Here is how to turn the tide against junk science
All strength to Stuart Richie in his crusade against the perverse motivations that lead to the publication of junk science, but an article or a book won’t rid us of this problem (22 August, p 36). It will take money.
What might work would be for some considerably rich business leader to set up a strikingly large prize for the best paper that showed up a slovenly piece of research that had made headlines, then give this paper publicity.
Many ways to look at the impact of social contact
In his look at the benefits of “social capital”, inspired by the pandemic lockdown, David Robson argues that “in recent decades, a raft of research has shown that individuals with richer social worlds tend to have better mental well-being and lower stress, and to perform better at work” (15 August, p 32).
Does this research demonstrate clearly that the direction of causation is from good “social worlds” to better mental health? Surely it is entirely plausible to argue for the reverse of this causation, or even a mutually reinforcing circularity.
I also think that the notion of social capital used in the article is idealised and desocialised. All social networks are embedded within systems of power, including class and gender, that are significant determinants of who can (or can’t) connect with who. Some networks are constructed by troubled people as survival mechanisms when options they would prefer are closed to them. These might assist with their mental health, but they aren’t their first choice.
Motion sickness? Choose your meal carefully
As a long-time yachtsman, I found your article on motion sickness very interesting (22 August, p 47). It reminded me of an age-old question among sailors: if you think you might become seasick, what is the best thing to eat? The answer is peaches and cream, because they taste just as good on the way up as they did on the way down.
Motion sickness? Choose your meal carefully (2)
When contemplating a rough boat ride or some aerobatics, many people will instinctively opt to eat nothing beforehand, fearing motion sickness. Instead, they could try a remedy adopted by me and a number of friends decades ago: scoff a couple of large, sugary doughnuts about an hour before the activity. It works wonders.
A bit of fuzziness isn't a big problem for physics
In “Welcome to the fuzzy-verse”, philosopher Eddy Keming Chen misstates the relationship of physics and mathematics (5 September, p 36). The universe is what it is, and the fundamental laws of physics are really just expressions of the patterns we observe there 鈥� they don’t explain anything. What they can do is help us predict what else we might see if the pattern extends to areas we haven’t yet looked at.
Separately, Chen seems to identify the “Strong Past Hypothesis” as a fundamental law of physics 鈥� but it isn’t a law. It is a hypothesis, something you can use as a starting point for “what if” speculation but that carries no predictive weight.
One might point to other “fuzzy” areas of modern physics, such as the inflation hypothesis: we are pretty sure there was inflation, but we have no idea what might have caused it and it has no predictive power. The universe will do what it will do. Current models, patterns and theories have massive holes.
It may be a surprise to a non-physicist that we can’t completely define the universe with mathematics. Physicists, however, are used to the idea that some things may “just be”. A bit of fuzzy uncertainty doesn’t fundamentally undercut the enterprise 鈥� it simply reveals areas needing more work.
No time to waste, let's get on with restoring the sky
I was inspired by Graham Lawton’s description of Rob Jackson’s plea to restore the atmosphere to its pre-industrial state (22 August, p 24). We absolutely must do this. Any plan or course of action that falls short of full reinstatement to pre-industrial conditions, with the associated thermal equilibrium of the planet that is so vital, will inevitably consign our descendants to a planet that just gets hotter and hotter. This will be a vastly bigger task than merely hitting the target of no more than 1.5掳C of warming by the end of the century.
Granted, the temperature is rising gradually, but we need to have the breadth of vision to see that the heating is relentless and made faster and faster by every puff of CO2 put into the atmosphere. The time for action is now. The longer we leave the task, the harder and costlier it will become, but the price of not doing this is incalculable. Let us set out the plan and get on with it.
On the search for ways to end the pandemic
Could there be an alternative to a coronavirus vaccine to achieve herd immunity if we could come up with a test to predict who would be asymptomatic? Many people would probably fall into this category (5 September, p 7). They might have something in common other than their underlying good health that could be the basis of such a test.
If this were possible, then herd immunity might be achievable with deliberate asymptomatic infection rather than vaccination.
Partial postal voting could yet upset the US election
You report on an analysis that found voting by mail would have little effect on US election results (5 September, p 20). It seems to assume that Democrats and Republicans would vote by post in similar numbers. In fact, a recent poll indicates that a significantly higher proportion of those who support the Democrats would choose to vote this way compared with Republicans, who would rather turn out in person.
In a recent , thousands of postal votes were rejected, in part because officials decided voter signatures didn’t look enough like those held on file. Other reasons include ballots arriving late or without the required certification.
If, say, 10 per cent of Democrat vote-by-mail ballots are rejected while 100 per cent of Republican in-person ballots are accepted, Donald Trump may have a significant advantage.