Historical facts

Of course there were some scientists who were sceptical of the value of Mendeleev s classification in 1869/1871 (and indeed some who remained sceptical after the new elements began to be discovered). However, at least two historical facts seem to us to speak unambiguously against any general scepticism about the value... 

But all this is surely in direct conflict with the first of the pro-predictivist assertions (claim 1) quoted earlier if the successful accommodation of the correlation between properties and atomic weights of known elements was to be the single most important factor in the acceptance of Mendeleev s periodic law after, say, 1874, then it is difficult to see why it should be true—-as Brush asserts (p. 617)—that Mendeleev s periodic law attracted little attention. . . until chemists started to discover some of the elements needed to fill the gaps in his table5. One would, on the contrary, have expected it to attract a great deal of attention at the stage when it just explained the properties of the known elements, and then attract some more once the predictions of new elements proved successful. If it were true that, as a matter of descriptive historical fact, Mendeleev s periodic law attracted little attention and hence very little adherence before 1874, then Brush would have supplied no explanation for it. 

If this is a correct analysis of it, then the chief problem with Brush s overall account—aside from any issue about the historical evidence in its favour—is that, by agreeing with Maher and Lipton that the novel predictions counted more while denying that they counted sufficiently more to outweigh the total effect of the accommodations, it ends up in no man s land. Brush may have an explanation for why special attention should have been paid to the predictive successes (they carried a lot of impact per unit , as it were) but this does not, despite his claims and despite, perhaps, first appearances, translate into an explanation for what he accepts is the historical fact that Mendeleev s periodic law attracted little attention before 1874—that is, before the initial success of the predictions. What his account would lead us to expect is, on the contrary, a high rate of credit for, and interest in, Mendeleev s scheme before 1874 and a somewhat higher rate afterwards. 

Hard historical facts. .. show that the first actual non-fictitious alchemists lived. .. in Hellenistic Egypt. And the earliest among them was a woman, known as. .. Maria the Jewess."... 

In this biography of the 18th-century occultist, a scholar provides the historical facts as well as the controversy. Cagliostro was well-known across Europe, and knew the rich, famous, and powerful, such as Catherine the Great. He elicited strong reactions from others, including the Church, which had him imprisoned. Was he a total fake Professor... 

Reductionism will have to be a thesis about the explanation of historical facts, some more general than others, but all of them ultimately the contingent results of general laws of natural selection operating on boundary conditions. Reductionism needs to claim that the only way to explain one historical fact is by appeal to other historical facts, plus some... 

Consider the ultimate explanation for eyespots in the species Precis coe-nia. Notice, to begin with, that there is no scope for explaining the law that butterflies have eyespots, or patterns that may include eyespots, scalloped color patterns, or edge-bands. There is no such law to be explained.7 There are, however, historical facts to be explained. 

In the period after Murray first produced his models, molecular biology has provided more and more of the proximate why-necessary explanations that the reductionist demands for the historical facts about butterfly eyespots. 

In Section 1.2, we first introduce some historical facts concerning the development of FRET and indicate how FRET is interrelated with several scientific disciplines. If one is not interested in this historical account, then you can skip to Section 1.3 without losing the thread. 

On the use of metrics for indicating safety, likelihood and consequence have a principal role and they form the two basic dimensions. When indicating risks, from historical facts and figures, simulations and knowledge, the likelihood and consequences can be established. The actual likelihood and consequence can never be derived exactly and they will always be based on perceptions of risks as discussed in Chapter 1. This perception of risks will in this Chapter be referred to as the perceived risks , which is the defined as the (perceived) likelihood and the perceived consequences of an event. The Sis attempt to indicate this perceived safety related risk in terms of the perceived likelihood and the perceived safety-related consequence of an event. For reasons of clarity the term risk will refer to the perceived safety related risk and consequences will refer to the perceived safety related consequences in the remainder of this Chapter. The consequences are always based on people s perception of how great the damage to people, environment, or assets might be. The likelihood of an event will sometimes be estimated (perceived). 

The first is a historical fact of prime importance, namely, the low percentage of residual gas in the Milky Way. It is true that iron comes from the stars, and that these seem to advocate its claim to the throne, but star formation itself is on the decline through lack of gas. For this reason, the iron content of the Galaxy levelled off several billion years ago, having reached what appears to be its maximum (see Appendix 5). 

The organization of the book is as follows The first chapter. Overview, describes the basic facts, concepts, and a brief account of its history. This chapter is written at a general physics level and can be read as an independent unit. The last section, Historical Remarks, is an integrated part of the presentation of basic concepts in STM. As an introductory chapter of a textbook, it is not intended to be an authoritative and comprehensive treatment of the history of STM. However, serious efforts have been made to ensure the authenticity and accuracy of the historical facts. In addition to conducting an extensive literature search, I have consulted several key scientists in STM and related fields. 

University of Paris, Sorbonne (Ingenieur Docteur, 1940). From 1941 he worked in the USA in the field of expls proplnts in private industries and at Picatinny Arsenal where he was the author of a number of technical reports (PATR s) lectures. His most Important publications include A Manual for Explosives Laboratories , Lefax, Philadelphia, Pa, 4 Vo Is (1942—46) in collaboration with G.D. Clift Dictionary of Russian Ammunition and Weapons , PATR 2145(1955) Dictionary of Explosives, Ammunition and Weapons (German Section), PATR 2510(1958) and as. senior author of the 1 Encyclopedia of Explosives and Related Items , PATR 2700, Vols 1-6 (1960—73). Dr Fedoroff is a unique repository of historical facts and is an internationally known expert in explosives, propellants pyrotechnics Ref Oliver E. Sheffield Gunther Cohn (1973)... 

Gilbert L. I., Granger N. A. and Roe R. M. (2000) The juvenile hormones historical facts and speculations on future research directions. Insect Biochem. Molec. Biol. 30, 617— 644. 

Comparing the classical force Q, given above, the spatial components of X, are X = yQ. verifying the historical fact that Maxwell s theory is covariant under Lorentz transformations. 

The fact that ribozymes came before protein enzymes does not mean that replication came before metabolism, but it is an historical fact that this is precisely the meaning that was given, almost universally, to the discovery of ribozymes. With very few exceptions, the RNA world has been interpreted with the logic of the replication paradigm if RNAs could behave as genes and as enzymes, then they did it immediately, at the very beginning, and became the first replicators in the history of life. 

In the case of signal transduction, in contrast, the experiments were planned from the very beginning as a means of studying the biochemical steps of the phenomenon, not as a search for codes, and the biochemical reactions of that field were regarded a priori as normal catalysed processes not as codified processes. No code had been predicted, and so no code was discovered. Even if the experimental results of signal transduction can be understood only by admitting the existence of organic codes, it is a historical fact that no one looked for transduction codes, and that is why no book mentions them. 

The data generated by Janis (1948) confirmed the importance of ECT spellbinding with denial and anosognosia. Patients tended to minimize or even confabulate to cover up their memory losses, rather than to exaggerate them. One patient, for example, in his pre-ECT interview, reported that he had been unable to work for several months prior to coming to the hospital. The historical facts were confirmed by the family. But after 12 ECTs, he was unable to recall the period of unemployment. Instead, he claimed that he worked right up to his hospitalization. As Janis confirmed, patients often do not complain spontaneously to doctors about their memory loss they tend to deny it. 

Although such terms as Butler-Volmer equation or Butler-Volmer expression or Butler-Volmer kinetics or Butler-Volmer model are widely used in the literature, see e.g., Refs, [ii-xii], its definition is ambiguous and even the name is questionable in the light of the historical facts [viii, xiii, xiv]. 

All in all, the Central Office seems to regard itself more as an institute for historical research operating with unconventional methods than as an office for criminal prosecution Riickerl, in any case, considers its findings historical facts.166 Steinbach even suggests that in the future, after the end of the NSG trials, the Central Office ought to be turned into an institute for historical research,167 which apparently is the plan of German politicians, too.168... 

R. Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die Historical Fact No. 1, Samisdat Publishers, Toronto n.d., pp. 26ff. (online www.zundelsite.org/english/harwood/Didsix01.html) cf. also J. Rothkranz, Die kommende Diktatur der Humanitdt, v. 2, Pro Fide Catholica, Durach 1990, pp. 91ff. 

The orthodox historians must be deeply embarrassed by the release of 20,000 inmates from Majdanek extermination camp, each one of which must have been a witness to the cruelty of the mass exterminations, if any such exterminations ever took place there or by the fact that the National Socialists released large numbers of inmates in the summer of 1944, in the midst of the alleged extermination of the Hungarian Jews. They cannot explain either why the Germans, during their withdrawal from Auschwitz-Birkenau, left 4,299 inmates behind, almost all of them Jewish, each of whom would have been an accuser of the Third Reich if the official version of Auschwitz squared with the historical facts. 

In such a way were the steam and the suctioned-air chambers, as well as the various other murder methods hawked by the witnesses, finally consigned to the junkyard of history, and the diesel gas chambers of Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor became transmogrified into established historical facts. ... 

---