WASHINGTON – A new Senate is bill aimed at reining in what the railroad industry considers “command and control” regulation by the Federal Railroad Administration. The Railroad Advancement of Innovation and Leadership with Safety ...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/07/14-senate-bill-would-require-fra-to-base-rules-on-sound-science
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
This is great! Among the first things I expect to see changed is the ridiculous idea that shifts can be randomly scheduled without regard or respect to natural or establishable circadian rhythms ... oh, wait, that's not an FRA rulemaking ...
Now if Congress only knew what 'sound science' is. Present rhetoric seems to indicate they have no grasp of scientific priniples and their applications that are in any way connected to humans.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sound science as defined and interpreted by Bernie Sanders supporters is totally different than sound science defined and interpreted by Trump supporters. Given the exact same data and critieria they will come up with 2 completely different conclusions based on sound science.
This is more politics than ever.
Looking at the plus side - this might help prevent "knee jerk" reactions such as we've seen with PTC and ECP brakes. Perhaps instead of a "zomygod, we have to do something," an issue will be studied to find out what the appropriate reaction should be.
That's not to say that there won't be political grandstanding, but instead of implementing a rule willy-nilly, they'll have to think about it.
Or not.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
MiningmanSound science as defined and interpreted by Bernie Sanders supporters is totally different than sound science defined and interpreted by Trump supporters. Given the exact same data and critieria they will come up with 2 completely different conclusions based on sound science.
I expected better than unbridled cynicism from a practicing teacher and mining scientist.
First, there is a clear and fairly definable difference between 'sound science' and 'unsound science' -- the latter being, perhaps, exemplified by Sarah Feinberg's use of the wrong physics to attempt to mandate ECP on all interchange equipment for 'safety'. But more importantly, there is a difference between 'sound science' and political expediency, which has arguably been a factor in FRA rulemaking in the past, and I think is the thing that the Senate bill is aimed at supplanting.
Well I certainly hope that is the case.
You see, I came from the Mining Industry after 40 years as a geologist both underground and in the field, all in the private sector. Took this position teaching late in life, so unlike everyone I work with I am not a "professional" teacher such as graduated from a teaching college. Now I do work with fellow scientists and some brilliant people, but, (here comes the but), what they consider sound science can be highly politicized and data is skewed to a certain bias. In the private sector the company had to earn it's money and there is a hard reality to things and a great sense of accomplishment. A Mining Inspector, a government official, was someone to be looked up to and respected, the science used was never in doubt, but today it can be some appointee who uses science as an agenda for some other goal. This is especially true when it comes to issues in hydrology, limnology and environmental issues. When their computer model tells them one thing but knowing the minerology and geological forces tells me something else it seems some kind of reality starts to get warped.
Even scientific method has come under fire and been criticized and dismissed with identity politics and hidden agendas. Voodoo stuff I tell ya.
Perhaps this does not translate well into railroading. 2+2=4 and will likely always be or at least until the Large Hadron Collider tells us otherwise.
Of course, I still trust science wholeheartedly and will always show repect for any fellow member. I do, however, see a degrading professionalism, whether its about money or spin I don't know.
Perhaps I am confusing the entire issue with other things.
What do I know. One of my fellow associates blurted out a meeting that when I went to school back in my time the Neutron was not discovered yet. Nonsense.
What a QUARK idea.
Well lets hope the sprit of any enacted policy holds true to science as stated.
I should know better than to venture into politics. Minefield!
As a Canadian it's all moot anyway.
Next election write in Wanswheel for Prez! Thats the only advice I can give. Wanswheel/RME ticket...or the other way around. Good either way.
Did someone actually use "sound science" and "senate" in the same sentence?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
It is ironic to suggest replacing top-down, command and control dogma with “sound science.” In these times more than ever, the former is using the latter as its ultimate authority. So we end up with authoritarians scolding us for questioning science as though we were questioning a religious doctrine. We are told that it has to be true if there is a consensus of scientists. The term sound science itself is a buzzword for this emerging totalitarian corruption of science.
I don't have any problem recognizing sound science. If it agrees with my preconception, it's sound science.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Well the current HOS regulations were written with someone's idea of sound science. A one size fits all clock that can't be stopped regardless of circumstances doesn't allow for hunger bathroom breaks or even stopping to stretch your legs. Also when your out of hours 34 hours later you get a fresh 70 to play with. So even if your tired your bosses can force you to work 28 more hours in 2 more days. The old ones had a maximum of 70 in 8 days so how is 98 in 8 days safer than the older ones.
Euclid's post brought some history to mind. We have witnessed times in the recent past when science is belittled or dismissed or ignored or seen as just another opinion. Two disastrous examples come to mind. 1. Mao's campaigns against experts from 1949-1976, but espcially during the so-called Cultural Revolution was marked by famines in agriculture because of "Red science" as opposed to actual science. 2. Stalin's reliance on the ludicrous theories of Lysenko also led to famine and the execution of over 3,000 real biologists.
Problems seem to occur when people with inadequate training in the sciences demean the expert findings of scientists.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidIt is ironic to suggest replacing top-down, command and control dogma with “sound science.” In these times more than ever, the former is using the latter as its ultimate authority. So we end up with authoritarians scolding us for questioning science as though we were questioning a religious doctrine. We are told that it has to be true if there is a consensus of scientists. The term sound science itself is a buzzword for this emerging totalitarian corruption of science.
Mister,
For once you and I are in complete agreement. If science were truly settled, [it isn't or scientists would stop researching] we would likely still be throwing spears at Mammoths. Taking the word of those in power, and they who have an agenda, and likely money to be made by pursuing that agenda is simply revealing the ignorance of the vast majority of the population. Given enough government grants can easily persuade scientists to corrupt data. It keep them fed, clothed, housed, etc.
Norm
Miningman Wanswheel/RME ticket...or the other way around.
Wanswheel/RME ticket...or the other way around.
Canada would have to build a wall to keep Schlimm out.
wanswheel Miningman Wanswheel/RME ticket...or the other way around. Canada would have to build a wall to keep Schlimm out.
I believe I have more Canadian roots, relatives and friends than you, Mr. Snark.
Anyone who is a C&NW fan cannot be all that bad.
However...Make Schlimm your press secretary and have Euclid and CMSt.P&P the first 2 questioning reporters. That exchange will never end, you can walk away and not worry about it anymore.
schlimmProblems seem to occur when people with inadequate training in the sciences demean the expert findings of scientists.
But there are also demonstrable cases where scientists demean the expert findings of better scientists -- the history of phlogiston giving some excellent examples. A senior professor (now emeritus) at U of M here had his early career blighted by researching and advocating chemical modulators of nerve transmission when the contemporary biological community (mid-'30s) "knew" nerve transmission was electrical. There are many other examples in the history of science, not including controversial science that was incompletely modeled (like the Fish carburetor or Brown's gas explanation, or Coley's toxins), the malignant influence of successful scientists on innovation (I'm thinking particularly of you, Ernest Orlando Lawrence) and self-propagating things like N-rays.
then there is the whole sad history of academic 'publish-or-perish' science itself, with the exciting recent overlay of that beloved character Grant Swing to put teeth in the expedience. I'm tempted to note that the whole value behind double-blind methodology fails when there is some ax to be ground with the study results, and while it's always attractive to 'follow the money' in privately-funded studies it is also important to follow the equivalent for politically or academically motivated ones.
I have also noticed an increasing knee-jerk response that automatically defends the work product of 'scientists' because their work is peer-reviewed or published in impressively-titled journals. That's little better than an appeal to authority. Science ought to stand or fall on the work, not the characteristics (or politics) of its author or the author's affiliation or reviewers or critics.
Knock knock.
Who’s there?
Butcher, Jimmy and Joe.
Butcher, Jimmy and Joe who?
Butcher little arms around me and Jimmy a kiss or I’ll Joe home.
Sadly, it's all too true. Nevertheless, I prefer science input where relevant over the opinions of political or religious ideologues.
Peer review is not the most important safeguard; it's replication. Remember U of Utah and fusion?
Ever get to Hill Auditorium lately?
schlimmPeer review is not the most important safeguard; it's replication. Remember U of Utah and fusion?
All too well!
Your point about replication is dramatically right (it applies in spades to technology as well; note the inherent requirement of first implementability and then realization of replication in legitimate patent claims) and in my memory (and opinion) it is one of the more important parts of methodology -- the M&M discussion not being solely there as fact checking. Where the difficulty starts to come in is when you have science like AGW climate science, where so much of the applicability depends on factors of modeling and weighting, often with multiple nondeterministic factors, and by the time you observe 'replication' from confirmed data you're past the point where discussing a wide range of alternative models will still be necessary (or appropriate).
It gets worse for things like the standard model of cosmology, which is now cobbled up worse than Athanasian Christianity with counterintuitive assumptions and ad hoc rationalizations that become institutionally dogmatized.
I am still, in a sense, recovering from the 'renormalization' of the accepted value of the speed of sound in air that came about several decades ago. That so many people, for so long, were replicating data and experiments and not realizing this made me far less confident that seeing a result meant the science purporting to have produced it was right...
RMEI am still, in a sense, recovering from the 'renormalization' of the accepted value of the speed of sound in air that came about several decades ago.
I'm even more in the dark. My physicist daughter's work in nanomaterials (structures with quasi-one-dimensionality) is beyond me except for the illustrations.
schlimmEver get to Hill Auditorium lately?
I assume you mean Lister Hill Auditorium in Bethesda (which I'd be in at least once a week, maybe more, if I lived anywhere near Washington!) Hill Auditorium is a feature in Ann Arbor, and I'd like to hear Dave's discussion of its design and acoustics (which were very special in 1913, and still are) but I don't know of interesting lecture series given there...
Settled sound scientist
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME02/Reginald_Aubrey_Fessenden.shtml
https://www.ieee.ca/millennium/radio/radio_unsung.html
https://archive.org/stream/fessendenbuilder00fessrich#page/52/mode/2up
Oh, that's a good pun!
A substantial number of us in the radio community quietly celebrated to 100th anniversary of broadcast radio at Christmastime 2006, which is when Fessenden successfully demonstrated it (both for voice and music) at the time that awful little Willy was actively involved with screwing up radio for all those years (he didn't do 'radio' as we know it, no matter what he named it, it was "wireless" and it was functionally almost worthless... )
Of course, if you want to remember Fessenden correctly, you also have to remember Alexanderson, who invented the machine that made music broadcasting practical.
RME This is great! Among the first things I expect to see changed is the ridiculous idea that shifts can be randomly scheduled without regard or respect to natural or establishable circadian rhythms ... oh, wait, that's not an FRA rulemaking ...
But, this is an example of how this might cut both ways. The RRs would no longer to able just bully their way to rules they like. They'd have to have evidence that it's the safe thing.
(and CSX just took away napping...dumb.)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd RME This is great! Among the first things I expect to see changed is the ridiculous idea that shifts can be randomly scheduled without regard or respect to natural or establishable circadian rhythms ... oh, wait, that's not an FRA rulemaking ... But, this is an example of how this might cut both ways. The RRs would no longer to able just bully their way to rules they like. They'd have to have evidence that it's the safe thing. (and CSX just took away napping...dumb.)
I am wondering why employees can have oxygen tanks while on company property and working.
I recall the early days of an RSAC working group I was on. RSAC was supposed to be about "fact based" rule making. There was solid data that part of an FRA rule under consideration was ineffective and the railroad contingent hoped that these facts would relsult in the relaxation of part of the rule(there were many other issues to be addressed). A FRA representative had a meeting with the railroad contingent where he stated that the only fact that was relative to the discussion was that the rule was going to get tighter. I guess that was a fact!
RMElowing post 5 hours ago: schlimm Ever get to Hill Auditorium lately? I assume you mean Lister Hill Auditorium in Bethesda (which I'd be in at least once a week, maybe more, if I lived anywhere near Washington!) Hill Auditorium is a feature in Ann Arbor, and I'd like to hear Dave's discussion of its design and acoustics (which were very special in 1913, and still are) but I don't know of interesting lecture series given there...
I was referring to Ann Arbor, as you mentioned UM and that means Meechigan in the Midwest. But I suppose you could mean University of Maryland, Minnesota, Montana or Maine. It wouldn't be lectures but concerts that I attended at Hill.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.