If you want one of the clearest demonstrations of collective intelligence ever created -and how corruption can impede progress in other areas of science - look at commercial aviation.
A simple way to understand how we can learn from mistakes is to crack a simple cipher. When you succeed, secrets hidden are known. With certainty in each individual case.
And all that you need is pen and paper.
I appreciate your contrasting aviation with the conduct of science at the current time. It is eye opening.
The scientific method is actually the cryptanalytic method. The cryptanalytic method leads to definitive results in each individual case. It is able to do it by eliminating all errors in that particular case. To many, this is hard to believe. To find out for oneself, solve a simple cipher.
The scientific method, the standard one - that observation leads to prediction- is incomplete according to Karl Popper and David Deutsch. And we agree. The proper scientific method should be we start with a problem and it leads to a good explanation
if I were in a better frame of mind.. as a retired scientist
scientific method is far more rigorous than that.: this is how I was trained: The scientific method is a continuous, empirical process used to investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge, or correct previous knowledge. It systematically relies on observation, rigorous skepticism, testing hypotheses through experiments, and analyzing data to build and refine objective theories.. THEORY is the always the key word. zzzzz going to get some rest ..
For the most part I agree with the state of commercial aviation, although the Boeing 737 Max had a major blunder in it's early years which resulted in the loss of 2 aircraft and lots of loss of life. What Boeing wanted to do is have a 737-700 or 800 pilot be able to step into a 737 Max and it "feel" the same. and save money on flight training. But the way this was acheived was through an automatic pitch trim mainly for takeoff on the Max. Boeing's competitor AirBus were able to put new more efficeint engines on the A319/320/321 without changing the basic design because the Airbus was tall enough such that the engines would fit and still have ground clearance. Not so with the 737. so Boeing kept the 737 type certificate, but made some "minor" changes and one of those changes was making a taller landng gear. By doing that and the other "minor" changes, the aircraft had a tendancy to pitch up some on takeoff - NOT to the point of being dangerous - the aircraft WAS stable but needed to be trimmed out on takeoff. So Boeing designed a computer that would automatically trim the aircraft pitch on takeoff and the pilots would "feel" like they were flying an earlier model B-737. Everything would have been fine and dandy IF there had not been defective angle of attack senors. And that's what happened on the 2 B-737 Max that crashed in 2018/2019 time frame. For whatever reason, some angle of attack sensors were faulty and sending wrong data to the augmentation feel system and when the aircraft was flying PERFECT, the augmentation system "thought" the nose was pitching up and it commanded pitch down. Then it commanded more pitch down, Then more - then more and the pilots had no idea what was going on because Boeing for whatever reason thought it would be best if the pilots did not know about this feel system, BIG MISTAKE. Now SOME pilots DID figure it out when their Max started doing the runaway pitch down, but they saved the aircraft by standard disabling of the electric pitch trim. You do have cut out switches and circuit breakers, and as a last resort the Captain can go nose up on the trim button on the yoke, and the copilot can go nose down on his and hold it until the electric motor burns up. THEN you can trim the aircraft with the MANUAL crank trim wheel. I mean at that point you have an emergency EVEN if you disable the electric trim motor because here's the thing > not a good idea to take it to cruise altitude at tht point because you probably have no mach pitch trim a totally seperate system than the "feel" system. The mach pitch trim system is for high altitude high cruise where you're kind of close to "coffin corner" but not gone beyond the operating limits MACH wise. Mach pitch trim is an automatic system specificaly designed to prevent MACH TUCK which is also a forceful nose down phenomom NOT caused by electric pitch trim, but by the physics of the center of lift going towards the rear of the wing thanks to the air on top of the wing flowing very close to supersinic {which is why jet airliners are limited to about .82 MACH} - starting at about 26,000 feet, MACH speed is what pilots "look" at rather than airspeed per se'. The point being, I might disagree a little on commercial airlines being "safe". Of course last November we lost a UPS MD-11 because the pylon aft mount failed when the engines were at full power. Jet engines on takeoff experiance the greatest gyroscopic precession force than any other phase of flight. What would have prevented the tragedy in my opinion is a FAIL SAFE LUG, just like that found on Boeing 737 horizontal stabiizers {the tail}. Aerospace engineers obviously have known about FAIL SAFE lugs foe a LONG time, but are no used on MD-11 engine pylons. Then you got the whistleblower about the Boeing 787 who says many fuselages were not mated together correctly and could over time FAIL.
Yeah they tried to cover it up and be shady but it is nearly impossible to do because of the obvious failure that the entire planet agrees needs to be transparent.
Actually I flew on a Boeing 737 Max on Southwest Airlines {twice} six weeks ago on June 3rd. I actually was pretty dang impressed. On {May 21} I was on a B-737-800 and we're taking off out of Denver {full aircraft} {the mile high city} and it seemed like it took "forever" to get in the air. I always time the takeoffs just out of curiosity more than anything and it was about 42 seconds. 2 weeks later I'm on a Southwest Boeing 737 Max same takeoff out of Denver, and again {full aircraft} and we're in the air in about 30 seconds. That's always the true performance test of an aircraft is how it can perform taking off out of Denver, Colorado. The fully loaded Max gets in the air out of Denver in the same time that a fully loaded 737-700 gets in the air close to sea level. Very impressive. I'm confident the "feel" augmentation system problem has been solved. I don't know if you remember, but the B-737 Max was grounded for like 2 years just before Crazy KOE VED 19. For the most part, I'm OK with riding on the Boeing 737's although there was a Boeing 737-400 that was lost a few weeks ago - Ha !! from the report I just read it sounds like they might have entered "coffin corner" OR the mach pitch trim system failed and they entered "mach tuck" just like ironically I talked about in my first comment. I don't think it was rudder actuator failure like about 30 years ago. That was where {on just a handful of Boeing 737's} if the pilot pushed right rudder, the actuator would go left rudder & vice versa. Well they FIXED that - Boeing had new redesigned rudder actuators that were mandated to replace exidting rudder actuators. I mean like you alluded to in your original comment, millions and millions of miles have been flown by Boeing Jets and people arrive SAFELY 99.999 % of the time. It actually is a pretty incredible statistic. HOWEVER, the BIG problem I see is you can have potential problems and even "whistle blowers" but it gets ignored until a disaster, THEN they decide to do something about it. I'm very concerned about the B787. A recent whistleblower has suggested that the 787's were not assembled in a correct manner and could cause catastrophic disaster/s in the future. I've always been a little "leery" of compsite aircraft {like the Boeing 787} because they are immensely harder to inspect for cracks than metal aircraft like the Boeing 737. The ONLY reason I recently flew on Southwest Airlines is because my car is a 2009 and it was starting to have some issues that I'm working on - OK to drive locally, but I decided I don't want to drive it from Texas to Virginia and back - and frankly I just hate driving - like I HATE it - I HATE the semis you have to fight and I DESPISE the police hiding in the bushes. So I decided to start flying commercial again BUT the TSA pisses me off. So I am BUILDING a FREE OF CHARGE, NO MONEY CHANGING HANDS freedom aviation Network primarily for but not limited to the freedom & liberty community using the tried & true Maule Aircraft. Once I procure my first Maule aircraft, I personally won't have a need to ride on a commercial jet airliner ever again, unless I have to cross an ocean. If you never have seen a Maule aircraft, I have a linked video. As you're watching it, you will PROBABLY wonder about if the mission calls for twice as many seats as a typical Maule provides. The answer to that is rather simple, use two Maules, or even use three Maules. Think of it as a "modular" system - { I know you like to think in terms of SYSTEMS LOL} There are so many reasons to build a vast freedom aviation network using Maules - one of them being is the anticipation of the freedom community migrating out of cities to rural organic farms. The MAULES, unlike super expensive jet airliners or even highly expensive corporate jet aircraft, can literally operate DIRECTLY out of the farm itself just like THESE Maule aircraft operate out in Alaska as seen here > https://youtu.be/k8oTj-yQ-Wk?si=ogyAVTRt4JzDhcTb
The scientific method, or rather, collective critical thinking generally, aims to be a substrate for the evolution of our model of reality, and its rules are mostly quite obvious to anyone who understands that point - we all benefit from the collective endeavour to an incalculably vast extent, so short-changing it creates potentially huge opportunity costs to everyone, forever more - corruption is insanity; only a plausible option for those whose model of reality lacks scope; the sense of interdependence also known as socialisation.
Holding up commercial aviation in the context of collective intelligence, and asking why these principles should only apply here, is a rhetorical slam dunk.
The issue of course, is - how do we engineer the incentive landscape such that following the rules has the best ROI generally? And i guess that's the conversation we want to be having. As with everything to do with collective intelligence, it's a bootstrapping problem. Ask me how i know, lol
The exception that proves the rule is the "investigation" into TWA Flight 800. If I recall correctly, more than 200 eyewitnesses saw a missile (from a U.S. submarine) hit the plane soon after takeoff on its way to France. But the official judgment blamed a wiring problem.
Aviation is a great example of transparent reality-testing. My brief review of airplane crashes and near-misses indicates that even the degradation of competence through woke standards and vaccine mandates didn't stop the favorable trend in airline safety:
A simple way to understand how we can learn from mistakes is to crack a simple cipher. When you succeed, secrets hidden are known. With certainty in each individual case.
And all that you need is pen and paper.
I appreciate your contrasting aviation with the conduct of science at the current time. It is eye opening.
The scientific method is actually the cryptanalytic method. The cryptanalytic method leads to definitive results in each individual case. It is able to do it by eliminating all errors in that particular case. To many, this is hard to believe. To find out for oneself, solve a simple cipher.
The scientific method, the standard one - that observation leads to prediction- is incomplete according to Karl Popper and David Deutsch. And we agree. The proper scientific method should be we start with a problem and it leads to a good explanation
A cryptogram presents a problem: what does it mean? We can reach a definite solution in each case if we have enough clues.
What are clues?
They are characteristics of structures, sometimes disguised.
Popper misses the need for clues in solving problems.
There are unbreakable ciphers. Unbreakable because they leave behind no clues.
sort of like that :) close enough.. for now
if I were in a better frame of mind.. as a retired scientist
scientific method is far more rigorous than that.: this is how I was trained: The scientific method is a continuous, empirical process used to investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge, or correct previous knowledge. It systematically relies on observation, rigorous skepticism, testing hypotheses through experiments, and analyzing data to build and refine objective theories.. THEORY is the always the key word. zzzzz going to get some rest ..
For the most part I agree with the state of commercial aviation, although the Boeing 737 Max had a major blunder in it's early years which resulted in the loss of 2 aircraft and lots of loss of life. What Boeing wanted to do is have a 737-700 or 800 pilot be able to step into a 737 Max and it "feel" the same. and save money on flight training. But the way this was acheived was through an automatic pitch trim mainly for takeoff on the Max. Boeing's competitor AirBus were able to put new more efficeint engines on the A319/320/321 without changing the basic design because the Airbus was tall enough such that the engines would fit and still have ground clearance. Not so with the 737. so Boeing kept the 737 type certificate, but made some "minor" changes and one of those changes was making a taller landng gear. By doing that and the other "minor" changes, the aircraft had a tendancy to pitch up some on takeoff - NOT to the point of being dangerous - the aircraft WAS stable but needed to be trimmed out on takeoff. So Boeing designed a computer that would automatically trim the aircraft pitch on takeoff and the pilots would "feel" like they were flying an earlier model B-737. Everything would have been fine and dandy IF there had not been defective angle of attack senors. And that's what happened on the 2 B-737 Max that crashed in 2018/2019 time frame. For whatever reason, some angle of attack sensors were faulty and sending wrong data to the augmentation feel system and when the aircraft was flying PERFECT, the augmentation system "thought" the nose was pitching up and it commanded pitch down. Then it commanded more pitch down, Then more - then more and the pilots had no idea what was going on because Boeing for whatever reason thought it would be best if the pilots did not know about this feel system, BIG MISTAKE. Now SOME pilots DID figure it out when their Max started doing the runaway pitch down, but they saved the aircraft by standard disabling of the electric pitch trim. You do have cut out switches and circuit breakers, and as a last resort the Captain can go nose up on the trim button on the yoke, and the copilot can go nose down on his and hold it until the electric motor burns up. THEN you can trim the aircraft with the MANUAL crank trim wheel. I mean at that point you have an emergency EVEN if you disable the electric trim motor because here's the thing > not a good idea to take it to cruise altitude at tht point because you probably have no mach pitch trim a totally seperate system than the "feel" system. The mach pitch trim system is for high altitude high cruise where you're kind of close to "coffin corner" but not gone beyond the operating limits MACH wise. Mach pitch trim is an automatic system specificaly designed to prevent MACH TUCK which is also a forceful nose down phenomom NOT caused by electric pitch trim, but by the physics of the center of lift going towards the rear of the wing thanks to the air on top of the wing flowing very close to supersinic {which is why jet airliners are limited to about .82 MACH} - starting at about 26,000 feet, MACH speed is what pilots "look" at rather than airspeed per se'. The point being, I might disagree a little on commercial airlines being "safe". Of course last November we lost a UPS MD-11 because the pylon aft mount failed when the engines were at full power. Jet engines on takeoff experiance the greatest gyroscopic precession force than any other phase of flight. What would have prevented the tragedy in my opinion is a FAIL SAFE LUG, just like that found on Boeing 737 horizontal stabiizers {the tail}. Aerospace engineers obviously have known about FAIL SAFE lugs foe a LONG time, but are no used on MD-11 engine pylons. Then you got the whistleblower about the Boeing 787 who says many fuselages were not mated together correctly and could over time FAIL.
Yeah they tried to cover it up and be shady but it is nearly impossible to do because of the obvious failure that the entire planet agrees needs to be transparent.
How do you feel about flying on a Boeing now?
Actually I flew on a Boeing 737 Max on Southwest Airlines {twice} six weeks ago on June 3rd. I actually was pretty dang impressed. On {May 21} I was on a B-737-800 and we're taking off out of Denver {full aircraft} {the mile high city} and it seemed like it took "forever" to get in the air. I always time the takeoffs just out of curiosity more than anything and it was about 42 seconds. 2 weeks later I'm on a Southwest Boeing 737 Max same takeoff out of Denver, and again {full aircraft} and we're in the air in about 30 seconds. That's always the true performance test of an aircraft is how it can perform taking off out of Denver, Colorado. The fully loaded Max gets in the air out of Denver in the same time that a fully loaded 737-700 gets in the air close to sea level. Very impressive. I'm confident the "feel" augmentation system problem has been solved. I don't know if you remember, but the B-737 Max was grounded for like 2 years just before Crazy KOE VED 19. For the most part, I'm OK with riding on the Boeing 737's although there was a Boeing 737-400 that was lost a few weeks ago - Ha !! from the report I just read it sounds like they might have entered "coffin corner" OR the mach pitch trim system failed and they entered "mach tuck" just like ironically I talked about in my first comment. I don't think it was rudder actuator failure like about 30 years ago. That was where {on just a handful of Boeing 737's} if the pilot pushed right rudder, the actuator would go left rudder & vice versa. Well they FIXED that - Boeing had new redesigned rudder actuators that were mandated to replace exidting rudder actuators. I mean like you alluded to in your original comment, millions and millions of miles have been flown by Boeing Jets and people arrive SAFELY 99.999 % of the time. It actually is a pretty incredible statistic. HOWEVER, the BIG problem I see is you can have potential problems and even "whistle blowers" but it gets ignored until a disaster, THEN they decide to do something about it. I'm very concerned about the B787. A recent whistleblower has suggested that the 787's were not assembled in a correct manner and could cause catastrophic disaster/s in the future. I've always been a little "leery" of compsite aircraft {like the Boeing 787} because they are immensely harder to inspect for cracks than metal aircraft like the Boeing 737. The ONLY reason I recently flew on Southwest Airlines is because my car is a 2009 and it was starting to have some issues that I'm working on - OK to drive locally, but I decided I don't want to drive it from Texas to Virginia and back - and frankly I just hate driving - like I HATE it - I HATE the semis you have to fight and I DESPISE the police hiding in the bushes. So I decided to start flying commercial again BUT the TSA pisses me off. So I am BUILDING a FREE OF CHARGE, NO MONEY CHANGING HANDS freedom aviation Network primarily for but not limited to the freedom & liberty community using the tried & true Maule Aircraft. Once I procure my first Maule aircraft, I personally won't have a need to ride on a commercial jet airliner ever again, unless I have to cross an ocean. If you never have seen a Maule aircraft, I have a linked video. As you're watching it, you will PROBABLY wonder about if the mission calls for twice as many seats as a typical Maule provides. The answer to that is rather simple, use two Maules, or even use three Maules. Think of it as a "modular" system - { I know you like to think in terms of SYSTEMS LOL} There are so many reasons to build a vast freedom aviation network using Maules - one of them being is the anticipation of the freedom community migrating out of cities to rural organic farms. The MAULES, unlike super expensive jet airliners or even highly expensive corporate jet aircraft, can literally operate DIRECTLY out of the farm itself just like THESE Maule aircraft operate out in Alaska as seen here > https://youtu.be/k8oTj-yQ-Wk?si=ogyAVTRt4JzDhcTb
The scientific method, or rather, collective critical thinking generally, aims to be a substrate for the evolution of our model of reality, and its rules are mostly quite obvious to anyone who understands that point - we all benefit from the collective endeavour to an incalculably vast extent, so short-changing it creates potentially huge opportunity costs to everyone, forever more - corruption is insanity; only a plausible option for those whose model of reality lacks scope; the sense of interdependence also known as socialisation.
Holding up commercial aviation in the context of collective intelligence, and asking why these principles should only apply here, is a rhetorical slam dunk.
The issue of course, is - how do we engineer the incentive landscape such that following the rules has the best ROI generally? And i guess that's the conversation we want to be having. As with everything to do with collective intelligence, it's a bootstrapping problem. Ask me how i know, lol
We feel your bootstrapping pain
:)
The exception that proves the rule is the "investigation" into TWA Flight 800. If I recall correctly, more than 200 eyewitnesses saw a missile (from a U.S. submarine) hit the plane soon after takeoff on its way to France. But the official judgment blamed a wiring problem.
Zero point, levitation, easy, way cheaper, no fuel, or we can rely on stupid to make shit out of pop cans, cuz why not
Aviation is a great example of transparent reality-testing. My brief review of airplane crashes and near-misses indicates that even the degradation of competence through woke standards and vaccine mandates didn't stop the favorable trend in airline safety:
https://peterdanielmiller.substack.com/p/timeline-epilogue-part-3
Solving Problems is Happiness on Substack :) I like it
I am finally 100 percent worn out from trying to catch up from a two week vacation..
Aviation is safe.. that is for sure. I love to fly.. :) keep up the GREAT work.. Josh. :)
So, Presidents/politicians make promises / contracts to/with the public / voters
How is any breach of contract / fraud, dealt with / 'processed'?
Bob Moriarty Warns: Everyone's About To Run Out Of Fuel In 1-2 Weeks
https://youtu.be/pUwFlHAJ1nY
-
here he talks about Trumps 'Condition'
https://youtu.be/pUwFlHAJ1nY?t=1406