Thus, there is a substantial difference between theory (which is creator-dependent) and practice (which is 'user-of-creation'-dependent)?
I saw a very interesting documentary about Myxomycetes. The research and experiments performed proved that the slime mold exhibited a kind of “primitive intelligence”. They even developed the first amorphous biological robot (non-silicon plasmobot), using the plasmodium of P. polycephalum as the motive source.
Article Importance of Myxomycetes in Biological Research and Teaching
Myxomycetes are fascinating. Look for "Tokyo rail network designed by Physarum plasmodium".
Dear Marcel, I think that computer systems, although helpful in smart search, have some inefficiency w.r.t. evolution of our knowledge.
I have approached this problem in a similar question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_google_search_shape_public_knowledge
Too much information is like having no information because of constraints in investment required to check the reliability of the information provided
Example:
There are >100.000 sources associated with the key word 'Testosterone', but only 10 studies dealing with Testosterone can be cited in one publication. How to choose the relevant sources?
We should mainly rely one information certified by well known scientific institutions (e.g. WHO, FDA,.........)
OK, you can focus on well-known scientific insitutions/institutions but this gives you still >50.000- >100.000 potential sources associated with Testosterone of which maximum 300 will be cited in a review conducted by a reviewer that will not be able to master in detail the knowledge of >50.000- >100.000 potential sources associated with Testosterone (?)
PS: Will readers of review papers check in detail the studies that have been cited in review papers, or do they blindly trust the work of the reviewers and the referees of review papers that also do not master in detail the contents of >50.000- >100.000 potential sources?
IMO the idea is not to master in detail the knowledge of >50.000- >100.000 potential sources but to only master a few. As suggested by Mr. Abbas, selecting a few sources from trusted organizations is a good starting point. Checking the studies that have been cited will not only help to determine the credibility of the information but also refine our knowledge on the subject.
We should not just take for grant what is proposed in search engines, we have to be our own judge, deploy the effort to understand and forge our own opinion. "To master a subject" is a pretty subjective statement... Where do we draw the line between knowledgeable and master?
In my field I used to look for knowledge in ISI/Scopus journals whose number is around 20-30. I suspect that the information is reliable if it not mentioned in these journals.
I think any scientific information is struggle for survival. I believe in scientific system in which any unreliable information will be not survive/flourish rather it will diminshed.
Despite scientific research highlighting 'problems' (e.g. decline in biodiversity), citizens really don't care? So why doing scientific research besides piling up information?
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2018/03/21/97001-20180321FILWWW00201-la-biodiversite-tout-le-monde-s-en-fiche-hulot.php
After Snowden's revelations, it became clear that there was no such reliability. Snowden clearly demonstrated that your personal emails can be easily read by a special program. No computer system can guarantee that the exchange of information will be 100% reliable, otherwise we would not have hackers who only do this and earn good money on it.
Accepting that publishers complicate access to their own web-sites because publishers think they do not earn enough money, 1) do publishers truly believe in the contents of the journals they support with their web-sites, and 2) do these publishers not truly believe that open-access science will rapidly solve the problems facing the world, or what else?
if everything is done with computers at a distance (e.g. administrations, paying bills), you fully control the citizens from a distance. This implies that computer systems are not reliable from a citizens point of view
Can computer systems modify fingerprint profiles in an automatized system aimed to track individuals?
To respond to your question "can computer systems modify fingerprint profiles in an automatized system aimed to track individuals" I am unsure about the corruption of a given fingerprint... instead I would be more concerned about having the fingerprint attributed to the wrong person.
I would also suggest you sto tart a new thread with any new questions you may have, otherwise the responses get all mixed and it is confusing.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Statistics
- Probability
- Probability Theory
- Reliability