Editor's pick: Knowledge is a falsifiable relationship
Attempts to define “knowledge” seem to make an impossible demand (1 April, p 32). Knowledge is the relation between knower and known. As a relational “thing”, it has no qualities and can only be pinned down at the point of relation, whatever that is. “Knowing something” is not a “state”, “complex” or otherwise. Epistemology, the study of what it means to know, is ill-served by any idea of states, even when the state is honestly admitted to have a nature that extends beyond itself – whatever that can be taken to mean.
Editor's pick: Knowledge is a falsifiable relationship
Surely knowledge is that which we believe hasn't been falsified after appropriate attempts. It isn't an absolute. Scientific theories are beliefs subjected to eternal obsessive falsification attempts. Even if falsified, a theory may remain useful within crude limits. For example, the time given by my watch could be falsified by an atomic clock, but I still “know” the time well enough using it.
An uncertain universe based on information
Anil Ananthaswamy reports a suggestion that the basis of the universe is a type of information that isn't “about” anything (1 April, p 41). But if a piece of information isn't about anything, then presumably that piece of information cannot be said to be either true or false.
Could that be another way of saying that the basis of the universe is uncertainty?
First class post
Must have more barnacle goose genes than is good for me
to the news that a barnacle goose trains for its 3000km migration by getting fat (22 April, p 35)
To know how animals know, ask how we do
Michael Brooks asks whether animals know things (1 April, p 37). To answer this, one has to understand how we know things.
For humans, knowledge is the conversion or abstraction of the world around us into an internal model we call language. What we know is determined by the language structure we are born into. As we are exposed to more parts of our world, we have to adapt or invent new words and relationships to comprehend the new reality.
Given how critical language is to knowing our world, how can animals conceptualise and successfully interact without it? How does a wolf pack or lion pride coordinate an attack on its prey?
I suggest that we need to redefine knowledge to encompass the mental constructs that exist and operate without language. Whatever these structures are, they allow animals to survive and thrive in their world space.
Understanding animal non-language thought processes may help explain how solutions seem to appear to us from nowhere, or how a composer can “hear” an entire sonata in their head.
Ownership and control of robotic production
If large numbers of workers are made redundant by robots and AI, who will be able to afford the goods and services they produce?
To combat this, Sumit Paul-Choudhury discusses the idea of taxing robots or a basic minimum income (4 March, p 25). I would also suggest using the proceeds to pay for an increase in employment in the health service and other caring services that don't lend themselves well to full automation. Producers may not like the idea, but without it, they will have a minimal market for their goods and services.
Lobbyists pushed for antibiotics in animal feed
You say that “unlike the fossil fuel industry, drug firms haven't engaged in industrial-scale lobbying and the manufacture of denial” (8 April, p 5). But in the late 1960s and early 70s this is exactly what happened to allow the continued addition of antibiotics to animal feed.
That practice may have been far more damaging in breeding antibiotic resistance in pathogens than human misuse of the drugs. In 1969, the UK government , recommending restrictions, and there was a similar move at the US Food and Drug Administration. Leading researchers at the time supported this initiative.
There was from several government and political figures with farming constituencies, however, and much scientific evidence was ignored. Use of antibiotics in animal feed continued for decades thereafter.
I suggest that industry lobbying and profit have been major drivers for the misuse of antibiotics over the past five decades and the crisis facing their use in human health today.
Breastfeeding shouldn't be a dogma
Many thanks to Clare Wilson for her article on the “Fed is Best” campaign (18 March, p 25). I felt very relieved after reading it – apparently for the last five years I have been feeling guilty for not being able to breastfeed our sons.
I gave birth to twins in a “baby friendly” hospital. As one of my breasts produced less milk than the other, we weighed the kids before and after breastfeeding, so as not to give one an advantage in life from more of that magic stuff that would make him intelligent, slim, a non-smoker and so on.
I needed two people to help me manage the procedure, including topping up the twins with formula. Each feeding round took about 90 minutes and we slept four hours at most. I was terrified just thinking about feeding them.
After three months we all came down with winter vomiting sickness and my milk was gone; we had to switch exclusively to formula. The kids were happy and we finally all got some sleep. I appreciated the help I got in hospital with breastfeeding. But this shouldn't be a dogma that makes women feel guilty if things don't work out as planned. From my experience the “Fed is Best” campaign seems to be a much-needed push in the right direction.
The green revolution has been an utter failure
I was surprised that Marta Zaraska wrote of the “success of the green revolution” (25 March, p 32). Sixty years into the experiment that is industrial agriculture, we produce enough for all, but and due to malnourishment – while and, most perversely, many of these have nutrient deficiencies. That is not success. It is utter failure.
To feed everyone well we have to limit population, not grow more food. Fortunately, there are ways to do that without resorting to the utterly morally repugnant ideas of Robert Malthus, or the more recent one-child policy in China. Education, especially for girls, empowering women, good public pensions, affordable healthcare and a social safety net all result in decreases in birth rates.
Putting legal limits on self-driving cars
Carl Zetie is concerned about “programmed selfishness” in autonomous vehicles (Letters, 4 February) and Nicholas Thomas about passengers who suddenly have to take control (Letters, 18 February).
Left in the hands of private companies and free-market competition, I believe cars will continually be pushed beyond their safe operating envelope.
But we have an opportunity to significantly reduce the death and destruction caused by cars. I propose that if a vehicle fitted with autonomous control is involved in a collision, the legal presumption should be that the computer was responsible and the chief officers of the manufacturer are personally liable for its actions and all consequent loss of life, harm and damage to property.
Putting legal limits on self-driving cars
One factor not mentioned in discussion of self-driving cars is travel sickness. I can read while my husband drives and so can one of our children, but my husband and other two children would only be able to take advantage of the freedom endowed by self-drive if they were constantly medicated against car sickness – surely not desirable.
Putting legal limits on self-driving cars
In yet another article on self-driving cars, you report a major manufacturer claiming it will skip from cars with computer-assisted driving to vehicles with no brake pedal or steering wheel (7 January, p 36). Really?
I recently took a up a Swiss mountain road one vehicle wide with no barrier to protect against a large drop. As the bus has precedence, oncoming drivers must reverse into a passing-place. In a standoff between a Tesla and the driver of a Swiss PostBus I shall put my money on the bus.
I won't holiday in other species' misery
You showed us images of birds killed by illegal sharpshooters in Malta (25 March, p 26). A tourist boycott might curtail this senseless slaughter of migrating birds. Thank you for publicising it.
They spy with their little eye but they can't see me
Sally Adee discusses why it is worrying that your browsing history is now for sale (8 April, p 25) Those who don't want internet service providers to spy on them can use a “virtual private network”. Still more amusingly, you can use two or more VPNs chained together.
Getting to the bottom of sheer denier cheek
Recently, scientific journals and the news media have been full of articles about “climate change deniers” (for example, 8 April, p 5). I was suddenly struck by the fact that the term “denier” is also used to define the sheerness, fineness and transparency of stockings.
I suggest applying the denier scale to categorise people who reject the science of climate change, going from 10 for gauzy obscurity all the way up to 70+ for impenetrably woolly thinking.