Edwina, list, I agree with Edwina. There have now been a number of studies comparing Wikipedia and Britannica, such as this published in *Nature * https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/ showing that they are about equal in accuracy.
Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > I don't think one should take a 'snooty' or elitist approach to Wikipedia. > Their site is not totally filled with simplistic ignorant commentary by and > for the unwashed masses. Their political commentary is, yes, biased as are > most political commentaries. But their strictly mathematical and scientific > comments are, as written by mathematicians and scientists, usually quite > acceptable and informative. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:58 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy) > > I stated that it was Wikipedia to make clear that it was "for what it's > worth". I confess that I was pressed for time. I did subsequently send a > link to an article on the Planck length for the general public from > Fermilab Today: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/ > archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html . The other > links that I sent were from the NYT (2009) about the 2009 paper in Nature, > and the abstract of a scientific paper (2014) which contained a link to a > PDF of the 2014 paper itself. > > In addition, here's a link to Nature's summary "An intergalactic race in > space and time: A burst of γ-rays lets scientists test quantum theories of > gravity", for the general public, of the 2009 paper: > http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091028/full/news.2009.1044.html . > Here's a link to the 2009 paper itself (requires payment) "A limit on the > variation of the speed of light arising from quantum gravity effects" > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/nature08574.html . > Here is the abstract http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.462..331A : > > A cornerstone of Einstein’s special relativity is Lorentz invariance—the > postulate that all observers measure exactly the same speed of light in > vacuum, independent of photon-energy. While special relativity assumes that > there is no fundamental length-scale associated with such invariance, there > is a fundamental scale (the Planck scale, lPlanck ~1.62×10-33 cm or E > Planck = MPlanck c2 ~1.22×1019 GeV), at which quantum effects are > expected to strongly affect the nature of space-time. There is great > interest in the (not yet validated) idea that Lorentz invariance might > break near the Planck scale. A key test of such violation of Lorentz > invariance is a possible variation of photon speed with energy. Even a tiny > variation in photon speed, when accumulated over cosmological light-travel > times, may be revealed by observing sharp features in γ-ray burst (GRB) > light-curves. Here we report the detection of emission up to ~31GeV from > the distant and short GRB090510. We find no evidence for the violation of > Lorentz invariance, and place a lower limit of 1.2EPlanck on the scale of > a linear energy dependence (or an inverse wavelength dependence), subject > to reasonable assumptions about the emission (equivalently we have an upper > limit of lPlanck /1.2 on the length scale of the effect). Our results > disfavour quantum-gravity theories in which the quantum nature of > space-time on a very small scale linearly alters the speed of light. > [highlighting added] > > Best, Ben > > On 12/13/2016 9:29 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > If Wikipedia is taken as a scientific authority, then the situation is > really bad. > > Kirsti > > Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 11.12.2016 22:36: > > Ben, List: > > On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> > <baud...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a > factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no > theoretically known improvement in measurement instruments could > change that. But some physicists have found that that's not quite as > much of a barrier as it may seem to be. > > Your post is unclear. I know of no mathematical nor physical nor > chemical reason for such a conclusion about measurements of > commensurabilities. > Is the mathematics of electric field theory constrained by the > physical principles that motivate this conclusion about this > measurement of Planck’s constant? > > Perhaps others may be able to expand on the origin of this conjecture. > > But, from my perspective, it is merely another example of the problems > of scientific epistemologies and Wikipedia’s style of informing > public opinion. > > Historically, this issue has arise on this list serve with respect > controversial Wikipedia articles that appear to be authored by a > member of Peirce-L. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
