6/16/2023 0 Comments Wordpress drawit linksYou will know the fish is cooked when the eye goes opaque.Bring to the boil, then reduce to a simmer.Squeeze out the juice of the orange into the pan, and add the halves to the pan as well.Put the trout in a shallow pan with the wine and half the butter, and add enough water to cover the fish.Stuff the cavity of the trout with the cloves, mace, pepper and herbs.It also some whole cloves, large mace, sliced ginger, a bay-leaf or two, a bundle of sweet herbs well and hard bound up, some whole pepper, salt, some butter, and vinegar, and an orange in halves stew all together, and being well stewed, dish them in a clean scoured dish with carved sippets, lay on the spices and sliced lemon, and run it over with beaten butter, and some of the gravy it was stewed in garnish the dish with some fine grated manchet or grated ginger. It also some whole cloves, large mace, slic’t ginger, a bay-leaf or two, a bundle of sweet herbs well and hard bound up, some whole pepper, salt, some butter, and vinegar, and an orange in halves stew all together, and being well stewed, dish them in a clean scowred dish with carved sippets, lay on the spices and slic’t lemon, and run it over with beaten butter, and some of the gravy it was stewed in garnish the dish with some fine searsed manchet or searsed ginger. Take a salmon, draw it, scotch the back, and boil it whole in a stew-pan with white-wine, (or in pieces) put to A lot of what Meg, Brian, and I write about is our own hopefully-good judgments about all sorts of stuff.To stew a small Salmon, Salmon Peal, or Trout. I agree with Gelman that good judgment is a very underrated trait in science. HT Andrew Gelman, who has some good comments on Turing’s reasonableness and good judgment. I say “new” because it was written during WW II but only recently declassified. This incident is all over the intertubes, so you won’t have to look far to find further commentary and speculation of varying levels of sensibleness.)Īlan Turing has a “new” preprint up on arXiv, concerning the application of probabilistic reasoning to cryptography. The demonstration that it is indeed fake is here. (Aside: further details about the fakery incident that prompted Andrew Gelman’s comments here, here and here. That the top general science journals publish some flawed papers, or that they (may) publish a greater fraction of flawed papers than more specialized journals (as is sometimes claimed even though it’s not demonstrated by the evidence everyone likes to cite), does not justify dismissing everything they publish out of hand. At least in the fields in which I have expertise, Nature, Science, and PNAS mostly publish good work that doesn’t ring any alarm bells. Namely that one should have blanket skepticism about anything published in the highest-impact journals (Nature, Science, PNAS). I’ll also add that I disagree with a lesson Andrew seems to draw (not sure if he intends to draw it, though others have). ![]() Never forget: everything is obvious once you know the answer. Which is unfair, and which provides a second illustration of Andrew Gelman’s point. And I’d add that, now that the data have been revealed to be fake, a lot of people are saying that someone should’ve recognized the fraud even before it was published. Even fake data that were designed to be surprising. ![]() Because it’s very easy to come up with a plausible-seeming post-hoc explanation for anything. But as Andrew Gelman reminds us, on its own that is a highly unreliable procedure. ![]() ![]() And often, it’s possible to come up with a post-hoc explanation that makes the result seem unsurprising (or at least less surprising) in retrospect. It’s a much bigger effect than you were expecting, or in the opposite direction to what standard theory would predict, or whatever. Often in science, you’ll get a surprising result. The ESA now has a formal code of conduct for their annual meeting. I’m hoping to go in the opposite direction… If you’re not reading it–well, why the heck not? Interesting to hear that Stephen got into blogging through writing a book. His Scientist Sees Squirrel is the best new ecology/science blog in a long while. Stephen Heard on how he got into blogging. Also this week: evidence that hindsight is indeed 20-20!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |