Science!

Considering the idiot I got stuck behind in traffic today it's a startling revelation in mine....
 
Hmmm, maybe the cave men had belts like this

01043405.interactive.a.jpg
 
Forostar said:
Just realized this article is on a site called Scientific American. So a guide for who?
Who knows this is a guide for scientists, so that they can understand and explain it better to people.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is almost a month old, but I only just noticed it.

Scientific American is a popular science magazine of considerable importance. Here's what Wikipedia says:

Scientific American
Click to expand...
(informally abbreviated, SciAm) is a popular science magazine. It is notable for its long history of presenting scientific information on a monthly basis to the general educated public, through its careful attention to the clarity of its text as well as the quality of its specially commissioned color graphics.[citation needed] Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 168 years. It is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States.
Click to expand...

So yeah, it is a guide for non-scientists who misunderstand what scientists say.
 
Perun, of course non-scientists can go to this site by themselves and bump on the article by coincidence. Sometimes people want to know something or are just curious about different topics. I am just not sure if non-scientists go there by themselves like: hey I misunderstand this (or what that scientist says), so I will go to that site.

Now the article itself: I have the idea that the article did not address its target. It sounded more like it was talking about groups of people (e.g. average Joes).

On interest and ability: Let's imagine that the following questions are directed at the author of the article.
If people are really interested in knowing one of these terms, could they have found out the correct definition somewhere else? (probably yes).
If not interested, why tell them? (they probably won't read it).
Maybe it was written for people who are really interested but who don't have the ability to find out things for themselves? (that doesn't sound likely).

I think this article does not hit its target if it is misunderstanding non-scientists. Either they can find out themselves, or already have found it, either they are not interested.

That's why I think this article was written for scientists as a tool to explain to non-scientists what these things mean. Or else it also may have served as a platform for scientists to share frustration that the others don't always understand what they're saying. So this is written and published and the scientists nod their heads and shout: indeed! The author is happy that he got all these conforming comments but I wonder how many misunderstanding non-scientists he really reached.
 
There is another possibility. It could have been written for people who are among the target audience to sensitise them about these problems and share it with others, as I did.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Maybe I missed it --anybody mentioned those test-tube hamburgers yet? It's the future I heard.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's one potential solution to the agricultural problems of the future...mostly because growing meat (i.e. livestock) is so inefficient and unsustainable. I had a really interesting conversation the other day with someone about whether this kind of lab-grown meat would actually qualify as food that a vegetarian could eat since no animal has come to harm in its making...thoughts?

Here's a link to the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ready-grow-enough-food-to-feed-the-world.html

Edit: On a sidenote to Perun's earlier post about humans still evolving, of course we are. But we are also evolving at a pace that is much slower than our technological advances so in truth our bodies are optimized for a life sometime in the bronze age, not the modern age. Which is interesting because technology has created a kind of mismatch there where we can't possibly adapt optimally to the environment we create for ourselves...will this come back to haunt us or will it be totally irrelevant?
 
In a galaxy, 1400 light years away...
A New Hope Star was discovered


By the European observatory in Chile with the the Alma telescope.
Zoom in on it, with this "video"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This year's Ig Nobel awards.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/winners-2013-ig-nobel-awards-weird-science-20244056

"...Probability: Researchers who discovered that the longer a cow has been lying down, the more likely that cow will soon stand up, but that once a cow stands up, you cannot easily predict how soon that cow will lie down again."

This could well be my favourite discovery of all time. It practically confirms what I'd believed my entire life.
 
A discovery? Well, I am not surprised about the outcome. This confirms my idea of how people can be brainwashed by nationalism and bible belt religion, culminating in ignorant politics and opinionated media. A most deadly cocktail that can kill the open mind, and can make people blind for the truth (facts).
 
Last edited:
The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has found out that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", which is the same thing they said six years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top