Hero of the year

Time for nominations.

Mine is a not well known man who happens to be a barrister, scientist, engineer and flower grower from my home town

He was behind the rescue of the 41 Indian miners, but its the reason he did so which was so impressive.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/wh...f-88bdd4138be1

Quote:

Arnold Dix, a lawyer and engineering professor who is also the President of the International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association, said he didn't hesitate when authorities got on the phone with him after the collapse 17 days ago. "It's about helping your friends," he exclusively told Today first from the rescue site after the 41 workers climbed to freedom.

I'd be very happy if people came up with heroes in his ball park.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/QVbTHCo

Hero of the year

dupe

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/ZBXE89L

New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics

Quote:

A radical theory that consistently unifies gravity and quantum mechanics while preserving Einstein's classical concept of spacetime has been announced in two papers published simultaneously by UCL (University College London) physicists.

If this theory is generally accepted (huge caveat) it would be the "holy grail" of physics, wouldn't it? A Grand Unified Theory.

The two papers have been published in respectable scientific journals and peer-reviewed. So it isn't just a pre-print. But that's not the end of the story of course.

Paper 1:
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstrac...RevX.13.041040

Paper 2:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43348-2

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/OhL6NdH

Nature, red of tooth and claw.

Just watched a bit of drama in miniature taking place between the roller shutter and my study window.

A jumping spider was walking along the window sill, and, I suspect, tripped one of the dangling lines owned by the red back in the upper corner.

The red back, came hurtling down, and settled on the sill, a few centimetres away from the jumping spider.

The latter slowly, slowly approached the red back, moving so stealthily that it appeared to ooze like a slug.

Suddenly the red back attempted to pounce, but the jumping spider moved even more quickly, and has ended up on the red back's back, and hauled it over so that its legs are helplessly pointing skywards and the jumping spider appears to now be eating it.

Even though I was on the other side of the glass, the speed of the attack and counter attack was terrifying.

:boxedin:

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/XpDIV06

The World Gone Mad

At a couple of public meetings in Toronto around the turn of the last century at which James Randi spoke on the state of skepticism in the world, after he had finished, I asked him from the audience whether he thought things were getting better. On both occasions he thought for a few seconds and said he did think things were improving.

Randi has now left us but I wonder what his answer would be today. A recent report from a survey conducted by the polling firm Leger indicates how bad things now are.

Belief in Conspiracy Theories: A Surprising Find in Canadians and Americans

and

Conspiracy theories are popular in Canada, especially among conservatives: poll

Quote:

The Earth is flat. We have been secretly contacted by intelligent beings from other planets. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did not land on the moon in 1969. They may sound like bizarre statements, but a new poll suggests a sizable number of Canadians believe in these and other conspiracy theories. About five per cent of us are flat-earthers, the poll suggests, while 11 per cent say they think the lunar landings were a hoax. And one-third of respondents say they think evidence that aliens have been in contact with our planet is being hidden from the public. Polling firm Leger surveyed 1,529 Canadian adults and 1,011 Americans between Nov. 24 and 26, asking about their beliefs in several popular conspiracy theories. The poll cannot be assigned a margin of error because online surveys are not considered truly random samples.

. . . .

Quote:

In all, 79 per cent of Canadians and 84 per cent of Americans reported believing in at least one of a list of conspiracy theories mentioned in the survey.

I could not download the survey from the Leger website as the download link does not work.

The Dark Ages are returning.

And a disclaimer - I was one of the 1,529 Canadians who participated in the survey so the results can be adjusted accordingly. ;)

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/t1nANjd

Is it a ‘right’ if it can be legislated away?

The genesis of this discussion started in another thread in SICE. Pursuing it would be off-topic in that thread but it interested me, so……

Modern democracies recognize rights that society considers fundamental. The precise enumeration of those rights may vary from nation to nation, but many of the specific rights seemed to be relatively universal. Freedom of religion, universal suffrage, right to trial, equal treatment under the law, etc. Coming from the USA, I assumed that these rights are enshrined in a founding document. It turns out this assumption may not be universally accurate.

In the US, we learn that our ‘rights’ are enumerated in our Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to our constitution. They describe some freedoms that future governments can never legislate away. Subsequent amendments further narrow both the federal and states ability to abridge these specific rights. It is this approach that makes it so maddeningly difficult to control the proliferation of guns in our society, but it also protects us from a trump figure outlawing speaking ill of the government.

In the US, with very narrowly defined exceptions, the police may search no person or place unless they can articulate to an independent judiciary a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed. This can’t be legislated away at either the state or national level.

Australia has a different approach. Australian police may search anything, anywhere, for any reason (or no reason) unless legislation creates laws limiting their ability to do so, and those laws may be changed at the local or national level. To be clear, Australia does have laws limiting the authority to search.

From an American perspective, it is frightening that such ‘rights’ are not actually protected from being legislated away. I would imagine that from an Australian perspective, there is relief that ‘rights’ aren’t so sacred that gun control (for example) can’t be solved with reasonable, timely legislation.

So, what’s your opinion? Should rights be enshrined in nearly sacred documents, or should such things be more nimble, allowing for relatively easily adaptions via legislation?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/kbdaS9O

Trial by jury vs trial by judge alone

I have long been a proponent of juries, thinking that consideration by a group of peers over an extended period being the best method of deciding complex cases. I no longer am.

Firstly, the way laws have been made, administered and interpreted mean the laws themselves are often incredibly complicated and beyond proper understanding of non-lawyers. Secondly, juries do not give reasons for their decisions and I’m convinced that unanimous decisions are not always made.

But what has really focussed my thoughts are three high profile Australian cases, all before a judge only. Two have been decided and the judges reasonings have been clear, compelling and in my view just.

The first of the two completed trials was the Chris Dawson murder case:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-...wife/101726104

I listened to the judge’s 7 hour judgement and he simply covered every aspect of the case. A jury may have made the same decision, but without knowing the reasons, doubt would have lingered (there was no body).

The second was the Ben Robert’s-Smith defamation case.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65717684

Not only was this case lost, but the judge found that Robert’s-Smith was a murderer and war criminal. The judgement was also clear and convincing. I think a jury may have given Robert’s-Smith (a Victoria Cross recipient) the benefit of the doubt.

The final one is the ongoing Bruce Lehrmann defamation case. I don’t think he will win, but I’m satisfied the case is in the hands of a judge and not a Jury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_A...ct_allegations

I expect the judge will dismiss the case and find that Lehrmann raped Higgins.

Anyway, I personally hope that, at least in Australia, the day of the jury will soon be over.

Comments?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/QTZ7VUy