Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Eternal Student on 30/03/2022 12:50:26
-
Hi.
There are only about a dozen people who use this forum and half of those are moderators. What are your main areas of interest or expertise?
Why am I asking? Just interested really. People, especially the moderators, spend hours contributing stuff and answering questions.
Examples: Alancalverd ---> Probably studied practical and experimental physics at University and didn't specialise in Engineering until the last year. Not shy about declaring their political views. Has declared experience setting up medical physics equipment (NMR scanners etc.) and flies (aeroplanes).
It's not just moderators who use the site but mentioning others is unreasonable. However, if you're happy and well aware of the security and safety issues about putting info down on the web, then write your piece. There's nothing wrong with staying quiet. Let's cut down on the amount of stuff before it gets out of hand: If you can't read it in 1 minute it's too long and let's say you're only a regular if you've made 40 posts.
Best Wishes.
-
My main interests are identification of irrational biases, things people take for granted without ever really justifying them. I tend to discuss such things elsewhere as this is a science site.
My limited expertise seems to be in relativity, quantum interpretations, and logical reasoning, as such expertise is required in the pursuit of the above, but I'm by no means an actual expert in any of it. My knowledge is weak in electromagnetism, and I avoid answering questions there. I am here mostly to answer questions coming from the rare poster that actually seems interested in learning.
You (ES) have probably already figured out most of that, except probably the bit about the biases.
-
Every scientist I've worked with called me an engineer, and every engineer called me a scientist. The business of medical physics involves me in matters of law and ethics, with a bit of biology so I can understand the problem that the medics want solved with a machine.
The plane takes me to work and the job pays for the plane. What could be better? A double bass that fits inside an old Cessna, and a weightless bass amplifier!
Final ambitions
eradicate Kruger-Dunning syndrome from statutory inspectorates
teach journalists that force, energy, power and strength are not the same thing
teach everyone else that "quantum energy field" is a symptom of bullshit and Heisenberg's Ungenauigkeit is best
translated as indeterminacy, not uncertainty
to die on stage at the Westport Jazz Festival, just after my solo on "All Blues".
-
Advance Notice: I'm going to give the award of the "best answer" in a couple of days. If you want a chance to win this greatly coveted award then get your replies in soon.
-
I'm going to give the award of the "best answer" in a couple of days. If you want a chance to win this greatly coveted award then get your replies in soon.
This topic is more of a survey and not a question where there are answers more correct than others, so I'm not sure of the meaning of one of them being the best. Is one person's interest/expertise better than another?
Secondly, I suspect you overestimate the level at which that 'best answer' status is coveted. Saying thanks to all replyers is often more appropriate, and something where the 'score' is kept as well.
Best regards
-
Advance Notice: I'm going to give the award of the "best answer" in a couple of days. If you want a chance to win this greatly coveted award then get your replies in soon.
Thanks for the warning; I will wait...
-
Hi.
Is one person's interest/expertise better than another?
Obviously not.
It is just a survey and there isn't any serious competition. Marking an answer as the "best answer" doesn't bring a photo opportunity or grant any material award like chocolate bar for the winner. However, this is not the sort of thing you say when you want to get a few more replies.
Criteria for winning this award will include:
1. Writing style and presenting interesting information. For example, @alancalverd currently has the edge on that.
2. Originality. @Halc is leading there because it was difficult to be the first one to answer given very limited guidance. Subsequent replies will probably be shaped by the information and examples they can already see.
3. Compliance with the limited guidance that was given. For example, you can't put a poem in here. Drifting way off the original question just to score highly on writing style won't win.
4. Other things at the discretion and judgment of the OP.
Best Wishes.
-
Hi.
I appreciate there are only about a dozen regulars but getting just three replies isn't much. I wonder if you I can prompt another regular or two by just speculating on what their area of expertise is. As before, I'm not going to speculate on anyone who isn't a moderator.
Colin2B ----> I'm deeply suspicious this is someone who is mentioned on (let's say near the top of) the "about" page for this website and seems to speak on the podcasts quite often. They have claimed sailing interests but I wouldn't have thought they go racing in a sailing dinghy. They've got a little bit of style so it might be a yacht of wooden construction and not the modern fibre glass rubbish.
ChiralSPO ---> Physical Chemistry seems to be their specialty. Fairly sure they have already declared using a model based on QM to predict the properties of elements as being one of their own research areas.
Evan_au ---> There was a Naked Astronomy person from Australia. However, they spend quite a lot of time on the Biology questions, which forces careful consideration. I don't know that much about the Australian education system but I reckon they would have studied a broad range of science at University. Their writing has a generally professional and formal style. I'd say they've had some experience writing science articles for the public, perhaps as a journalist for some newspaper or someone running a science museum, something like that. I suppose writing for the Naked Astronomy podcasts would fit that description.
Best Wishes.
-
Award of best answer:
Every regular (except those mentioned below) gets joint 4th place. Staying quiet for safety or security and/or not boring everyone with your life story is to be highly commended. I just can't grade or assess what I can't see.
@Bored chemist gets 3rd place. They didn't write enough.
@alancalverd gets 2nd place. Their content was exceptionally good and probably the most interesting.
@Halc gets 1st place. Some explanation has already been made. Another thing which I liked is not claiming to be an expert in anything.
Obviously people can continue to write on this thread. I'll probably read what is written eventually (but I'm not going to remove or change any of the awards).
Best Wishes.
-
So... the winner of "best answer" didn't actually answer.
I wonder why that title isn't particularly coveted. :-)
-
History, preservation.
-
Hi @Pseudoscience-is-malarkey ,
History is a great subject. A compulsory subject in most schools and a university subject that produces the greatest number of school headmasters. (A headmaster is the American equivalent of a principal, I think).
Do you think we (human beings) study History to avoid making the same mistakes, or to become better in warfare and the control of people under your authority / care?
Best Wishes.
-
I studied Electrical Engineering at an Australian university, but I have always had a broad interest in the sciences, mathematics and museums.
- As a youngster, fueled, I think, by electronics magazines and Isaac Asimov's fiction & non-fiction
- I studied a lot of software at university (much easier these days than back then...)
- I have spent most of my career working on software-based telecommunications systems
- In my career, I have had the privilege of traveling to many countries, and even to live in Europe for a year (for work)
- My main science-writing experience outside telecommunications has been on the Naked Scientists forum (not as a journalist or for a museum)
- I try to consider the ethical aspects of a subject, beyond the science itself
- I haven't even tried teaching my gym instructors that force, energy, power and strength are not the same thing.
- I have only contributed one short audio segment to the Naked Scientists podcast, and that was on (pseudo)random numbers.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/short/what-random
PS: I only saw this survey today - not all new topics pop up in my in-tray...
-
Hi and thanks @evan_au.
I'm still fairly surprised and impressed that you reply to so many questions or discussions in the Biology sections.
Best Wishes.
-
I'm still fairly surprised and impressed that you reply to so many questions or discussions in the Biology sections.
One view of biology imagines it to be a fantastically complex program, coded in DNA.
- The cell represents the computer which executes the program (unlike silicon computers, it also has programs for self-repair)
- You can see parts of the program that are no longer executed, or which have been corrupted by viruses
- Each little computer interacts with others around it, at various levels up to whole ecosystems...
- Not entirely different from the telecommunications systems that I work on...
-
Hi.
One view of biology imagines it to be a fantastically complex program, coded in DNA.....
One reasonable view for sure.
It's a bit of a reductionist approach. There is some value in not even trying to reduce all of Biology down to a microscopic scale explained by principles of physics. For example, a single theory or equation that explained all of Biology may be so complicated and slow to process that it won't be useful for human understanding in the time available for the species.
Best Wishes.
-
My main interests are identification of irrational biases, things people take for granted without ever really justifying them. I tend to discuss such things elsewhere as this is a science site.
-
Hi @mayorovd .
That post seems oddly similar. Did you just copy-and-paste it from Halc's first post?
All of your posts seem to have been made today and at least one of them seems to be advertising a casino website. You'll need to forgive me if I'm a little bit suspicious that you aren't really that interested in this thread.
If you are genuinely interested. Hi and welcome.
Best Wishes.
-
I'm just a simple man with a simple mind, so I prefer simple explanations.
I studied industrial electronics engineering in a polytechnic. I'm interested to science in general, especially physics, and more specifically in electromagnetism.
My past and present jobs had me studied programming, communication protocols, industrial instrumentation, power generation and distribution, water treatment, microbiology, chemistry, statistics, and some other things.
I'm also interested in philosophy, which should encompass all bodies of knowledge. Although in current stage, it seems lack of clarity and suffers unresolved disagreements among philosophers. I hope it can be improved soon. IMO, we need to be more consistent with our definitions, logic, and math as a language to communicate effectively.
-
Hi and thanks @hamdani yusuf
That is a wide variety of subjects (Microbiology --> communication protocols).
I'm also interested in philosophy...... I hope it can be improved soon. IMO, we need to be more consistent with our definitions, logic, and math as a language to communicate effectively.
That seems to be treating philosophy as if it is just like a science subject. Personally, I would have preferred that but our Philosophy lecturer occasionally reminded the class that Philosophy is not exactly like a science and is simply not meant to be. It's got just as much in common with Humanities and even purely Arts subjects. In particular, it is often involved with trying to understand and analyse the "human condition". Using words with precise and consistent definitions can then be less important than selecting words that convey meaning, stirs emotional response and provokes the reader to question something they have felt and might actually be impossible to put into words.
Anyway, the practical consequence was that essays with some literary prowess and poetry, instead of just scientific precision, usually scored very highly. (I'm not an expert: I didn't sit the final exam and have no formal qualification in Philosophy, you could only submit a certain number of subjects for examination and credit).
Best Wishes.
-
That is a wide variety of subjects (Microbiology --> communication protocols).
In most of those subjects, I only scratch the surface. I got a little bit deeper when it's needed to do my job, although sometimes my curiosity made me wander around a bit further.
-
That seems to be treating philosophy as if it is just like a science subject.
Science is supposed to be a part of philosophy IMO. That's how it used to be. Science was called natural philosophy.
Some ideas of past philosophers have been proven to be scientifically wrong. Modern philosophers reacted by making their ideas harder to prove. It prevents them from becoming quickly irrelevant. But it also make their ideas less useful, vague, and created unnecessary debates and disagreements.
-
It's got just as much in common with Humanities and even purely Arts subjects.
If it is meant to avoid responsibility for getting things wrong, then it won't be very useful nor important. Philosophy should be the basis of our biggest and most influential decisions. If our currently held philosophy can't provide it, we'd better find a better alternative.
-
Using words with precise and consistent definitions can then be less important than selecting words that convey meaning, stirs emotional response and provokes the reader to question something they have felt and might actually be impossible to put into words.
Natural language in its current form has a lot of limitations. It's prone to create miscommunications and misunderstandings, even conflicts. AI simplifies it by converting words and sentences into vectors and tensors before further processings.
Instead of letting emotions and instincts dominate people's decisions, we should promote people to gain wisdom. It would make them think more rationally, which often force them to overcome momentary emotions. But it will prevent regrets in the future.
-
I didn't sit the final exam and have no formal qualification in Philosophy
Big mistake! Second only to Economics, it's an exam where there are no wrong answers!
-
Philosophy should be the basis of our biggest and most influential decisions.
It has been noted that if you recursively trace the first significant word in a Wikipedia article back to its Wikipedia article, you get back to the Wikipedia entry on Philosophy (in about 95% of cases).
So perhaps Philosophy is the basis of our biggest and most influential Wikipedia articles? (in a roundabout sort of way...)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy
-
Hi.
it's an exam where there are no wrong answers!
Yes but also no completely right ones.
Like a lot of essay subjects, final marks tended to be pulled toward the middle. Meanwhile, Mathematics examinations supported the full spread of marks (0 to 100%). So switching a Mathematics exam for Philosophy (or not) remained a tactical decision.
Best Wishes.
-
It has been noted that if you recursively trace the first significant word in a Wikipedia article back to its Wikipedia article, you get back to the Wikipedia entry on Philosophy (in about 95% of cases).
Ah yes, but what do you mean by "significant"...?
-
what do you mean by "significant"...?
Clicking on the first link in the main text of an English Wikipedia article, and then repeating the process for subsequent articles, used to usually lead to the Philosophy article. In February 2016, this was true for 97% of all articles in Wikipedia
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy
Clicking is the first link in this Wikipedia article.
-
I studied chemistry/biochemistry and subsequently electrical engineering. My concerns are around the tsunami of bullshit pervading the web and debunking such is my aim. However it seems a lost cause and the march of pseudoscience appears unstoppable, smothering the last vestiges of critical thinking. Rant over.
-
Hi and welcome, @paul cotter , although I know I've spoken with you several times already.
I'm not a fan of Pseudoscience either but I'm going to take the other side for a moment, or at least advocate for proper balance.
...the march of pseudoscience appears unstoppable...
Trying to obtain some balance on a forum is always a problem: Reduce pseudoscience while continuing to engage with the widest possible audience. This forum is extremely tolerant. Other forums will shut down, edit or entirely remove posts without a moments hesitation. The thing is that many of those were from people that were just inexperienced but trying to engage and/or just didn't agree on a minor issue. Some of the strictest forums end up becoming nothing more that echo-chambers for a few well established members. Anyone with a slightly different view is shut down or will decide not to continue with the forum anyway. Some of the less tolerant forums will actually put people off studying any more science and I don't see how that can be considered a good thing.
Handling anything that doesn't follow main-stream science, is a complicated issue. Depending on how you look at the situation, isn't it at least half-good that someone might be trying to engage with the scientific community? How you / we (scientists) handle it from there can be important, possibly more important than responding to other scientists. Obviously, sometimes people aren't interested in discussion but just in what is often described as "preaching" - but don't we at least have to try?
Best Wishes.
-
I absolutely am NOT referring to the forum, where rubbish is rapidly terminated. I am talking about the web in general. In previous times the local nutcase would walk down the street, talking to himself and his crackpot ideas would not disseminate further. Now he goes on line, meets up with similar minded individuals reinforcing their errors in what has become an echo chamber. The internet is a great power for good yet extremely dangerous.(lest any of my above comments seem cruel to those with mental health difficulties, this is most definitely not my intention-in my younger days I have suffered from anxiety and depression and an obsession with, let's say, "fine chemicals".
-
I'm not a fan of Pseudoscience either but I'm going to take the other side for a moment, or at least advocate for proper balance.
We need to distinguish between pseudoscience and fringe science. The difference is in how they apply scientific methods, beside the terminal goals of doing the scientific studies. Every scientific breakthrough started as fringe science.
If they're not meant to better understanding of objective reality (i. e. building more accurate and precise models of the universe), they are not proper science. Personal gains such as fame and fortune can lead someone to deviate from proper science.
Even well motivated scientific studies can lead to false conclusions. Confusion between noise and signal is quite common. Some can be quickly identified and fixed before publications, but some others can't. Incomplete data is another cause of scientific inaccuracy. It forces scientist to make speculative hypotheses which can either be true or false. Atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, and Bohr are inaccurate, but it doesn't necessarily make them pseudoscience.
-
Hi @Foxxi,
Your post looks like an attempt to setup for further advertising. Also, you don't really fit the criteria specified in the first post of this thread (a regular user), so it doesn't look like you read it or are making any genuine attempt to interact.
However, on the off-chance, hello and welcome.
Best Wishes.
-
It turns out that it can bring a very good income
Extracted from whom?