LawPundit

In the right column of LawPundit, we offer the Google Translator for readers wishing to view our LawPundit postings translated into one or more languages of their choosing.

However, it has been quite some time since we ourselves have given Google Translate a look. Much has happened in the interim.

Some years ago, the Google Translate translations of LawPundit postings were at best "moderately useful", but required substantial manual editing to obtain sufficient accuracy. Accordingly, it occurred to us recently that we should look anew at Google Translate translations of LawPundit postings for the two languages other than English that we ourselves speak fluently, German and Latvian.

The following translations (one here and one in the posting following) are thus samples of Google Translate today, that we hope are representative for other languages as well. The translations are stunningly good, providing very useful results, but with a few exceptions, that in part surely depend on the writing clarity or unclarity of the original text.

One practical feature of Google Translate translations that we like is also that, when the reader hovers the mouse over a Google Translate translation of online material, the original text of the sentence underneath the mouse is shown in a text box. Try it out.

Below is the Google Translate Latvian translation, without substantial subsequent editing [minor edits in brackets] , of Science Research and the Role of Memes and Memetics : What Defines the Real Truth? with that title translated by Google Translate into Latvian as Zinātnes pētījumi un mēmu un memētikas loma: kas nosaka patieso patiesību?

" Būdams Stanfordas Universitātes Juridiskās fakultātes absolvents, pašreizējais autors ar prieku lasīja žurnālā Scientific American pie Science Research Needs an Overhaul , ka Džons PA Joannidis pirms dažiem gadiem līdzdibināja jaunu centru Stanfordas Universitātē ar nosaukumu METRICS (" Meta-pētniecība". Inovāciju centrs Stanfordā ), lai risinātu dārgo problēmu, ka liela daļa galveno pētījumu tiek izšķiesti .

Ioannidis atsaucas uz vadošo medicīnas periodisko izdevumu The Lancet, kas apgalvo, ka šie "atkritumi" attiecas pat uz 85% medicīnas pētījumu, tā saukto "cieto" zinātni.

Cik slikti tad ir lietas mīkstajās zinātnēs, kur pierādījumu standarts, iespējams, ir zemāks nekā medicīniskajos pētījumos?

Ioannidis raksta, ka METRICS centrs:

" Mēģināsim izpētīt pētniecības praksi un to, kā to var optimizēt. Tajā tiks pārbaudīti labākie līdzekļi pētniecības protokolu un programmu izstrādei, lai nodrošinātu, ka rezultāti nav strupceļi, bet gan bruģē ceļu uz priekšu. Dariet to, izpētot, kādi ir labākie veidi, kā padarīt zinātnisko izpēti uzticamāku un efektīvāku .

Mēs ar entuziasmu atzinīgi vērtējam šo attīstību.

Mēs gadiem ilgi esam saskārušies ar lētticīgiem, neinformētiem un [pašpārliecinātiem] cilvēkiem gan zinātnē, gan ārpus tās, kas sludina galveno ideju un pētniecības metožu gandrīz nekļūdīgumu, un mums patiešām ir maz pacietības pret šādām muļķībām.

Paši mācīdami pētniecību universitātes līmenī, no pieredzes zinām, ka patiesība ir tieši pretēja tam, ko apgalvo zinātne...

un patiesība ir tāda, ka liela daļa no tā, kas tiek pētīts zinātnē, un tas ir salīdzinošais pārskats, kas publicēts šo pētījumu rezultātā, ir dārga laika izšķiešana un bieži vien virza zinātni nepareizā virzienā. Salīdzinošās pārskatīšanas process daļēji ir paredzēts, lai izpūstu valdošo iestāžu spalvas. "Patiesība" ir sekundāra lieta.

Viens no galvenajiem iemesliem šīm "zinātniskās izpētes" muļķībām, kā mēs esam vairākkārt rakstījuši, ir tas, ka zinātne pagātnē galvenokārt bija "balstīta uz autoritātēm", t.i., nevis "kas", bet gan "kurš" nosaka patiesību zinātnē, un šī novecojusi prakse ir radījusi milzīgas kļūdas. Pirms modernā laikmeta rītausmas "uz autoritātēm balstīta" zinātne bija nepieciešama, jo autoritātes bija galvenā zināšanu krātuve. Bet mūsdienu laikmetā tas ir ļoti mainījies.

Paskatieties uz COVID-19 koronavīrusa pandēmiju, kurā, neraugoties uz varonīgajiem centieniem, pēdējos divos gados ir bijušas grūtības iedibinātajām zinātnēm. "Zinātnei" vajadzēja būt labāk sagatavotai pandēmijai, nekā tā bija. Kāpēc tā nebija?

Zinātnes fokusa maiņa ir absolūti nepieciešama. Pagātnē dominējošie standarti, kad zinātnē valdīja tā sauktās "autoritātes", pašlaik mūsu digitālajā laikmetā bieži vien ir nevietā, kad ikviens, kas vēlas, tiešsaistē var meklēt gandrīz visu, ko vēlas. Pēdējā analīzē viena autoritāte šodien ir tikai vēl viens viedoklis. Lai nodrošinātu drošāku cilvēka nākotni, rītdienas zinātnei ir jābalstās uz zināmiem faktiem, nevis uz zināmām autoritātēm.

Mūsu digitālajā laikmetā galvenā prioritāte ir jāpiešķir "uz pierādījumiem balstītai izpētei".

No novecojušiem mēmiem ir lēnām jāatsakās.

Bet kas ir mēmes ?

Mēms ir termins, ko ieviesis Ričards Dokinss, Oksfordas universitātes Anglijā emeritētais profesors sabiedrības izpratnes jautājumos par zinātni.

Mēmas parasti tiek definētas kā " atkārtotas idejas, simboli vai prakse ".

Mēs uzskatām, ka mēmi apraksta galvenās zinātnes stāvokli jebkurā laikā un izskaidro daudzas tās novirzes. Mēmas darbojas kā vīrusi (vai gēni).

Mēma Vikipēdijā ir definēta kā:

"" [Ideja, uzvedība vai stils, kas kultūras ietvaros izplatās no cilvēka uz cilvēku. "Mēma darbojas kā kultūras ideju, simbolu vai prakses vienība, ko var pārnest no viena prāta uz otru, izmantojot rakstīšanu, runu, žestus, rituālus vai citas atdarināmas parādības ar atdarinātu tēmu. Koncepcijas atbalstītāji uzskata, ka mēmes ir kultūras analogi gēniem, jo ​​tie paši replikējas, mutē un reaģē uz selektīvu spiedienu... Vārdu mēms ieviesa britu evolūcijas biologs Ričards Dokinss [Richard Dawkins] ... kā jēdzienu diskusijām par evolūcijas principiem, izskaidrojot ideju izplatību un kultūras parādības. Mēmu piemēri, kas sniegti [izdevumā The Selfish Gene], ietvēra melodijas, īstās frāzes, modi un arku veidošanas tehnoloģiju."

Mūsuprāt, to, ko akadēmiskajā vidē parasti sauc par "domu skolu", precīzāk definē kā "mēmu", jo "domai" bieži nav nekā kopīga ar to. Drīzāk idejas, pareizi vai nepareizi, iesakņojas dažādās zinātnes disciplīnās un izplatās tā, it kā tām būtu sava dzīve. Tas pats attiecas uz politiku un reliģiju. Cilvēki tic lietām aiz ieraduma, nekam vairāk.

Patiesība nemaz nav problēma.

Drīzāk, kā rakstīts Wikipedia par Memetics : 

" Memētika ir garīgā satura teorija, kas balstīta uz analoģiju ar Darvina evolūciju... Piekritēji apraksta memetiku kā pieeju kultūras informācijas nodošanas evolūcijas modeļiem... Tāpat kā ģenētikā, īpaši Dokinsa [Dawkins] interpretācijā, mēma panākumi var būt tas ir saistīts ar tā ieguldījumu tās saimnieka efektivitātē. "

Attiecīgi un pretēji priekšstatam, ka "patiesība" ir mērķis zinātnē vai citur, cilvēki tādējādi faktiski pieturas pie dotas idejas, domas skolas, kultūras prakses vai reliģijas , jo konkrētas mēmas piekritēji to uztver kā tādu, kas nodrošina tās turētājus tas mēms ar priekšrocībām.

Šī būtiskā izpratne palīdz izskaidrot daudzas novirzes, kuras var atklāt zinātnē, jo, domājams, "racionālie" cilvēki stingri turas pie sen novecojušām idejām un veidiem, kā uz lietām skatīties, kas bieži ir pretrunā ar pieejamajiem pierādījumiem.

Mēs skatāmies uz pierādījumiem! 

Tas ir tas, kas nosaka mūsu darbu.

To understand the development of human civilization, it is important to recognize that mankind's first "scientific" technologies were arguably based on primitive "stargazing", i.e. what we modernly call "astronomy".

No less a thinker than Bertrand Russell wrote in Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (Simon and Schuster, Clarion Books, New York, 1948) that:

"Astronomy is the oldest of the sciences, and the contemplation of the heavens, with their periodic regularities, gave men their first conceptions of natural law."

Furthermore, there is a direct connection to astronomy in terms of both land survey and land or sea navigation, as written at the Wikipedia under Surveying :

"The primary way of determining one's position on the earth's surface when no known positions are nearby is by astronomic observations. Observations to the sun, moon and stars could all be made using navigational techniques. Once the instrument's position and bearing to a star is determined, the bearing can be transferred to a reference point on the earth and which can then be used as a base for further observations. Survey-accurate astronomic positions were difficult to observe and calculate and so tended to be a base off which many other measurements were made. Since the advent of the GPS system, astronomic observations are rare as GPS allows positions to be determined adequately over most of the surface of the earth."

Since human survival has at all times depended on either ownership or control of actual physical territory on our planet Earth, that same astronomy served as the simplest way to map out that territory, with maps made to mirror the ever-present and ready-made sky map of the heavens, "as above, so below".

At our Megaliths.net website on megalithic cultures we have written:

"As observed by Alice Cunningham Fletcher (Alice C. Fletcher) in her 1902 publication in the American Anthropologist, there is ample evidence that some ancient cultures, e.g. the Pawnee in Nebraska, geographically located their villages according to patterns seen in stars of the heavens. Fletcher, A. C. (1902), Star Cult Among the Pawnee – A Preliminary Report, American Anthropologist, 4:730–736. doi:10.1525/aa.1902.4.4.02a00050."

To the importance of astronomy for ancient peoples we can add timekeeping, as written some time ago at Curious About Astronomy :

"In ancient times, the practical need for timekeeping and navigation was one of the primary reasons for the study of astronomy. The celestial origins of timekeeping and navigation are still evident."

In spite of the above observations, anthropologists and archaeologists worldwide generally proceed in their academic work as if the ancients knew more or less nothing of astronomy and, furthermore, placed little or no importance upon it for land survey, navigation, timekeeping and chronology, whereas the probative evidence that we have increasingly found presents exactly the opposite picture.

Astronomy DOMINATED the ancient world, and was in this manner at the root of human legal systems and societies, in mapping land and property on Earth.

As a Stanford University Law School graduate, the present author was pleased to read in the Scientific American at Science Research Needs an Overhaul , that John P. A. Ioannidis some years ago co-founded a new center at Stanford University called METRICS ("the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford ") to deal with the costly problem that much mainstream research is wasted.

Ioannidis cites to leading medical periodical, The Lancet, which avers that this "waste" applies even to 85% of medical research, a so-called "hard" science.

How bad are things then in the soft sciences, where the standard of proof is likely lower than in medical research?

Ioannidis writes that the METRICS center:

" [W]ill seek to study research practices and how these can be optimized. It will examine the best means of designing research protocols and agendas to ensure that the results are not dead ends but rather that they pave a path forward. The center will do so by exploring what are the best ways to make scientific investigation more reliable and efficient. "

We enthusiastically applaud this development.

We have been confronted for years by gullible, uninformed, and opinionated people in and out of science proclaiming the near infallibility of mainstream ideas and research methods and we really have little patience for such follies.

Having taught research ourselves at the university level, we know from experience that exactly the opposite of what is claimed by science is true...

and what is true is that much of what is researched in science and that is peer-review published as a result of that research is a costly waste of time and often leads science in the wrong directions. The peer-review process exists in part to fluff the feathers of the reigning authorities. "Truth" is a secondary matter.

One main reason for these follies of "scientific research", as we have written time and time again, is that science in the past has been predominantly "authority-based", i.e. it is not the "what" but the "who" that determines truth in science, and this outdated practice has led to massive errors. Before the dawn of the modern age, "authority-based" science was necessary since authorities were the key repositories of knowledge. But that has greatly changed in the modern era.

Just look at the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic where the established sciences have had their difficulties the past two years, despite heroic efforts. "Science" should have been better prepared for the pandemic than it was. Why was it not?

A shift in the focus of science is absolutely necessary. The prevailing standards of the past, when so-called "authorities" ruled the roost in science, are currently often misplaced in our digital age when anyone who wishes can look up nearly anything they want online. In the last analysis, one authority today is just one more opinion. In order to insure a more secure human future, the science of tomorrow must be based upon known facts, not upon known authorities.

"Evidence-Based Research" must be given top priority in our digital age.

Outdated memes must be slowly abandoned.

But what are memes ?

Meme is a term coined by Richard Dawkins, emeritus Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University in England.

Memes are defined generally as " replicated ideas, symbols or practices ".

We view memes as describing the state of mainstream science at any given time and to explain many of its aberrations. Memes act like viruses (or genes).

A meme is defined at the Wikipedia as:

"" [A]n idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture. " A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.... The word meme was coined by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins ... as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. Examples of memes given [in The Selfish Gene] included melodies, catch-phrases, fashion, and the technology of building arches."

In our view, what is normally called a "school of thought" in academia is more accurately defined as being a "meme", because "thought" often has nothing to do with it. Rather, ideas, rightly or wrongly, become entrenched in various disciplines of science and propagate themselves as if they had a life of their own. The same is true for politics and religion. People believe things out of habit, nothing more.

Truth is not at all the issue.

Rather, as written at Wikipedia about Memetics : 

" Memetics is a theory of mental content based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution.... Proponents describe memetics as an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer.... As with genetics, particularly under a Dawkinsian interpretation, a meme's success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host."

Accordingly, and contrary to the notion that "truth" is the objective in science or elsewhere, people thus actually adhere to a given idea, school of thought, cultural practice or religion because the adherents of a particular meme perceive it as providing the holders of that meme with advantages.

That essential understanding helps to explain many aberrations that can be discovered in science whereby presumably "rational" people hold fast to long-outdated ideas and ways of looking at things, often at odds with the available probative evidence.

We look to the probative evidence! 

That is what defines our work.