1

General Science / Re: Can you talk as well as your granny?

« on: 11/02/2013 17:29:50 »

Of course we can learn that way, but we rely on other people to put us right when we get the wrong idea about the meaning of a word and use it incorrectly.

Personally, I could probably count on one hand the number of times in my life I have used a dicitionary to get the meaning of a word.

In the light of what you've just told us, I can well believe that.

This is autism speaking.  The way you know if you're using a word correctly is by observing if you have been understood or not.  This is communication, but it requires high levels of awareness of other people.  Autistic people, of course, have very low awareness and are therefore unable to detect whether or not they have been understood.  So, I repeat, you learn your langaue in interaction with other people, not from dictionaries.

Your final comment either shows that you have not read many of my posts, or that your own language skills are insufficient to allow you to appreciate the very high level of language skills that pantodragon has.  Indeed, if the rest of the people on this forum rely upon dictionaries as much as you do, then pantodragon's superior language skills are ample evidfence learning through interaction is far more successful than learning from a dictionary.

Pardon my frankness, but this is arrogant nonsense.  This may apply to an extent in spoken commuication, as if you hear a new word you can simply ask what it means.  If you're reading and you encounter a novel word, then "the way you know if you're using a word correctly is by observing if you have been understood or not" is irrelevant.  If I'm reading and I don't understand a term, I look it up.  Usually in a dictionary.

If you define words differently from other people, lets say "competition" and "cooperation" as examples, and simply expect people to understand and adopt your definition, then you're not a good communicator, and do not display "superior language skills". In fact, by not using accepted definitions of words (such as those definitions you find in a dictionary), you occlude meaning and create confusion.

2

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Cooperation or Competition?

« on: 11/02/2013 15:39:08 »

I dare say this sounds like levity, and the whole notion of happy vegetables just seems too ridiculous to take seriously.

You are the one claiming that living things "want to have fun":

Living things need to want to live, need to find pleasure in life, need to be having fun.

Are vegetables not alive, by your definition?  What about zooplankton?

I, on the other hand, will tolerate science – I will just not allow it to sit on the throne, and will not hold my tongue, nor lie, when I see science, or scientists, behaving badly and trying to lord it over other people, trying to take over their lives, claiming more than their fair share of the world – i.e. trying to exclude every thing that is not science.

This is a science Q&A forum.  In that context, this is like shouting at a cow for not producing goats milk.


If you will indulge a hypothetical situation, would you class intentionally trying to get banned from internet fora (wasting the time of well meaning volunteers in the process) as a way of "finding pleasure in life"?  Would you describe this as a cooperative or competitive behaviour?

3

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Cooperation or Competition?

« on: 01/02/2013 00:18:56 »

So if you acknowledge that you use these words in a different way to their scientific meanings, on what grounds do you feel you can comment on the science itself?

What if these strategies were not called "cooperation" and "competition", but called "A" and "B"?

4

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 13.01.31 - Why don't humans have tortoiseshell hair?

« on: 31/01/2013 13:24:38 »

We also had this comment from Jenny Wing on Facebook:

Re: tabby-haired people question of the week from the last show.
A couple of years ago I worked on a paper evaluating the costs of targeted treatments for renal cell carcinoma. Sunitinib can cause changes in hair pigmentation and as it is dosed 3 weeks / 1 week off patients experiencing this side effect can end up with striped hair. There is a good photo illustrating this phenomenon in the Canadian Urological Association Journal, June 2007, Volume 1 Issue 2 Supplement in a review article "Sunitinib therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: recommendations for management of side effects" by Kollmannsberger et al on page 10 of the article (page S50 of the supplement). Not exactly naturally produced, but a bit tabby nevertheless.
J. Wing (health economist)

5

General Science / Re: Do you trust your feelings?

« on: 28/01/2013 18:33:35 »

I trust my feelings at times, and others I acknowledge that they are unfounded.  A good example would be when abseiling - the height and risk of falling makes me nervous, but I know through my own experience and through testing the ropes that I will be safe.  I enjoy abseiling, and it's a healthy activity, but if I simply obeyed my feelings I would avoid it.

Live radio is another good example.  I do get nervous, but I know that my feelings are wrong.  Nothing really bad can happen, the consequences of a mistake are not dire.

6

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Cooperation or Competition?

« on: 28/01/2013 18:14:53 »

You exhibit a fundamental failure to understand what cooperation is. The instances you cite as competitive, when properly understood, are actually cooperation.  The natural world is fundamentally, entirely and always cooperative.  On the other hand, the example of cooperation among people that you cite is not cooperation at all.  It is an alliance among competitors for their greater good.  There is a very great difference between that and cooperation.   Human beings in our world, as it is i.e. sick, are fundamentally, entirely and always competitive. 

I see.  This means you're defining cooperation and competition differently to the way they're used in science.  I understand better now why you would feel science has got it wrong.

I think these words, in a scientific context, essentially mean "working together" and "working against another".  That's a simplification but hopefully it will help to clarify this discussion.

7

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Cooperation and Competition

« on: 26/01/2013 16:32:00 »

But, if you have a point at all, you need to tell me what is the  SIGNIFICANT difference between what I say and what science says.

I underline again SIGNIFICANT because it IS the significant point.

Science claims, based on hypothesis and observation, that cooperation and competition are strategies used by different species in different situations.

Examples:
The Portuguese man o' war is a colonial organism - perhaps one of the best examples of cooperation.  Each Man o'war is made up of many individual animals, each performing a specialised task and ensuring survival of the colony.

It is also a significant predator, killing and consuming small marine species through the use of drifing, venomous nematocysts.  It competes with other species for available food, and is capable of killing species that it is incapable of digesting.

It is a supreme example of competitive and cooperative strategies within one species.

Chimpanzees cooperate extremely well within their troupe - with relatives and sometimes unrelated individuals.  They share food, help raise one another's offspring, use complicated strategies to hunt together.  They will also attack and kill Chimps from another troupe, through competition for resources.  Again, cooperation when cooperation works, competition when competition works.

Human beings in all societies tend to cooperate with those around them in order to compete with another group of humans.  This is evidenced in war, in the boardroom, on corporations, tribes, schools and communities.  Of course, they also compete with other species for resources.

I could go on, but I can't think of any example of a species that does not show both cooperative and competitive behaviours.

I'm forced to conclude, without wishing to be insensitive, that observation of the natural world proves this hypothesis...

Thus cooperation and competition are fundamental mindsets, not just strategies.

...to be incorrect.

8

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is general health checking useful?

« on: 27/11/2012 17:34:12 »

I would wonder, however, if this study should be separated by individual test.  For example, there may be benefits of fecal occult blood testing, and periodic colonoscopy, and early removal of polyps which might otherwise be undetected. 

This was certainly what they recommended for future research - looking at individual tests, rather than blanket screening.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Alien life on Mars?

« on: 15/11/2012 15:28:20 »

So what title would you like the new discussion thread to have?

Please allow me to explain why I don't want to discuss these topics here:  If people come to a science Q&A forum, such as this, and see a post entitled "Alien life on Mars?" they will expect to see a discussion of alien life on Mars.  If they then discover the most recent posts are all discussing the philosophy of science, they won't read much further back and will assume that the other threads are similar - i.e. they don't contain the answers they are looking for.  As I'm one of the people who run this forum, I'm very keen for it to do what we set it up to do - help people ask science questions and find scientific answers.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Alien life on Mars?

« on: 12/11/2012 15:41:22 »

Hi Pantodragon,

I would like to respond to some of your comments, but will not do so in this thread about life on mars. So, I'm going to split this latest comment off into a new thread in the general science part of the forum.  What title would you like me to give it?

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Alien life on Mars?

« on: 08/11/2012 15:49:59 »

Okay, that's enough philosophy, please can we return to the topic in hand?  We don't have a philosophy section of the forum, but I'm sure a new thread on the philosophy of science would fit in the General Science board, should you wish to start one.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Alien life on Mars?

« on: 05/11/2012 16:32:19 »

BenV says:  I think this oversimplifies the issue. 

No, I am not oversimplifying, you are overcomplicating.

I apologise for not having the time right now to approach the rest of your post, but I just wanted to clarify this bit.  I was referring to your statement that:

Firstly, the old evolution thing: survival of the fittest, the selfish gene, competition etc..  This is so blattantly, absurdly wrong that it beggars belief that people actually swallow it.  Let’s just take one thing: competition leads to monoculture.  Cooperation leads to diversity.  This is very clear, unambiguous, unarguable.

This is clearly an oversimplification of the idea of evolution by natural selection.  As I further went on to explain, competition does not lead to monoculture, and it is not the only driving force in evolution.  You seem to dismiss the idea of evolution, but only after simplifying it into absurdity.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Alien life on Mars?

« on: 01/11/2012 15:45:08 »

You object to extending the principles of science to beyond the Earth, yet we have many reasons to believe this is a sound process and few if any reasons to doubt its efficacy. On that basis the environment of Mars seems to preclude macroscopic life forms.

Without being specific about reasons, efficacy etc., I cannot deal with your specific objections.  You talk talk with an air of great authority, but all I can say is you are wrong. 

This is a science discussion website, so some evidence and discussion would be appreciated.  I choose not to accept your assertion that Ophiolite is wrong, and you are welcome to convince me otherwise.

Science does not stand on such solid ground as it would have us believe.  The air of authority with which science speaks disguises the insubstantiality, or even absence, of grounds on which it stands.  There are issues raised on this thread upon which science talks complete bollocks with complete authority.

Please watch your language, we try to keep this a family friendly site.

Firstly, the old evolution thing: survival of the fittest, the selfish gene, competition etc..  This is so blattantly, absurdly wrong that it beggars belief that people actually swallow it.  Let’s just take one thing: competition leads to monoculture.  Cooperation leads to diversity.  This is very clear, unambiguous, unarguable.  It is also clear that human society is tending toward monoculture.  It is equally clear that the natural world has gone in the other direction, starting from relatively simple beginnings and evolving the huge, rich variety of life we see on our planet.  Explanation: humans are competitive and fight for survival, while nature is cooperative.

I think this oversimplifies the issue.  I'm not really convinced that competition leads to monoculture (as competition leads to niche fractionisation), nor do I see any evolutionary biologists suggesting that competition is the only factor at play.  The whole field of Evolutionary Game Theory looks at how different strategies work in different contexts.

Secondly, scientists are blithely extending the rules they have derived for life on earth out into the greater cosmos yet they clearly have not even understood what rules apply on earth.  Nor have they understood the range of applicability and what justifies extrapolation of certain rules to systems and situations beyond their original home territory.

They're doing both at the same time - increasing our knowledge of life on Earth while looking for evidence of life, as we so far understand it, elsewhere.  As I said in the post above, if data arises that doesn't fit our Earth-based theories, new hypotheses will arise to help explain the new facts.

While we’re at it, let’s go right back to the beginning to the great big Bang with which modern science started: that we exist in, and are products of, a real material world (as opposed to, say, a virtual reality) and that that world is machine like i.e. is ordered by rules (as opposed to being ordered by, say, meaning).  This is all unsubstantiated and puts science in the same compartment as religions i.e. it is based fundamentally on belief.

Some of this is philosophy, rather than science, and some of it is misconception.  The Big Bang is not science dogma, it's the best fit explanation with the facts we have to date.  We accept the idea that the universe is mechanical because that explanation fits the facts.  If new facts arise that gives us cause to question these assumptions, scientists will do so.  This is the main reason why comparing science to a religion is nonsense.

I can anticipate that there may be a reaction to my reply of the nature of: what are you doing on this site then if you think science is bollocks?  Well, the situation is actually rather more complex than scientists understand.  To me, science is just the latest big religion and I am interested in religions.  Further, they all are true but you have to know where the truth lies, and it lies in the mythology.  The textbooks of science contain the mythology of science just as surely as the Bible contains the mythology of the Judaic religions.  These mythologies talk in the language of dreams and are interpretable in the same way as dreams and the truth they contain is the truth of what is going on in the minds of their creators.

Now that's an interesting point - truth.  Scientists don't really lay claim to the truth, "science" understands that we are limited by our senses and our minds, and that the closest we can get to an objective truth is a form of inter-consensual subjectivity - and through this we reach the closest to objectivity that we are currently able to reach.  Science and religion(s) are different types of philosophy - perhaps that should be your starting point instead?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Alien life on Mars?

« on: 01/11/2012 15:23:09 »

Pantodragon, I notice you've made this exact same post on several other fora.  In the future, please do not copy/paste content here that is also posted elsewhere on the web, as per our forum rules.

-mod

Yes, I see that I didn't read the rules closely enough.  Having said that, I have to comment on this rule: it is absurd.  It is tantamount to saying that pantodragon (or anyone else) may not talk about the same subject, discuss the same issues, with different sets of friends unless she expresses herself in different words.  What is the thinking behind this?  At face value it seems as though Naked Scientists is inconveniencing its members to ensure that it has sole publication rights for  whatever they produce - an iniquitous practice that will be familiar to all freelance magazine writers.

This rule is in place predominantly because of the massive quantity of spam and spam-like posts that forums receive.  Posts that are duplicated on other fora are very often edited later to include spam links, or the poster never returns to actually discuss their posts.  This is a discussion forum, rather than a publishing platform.


With regards life on Mars, I wonder if she was overstating her point a bit.  We haven't found any evidence for life using any of the techniques we have tried, so right now, I think we're forced to accept the null hypothesis that there is no life on Mars.  But that doesn't mean we should stop trying.  At some point, that threshold will come, but Curiosity shows that we're not there yet.

Are we restircted to Earth-centric thinking?  I suspect so, but the nice thing about science is that it's a process, so if something arises that doesn't fit our current understanding, new hypotheses will arise to accommodate the data.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Michelson -Morley My Nikon 3D light power measure

« on: 27/09/2012 16:49:23 »

.be implies it is a belgian site. but his could easily be sent somewhere else

In his defence, youtube's own shortened urls are "http://youtu.be/...."

16

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Where in our brain does the attraction to horror come from?

« on: 13/09/2012 11:11:43 »

The "Fight or Flight" reaction is, at least in part, led by adrenaline - Could horror (in all its many forms) simply be giving us an enjoyable adrenaline rush?

17

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why have I recently started experiencing extremely salty sweat?

« on: 30/08/2012 14:24:58 »

Needless to say, to combat this I have been drinking more sports drinks throughout the day than the water I normally drink.

What sorts of sports drink?  They've usually got lots of electrolytes in, so could be the source of your salty sweat...

18

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Spare the cow- ferment the grass yourself

« on: 18/05/2012 15:48:18 »

Oddly enough, I've just been chatting to a researcher who works on animal nutrition and the role of microorganisms in ruminant guts - we're hoping to discuss this on the Naked Scientists radio show/podcast very soon, so please keep an eye out for it!

19

Technology / Re: When will I be able to trainspot the 125 to Leeds run on this?

« on: 19/03/2012 11:10:23 »

1000°C is pretty hot, and is one of the reasons that fuel cells haven't gotten into "home use".

This is one of the reasons people are proposing solid oxide fuel cells for combined heat & power in industrial and residential estates - you can use the heat generated for central heating!

20

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 12.01.29 - Would turning off standby devices increase my heating bills?

« on: 26/01/2012 08:34:45 »

Some great discussion here, thanks folks!

The other thing to consider is what happens in summer - if you rely on air conditioning rather than just opening windows, will you be paying extra to get rid of the heat produced by these devices? For how much of the year do we need the heating on?