Miscellaneous desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 11

Operation Anaconda

Follow-up to an earlier question: During Operation Anaconda, which elements (if any) of Task Force K-Bar saw actual combat? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:D421:A9FC:B45A:DB19 (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean not counting the Americans, Canadians and Australians? Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually mean any elements of Task Force K-Bar, including the nations listed above. (I am particularly interested in the units from Norway and New Zealand, however.) I know as per the article that these forces took up blocking positions to stop any terrorists who might flee from the battle -- what I want to know is, which units of these forces actually encountered fleeing terrorists? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:6CD5:FDD3:C2B8:18E8 (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it seems you're right that the Canadian and Australians mentioned were not part of K-bar. Still part of my question remains namely why you're sure that the SEAL members mentioned in our article were not part of K-bar. (Since you didn't mention these but did say "if any" and I'm assuming you did read our article before asking.) Our article suggests they were part of SEAL team 2 and 3 so it's possible although it's true Battle of Takur Ghar does suggest they were DEVGRU not SEAL and it does seem the person killed was DEVGRU. (And DEVGRU was part of Taskforce 11/Sword.) However it also mentions the involvement of Air Force combat controllers. Anyway even if you have good evidence to suggest none of them were part of K-bar (info I found even from decent source was often contradictory), [1] specifically mentions "In March 2002, TF DAGGER and TF K-BAR conducted operations to eliminate a pocket of al-Qaeda forces in eastern Afghanistan" in a section about Operation Anaconda. So it's difficult to imagine they saw no combat as the "if any" implies. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed our article later says the various Mako were under TF 11 so it's possible you're right although none of this is sources and there's still the question over the Air Force combat controllers. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because there were a whole bunch of different task forces involved in Operation Anaconda (TF Dagger, TF Anvil and TF Rakkasan seeing the heaviest fighting), and TF K-Bar was assigned a pretty low-key role in the battle (serving as a backstop for any escaping terrorists), so it is conceivable that they saw little or any fighting. And BTW, the Mako units were in fact part of TF 11 (now TF 88), not TF K-Bar. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point." You've asked 3 or 4 questions in this same chain now. I think it's time to start doing your own research.--WaltCip (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The homework policy applies to literal homework -- since this is not actual homework, the policy does not apply here. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:6CD5:FDD3:C2B8:18E8 (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Anaconda Long-distance sniper record: Canadian sniper Corporal Rob Furlong killed a person 2,430 metres (1.51 miles) away and was awarded a medal. Blooteuth (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that -- I've seen this on History Channel. He was with Princess Patricia's Light Infantry, right? (BTW, this means that he was with TF Commando, not TF K-Bar.) Any other units from Task Force K-Bar engaging in combat with terrorists (in particular, any units from Norway or New Zealand)? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:6CD5:FDD3:C2B8:18E8 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you read the article that you linked. It states that they cleared caves and structures of remaining terrorists after a bombing campaign. Can you explain why you believe that it is possible to clear out terrorists in a large area and never ever engage in any combat? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it says in the article, quote: "A SEAL platoon from SEAL Team 3, including several of their Desert Patrol Vehicles, accompanied by a German KSK element and a Norwegian SOF team spent some nine days conducting extensive SSE, clearing an estimated 70 caves and 60 structures in the area, recovering a huge amount of both intelligence and munitions, but they didn't encounter any al-Qaeda fighters" (emphasis mine). Which shows that it IS possible, because presumably the caves were already empty. It also gives a total number of terrorists killed and captured by Task Force K-Bar, but doesn't give any breakdown by unit -- so there's no way to know which units did their fair share of fighting and which ones (if any) didn't. And the other article says that units from Task Force K-Bar were deployed to stop terrorists from escaping (in fact, all of the foreign units in TF K-Bar were deployed in this manner), but says nothing about whether they actually encountered fleeing terrorists. So these are the questions I want to clear up. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:3D95:7849:7362:98 (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the specific question relates to K-bar during Operation Anaconda, not during the whole existance of K-bar. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I want to know the most -- but any info on TF K-Bar's other offensive operations (particularly those of the foreign units therein) is also welcome. (Also TF 64, especially the foreign units therein.) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:3D95:7849:7362:98 (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source [2] looks like it possible has some mission details although you will need to obtain the whole book and not just what's available on Google. At the very least it seems to strongly imply some of the foreign units involved in offensive operations was from the US. Actually my understanding as per our article and every source I've read is K-Bar did not include any Afghani forces. From some of the sources I read, and my understanding of military organisation, K-Bar was assisted by other forces at times but these are generally not considered part of K-Bar. Although it's possible K-Bar undertook offensive operations outside Afghanistan, I find it unlikely they did so in any of the countries that contributed forces. So I strongly suspect all offensive operations that K-Bar undertook involved foreign units, but perhaps you know something I don't. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreign", in this context, means "not American" (as opposed to "not Afghan"). :-/ 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:3D95:7849:7362:98 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding your source, its main focus is on the Navy Seals in Afghanistan -- which is certainly not a foreign unit. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:3D95:7849:7362:98 (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the source -- it does confirm that the Prata Ghar village (the one which 209 IP alluded to with the "cleared caves and structures" comment) was indeed empty of terrorists (just as I thought after reading the article), but it gives no details whatsoever re. Operation Anaconda. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is non Afghan so AFAIAC, it's a foreign unit. If you had given an definition for foreign earlier, I could have relied on that definition but you didn't. Anyway it doesn't really seem to matter whether it's a foreign unit as far as you are concerned since I explained what I meant and you did not ask for only foreign units (you said 'particularly' not 'only'). By the same token, I never said it had any info on operation Anaconda, in fact the reason why I left it as a response here was because it looked like it contained details on at least some of Task Force K-Bar's operations (I couldn't be sure but with ~19 pages not visible to me I was hoping there would be something) and you explicitly expanded your question here to ask for all operations details, preferably but not restricting to Operation Anaconda and foreign units, undefined. And as mentioned in the context of the Afghanistan, the info in the source was discussing only foreign units anyway, since Afghan forces were not involved, so it seemed would go beyond your minimum (maybe no Anaconda, but yes foreign units). Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Law vs theory vs hypothesis in science

I have read some definitions from the web, but am a little dissatisfied.

The distinction I've heard made between a law and a theory is that the former is merely predictive, whilst the latter "explains" phenomena. But, what does "explain" mean? Surely, Einstein's theory of General Relativity is no less grounded in brute facts than Newton's law of universal gravitation. If explaining means anything beyond asserting statements as brute facts, isn't science a system of theories grounded in what are ultimately laws?

Also, theory vs hypothesis: what really is the difference? My understanding is that a hypothesis need not have been explicitly tested, whilst a theory must have been (or so I've read). However, depending on the vagueness of the concept of testing, almost any statement could be said to be in a constant state of being tested. For example, my hypothesis that the world will end tomorrow is being tested every moment that it continues to exist (until tomorrow morning, when my hypothesis will either be vindicated or falsified).

So, where am I going wrong?--Leon (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theory, in the sense of e.g. Theory of relativity or evolutionary theory or germ theory of disease is best thought of as a body of knowledge . See also scientific theory. In casual language 'I have a theory about that' is indeed similar to 'I have a hypothesis about that', but in science, the terms are very different. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hypothesis a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena ("A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory")[3]. Science never rules out the right of anyone to devise a new experimental test that might dethrone a widely accepted theory. A Hypothesis is only a useful scientific hypothesis if it can be tested by the Scientific method. The OP's prediction that the world will end tomorrow will be verifiable but offers no more explanation of facts or phenomena than anyone's guess that a flipped coin will land heads up. Explanations to be scientific must offer internally consistent models of natural phenomena that respect Occam's razor principle of minimal assumptions. ("Thunder means God is angry" is only one explanation.)

law a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature ("The laws of thermodynamics")[4]. Scientific models are built on such laws but it can happen that revision of both laws and models becomes compelling through such a turbulent Paradigm shift as was the transition between the Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian relativistic worldview. Blooteuth (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quote "A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing..." from Onelook.com dictionary is not accurate, and does not reflect scientific usage. Here are two reasons why: plenty of hypotheses survive testing without ever becoming theories, and theories like evolutionary theory are far broader than a single hypothesis. For better definitions that reflect current scientific usage, I would advise OP to see Theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations, which presents definitions from the National Academy of Sciences and the AAAS. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about "laws" of aspects of science is that they seem to be brief and specific, such as Newton's laws of motion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis The quotation at Onelook.com is attributed to WordNet and is part of a quick definition of hypothesis not of theory. To support your claim, please cite a scientific hypothesis that has survived testing but never became a theory. Blooteuth (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I've moved your comment and changed the WP:INDENT in accordance with WP:THREAD, the way you had it made it look like Bugs was talking to you). It doesn't matter what that dictionary is attempting to define, the sentence is still misleading at best. As for an example of hypotheses that have been supported but are not theories: sure, no problem, there are literally thousands.

To take one of the top of my head from recent reading: here's [5] a paper I was recently reading. 10 years of data support the hypothesis that "stimulation of photosynthesis under elevated Ca [ambient CO2 concentration] in an ammonium-dominated ecosystem is not a transient phenomenon". Yet there is no "theory of non-transient stimulus to photosynthesis under elevated Ca in ammonium-dominated ecosystems", and there likely never will be. Some day, there will probably be a body of knowledge known as "theory of plant response to CO2 enrichment" or similar, but that will be a much broader topic. If that is too recent for your taste, here [6] is a nearly 40 year old paper that tests and supports the hypothesis that succulent plants change their photosynthetic metabolism in response to environmental changes. That hypothesis has been generally supported in dozens, if not hundreds of additional experiments and tests, yet there is no "Theory of succulent metabolism change due to environment", and likely never will be.

Many, many research articles are published every year. Many of them test hypotheses. Most hypotheses never get the name of "theory" attached to them. The main idea is that hypotheses are detailed, precise claims, narrow in scope. When strongly supported, we may call them "findings" or simply "facts" in some contexts. In contrast, theories are broader, and exist at a higher organizational level, encompassing many smaller hypotheses. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reformatting of others' comments was innocuous but unnecessary pettifoggery because Baseball Bugs simply added an informed observation on the subject of scientific laws that I mentioned, but SemanticMantis did not. Their brevity is the result of encapsulation into memorable symbolic equations. As examples, compare these well known laws with the verbosity of their initial anouncements by their respective discoverers, before each law had been re-expressed by subsequent educators.

a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}

F = m a

\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0

E=mc^{2}

.

References 1, 2, 3, 4

SemanticMantis adopts a strawman approach to attack the quotation "A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory" in a reliable source. In the Publish or perish world of academia it may be "news" that years of data support someone's idea of a hypothesis of a negative for which no new decisive scientific test is offered. "Support" is not the same as "verify". The article Photosynthesis describes the current theories and research on this topic, while SM's concept of what constitutes a theory seems limited to published anouncements of grand breakthroughs, that use the kind of contrived wording he suggests. Thousands of uncertain hypotheses are hopefully invoked in research applications, a few seem to have enough utility to justify work and, beyond the motivation to publish about inconclusive data collection, actual verification of a useful hypothesis by scientific method is so rare that the names Pythagoras, Newton, Gauss and Einstein, each connected with the laws quoted above, have secured their historical statures. Blooteuth (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, respect WP:THREAD and WP:INDENT and nobody will move your comments. It takes some getting used to, but I think you'll get the hang of it if you read the articles and watch how others do it.

A dictionary is not a reliable source for scientific definitions. NAS and AAAS are, and their better definitions are linked above. I did attack a straw man, specifically the straw man definition that you linked to and put in bold type. If you do not want me to tear down straw men, do not put up straw definitions, and do not try to poke holes in my very reasonable paraphrasing of the definitions of NAS and AAAS. "A hypothesis that survives testing becomes a theory" is a fine definition for school children. OP is clearly asking for a nuanced approach. "Pettifoggery" is a fun word by the way, what a delightful accusation! Indent style enables us to keep track of who is talking to who, and I think you'll find that thinks work better here if you follow our long-established protocols. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most people seem to add one indent to the last item, whether they're replying to it or to something up-thread, so "watch how others do it" isn't the best guide to the policy. Grump. —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like any nuanced definitions, these are hard to simplify, but when I first teach this stuff to students, I tell it to them this way:
A law is a description of events. Its purpose is to answer the "what" questions. What happens when two objects are attracted to each other? i.e. Newton's law of universal gravitation. What happens when living things compete for resources?, i.e. law of natural selection.

A theory is an explanation of events. Its purpose is to answer the "why" questions. Why are objects attracted to one another? i.e. the theory of General Relativity. Why do living things change over time in response to environmental pressures? i.e. theory of evolution.

Neither of the meaning of these words has anything to do with proof or reliability or acceptance. Humorous laws which aren't intended to be taken seriously as scientific concepts get proposed all the time (Murphy's law, Godwin's law, etc.) It's a law if it follows the formulation "If XXX happens, then YYY will happen reliably in this exact way" even if it isn't tested by scientific means. People throw the word theory around even if they don't mean to test it in this way "I have a theory" means "This is my attempt to explain this..." because that's what a theory is, an explanation. If it follows the formulation "XXX happens because of reasons YYY and ZZZ etc..." it's a theory, whether or not it tested.

The word hypothesis just means "any as-yet untested idea". You can have a hypothetical law "I think that XXX will behave in YYY manner" or you can have a hypothetical theory "I think that XXX happens because..." What makes it a hypothesis is that it has not yet been tested sufficiently". It really is unrelated to the concepts of laws and theories, except that both can be phrased as hypothesis if they have not yet been tested.
Hope this helps a bit. It's a bit simplified for general audiences, if you really want to get deeper into scientific philosophy people like John Dewey, Thomas Kuhn, or Karl Popper are a good place to start. --Jayron 32 02:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good explanation. One extra bit of clarification - Newton discovered the law of gravitation, but he never really gave much thought to why it came about - in other words, he had no theory of gravity. Objects attracted each other, and that was good enough for him - see Hypotheses non fingo, meaning "I do not feign hypotheses" (in other words, "I do not make any predictions that aren't explicitly justified by experimental data").* Other scientists tried to come up with theories that explained why Newton's laws were true, usually by making the hypothesis that the universe was full of some kind of fluid that carried the pushing force of gravity - see mechanical explanations of gravitation. * To be fair, Newton was a bit of a hypocrite on this front. He did put forward a couple of ideas, but at other times he attacked people for making hypotheses they couldn't test, and sometimes he believed that gravity had no cause other than divine intervention. Smurrayinchester 10:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]