Reason认为行为是危险源的内容 Prof. Reason虽然没有给出hazard的定义，但是他认为human factors也是危险源hazard的内容（下图是他2016文献中的图），而不仅仅物质和能量是危险源的内容。人因的内容有很多，具体化后叫做各种行为，应用比较方便，以免人因太广，无从开始。如，常态的人因可以叫做习惯性行为，瞬态的人因即当次或一次性的行为可以叫做动作。通过改变常态而改变瞬态，是预防事故看得见的重要途径之一。 危险源越来越没有什么神秘，无非就是有可能（风险值达一定程度）导致损失（含生命健康、经济损失，环境破坏）的危险与有害因 素而已。有的定义也说是引起事故的因素，这是由于所用的（规定的）统计指标不同造成的。分类各有各的分法，如不考虑交叉重复，分类方法可以有无数个。不过有一点重要的是，在严格定义了事故和事故的原因、建立了事故致因模型以后，依据事故致因模型来分类危险源，是一个靠谱的、实用中比较方便的做法。一组事故原因的定义和事故致因模型是一一对应关系，每个模型中的事故原因定义都不一样。 无论哪一个学者的观点，都不是实务运行的依据。实务运行，还得靠法规和标准。学者的观点只有进入法规才能发挥实际作用。法规和标准是很多人、很长时间、采用很多分析对比、选择最适合的研究结果制定出来的，其权威性不言而喻。所以就危险源hazard来说，深刻理解标准、法规中的定义理解学者个人观点更有意义。 关键词：Reason，人因，危险源 Human factors are also are also a kind of hazards(Reason.J., 2016)
Chris Hedges的另一篇文章，“论世俗的原教旨主义”。此文对科学和理性的迷信提出了批评，也批评了道金斯等人的观点。 On Secular Fundamentalism By Chris Hedges Chris Hedges, who went to seminary at Harvard Divinity School, is the author of “I Don’t Believe in Atheists.” This essay is adapted from the book, which was inspired in part by Hedges’ debate with Sam Harris. The battle under way in America is not a battle between religion and science. It is a battle between religious and secular fundamentalists. It is a battle between two groups intoxicated with the utopian and magical belief that humankind can perfect itself and master its destiny. We live in an age of faith. We are assured we are advancing as a species toward a world that will be made perfect by reason, technology, science or the second coming of Jesus Christ. Evil can be eradicated. War has been declared on nebulous forces or cultures that stand as impediments to progress. Religion, if you are secular, is blamed for genocide, injustice, persecution, backwardness and intellectual and sexual repression. Secular humanism, if you are born again, is branded as a tool of Satan. The folly of humankind, however, is pervasive. It infects all human endeavors. It has not exempted itself from institutional religion or the cult of science and reason. The greatest danger that besets us does not come from believers or atheists. It comes from those who, under the guise of religion, science or reason, imagine that we can free ourselves from the limitations of human nature and perfect the human species. Those who insist we are morally advancing as a species are deluding themselves. There is nothing in science or human history or human nature to support this idea. Human individuals can make moral advances, as can human societies, but they also make moral reverses. Our personal and collective histories are not linear. We alternate between periods of light and periods of darkness. We can move forward materially, but we do not move forward morally. The belief in collective moral advancement ignores the endemic flaws in human nature as well as the tragic reality of human history. This belief in inevitable moral progress, whether it comes in secular or religious form, is magical thinking. The secular version of this myth peddles fables no less fantastic, and no less delusional, than those preached from many church pulpits. The word utopia was coined by Thomas More in 1516 from the Greek words for no and place. To be a utopian, to live for the creation of a fantastic and unreal world, was to live in no place, to remove oneself from reality. It is only by building an ethic based on reality, one that takes into account the dangers and limits of human nature and human power, that we can begin to adjust our behavior to cope with social and political problems. All utopian schemes of impossible advances and glorious conclusions end in moral squalor, criminality and fanaticism. The current “war on terror” by the United States is a utopian vision. It is being fought so that evil can be violently uprooted. Its proponents promise a world that will become “reasonable,” a “civil” world ruled by the “rational” forces of global capitalism. Those who support the “war on terror” speak as if victory in any tangible sense is possible. This noble vision of a world in harmony is used to turn us into criminals, beasts who carry out needless murder and torture in Iraq and our offshore penal colonies in the name of human progress. The desire for emancipation, universal happiness and prosperity has a seductive pull on the human imagination. It preoccupied the early church, which was infused with exclusivist, utopian sects. We are comforted by the thought that we progress morally as a species. We want things to get better. We want to believe we are moving forward. This hope is more reassuring than reality. But all the signs in our present world point to a coming anarchy, a massive dislocation of populations that will result from ecological devastation and climate change, multiple pollutions, the weight of overpopulation and wars fought over dwindling natural resources. Science, which should be used to address these looming disasters, has largely become a tool of corporations that seek not to protect us but make a profit and stimulate the economy. New technologies that are potentially threatening, such as genetically modified organisms and nanotechnologies, are being unleashed with no understanding of the impact on the biosphere. The global population is expected to jump from about 2 billion in 1930 to 8 or 9 billion in the mid-21st century, and this means that if growth is left unchecked we will no longer be able to sustain ourselves, especially as nations such as China seek the consumption levels of the industrialized nations in Europe and North America. Nearly two-thirds of the life-support services provided to us by nature are already in precipitous decline worldwide. The old wars of conquest, expansion and exploitation will be replaced by wars fought for the basic necessities of air, food, sustainable living conditions and water. And as we race toward this catastrophe, scientists continue to make discoveries, set these discoveries upon us and walk away from the impact. The belief that science and reason will save us makes it possible to ignore or minimize these looming catastrophes. We drift toward disaster with the comforting thought that the god of science will intervene on our behalf. It is dispiriting to live in a world where things are not moving forward and will most probably get worse. We prefer to believe that we are the culmination of a process, the end result of centuries of human advancement, rather than creatures trapped in the irrevocable limitations and blunders of human nature. The idea of inevitable progress gives us comfort in times of turmoil. It allows us to place ourselves at the center of creation, to exalt ourselves above others. It translates our narrow self-interest into a universal good. But it is morally irresponsible. It permits us to avert our eyes from reality and place our hopes in an absurdist faith. The belief that rational and quantifiable disciplines such as science can be used to perfect human society is no less absurd than a belief in magic, angels and divine intervention. Scientific methods, part of the process of changing the material world, are nearly useless in the nebulous world of politics, ideas, values and ethics. But the belief in the possibility of collective moral progress, in our ability to advance as a species spiritually and ethically, is seductive. It is what has doomed populations in the past that have chased after impossible dreams, and it threatens to doom us again. It is, at its core, the enticement that we can be more than human, that we can become gods. We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God. We have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin. The concept of sin is a stark acknowledgement that we can never be omnipotent, that we are bound and limited by human flaws and self-interest. The concept of sin is a check on the utopian dreams of a perfect world. It prevents us from believing in our own perfectibility or the illusion that the human species makes moral advances along with the material advances in science and technology. To turn away from God is harmless. Saints have been trying to do it for centuries. To turn away from sin is catastrophic. Religious fundamentalists, who believe they know and can carry out the will of God, disregard their severe human limitations. They act as if they are free from sin. The secular utopians from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris to Daniel Dennett to Christopher Hitchens have also forgotten they are human. Both they and religious fundamentalists peddle absolutes. Those who do not see as they see, speak as they speak and act as they act are worthy only of conversion or eradication. The belief that human nature can be improved and perfected, that we are moving throughout history toward a glorious culmination, is malformed theology. It permits wild, eschatological visions to be built under religious or secular banners. It is this belief that is dangerous. And it colors the thought of the new crop of atheist writers. They will tell us what is right and wrong, not in the eyes of God, but according to the purity of the rational mind. They too seek to destroy those who do not conform to their vision. They too wrap their intolerance in Enlightenment virtues. “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,” Sam Harris writes. “This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.” Any form of knowledge that claims to be absolute ceases to be knowledge. It is a form of faith. Harris and the other atheist authors mistake a tiny subset of criminals and terrorists for 1 billion Muslims. They justify the unjustifiable in the name of civilization. The passions of these atheists, hidden under the jargon of reason and science, are as bankrupt as the passions of Christian and Islamic fundamentalists who sanctify mass slaughter in the name of their utopia. Religious fundamentalists pervert and distort religion to serve their own fears and self-aggrandizement. Atheists do the same with science and reason. These two groups peddle the myth that we can conquer human nature, overcome our imperfections and build the perfect society. These atheists and Christian radicals have built squalid little belief systems that are in the service of themselves and their own power. They urge us forward into a nonreality-based world, one where force and violence, where self-exaltation and blind nationalism, are an unquestioned good. They seek to make us afraid of what we do not know or understand. They use this fear to justify cruelty and war. They ask us to kneel before little idols that look and act like them, telling us that one day, if we trust enough in God or reason, we will have everything we desire. We must accept the severe limitations of being human. We must face reality, a reality which in the coming decades is going to be bleak and difficult. Those who are blinded by utopian visions inevitably turn to force to make their impossible dreams and their noble ideals real. They believe that the ends, no matter how barbaric, justify the means. Utopian ideologues, armed with the technology and mechanisms of industrial slaughter, have killed tens of millions of people over the last century. They ask us to inflict suffering and death in the name of virtue and truth. The atheists, in the end, offer us a new version of an old and dangerous faith. It is one we have seen before. It is one we must fight. 来源： http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080407_on_secular_fundamentalism//
一直都很忙很忙，没有时间也没有心思去想太多，似乎很多时候，也没有必要去想太多。 简单生活，是好事。 偶然间，还是会有一些人，一些事，一些时刻，会让自己瞬间感悟。像蜻蜓点水，迅速在水面激起涟漪，虽然涟漪渐渐消散，但心间毕竟是留下了一颗种，会在另外的某一天,某一时刻，跃出水面，翩翩飞舞。 今天很想说的是，选择，或者不选择，很多时候其实并没有那么多理由。 需要做的是，好好学着让自己喜欢上所从事的事情，爱上自己所选择的生活。 就像《战争之王》中的一句台词“I do it, just because I am good at it.” I hope that's theright reason for what we want.
Newtonian Mechanics Once a set of data has been correlated and a postulate has been formulated regarding the phenomena to which the data refer, then various implications can be worked out. If these implications are all verified by experiment, there is reason to believe that the postulate is generally true. The postulate then assumes the status of a physical law. Newton (Figure 2.4.1) has provided us with the fundamental laws of mechanics. We will state these laws in modern terms and discuss their meaning and then proceed to derive the implications of the laws in various situations. It must be noted, however, that the logical structure of the science of mechanics is not a straightforward issue. The line of reasoning that is followed here in interpreting Newton's laws is not the only one possible. An alternate interpretation is given by Ernst Mach (1838–1916). Mach expressed his views in his famous book, The Science of Mechanics,first published in 1883. We will not pursue in any detail the philosophy of mechanics, but will give only sufficient elaboration of Newton's laws to allow us to continue with the discussion of classical dynamics. In Newtonian mechanics, the principle of relativity plays an outstanding role. In just the same way, velocity has only a relative significance. Given two bodies moving with uniform relative velocity, it is impossible to decide which of them is at rest and which is moving. In Newton's theory, time is an absolute quantity, capable of precise definition by an arbitrary observer. It exists and flows in a continuous way. Newton's Laws I. (lex prima) A body remains at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. II. (lex secunda) A body acted upon by a force moves in such a manner that the time rate of change of momentum equals the force. III. (lex tertia) If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. These laws were enunciated by Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727) in his Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica or, in short, Principia,1687. Galileo had previously generalized the results of his mechanics experiment with statements equivalent to the First and Second Laws,although he was unable to complete the description of dynamics because he did not appreciate the significance of the Third Law and therefore lacked a precise meaning of force. The Fundamental Forces 1. The Gravitational Force The gravitational force between the Earth and an object near the Earth's surface is the weight of the object. The gravitational force exerted by the Sun keeps the planets in their orbits. Similarly, the gravitational force exerted by the galaxies in the universe generates a certain structure or distribution of galaxies. 2. The Electromagnetic Force The electromagnetic force includes both the electric and the magnetic force. These two forces were recognized in the 19th century as independent forces from gravitation. The electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles is vastly greater than the gravitational force between them. 3. The Strong Nuclear Force (Also Called Hadronic Force) The strong nuclear force occurs between elementary particles called hadrons, which include protons and neutrons. The strong force results from the interaction of quarks, the building blocks of hadrons, and is responsible for holding nuclei together. The magnitude of the strong force decreases rapidly with distance and is negligible beyond a few nuclear diameters. 4. The Weak Nuclear Force The weak nuclear force, which also has a short range, occurs between leptons (which include electrons and muons) and between hadrons (which include protons and neutrons) Solution Procedures of Liner Differential Equations This subsection discuses two methods useful for solving linear ordinary a well as partial differential equations. The discussed methods are especially useful for solving initial value problems. The presented methods are the Laplace transform method and the Green's function method. The Laplace Transform Method This technique, which is generally useful for obtaining solutions to linear differential equations, allows the reduction of a differential equation to an algebraic equation.
标签: reason
