removes of information search term question to community

[woodsmoke]

Hi
I need some help from the community about a correct "search term".

Decades ago when I was reading Heisenberg's essays on uncertainty, etc ( actually I can distinctly remember it - I was laying in the "top rack" on a bunk at Great Lakes Naval Training Centre) .

Anyway because I had spent a lot of time talking about uncertainty, etc. in the advanced chemistry classes that I had taught the previous year and wanted to try to get a more in depth understanding I was reading as many of his writings as I could and was really made to "think" about how science, in general, is "removing" the "stuff" under study farther and farther from our normal sensory input.

Anyway...I'm now writing an "ancillary discussion" to the Scientific Method section of my new hybrid biology class and want to have a "link" to...CURRENT thought on...

"removes of information"... I think that I have the term wrong...

The "big idea" here is that we are having to deal with much more information, using much more "abstract" machinery, such as the Atomic Force Microscope ( which uses an electromagnet to produce an "image" of atoms ( not a picture ) and that the information is being..."removed"...from our normal sensory input.

What I keep getting "is 6 degrees of removal" all that yada yada... and ... EPA removes Climate Change Section from website.

AND YES...I tried Google, Duck Duck Go, Yahoo, Bing all those... what is REALLY curious...is that ALL of the supposedly DIFFERENT search engine algorithms, gave EXACTLY the same sites about the EPA...AND...in the same order! I mean whasup with THAT! :0

Kinda SAYS something about the SUPPOSEDLY smart search algorithms and Google's bias, but we won't go there...

But...in the interest of actually BROADENING the horizons of introductory, non-major Biology students, can ...somebody give me the term that I, in my OLDNESS, can't seem to develop or...just a linky to such a discussion?

Thanks ahead of time!

woodmuchappreciativesmoke

[GreyGeek]

Your question suggests to me that the word you want is "replication". Replication is a hot topic today for a variety of reasons.
1) Replication is impossible because of the expense and complexity of the equipment and techniques required in the original research, thus "removing" the experimenter from direct visual observation. The most obvious example is the LHC. No one is going to build a second one to validate the results obtained by the first. Repeating the experiments in the original LHC doesn't validate them because the same equipment is being used by the same experimenters.
2) replication is impossible because of secrecy or destruction of data used in the original research (a common AGW problem), faulty methods, faulty equipment or fraudulent data (cherry picking, cooking, trimming), or stuffing peer review panels with cronies (another AGW problem).

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...-cancer-papers

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/28/435416...esearchers-say

http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-1.17552

Around 1987 NOVA issued an episode titled "Do Scientists Cheat?" The conclusion was yes, 48% of the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VooaLRqTSPI

Today, the issue of cheating is more complex because the techniques and equipment are more complex and what appears to be cheating, absent absolute proof of fraud, may be due to unaccounted variables, etc... The OPRA experiment which reported Neutrinos traveling faster than light is an example.

If I've misinterpreted your question I'll delete this post.

[woodsmoke]

LOL well...noooo...that isn't it...

So...I"m still looking for the term...

But...I completely agree with the links that you posted etc.

A trivial example is this which I ran across today.

Flatworm Grows 2 Heads in Space, Surprising Scientists.

Take a look at this drivel:

The regenerative power of flatworms — which can regrow into complete individuals after they've been cut into pieces — is well-known among scientists. But a group of flatworms that recently visited the International Space Station (ISS) had a few surprises to share when they returned to Earth.

Scientists sent the worms into space to observe how microgravity and fluctuations in the geomagnetic field might affect the worms' unusual ability to regenerate. This was done to better understand how living in space could affect cell activity.

Compared with a group of flatworms that never left Earth, the spacefaring worms showed some unexpected effects from their time off the planet: most notably, the rare sprouting of a second head in an amputated piece of a worm, the researchers documented in a new study.

Lets see... "regenerative"... regrow...been cut into pieces...

is somehow DIFFERENT... from "amputated"...

Ummmm when I was teaching "remedial biology" ( and it kind of says something about what was "remedial" back in the sixties and what is NORMAL now... the students..."amputated heads"...and sometimes up to FOUR grew back...

What we see on the Lamestream Media is just a REFLECTION...because they KNOW THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT...of what is going on in BIG SCIENCE... the government money LOOMS LIKE the old 1920'
s silent Dracula over them...

https://www.livescience.com/59461-wo...-in-space.html

STUDENTS...in CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOl published... "the worm runners' digest"...to which the SCIENCE DEPARTMENT IN THE HIGH SCHOOL...subscribed published multiple articles on experiments that THE STUDENTS...had done on the critters.

Unfortunately, in our politically correct "scientists can do no wrong"... OR...have STUDENTS doing "science work"... the reference to the students has ...um...not been included in the Wikipedia article.

woodisgettingsickandtiredofallthissmoke

[GreyGeek]

Federal funding totally drives the direction and results of scientific research. Try to get a Federal grant to test the validity of the AGW computer models, or to replicate the tree ring experiments. Good luck.

[woodsmoke]

LOL yesss...and even the guy who created the ONE OF SIX THEORIES about "global warming"...the one that HAS to be used...The others all say that the temp will be stable or go down.

said that there has not been any global warming for a decade...and...umm...he erased his hard drive accidentally.

Climate Gate U-turn

But... again...i need a linky about "removes of information" in terms of it being "removed from our normal sensory input". lol

woodwantstofinishthescientiicmethodchaptersmoke

[TWPonKubuntu]

Woodsmoke; is the term "data obfuscation" closer to what you are meaning? I did a Startpage.com search and got some definitions on usage that may reflect what you want to show your students.

[woodsmoke]

Hey thank you!! I can see from where you are approaching this but...

...no, that isn't it...

The way to think of it is that we "see an apple DIRECTLY" with our direct sensory input - the eye.

However, when we use a "hand lens" we see it "differently" but we can still see the "rest of the apple" so...ok...

But, when we look at a cell from the peel of the apple with a student microscope we do not "see" the apple cell DIRECTLY... it is through probably three lenses.

The "information is at a "remove" from our normal sense organs"., In this case it would POSSIBLY be called a "second remove of information"

When we view the fine structure of the interior of the cell of the apple peel, such as the mitochondrion, we are even farther away from our normal sensory impressions... in this case a "third remove" of information.

Looking at the atoms of the apple peel would be a "fourth remove"

It...MAY...be an older "European" or "German" "useage" of the word "remove" which was kind of current at the time, the 1920's of the last century and has just been lost.

dunno...

I was just "struck" by the term in the book, not one that I have to hand, I had checked it out at the Chicago main library whilst on leave...kinda says something about me...the rest of the guys were busy aquiring very nice cases of "the Clap". lol

OH...and YOU DO THAT!! TRES KEWL MY MAN!!

woodageeksmoke

[GreyGeek]

LOL yesss...and even the guy who created the ONE OF SIX THEORIES about "global warming"...the one that HAS to be used...The others all say that the temp will be stable or go down.

said that there has not been any global warming for a decade...and...umm...he erased his hard drive accidentally.

Climate Gate U-turn

But... again...i need a linky about "removes of information" in terms of it being "removed from our normal sensory input". lol

woodwantstofinishthescientiicmethodchaptersmoke

The "U-turn" isn't new at all. In the first whistle-blower release of CRU files in 2009 the HARRY_README.TXT describes the awful state of the data on which the hockey stick was derived, and how all of the temperature data since 1960 had been replaced by synthetic data. It was also pointed out by other colleagues in their mailing list that using red noise produced a hockey stick graph as well.

[woodsmoke]

PLEASE READ MY BELOW POST...

BUT...here is "kind of the usage" ...duuuhhhh I went and actually just typed in "archaic usage of term "remove" " and got:

the distance between one thing and another: living at a far remove from here

any step, interval, or degree: but one short remove from victory

woodkindastupidsometimessmoke

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/remove...gFkR2U7rgrC.99

[TWPonKubuntu]

How about "non-sensory data acquisition" or "instrument mediated data acquisition" which imply that we did not use are own physiological sensors to perceive an object. It is, as you say, second, third, fourth hand information. In one sense it it mere "hear say" information and subject to a degree of distrust...

This is a tough point to try to teach your students who may have (likely) been brought up to believe everything they are told about science...

[GreyGeek]

Gee, Woody, I thought TWPonKubuntu was on to something!

[TWPonKubuntu]

Woodster, for example, most of our news of the world now arrives on a computer screen and not from our own direct observation. We trust that the person who prepared the data is both competent and truthful... Look how well that is working today

If I look out the window and note that the sky is "partly cloudy", I'm using direct sensory data acquisition, but if I browse to the internet weather channel, I'm using "instrument mediated data acquisition" AND I'm trusting the person who prepared the data on my screen. That is more than a few degrees away from my own sensory input.

[woodsmoke]

All good ideas my friends.

I'll do some more searching.

woodgratefulsmoke