Re: OT: Great Science
On Oct 8, 8:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > As an antidote to the bad taste of deniers of various stripes, this > thread will, from time to time, highlight primary scientific research > articles. Here is a copy of a comment I posted to: http://pyre.third-bit.com/blog/archives/3137.html ... I highly recommend the Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth: http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787 Here is a quote from chapter 1: QQQ Like the theory of continental drift, an idea may even begin its career in mired in ridicule, before progressing by painful steps to the status of...undisputed fact. This is not a philosophically difficult point. The fact that some widely held past beliefs have been conclusively proved erroneous doesn't mean we have to fear that future evidence will always show our present beliefs to be wrong. How vulnerable our present beliefs are depends, among other things, on how strong the evidence for them is. People used to think the sun was smaller than the earth, because they had inadequate evidence. Now we have evidence, which was not previously available, that shows conclusively that it is much larger, and we can be totally confident that this evidence will never, ever be superseded. This is not a temporary hypothesis that has so far survived disproof. Our present beliefs about many things may be disproved, but we can with complete confidence make a list of certain facts that will never be disproved. Evolution and the heliocentric theory weren't always among them, but they are now. QQQ Evidence maters! It just drives me absolutely nuts that people don't get this simple fact :-) Keep on pluggin' away. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-edi...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
Re: OT: Great Science
On Nov 16, 1:24 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > > Here are the videos I watched today: Well, I did my chores, and watched the rest of the "crock of the week" videos. Again, I highly recommend these videos. The role of Fox News in this is horrifying. These guys make Joseph Goebbels, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels, look like an amateur. The Medieval Warming crock http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/15/vrKfz8NjEzU Temp Leads CO2??? http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/14/hWJeqgG3Tl8 How to lie shamelessly with cherry-picked statistics http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/13/y15UGhhRd6M Volcanoes release more CO2 than humans??? http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/12/WPA-8A4zf2c Increased CO2 is good for plants??? http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/11/vFGU6qvkmTI The Movie, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" "On the internet, nobody knows you're a fraud" http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/10/boj9ccV9htk Climate models http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/9/D6Un69RMNSw Human activities dwarf natural greenhouse gas processes http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/8/MozcU7woNNQ US Temperature records unreliable??? A government conspiracy http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/7/dcxVwEfq4bM Words fail me http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/6/TNbjqSyWdcs People are already being victimized (being killed) by global warming http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/5/5NJEouqefis Global warming stopped in 1998. Hahahahah! http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/4/QwnrpwctIh4 All the other planets are warming??? http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/3/BSXgiml5UwM How to lie about sea level http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/2/kffsux-ifKk Climate deniers caught in the act: The birth of a crock http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/1/khikoh3sJg8 No, the arctic ice sheet is not recovering http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/0/Y3dYhC_AlYw Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Great Science
On Nov 16, 1:13 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > Here are the videos I watched today: And one more, and then I really have chores to do :-) The Great Petition Fraud http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/16/5P8mlF8KT6I These are the climate deniers, exposed for what they are. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Great Science
On Nov 16, 1:06 pm, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: >A more compelling way to > refute climate skeptics is an absolutely brilliant serious of YouTube > videos called "Climate Crock of the > Week",http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610 Here are the videos I watched today: Weather is not climate http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/22/l0JsdSDa_bM (Polar ice) area is not volume http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/21/2nruCRcbnY0 The sun does not cause global warming http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/20/_Sf_UIQYc20 The business of confusion http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/19/G0HGFSUx2a8 Did scientists believe in global cooling? http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/18/4nTw0KneNLg The Urban Heat Island crock http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/17/B7OdCOsMgCw Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Great Science
On Oct 8, 8:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: If you have climate-denier friends, you will likely have found it hard even to talk to them about the subject. I have just stumbled on http://www.realclimate.org, a site that a) is based on peer-reviewed literature and b) simply and clearly refutes all the climate-denier "crocks" that are polluting the web and the media. The subtitle of this site is: "Climate Science from Climate Scientists". For those of us who have had to endure rants about "10 trees, 10 trees, 10 trees", a good antidote is http://www.realclimate.org/dummies.pdf, "The Dummies Guide to the Latest Hockey Stick Controversy". As should be clear from this guide, the deniers claims are baseless. In fact, the hockey stick is inherent in the underlying data, so *any* reasonable statistical summary of that data will show the the hockey- stick shape. Moreover, including the infamous 10 trees in the summary improves the its accuracy, so it is reasonable to include that data. But it doesn't matter much either way: the underlying data, showing the hockey stick, is perfectly real. But "The Dummies Guide" is words and graphs. A more compelling way to refute climate skeptics is an absolutely brilliant serious of YouTube videos called "Climate Crock of the Week", http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610 These clearly, calmly and devastatingly annihilate climate denier's fallacies, one after another. The author of these videos, Peter W. Sinclair, is not himself a scientist, but references many primary sources in the videos. Thus, he is a tertiary source, and a very good one at that. I highly recommend these videos. They are the perfect antidote to the well-thought-out campaign of obfuscation and confusion that is the clear tactic of the denialists and their supporters. Stripped of the confusion, the lies stand out in stark relief. The series also makes clear who it is that stands to benefit from these lies. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Great Science
On Oct 17, 6:42 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > Ice Age Terminationshttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5950/248 > > The Abstract: > QQQ [snip] > In all four cases, observations > are consistent with a classic Northern Hemisphere summer insolation > intensity trigger for an initial retreat of northern ice sheets. [snip] QQQ One of the deniers favorite red herrings is that climate change is due primarily to changes in insolation. This paper confirms that general notion, without in any way agreeing with the deniers' conclusions. EKR --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Great Science
On Oct 8, 9:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > this thread will, from time to time, highlight primary scientific research > articles. I recently had one of those Aha moments about Science Magazine, namely that just about *every* article in it could be considered as exciting as any Aha I've ever had :-) Indeed, the cleverness, doggedness and significance of each and every article is there to be seen, if I take the trouble to look. As a result, I've become a science junkie: there is no way I'll ever get enough. It's time to subscribe to Nature :-) Here are some recent great articles Part 1: non-controversial Persistent Currents in Normal Metal Rings http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5950/272 deals with a quantum mechanical prediction I had never heard of before. What interests me is the fantastic experimental skill involved in measuring tiny currents at low temperatures. The authors measured current using mechanical single-crystal silicon cantilevers in a liquid helium bath(!) Part 2: controversial The deniers want to spread confusion and doubt. Here are some antidotes: Both of the World’s Ice Sheets May Be Shrinking Faster and Faster http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/326/5950/217-a.pdf A perspectives article: Monsoons and Meltdowns http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/326/5950/240.pdf QQQ The breakthrough of Cheng et al. is that they have achieved unprecedented dating precision, and correlate the monsoon record with ice core and marine records, providing all three with an accurate time scale for the past four ice age terminations. They can thus compare the precise timing of meltdowns with potential causes, such as the amount of sunshine (insolation) that fell on the northern ice sheets in the melting season from June to August, or the concentration of atmospheric CO2 known from trapped air bubbles in ice cores. QQQ Btw, the word "insolation" is one of those words you want to remember. And here is the actual research article (which I highly recommend) corresponding to the perspectives article: Ice Age Terminations http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5950/248 The Abstract: QQQ 230Th-dated oxygen isotope records of stalagmites from Sanbao Cave, China, characterize Asian Monsoon (AM) precipitation through the ends of the third- and fourthmost recent ice ages. As a result, AM records for the past four glacial terminations can now be precisely correlated with those from ice cores and marine sediments, establishing the timing and sequence of major events. In all four cases, observations are consistent with a classic Northern Hemisphere summer insolation intensity trigger for an initial retreat of northern ice sheets. Meltwater and icebergs entering the North Atlantic alter oceanic and atmospheric circulation and associated fluxes of heat and carbon, causing increases in atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperatures that drive the termination in the Southern Hemisphere. Increasing CO2 and summer insolation drive recession of northern ice sheets, with probable positive feedbacks between sea level and CO2. QQQ Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Great Science
On Oct 8, 9:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > As an antidote to the bad taste of deniers of various stripes, this > thread will, from time to time, highlight primary scientific research > articles. Here is a book review: QQQ Oceans: A Critical Course Change Kai M. A. Chan,* Edward J. Gregr, Sarah Klain Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans Karen McLeod and Heather Leslie, Eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2009. 391 pp. $90. ISBN 9781597261548. Paper, $45. ISBN 9781597261555. The reviewers are at the Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: kaic...@ires.ubc.ca (K.M.A.C.) Ecosystem-based management (EBM) represents a novel strategy to create enduring wealth while balancing trade-offs among social and ecological considerations. Born from management disasters caused by narrow, species- or issue-specific decision-making processes, the approach represents a profound shift in natural resource management. It emphasizes human dependence on ecosystems, humility, and precaution in how we interact with and use the environment. It also highlights the need for institutional adaptation to change and ecological resilience. The degree to which stakeholders, scientists, and managers must consequently expand their worldview, understanding, and ethics is daunting. Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans provides a synthetic, cohesive perspective on these issues, making it essential reading for EBM researchers and practitioners in the oceanic, terrestrial, and freshwater realms alike. [image omitted] Editors Karen McLeod (Oregon State University) and Heather Leslie (Brown University) and their diverse team of over 40 contributors offer the first comprehensive guide to the science and practice of EBM for the oceans. Their insightful chapters are organized into five sections. These set the stage, present underlying concepts, connect concepts to practice, discuss several marine case studies, and look ahead. Together, they synthesize the current state of EBM for an informed but nonexpert audience. Coastal development, agriculture, shipping, fishing, aquaculture, tourism and recreation, and oil and gas extraction are among the human activities that affect marine ecosystems. Without comprehensive EBM, the cumulative impact of these activities leads to the prevailing phenomenon of death by a thousand cuts. Ecosystem management has generally been conducted piecemeal, with separate management of individual sectors and little attention to the often-critical connections among them. In retrospect, the resulting failures are no surprise: when one treats a complex web as separate strands, it can unravel in unanticipated ways. Various chapters effectively describe the scientific and political barriers to implementing EBM, and several also describe how those can be (and are being) overcome, largely through interdisciplinary research. Contributors describe how EBM provides an integrated approach to maintaining healthy marine systems. Their discussions of the inextricable connections among people, institutions, and the multitude of ecosystem components emphasize two core concepts long studied separately: socio-ecological resilience and ecosystem services. The four chapters on these topics succinctly present the state of knowledge and central issues in these fields. Another highlight is the chapter "Integrating local and traditional ecological knowledge," the most accessible treatment of these topics that we have encountered. Practitioners, especially in the United States, will find the comprehensive and incisive chapter on building the legal and institutional framework for EBM essential reading. The timely volume substantially advances EBM thinking. Nonetheless, the overly theoretical or narrow treatment of some topics (e.g., scaling, value systems) and the use of important concepts without sufficient discussion (e.g., cumulative effects, sustainability, historic baselines) reflect the field's youth; EBM remains more of an idea than a reality. Fulfilling its promise will require progress in several areas. Adopting ecosystem services as a key conceptual framework strengthens the values foundation of environmental management. But by limiting themselves to utilitarian values tied to human well-being, the authors largely default to the current ethical framework. Discussion of the intrinsic values of nonhuman organisms and ecosystems, questions of process (rightness and justice), and virtue is essentially limited to the chapter on ethics. That chapter, however, provides a valuable description of how current EBM operates in a reduced moral space, the expansion of which would foster responsible management. We reject two important claims in the book that could handicap efforts at EBM. First, although the well-being of nonhuman organisms ought to be granted much more weight than currently, we do not
Re: OT: Great Science
On Oct 8, 9:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: As an antidote to misinformation about the "hockey stick", I offer the fourth report from the ippc. Click on the "full report" link at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm Clicking on the "spm" link will give you the summary for policy makers. This isn't great science, but it is the unambiguous consensus of the world's scientist, watered down in its conclusions to be acceptable to almost everyone :-) Since the report was published, the facts on the ground (and in the air) have consistently been more dire than presented in the report. In other words, nothing in the report is *at all* controversial, as far as the vast majority of scientists are concerned. >From the summary (all in bold in the summary): QQQ Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure 1.1)... Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases... Other effects of regional climate changes on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers. QQQ And here is a key quote from the full report: QQQ Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be *likely* to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt. QQQ Note: the word "likely" above has a technical meaning, defined in at the beginning of the report. I can see no way at all to read this report with a "we have no problem" attitude. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Great Science
On Oct 8, 9:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > As an antidote to the bad taste of deniers of various stripes, this > thread will, from time to time, highlight primary scientific research > articles. Not a primary article, but an instant classic compendium. Plan B 4.0 by Lester Brown. Free download from http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4 Right-click on "free download of book, pdf" Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Great Science
On Oct 8, 9:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: >This thread will, from time to time, highlight primary scientific research > articles. >From Science, 24 September, 2009: Neurobiologists Discover Butterfly Chronometer http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/924/2?rss=1 The summary: QQQ Each fall, hundreds of millions of newly hatched monarch butterflies flit from the fields and forests in eastern regions of Canada and the United States to the alpine fir forests of central Mexico, converging on the same spot to wait out the winter. Scientists don't know exactly how these insects find their way, but a new study shows that, to navigate, the butterflies rely on biological clocks. Oddly enough, the clocks are located in their antennae, not in their brains as previously thought. Migrating monarchs rely on the sun to maintain a constant heading. Because the sun drifts from east to west as the day wears on, the butterflies need a timekeeping device to help them compensate for its movement. Monarchs have a biological clock in their brains that relies on light cues to regulate their sleep-wake cycles and monitor day length. Scientists assumed they also used this clock to navigate. But the new study shows that the antennae possess a separate clock that controls time compensation. "That was a huge surprise," says Steven Reppert, a neurobiologist at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester and co-author of the new study. Reppert and his colleagues began studying antennae because they thought the appendages might assist migration in other ways--by allowing the butterflies to pick up certain scents, for example. They soon saw something surprising. When they clipped the antennae off about 30 migrating monarchs and put them in a flight simulator, which can track the direction they try to fly, the butterflies were disoriented. Whereas butterflies with antenna flew south to southeast, those with clipped antennae flew in random directions, although each individual hewed to its heading fairly consistently. At first, the researchers thought that the lack of antennae was throwing off the timekeeping ability of the butterflies' brain clocks. But when they looked at the expression of the clock genes in the brains of monarchs without antennae, everything appeared normal, suggesting that a separate clock existed in the antennae. So the researchers returned to the flight simulator. This time, rather than removing the antennae, they coated the antennae on some butterflies with opaque black paint and those of others with a clear enamel. If a sunlight-driven clock were in the antennae, the researchers hypothesized, only the monarchs with black paint would lose their ability to fly south. Biological clocks can keep time without cues from the sun, but like faulty pocket watches, they tend to drift out of synch over time. Because these insects had only their antenna painted black for a couple of weeks, the researchers didn't expect to see complete disorientation but rather incorrect orientation. "And that's exactly what happened," Reppert says. Monarchs with normal antennae and those with clear paint flew toward the south or southeast, the researchers report today in Science. Monarchs with black antennae, however, flew north to northwest. It's a "nifty" result, says Orley Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence. Still, many questions remain with respect to monarch migration. For example, how do the butterflies know which direction to go in the first place? Earth's magnetic fields may play a role, Taylor says. In fact, one of the light-sensing proteins Reppert's team found in the antennae clock acts as a magnetic field sensor in fruit flies. "The deeper they dig," Taylor says, "the more they find out about how complicated this system is." QQQ The abstract of the research article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci%3B325/5948/1700?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Antennal+circadian+clocks&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT QQQ Antennal Circadian Clocks Coordinate Sun Compass Orientation in Migratory Monarch Butterflies Christine Merlin, Robert J. Gegear, Steven M. Reppert* During their fall migration, Eastern North American monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) use a time-compensated Sun compass to aid navigation to their overwintering grounds in central Mexico. It has been assumed that the circadian clock that provides time compensation resides in the brain, although this assumption has never been examined directly. Here, we show that the antennae are necessary for proper time-compensated Sun compass orientation in migratory monarch butterflies, that antennal clocks exist in monarchs, and that they likely provide the primary timing mechanism for Sun compass orientation. These unexpected findings pose a novel function for the antennae and open a new line of investigation into clock-compass connections that may extend widely to other inse
Re: OT: Great Science
On Oct 8, 9:35 am, "Edward K. Ream" wrote: > This thread will, from time to time, highlight primary scientific research > articles. You don't need to be a scientist to understand these articles. It's like reading court decisions. After a while you will get a feel for the general shape of things. You can skip what you don't understand, perhaps looking up unfamiliar terms. >From the Sept 25 issue of science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol325/issue5948/index.dtl The article: On Universality in Human Correspondence Activity http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5948/1696 The abstract: QQQ The identification and modeling of patterns of human activity have important ramifications for applications ranging from predicting disease spread to optimizing resource allocation. Because of its relevance and availability, written correspondence provides a powerful proxy for studying human activity. One school of thought is that human correspondence is driven by responses to received correspondence, a view that requires a distinct response mechanism to explain e-mail and letter correspondence observations. We demonstrate that, like e-mail correspondence, the letter correspondence patterns of 16 writers, performers, politicians, and scientists are well described by the circadian cycle, task repetition, and changing communication needs. We confirm the universality of these mechanisms by rescaling letter and e- mail correspondence statistics to reveal their underlying similarity. QQQ Perhaps more interesting, the first two paragraphs of the article: QQQ Power law statistics are a hallmark of critical phenomena. A less obvious characteristic of criticality is the emergence of universality classes that capture the similarity of seemingly disparate systems. For example, despite the fact that water and carbon dioxide have different chemical properties, they were observed to behave in the same manner when close to their respective critical points (1). This is because idiosyncrasies, such as the existence of electric dipoles or the ability to form hydrogen bonds, become irrelevant near the liquid/gas critical point. For physical systems, renormalization group theory (2, 3) has enabled researchers to understand the deep connection between the symmetries of a system and the mechanisms that underlie its behavior. The similarity of different fluids near their respective liquid/gas critical points is often demonstrated by rescaling their statistics so that they collapse onto the same universal curves (often power law curves),which have particular scaling exponents. By grouping different substances into the same universality class, as identified by its scaling exponents, one discovers that fluids are described by the same statistical laws near the liquid/gas critical point as uniaxial magnets are near their paramagnetic critical point (1). One can also differentiate the behavior of these systems from the behavior of polymers near the sol/ gel transition, which belong to a different universality class (1). In addition to describing critical phenomena, power law scaling has also been widely reported in biology, economics, and sociology (4–10). Renormalization group theory therefore offers a tantalizing hypothesis for the prevalence of particular power law scaling exponents in social systems: Social systems, in analogy with physical systems, may operate near critical points and can therefore be classified into a small number of distinct universality classes. A heated debate has consequently ensued in the literature concerning the "universality of human systems" (in the statistical physics meaning of the phrase). Is there enough statistical evidence for the asymptotic power law description of the heavy-tailed distributions reported in human systems (11–14)? Is it reasonable to postulate that social systems, like their physical counterparts (2, 3, 15), can be classified into universality classes according to scaling exponents (16)? QQQ What exciting about this is the wide range of applicability of group theory, a standard mathematical tool, and the deep connections that are therefore revealed about physical and social theories. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
OT: Great Science
As an antidote to the bad taste of deniers of various stripes, this thread will, from time to time, highlight primary scientific research articles. The ground rule is that all submissions must be from primary peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science or Nature, or secondary journals just as Scientific American, New Scientist, Science news, or tertiary sources such as main-stream news sources dealing with science, just as the New York Times science column. Political sources of any kind are prohibited. I'll be sole judge of the acceptability of sources. This is not a debating thread. Failure to follow the rules will get you warned, then banned. Everybody clear? And no, we are not going to debate these rules. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
