User talk:HansensMagNET

Welcome!
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope this will help you in future edits, especially reliable sources. If you are concerned about the safety of the LHC, you might want to look at the article about that, and also the discussion page (& archives) for it. The question of what constitutes a valid source is especially troublesome for this issue, as it is extremely complex technically, and only a very small group of experts (a few thousand at most) are really qualified to make an independent assessment of the risks. Of course all these people have spent years studying relativistic quantum field theory, string theory, general relativity, etc., and some have claimed that this fact alone makes them biased and disqualified due to conflict of interest. However then by the same argument, there could be no qualified opinion on the other side of the issue. (To my knowledge, not a single qualified person has expressed concern that the LHC is dangerous.) I am sorry about the obvious catch-22, but one does need to remember that all these experts' lives and families are as much at risk as everyone's, and that must count for something. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * }

LHC
I notice now your efforts to edit Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. I am very sorry that you have picked possibly the most difficult case on Wikipedia to edit, at least as far as I know. To save yourself useless heartburn, I urge you first to look carefully at the links above about reliable sources, neutral point of view, and no original research before continuing. Those cover the relevant "Wikipedia legal theory", and all editors have to live within those policies. Then you might study the archives of the article discussion to see the history and appreciate the practical issues that govern this particular case. Prof Rossler is not a reliable source, partly because his academic achievements are not in the extraordinarily specialized and difficult area in question, and (more importantly) because his arguments have received no support from the larger community of knowledgeable scientists. Your own article is also WP:OR, and impossible without peer review, even if you yourself are a bona fide expert. You are unarguably right that it is "possible" that the LHC will destroy the world (or even the entire Universe, some have suggested), but the core distinction, between "possible" and "probable", is central to sanity. It is "possible" that any particular action could have any imaginable consequences, eg, according to someone's (sincere, passionate...) conviction about offending their image of God, etc. To demand "perfect safety" would require that all scientific research in every field stop forever, and really all imaginable human economic and social activity of any kind.

Not reasonable. One absolutely must make some serious estimate of the cost in risk, and then weigh that cost against a serious estimate of the benefits. Neither of these is easy to do, as we have discussed at length on the talk pages. But the CERN/LHC folks have arguably the deepest understanding on the planet, and they have at least made a serious attempt to put bounds on the hazard. They conclude it is negligible; review their documents carefully. Nothing comparable has been done on the other side concerning the risks. I think the fairest estimate of the benefits to humanity comes from the fact that the (democratic) European scientific and cultural community has seen fit to invest many billions of Euros, and many human lifetimes of high-quality scientific and technical effort, into bringing the LHC to fruition. I could go on, but read the discussion archives to save us both time and effort. I know a lot of spectators are sincerely anxious (including you, I do not doubt), and I wish there were more satisfying ways to reassure them (you), but many months of our experience here has failed to find a better one. (You are likely to find some editors a bit grumpy about defending this territory; please understand that they get tired.) All the best,  Wwheaton (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[From Stefan Hansen, in reply to Wwheaton]  Dear Wwheaton, thank you. I appreciate you are taking your time to give a thorough reply. I reply here, since I don't know were else to so. a) There seems to be many references from Wikipedia to (non-peer reviewed) newspaper articles, so I wonder why peer-review is required here, and not in other places. b) There are plenty of studies questioning the value of peer-review (in some peer-review is accused for nepotism and sexism, in others accused for being swamped in confirmation bias, and the list goes on). c) You wrote: "To demand 'perfect safety' would require that all scientific research in every field stop forever, and really all imaginable human economic and social activity of any kind." This is not true, but here is not the place for an argument. True or not, how can it be justified not to allow critics to voice their views on Wikipedia? My articles are philosophical in nature, not technical, so they cannot be ruled out by referring to my (admittedly) little understanding of the technicalities of the field. I do, however, understand what all science is based on, namely philosophy of science and epistemology. d) When people who understand there is a possibility (and a probability) still consider the experiment to be worth the risk, it's because they (like most) do not understand probability. They might indeed be confusing the terms Law of Averages and Law of Large Numbers, and/or be victims of the Gambler's fallacy, the Narrative Bias, and the Survivor's Bias. I recommend Nassim Taleb's "Black Swan" for a good introduction to many of these terms. In conclusion, I hope you will take what I've touched upon here into consideration, and reevaluate whether or not to include my proposed edits to the page. Thank you for your attention. - All the best, Stefan Hansen


 * Hi Mr Hansen, you are right that enforcement of the rules is spotty, and that is a serious practical and theoretical problem.  Newspaper articles (more so if well-established major papers) are generally considered reliable, as they are at least presumed to be "tertiary sources", reviewed by professional editors, with a stake in maintaining the repute of their establishments.  Generally they report on something that has actually happened, and is typically considered objectively verifiable, and (possibly) notable thereby.  An editorial may get in as an example of the range of opinion on a subject.  Blogs and personal web pages, self-publications, etc are typically given less license.  Matters of opinion in the humanities and social sciences often get fairly ruthless scrutiny, certainly when editors disagree about the point.  Peer review is always fallible, as are all human procedures, but it is an important part of the best method we have come up with.  I observe that edits of scientific and technical articles are frequently passed if other editors think they appear to be correct, on the theory that if they are correct they are "verifiable" in principle, in that a reliable source could be found (if someone had the time to look for it).  But I myself have been guilty of putting things in that I was substantially certain are correct, thinking getting correct material into the encyclopedia is more important than dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's (and if another editor thinks it is wrong, then it will get a good source, or be deleted).  If I am in doubt I raise a query on the article talk page first.  This sloppiness can certainly produce ghastly errors, as one I found here quite recently (this is the worst I've ever seen or heard of).  Realistically, I think the key is whether some other editor thinks the edit is actually wrong, and only then asks if it violates policy.  Anyhow, certain controversial articles are considered "under siege", while most are not.  Those few are strictly guarded. Most of us do not believe in UFOs, Alien abductions, the Apollo hoax theories, etc, but there are dedicated editors on each side, and the existence of the controversy is notable, so they get some kind of coverage.  Intelligent design is another good example, and Scientology, not to mention anything having to do with politics.  Anyway, trying to do an honest job on these is often not easy, and the LHC articles are among the most difficult I have witnessed.  Many people are sheep, and many will follow the perceived leader, that is the real black hole problem.  The philosophical and epistemological issues you raise probably need more thought than I have time (or expertise) to comment on now, but I am actually quite interested and will try.  But I think in any case they should be treatable within the WP framework.  (A while back a legal academic wrote a scholarly article in a law review seriously asserting that no one with any experience in elementary particle physics should be permitted in the courtroom in a case concerning the allowability of the LHC program.  I think it is in the safety article discussion archives from a year or two ago.  I have generally considered it the definitive reductio ad absurdum to the notion that the issue can be settled without reference to physics, but perhaps I am missing something.)  Anyhow, I hope I am able to look into your points more carefully, but no one owns the article, and of course it is not up to me.  In an extreme case it is possible to appeal to the arbitration process, but I have no experience with that level of conflict.
 * On more practical issues, if you want to talk to another editor, you can do it on their talk page, or on your own. At the moment I have set your (User talk:71.192.116.4) talk page on my watch list (the star just to the right of the "View history" tab -- but you have to register to see it), so we can converse here; I will see edits here when I check the "My watchlist" link.  Or if you post to my talk page, I will get a heads-up to answer.  It is usually more convenient to converse on one page rather than back and forth on two, so just answer here and I will probably notice as long as we are talking.  But also, I recommend that you register, giving you a permanent WP identity and persona of your own, in case your IP address should ever change (sometimes they can be shared, depending on your arrangements).  Except for the need to remember your username and password, I know of no downside to this process, and it will give you your own permanent user and talk pages, your own watch list if you like, etc, regardless of any Internet peregrinations. Also, you should sign your posts to talk pages, even your own, with four tildes, giving your ID & date stamp. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just bought a copy of The Black Swan, as I am interested in questions of this kind. It will not get here for a few days, and then have to digest it of course. Thanks for the heads-up. Wwheaton (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes: if you want to get your own ideas into WP, what you have to do is get them published in a recognized reputable place (eg, refereed journal, university publisher or other reputable house,...) and then preferably have it discussed in a "tertiary source", such as a review, criticism in other scholarly papers, etc, indicating some degree of community acceptance. It is also frowned upon to post it yourself (conflict of interest), but if it is really recognized and notable getting it in should not be too much of a problem. I believe it may be formally acceptable to suggest your own refereed publications to other editors on article talk pages, which they might then agree deserve mention in an article. The point of course is that "point-of-view-pushers" are prevented from taking over the encyclopedia. Of course if the same ideas have been published by others in reliable sources, so it is not original, then anyone (ie, you) can put it in (though there may be dispute about notability). Ordinarily gray areas are decided by a consensus of the active editors if there is no clear guidance from the policies (as listed above). Wwheaton (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wwheaton, I'm delighted, and impressed - by your openness and drive to understand. Much appreciated! I'm looking forward to hearing from you when you are done with the Black Swan, and I'll gladly suggest books about the philosophy of science and epistemology later. By the way, I don't think physicist shouldn't be allowed in a courtroom deciding the fate of the LHC. I think their views are important. But philosophers of science and risk managers should be heard also.

"A new scientific theory does not triumph convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" - Max Planck

Unfortunately this quote from Planck might be true in many cases. If that is so, this time around there might be no future generations to grow up with the new theory. And that is - in a nutshell - what I think we cannot justify.

Allow me to ask you a question to illustrate the point I'm trying to make, in a more concrete domain than particle physics, namely poker. Imagine I shuffled a deck of cards and dealt five cards face down on the table, and then told you: "If the five cards _do_not_ show a royal straight flush, you win a million dollars. If they _do_ show a royal straight flush, your most beloved will be killed. The chance of a royal straight flush is just 0.00015 per cent. Would you take the bet?

Take care, Stefan


 * After a little thought, I would almost certainly take your proposed bet. I believe the chance of dying in a traffic accident is roughly 1 in 70,000,000 per mile driven.  So P = 1.5E-6 is about the risk of dying in a 100 mile car trip.  I think almost all of us would take that risk for that payoff.  This is a good example of the kind of comparison I think we need to make in practical situations.  Wwheaton (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the chance of dying in a traffic accident is, but let's go with your figure. To me, it doesn't matter. There is a big difference. I think you should be allowed to take a bet like the one I proposed, if you were gambling your own life (like you are when driving), but not if you were gambling the life of another human being (unless they accepted it, of course). Do you see my point? - And thank you for copying our conversation here. - Stefan HansensMagNET (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course I agree that the other person should be consulted in case of doubt. Yet seriously, I think most wives would urge their husbands to drive 100 miles to snag $1M, don't you?  And would want to drive it themselves if he could not.  One really must value the life of another, all things being equal, roughly as one values one's own, though there are contingencies which can be important, and may affect the result.  For example, if my beloved were 88 years old and in pain from pancreatic cancer, and I were clear about the benefits (and dangers!) the money might bring, that sort of thing would affect the calculation; as also if my beloved were my 2 year old granddaughter.


 * So deep, difficult questions very different than physics come into play and are essential; as are ones about the meaning of meaning. "Costs" must be weighed against "benefits", but the meaning of these words is crucial.  On the issue of birth, death, and Life, I tend to suppose that since everyone is born (a huge gift of life, received up front) and everyone dies (100% certain, inevitable because the gift is finite), then the thing that really matters is to maximize the quality and quantity of life, considering all the lives at stake.  So I would count not lives per se, bur rather a reasonable estimate of expected quantity and quality of life.  This is maybe fairly radical stuff, at variance with much conventional thought, so you may likely not agree, but such is my personal opinion at this point.  (I am often wrong but seldom in doubt...  :)  )


 * Thanks for your kind words earlier; I also am pleased about this conversation. It is rewarding to me, and I think you can make great contributions to Wikipedia.  I do notice that our original, local context, of editing the article and writing a reference article for an encyclopedia, is probably not optimal for deciding the value or future of the LHC project, nor of probing frontiers of science or philosophy.  As my interests are wider than the local context, I am happy to continue our discussion.  Maybe something of value for the article and discussion page about it will yet result?  Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a wife would urge her husband to drive for the million. But that's beside the point. When it comes to the LHC, the people who might die as a consequence of the irresponsible actions of others doesn't have a say in the matter. So, regarding the bet I mentioned, could you morally justify taking the bet, risking the life of someone you didn't know (or someone you loved, but didn't have any knowledge about their consent)? I couldn't. And when it comes to the LHC, it gets more serious: because if the worst happens, we all die. If you compare it with poker, gambling all of humanity equals gambling your entire bankroll on one hand. No (good) poker player would do so. Every (good) poker player knows he his playing a game of chance, so he only brings a fraction of his entire bankroll to the table in each session. What I suggest is that we do the same. Let's gamble, by all means! Let's gamble (do research), in the hope of learning something new and/or improving our lives - but let us not gamble (do research) with our entire bankroll at one table (CERN's LHC). It's too big to fail.

Lastly, another question: do you think it's 100 per cent certain the LHC will not lead to an end-all scenario? Oh, and did you know there are some who argue that intelligent life (like humans, I guess) tend to annihilate themselves?

You wrote "I am often wrong but seldom in doubt," I'm the opposite: "often in doubt but seldom wrong." :) - and I enjoy this conversation as well. HansensMagNET (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've made a profile. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HansensMagNET. HansensMagNET (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just jump in for a couple, I normally don't do commentary on Wikipedia about the LHC and stick to the guidelines etc, but as this is a talk page and it's a well meaning conversation, I'll throw my tuppence in, well not a tuppence, a bloody long post :) What I take exception to is the language used such as "irresponsible actions", or equating the people who run the LHC as evil physicists who will destroy themselves, their families or the world in the name of science. This just isn't the case, it might have been the propaganda generated during the cold war for the enemy, or what we have become accustomed to with the James Bond archetypal megalomaniac villain, but this is the real world. Those who run the LHC are the ones who know their science and what they do, and have put their science out for the whole world to analyse and comment upon. Should the world base their actions on those who know high energy physics or those of a biochemist, an astrophysicist, a sci fi writer, and a botanical radiation officer. "They're intelligent people, some of them are scientists" I hear you cry, of course they are, and Herr Rossler is far smarter than I ever will be, but not in high energy physics compared to Ellis, Mangano etc. Look at it this way would you be happy getting on a plane, when the pilot was the technician who made it. Sure he knows alot about planes i.e. science, but he doesn't know how to fly the thing.
 * What I would say is more irresponsible, is the scaremongering that ensued the start up of the LHC which resulted in a kid in India killing herself. Why I ask, are CERN obligated to produce their science for all to peruse when those who wish to discredit or criticise it aren't obligated to follow the same methodological approach and stick a wet finger in the air and say with certainty that their beliefs are correct. Why hasn't Otto Rossler or Wagner had their opinions published? CERN did, surely if we are going to affect the livelihood of ten's of thousands, we should at least have some basis or analysis of their ideas?
 * Now the risk factor I think is the only open question, what are the risks and are they low enough, CERN have published and produced credible arguments, no-one else has though I understand the concerns. So until someone shows me otherwise I think I'll follow this analysis of the situation;

“Look,” Mangano said, leaning forward in his chair at CERN’s sprawling complex, “what if I told you tomorrow when you shave you will blow up the world? You laugh. You say that can’t happen. But how do you know? “The only thing we know is that there have been about a million billion shaves since people started shaving and the world is still here,” he said. “So all we can say is the probability of you blowing up the world when you shave tomorrow is less than one in 1015.”
 * Cheers Khu  kri  11:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Khukri, thank you for your participation. You wrote: "What I take exception to is the language used such as 'irresponsible actions', or equating the people who run the LHC as evil physicists who will destroy themselves, their families or the world in the name of science. This just isn't the case." - and I both agree and disagree. I certainly don't think the people running the LHC are evil. Still, they are (maybe unknowingly) irresponsible. If an adult allows a kid to stick a metal pin into a power outlet he is irresponsible, no matter whether he knew it was dangerous, or didn't know. Not knowing isn't a legitimate excuse. As a responsible being, he should have done his homework, to know whether it would be safe or not. I'm sure you agree with this, and I think I can guess what your reply will be, namely: "But the physicists at CERN have done their homework, they do know that the LHC isn't jeopardizing humanity."
 * Unfortunately, this isn't true. And not because Otto Rössler is a genius, and much smarter than the physicists at CERN. My argument isn't founded on authority - neither that of Otto Rössler nor the physicist at CERN. If you read papers about the safety of CERN (or other particle accelerators) you will come across the same conclusion again and again (a conclusion that differs from how CERN presents the safety to the public), and that is this: a potential end-all scenario cannot be ruled out. Most conclude that the probability is low (they even use words as negligible). So, your are right: the scientist are not evil, but they do agree there is a (slight) change a catastrophe can happen. This is not up for debate, it's how it is.
 * The problem then is: while being experts in particle physics (and I've no doubt they are), they are not experts of probability and/or risk. They mistakingly see a low probability as meaning it will not happen. This of course is a mistake, a mistake the majority of people make (as plenty of research in the field of psychology shows). Again, I do not say they are evil, I say they are irresponsible, since they are - in effect - gambling with the lives of others. With the lives of people who haven't voluntarily made a choice to play this game. And now you might say: "but that's the case for all science, all scientific research have some element of uncertainty, and we shouldn't stop all scientific research." And I agree, we shouldn't. And we do not need to, since in most research, we are not playing with our entire bankroll at one table. If something unlikely, but unfortunate, happens (maybe the lab blows up, killing 10,000 people), we still have most of our bankroll (humanity) left, and we can continue our scientific endeavors. If we gamble it all, and lose, we are stopped in our track, and there will be no more scientific progress.
 * The story about shaving and blowing up the world is rhetoric and a non-argument. The scientists do recognize a black hole can be created in the LHC, they do not recognize a black hole (or any other potential end-all scenario) could occur while shaving.
 * In conclusion: I agree with you, let's listen to the physicists when it comes to physics. In the same manner, let's listen to experts of probability and risk when it comes to that. Or in your own words: let the physicists be the pilots and fly the plane - and let the risk experts be the flight controllers, since they are the ones with the big picture, and the only ones who can see what happens if the plane isn't ordered to the ground, before it collides with the other plane in the fog.
 * Finally, allow me to tell you this: I've never before in my life been an "alarmist", I'm an advocate of science, I oppose pseudo-science, and I'm a hardcore skeptic. I do not take anything for granted, I only accept a position after long and careful analysis. I have few opinions, I'm brimmed with doubt about most things. But when I - reluctantly - take a stand, you can sure my position have been under severe scrutiny first. Once again, thank you for your participation. HansensMagNET (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to hear from both of you. With a little luck we might all learn something. ;) HansensMagNET (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Stefan, I'm almost done with "Black Swan", but am too tied up with other stuff to write much here.  Taleb is absolutely on target in many areas (and a very entertaining read -- thanks for turning me on to him), but I still think your concerns about the LHC are misguided, because there is really no (as far as I can make out) connection between the apocalyptic imaginings of the critics and the underlying physical situation.  Of course (as I have said many times) because we can never know everything there is always the possibility whenever we visit a new domain that we have never entered before, we will step upon some cosmic land-mine, and it is appropriate to be as cautious as we can reasonably be in such situations.  But since we can never achieve absolute certainty about anything, I think we really cannot let these imaginings paralyze us.  And seriously, it is important to weigh the actual inevitable human costs--many thousands of human life-years of devoted effort wasted, a whole field of science closed off, not to mention billions of euros expended--against the (? <1.E-8 ?!) likelihood of disaster.  (And those real human costs are not "beside the point".)
 * But I think good critics are very useful in that article, and in short supply. (IMHO Oldnoah (talk) is the best I've seen -- you might like to talk with him.)  We need you to keep us honest, so I encourage you to stay involved, even though I realize it must be pretty frustrating at times.  Best,  Bill Wwheaton (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill, good to hear from you. I'll be brief. I entertain no apocalyptic imagining. Saying we need to weight the years of devoted effort and billions of euros I find wicked. If we spend years and billions of euros building a bridge we should insist passing it, even if we later realize it wasn't build strong enough to carry us? Just because we build it in the first place? That makes no sense. Anyway, this is not the place for this. I'm now writing a philosophical paper. With a little luck it will be published timely - and then I guess a reference to it from Wikipedia would be accepted. - Take care, Stefan (HansensMagNET (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Yes, but you gotta show that the bridge is reasonably likely to be unsafe. That is my main point.  More precisely, at any given moment in time I think we must weight the expectation of the future costs against the expectation of the future benefits.  Send me a copy of your paper (e-mail address bill@wwheaton.com) when it comes out.  Cheers,  Wwheaton (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Copied old talk page
Great Stefan, welcome to the club. I have taken the liberty of copying our conversation from your older IP address to here; you can delete or archive any of it if you want, but now it will be yours as long as you like. Now whenever I post here you will see a message when you log on. More soon.

Bill Wwheaton (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ditto Khu  kri  10:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Stefan, I am pleased to recommend Khu  kri  as a friend and generally a good egg.  He has been a staunch defender of the LHC, who like me thinks it worth the risk.  He is also a Wikipedia Administrator, which means he has certain powers that we do not possess (but he is forbidden to use them in any dispute to which he is a party), so he is more expert on what I like to call "WikiLaw" than most of us normal mortals.  -- Bill Wwheaton (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)