Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? (2017)

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? (2017)

#61

Post by popcube »

pintxo wrote: post #49
glenstein wrote: post #28

Am I missing something? This is a link to an article where a bunch of scientists and public intellectuals answer the question, and it provides all kinds of cool content, such as "impedance matching", and the notion that natural selection implies that our DNA can tell us about the environments our genetic ancestors lived in. Instead of reading, reacting, or engaging with any of those ideas, people are just directly re…

> that our DNA can tell us about the environments our genetic ancestors lived in. It‘s afaik not the DNA transporting the information, but epigenetics. Eg everything around the DNA deciding what parts to read/ignore.

he is talking about our DNA are evolution results of our ancients, and because they can estimate age and natural selection stress of genes, maybe it is possible to rebuild phenotype of ancient. For example, estimating egg size of octopus, web type of spiders... and so on.

Re: What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? (2017)

#62

Post by hoseja »

glenstein wrote: post #28

Am I missing something? This is a link to an article where a bunch of scientists and public intellectuals answer the question, and it provides all kinds of cool content, such as "impedance matching", and the notion that natural selection implies that our DNA can tell us about the environments our genetic ancestors lived in. Instead of reading, reacting, or engaging with any of those ideas, people are just directly re…

It's 206 article-level answers. Just an awe-inspiring level of content; and a lot of it resonates with me. Will take a while to read through.

Re: What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? (2017)

#63

Post by andi999 »

Twisol wrote: post #37
andi999 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with the cell wall idea. Yes it is a lipid double layer, but it seems to separate the inside and outside quite well (you need all those channels to get stuff in)

As a complete layperson, I suspect osmosis may be a good counterexample. Channels react selectively to various compounds, but water can probably pass through the membrane more easily. Wikipedia (heh) seems to support this idea, but my gosh is this all complex. > Compared to ions, water molecules actually have a relatively large permeability through the bilayer, as evidenced by osmotic swelling. [...] Small uncharged…

But then any model has its limitations, doesn't it. I think hydrogen can go through metal (and probably walls), so you could say walls are not a good model for walls.

Re: What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? (2017)

#64

Post by artificialLimbs »

epgui wrote: post #55
artificialLimbs wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Astrology was a science long before the western Enlightenment, which is irrelevant to its unique contributions to human knowledge - as a language of archetypes. Have the workings of entanglement been explained?

The only thing scientific about astrology, even generously speaking in historical context, is the observations and measurements of what would now fall under astronomy. Astrology in the context of personality traits or "archetypes", as you put it, has never been a science and has always been a pseudoscience. Smarter minds than me understand the workings of quantum entanglement about as well as they understand the work…

What do you know about the scientific research of astrology? It sounds like nothing, to me.

So you relegate all study of personality traits (which are different than archetypes) to the pseudoscience bin?

>> .. as well as they understand the workings of gravity...

So pretty much not at all then. This was my original point.

Re: What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? (2017)

#65

Post by ben_w »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #64
epgui wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing scientific about astrology, even generously speaking in historical context, is the observations and measurements of what would now fall under astronomy. Astrology in the context of personality traits or "archetypes", as you put it, has never been a science and has always been a pseudoscience. Smarter minds than me understand the workings of quantum entanglement about as well as they understand the work…

What do you know about the scientific research of astrology? It sounds like nothing, to me. So you relegate all study of personality traits (which are different than archetypes) to the pseudoscience bin? >> .. as well as they understand the workings of gravity... So pretty much not at all then. This was my original point.

> So you relegate all study of personality traits (which are different than archetypes) to the pseudoscience bin?

That’s called “psychology”. The real science even has that nice little observation that which side of the school admission year you’re born on is basically the only thing about when you’re born that makes any significant difference.

Re: What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? (2017)

#66

Post by artificialLimbs »

ben_w wrote: post #65
artificialLimbs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you know about the scientific research of astrology? It sounds like nothing, to me. So you relegate all study of personality traits (which are different than archetypes) to the pseudoscience bin? >> .. as well as they understand the workings of gravity... So pretty much not at all then. This was my original point.

> So you relegate all study of personality traits (which are different than archetypes) to the pseudoscience bin? That’s called “psychology”. The real science even has that nice little observation that which side of the school admission year you’re born on is basically the only thing about when you’re born that makes any significant difference.

This doesn't answer my questions at all.

Re: What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? (2017)

#67

Post by ben_w »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #66
ben_w wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you relegate all study of personality traits (which are different than archetypes) to the pseudoscience bin? That’s called “psychology”. The real science even has that nice little observation that which side of the school admission year you’re born on is basically the only thing about when you’re born that makes any significant difference.

This doesn't answer my questions at all.

Sure it does, it’s a “no” to the quoted question.

Re: What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? (2017)

#68

Post by artificialLimbs »

ben_w wrote: post #67
artificialLimbs wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't answer my questions at all.

Sure it does, it’s a “no” to the quoted question.

Then it appears we've reached the end of the productivity of this conversation. Good day.
Post reply on HN