilPF84Q (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530103.700-first-human-head-transplant-could-happen-in-two-years.html#.VO72ilPF84Q)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530091.500-need-for-speed-why-computers-stopped-getting-faster.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530091.500-need-for-speed-why-computers-stopped-getting-faster.html)
TEN years ago, computers stopped getting faster. Stroking your sleek smartphone or latest laptop, this may seem a rather implausible statement. Surely there's no contest between it and a decade-old desktop?
That's true – in a way. But even if computer chips weren't made of silicon, the comparison would be built on sand. Continually increasing computing power used to rest on a solid foundation of ever smaller, faster chips. In the past decade, though, it has become a case of using more chips, less efficiently. Chip speed stalled sometime around 2004.
TEN years ago, computers stopped getting faster. Stroking your sleek smartphone or latest laptop, this may seem a rather implausible statement. Surely there's no contest between it and a decade-old desktop?
€100 says my 2006 former desktop still blows the vast majority of stupid phones out of the water. A recent laptop should be faster, but not by terribly much unless it's a high-end model.
€100 says my 2006 former desktop still blows the vast majority of stupid phones out of the water. A recent laptop should be faster, but not by terribly much unless it's a high-end model.
Sorry, but I don't bet in €. I only use my iPhone as a computer in a pinch because it's simply annoying to use. Nothing I do these days requires computing power. I used to do spreadsheets back in the olden days on a desktop and also on an Apple 2E. Speed would have helped.
I can think of more than a few people who could benefit from this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530103.700-first-human-head-transplant-could-happen-in-two-years.html#.VO72ilPF84Q (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530103.700-first-human-head-transplant-could-happen-in-two-years.html#.VO72ilPF84Q)
And the donors?
In other words: "If you're not a priest, what allows you to interpret scripture?" :)
Using this 'patty cake' example put me off on the rest of what you had to say. "If you are not a brain surgeon, then don't try to do brain surgery", would have been more apropos.
Wrong-headed theories have to be dynamited from their porticoes… If the pillars cannot stand on their own, they cannot support the awning…
We can all thank our lucky stars that you don't oversee science. I would think that most theories have initial flaws to be worked out and they need to be revamped (perhaps many times), before they prove consistent enough to be completely relied upon as scientific fact. And I think you are forgetting that climate change modeling is not a method of research where one considers just a single hypothesis, but instead multiple hypotheses that might explain the phenomenon under study.
I don't know, James, what you really think about the 97%-consensus about CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) .
Is this (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/) what you are talking about? Although a consensus may arise surrounding any specific scientific hypothesis or theory, the existence of a consensus is not itself the evidence. :knight: :cheers:
Although a consensus may arise surrounding any specific scientific hypothesis or theory, the existence of a consensus is not itself the evidence.
I'm awfully glad to hear you say that! There's some hope for you…
To recap: You said "Why is your 'scientific purity' and expertise(?) in this matter better than that of the best scientific minds from around the globe who have been studying this for decades?"
One obvious answer is that the field of climatology is very insular, and quite small. The "best" (and, presumably, the brightest…) have been caught in deplorable shenanigans.
I am somewhat disinterested.
I don't read Watts very often. But I regularly check out McIntyre and Curry… The various
advocates of this, that and the other don't much interest me.
My original interest in NASA's climatology efforts stemmed from their (reported) bizarre use of computer models… (Philosophy of Science, remember?) Between Hansen and Oreskes, it seemed that the models were to be excused from making predictions… Instead, they prompted "scenarios".
To my mind, that's akin to pitching a movie. That's not science, is it? :)
I'd call these Just So Stories. Wouldn't you?
————————————————————————————
Yes, I've posted about Cook's work, and that of his colleague Lewandowsky, before. I wouldn't call them scientists. Would you?
I don't know, James, what you really think about the 97%-consensus about CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) .
Is this (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/) what you are talking about?
From behind the link:
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
??? If this is so, what does "consensus" mean? Who is this Cook and is his refuters' math any better?
My original interest in NASA's climatology efforts stemmed from their (reported) bizarre use of computer models… (Philosophy of Science, remember?) Between Hansen and Oreskes, it seemed that the models were to be excused from making predictions… Instead, they prompted "scenarios".
To my mind, that's akin to pitching a movie. That's not science, is it?
Is economics a science or not? Does it make predictions or discuss scenarios? Climatologists seem to be learning from economists.
Science is finished. What exists today are technicians with the mindset of little ants and a vision of the world no different from how the little ant regards the anthill.
Insects, a world of insects, where, here and there sparsely scattered, one can still see the old ruins of Man's statues and monuments. Silent voices from the past that people can't ear anymore, science being one of such voices.
Don't ask me. Is this a product of science or religion?
(https://washingtonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/the-virgin-momcom.jpeg?w=964)
Is this a product of science or religion?
Those who opposes science versus religion doesn't belong to none of the terms.
Zombies in between, nothing but that.
It should be a mosque on the tank as being more practical. :happy:
A picture with both coming at each other would be more realistic.
Oh I don't know about that one as they picked up a lot from the Iraq Army after it broke the speed limit reversing.
Haven't heard that one since the end of WW2 and the Italians.
It should be a mosque on the tank as being more practical. :happy:
This is the best I can do.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F1-22infantry.org%2Fpics%2Fif334.jpg&hash=93a5b957b388922fc0923b1db3082dd4" rel="cached" data-hash="93a5b957b388922fc0923b1db3082dd4" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://1-22infantry.org/pics/if334.jpg)
Science can go very wrong.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FAy6HrZVsDYuvS%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=e0c82eecd417f21181b0a37190b83714" rel="cached" data-hash="e0c82eecd417f21181b0a37190b83714" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://media.giphy.com/media/Ay6HrZVsDYuvS/giphy.gif)
Which Science ?
Naturwissenschaften , or Sozialwissenschaften
Nothing I do these days requires computing power. I used to do spreadsheets back in the olden days on a desktop and also on an Apple 2E. Speed would have helped.
(Sorry to be so late with this… But
my first "spreadsheet" was VisiCalc — on a Sinclair/Timex 2kb (upgraded to 16kb…) machine. It was a long time ago.)
But you're wrong,
Jaybro: The resolution of the screen you squint to see, the "swipes" you make to accomplish what Ctrl-key combinations used to? Those many new "techniques" and "realistic presentations" require a considerable amount of "computational" power…
Your mistake, sir, is in thinking that such is merely arithmetical. You don't know — from computation!
(Computers don't know from math… :) )
This might help some of our posters. Can you think of a candidate?
IT'S heady stuff. The world's first attempt to transplant a human head will be launched this year at a surgical conference in the US. The move is a call to arms to get interested parties together to work towards the surgery.
The idea was first proposed in 2013 by Sergio Canavero of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group in Italy. He wants to use the surgery to extend the lives of people whose muscles and nerves have degenerated or whose organs are riddled with cancer. Now he claims the major hurdles, such as fusing the spinal cord and preventing the body's immune system from rejecting the head, are surmountable, and the surgery could be ready as early as 2017.
This might help some of our posters. Can you think of a candidate?
The world's first attempt to transplant a human head will be launched this year at a surgical conference in the US.
Is it transplanting a head or a body?
Is it transplanting a head or a body?
It applies to any transplant... :)
I don't want this body around me, says the heart... and many times nothing convinces them.
The world's first attempt to transplant a human head will be launched this year at a surgical conference in the US.
The technology required to reattach a severed spinal cord has not yet been developed--the body (subject), would be a quadriplegic-although it could be as smart as Stephen Hawking. Dr. Frankenstein did seem to overcome this in giving life to his monster, but that's another story. :knight: :cheers:
Speaking of Hawking, have you noticed that although he's a Brit, he has an American accent. :)
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zblTCsThDE[/video]
Speaking of Hawking, have you noticed that although he's a Brit, he has an American accent. :)
All around smart cookie Stephen Hawking lost the ability to speak 30 years ago after a severe illness. His speech synthesizer has an accent that has been described diversely as Scandinavian, American or Scottish. It has been offered to him to change the computer voice to a less robotic sounding one, but he wishes to stay with the voice that people have grown to know him by. Hawking has experimented with Brain Controlled Interfaces to communicate with his computer, however as yet these don't work as consistently as his cheek operated switch. Personally, I don't want my computer to know what I'm thinking (about it), or it might retaliate some day.
MORE AWESOMESAUCE: "New Horizons Probe Finds Out Pluto's Bigger (and Icier) Than We Thought"
This probe will pass by Pluto at 7:49 AM ET and the data should be available to the media by Tuesday evening (it takes 4.5 hours at the speed of light for the date to reach Earth). Read here. (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/new-horizons-probe-finds-out-plutos-bigger-icier-we-thought-n391321) :knight: :cheers:
MORE AWESOMESAUCE: "New Horizons Probe Finds Out Pluto's Bigger (and Icier) Than We Thought"
We should have new photos within a few days. Have you noticed how much Pluto looks like a rutabaga?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.restaurantwidow.com%2Fimages%2F2008%2F01%2F11%2Frutabaga.jpg&hash=349ffe25519f5f2c0c7b97a7fe57e59f" rel="cached" data-hash="349ffe25519f5f2c0c7b97a7fe57e59f" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.restaurantwidow.com/images/2008/01/11/rutabaga.jpg)(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4c954WE7fXrslSJMSvF2931glanxrtBV4sEw3pPqlmpCYAkv8)
The secrets of the Universe can only be found at the endlessly small scale not at the endlessly big dimension.
Discovers are made at European CERN not sending junk American trash for space.
The secrets of the Universe can only be found at the endlessly small scale not at the endlessly big dimension.
Discovers are made at European CERN not sending junk American trash for space.
What about European space trash like the Rosetta probe of a comet, or the Huygens probe sent to Titan in 1997, landed of Titan in 2005 and transmitted data for a whopping 90 minutes? Always gotta get a dig in against the US regardless of how irrelevant it is. Your digs have become meaningless however--it is now plain for all to see that you are merely a pigheaded bigot with nothing of substance to say.
Your statement in itself is woefully shortsighted. Curiosity and exploration are vital to the human spirit and the advancement of humankind. The situation is like that in Europe before 1492--people might well have argued that it was a waste of money to send Columbus on a wild goose chase. Yet the discovery of the New World made a profound difference to the old. Spreading out into space will have an even greater effect--it will completely change the future of the human race and maybe determine whether we have any future at all. Meanwhile space exploration pays for itself--and then some. And in a very short period of time it has brought about a multitude new innovations, industries, jobs and wealth to planet Earth. Hopefully space exploration will be what unites
us to face a common challenge--so you send up your junk and we'll send up ours and we'll eventually compare notes to see whose junk did a better job of getting us off this rock.
The work a CERN is simply astounding, however for them to go further in their exploration, tremendous amounts of energy will be needed-- much more than this planet has to offer. The energy of stars (and eventually the entire galaxy), will need to be harnessed to study exotic or non-baryonic matter (matter not made of protons, electrons, etc.). It seems that the macro- and the micro-world will need each other in order for either to get to the bottom of things. :knight: :cheers:
Discovers are made at European CERN not sending junk American trash for space.
Sadly, Portugal has had it's day in the sun and is just another Spanish colony.
One more financial crisis and it'll be a German colony.
We should have new photos within a few days. Have you noticed how much Pluto looks like a rutabaga?
Do
not, under any circumstances, land there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuggoth). Seriously, don't do it. :right:
Sadly, Portugal has had it's day in the sun and is just another Spanish colony.
One more financial crisis and it'll be a German colony.
Arteriosclerosis it's a problem indeed. I thought you had medical insurance, welfare, something. I see you don't, as expected.
Maybe it's time to call a Priest to receive your last rites... ex-Catholic.
Do not, under any circumstances, land there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuggoth). Seriously, don't do it. :right:
Why not?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fpowerlisting%2Fimages%2F9%2F90%2FGreat-cthulhu.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20120509185304&hash=ae7ca0d8ab6cc7b3617a4d628669657e" rel="cached" data-hash="ae7ca0d8ab6cc7b3617a4d628669657e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/powerlisting/images/9/90/Great-cthulhu.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120509185304)
Maybe it's time to call a Priest to receive your last rites... ex-Catholic.
The best Catholics are ex-Catholics.
Yep. Crate of Irn Bru for that one.
Science says that life on Earth will end in a bit more than a billion years. Or next century.
Earth will become unlivable for most organisms in about 1.3 billion years due to the sun's natural evolution, experts told Live Science. And humans could potentially drive ourselves (and countless other species) to extinction within the next few centuries, if the current pace of human-made climate change isn't mitigated, or as a consequence of nuclear war.
Life under an aging sun, that's always nice.
The off-hand reference to climate disaster and nuclear war was poorly funded.
Run-away climate change can be extremely unpleasant, and deadly, indeed, but it would not be an extinction-level event.
Neither would a total nuclear war, now less than ever. We have many fewer, and smaller, nuclear weapons, though they are more precise. Militarily speaking, the outcome is similar, but for survival the odds are much better. We could expect the majority of the world's population to die, from climate and broken logistics. But killing a majority is extremely far from killing everyone.
And while a nuclear war would be fairly sudden, a climate collapse would be decades in the making. We could expect deaths in the millions, even into billions. But we could and would adapt. The cost would be immense, and the same goes for the losses. But again, far from "everyone dies". A man-made pandemic could be pretty nasty, but covid helped us prepare for future pandemics. We do find new dangers, and anyone could kill us, but we also get more resilient facing them. It is pretty certain we as a species will survive to the 3000, unless we are getting into transhumanism in one form or another.
Will humanity make it to year 3000 on Earth, and what will it be like? (https://medium.com/@jaxroam/will-humanity-make-it-to-year-3000-on-earth-and-what-will-it-be-like-9940a308c948)
A man-made pandemic could be pretty nasty, but covid helped us prepare for future pandemics.
...only if we take the right lessons from what was an abysmal response in most of the Western World: Determine the threat, mitigate by protecting the most vulnerable, and let actual science proceed — to give us the best understanding possible...
I fear the worst lessons were learned: Ignore or obfuscate the the origin of the threat, impose next to useless societal and economically ruinous strictures, and stifle scientific communication so that only that which supports the strictures is communicated...
Even in the worst case scenario, though: Humanity will likely survive. Natural selection hasn't been obviated — only
outlawed! :)
Perhaps Thought Crime will be our downfall.
...only if we take the right lessons from what was an abysmal response in most of the Western World: Determine the threat, mitigate by protecting the most vulnerable, and let actual science proceed — to give us the best understanding possible...
I fear the worst lessons were learned: Ignore or obfuscate the the origin of the threat, impose next to useless societal and economically ruinous strictures, and stifle scientific communication so that only that which supports the strictures is communicated...
Even in the worst case scenario, though: Humanity will likely survive. Natural selection hasn't been obviated — only outlawed! :)
Who doesn't/didn't know where the epidemic started? Far East has faced a series of similar epidemics.
The methods and policies deployed in the West are the same as were already in use in Far East, that is less touching, more cleaning of hands, masks and vaccines. All these methods have a proven effect with very contagious air-borne viruses, but are far from fully reliable - because it's a very contagious air-borne virus and people don't follow best practices for various reasons.
Are the methods Communist? Are countries like Japan and Singapore Communist because they deployed the same methods as Vietnam and China?
To whine against a global policy that was necessary against a global epidemic is ultimate snowflakery. If natural selection operated uninhibited, you'd have been selected for extinction by now. However, liberal humanist principles tend to safeguard the lesser ones among us. So don't worry, you are well protected.
The right lessons had already been learned and the corresponding rules were more or less ready to be deployed. The worst lesson would have been to do as you advise: Act like a headless chicken as if something unprecedented and unforeseen was going on.
The methods and policies deployed in the West are the same as were already in use in Far East, that is less touching, more cleaning of hands, masks and vaccines. All these methods have a proven effect with very contagious air-borne viruses, but are far from fully reliable - because it's a very contagious air-borne virus and people don't follow best practices for various reasons.
The "methods and policies deployed" turned out to be between futile and ruinous... You missed that? :) Oh, I forgot: You follow the party line! Take another jab and mask up. Do what's good for you, and don't believe your own eyes — politicians are the best arbiters of science because their motives are pure!
Covid was a future shock, sense of wonder if you like. Not so much the pandemic itself, it was pretty run of the mill, but the reaction to it was very 21st century.
Back in the 1990s (maybe even the 80s) I read a bit on pandemic preparation, and it was bleak. Pandemics are pretty much inevitable. We are on overtime for a major new flu pandemic. And the Achilles heel of any pandemic, particularly an airborne one, is the health system. Doctors and nurses will be the first to get sick and die. And most fiction was just as bleak of course, based on some bioweapon killing much or most of humanity before the hero-doctor comes up with a cure, trying it on himself first of course. Meanwhile, on the outside there was panic and mayhem
This was not what happened. The first indication this was different came in China by February 2020. When the disease spread to cities like Beijing and Shanghaim instead of people killing each other on the street and raiding supermarkets, Hollywood style, people went home and they stayed home, ordering food delivery (left outside the door) to home, working from home.
When it came to Europe and North America, the pattern repeated. We are not living in the age of the Black Death anymore. A pandemic comes along, we just stay home until it's over. That was not all. The future shock continued. We had the digital fingerprint of the virus almost before it left Wuhan. We had working vaccines in mass production in a year. That is still not fast enough, but far faster than before, and this can be scaled up and sped up further. Ultimately we can find cures before the disease will have time to spread much (unless it did so by stealth). Furthermore we can detect virus particles in wastewater, and our epidemic models improve. We will get a fairly real time map of the pandemic in action.
As biohackers will eventually be able to design viruses, artificial viruses may one day matter, these developments matter a lot.
Three posts same day (this one not included), that must be a recent record.
The "methods and policies deployed" turned out to be between futile and ruinous... You missed that? :) Oh, I forgot: You follow the party line!
To say that the measures were futile and ruinous is the party line. Every country took the same measures. Every country without exception. Even Trump-led USA did it. You missed that?
Well, of course you missed that. You do not do facts at all. You strictly toe the QAnon MAGA party line.
Why did every country take the measures? Because a global pandemic is ruinous. It was the politicians' job to respond to it, but as people in general, they did not do their job very well. For example, in Sweden the main expert who jumped to the forefront (and was given the lead) suggested minimal measures expecting herd immunity to kick in quick this way, he was wrong. He missed that these pandemics had been recurring in Far East for decades and no herd immunity had kicked in.
I see covid-19 as an inoculation. Dangerous and deadly on its own, there will be more pandemics. Some will be even more deadly, particularly in a future where they may be engineered. Among the ABCs, biological weapons were least likely. The As gave a big bang, the Cs were cheap to make, but the Bs were practically impossible to control. You may devastate your enemy, but then the disease spreads. Anthrax was popular in the Cold War days precisely because it was spreading so weakly.
That situation may change. There may come ways to control pathogens that a hostile actor, rightly or wrongly, would believe make them safe enough to use without risking own country or organisation. A bigger concern is when biotech develop enough that an Aum Shinrikyo type scenario is possible. Even the main pathway, people coming in close contact with an animal having come in contact with another, is more likely to happen with deforestation et al. For 35 years I have been spreading my life's motto: "Don't sneeze on a duck."
So what do we do when faced with a new deadly epidemic? What we always have done: We panic and die. For modern epidemic there is a third phase: We panic, the health system breaks down as doctors and nurses get sick, and then we die. Trying to make the health system not break down has been a priority for a century.
With exceptions of a few locales, we did reasonably well on the health system breakdown, but there are definitely room for improvements. Quite literally as many get sick simultaneously.
Which leads to the first, and probably most important lesson: We must be much better at scaling up fast. That's not just the lesson from covid, but from most other recent crises, like the energy crisis, and scaling up defences after invasion of Ukraine. JIT is an excellent advancement in production and logistics, but must be complemented with scaling capabilities.
There are two main companies in my home town. AstraZeneca shifted into vaccine business, not one of their product groups. Scania shifted from making trucks into making PPEs (when the emergency was over, the logistics logjam for building trucks again began). The local science centre 3D-printed ventilator components for the local hospital, which was one of the designated covid hospitals in the region. All good cooperation, but late and ad hoc. If prepared for a scale-up, it is fully feasible.
Work from home, hazmat suits outdoors, and domestic services provided by machines will protect people for long enough.
Test and trace couldn't keep up with the pandemic, so in that sense it was a failure. But it was also a great success, this could not have been done before. It took a year to produce a working vaccine, which is fast, but it only took a month to produce and distribute a working test (in Berlin, based on data from China, with global collaboration over the Internet). Tracing would not have been feasible in any epidemic before, and was only partially practical in this, but could work well in the next. Public monitors like sewer surveillance also became practicable.
Disease models (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_modelling_of_infectious_diseases) pre-covid were basically post-Spanish Flu ones. The potential for improvement with real-time data hasn't been fully realised. Perhaps next pandemic.
Despite the likelihood that CoV-2 was a lab experiment let loose and not a bio-weapon deployed, it was known quickly what its virulence was... And how to react, in the short term.
Instead, a virtual panic ensued — for the benefit of the Bio-War Gamers? :)
You realise that any complaints that you have about the response to Covid in USA you should direct at Trump, don't you? Or are you so hypocritical as to never realise it?
At Trump and the bureaucracy at the CDC. More so, at Biden... But you wouldn't care about that: TDS is your bag! :)
If it can be used against Trump, it's a good weapon. If not, it's worthless!
SARS-CoV-2 was not manufactured, but that story was.
It has all the fingerprints of a desinformation campaign close to the US government (but not necessarily from the US government). Bit like the "Iraq got WMD" and "Saddam supported Al-Qaeda" stories, it never got much traction outside the US, and not among scientists, while the politically connected in the US (particularly on the Democratic side) believed in it and/or promoted it.
Of course, neither of the counter-hypotheses, (1) there was an accidental lab leak and (2) the lab leak story was created and spread organically, can fully be discounted, but they are very implausible and growing ever more implausible over time.
It has all the fingerprints of a desinformation campaign close to the US government
I've heard that line of argument before, somewhere... :) Remember when the emails, etc., from the Hunter Biden laptop were quasi-determined to be Russian disinfo, because -well, gee! it has all the earmarks of such? So said 50-some-odd current and former US intelligence officers, with enough weasel-wordage to absolve them of outright lying included.
Likewise, Fauci's NIAID did indeed fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology...
But don't presume malevolence when ineptitude will suffice! :)