141–150 of 256 posts
Is this in the top 10 things I should know about history?
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07341512.2023.2...
1780 was way late for claiming the invention of a slitting mill. The first slitting mill in the Americas was built around 1640. It still exists, as a historical site and museum.[1] Some of the original slitting rollers for making bar stock are on display.[2] That wasn't the first slitting mill; there were earlier ones in Britain. [1] https://www.nps.gov/sair/index.htm [2] https://www.nps.gov/sair/planyourvisit/places…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>made it past peer review I don’t think that’s an especially difficult thing to do. It seems any paper dealing with social sciences or history that fits the current narrative is lauded and “reviewed” favorably. I think the mechanism which facilitates this is relatively simple and similar to how USSR officials would rather bring good news than bad facts
But how could the reviewers have found the errors in this article? The article can tell "Cort was informed about the new techniques from a family member back from Jamaica". How do you verify that? The only way is to redo the all work from scratch, refound all the historical references and cross-validate each of them. It's a huge work. This article was later debunked by experts who have taken time and effort to do tha…
The same way this guy wrote the thorough debunking of the paper: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/rp5ae/
...by actually reviewing the citations and noticing they do not, at all, support the claims she made.
> ...such extensive checks...
The checks didn't need to be extensive, they needed to be cursory. The problem is they were absent because the reviewers enjoyed the same political bent as the author of the paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing wrong with stories, either in history or elsewhere. But good vs evil stories are bad history and almost always bad writing too. Reality is almost always either different shades of gray or blue and orange morality. If you can't get beyond your own personal view of morality to be capable of understanding a different perspective, you're probably incapable of doing good history or creating good fiction be…
> There's nothing wrong with stories I disagree. When there's pressure to piece together a story, it can easily become a search for facts to fit a narrative, motivated reasoning. Data that doesn't fit that narrative must just be outliers. New details not substantiated by facts enter the picture because they improve the story. Stories tend to lose some truth. That's dangerous.
Tyler Cowen gave a great TED talk on a related topic: "Be suspicious of simple stories" (2009) https://www.ted.com/talks/tyler_cowen_be_suspicious_of_simpl... (Because it's such a great story I still remember the talk a decade later.) """ So if I'm thinking about this talk, I'm wondering, of course, what is it you take away from this talk? What story do you take away from Tyler Cowen? One story you might be like the…
I don't think "Stories are bad for your intelligence" is the right conclusion here, more like "ideologically motivated thinking is bad for your intelligence". As another piece of evidence for this I can recall from Superforecasters that the ones who did the worst at forecasting were ideologically motivated people and people with "one big idea".
I would find this piece more convincing if it had sampled stories from different sources in service of its thesis rather than focusing on a single work the author finds particularly galling, as there is no shortage of fictional narratives anywhere — look no further than US state-approved high-school history textbooks. Given the narrowness of the material cited, this piece seems to me like unequal application of skept…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an exceptionally hot take. Manning was Charles Manning Hope Clark. You can verify this easily. His status in Australian history is mixed, because of the strong left/right axis of history as a field in Australia. Manning Clark was unquestionably of the left. The Australian, and its tame philosopher-historian Gerard Henderson makes much of this, and Manning Clark being awarded an order of Lenin for history by t…
I haven't read anything by Windschuttle. But Charles Clark famously declared that he was pushing "my kind of history", which was a poetic and spitually uplifting narrative in his opinion. Shortly before his death, he gave an interview about this topic, admitted he had fabricated many things, but believed his motive was sufficient excuse for doing so. You can equivocate all you want about inferring and complication, b…
I'm not trying to divert, I think you've missed a point. Clark was truthful about his craft. You somehow seem to think that everyone else has no faults? Am I misunderstanding and you realise all historians select, sample and therefore distort?
Maybe the central problem is knowing how much he made up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as is publicly known, the failure has occurred three times, and has led to two crashes. It is possible to recover from if you know what you're looking for and you act promptly. However, Boeing did not tell pilots what to look for. The pilots did not diagnose it as stab trim runaway because it's not stab trim runaway. When MCAS is malfunctioning in this way, it engages nose down trim for 9.3 seconds, and then p…
> The pilots did not diagnose it as stab trim runaway because it's not stab trim runaway Runaway stab trim is uncommanded movement of the trim. MCAS failure exhibits as exactly this. The most likely cause of uncommanded movement is an electrical fault of some sort. Electrical faults are often intermittent. When you don't know why an intermittent fault is happening, you turn it off. This is not rocket science. In the…
Right at the very top, it says:
Condition: Uncommanded stabilizer trim movement occurs continuously.
MCAS produces an intermittent fault, not a continuous one, therefore you are not supposed to run that checklist.
There should be a checklist for MCAS failure, and the system and its failure modes should be explained, like every other system on a 737, but Boeing deliberately decided not to.
To your point, yes, you'd better pay attention in training. But, in order for that training to be of any use, they can't keep aircraft systems that can fail and kill you a secret from the pilots!
[1] http://www.b737.org.uk/images/runawaystab2013.jpg
edit: Further to your point about the overspeed, the overspeed was not caused by the thrust levers being at full. The overspeed was caused by MCAS pushing the nose down and causing the plane to pick up speed. The pilots were trying to get the nose back up. The difficulty in moving the wheel comes from a combination of the airspeed and how far out of trim the plane is. Both of these problems were caused by MCAS putting in nose down trim. Yes, the pilots could have throttled back and bought themselves a little more time, but that is not the primary reason that they were unable to turn the trim wheel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it is seldom helpful as a tool for prediction and problem-solving. I'm not that sure. Perhaps that is the prejudice of an age with lesser historical ambitions.
Can you please elaborate? what grand stories (or meta-narratives) historically shown to be good tools for prediction and problem-solving do you have in mind?
