Hello,
Presently, I'm dealing with a rectangular pressure vessels. I need to design a Tube-sheet for it. Appendix UHX of ASME talks about only circular tube-sheets.
How to design a rectangular tube-sheet? Is there any code talks about it?
Can you guide me in this regard?
It's confirmed: Space is bubbling with the potential for life. The Heterodyne Instrument for the Far Infrared—on board the Herschel Space Observatory—has sent a high resolution analysis of the Orion Nebula's chemistry. It has scientists very excited. More »
Obama's plans for NASA changes met with harsh criticism, Washington Post
"Congress must approve NASA's strategic change. Lawmakers in Florida, Alabama and Texas, states rich in space jobs, have sharply criticized the Obama plan as a job-killer. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) says that under Obama's strategy "America's decades-long dominance of space will finally come to an end."
Introduction of S. 3068 by Sen. Hutchison, Congressional Record 3 March 2010
"The legislation I am introducing today would ensure that a final decision on the timing of the space shuttle retirement, or even the number of missions it might still be required to fly, would not be made until the issues involved are fully considered and resolved and we are fully convinced that the shuttle's capability is no longer needed. In particular, we must answer the question of how we support, maintain, and fully utilize the ISS, not just in 5 or more years, when any new commercially-developed vehicle might be available, but right now, as we are about to cut the ribbon on it as a finally completed research facility."
Keith's note: In this post by Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation staffer Jeff Bingham (51D Mascot) on nasaspaceflight.com he notes that "The Hutchison Bill, by its very structure, is written so as to be the "core" of a broader NASA Authorization Bill, and it is fully planned and expected, going in, that it will likely be "absorbed" into that larger NASA Authorization Bill, which will likely be reported by the Commerce Committee, once it is satisfied with it, and it goes through the process known as "mark-up" (amendment and endorsement by the Committee) as a new and separate bill."
can anyone please explain me the procedure of how the rotor resistance is increased(practically) by salt water addition, at the time of starting of the slip ring induction motor.
Dear all, actually i am going to simulate active power filter in matlab using fuzzy logic controller.
so my question is that is there necessry to design another controller before fuzzy logic controller?
The website called Today I Found Out has an interesting post on Sun factoids, including its color as designated in hex code: #FFF5F2. That code is actually taken from the site vendian.org, put together by Mitchell Charity. He has other star colors listed as well. I found the codes for different stellar types interesting.
The star type is listed, along with the RGB and hex values. The stars go from hottest at the top to coolest at the bottom, and the Sun is roughly a G2V.
The colors are relatively good, in that they are blue at the top and reddish at the bottom. But I was surprised at the lack of color saturation, and that the cooler stars aren’t as red as I would think.
I have spent a lot of time at the eyepiece. Vega, an A0 dwarf star, is distinctly and brilliantly blue, almost a sapphire to the eye. Betelgeuse, an M1 supergiant, is a ruddy orange. I’ve seen a handful of cooler red giants, and to the eye they are very red, not the pastel orangey thing seen here.
Why is this? There are lots of reasons that come to my mind. One is that the way stars shine is inherently different than the way colors are represented on your screen. Stars are hot balls of luminous plasma, glowing like a blackbody. Unless you heat your monitor to that same temperature, you can only approximate the way a star shines, and the colors will be off.
Our eye perceives color oddly, too. Seeing a star against a black sky will give you a different sense of its color than if you see it on your monitor. Even putting a differently colored star in the same field wrecks your color sense. I’ll note that Charity’s star color page has a hex code for the color of planetary nebulae, and that’s a whole nuther can o’ worms.
In my opinion, doing this is an interesting exercise, and a wonderful "teaching moment" on how stars emit light and how we perceive color. But as an exercise in actually trying to mimic star colors, it’s a whole lot tougher than you might think. I’m not saying Charity’s colors are wrong, but I am saying that trying to get hex codes for star colors is like writing down the notes to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony on paper. It’s a code, and has the right information in it, but it’s not the same as hearing the orchestra.
I’ll also note that the whole point of the first site’s article is that the Sun is white. This is actually an extremely difficult topic to understand — it’s not just scattered blue light that makes the Sun look yellow to us, and I’m still not convinced the Sun does look yellow to us. Charity links to a page about the Sun’s color written by my friend the astronomer Andrew Hamilton, which has some more info on it.
I think the real lesson here is that something we think of as simple — color — is not at all simple! The way colors are emitted by an object, the way our eyes detect color, and most importantly the way our brains interpret that signal, are actually extraordinarily complex processes. I think that’s a very important concept to keep in mind when pondering pretty much any issue: what we take for granted as simple is almost never any such thing.
Tip o’ the artist’s beret to Philippe Hamel.
This daily calendar mixes analog, digital, nature, and poetry all in one: Every autumn day, each of its pages will fall off automatically, torn by a clever mechanism at its top. As this video shows, it works great. But why? More »
Hi everybody!
I'm researching into some parts glass cutting machine but I don't have any document about cutting glass! Especially the speed and the pressure required to cut a glass! Who are those know about this document, please sent it to me via my email
Thanks very much!
New Lucian Leape Institute Report Finds That U.S. Medical Schools Are Falling ... PR Newswire (press release) A major reason why progress has been so slow is that medical schools and teaching hospitals have not trained physicians to follow safe practices, ... Radiation Hazards Illustrate Need For Industry-Wide Safety ResponseHealth Affairs (blog) During Patient Safety Awareness Week, Remember Injured PatientsInjuryBoard.com (blog) |
What's next for NASA?, Mario Livio, Baltimore Sun
"In recent days, some of those criticizing NASA's proposed budget have tried to paint a picture of an agency without a vision. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. NASA's far-reaching ambitions in space science have been, and will continue to be, truly inspiring"
Keith's note: While Livio does make a number of cogent points about space science, I find it a little odd that he can make statements about the agency's overall "vision" while making zero mention of human spaceflight. If some members of Congress have their way, NASA will need to find more money somewhere - and that somewhere may well be space science. Perhaps then he'll take the time to look at the other things that NASA does. I am rather certain that Livio was in the audience last night at the Air and Space Museum for the premiere of Hubble IMAX 3D - a movie that was equally balanced between human and robotic spaceflight. I guess he missed all of those space suited astronauts working on the gem of his institute's research - one of whom works down the hall from him at STScI ...
could someone please help me to give calculation formula of Neutral Ground resistor.
With stories abounding of identity theft aided by information lifted from discarded storage devices, you want devices you no longer plan to use to have no usable information when they head out the door. Here's how to wipe them clean. More »
Hi,I'm currently studying Chemical Engineering in a college in India and am in my final year.I appeared for the written test of a leading petrochemicals company in India a few days back...now even if I do manage to clear that test and get called for an interview,I have no idea as to what will be ask
When mulling over the topic in the beginning, the first question seemed to be a “no-brainer” as I personally felt the collective answers would be a resounding “Yes!”. And, as you read through the replies, you will find that proved to be the outcome. It’s in the definitions of “travel snobbery” where things truly became interesting… Is it the backpacker? Is it the cruise ship dweller? Is it anyone, or everyone, who steps over their own threshold to venture somewhere else?
Travel snobbery exists. It’s probably oozing over this very panel discussion in the guise of anti-snobbery. I imagine it as a slobbering beast that roams the globe — almost always “off the beaten track”. Its backpack is the lightest, it’s been away the longest, and of course its tales are the tallest, and capable of usurping even the hardiest of travellers. It can usually be heard coming with the battle cry of “Why didn’t you…”, which echoes through the most secret dorm rooms and rarest cabanas of the world. It’s nearly died one more time than you. It’s spent a pound less. It’s cooked eggs with remote locals, been interviewed by rural TV and most often — perhaps tellingly — travels alone.
Travel snobbery most definitely exists. There are those who consider their experiences better than yours if they have stayed in one place for longer than you as they have got to know the place in more depth. Then there are those who consider the Lonely Planet “must dos” to be the be all and end all, if you haven’t done them, you’ve clearly missed out. There are also the travellers that have to do everything in the cheapest way possible, if you’ve spent more than them on accommodation, meals, transport or anything else, well you just aren’t as good a budget traveller as them. Conversely there are those who have a more lavish budget so enjoy spending more on things, some consider others to be “slumming it” by staying in backpackers or cheap guest houses. So I guess you could define travel snobbery as considering you’re own experiences to be better than anyone else’s and not even considering that other people’s were just as enjoyable.
YES!! Emphatically, it does exist! Travel snobbery is a very subjective thing that has definitely evolved over the years I’ve been traveling. When traveling through Europe as a college backpacker, the biggest travel snobs were those with more travel experience. My friend and I had spent the previous summer working as activities directors at a Jamaican hotel, so we were not virgin travelers backpacking with our Let’s Go Europe guides. We were snobs. Europe was super boring and blah after spending the summer before up mango trees with Rastafarians, and I hate to admit it, but we were not ashamed to let everyone we met know it.
Now that I’m 40, I know many travel braggarts that post their photos on Facebook of ski trips to Vale and fancy resorts in Kauai. But I, as a single mother, took my two girls to Iran last year – and I have to say when at a dinner party I always ‘win’ the most interested ears in the room. No one really cares about a great beach vacation. But everyone in the room wants to know why on earth I went to Iran by myself with children. So off the beaten path still wins and I’ll have to admit, I am still a travel snob in that way. I couldn’t imagine ever lowering myself to a ClubMed vacation or vacationing somewhere with no cultural component. Some people flaunt money and others like myself experience. What I’ve found over the years is that people are more drawn to those with great stories than those who spend thousands of unnecessary dollars.
I’m in the “live and live” camp when it comes to what one believes are “superior” travel practices. For instance, I’m a big advocate for eating locally and avoiding multinational fast food chains at home and on the road, but I understand it’s a matter of lifestyle choice.
That being said – there is a lot to be said about travel consciousness. Certain travel practices – such as package tours to multinational-owned resorts that merely exploit the local economy to funnel the money out of the country, or exploitative tourism to tribal villages who do not see the money trickle down – should be held in lower esteem. Travel is not a right, it’s an immense privilege, mostly in the hands of the First World. If looking down on exploitative or destructive travel practices is travel snobbery, then call me a travel snob.
I once met a couple traveling through Argentina, and after talking for a while the boyfriend told me that he was an amateur photographer and had some high tech equipment. But after explaining that I was into photography as well, he went on to say how stupid he found it to take pictures of famous landmarks, or to have a picture of yourself somewhere. I listened respectfully, but couldn’t agree less.
His theory was that you shouldn’t waste your time taking a picture of something that has already been photographed by a million other people, and that taking a picture of some garbage in front of the Taj Mahal, for example, was more interesting. I was pretty put off by this because, let’s face it, I’m guilty of wanting a picture of myself in front of a place I visit. Not all of them, but if I feel touched by the place I visit, I want to remember it.
That’s kind of the point of travel in the first place, to be touched by a place. You can’t take it with you, so you snap a photo in the hope that years later you’ll remember it and be touched again.
Luxury travellers looking down their noses at backpackers and vice versa are the most obvious examples of travel snobbery. The snobbish luxury traveller sees the backpacker and wonders why they have come to a place when they haven’t got the money to visit the main sights, while they can’t imagine ever sleeping in a budget hostel, especially in a dorm! The snob backpacker on the other hand sees the luxury traveller (he calls them a tourist of course) as someone who visits a place but doesn’t see it; who ticks tourist sights off a list but never really understands what they are about.
I think a little travel snobbery exists in all of us. We put so much emotional effort into our travels, that when we see others who adopt a completely different approach to our own it can be easy to question the value of their travelling style. It’s probably unavoidable and we should at least be aware of our prejudices so that we can control them.
Many backpackers are the luxury travellers of the future, while those in posh hotels often look back at their time backpacking many years ago and are glad they can now travel in more comfort. They are often two sides of the same coin, linked more closely than either dares admit.
Yes it most certainly exists, and does so, on several levels. I’ll try a few outline definitions:
The Person Who’s Traveled For A Couple Of Years: Ego unleashed they have seen better things than you, been to more places, and doesn’t mind reminding you of that whenever possible.
Money Bags: Yes they like to rough it, they don’t mind hostels, but damn it they won’t share a room, they want an en suite, a direct taxi to the place and if there’s no WIFI, forget it.
Kidwonder: Dashing around the world in a heartbeat, they’ve been to all the “cool” places, and don’t have time to sit still for a minute. Naturally enough, if you are more than 2 years older than them, then you are blatantly ignored.
All in all the worst snobbery I’ve heard is from a group of younger travelers who openly talked about a 50+ guy traveling in the same hostel being too old to stay there. I’m sure he could hear. Made me ashamed to stay there.
Travel snobbery is all too real and unfortunately, all too rampant. At my desk, it’s defined as the attitude that you’re traveling “better” than someone else — be it more authentic, green, local, correct, whatever. Sure, there are as many ways to travel as there are humans that hit the road, but unless we’re talking sex tourism or bottom feeders (subsets I’ve got no patience with) then I’m just happy people are out there traveling.
Travel snobbery has certainly been exacerbated by that never-ending clichéd debate of Tourist versus Traveler. Stepping off a half-sinking wooden canoe versus a cruise liner onto the same Thai beach somehow makes the canoe rider a “more authentic” traveler?
Exploring a place in the traditional sense (sampling local cuisine, enjoying cultural activities) is no longer enough. One must trek through treacherous jungles even locals avoid, eat poisonous foods off endangered species lists, and constantly place-drop at parties and get-togethers.
“What? You can’t bargain in Quechua? Tskk”
The travel snob aims to elevate their travel experiences at the expense of devaluing yours. It really is ironic that many travelers who themselves explore other cultures to learn, grow, and become more open-minded to various aspects of the world build an internal caste system.
Want to know if you’re a travel snob? If a friend shares their experience riding a Cambodian rickshaw and you retort with “Bah! I actually rode backwards on a motorbike with three other passengers in Vietnam!”
You just might be a travel snob.
Of course it does!! Travel, on one level, like everything else, has become a contest, a competition. Who can go further, more remote, more expensively, more exotic – and anywhere there is competition, there is snobbery. Travel is full of “holy grails”, so to speak, and everyone on the road covets these trips and experiences.
Talk about Arunchal Pradesh, Antarctica, Tibet, Bhutan, and Patagonia, and you get the idea. People flock around to hear your story, and pepper you for information on logistics and “was it worth it?” – The whole time with stars in their eyes. Of course, the “in” destinations are always changing, as the old become commonplace, travelers are always pushing the envelope, looking for that next dream destination.
Bhutan would be the gold standard – popular, mysterious, and exclusive with a difficult and expensive 200USD a day visa. If you have gone, you will have to fight the urge to exercise your newfound snobbery, and if you haven’t, you will be judged by the snobs that have.
This of course refers to backpack travel snobbery, for those of us who read Conde Nast, we will address that form of travel snobbery in the next installment.
While on the road, I’d met a couple of travel snobs. In their opinion, backpacking is real travel, the best way to experience a country’s culture. They tend to belittle other forms of travelling (luxury, tour package, flashpacking) and think of themselves as the ‘better’ traveler. I recently wrote a blog post about travel snobbery — plenty of examples discussing the root of the problem. I think it all boils down to travelers being self-centered and immature: we all have to face the fact that we are not the only people who like to travel. There are millions of people out there who have an equal passion for it. Whether they are independent travelers, tourists on a package or road trippers, there are so many out there just like you, equally curious about the world, adventurous in trying new stuff and excited to be seeing the world.
We all have different tastes, and what we like to do impacts how we decide to travel. I’m sure that all of us, from time to time, have looked at another traveller (or even non-traveller) and thought that they were wasting their opportunities on their trips. Personally, cruising seems like the fifth level of hell to me, and I can’t understand people who travel to a new city to sleep all day and party all night. I can party all night at home. What is important is not if travel snobbery exists (because it does), but rather how we let it effect us.
We shouldn’t let others ideas of what is the right or proper way to travel dissuade us from choosing the “how,” “why” and “where” of our travels. Similarly, we need to be vigilant not to feel superior to those that choose to travel in a way that we don’t understand. As long as they are travelling in a way that is thoughtful to their needs and the needs of the communities they are travelling through, then they are all right in my book.
Because travel is considered a luxury by most people around the world, travel snobbery kind of comes with the territory. I think there are a number of different brands of travel snobbery, depending on the “snob’s” echelon of travel and level of insecurity. It all has to do with your frame of reference and travel preferences; I think travel snobbery in general is a function of not being open-minded to other methodologies of travel.
Travel snobs will judge you by the number of countries you have visited, or the length of time you’ve been on the road, or the activities you’ve done, or the hotels you’ve stayed in, or even how far off the beaten path you’ve gone.
The sad thing is that travel is supposed to open up our minds and make us aware of other ways of life. However old habits die hard, and despite the inherent hypocrisy of it all, I think travel snobbery will always exist.
Of course travel snobs, like any other kind of snobs, exist, though it’s a puzzle to me how to define such a person. Part of me thinks back to Paris when answering this question. The land of crib-dwellers dressed in haute couture and moms who rarely leave their bastion of the 16th arrondisement, I think of the myriad of school vacations the French enjoy. Les moms sit in the best cafes and chat about their next family vacation to Martinique or Morocco, au pair girl in tow. This seems to be a pretty apt definition of a travel snob: someone who travels to the most chic destinations and would never dream of staying somewhere not recommended by Conde Nast.
Then again, there’s always the opposite end of the spectrum: the backpacker who thinks anything with a starred rating must be overdone, and anyone who doesn’t experience the local culture via city dirt between their toes is not living the true travel experience. I fall into the second category and am, admittedly, a travel snob in this respect.
Yes, travel snobbery exists! If it didn’t exist, travelers would have a difficult time massaging that snobbery into snark, and that snark into genuine, authentic travel experiences. Or perspective. Or entertaining stories!
Now, to be more serious, one of the joys of travel is reveling in the ambiguity of the unknown, and since we all start from somewhere completely different, we all carry around a special kind of ignorance when exploring new cultures. Travel snobbery is ignoring this.
So if you’re the kind of traveler that scoffs at spending an extra 2 cents for a bucket of cold bathing water, keep on keeping it real. If you’re the kind of traveler that scoffs at squatting – anywhere – to drop a deuce, keep on keeping it real. If you’re the kind of traveler that only travels with an entourage of personal assistants, keep on keeping it real. All of you place the act of travel into perspective.
In this world there’s more than enough room for all kinds of travel snobbery!
I concur, snobbery exists and I’m a travel snob. I am one who enjoys the pampering of an all-inclusive and enjoys the “just off the beaten track” road trips to “nowhere in particular”. I won’t be strapping on a backpack to hike the Inca Trail in this lifetime nor ever follow the Silk Road. I’m missing out, I know. But, I’m not dead yet…
I’m a snob because I sit at the swim-up bar and snub my nose at the guy from Milwaukee who’s just happy to see they serve “real” beer in a can (Miller Lite) so he doesn’t have to drink the local swill (Red Stripe – I like Red Stripe) from the tap. (His words.) That makes me a snob. I also pride myself (and my husband) in that we connect with the employees, rather than the guests. We’ve been invited into their homes, met their families and built relationships. They earn their living the same way we do here at home – they deserve my respect. The guy from Milwaukee – he needs a lesson in manners. I also don’t care to hear about his plumbing business’ woes. I can get that here at home. (Call me jaded.)
Regardless, I agree we are all snobs in our own little ways – that’s life. It’s the connections we make during our travels that set us apart from the proverbial pack.
Apart from the name—which I personally approve of very much—Zenitum's iKat app has another cool edge to it. It's (we think) the first augmented reality phone app to work without a marker, or real-world prompt. More »
School resource officer remains in critical condition Middletown Journal MIDDLETOWN — Long-time Middletown police officer Mike Davis remains in critical condition at Atrium Medical Center this morning, March 10, according to a ... |
how can one melt gas based dri of high carbon 1.6% and fe(m)82 and metallisation of 92% in a 8 tonne induction furnace? how much of maximum quantity can be charged ?do we need to charge pig iron and scrap and lower grade of dri along with the above gas based dri? please let us know in the percentage
A question that arises often when discussing the optimal role of science in medicine is the precise role of plausibility, or prior probability. This is, in fact, the central concept that separates (for practical if not philosophical reasons) science-based medicine (SBM) from evidence-based medicine (EBM).
The concept featured prominently in the debate between myself and Dr. Katz at the recent Yale symposium that Kimball Atwood recently discussed. Dr. Katz’s treatment of the topic was fairly typical of CAM proponents, and consisted of a number of straw man derived from a false dichotomy, which I will describe in detail below.
I also recently received (I think by coincidence) the following question from an interested SBM reader:
What would Science Based Medicine do if H. pylori was not known, but a study showed that antibiotics given to patients with stomach ulcers eliminated symptoms? I assume that SBM wouldn’t dismiss it outright saying that it couldn’t possibly be helping because antibiotics don’t reduce stomach acid. I assume a SBM approach would do further studies trying to discover why antibiotics work. But, in the meantime, would a SBM practitioner refuse to give antibiotics to patients because he doesn’t have a scientific explanation as to why it works?
This is the exact type of scenario raised by David Katz during our discussion. He claimed that strict adherence to the principles of SBM would deprive patients of effective treatments, simply because we did not understand how they work. This is a pernicious straw man that significantly misconstrues the nature of plausibility and its relationship to the practice of medicine.
Plausibility is essentially an application of existing basic and clinical science to a new hypothesis, to give us an idea of how likely it is to be true. We are not starting from scratch with each new question – which would foolishly ignore over a century of hard-won biological and medical knowledge. Considering plausibility helps us to interpret the clinical literature, and also to establish research priorities. But plausibility is not the ultimate arbiter of clinical truth – it must be put into context with clinical evidence, just as clinical evidence must be put into the context of scientific plausibility.
One common mistake when considering plausibility is to reduce it to a false dichotomy – a claim is either plausible (which is falsely equated to scientists understanding its precise mechanism of action), or implausible (which is falsely equated to not knowing the mechanism of action). Rather, at least three broad categories need to be considered with regard to plausibility.
The first category are those treatments with a known mechanism or mechanisms of action that should, according to our existing models, produce a certain clinical effect. For example, we know that beta blockers bind and inhibit beta receptors in the heart and on blood vessels and thereby reduce cardiac output and dilate arteries which lowers blood pressure. It is therefore very plausible that beta blockers would have a protective effect against syndromes that result in an excess of catecholamine (adrenalin) production, since catecholamines bind and activate beta receptors.
We may also add to this category treatments for which there is anecdotal or preliminary evidence for efficacy – clinical plausibility.
There is still a range of plausibility within this category, but in such cases there is at least some reason to think that a treatment should work. The core principle of EBM, however, is that even in such situations we still need clinical studies looking at net health effects to show that plausible treatments are safe and effective – plausibility is not enough.
The next broad category is not implausible, but neutral or unknown with respect to plausibility. For such treatments we have no particular reason to think that they should work, but no reason to suspect that they do not or cannot work either. This category would include any pharmacological substance with an unknown mechanism of action, or mechanisms that are not known to interact with the disease or symptom being treated. There is no reason to think that beta blockers would improve memory in dementia, but this is not inherently implausible. Beta blockers are drugs, and may have other effects that have not yet been discovered.
This category applies to the question above – if we had reliable clinical data that showed antibiotics worked for ulcers, even though we had no idea how, we would still accept and even use this treatment (assuming the clinical data was sufficient). This of course would then lead to further investigation – is the beneficial effect due to a pharmacological property of the antibiotic not related to its antibiotic effects, or are some ulcers perhaps caused by or exacerbated by a bacterial infection.
Dr. Katz argued that SBM eliminates the possibility of serendipity – discovering new treatments by accident through clinical observations. But this is simply not true (one of his straw men) – SBM considers all the evidence, clinical and basic science. If clinical evidence is solid, that is enough, and often in the history of medicine lead to discoveries about mechanism and biology.
The arrow of research can go both ways – understanding plausibility can lead to new treatments, but discovering new treatments can lead to discoveries about biology and mechanism. The two play off each other.
But there is a third category in the plausibility spectrum – treatments that are inherently implausible. These are treatments that not only lack a known mechanism of action, they violate basic laws of science. Homeopathy violates the law of mass action (a basic principle of chemistry), the laws of thermodynamics (extreme dilutions maintaining the chemical “memory” of other substances), and all of our notions of bioavailability and pharmacokinetics.
Homeopaths therefore substitute any notion of chemical activity with a vague claim about “energy” – but this just puts homeopathy in the category of energy medicine, which is just as implausible. Invoking an unknown fundamental energy of the universe is not a trivial assumption. Centuries of study have failed to discover such an energy, and our models of biology and physiology have made such notions unnecessary, resulting in the discarding of “life energy” as a scientific idea over a century ago.
Essentially any claim that is the functional equivalent to saying “it’s magic” and would, by necessity, require the rewriting not only of our medical texts, but physics, chemistry, and biology, can reasonably be considered, not just unknown, but implausible.
Dr. Katz and others would like us to believe that this category does not exist, based upon the premise that we do no yet understand enough science to make such judgments. They often invoke vague references to quantum mechanics or the counter-intuitive nature of subatomic physics or cosmology to make their point. But this is an anti-intellectual and unscientific approach – it denies existing knowledge.
The alternative (often another false dichotomy and straw man) is not that we know everything – no one claims that. But not knowing everything is not the functional equivalent of knowing nothing. We do know stuff, and it is folly to deny the accumulated knowledge of the last few centuries of organized science.
Having said that – even the most implausible claim can still prove itself with sufficient clinical evidence. If homeopathy actually worked, it could be demonstrated through repeated rigorous clinical studies (something which has never happened). Admittedly, the bar for such evidence would be as high as the prior implausibility of the claim – which is very high – but if it really worked, that bar of evidence should theoretically be reachable. In that very hypothetical situation, the results would be extremely intriguing – clearly there would be something fundamental missing from our understanding of the relevant areas of science – a situation that often results in Nobel prizes.
Conclusion
SBM is ultimately about achieving the optimal relationship between science and the practice of medicine. SBM requires considering all the science, in its proper context, and does not follow any simplistic algorithm as is often suggested by critics. We look at what is known and what is unknown, at basic science and clinical evidence, and we put it all together, making an individual judgment for each individual claim.
We also are students of history – what claims have prospered or failed in the past, and what patterns predict ultimate success or failure? One pattern that should be obvious is that of highly implausible claims (not merely unknown) that can only produce weak and preliminary evidence, where more rigorous evidence tends to be negative, and positive evidence cannot be replicated, followed by special pleading by proponents. That is the pattern of a treatment that does not work.
We have seen this pattern with treatments that are now not controversial in their failure – phrenology, radioactive tonics, animal magnetism, and Abram’s dynomyzer (turned out to be a black box with loose non-functioning parts). We see the same pattern with homeopathy, therapeutic touch, energy medicine, and acupuncture.
We also see the same pattern for highly implausible (what some would consider pathological) fringe sciences outside of medicine – ESP research, ghost hunting, free energy, and cryptozoology, for example. There are also non-controversial historical examples, such as N-rays.
Of course, those who have not learned the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
![[StumbleUpon]](http://euvolution.com/futurist-transhuman-news-blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/b3928_stumbleupon.jpg){kind=small}
When planning your next Japan visit, better put aside a night for a "factory night jungle cruise" if you want to be right up there with the latest Japanese otaku craze. They literally visit factories, at night. More »
South Korea has overhauled its public transport network with recharging roads, where the vehicles use power from buried electric strips in the road. It was invented at the University of California, before South Korea adopted it for an amusement park. More »
![[Slashdot]](http://euvolution.com/futurist-transhuman-news-blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/c3c0d_favicon.ico){kind=small}
![[Facebook]](http://euvolution.com/futurist-transhuman-news-blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/b3928_favicon.ico){kind=small}
