Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
coffeesippin

Hijack from Why should people missing 85 percent of an equation (dark matter)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

So what?

"Some models are better than others.

For example you could model scientists as children.

That would be a very silly model."                                               

          So what is wrong with children as models of scientists?    They can be very patient (the 10 year old searched for the supernova for six months before finding it,) and 'as open minded as children' .. not predisposed to ideas that hinder their curiosity and observations.    

         A life saving child who did what adult scientists failed in 10 years to do:    For over a decade, people in Southern California have been getting sick (and in some cases dying) after coming into contact with a fungus called Cryptococcus gattii. But for years, the scientists who study C. gattiiweren't able to determine exactly where people were meeting up with this deadly fungus, according to a recent report by NPR.  Enter Elan Filler, a seventh-grader in search of a cool science fair project. Her father, an infectious disease specialist, recommended she take up the challenge of finding out where C. gattii was hiding out. Filler started investigating and ultimately identified at least three trees infected with the fungus in the greater Los Angeles area.    She shared her discovery with researchers at Duke University in North Carolina. Her findings were part of a study published Aug. 21, 2014, in the journal PLOS Pathogens. 

            Another life saving child?  Need proof that middle-school science projects beget scientific discoveries? Meet Simon Kashchock-Marenda, a student in the United States whose unique experiment inspired a study by scientists at Drexel University in Philadelphia.Kashchock-Marenda was interested in finding out how artificial sweeteners, such as Sweet'N Low and Equal, affect fruit flies. He fed groups of the flies different sweeteners, one of which was Truvia, an artificial sweetener containing a sugar alcohol called erythritol. The flies that fed on the Truvia died within six days, leading the budding scientist to hypothesize that, for fruit flies, Truvia isn't a healthier alternative to sugar.  With help from his father, a professor of biology at Drexel, the middle-school student repeated the experiment under laboratory conditions and observed similar results. Drexel researchers later concluded that the erythritol in Truvia has a toxic effect on the flies, leading them to explore whether erythritol could one day be used as a human-safe insecticide

               Yes, those children had adult help and inspiration, but they obviously also had unique qualities that enabled them.  Perhaps science could identify those qualities and teach them in university, if that's not already being done.

         https://www.livescience.com/47642-discoveries-by-kids.html

Yes, we've gone off topic .. it's so easy, but all I was doing was answering a question.  If we have to open a new topic each time this situation arises navigating could get very cumbersome.  Still, if a mod suggests I open a new topic, I'll do that.   I don't think I have anything more to say about children scientists though.

Edited by coffeesippin
Added a question mark then url

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

Yes, we've gone off topic .. it's so easy, but all I was doing was answering a question. 

Badly.

My comment was that it would be silly to pretend that scientists act like children- rather than the other way round.

Children often act like scientists. They are notorious for asking "but why?" repeatedly. The ones who don't get that curiosity knocked out of them might grow up to do science.

It's interesting to note that one powerful force for stopping kids asking questions is to give meaningless answers like "He moves in mysterious ways" rather than honest ones like "I don't know".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Badly.

My comment was that it would be silly to pretend that scientists act like children- rather than the other way round.

Children often act like scientists. They are notorious for asking "but why?" repeatedly. The ones who don't get that curiosity knocked out of them might grow up to do science.

It's interesting to note that one powerful force for stopping kids asking questions is to give meaningless answers like "He moves in mysterious ways" rather than honest ones like "I don't know".

'He moves in mysterious ways' sounds to me like encouragement to investigate those ways, it's a major reason I love science.  Most people enjoy a good mystery, billions of books have been sold on mystery.  And one of the most mysterious mysteries about God is why he allows a degenerate race like ours to continue when it is scientifically clear that the evils in it have destroyed billions of our own kind, are currently destroying the planet's capacity for life, littering space with debris.  The comment on littering space is not anti-scientific, it's like pollution on earth, we could pay for systems that would prevent it or remove it and convert it to productivity, but the profit is greater to flush it, prices of homes are lower if we flush it, taxes are lower if we flush it.  But that mystery is solved in that God is merciful.  I hope that is not considered as against the rules preaching, just an element of the discussion in answering your question.

Also, I thought we were in the topic of Einstein's and Hawking's God.

On 10/31/2018 at 7:54 AM, mistermack said:

What they are saying is that it's not visible. Not with the technology we have so far developed. That doesn't mean it's missing. 

If something is moving the long grass, it might still be a lion, even if you can't see the lion. You can detect it's presence. Same thing applies to stars. If something moves them, it's pretty certain that there's something there.

Good example, better than wind moving the grass.   And if it's a stranger to the life of lions, he probably won't know it's a lion.  But if the person is someone who has lived among lions for a long time, he will almost certainly know the difference between a lion moving the grass, and a jackal.   We've lived among the stars a long time, but we're still in danger of thinking it's a jackal when it could be a lion.  (I just googled, and Jackals can be a danger through rabies.  Good things stars don't carry rabies.)

Edited by coffeesippin
Removed a surplus remove .. admit an oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

'He moves in mysterious ways' sounds to me like encouragement to investigate those ways, it's a major reason I love science.

Sadly, that's not what it is usually interpreted as meaning

 

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

And one of the most mysterious mysteries about God is why he allows a degenerate race like ours to continue when it is scientifically clear that the evils in it have destroyed billions of our own kind, are currently destroying the planet's capacity for life, littering space with debris. 

Easy answer- he doesn't exist.
which, thankfully, brings us back to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Sadly, that's not what it is usually interpreted as meaning

 

Easy answer- he doesn't exist.
which, thankfully, brings us back to the topic.

I don't want you to look ignorant of possibilities, so I'll try to persuade you to change your "Easy answer - he doesn't exist" to 'In my opinion he doesn't exist.'  

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Sadly, that's not what it is usually interpreted as meaning

 

Easy answer- he doesn't exist.
which, thankfully, brings us back to the topic.

mean·ing
 
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.
"the meaning of the word “supermarket”"
synonyms: definition, sense, explanation, denotation, connotation, interpretation, nuance
"the word has several different meanings"
  1. intended to communicate something that is not directly expressed.
    "she gave Gabriel a meaning look"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I don't want you to look ignorant of possibilities, so I'll try to persuade you to change your "Easy answer - he doesn't exist" to 'In my opinion he doesn't exist.'  

His non-existence is what science calls the null hypothesis.
It's the easy answer to why He doesn't do something, regardless, not only of my opinion, but also of whether it's true or not.

I'm happy to look ignorant but if this thread doesn't veer back to reality it's going to get closed down.

Can we just return to the simple observation that you didn't understand what I posted?

Calling scientists "children" is not the same as calling children "scientists".

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.