This started as a single item in a Random Though entry. Given my verbosity, it grew too large. Much like my penis. So it’s now a stand alone article, and I’ll work on a new “Item the Second” for Random Thoughts – Part 13. Music. This one really should have gone with the countertop article, but I failed. And now I can’t get it out of my head, so you get it as “Music to Read By”. Cygnus X-1, Book I: The Voyage might also be appropriate.
Item the second – Comes, once again, from the Darkhorse podcast. Here, Dr. Weinstein (he really like being called Dr. apparently), was talking about the “Trad Wife” movement. I have my opinions about that (which I might inject here from time to time), but my main blood vessel moment was him using a fallacious argument about falsifiability to discredit the idea. Basically, he was using the idea of falsifying a hypothesis by observing a single instance that contradicts the hypothesis. He did this using Eddington’s observation of the shift of positions of stars during a solar eclipse as falsifying Newtonian gravity. Sounds really sophisticated and smart, but is just fucking stupid. Why? Because I said so.
So as background, there is a prediction of general relativity (GR) that gravity will bend light; more correctly, light will travel on null geodesics in a curved space-time with the curvature defined by the gravitational field of any massive object – the greater the mass the greater the curvature. A total solar eclipse in 1919 provided the opportunity to test the predictions of GR by observing the positions of stars near the limb of the sun; if light was ‘bent’ by gravity, the positions would shift by a well defined amount.
There are 3 (at least postulated) possibilities – 1) Null – no shift, GR wrong 2) shift consistent with Newtonian predictions. Wait a minute, how does light bend massless photons in a theory where forces depend on the masses to the two objects interacting? Lets not get into limits as m->0 vs m=0 and just accept that there’s a way in Newtonian theory to get a prediction that light will bend in a gravitational field. And 3) shift consistent with the curved space-time predictions of GR. So the Royal Astronomical Society organized two expeditions to locations to where the totality would be observable to for the longest time. Turned out to be West Africa (island of Principe) and South America (Sobral in Brazil). There were several attempts prior to 1919 that were unsuccessful either due to war or weather; the 1919 expedition(s) were the first successful ones. Eddington led the expedition to Prinicipe while Andrew Crommelin led the expedition to Sobral. Incidentally, a fact Dr. Weinstein got wrong, putting Eddington at Sobral. Not really relevant to point out his error, but I’m petty like that. Both locations were plagued with clouds, but both got data to analyze. Of course, unlike “Contact”, one generally doesn’t get results in the field. Data have to be processed and analyzed, fits made, numbers crunched. That work was largely done back at Cambridge. There was some questioning of the data analysis – there always is in science, less so the The Science. Some of the plates from Sobral (in theory, the better ones coming from a larger telescope) had results consistent with Newtonian predictions but were discarded. They were not discarded because they were more consistent with Newtonian gravity than GR, but rather because they were much more blurry for some reason, making the measurements of star positions considerably more uncertain. Cherry picking data is always a problem in science and especially The Science, but subsequent analyses of the plates concluded the data selection was valid here. At the end of the day, the data from both sites showed a shift consistent with GR. The results were written up and presented as a ‘confirmation’ – or at least very supportive – of GR. Subsequent eclipse observations in the early 20’s confirmed the results of the 1919 expeditions. These observations offered very strong support for GR and invalidated the null hypothesis (no bending) and a purely Newtonian interpretation of gravity. The bending of light/curved space time has been confirmed by a multitude of more modern observations, including spectacular gravitational lenses and light travel time delay experiments.
The idea that Weinstein is capitalizing on here is that a single observation can invalidate a theory. Here, observing a shift in the positions of stars near the solar limb means that any theory of gravity and light that does not predict curved paths (or straight paths in a ‘curved’ space-time) is immediately proven wrong by a single observation. Of course this isn’t a single observation/data point, but it’s a repeated measurement of a single physical reality. If you establish that a single idea is true, that single idea invalidates a theory that doesn’t predict it or encompass it. A theory or hypothesis that is incompatible with a well established fact cannot be true even if it is a single fact (and the theory is consistent with “every” other fact).
Now what the hell does this have to do with the trad wife movement? Other than allowing Dr. Weinstein to sound smart. Maybe a very brief, likely unnecessary, definition of trad wife would be useful; or if not definition, my interpretation of what is generally meant by the term. Basically, it’s the idea that traditional gender roles are the best default for a marriage between a man and a woman. If the woman assumes care of the home and children and defers to the man for external society facing decisions regarding the family and the provision of external resources, that provides the optimal conditions for a successful marriage and successful child rearing; and I think most advocates would claim optimal happiness/contentment/fulfillment for both partners.
Dr Weinstein made the supposition that his marriage invalidated the whole premise of the trad wife ‘theory’. Because his marriage to Dr. (always remember the Dr.) Heather Heying was not traditional at all and she does not fall into traditional gender roles and yet was still a very good wife and mother. Therefore, the observation that his marriage existed (and many other examples of what might be called non-traditional marriages – though I might argue that they are less non-traditional than what many advocates against ‘traditional’ marriage would like to believe) invalidated the whole trad wife ‘theory’. Again, I’m not going to make any argument about trad wife vs some other paradigm or anything. It’s just struck me as a complete misapplication of the idea that a single observation can refute a theory.
The Newtonian equations of motion work the same whether applied here on earth, or on a planet orbiting Barnard’s star. Why? Well, in a physics experiment or theory, particles and forces are assumed to be identical, and as such are interchangeable. Now I’m not going to get into fermions vs bosons and what quantum states particles in a ‘closed’ system can occupy. Here I’m simply talking about the physical properties of a particle/force and their interactions. If a photon here in the solar system passing near the surface of the sun is ‘deflected’ (or follows a straight line the curved space time of the sun’s gravitational field), I can grab a photon from long long ago in a galaxy far far away and substitute it for that photon and it will behave in exactly the same way. If I put an electron in a magnetic field, it doesn’t matter whether I take the electron sitting right here next to me or order one from Home Depot that is shipped from their warehouse in Petaluma, they will move in exactly the same way. It’s sort of a fundamental property of physics and really what makes the whole endeavor work. Particles are ‘identical’. Forces are the same where ever you are (without getting into potential time evolution of fundamental ‘constants’, etc). The interactions twixt the two will always be the same, where ever and when ever you are, even if you label your particular collection of particles with unique names like Fred and Wilma. In this sort of situation, yes, a single observation can falsify a theory or at least prove this particular formulation of the theory as lacking in some critical aspect. When Eddington et al. observed that the image of star near the suns limb was shifted with respect to its expected position were the sun not there and to a degree, within measurement errors, exactly predicted by GR, one can claim a universe in which gravity and photons did not interact was disproven by that single observation. One could not postulate (at least plausibly within the realm of physics) that, no, this particular bundle of photons had decided, at this moment in time, not to interact with the suns gravitational field and had decided to change direction slightly but other bundles of photons and gravitational fields might decide on a different path.
This is simply not the case with human beings. We are not interchangeable at that level. The single observation of Dr. Weinstiens marriage – or 100 such instances, or 1000 such instances, or 1000000 such instances, does and cannot invalidate the idea of trad wife/family arrangements being a uniquely ideal social arrangement. It can invalidate an argument that, at the individual level, it is the only way to have a happy successful marriage, but cannot invalidate that trad wife may be the optimal general approach to marital arrangements. Unlike photons, if we were to select at random 10 different human females to drop into Dr. Weinsteins marriage, the behavior would be completely different. He and his wife are unique and the single observation of the success of their ‘non-traditional’ marriage cannot invalidate the idea of ‘traditional’ marriages (let’s ignore whether such a thing really exists – in general, I suspect ‘traditional’ marriages admit a much broader range of behaviors than might be thought and have done so for as long as such arrangements have existed). A single human being is an extremely complex arrangement of chemistry, biology, physics and environmental interaction over time. Two such entities interacting is exponentially more so. Observing successful “non-traditional” marriages does not and cannot invalidate the concept of traditional marriages. That can only be done by repeated observation over generational, nay evolutionary timescales. Traditional marriages are clearly successful and, to my limited observation, are even successful at the individual level, i.e. the success and happiness of individuals within the system, not just of the system of evolutionary success itself (in some sense they feed each other). Maybe that is, in some small way, perhaps the essence of being ‘conservative’ – lets not discard this successful system (both at a social level and an individual level) because of a single (or even many) observations of other successful approaches or discontent of some individuals when constrained by that system.
What the observation of successful non-traditional marriages does imply is the importance of treating people as individuals, not as interchangeable photons that will behave in exactly the same way in the same set of physical conditions. Not that traditional marriages or the trad wife movement is not on the whole a beneficial idea. Nor that, as a possibility, for the vast majority of individuals, both men and women, it will be the best option of how to arrange the division of labor to suit the strengths and weaknesses of both participants, with a broad distribution of the exact structure depending on the individuals and their interaction. You cannot apply principles of physics experiments and their interpretation to human relationships; they are vastly too complex to admit to a solution as simple as GR might admit.
Shorter – Stop trying to hijack the concepts of physics to justify your view of human interactions. They are two entirely different field of endeavor. Make your argument – you may be right (I may be crazy) – but don’t try to Scientism it up to provide a veneer of credibility to it.
All Firsters are First but some Firsters are more First than others.
Wiener reference in second sentence. Very good, Mr. Meat. Today has been shot of good wiener jokes.
https://i.etsystatic.com/10688276/r/il/0b4d81/3124589386/il_1080xN.3124589386_qnix.jpg
Your joke is better. I managed to misspell ‘short’.
I’ve got that on a t-shirt.
Joke?!?! Joke you say?! I’ll have you know, good sir, that is no joke.
Shorter –
Ah, there’s the closing reference to the opening dick gambit.
So you’re saying marriage is more like quantum mechanics than GR?
I think quantum mechanics is far too deterministic and predictable for that comparison to be valid.
Cygnus… Vismund Cygnus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnw7Hi6iIKE&list=RDjnw7Hi6iIKE&start_radio=1
No rush, listen at your leisure.
If I am understanding you trad stops when it encompasses one man, one woman. After that it’s what works best for the two individuals.
“You are all individuals”
I see friends and I wonder how anyone could stay with that ‘woman’/’man’. There is someone for everyone, almost. OTOH, statistically first choices are not always the best choices.
Thanks, PM
There is an ass for every seat.
As usual, I’ll take up the linguistic angle. Every language has words for “marriage”, “wedding”, “husband”, “wife”, etc. It’s a cultural universal along with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_universal#Language_and_cognition
The Yanomamo tribe are probably the most sexist and patriarchal people on earth, and even they have words relating to marriage, though the term for marriage literal translates to “dragging away” and divorce directly translates to “throwing away”. Also, they believe that men and women sprang out of the calves of a giant xenomorph style, though no mention of whether they had acid for blood. The book Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches explains all this and more in amusing detail.
my point in the form of song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvl_J_Qn5JM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/a-college-student-accidentally-broke-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/ar-AA1St2O4
It even references Homer Simpson!
This is why you should always check the salad dressing label for magnetized nickel nanoparticles.
And never stick your hand in a toaster!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ranVSgoRxOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgqEWSFNwxA
Don’t fry bacon naked.
Way off the subject,
It involves photons so maybe it’s not that far off.
Anyone have recommendation for a solid dash cam?
I bought one today and it’s a hot mess. It 100% requires my phone to operate and it won’t talk to my phone. Requires location services to be on on the phone as well. Not happening. That crap is going back tomorrow. The offensive non functional unit is a Motive M8.
I don’t want anything involving the cloud.
Nothing that requires a phone to work.
No subscription services.
If it talked to my phone that would be fine but with no app.
It’ll be hardwired so I want it to come on when I turn the truck on, and have trickle power so if someone runs into me in a parking lot it turned on.
No driver facing camera.
Nothing that ever needs updated.
I have one that I haven’t used for years, plugs into the cigarette lighter (My truck is a little old). I used it when traveling, caught animals crossing, etc. It finally fell off the windshield. Now it sits in the console tray, in the event I’m talking to someone at the side window I’ll have it on video.
in the event I’m talking to someone at the side window I’ll have it on video.
Convenient for a law breaker such as your self. For when the bacon body-cam was ‘broken’.
It came with instructions that discouraged the user from mentioning that it was working in the event of an at fault accident.
Truck and contents are worth about $300k so I’d like to have a little protection.
I already wasted several hours on this stupid camera today. What’s another day wasted not making progress?
Consider a GoPro, since it’s not meant to be a dashcam, but records when you want with one button push.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CSOwxhGvmY
Trail camera with an SD card?
Of course it is. Motive is a shit company with shit “products”. Pretty sure the real product is the data mining their cameras do.
Did yours come with AI driver analytics?
Beats me. It didn’t work at all. Beeped incessantly but would never connect to my phone. I suspected data mining as soon as it wanted me to turn on location services.
My company uses it for their vehicles. It’s a load of shit. ‘DOT regulations require precise location to be turned on’ in order to review video.
And they still require annual data protection/threats when they’ve left the barn door wide open.
I’d also rather have a sandwich.
I just made a bomb af meatloaf with a pound of ground pork, beef, veal.
That sounds great. My wife made meatloaf yesterday. It was and is delicious.
Nice. I love a good loaf of meat.
GAY!!!
You did anything for love like a bat out of hell.
Congrats on your turducken.
I got a new phone today and some idiot support person is telling me it doesn’t work with my current mobile subscription even though their website says it does but does not provide a path for me to set it up.
Argh.
Is there a storefront near you?
Online only – Ting. I think they share the network with one of the big expensive guys but cheaper. I currently pay ~30 bucks a month – I won’t pay more than that.
That’s a great price for phone coverage.
Basic brick phone?
Basic-est smart phone.
I don’t do video or games on it. Minimal talking. So I want a cheap plan. Ting has been great for years but it feels like they got bought out or something. Their support is at dish-dot-com… WTF?? I have a strong suspicion that “Racquel” is not her real name.
I am open to suggestions for other outfits; I may ask on a more populated thread if these idiots continue to give me grief.
The issue seems to be that nu-phone does not have a physical SIM card unlike my current phone.
Maybe Ward is just hungry. Or smitten by her fluency in jive.
Many things confuse me, and astrophysics is right up at the top of (That) List. I think Feynman, while talking about why “Why do things act like x” and why it’s such a pointless, really *meaningless* question, and goes on electron theory and how there may be only *one* electron in the universe and it exists everywhere and nowhere at once. (I’m sure I’m fucking up parts of that) He said this postulate isn’t widely believed, but it’s been put forth and Feynman said it *really* isn’t beyond possibility. There are simply too many unknowns within the ‘Newtonian’ field.
Watching interviews with him is always fun. Like the Japanese jazz pianist linked to the other day, it’s lovely seeing someone having so much *fun* talking about what he knows. (And doesn’t.) Rather captivating, it is. Helps to have teachers like that.
I didn’t take it from him, but I naturally fell into Charlie Chaplining much of my work and life in Asia. I just wanted (needed) the kids to keep their eyes (and ears) on me. I’m naturally expressive and, honestly, I got to be a bit more ‘me’ than normal. Students need to give a shit, and keeping the ’em entertained was a good way to get their focus.
Old Ukrainian vets scavenge unexploded rockets to fire back at Russian invaders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8qyVnaQrlc
Their rocket truck is more practical than all the other expensive junk given by foreigners.
Russian counter battery fire seems kind of slow. Despite the narration, those guys aren’t moving like they expect to get hit right away.
The way and pace at which the Ukrainians innovate is impressive.
I see MTG is making a move for control of a wing of the Republican party. Interesting. Weird, but interesting.
Underrated and seemingly missed aspect of the Vanity Fair hit piece:
That’s in the Chief of Staff’s office.
Awesome.
I mean…its their job…
I don’t think there’s any other politician in the country where their staff have to live monitor their boss’s social media page 24/7 to see what fires they’ve started. Most politicians probably don’t even have passwords to their official social media pages and just have a guy run them for them. And we probably won’t see that sort of off the cuff shit talking ever again.
So you think Gavin is just reacting to a 8 hour old tweet? They all have social media teams now monitoring.
I think Gavin is an example of what I just outlined above. He hired some hacks to run his account for him. It’s actually documented he has others he brought on to write the tweets he directs at Trump. It isn’t Gavin who sits there and hits like or responds to anything.
Nick Fuentes: Your body, my choice.
Leftwing media: *gasp*
Feminists: Your wallet, my choice
Leftwing media: Much stunning, very independent
I shouldn’t even say all feminists. It’s basically all women.
Misogyny!