Psybertron Asks

Reminded of this due to twitter exchanges with several quite different people on new nuclear power options – partly the problems dogging EDF at Hinkley, partly the stay of decommissioning (but need for replacement) at Hartlepool (also operated by EDF these days), and initially because I had some involvement some years ago with Chinergy / Tsinghua / PBMR. This is the most advanced commercial scale PBMR, an “HTR-PM” – almost complete and due for start up as soon as next year in WeiHai, RongCheng Bay, China.

PBMR is not new at demonstrator scale, shelved because no-one took it up a commercial scale previously, and paused whilst the world took a deep breath over Fukushima Daiichi. But the point is, like all AGCR’s it is passively / intrinsically safer than liquid (water / molten salt / sodium) reactors AND specifically smaller and modular, reducing many other kinds of risk, commercial and political, as well as technical, safety, sustainability and environmental. Start small, add more later with confidence, in fact, just like the first commercial installation above has 2 x ~100MW HTR-PM’s going in now with an additional 18 planned in future.)

=====

Notes:

AGCR = Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor – there are many different designs in various stages and scales of development around the world – including Russia. All designed as 4th Gen alternatives to the 3rd Gen PWR / EPR’s like those causing problems in European projects, including Hinkley C, right now.

PBMR = Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor – a specific AGCR variant originally South-African / German design. Key thing is pebble-bed is well proven furnace technology in other industries (where I’ve also been involved directly) and inherently safe (just switch off and allow to cool).

(Thorium is the other fashionable new option, and in fact is one of the other 4th Gen AGCR designs, so is another viable option, but just not quite as close to full commercial start-up. Not even sure if Thorium couldn’t be substituted for Uranium in an evolved PBMR design, but the point is the PBMR future is now here. Sustainability also involves having evolutionary exit ramps of course.)

=====

[Post Note – Why not just go with a molten-salt reactor?

Another intrinsically safe design, with emphasis on the density and energy density and consequent thermal efficiencies compared to Helium cooled AGCR’s. Not sure thermal efficiency is a big deal for nuclear if overall compactness of design and build is achievable, and not sure we want proliferation of fast breeder designs with other nuclear weapon product possibilities. Still with details to be developed & proven? Part of a future mix with international controls, but maybe not the mass option? Not yet anyway. Unprejudiced dialogue and a balanced mixed portfolio is the key need.]

Not Khan, but one of his staff, once tweeted about the suggestion, didn’t and doesn’t actually suggest it. The “false flag” conspiracy-theory suggestion was much talked about at the time, thanks to the fact the killer was so well known to the authorities beforehand.

Sickening tragedy, and no-one is suggesting otherwise except opportunist Boris, but that’s politics.

And anyway, the guy has now resigned – the honorable thing.

One for the collection – Vive La Difference.

Excuse me, could I borrow your brain for a moment? This story about a crisis in psychology due to lack of repeatability has been doing the rounds on social media since yesterday.

For physical sciences, repeatability is an indicator scientific quality; a key part of science “senso stricto”. Life however is not a repeatable experiment, except where that life is expendable. So in life-sciences you can arrange for repeatable procedures where the individual lives can be manipulated and terminated, but a new experiment is a new life, a new individual. For more complex researches, either in the direction of multiple generations, the development of individuals and the evolution of species, or in the direction of higher functioning levels of conscious life in humans and higher animals, strict repeatability becomes a tougher proposition. Tougher to arrange for physically without indirection or intermediation, and more doubtful ethically depending on the kinds of manipulations of life and consciousness involved.

We could do the experiment, but I’d have to kill you afterwards.

Of course high quality scientific research should always strive to be as repeatable as possible, with clear boundary conditions as free as possible from extraneous, intermediating or (god-forbid) subjective effects, and failing that with clear recognition of and accounting for any such effects, so that repeatability and sensitivity to boundary conditions can be judged.

However, it is part of the scientistic turn to hold more complex and more highly evolved levels of nature to the same exclusive standards of objectivity and repeatability as pure physical science. Academic researches can still gain the “scientific” seal of approval even when they are not pure science – or at least pure science cannot be the sole arbiter of academic quality. Pure politics and rhetoric are one end of a scale remote from pure science, but scientific researches elsewhere on that scale are not necessarily “bullshit”. The “scientific” seal of approval itself does come with a fair helping of politics for funding support and the like.

Objectivity, repeatability and evidence are all fine attributes, but it’s fetish to hold all academic endeavours to account to the same standards of objectivity, repeatability and evidence.

As an engineer, I’ve always found  engineering analogies for evolution particularly engaging. One of the reasons I’m a big fan of Dan Dennett’s scaffolding, cranes and sky-hooks. In learning and in the philosophy of knowledge – epistemology – building in stages commonly uses the idea of ladders between levels – often with the idea that having reached one level, the ladder that got you there appears to now be redundant – “just” a piece of history. It can be pulled-up or kicked-away now you are safe and secure on your new level.

In fact the status of the ladders and steps that got us where we are are, are maybe better illustrated in this graphic from New Scientist:

I think the intent here was that the earlier steps were uncertain, faltering and difficult and the later structures get more solid over time. Engineering-wise counter-intuitive that the more solid stuff is higher up in the edifice? But I see a view that says the older steps and ladders – behind us in time – are falling into disrepair when they’re no longer being maintained and used for current work – and the edifice collapses.

The accompanying story is the usual “hype” – a 2016 story “bigger than Higgs and Gravitational Waves”. Bigger also, because it’s a new, even heavier, mass-causing particle beyond the standard model. I still don’t buy that the Higgs Boson or any other mass-causing particle can “have” mass, but that’s by-the-by. (The stories of the double-bump indications of the new massive “particle” have been circulating for a while.)

My real problem with the news item is seeing the completion of the standard model as “the end of a road” – something now behind us – the new stuff, any new particle, being somewhere beyond it. The further out we get, the bigger the problem with presuming our existing models are complete as well as correct. There are still enough indications of doubt and unexplained indications in both the standard particle and standard cosmological models, that no amount of confirmation of the components of our existing models should be presumed for future endeavours. Simply constructing the new from what we believe we know about the existing. Imaginative research and testing should continue to work on the scope of the existing models – with potential new directions branching off from lower down, behind us historically.

Treating them as “job done”, they will simply fall into disrepair.

Interesting Life Scientific from Jim Al Khalili interviewing George Davey-Smith today.

Refreshing scientist. In epidemiology – causes and effects of disease in populations – driven originally by the “natural, common sense” of the topic. A minefield of statistics and correlations, naturally, and the individual psychology of group effects. Refreshing not just because of the value of natural sense, but a clear understanding of epistemological effects vs presumed ontology – at root the all-too-easily-dismissed anthropic problem – as well as the recognition of distinct individual and group effects.

A keeper for further follow-up. (Must also join up with recent “Cognitive science isn’t epistemology, and moral psychology isn’t ethics.” line from Massimo Pigliucci.)

Time, time, time. So much listening and writing to be done!

The tag-line in my @psybertron twitter bio is “Keeping science (and humanism) honest”.

The humanism is relevant because so much “new-humanism” is of the scientistic “New-Atheist” kind (see previous post). The humanism is parenthetical to the science. It’s the scientism – a puffed-up version of science that really doesn’t understand itself or its real place in the human world – that has always been my main target. An environment where polarisation – “science good (rational) / religion bad (irrational)” – is seen as good enough to engage any argument.

One of my recurring themes is memetics – how in these days of ubiquitous communication it’s the bad ideas which fit existing prejudices and accepted patterns of ideas that spread best.

It’s the “fittest” ideas that spread. It’s not the good ideas that spread.

Great example from Brian Clegg via John Gribbin today on Facebook. The very idea of Newton is already a great and readily accepted icon for enlightenment science – so let’s hang any old “2nd Law” on to him, that’ll work.

There are many Newton, Galileo, Einstein and more examples.

The two topics are connected. 90% of (popular) science writing (including social-media opinion and mainstream-media science-celebrity (*), present company excepted) is crap, because 90% of everything is crap. That is, the problem is not confined to science, but in these days where scientists are encouraged to write for their public, the growth in scientific communication tends towards this low common denominator. Popular science writing is not science. It’s predominantly political rhetoric; how well informed and carefully argued it is becomes increasingly irrelevant to its success as popular science communication.

This is a natural (but bad) consequence of evolution. It needs to be actively countered by humanity. Less is more.

====

[Aside – related to this is the “evidence-fetish”, a part of the mis-placed scientism problem. I’m all for the “ask for evidence” campaign where arguments offered are supported by scientific claims – in health, environment and energy areas, say – but it creeps into every debate. Just this morning John Simpson on BBC R4 Today interviewing someone in the Brexit / Remain debate challenged his interviewee with “there’s no evidence” that it will take 10 years to sort out leaving EU. Of course there’s no bl**dy evidence – that will require 20 years of hindsight, and even then it will never be a reproducible situation, so its value will be limited anyway. This is science – and John Simpson – holding back human progress by filling our air-time and attention-spans with irrelevance (and inaccuracy).]

[Post Note : And later today, a case in point. Bill Nye “The Science Guy”.
Hat tip to Massimo Pigliucci.
(*) Science media celeb = “star of edutainment”.]

[Post Note : And this from THE arguing in defence of public engagement,

Challenging:
“You’re a professor at university, FFS.
Stop wasting your time on YouTube.”

Confronting the “critics of public engagement”:
Contrary to my “less is more”? Timely, but worse than I thought:

Philip Moriarty
“cannot sing [Brian] Cox’s praises enough.”

We are at opposite ends of this spectrum. Sure, “telegenic stars of edutainment” inspiring interest in science through mass media – Sagan-wise – is to be lauded, but please, please, please don’t confuse any content with scientific knowledge and information. It’s scary how much I disagree with that Philip Moriarty THE article:

“This is a particularly vitriolic example from a few years back: “Brian Cox doesn’t dumb-down science. He does worse. He makes it disposable.” The author sneeringly claims that “Cox has single-handedly turned the fine art of science presenting into a Katie Price impersonation competition”.

I try to avoid the vitriolic rhetorical “rants” of the likes of Paul “Lord” Harper – but that’s me ;-)]

Pretty much right on my 15 year agenda here at Psybertron is this 2013 paper:

New Atheism
and the Scientistic Turn
in the Atheism Movement,
by Massimo Pigliucci.

Lots of good stuff – in a 13 page learned, professionally-referenced philosophy paper but starts with:

New Atheist “movement” from a particular angle:
what I see as a clear, and truly novel, though not at all positive,
“scientistic” turn that it marks for atheism in general.

“Not at all” positive. ie largely negative, notice. And towards the end:

 Scientia *includes* science sensu stricto, philosophy, mathematics, and logic – that is, all the reliable sources of third person knowledge that humanity has successfully experimented with so far.

In turn, when scientia is *combined with* input from other humanistic disciplines, the arts, and first-person experience it yields understanding.

Hear hear. Exclusively narrow science – the kind I call objectively greedy reductionist (after Dennett) – misses out on a large and important part of real world understanding. The more scientistic new atheists – and many vocal public scientists – regularly fail to appreciate this in their statements and arguments, even if they pay lip-service to the arts and humanities.

====

Post Note:
The above is a link I came across thanks to the exchange below,
concerning another Massimo Pigliucci paper in TPM

TPM @philosophersmag
Cognitive science isn’t epistemology isn’t epistemology, and moral psychology isn’t ethics. New from @mpigliucci at TPM Online. http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/footnotes-to-plato/109-the-problem-with-cognitive-and-moral-psychology

(Having scanned the paper ….)

Ian Glendinning @psybertron
@philosophersmag @mpigliucci @judystout1
how is “rationalising not rational” any different to being post-hoc?

Judith Stout @judystout1
@psybertron @philosophersmag @mpigliucci
Rationalizing is to make excuses. Rational is based on reason or logic.

Ian Glendinning @psybertron
@judystout1 @philosophersmag @mpigliucci
err, no.

Massimo Pigliucci @mpigliucci
@psybertron @judystout1 @philosophersmag
err, yes.

I tried to remind Ben Cobley today of an earlier conversation, when he used the word “fit”.

It’s a conversation I would like to continue with Ben, with whom I share many common views, since I think it helps us both. (When he – again – appeared to be “unaware” of the point we were discussing he assumed some passive-aggressive challenge on my part! Said I was “having a pop” ….

I have and continue to put a lot of effort into this dialogue. This was start of today’s conversation (latest first):

Ben Cobley @bencobley

@psybertron you’ve lost me there – not aware I’ve ever even talked about that latter sense.

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley No, quite the opposite. Just pointing out you keep using fit whilst denying “fittest” surviving in cultural evolution.

Ben Cobley @bencobley

@psybertron is there something wrong with it in your eyes?

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley that word “fit” again.

Ben Cobley @bencobley

Being reasonable & being rational are different. Reasonable means fitting in with people around, while rational means fitting in with *me*.

Below is the last conversation 7 /8 days ago with Ben Cobley – but there have been previous occasions when I’ve talked “memetics” in problems with what gets understood in our culture. It’s a word I know he’s uncomfortable using, but the basic concept that ideas – and what constitutes rationality – spread through their evolutionary “fitness” is a key interest of mine – and his – whatever word he or I use for it. “Fit” is the word (Latest first)

(I am of course talking from 60 years of real empirical experience, and observing Ben’s own use of language in specific individual conversations, and using his choice of words – “fit” – how am I talking theory? I found this brush-off quite offensive.)

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley no I’m talking real, existing reality. (Using words, obviously.)

ViewConversation 7d

Ben Cobley @bencobley

@psybertron yeah, I think you’re talking theory, I’m talking existentials.

ViewConversation 7d

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley fitting is a question of fit. Logic fits logic. (Politics or otherwise. )

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley aagh no. Missed the point again. I’ll write more than 140 chars.

Ben Cobley @bencobley

@psybertron not necessarily – because fitting in isn’t a question of logic, it’s a political phenomenon, to use the lingo but not the logic.

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley you used word “fit”. In evolutionary sense fit is about best fit to prevailing conditions – scientific logic prevails. QED?

Ben Cobley @bencobley

@psybertron it’s less I’m not convinced by memes as I’m prejudiced against the word. There’s clearly something there, but I react against it

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley as you said before, you’re not convinced by memes. (Memetic is just adjective – concerning memes)

Ben Cobley @bencobley

@psybertron I’ve have to ponder over that! Memetic is not a term I’m very familiar with.

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley 2/2 cause of this problem is memetic. Exclusively scientific rationality is EASY to understand and communicate – but not good.

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley 1/2 2nd part, you and I agree good rationalism is more than this – problem is too many see scientific logical rationale as whole.

Ben Cobley @bencobley

@psybertron I don’t understand your first bit, but the second bit I’d say is a part of a bigger whole, of rationalism.

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley that “fit” is memetic. The dominant fashion is “scientistic” – objective reductionism.

Ian Glendinning @psybertron

@bencobley problem is not logic per se, but the “objects” it works with.

=====

Post Note : What’s the point I’m trying to get us to agree, so we can move the conversation on ?

[START]

Ideas spread and catch-on because they “fit”
with the prevailing patterns of though and rationality
in their environment (what I call memetics)
and
NOT necessarily because they are “good” ideas.

And that includes thoughts and ideas
about reason, rationality and belief themselves.

[END]

And of course the previous conversation was not so long before that.

Being discrete? – hard to appreciate in these days of social-media with everything?

Discretion? – Cowardice or Valour @WallyFlea – declining an immediate battle is standard tactics in bigger picture strategy. (Read Sun-Tzu or Clauswitz – or compare Napoleon at Borodino with Napoleon and the Muscovites for a topical example.)

Compare rejection of sharing or giving a platform – with “balance” in news stories always having a spokesperson or statement from the opposing view. (eg scientific claims vs religion or homeopathy say). People who reject “no platforming” are often the first to object to such “false” (politically-correct) balance.

@PeterTatchell‘s rejection by Christchurch Canterbury students union? Peter is an establishment figure – a national treasure – thanks to his years of campaigning getting “radical” issues accepted in the mainstream. I agree with his agenda to “de-radicalise” LGBT issues – they’re just a normal (*) part of society’s arrangements, let’s keep ’em that way. But then he / we have to get used to the idea that students reject the establishment – it’s their job. Part of learning, part of experimenting with alternatives.

Of course, for this reason, the place of learning is a “safe space”; safe enough that students’ mistakes can be left behind – bar the odd embarrassing photo (*) – and; safe enough that their experiments needn’t damage the rest of society – until something genuinely novel or revolutionary breaks out into real life. The progression of roles child – student – adult – parent may not map easily to particular years of age across global cultures, but the pattern remains. There was a time you had to be an adult to vote and affect the rest of our lives. Real life is not a risk-free repeatable experiment.

====

(*) Normal – needs unpicking – but that’s another topic for another day.

(*) Oops – see social media. But the point is student identity should not remain as a millstone around their adult necks.