• Archivo
  • RSS
  • Pregunte, pregunte
banner

Harlem Shake, versión Caenorhabditis elegans.

    • #ciencia
    • #humor
  • hace 1 mes
  • Comments
  • Enlace permanente
Share

URL corta

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

“So forget Jesus. The stars died so you can be here today.”

Lawrence Krauss

    • #ciencia
    • #stardust
  • hace 1 mes
  • 2
  • Comments
  • Enlace permanente
Share

URL corta

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+
scinerds:

“Just a Theory”: 7 Misused Science Words
Feel like you need to make serious distinctions within the language of science? Maybe brush up on a few key concepts of the subject? Perhaps you feel an article is using word tactics to get people to believe in something false. Scientific American (originally on LiveScience) has a great article highlighting 7 misused science words that are sure to put things into perspective for the public:

1. Hypothesis
The general public so widely misuses the words hypothesis, theory and law that scientists should stop using these terms, writes physicist Rhett Allain of Southeastern Louisiana University, in a blog post on Wired Science.
“I don’t think at this point it’s worth saving those words,” Allain told LiveScience.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something that can actually be tested. But “if you just ask anyone what a hypothesis is, they just immediately say ‘educated guess,’” aid.
2. Just a theory?
Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word “theory” to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.
“It’s as though it weren’t true because it’s just a theory,” Allain said.
That’s despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Part of the problem is that the word “theory” means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone’s head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
3. Model
However, theory isn’t the only science phrase that causes trouble. Even Allain’s preferred term to replace hypothesis, theory and law — “model” — has its troubles. The word not only refers to toy cars and runway walkers, but also means different things in different scientific fields. A climate model is very different from a mathematical model, for instance.
“Scientists in different fields use these terms differently from each other,” John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote in an email to LiveScience. “I don’t think that ‘model’ improves matters. It has an appearance of solidity in physics right now mainly because of the Standard Model. By contrast, in genetics and evolution, ‘models’ are used very differently.” (The Standard Model is the dominant theory governing particle physics.)
4. Skeptic
When people don’t accept human-caused climate change, the media often describes those individuals as “climate skeptics.” But that may give them too much credit, Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in an email.
“Simply denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism … or denial,” Mann told LiveScience.
Instead, true skeptics are open to scientific evidence and are willing to evenly assess it.
“All scientists should be skeptics. True skepticism is, as [Carl] Sagan described it, the ‘self-correcting machinery’ of science,” Mann said.
5. Nature vs. nurture
The phrase “nature versus nurture” also gives scientists a headache, because it radically simplifies a very complicated process, said Dan Kruger, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan.
“This is something that modern evolutionists cringe at,” Kruger told LiveScience.
Genes may influence human beings, but so, too, do epigenetic changes. These modifications alter which genes get turned on, and are both heritable and easily influenced by the environment. The environment that shapes human behavior can be anything from the chemicals a fetus is exposed to in the womb to the block a person grew up on to the type of food they ate as a child, Kruger said. All these factors interact in a messy, unpredictable way.
6. Significant
Another word that sets scientists’ teeth on edge is “significant.”
“That’s a huge weasel word. Does it mean statistically significant, or does it mean important?” said Michael O’Brien, the dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri.
In statistics, something is significant if a difference is unlikely to be due to random chance. But that may not translate into a meaningful difference, in, say, headache symptoms or IQ.
7. Natural
“Natural” is another bugaboo for scientists. The term has become synonymous with being virtuous, healthy or good. But not everything artificial is unhealthy, and not everything that’s natural is good for you.
“Uranium is natural, and if you inject enough of it, you’re going to die,” Kruger said.
Natural’s sibling “organic” also has a problematic meaning, he said. While organic simply means “carbon-based” to scientists, the term is now used to describe pesticide-free peaches and high-end cotton sheets, as well.

Check out the full article written by Tia Ghose and LiveScience
Pop-upView Separately

scinerds:

“Just a Theory”: 7 Misused Science Words

Feel like you need to make serious distinctions within the language of science? Maybe brush up on a few key concepts of the subject? Perhaps you feel an article is using word tactics to get people to believe in something false. Scientific American (originally on LiveScience) has a great article highlighting 7 misused science words that are sure to put things into perspective for the public:

1. Hypothesis

The general public so widely misuses the words hypothesis, theory and law that scientists should stop using these terms, writes physicist Rhett Allain of Southeastern Louisiana University, in a blog post on Wired Science.

“I don’t think at this point it’s worth saving those words,” Allain told LiveScience.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something that can actually be tested. But “if you just ask anyone what a hypothesis is, they just immediately say ‘educated guess,’” aid.

2. Just a theory?

Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word “theory” to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.

“It’s as though it weren’t true because it’s just a theory,” Allain said.

That’s despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Part of the problem is that the word “theory” means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone’s head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

3. Model

However, theory isn’t the only science phrase that causes trouble. Even Allain’s preferred term to replace hypothesis, theory and law — “model” — has its troubles. The word not only refers to toy cars and runway walkers, but also means different things in different scientific fields. A climate model is very different from a mathematical model, for instance.

“Scientists in different fields use these terms differently from each other,” John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote in an email to LiveScience. “I don’t think that ‘model’ improves matters. It has an appearance of solidity in physics right now mainly because of the Standard Model. By contrast, in genetics and evolution, ‘models’ are used very differently.” (The Standard Model is the dominant theory governing particle physics.)

4. Skeptic

When people don’t accept human-caused climate change, the media often describes those individuals as “climate skeptics.” But that may give them too much credit, Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in an email.

“Simply denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism … or denial,” Mann told LiveScience.

Instead, true skeptics are open to scientific evidence and are willing to evenly assess it.

“All scientists should be skeptics. True skepticism is, as [Carl] Sagan described it, the ‘self-correcting machinery’ of science,” Mann said.

5. Nature vs. nurture

The phrase “nature versus nurture” also gives scientists a headache, because it radically simplifies a very complicated process, said Dan Kruger, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan.

“This is something that modern evolutionists cringe at,” Kruger told LiveScience.

Genes may influence human beings, but so, too, do epigenetic changes. These modifications alter which genes get turned on, and are both heritable and easily influenced by the environment. The environment that shapes human behavior can be anything from the chemicals a fetus is exposed to in the womb to the block a person grew up on to the type of food they ate as a child, Kruger said. All these factors interact in a messy, unpredictable way.

6. Significant

Another word that sets scientists’ teeth on edge is “significant.”

“That’s a huge weasel word. Does it mean statistically significant, or does it mean important?” said Michael O’Brien, the dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri.

In statistics, something is significant if a difference is unlikely to be due to random chance. But that may not translate into a meaningful difference, in, say, headache symptoms or IQ.

7. Natural

“Natural” is another bugaboo for scientists. The term has become synonymous with being virtuous, healthy or good. But not everything artificial is unhealthy, and not everything that’s natural is good for you.

“Uranium is natural, and if you inject enough of it, you’re going to die,” Kruger said.

Natural’s sibling “organic” also has a problematic meaning, he said. While organic simply means “carbon-based” to scientists, the term is now used to describe pesticide-free peaches and high-end cotton sheets, as well.

Check out the full article written by Tia Ghose and LiveScience

(vía proofmathisbeautiful)

Fuente: scinerds

    • #ciencia
    • #charlatanería
    • #teoría
  • hace 2 meses > scinerds
  • 2541
  • Comments
  • Enlace permanente
Share

URL corta

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

366 días

Recomiendo mucho la colección de artículos “366 días” de Nature, con lo más relevante de la ciencia de este año.

  • 2012 in review: El resumen de los logros científicos más importantes del año, como el descubrimiento del Higgs (o algo parecido) o el amarizaje del Curiosity.
  • An interactive journey through 2012 in numbers: Infografía con los números más relevantes y extremos en la ciencia.
  • Images of the year: Imágenes espectaculares del quehacer científico, como la de arriba, que muestra cristales de cafeína.
  • Nature’s 10: Los 10 científicos más influyentes del año, entre los que se encuentran Rolf-Dieter Heuer, director general del CERN, Adam Steltzner, líder del grupo que puso a Curiosity en Marte, o Tim Gowers, el matemático que activó el complot a Elsevier.
    • #ciencia
    • #Matemáticas
    • #Nature
    • #2012
  • hace 6 meses
  • Comments
  • Enlace permanente
Share

URL corta

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

Birds of paradise

Magnífico video producido por  el Cornell Lab of Ornithology y por National Geographic. También recomiendo la colección de fotografías en The Guardian: Birds of paradise.

Visto en WEIT: Birds of paradise: photos and a great video.

    • #ciencia
    • #fotografía
    • #video
  • hace 6 meses
  • 1
  • Comments
  • Enlace permanente
Share

URL corta

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+
Recordando un cartón clásico. De xkcd.
View Separately

Recordando un cartón clásico. De xkcd.

    • #humor
    • #ciencia
    • #física
    • #xkcd
  • hace 6 meses
  • 2
  • Comments
  • Enlace permanente
Share

URL corta

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+
Muy buena analogía.
Pop-upView Separately

Muy buena analogía.

Fuente: naukas.com

    • #ciencia
  • hace 6 meses
  • 7
  • Comments
  • Enlace permanente
Share

URL corta

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+
Página 1 de 9
← Recientes • Antiguas →

pizarrón de series divergentes

Portrait/Logo

Curiosidades que, por lo general, simplemente se quedan en los borradores de Series divergentes por falta de tiempo para comentarlas. También, una que otra republicación.

Páginas

  • Sobre este pizarrón

Twitter

loading tweets…

I Dig These Posts

  • Foto vía star-wars-daily
    Foto vía star-wars-daily
  • Foto vía mightyflynn

    Teamwork.

    h/t seriesdivergentes

    Foto vía mightyflynn
  • Foto vía mightyflynn

    Onions

    Photo by John Rieger/USA TODAY Sports

    Foto vía mightyflynn
  • Foto vía star-wars-daily
    Foto vía star-wars-daily
Ver más →
  • RSS
  • Aleatorio
  • Archivo
  • Pregunte, pregunte
  • Móvil
Effector Theme by Pixel Union