Why nature prefers hexagons
nautil.us
Why nature prefers hexagons
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Why nature prefers hexagons
#2PBS Infinite video on the same subject and how it expands into 4D space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8jOxEGVyPo
Re: Why nature prefers hexagons
#3Always wished pixels were hexagonal. Yeah the math would be a bit harder and vertical lines would be fuzzier at low resolution, but still.... https://www.quora.com/Why-are-computer-pixels-square
Re: Why nature prefers hexagons
#4I really dislike when articles use words such as "prefer" in this way. It conveys a level of intentionality that is not truly present. It would be better to say "Why hexagons appear often in nature." Or "Why nature produces hexagons"
Otherwise, the descriptor is not just imprecise, it is also misleading.
Re: Why nature prefers hexagons
#5Strange article. You can see that some of the statements about honeycombs in the first paragraph are wrong, just by looking at the first picture.
Re: Why nature prefers hexagons
#6I really dislike when articles use words such as "prefer" in this way. It conveys a level of intentionality that is not truly present. It would be better to say "Why hexagons appear often in nature." Or "Why nature produces hexagons" Otherwise, the descriptor is not just imprecise, it is also misleading.
You may have a more spiritualistic view of "intentionality" than is really warranted.
Re: Why nature prefers hexagons
#7I really dislike when articles use words such as "prefer" in this way. It conveys a level of intentionality that is not truly present. It would be better to say "Why hexagons appear often in nature." Or "Why nature produces hexagons" Otherwise, the descriptor is not just imprecise, it is also misleading.
You may have a more spiritualistic view of "intentionality" than is really warranted.
Or they, like me, have constant interactions with lay people who constantly understand these things to mean their view of a universe guided by an intelligence is correct.
I get it, it's just hard to avoid in English, but it is still a (small) failure in clear science communication.
Re: Why nature prefers hexagons
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may have a more spiritualistic view of "intentionality" than is really warranted.
Or they, like me, have constant interactions with lay people who constantly understand these things to mean their view of a universe guided by an intelligence is correct. I get it, it's just hard to avoid in English, but it is still a (small) failure in clear science communication.
I think the worst case of this in science is the way that evolution is described in a way that implies an active process rather than just random mutations which may or may not make organisms more fit for survival.
Re: Why nature prefers hexagons
#9I really dislike when articles use words such as "prefer" in this way. It conveys a level of intentionality that is not truly present. It would be better to say "Why hexagons appear often in nature." Or "Why nature produces hexagons" Otherwise, the descriptor is not just imprecise, it is also misleading.
You may have a more spiritualistic view of "intentionality" than is really warranted.
Rather, a large number of laypeople seem to have this more spiritualistic view, and it is fairly obvious how they will interpret this kind of language.
Re: Why nature prefers hexagons
#10Aren't triangles the strongest shape?
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1393965/are-triangl... https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/619ygo/why_are_...