Popper’s final position is that he acknowledges that it is impossibleto discriminate science from non-science on the basis of thefalsifiability of the scientific statements alone; herecognizes that scientific theories are predictive, and consequentlyprohibitive, only when taken in conjunction with auxiliaryhypotheses, and he also recognizes that readjustment or modificationof the latter is an integral part of scientific practice. Hence hisfinal concern is to outline conditions which indicate when suchmodification is genuinely scientific, and when it is merely adhoc. This is itself clearly a major alteration in his position,and arguably represents a substantial retraction on his part: Marxismcan no longer be dismissed as ‘unscientific’ simplybecause its advocates preserved the theory from falsification bymodifying it (for in general terms, such a procedure, it nowtranspires, is perfectly respectable scientific practice). It is nowcondemned as unscientific by Popper because the onlyrationale for the modifications which were made to theoriginal theory was to ensure that it evaded falsification, and sosuch modifications were ad hoc, rather than scientific. Thiscontention—though not at all implausible—has, to hostileeyes, a somewhat contrived air about it, and is unlikely to worry theconvinced Marxist. On the other hand, the shift in Popper’s own basicposition is taken by some critics as an indicator thatfalsificationism, for all its apparent merits, fares no better in thefinal analysis than verificationism.
Popper’s critique of both historicism and holism is balanced, on thepositive side, by his affirmation of the ideals of individualism andmarket economics and his strong defence of the open society—theview, again, that a society is equivalent to the sum of its members,that the actions of the members of society serve to fashion and toshape it, and that the social consequences of intentional actions arevery often, and very largely, unintentional. This part of his socialphilosophy was influenced by the economist Friedrich Hayek, who workedwith him at the London School of Economics and who was a life-longfriend. Popper advocated what he (rather unfortunately) terms‘piecemeal social engineering’ as the central mechanismfor social planning—for in utilising this mechanism intentionalactions are directed to the achievement of one specific goal at atime, which makes it possible to monitor the situation to determinewhether adverse unintended effects of intentional actions occur, inorder to correct and readjust when this proves necessary. This, ofcourse, parallels precisely the critical testing of theories inscientific investigation. This approach to social planning (which isexplicitly based upon the premise that we do not, because we cannot,know what the future will be like) encourages attempts to put rightwhat is problematic in society—generally-acknowledged socialills—rather than attempts to impose some preconceived idea ofthe ‘good’ upon society as a whole. For this reason, in agenuinely open society piecemeal social engineering goes hand-in-handfor Popper with negative utilitarianism (the attempt tominimise the amount of misery, rather than, as with positiveutilitarianism, the attempt to maximise the amount of happiness). Thestate, he holds, should concern itself with the task of progressivelyformulating and implementing policies designed to deal with the socialproblems which actually confront it, with the goal of eliminatinghuman misery and suffering to the highest possible degree. Thepositive task of increasing social and personal happiness, bycontrast, can and should be left to individual citizens (whomay, of course, act collectively to this end), who, unlike the state,have at least a chance of achieving this goal, but who in a freesociety are rarely in a position to systematically subvert the rightsof others in the pursuit of idealised objectives. Thus in the finalanalysis for Popper the activity of problem-solving is as definitiveof our humanity at the level of social and political organisation asit is at the level of science, and it is this key insight whichunifies and integrates the broad spectrum of his thought.
Thus, basic research incrystallography led, twenty years later, to the discoveryof the optimum material for nucleating ice in clouds,a finding of immense practical importance for weather modification.
Yet so complex are the phenomena one encounters in attempting rational modification of precipitation, that even after a decade of investigations at these unprecedented levels of support, meteorologists still face many very fundamental questions not yet answered.
There are thousands of alterations to that human-basic inheritance - blister-free callusing and a clot-filter protecting the brain are two of the less important ones mentioned in the stories - but the major changes the standard Culture person would expect to be born with would include an optimized immune system and enhanced senses, freedom from inheritable diseases or defects, the ability to control their autonomic processes and nervous system (pain can, in effect, be switched off), and to survive and fully recover from wounds which would either kill or permanently mutilate without such genetic tinkering.
On one count, elephants fail the tool test, for they do not make artifacts they then reuse (and obviously have not developed the kind of technology that has completely unleveled the odds in our efforts to hunt or trap or train them or encroach upon their habitat). However, between them and their environment, such as sticks to scratch between their toes and remove bugs from other areas, or twisted clumps of grass like Q-tips to clean inside their ears or whisks to swat at flies. As J. H. Williams recounts in (1950), work elephants in Asia collared with bells have been known to plug up the bells with mud so that they can go and steal bananas in the middle of the night unnoticed — a purposeful modification of someone else’s tool. Elephants dig holes for water, cover them with plugs of bark and grass, and return later to their secret stash. Elephants learn by trial and error what sorts of materials do and do not shock them in their efforts to break through electric fences — and in at least one recorded instance (described in Lawrence Anthony’s ), followed the buzzing of the fence all the way around to its origin, the generator, which, having been stomped to smithereens, allowed them to untwine the fence and go their merry way.
This essay is a companion to my earlier essay,,which concentrates on a discussion and analysis of court cases in the USAinvolving weather modification, and contains a detailed review oftort law in the USA that applies to weather modification.
Clouds are classified according to their heights and appearances. At the end of the nineteenth century the International Cloud Atlas was published, listing ten types of cloud. The mountainous cumulonimbus (with their distinctive 'anvil' shape), are the most billowy and tallest and were listed as 'Cloud Nine', which may be the origin of the term ‘on cloud nine'. Cumulonimbus capillatus clouds are by far the tallest structures on Earth, forming as low as 150 metres but reaching altitudes of 23,000 metres.
The International Cloud Atlas was based on the work of a Quaker and pharmacist called Luke Howard (1772-1864). Howard had created his cloud classification system in 1803, in a work called the 'Essay on the Modification of Clouds'. He named four main cloud types: cirrus ('curl'), stratus ('layer'), cumulus ('heap'), and nimbus ('rain cloud'). He also came up with a series of intermediate and compound modifications, such as cirrostratus and stratocumulus, in order to describe the transitions between the forms.
The French scientist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) had come up with his own cloud system the year before Howard, but almost nobody paid any attention. Lamarck came up with his system while ill in bed, looking at the clouds which floated past his window. They included en voile (hazy), attroupés(massed), pommlés (dappled), en balayures (brooms), and groupés (grouped).
Before Howard and Lamarck, clouds were simply named after their appearance: white, black, mare's tail or mackerel. When Howard’s were published, Goethe dedicated four poems to him and praised him for 'bestowing form on the formless and a system of ordered change on a boundless world.'
Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophersof science of the 20th century. He was also a social and politicalphilosopher of considerable stature, a self-professedcritical-rationalist, a dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism,conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairsgenerally and a committed advocate and staunch defender of the‘Open Society’. One of the many remarkable features ofPopper’s thought is the scope of his intellectual influence: hewas lauded by Bertrand Russell, taught Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabendand the future billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros atthe London School of Economics, numbered David Miller, Joseph Agassi,Alan Musgrave and Jeremy Shearmur amongst his research assistantsthere and had reciprocally beneficial friendships with the economistFriedrich Hayek and the art historian Ernst Gombrich. Additionally,Peter Medawar, John Eccles and Hermann Bondi are amongst thedistinguished scientists who have acknowledged their intellectualindebtedness to his work, the latter declaring that “There is nomore to science than its method, and there is no more to its methodthan Popper has said.”
Clouds are subject to certain distinct modifications, produced by the general causes which affect all the variations of the atmosphere; they are commonly as good visible indicators of the operation of these causes, as is the countenance of the state of a person's mind or body.
Any questions that pop into your mind arise from issues that are relevant to your topic, and issues are the breeding ground for theses. For example, suppose you’re doing a psych paper on parental influence — specifically, how parental discipline affects children’s behavior. You’ve read a ton of studies that attempt to describe the relationship between parents’ actions and children’s reactions. As you review your notes, you may find yourself wondering: