Zum Seitenende Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum
First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
***
I’m unqualified to understand Bruttel et al. but their article lacks any hint of misdirection or hiding relevant information. The most quoted counterargument is obvious nonsense. Yes, it may be possible, even easy, to make those structures disappear. One might have done that in a planned and intentional release. The hypothesis here is an accident with ongoing work in progress.
***
“And this is science?”
[Feynman]; “If you caint see it, it aint there.”
[Anonymous]
Breznau et al. offer the background and proof for something I have frequently pointed out here. All too often all we get a tables of correlation parameters or graphs of regression lines alone. Rarely are the raw data points given in the graphics too. If they are the whole effect often rest on one single outlier alone.
***
Hannikainen et al. highlight something that nearly everybody will already have observed themselves. They convincingly describe the process leading up to the effect in interpreting a given wording of law. They don’t tell us how the discrepancies come about. Laws are drafted by highly qualified specialists and voted into power by parliaments. Most parliamentarians are non-specialists and pressed for time. They read the introductory paragraph listing the motivation and intention of the new law and scan the rest to check whether the details generally fit. It is very hard to impossible to see all the future ramifications at once. The drafting specialists on the other hand have all the time in the world and superb mastery of the fine details of legal language. It is quite easy for them to get nearly anything past the legislatory process. The lobbying of career politicians is closely monitored but nobody looks at what motivates the leading civil servants in the background.
Zum Anfang Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum