When something is written and spoken that requires too high of a verbal IQ for the audience to understand, data is lost in transmission.

I could understand the first comment, generally, but it requires some thought. Which means for some people, it might have required 24 hours of thought…

The problems with scientific methodology are numerous, although like a republic (not a democracy like most USA drones think) it is the best system for ruling over humans, by humans. The observer effect from quantum mechanics and the applications of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle really puts a crank shaft in the gears of science. A disciple that prizes itself on observing data reliably, is in quite a difficult quandary when the very data “shifts” according to observer effects. Although the more relevant phenomenon is ‘interference’, rather than the quantum wave form “collapse” made popular by the Copenhagen INterpretation.

I’ll add that I recognize four logical domains: science (near space and time), philosophy (possible), fantasy (improbable), and faith (trust). Each of these logical domains intersect, and it is possible to cross from one to the other with sufficient knowledge and skill. For example, the scientific method begins with a hypothesis in the philosophy logical domain, and with observation and reproduction will either transition to the science logical domain, or be shunted to another logical domain.

Thanks for the lucid comment about deep subject; what and how we know and some of the assumptions underlie our knowing.

i.e. chaotic or a process that is incompletely or insufficiently characterized and unwieldy

I am interested to know how you measured this.

It’s not a matter of measurement, but rather logic. Consider what you know, don’t know, and can’t possibly know. For example, the signals we receive from outside the solar system (the boundary of near observation) are known to be influenced by interstitial matter that alters frequency and causes other transformations. As we approach a source, the probability of mischaracterization approaches zero (not impossible, but improbable). Note that this doesn’t imply our observations are wrong, but rather that they are pending. With respect to time, inference from limited, circumstantial evidence is inconclusive. Our “scientific” beliefs are often based on assumptions of linearity, invariance, and uniformity. While these may be valid assumptions, there is no means to confirm the veracity of our conclusions. Science has evolved as a “consistent with” model, which is often credible, but not always, and may constrain or expand — both unqualified — our understanding.

And thanks for the transcript
“Climate change lost that debate and, as far as I can tell, the serious scientists on that side have avoided open debate on the subject ever since … 2007 to be specific.”

BBC The Day The Universe Changed
* * *
This and Burke’s first series, Connections, are my all-time favorite TV-science/history shows.

Simple, n.n just wrapped his/her/they/them/zer…. mind around it.

I am interested to know how you measured this.