My new book, The More of Less, has an entire chapter dedicated to challenging
our assumptions by experimenting with less.
Not exact matches
Griffin further challenges the
assumption of a «human monopoly on conscious thought»
by noting that current
experiments indicate that animals produce «event related potentials» which resemble those produced
by human beings.
Since the Enlightenment, it has become a tacit
assumption of our culture that the only kind of knowledge worth bothering with is that which can be proven
by experiment and described with mathematical laws.
Using new types of
experiments on neuronal cultures, a group of scientists, led
by Prof. Ido Kanter, of the Department of Physics at Bar - Ilan University, has demonstrated that this century - old
assumption regarding brain activity is mistaken.
Using new theoretical results and
experiments on neuronal cultures, a group of scientists, led
by Prof. Ido Kanter, of the Department of Physics and the Gonda (Goldschmied) Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center at Bar - Ilan University, has demonstrated that the central
assumption for nearly 70 years that learning occurs only in the synapses is mistaken.
Together with Professor Rod Peakall of Australian National University, he decided to test this
assumption by taking advantage of an
experiment already designed
by nature.
While no one can say with certainty what sort of life might be turned up
by these
experiments, the usual
assumption is that it will be microbial, as single - celled life is adaptable to a wide range of environments and requires less energy.
But, there is no
assumption that the skills / content can be imparted
by the enrichment activities; rather, the projects /
experiments / free reading extend the children's grasp of the skills / content material and provide hooks for them to want to go further.
In the absence of any other change in heat flow (an unphysical
assumption but let's use this as a thought
experiment), instead this increases the temperature
by (initially) 100/42 = 2.4 K per second.
There have been so many ad hoc adjustments and
assumptions, not always well - supported
by replicated
experiments, that the temperature record is a mess.
I don't know how to do this but there must be some enterprising academics out there who can find ways to substantiate some of the model
assumptions with real data rather than continuing to tweak computer models to «find» the right formulas I would rather we did real science and found the parameters
by experiment.