Science
- Started 12 years ago
- Last post 5 months ago
- 1,014 Responses
- detritus1
Join Helen Foster/Jodie Hunt in her enthusiasm for a solar storm which could fuck us all (probably won't).
- but no Jodie Foster?monospaced
- I was thinking of her in Contact.
I often do.detritus - Jodie Foster and Helen Hunt, together at last.Continuity
- haha, Helen Hunt ... how did I miss that!?monospaced
- detritus2
This is so cool to me - Australia's inland plam trees were likely brought to the continent by aboriginal travellers 30,000 years ago...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-…
...and, what's more, 'evidence' of this was apparently transmitted through their oral traditions.
- detritus0
"The great nutrient collapse
The atmosphere is literally changing the food we eat, for the worse. And almost nobody is paying attention."
- detritus2
Ah shit, I meant to look heavenward an hour or so ago, about when our noble and loyal friend Cassini dropped into Saturn — it'll be gone now, obliterated into dust under so much pressure.
Earth should receive its final message in about half an hour or so.
So long — thanks for all the pics!
x
- Laterally, our lobbing a radioactive kinetic projectile at the Saturnians might well kick off our first inter-planetary war.detritus
- yuekit0
Why Hasn’t Evolution Made Another Platypus?
The debate over whether evolution is predictable or haphazard.
- isn't it because the platypus was a stopgap in the development of live-birth mammals? it has only a tenuous grasp on the niche it still has.sarahfailin
- Or at all (runs and hides under the table!)mugwart
- utopian1
Evaporating Water Could Power Almost 70% of The US Electrical Grid
- drgs1
We dont live in a simulation
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physi…
- PonyBoy2
LIGO Detects Fierce Collision of Neutron Stars for the First Time
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/…
"Astronomers announced on Monday that they had seen and heard a pair of dead stars collide, giving them their first glimpse of the violent process by which most of the gold and silver in the universe was created."
- reanimate0
- I think Sam gets a little bit sensationalist about the whole debate. However, all his points are valid, just not the whole picture.Morning_star
- detritus0
Ingestion of c60, 'buckminsterfullerene' doubles lives of rats?!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/sci…
tl;dr — a study aimed at figuring out toxicity of buckyballs in mammals not only implies they're not toxic, but actually increase lifespan.
- its a soccer balldrgs
- with the fuck are you supposed swallow one of those thing?
https://images.vat19…Gnash
- PonyBoy2
PREHISTORIC, DINOSAUR-ERA SHARK WITH INSANE TEETH FOUND SWIMMING OFF COAST OF PORTUGAL
http://www.newsweek.com/dinosaur…
"The rare frilled shark is considered a “living fossil,” because evidence of its existence dates back to at least 80 million years ago. This summer, researchers found one alive and thriving off the coast of Portugal, adding yet more clues about the resilience of this ancient sea creature."
- sofas-3
This thread is a pro-science circle jerk.
I wish science would be bashed like religion is in its parallel thread, because I think the differences aren't that big, both-
1) Institutionally (see copyrighted articles, fake results, tenure, publish or perish, student slavery, power hierarchy, industry ties, how knowledge revolutions were treated etc.) and
2) Fundamentally (see induction / deduction etc.).Of course like a religion and a faith, the institution and fundamentals are intertwined.
Atheism and science have great PR, look at the world becoming secular. Schools teach different religions and heritages highlighting the fact that it's about faith and belief (and often making kids hate them because many learn to hate what they were coerced to learn in school), but philosophy of science? Nah, just trust the priest in the white coat, dumbing down the scriptures so you can feel involved and safe.
- the intiial reasoning for this thread has long-since departed. It's now literally just a thread where people post 'sciencey' things.detritus
- Besides, we have other scientists to bash each New Science critically — I'm not sure how well-placed many of us are here to do that in any worthwhile sense.detritus
- What do you suggest schools do - give valuable time up to unfoundable fantasies about Atlantis or færies?detritus
- I mean I too post cool sciency things and enjoy everyone else's posts, just saying it would be refreshing to see critical things too :)sofas
- This is what I dislike most about religionists - their simplistic unquestioning view that science isn't internally critical. That's the whole point of science.detritus
- Religion tends towards black and white, whereas science (when done propa) is a myriad of shades of grey, and that encourages more questioning..detritus
- it's not science you have a problem but the way in which it's (ab)used. as det says, it's not an absolute but is often referenced as such in order to deceiveFax_Benson
- but there's definitely a kind blind faith tech worship that isn't remotely healthy.Fax_Benson
- @detritus I agree. In an absolute sense I say don't coerce education, in a relative sense I say teach being critical of science's fundamentals and institutionssofas
- @Fax to a degree I agree with you, but empiricism should be criticised as wellsofas
- I think there is a general confusion between the criticism of the Scientific Method and criticism of Scientism (the blind belief in the infalability...Morning_star
- ...of Science). FYI this thread was created because of my assertion in the Religion thread that Scientism has all the negative characteristics found in...Morning_star
- ...Religions. IMorning_star
- @Morning totally. Checked out the first post on this thread "Is not a belief system."
:)sofas - considering the definition of science is to constantly question and revise, I'd say the differences are so vast, that there's no fair comparisonmonospaced
- common misconception is that science is some kind of book of rules, but it's just a process of figuring things out, it's a way of processing realitymonospaced
- Morning_star clarifies it well with his Scientific Method vs. Scientism comparison.monospaced
- You really should start an anti-science thread where you can bash on it. Should go over really well :)monospaced
- true @mono, the comparison to religion was a bit of a provocation, but there are similaritiessofas
- Just scrolled through the first couple pages of this thread, the beginning of it was more open endedsofas
- I'll consider it mono! :)sofas
- the comparison to religion is hilariously ironic, when religious people are using similarity to religion as an insult to sciencemonospaced
- ^nice guys defusing my anger by agreeing with me, wtf :)sofas
- yea mono, don't think I ever encountered that, I think it's more like they say "things aren't as straightforward" like "god put fossils here to test our faith"sofas
- specific to that example, it really is scary the excuses they'll offer to discredit any affront to their faith in creationism, putting word's in god's mouth!monospaced
- rest assured sofas, there are in fact hordes of new scientists that dedicate their lives to questioning and/or improving upon the fundamentalsmonospaced
- and they will continue to do so, forever (hopefully)monospaced
- think of it like this ... IF there's ever going to be a breakthrough in human knowledge, it's most likely coming from the sciences, not a religionmonospaced
- mono I think you're right, you might back that up by saying "look how easily and quickly the quantum theory was adopted compared to the Copernican revolution"..sofas
- ..but there is still room for so much more, I think the power structures are constricting in a similar way to the times of the Copernican revolutionsofas
- Quantum theory was easily and quickly adopted? Einstein might disagree with you there..detritus
- @detritus i'm no historian, but compared to the Copernican revolution or other major shifts I think it went quite easysofas
- https://www.reddit.c…sofas
- lol, what's the danger in testing a theory and coming up with conclusions based on those tests?monospaced
- scientific progress is happening whether people choose to believe it or not, "thank god."monospaced
- (not to derail, but copernicus was a pussy)Gnash
- That'd be to do with the pace of change afforded by modern science and society though, rather than any kind of unblinking acceptance of theory.detritus
- And quantum theory had to be accepted in some form when practical facets of its effect were used to deploy transistors then wifi, etc. in the real world.detritus
- Perhaps the nuances or even indeed fundamental conceit of quantum theory is flawed, or entirely wrong, but the reality is that on some level - it works.detritus
- There is science. Someone/team trying to prove something.
Then there is cooperate science - someone being paid to prove what is wanted to be heard.mugwart - The way uni's are structured is more limited then the churches and encourages 'same' thought, IMHOmugwart
- you question - your ridiculed - your unemployed.
That isn't science.mugwart - Take climate, take evolution, shit medicine is the worst. Take health/dietitiansmugwart
- I hear all the time I dont believe in religion - I believe in SCIENCE.mugwart
- what does that even mean! Apart from your belief system operates exactly the same way as an otherdox religioniousmugwart
- science doesn't operate like a religion at all ... it writes new books constantly, not reference 1. people believe in the process, OBVIOUSLY!monospaced
- science isn't a belief system, so as hard as people try to cram it into that category, they will always fail, because it doesn't require belief beyond evidencemonospaced
- it actually thrives on disbelief, which drives scientists to seek the answers, propose theories, etc ... and evolution is 100% true, it's not a belief systemmonospaced
- if you add disbelief to religion, you get ridicule, you get banished, or you're forced to beg forgiveness, or forced to believe you've done wrongmonospaced
- science only asks that if you disbelieve, you propose why and then present evidence based on scientific experiments, all in hopes of refinementmonospaced
- Mono, you're right in principle but the reality is entirely different. Organisations that 'do' science are often less open minded and clogged with ...Morning_star
- ...dogma and generational misconceptions. The political hierarchy is full of people more worried about their career than perpetuating good science...Morning_star
- ..., much like religions.Morning_star
- yeah, but that's a narrow view ... because there are ALWAYS scientists that are making real progress, and the scientific method can't be changedmonospaced
- focusing on the minuscule minority that is fulfilling an agenda is not big picture, and even they aren't dogmatic about anything that I've ever heard ofmonospaced
- and even THEN it's NOTHING like religion, as religion references only one book, makes NO progress, doesn't WANT to make progress, and is 100% misconceptionmonospaced
- For a self confessed atheist Mono, your understanding of the variety and scope of different religions is severely limited. Know your enemy.Morning_star
- My understanding is fine, and I apologize for focusing on the religions that use "the book" as those are the ones that are closest to my realm of life.monospaced
- OF COURSE there are other religions that aren't as dogmatic like the western ones, and that aren't as orthodox as the orthodox ones, but that's missing my pointmonospaced
- It's a given, in this thread specifically, that the comparison to a "belief system" is specifically the belief system of a western monotheism one.monospaced
- Of which comparing to science is absolute rubbish, since science is not a belief system, but instead a process of figuring things out.monospaced
- It's not a given. At all. If it makes you feel better to limit the universe for your Atheism because your argument is limited, that's up to you. However, ...Morning_star
- i'm going to post some links to some discussions regarding science and religion which should show that your insistance that belief is absent from science...Morning_star
- ...wrong.Morning_star
- I think the whole recent reproducibility crisis in science is evidence enough that belief often runs a little too strongly.detritus
- It’s fair to say religion is a non-progressive movement. Science is purely based on progress. The only thing holding us back is modern neoliberalismIanbolton
- There is no pro science or anti science. There is just scientific and nonscientific. Science does not care that you don't participatecannonball1978
- Damnit Morningstar, I was here when this thread started. It was about a comparison to Christianity as a belief system. A spin-off from another thread.monospaced
- Gnash4
- yeah not sure i'm with her :) but I do think that determinism and reductionism have killed romance and in some ways it was nicer before...sofas
- lol, as if anyone is stopping scientists from scientifically exploring the science behind black magic! it isn't happening because that's stupid AFmonospaced
- utopian0
Asgardia, the world's first 'space nation', takes flight
The world's first "space nation" has taken flight.
On November 12, Asgardia cemented its presence in outer space by launching the Asgardia-1 satellite.The "nanosat" -- it is roughly the size of a loaf of bread -- undertook a two-day journey from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, the United States, to the International Space Station (ISS).
It contains 0.5 TB of data belonging to 18,000 of Asgardia's citizens, such as family photographs, as well as digital representations of the space nation's flag, coat of arms and constitution.
- Picture: Holy shit a massively cool space station!
Reality: A satellite the size of a loaf of bread.
Clearly a space station for ants.kona - ^ lolGuyFawkes
- why the f are they using a stencil font for a CNN article headlinescarabin_net
- 'style'.detritus
- Picture: Holy shit a massively cool space station!
- sofas0
"physicists can be wrong but physics is not" / Dr. Laura Patrizii
"data rich and theory poor" / Neil deGrasse Tysonthese debates are so good that they seem scripted, and Neil creates a really engaging chemistry with the panel
"2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Faster Than the Speed of Light"
