Search

This documentary short film, Made By Land, snapshots the culture and community of three canoe builders, using a variety of documentary forms in order to show their techniques, methodologies, and their engagement with a variety of communities. The focus always remains on their manual labor, but broadens to include larger social, historical, and political issues including environmentalism, the canoe as a tool of colonialism, and the debts one generation owes to another. Challenges during production included filming on location without a crew, maneuvering through the COVID pandemic, and rigorous editing to achieve a tight focus, with no voice-over narration. Instead of a classic “quest” dramatic story, the audience engagement is realised through the sequencing of the different scenes.

The study examined temporal and geographic trends in telehealth availability at U.S. behavioral health treatment facilities and risk factors for not offering telehealth.Longitudinal data on 15,691 outpatient behavioral health treatment facilities were extracted daily from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator between January 20, 2020, and January 20, 2021. Facilities operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs were excluded. Bivariate analyses were used to assess trends in telehealth availability in 2020 and 2021. Multivariable regression analysis was used to examine facility- and county-level characteristics associated with telehealth availability in 2021.Telehealth availability increased by 77% from 2020 to 2021 for mental health treatment facilities and by 143% for substance use disorder treatment facilities. By January 2021, 68% of outpatient mental health facilities and 57% of substance use disorder treatment facilities in the sample were offering telehealth. Mental health and substance use disorder treatment facilities that did not accept Medicaid as a form of payment were less likely to offer telehealth in 2021, compared with facilities that accepted Medicaid. Mental health and substance use disorder treatment facilities that accepted private insurance were more likely to offer telehealth in 2021, compared with facilities that did not accept private insurance.Although 2020 saw a dramatic increase in telehealth availability at behavioral health treatment facilities, 32% of mental health treatment facilities and 43% of substance use disorder treatment facilities did not offer telehealth in January 2021, nearly 1 year into the pandemic.

ImportanceThe drug overdose crisis is a continuing public health problem and is expected to grow substantially in older adults. Understanding the geographic accessibility to a substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facility that accepts Medicare can inform efforts to address this crisis in older adults.ObjectiveTo assess whether geographic accessibility of services was limited for older adults despite the increasing need for SUD and opioid use disorder treatments in this population.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis longitudinal cross-sectional study obtained data on all licensed SUD treatment facilities for all US counties and Census tracts listed in the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs from 2010 to 2021.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMeasures included the national proportion of treatment facilities accepting Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or cash as a form of payment; the proportion of counties with a treatment facility accepting each form of payment; and the proportion of the national population with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or cash payment residing within a 15-, 30-, or 60-minute driving time from an SUD treatment facility accepting their form of payment in 2021.ResultsA total of 11 709 SUD treatment facilities operated across the US per year between 2010 and 2021 (140 507 facility-year observations). Cash was the most commonly accepted form of payment (increasing slightly from 91.0% in 2010 to 91.6% by 2021), followed by private insurance (increasing from 63.5% to 75.3%), Medicaid (increasing from 54.0% to 71.8%), and Medicare (increasing from 32.1% to 41.9%). The proportion of counties with a treatment facility that accepted Medicare as a form of payment also increased over the same study period from 41.2% to 53.8%, whereas the proportion of counties with a facility that accepted Medicaid as a form of payment increased from 53.5% to 67.1%. The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with a treatment facility that accepted Medicare as a form of payment within a 15-minute driving time increased from 53.3% to 57.0%. The proportion of individuals with a treatment facility within a 15-minute driving time that accepted their respective form of payment was 73.2% for those with Medicaid, 69.8% for those with private insurance, and 71.4% for those with cash payment in 2021.Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this study suggest that Medicare beneficiaries have less geographic accessibility to SUD treatment facilities given that acceptance of Medicare is low compared with other forms of payment. Policy makers need to consider increasing reimbursement rates and using additional incentives to encourage the acceptance of Medicare.

In this report—part of a series on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic—the researchers quantify the potential vectors of transmission to countries in the U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility.

In this report—part of a series on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic—the researchers estimate when COVID-19 transmission via commercial air travel began to rapidly accelerate throughout the world.

“In opposition to common sense I dare to imagine some movement of the Earth; … since mathematicians have not (yet) agreed with each other, I was moved to think out a different scheme …; by supposing the Earth to move, demonstrations more secure than those of my predecessors (could) be found for the revolutions of the… spheres… all (celestial) phenomena follow from this (supposition).” Nicholas Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, Preface and Dedication to Pope Paul III.1

There, too often, the matter is left, B feeling that A is profoundly unclear about what he is asking for, and A reckoning that B’s refusal to have his difficulty indicates only a lack of depth and a narrowness of technique. A’s position is quite shocking, despite the fact that many discussions (both inside and outside philosophy) often come perilously close to it. Because if you and I can never know whether we are having the same experience in those situations where we both confront, e.g. a stoplight, and respond by saying “Red,” then we can certainly never know whether we are having the same experience when we are looking at triangles, or chairs, or tables, or other people, or any of the other philosophical furniture of the external world. To have the doubt which A expresses just is to entertain the most radical kind of solipsism, although many seem to have had the former without explicitly entertaining the latter. It is hardly satisfactory to point out here, as some recent philosophers, like B above, seem to have thought it sufficient to do, that the question is not a soluble one. This is precisely what A is claiming. Discussions often conclude therefore in agreeing that the difficulty is insoluble and then proceed to construct theories as to how it is that A and B ever manage to agree upon so much in the world, despite their disagreements about “basic” visual experience. Here words like “convention”, “agreement”, “stipulation”, and “ostensive”, are exercised rather heavily. We can, apparently, never really know that we have the same “inner” visual experiences. But we can, by various sorts of arbitrary agreements and conventional decisions, proceed to act as if we do have the same experiences. The value of the agreements and decisions is assessed pragmatically. If we can all succeed in managing our affairs in the world by agreeing that X and deciding that Y, then in so far do we rely on X and Y.

Consider ‘Hume’s dictum’: that from a necessary proposition nothing contingent follows — and vice versa. The effect of this on speculative metaphysics is devastating, although few practicing metaphysicians realize how utterly their position has been devastated. I will spell this out by drawing the profound logical moral of Hume’s dictum.

The COVID-19 Air Traffic Visualization (CAT-V) tool combines COVID-19 case data from Johns Hopkins University and International Air Transport Association air travel data to examine COVID-19 virus transmission as a result of commercial air travel. CAT-V can be used to forecast COVID-19 patterns of transmission using air travel data and reported infection rates. The authors use case rates and number of air passengers originating from each country and passenger destinations to identify the eight countries with the highest risk of importing COVID-19 from China on January 24, 2020. The tool can also be used to examine the risks of individual air travel routes. Future versions of the CAT-V tool will include province and state-level data.

As Marcus Aurelius once said: “Those who come on the third night during rain, are truly lovers of wisdom.” It isn’t absolutely certain that he said that, but there is some scholarly dispute about it. Last night I considered the shaping of an idea. The idea was this: that flight might be thought of as a scientifically understandable, objectively tractable, and practically achievable phenomenon. Through the sorts of work that Newton and the other ideal hydrodynamicists accomplished, they did shape such an idea, the idea of a discipline concerned with the dynamics of gases like air. Tonight we won’t talk about the shaping of an idea, but rather the idea of a shape. And the shape we will be discussing tonight by slow degrees will be nothing other than the airfoil shape which, as shapes go, seems to me one of the more influential that we have had in our time. There is evidence in Leonardo’s little tract on the flight of birds which indicates that he understood something of the curvature in a bird’s wing. It can even be supposed that he was not wholly in the dark concerning the air flow over the top side of such a convex shape, though this is just conjecture. However, you must remember Sir George Cayley, the man who made the remarkable statement that the whole problem in aerodynamics is simply to make a surface support a given weight by the application of power to the resistance of the air. Shortly after he made that statement, he considered what he called the concave wing of a bird. He explained its purpose as follows: “the air being obliged to mount along the convexity of the surface, creates a slight vacuity immediately behind the point of separation.” What he means by vacuity behind the point of separation is a topic we will be considering shortly. But Cayley said this in 1809, almost 100 years before the actual advent of powered flight. His passing reference to the slight vacuity above the wing appears to our 20-20 hindsight as the vision supreme in the story of flight. Because this is truly the germ of the full explanation of what all air foils are meant to do. Whether they flop or are rigid or whether they rotate horizontally as helicopter blades do or spin vertically as do orthodox propeller blades.

“F is a good reason for C”, if true at all, could not but have been true — even when F and C are contingent. Much in this claim is true. Much is misleading. Let us sort this out and, en route, discuss a certain pattern of inference, and “the problem of induction”.

Contemporary Psychological Behaviorists argue against the existence of mental events in ways that are but little more refined than those of Watson, Lashley, and others forty years ago. The orthodox case stated by today’s psychologists against the possibility of a science of mental events is inconclusive. This is because their attack is usually based on factual considerations, instead of being, what it ought to be, a conceptual analysis of the idea of a mental event. This article seeks to disclose some weaknesses in the standard pattern of attacks on Introspection. It does this by defending the latter (i.e. Introspection) against such factually-orientated criticisms as those of Watson, Lashley, Hull and Skinner. It then challenges Introspection as it should be attacked; not externally with counterfacts, but internally with demonstrations of what is untenable in the very concept of a science of private events called “mental”.

The COVID-19 Air Traffic Visualization (CAT-V) tool combines COVID-19 case data from Johns Hopkins University and International Air Transport Association air travel data to examine COVID-19 virus transmission as a result of commercial air travel. Using the CAT-V tool, the authors find that even countries with a modest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases can be a great risk to the U.S. The authors suggest that travel advisories should be based on reducing passenger travel from countries with both high infection rates and high levels of passenger travel to the U.S.

The trial of Galileo has long been used by historians, by philosophers, and by scientists as a classic example of intellectual martyrdom, resembling somewhat the trial of Socrates. Since that is the way “the Galileo story” is usually represented, it turns out replete with villains and heroes. The scenario depends on who the scriptwriter happens to be.

A loose analogy relates the work of Laplace and Hilbert. These thinkers had roughly similar objectives. At a time when so much of our analytic effort goes to distinguishing mathematics and logic from physical theory, such an analogy can still be instructive, even though differences will always divide endeavors such as those of Laplace and Hilbert.

The COVID-19 Air Traffic Visualization (CAT-V) tool combines COVID-19 case data from Johns Hopkins University and International Air Transport Association air travel data to examine COVID-19 virus transmission as a result of commercial air travel. In this report the authors use the CAT-V tool to examine COVID-19 transmission risk from air travel to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and other Gulf Cooperation Council countries. It is determined that on January 28, 2020 the majority of COVID-19 transmission risk from air travel came from passengers from China;by February 29, 2020, the greatest source of potentially infected air travelers to the UAE was South Korea, followed by Italy and China.

An agnostic maintains himself in a state of perfect doubt concerning God’s existence, a position I regard as unsound. The agnostic achieves his equipoise of dubiety only by shifting his ground where logic requires him to stand fast.

In thirty years the science of elementary particles has made few achievements compared with its unsuccessful essays. The recent works of Schwinger, Tomonaga, Feynman and Dyson, however, have had some success.1 We have here a hint that progress is being made on the formal side of the discipline — though even this work is profoundly disturbing in some of its purely mathematical aspects.2 There could be no better time to review the situation from a physical and philosophical standpoint, even if this proves to be an over-ambitious undertaking.

The COVID-19 Air Traffic Visualization (CAT-V) tool combines COVID-19 case data from Johns Hopkins University and International Air Transport Association air travel data to examine COVID-19 virus transmission as a result of commercial air travel. Using the CAT-V tool, the authors estimate the rate of COVID-19 transmission through commercial air travel from China. By January 31, 2020 there were at least 1.5 infected air travel passengers coming from China each day. Eight countries were identified with the highest risk of COVID-19 infection from China air travel on January 24, 2020: Japan, Thailand, South Korea, United States, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, and Malaysia. As of January 31, 2020, these eight countries had the most confirmed COVID-19 cases outside of China.

In this report—part of a series on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic—the researchers estimate the likely number of infections in China in early 2020.

My objective here is vulnerable to some spurious semantics. I aim to delineate how the development of physical theory in the later nineteenth century was essentially dependent on the reflections and discoveries of Chemists, Biologists and Mathematicians. But when one alludes to some professional Chemist or Biologist as having affected the history of physics, it can always be countered “to that extent he was doing physics, he was being a physicist”. Thus when Urey helped to separate U235 from U238, and when he invoked theoretical thermodynamics to determine the age of the solar system, he might be said then to have been doing physics – despite being a Nobel laureate in chemistry. And when Pauling applied quantum theory to studies of complex substances, and when he considered the rotation of molecules in crystals – he too was apparently being a physicist, although, again, a Nobel laureate in chemistry. So also of great moments in the work of Nernst, Boltzmann, Helmholtz, Faraday, Young… and so on. That is, one can always say that whatever helps physics is physics. But this is 20–20 hindsight focused to the point of tautology. For it suggests that a Biologist might one day awaken with the pronouncement “I think I’ll do some physics today”; a Chemist or Mathematician might muse “this problem will put demands on the physicist in me”. The history of science can be thus chopped up only by destroying the organic interplay between disciplines, an interplay which constitutes the very pulse of scientific research. The picture of disciplines rigidly fixed as to content, and of scientists as compartmentalized thinking machines – both pictures are unreliable reflections of the ways in which problems and their solutions have actually shaped the history of science. Just as being a ‘natural philosopher’ in the seventeenth century was not identical with being a theoretical physicist in the twentieth, so also the divisions between biology, chemistry and physics in the nineteenth century may not always have been drawn along the same lines as we should sketch them today. In short, one must be an historian when tracing the lines of development through nineteenth century science. Not everything that is embraced today in physics texts began in physics labs, or in the minds of professional physicists. Therefore, I propose to correlate the contributions of scientists now known to us as important in the histories of chemistry and biology-with moments in the development of nineteenth century physics. Should one then choose to dub all such individuals as really physicists, a la bonne heure.

In December 2017, the RAND Corporation conducted a tabletop exercise on air operations across the boundaries between geographic combatant commands. The objective was to maximize operational effectiveness when using personnel recovery; close air support; and airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets against transregional adversaries. This report describes the exercise's design, key insights, and recommendations.

The authors developed and employed a methodology to review general and flag officer (G/FO) requirements in the U.S. military. The methodology examines G/FO positions within and across organizations, reviews positions against criteria, evaluates how positions affect development of G/FOs within functional areas, and explores implications of reductions. Results were used to identify opportunities to eliminate or downgrade positions.

We present a set of 109 new, high-precision Keck/HIRES radial velocity (RV) observations for the solar-type star HD 32963. Our dataset reveals a candidate planetary signal with a period of 6.49 $\pm$ 0.07 years and a corresponding minimum mass of 0.7 $\pm$ 0.03 Jupiter masses. Given Jupiter's crucial role in shaping the evolution of the early Solar System, we emphasize the importance of long-term radial velocity surveys. Finally, using our complete set of Keck radial velocities and correcting for the relative detectability of synthetic planetary candidates orbiting each of the 1,122 stars in our sample, we estimate the frequency of Jupiter analogs across our survey at approximately 3%., 10 pages, 13 figures. Accepted for publication on the Astrophysical Journal. Full set of radial velocities included

Precision radial velocities from the Automated Planet Finder and Keck/HIRES reveal an M*sin(i) =18 +/- 2 Earth mass planet orbiting the nearby M3V star GJ 687. This planet has an orbital period, P = 38.14 days, and a low orbital eccentricity. Our Stromgren b and y photometry of the host star suggests a stellar rotation signature with a period of P = 60 days. The star is somewhat chromospherically active, with a spot filling factor estimated to be several percent. The rotationally{induced 60-day signal, however, is well-separated from the period of the radial velocity variations, instilling confidence in the interpretation of a Keplerian origin for the observed velocity variations. Although GJ 687b produces relatively little specific interest in connection with its individual properties, a compelling case can be argued that it is worthy of remark as an eminently typical, yet at a distance of 4.52 pc, a very nearby representative of the galactic planetary census. The detection of GJ 687b indicates that the APF telescope is well suited to the discovery of low-mass planets orbiting low-mass stars in the as-yet relatively un-surveyed region of the sky near the north celestial pole., Comment: 16 pages, 18 figures, accepted to ApJ

We present precision radial velocity (RV) data sets from Keck-HIRES and from Lick Observatory's new Automated Planet Finder Telescope and Levy Spectrometer on Mt. Hamilton that reveal a multiple-planet system orbiting the nearby, slightly evolved, K-type star HD 141399. Our 91 observations over 10.5 years suggest the presence of four planets with orbital periods of 94.35, 202.08, 1070.35, and 3717.35 days and minimum masses of 0.46, 1.36, 1.22, and 0.69 Jupiter masses respectively. The orbital eccentricities of the three inner planets are small, and the phase curves are well sampled. The inner two planets lie just outside the 2:1 resonance, suggesting that the system may have experienced dissipative evolution during the protoplanetary disk phase. The fourth companion is a Jupiter-like planet with a Jupiter-like orbital period. Its orbital eccentricity is consistent with zero, but more data will be required for an accurate eccentricity determination.

Within the past decade there has grown an acute and highly articulate group of critics of the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory,—the so-called “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The writings of people like Bopp, Janossy, and particularly Bohm and Feyerabend, must be taken very seriously indeed. The future of some important discussions in the philosophy and the logic of science rests with these individuals. But they have, in their own writings, occasionally matched the inelegancies of Bohr and Heisenberg with as many inelegancies of their own. The present paper is meant to present a quintet of considerations which may possibly lead to a reassessment of the issues between Bohr, Heisenberg, and their critics, especially Bohm and Feyerabend.

The conceptual excitement of science often seems geared only to work in contemporary physics. Thus, philosophers regularly discuss current cosmology, relativity, or the foundations of microphysics. In these areas one's philosophy is stretched and strained far beyond what our ancestors might have anticipated. Historians of science have also focused attention on past events by remarking their analogies and similarities with perplexities in physics today.But there are statements, hypotheses and theories of the past which are rewarding in themselves, without having to be referred to the agonies which now confound quantum theory and cosmology. Specifically, the First Law of Motion—the “Law of Inertia”—this has everything a logician of science could look for. Understanding the complexities and perplexities of this fundamental mechanical statement is in itself to gain insight into what theoretical physics in general really is. With this in view a study of the law is undertaken.

The theoretical and experimental context within which the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of quantum theory was generated is underemphasized by recent critics of the Bohr-Heisenberg philosophy. When an interpretation of a theory has been as successful as this one has been, there is little practical warrant for the “alternative interpretations” which have, since Bohm, been receiving prominence. Indeed, these are not even genuine alternatives; although rich in provocative prose, they provide not a scrap of algebra with which to organize the practical physicist's thinking. Several objections to the Bohr interpretation are critically examined, as is also a particular use of the correspondence principle which has seemed to cast doubt on the Copenhagen ideas.

In thirty years the science of elementary particles has made few achievements compared with its unsuccessful essays. The recent works of Schwinger, Tomonaga, Feynman and Dyson, however, have had some success. We have here a hint that progress is being made on the formal side of the discipline—though even this work is profoundly disturbing in some of its purely mathematical aspects. There could be no better time to review the situation from a physical and philosophical standpoint, even if this proves to be an over-ambitions undertaking.

Is there such a thing as a ‘Logic of Discovery’? Do we even have a consistent idea of such a thing? The approved answer to this seems to be “No.” Thus Popper argues (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) “The initial stage, the act of conceiving or inventing a theory, seems to me neither to call for logical analysis nor to be susceptible of it.” (p. 31.) Again, “… there is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process.” (p. 32.) Reichenbach writes that philosophy of science “… cannot be concerned with [reasons for suggesting hypotheses], but only with [reasons for accepting hypotheses].” (Experience and Prediction, p. 382.) Braithwaite elaborates: “The solution of these historical problems involves the individual psychology of thinking and the sociology of thought. None of these questions are our business here.” (Scientific Explanation, pp. 20, 21.)