public misconceptions

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

MadRocketSci2
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:31 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby MadRocketSci2 » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:32 am UTC

I've heard stealth in space being regularly posted as a "misconception". While I certainly doubt it would ever happen like the cloaking device in Star Trek (nor do I think science starship astronauts would neglect to notice an infrared signature being emitted as one of the first things they would look for).

But I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be [i]that[i] hard to hide spacecraft beyond the resolving range of the enemy telescopes. All you would need is a giant thin film diamond-shaped wedge, preferably highly reflective across a large wavelength range, kept to near absolute zero in temperature. Keep the wedge pointed towards the planet you are attacking, and thermally isolated from the rest of your spacecraft.

Active searches would reflect off the wedge in unusable directions. Passive searches won't notice a single-pixel/unresolved non-emitting spot against the background of space.

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby You, sir, name? » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:35 am UTC

Not to mention, in deep space, simply painting your ship black is pretty strong visual camouflage, as you have to be close enough to occupy a significant chunk of the field of view to be easy to spot.

On the other hand, this means you'll give off blackbody radiation like no tomorrow, which ought to have you light up like a beacon on even a half-baked sensor system.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

MadRocketSci2
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:31 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby MadRocketSci2 » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:44 am UTC

Well, the wedge idea is to keep the wedge refrigerated, and to keep your radiators pointed in other directions.

User avatar
Cobramaster
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:31 pm UTC
Location: Georgia Southern University Department of Chemistry, and Department of Biology.

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Cobramaster » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:45 am UTC

Well then you pull a trick out of the Mass Effect bag and use extensive cooling systems to minimize the IR signature when you are not using heat based engines.
SlyReaper wrote:Did you never notice the etymological link between "tyrannosaur" and "tyrant"? 1% of the dinosaurs had 99% of the prey. Occupy Pangaea.

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby You, sir, name? » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:03 am UTC

You can paint your ship white, which would remove all blackbody radiation, but make it vulnerable to visual detection.
You can paint your ship black, which would make it hard to detect visually, but easy to detect from bb-radiation.
If you make your ship's surface out of a smooth conductor, it will reflect radiation, but conduct heat well, and be prone to give off bb-radiation.

In the end, I think it's difficult to create some ultimate camouflage in space (it's easier in atmosphere, where IR-radiation is diffused and masked by ambient heat).
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:27 am UTC

There's already a space combat thread or two, for this tangent to continue in.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Krikkit_Robot
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:43 am UTC
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Krikkit_Robot » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:53 am UTC

I just read this story, it is a slightly more facepalming version of what someone else has already said

Heavy Boots
About 1983, I was in a philosophy class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (good science/engineering school) and the teaching assistant was explaining Descartes. He was trying to show how things don't always happen the way we think they will and explained that, while a pen always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let go of it on the Moon.
My jaw dropped a little. I blurted "What?!" Looking around the room, I saw that only my friend Mark and one other student looked confused by the TA's statement. The other 17 people just looked at me like "What's your problem?"
"But a pen would fall if you dropped it on the Moon, just more slowly." I protested.
"No it wouldn't." the TA explained calmly, "because you're too far away from the Earth's gravity."
Think. Think. Aha! "You saw the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, didn't you?" I countered, "why didn't they float away?" "Because they were wearing heavy boots." he responded, as if this made perfect sense (remember, this is a Philosophy TA who's had plenty of logic classes).
By then I realized that we were each living in totally different worlds, and did not speak each others language, so I gave up. As we left the room, my friend Mark was raging. "My God! How can all those people be so stupid?"
I tried to be understanding. "Mark, they knew this stuff at one time, but it's not part of their basic view of the world, so they've forgotten it. Most people could probably make the same mistake." To prove my point, we went back to our dorm room and began randomly selecting names from the campus phone book. We called about 30 people and asked each this question: 1. If you're standing on the Moon holding a pen, and you let go, will it a) float away, b) float where it is, or c) fall to the ground?
About 47 percent got this question correct. Of the ones who got it wrong, we asked the obvious follow-up question: 2. You've seen films of the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, why didn't they fall off?
About 20 percent of the people changed their answer to the first question when they heard this one! But the most amazing part was that about half of them confidently answered, "Because they were wearing heavy boots."
I say, science education must be at an all time peak !!!
Image

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:09 am UTC

Krikkit_Robot wrote:I just read this story, it is a slightly more facepalming version of what someone else has already said

Spoiler:
Heavy Boots
About 1983, I was in a philosophy class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (good science/engineering school) and the teaching assistant was explaining Descartes. He was trying to show how things don't always happen the way we think they will and explained that, while a pen always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let go of it on the Moon.
My jaw dropped a little. I blurted "What?!" Looking around the room, I saw that only my friend Mark and one other student looked confused by the TA's statement. The other 17 people just looked at me like "What's your problem?"
"But a pen would fall if you dropped it on the Moon, just more slowly." I protested.
"No it wouldn't." the TA explained calmly, "because you're too far away from the Earth's gravity."
Think. Think. Aha! "You saw the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, didn't you?" I countered, "why didn't they float away?" "Because they were wearing heavy boots." he responded, as if this made perfect sense (remember, this is a Philosophy TA who's had plenty of logic classes).
By then I realized that we were each living in totally different worlds, and did not speak each others language, so I gave up. As we left the room, my friend Mark was raging. "My God! How can all those people be so stupid?"
I tried to be understanding. "Mark, they knew this stuff at one time, but it's not part of their basic view of the world, so they've forgotten it. Most people could probably make the same mistake." To prove my point, we went back to our dorm room and began randomly selecting names from the campus phone book. We called about 30 people and asked each this question: 1. If you're standing on the Moon holding a pen, and you let go, will it a) float away, b) float where it is, or c) fall to the ground?
About 47 percent got this question correct. Of the ones who got it wrong, we asked the obvious follow-up question: 2. You've seen films of the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, why didn't they fall off?
About 20 percent of the people changed their answer to the first question when they heard this one! But the most amazing part was that about half of them confidently answered, "Because they were wearing heavy boots."
I say, science education must be at an all time peak !!!

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
On a similar note, I had a teacher who would not understand how, if two teams are tied in both goal difference and goals made, they must be tied for goals received. He did not have any argument beyond "that's how I've always done it", and "it never hurts to check". Then school day ended and we gave up, while he thought he actually convinced all of us he was right.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image

User avatar
feedme
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:59 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby feedme » Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:34 am UTC

There was a Tiger Woods commercial a while back where he was on the moon golfing and the ball started to catch flame as it left the moon. I know the moon has some atmosphere, but I don't think enough to show what the commercial did.

Not to mention the ball didnt float away from the tee.

User avatar
DNA
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 5:51 pm UTC
Location: Montréal

Re: public misconceptions

Postby DNA » Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:04 am UTC

Krikkit_Robot wrote:I just read this story, it is a slightly more facepalming version of what someone else has already said

Heavy Boots


feedme wrote:Not to mention the ball didnt float away from the tee.


RAAAAAAAAAAGE!! :wink:
CATUG

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby You, sir, name? » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:20 pm UTC

"It is somehow remarkable that an ant can lift 500x it's own weight! Woah! Imagine how strong they would be if they were our size!"

Simply sticking the numbers into the appropriate scaling laws (weight ~ d3, muscle strength ~ d2) will reveal that an ant the rough size of a human would crumble under it's own weight, and that humans would be vastly stronger than ants if we were their size.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby lulzfish » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:05 pm UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:"It is somehow remarkable that an ant can lift 500x it's own weight! Woah! Imagine how strong they would be if they were our size!"

Simply sticking the numbers into the appropriate scaling laws (weight ~ d3, muscle strength ~ d2) will reveal that an ant the rough size of a human would crumble under it's own weight, and that humans would be vastly stronger than ants if we were their size.

Yeah, I don't know why people always think it's impressive for bugs to lift so much weight proportionally. It is a property of physics, not of bugs.
That's also why giant mecha don't exist. They'd either be very slow or too weak to support themselves, and have little muscle strength (Relative to size. Of course a mecha could benchpress a semi, but not another mecha). They certainly would not be able to throw each other through the air.
Last edited by lulzfish on Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:30 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rho
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:14 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: public misconceptions

Postby rho » Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:53 am UTC

That travelling faster than light is just an engineering problem. "But we broke the sound barrier so..."

And yes, it's amazing how many people don't believe there's gravity in space :?



As we're sharing anecdotes:

I was doing some image processing and my girlfriend turned up just as I'd got my algorithms working. The data set was large and, extrapolating from previous runs working on smaller areas, I estimated it would take about 10 hours to finish. She asked what I was up to and I explained a bit of it, obviously all she heard was "I'm doing MATHS using a computer" because when I told her how long it would take to finish she said "10 hours! Why don't you just do it by hand?!"

We're not together any more.
Less Than Three.

User avatar
feedme
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:59 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby feedme » Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:41 am UTC

rho wrote:I was doing some image processing and my girlfriend turned up just as I'd got my algorithms working. The data set was large and, extrapolating from previous runs working on smaller areas, I estimated it would take about 10 hours to finish. She asked what I was up to and I explained a bit of it, obviously all she heard was "I'm doing MATHS using a computer" because when I told her how long it would take to finish she said "10 hours! Why don't you just do it by hand?!"


Haha yeah, when I tell some friends or such in my other classes, that it took 20 minutes or something for COSMOS to analyze a part, or that it took me forever to write an m-file for Matlab, they always ask why it takes so long, why not do it by hand, etc.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:18 am UTC

rho wrote:And yes, it's amazing how many people don't believe there's gravity in space :?

This is definitely the fault of whoever invented the term "zero-g" though.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

hawkmp4
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Colorado, US

Re: public misconceptions

Postby hawkmp4 » Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:52 am UTC

I don't think there's any problem with the term 'zero-g' as long as people understand that there's no net force within a certain frame of reference...
...okay. Yeah, like that's gonna happen...
Who DID popularise that term? I see a bit of a scenario like this happening...
http://xkcd.com/567/
Computer Science: A place to discuss the spirituality of Pornography Storage Apparatuses and programs, from algorithms to computability.

Formal proofs preferred.

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Waylah » Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:14 am UTC

lulzfish wrote:
You, sir, name? wrote:"It is somehow remarkable that an ant can lift 500x it's own weight! Woah! Imagine how strong they would be if they were our size!"

Simply sticking the numbers into the appropriate scaling laws (weight ~ d3, muscle strength ~ d2) will reveal that an ant the rough size of a human would crumble under it's own weight, and that humans would be vastly stronger than ants if we were their size.

Yeah, I don't know why people always think it's impressive for bugs to lift so much weight proportionally. It is a property of physics, not of bugs.
That's also why giant mecha don't exist. They'd either be very slow or too weak to support themselves, and have little muscle strength (Relative to size. Of course a mecha could benchpress a semi, but not another mecha). They certainly would not be able to throw each other through the air.


hey can someone fill me in here? I don't know anything about scaling laws and applying them to muscle strength. Just to make everything nice and neat, if a 10mg ant can lift 100mg of picnic, how much can a 100kg ant lift? Or am I missing the point here. You can't have 100kg ants because of the way they breathe. That aside, I didn't know that, scaled up, they wouldn't be able to lift their own weight. "It is a property of physics, not of bugs". In the words of everyone's favorite celebrity racist/politician/dancer/fish 'n' chipper, please explain?

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Josephine » Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:23 am UTC

Waylah wrote: please explain?

the material strength of the materials the organism is composed of doesn't change with scale.
Last edited by Josephine on Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:23 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby lulzfish » Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:23 am UTC

There's not really a law by mass, it's just that:

1. If density is constant, then weight scales by volume, and volume scales by the cube of 'size'.
So an ant that's 2 cm long weighs 2 ^ 3 times more than an ant that's 1 cm long.

2. Muscle strength scales by the square of 'size'.
So a 2 cm ant is only 2 ^ 2 times stronger than the 1 cm ant.

So although the big ant is 4 times stronger, it weighs 8 times more. If you keep scaling it up, the ant gets slower and slower from carrying its own weight, and eventually its organs and such collapse under their own weight, and it dies. Part of this is because exoskeletons don't scale well, but mostly it's the "cube-square law".

This is also why Hot Wheels cars can go 800 "scale MPH". They weigh very little because they're small, so they can drop from several times their own length without damage, whereas real cars can't. So they can also be accelerated to speeds that are ridiculous in proportion to their size.

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Waylah » Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:42 am UTC

nbonaparte wrote:
Waylah wrote: please explain?

the material strength of the materials the organism is composed of doesn't change with scale.



right. that makes sense. A giant chitin ant-arm ... the material is the same, there is more of it, rather than .. the actual chains of the actual polymer getting huge .... I suppose another thing that could bug people is "if you had spider web as thick as this rope here, you could use it to suspend this cement mixer in the air!" etc. Am I right?

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Waylah » Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:46 am UTC

lulzfish wrote:There's not really a law by mass, it's just that:

1. If density is constant, then weight scales by volume, and volume scales by the cube of 'size'.
So an ant that's 2 cm long weighs 2 ^ 3 times more than an ant that's 1 cm long.

2. Muscle strength scales by the square of 'size'.
So a 2 cm ant is only 2 ^ 2 times stronger than the 1 cm ant.

So although the big ant is 4 times stronger, it weighs 8 times more. If you keep scaling it up, the ant gets slower and slower from carrying its own weight, and eventually its organs and such collapse under their own weight, and it dies. Part of this is because exoskeletons don't scale well, but mostly it's the "cube-square law".

This is also why Hot Wheels cars can go 800 "scale MPH". They weigh very little because they're small, so they can drop from several times their own length without damage, whereas real cars can't. So they can also be accelerated to speeds that are ridiculous in proportion to their size.


Thanks. nice and neat explanation. How do we know that muscle strength scales by the square of size?

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Cynical Idealist » Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:24 am UTC

Waylah wrote:Thanks. nice and neat explanation. How do we know that muscle strength scales by the square of size?

Muscle strength depends on the cross-section of the muscle (or rather, the number of muscle fibers, which is best approximated by looking at the area of the cross-section), which, as a 2d figure, increases by the square of the size.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Waylah » Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:29 am UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:
Waylah wrote:Thanks. nice and neat explanation. How do we know that muscle strength scales by the square of size?

Muscle strength depends on the cross-section of the muscle (or rather, the number of muscle fibers, which is best approximated by looking at the area of the cross-section), which, as a 2d figure, increases by the square of the size.


That's all well and good for chordate muscle. Is arthropod muscle just the same? I suppose it could be, but it might not be. Anyone know for sure?

I gather they still have muscle fibers, but they're arranged differently. They use mandibles to carry stuff around with their mouths ...

To be able to perform swift and powerful movements,
ant mandible closer muscles are composed of two
subpopulations of muscle fibres: fast fibres for rapid
actions and slow fibres for forceful biting. All these fibres
attach to a sturdy and complex apodeme which conveys
force into the mandible base. Fast muscle fibres attach
directly to the apodeme. Slow fibres may attach directly or
insert at individual thin filament processes of the apodeme
which vary in length. Comparisons of different ant species
suggest two basic principles underlying the design of
mandible muscles. (1) Ants specialized for fast mandible
movements generally feature long heads which contain
long fast muscle fibres that attach to the apodeme at small
angles. Their muscles comprise only a few filamentattached
fibres and they maximize speed of action at the
expense of force output. (2) Ants performing particularly
forceful mandible movements, such as seed cracking, rely
on many short parallel muscle fibres contained within a
broad head capsule. Their slower muscles incorporate a
large proportion of filament-attached fibres. Two simple
models explain how the attachment angles are optimized
with respect to force and velocity output and how filamentattached
fibres help to generate the largest power output
from the available head capsule volume.

"The mandible closer muscle ... is the largest
muscle in any ant worker and is always composed of several
motor units that may be activated individually, sequentially or
synchronously to generate a variety of different types of
movement"

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby lulzfish » Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:46 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure that all strength is related to the cross-sectional area, even the strength of steel pipes, concrete columns, etc.
Again, most of this is physics, not biology, so it would apply to machines, bugs, and people equally.

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby You, sir, name? » Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:57 pm UTC

lulzfish wrote:I'm pretty sure that all strength is related to the cross-sectional area, even the strength of steel pipes, concrete columns, etc.
Again, most of this is physics, not biology, so it would apply to machines, bugs, and people equally.


Yeah. This is pretty self-evident. Consider a string / girder / concrete slab / whatever hanging suspended with a weight on the bottom. Making it thicker allows it to carry greater weight, but making it longer does not.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
rho
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:14 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: public misconceptions

Postby rho » Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:31 pm UTC

Okay, I just had someone ask me "if you dropped a pen on the moon would it have enough mass to fall to the ground". I also remember overhearing, on a train "yeah, you don't really feel it when it's going fast, only when it's going slowly."

Thinking about it, we've all spent a pretty long time having a decent understanding of Newtonian mechanics. If you'd only used the odd equation at school by 16 then never looked at or thought about it since, you really wouldn't know what was going on. It may well extend to the other sciences too - remembering a few bits and pieces but basically totally missing the point. But damn, think how many people that is! I'd say it's the majority in an advanced western democracy. If you look at the whole world that gives you a vast majority with an almost pre-enlightenment knowledge of reality...

...That's pretty scary.
Less Than Three.

User avatar
Whelan
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16 pm UTC
Location: Londonshire.

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Whelan » Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:06 pm UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:
lulzfish wrote:I'm pretty sure that all strength is related to the cross-sectional area, even the strength of steel pipes, concrete columns, etc.
Again, most of this is physics, not biology, so it would apply to machines, bugs, and people equally.


Yeah. This is pretty self-evident. Consider a string / girder / concrete slab / whatever hanging suspended with a weight on the bottom. Making it thicker allows it to carry greater weight, but making it longer does not.

Is this related to Young Modulus and such?
"I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth; I have a horror of blinding people with science"- Richard Dawkins
Weeks wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:And all I get is this tame space dragon. Where's my recognition?!
A tame dragon is its own reward.

User avatar
Omegaton
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Omegaton » Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:28 am UTC

Waylah wrote:I gather they still have muscle fibers, but they're arranged differently. They use mandibles to carry stuff around with their mouths ...

Vertebrates have fast and slow-twitch muscles as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle#Types

I do not know if these correspond to the same types of ants (ie. are they homologous or analogous), though.

rho wrote:But damn, think how many people that is! I'd say it's the majority in an advanced western democracy. If you look at the whole world that gives you a vast majority with an almost pre-enlightenment knowledge of reality...

...That's pretty scary.

So basically we're still in the dark ages? Hmmm.

Simon_Jester
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:00 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Simon_Jester » Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:30 am UTC

Omegaton wrote:So basically we're still in the dark ages? Hmmm.
Oh, heavens no. The Dark Ages were much worse. Back then, the people who knew the most about how the world worked had that level of understanding of science. The result... well, what happens when the Sons of Martha don't know what they're doing?

Double digit infant mortality and endless muscle-cracking toil because the steam engine hasn't been invented yet, that's what.

It could be so much worse than it really is.

User avatar
Omegaton
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Omegaton » Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:34 am UTC

Simon_Jester wrote:
Omegaton wrote:So basically we're still in the dark ages? Hmmm.
Oh, heavens no. The Dark Ages were much worse. Back then, the people who knew the most about how the world worked had that level of understanding of science. The result... well, what happens when the Sons of Martha don't know what they're doing?

Double digit infant mortality and endless muscle-cracking toil because the steam engine hasn't been invented yet, that's what.

It could be so much worse than it really is.

Apparently I don't know my history, but having looked it up I should've picked a more recent era...

rattusprat
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 8:49 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby rattusprat » Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:56 am UTC

rho wrote:Thinking about it, we've all spent a pretty long time having a decent understanding of Newtonian mechanics. If you'd only used the odd equation at school by 16 then never looked at or thought about it since, you really wouldn't know what was going on. It may well extend to the other sciences too - remembering a few bits and pieces but basically totally missing the point. But damn, think how many people that is! I'd say it's the majority in an advanced western democracy. If you look at the whole world that gives you a vast majority with an almost pre-enlightenment knowledge of reality...


I recall doing a single page "test" in my first class of year 11 Physics (the first year of high school where general science split into Physics/Chem/Bio) consisting of mostly Newtonian mechanics questions and thought experiments - and getting most of the answers wrong. As science subjects beyond year 10 are not compulsory in my part of the world I can imagine a relatively large percentage of the population have never been formally introduced to Newtonian mechanics - and have hence developed a completely false intuition about how gravity etc works.

Come to think of it, someone (else) should start a campaign to make Newtonian mechanics a compulsary part of high school science.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Zamfir » Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:53 am UTC

Omegaton wrote:Apparently I don't know my history,

A bit ironic given the thread, isn't it?

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby lulzfish » Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:37 pm UTC

rattusprat wrote:someone (else) should start a campaign to make Newtonian mechanics a compulsary part of high school science.

At my high school, I think Physics was required, but there's a chance that between dropouts, remedial classes, and forgetfulness, most people still don't grasp it.

User avatar
Omegaton
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Omegaton » Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:01 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Omegaton wrote:Apparently I don't know my history,

A bit ironic given the thread, isn't it?

I am quite aware, haha.

hawkmp4
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Colorado, US

Re: public misconceptions

Postby hawkmp4 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:08 am UTC

Omegaton wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Omegaton wrote:Apparently I don't know my history,

A bit ironic given the thread, isn't it?

I am quite aware, haha.

But you know that you don't know. That counts for quite a bit, at least in my book. Socrates' as well.
Computer Science: A place to discuss the spirituality of Pornography Storage Apparatuses and programs, from algorithms to computability.

Formal proofs preferred.

User avatar
Slpee
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:51 am UTC
Location: Cloud 9, just all the time.

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Slpee » Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:01 pm UTC

Well, mine isn't so much a misconception as opposed to a problem with the way people subconsciously think/speak.

It's kind of related to the whole evolution debate resistance of stupid people to science, but it's is something that even those who accept evolution fall victim to.
Specifically, people who use the phrase "believe in evolution" in any context.

The use of the word "believe" is contradictory to the entire concept of evolution science in general. Belief implies faith, or that one must go beyond what can be logically concluded or deduced from fact or observation. Evolution requires none of those things. Evolution can be logically deduced from scientific evidence that we have collected and studied for years. If there were no evidence or if it had massive gaps in its reasoning, then it would be belief, but then it wouldn't be the Theory of Evolution, it would be the "Cool idea that one guy had" of Evolution.

Things like religion are what require faith and belief, but that is ok, it is the whole point of religion, to have belief in something you cannot see or observe.

In a slightly related note, if you are ever trying to convert someone who rejects evolution on religious grounds, then go for this.
"What? You don't think that God is SMART enough to come up with evolution? You doubt his power and wisdom? BLASPHEMY"
Boom. Religious reasoning annihilated.
"Are you insinuating that a bunch of googly eyes hot-glued to a Cheeto constitutes a sapient being?"
Can't let you brew that Starbucks!


Image

User avatar
feedme
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:59 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby feedme » Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:20 pm UTC

Slpee wrote:The use of the word "believe" is contradictory to the entire concept of evolution science in general. Belief implies faith, or that one must go beyond what can be logically concluded or deduced from fact or observation. Evolution requires none of those things. Evolution can be logically deduced from scientific evidence that we have collected and studied for years. If there were no evidence or if it had massive gaps in its reasoning, then it would be belief, but then it wouldn't be the Theory of Evolution, it would be the "Cool idea that one guy had" of Evolution.

Things like religion are what require faith and belief, but that is ok, it is the whole point of religion, to have belief in something you cannot see or observe.


I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have so many problems when people are just "Ppffft. It's just a theory. It isn't proven." In science, a theory doesn't mean a simple 'hunch' someone has. If you say that, then the theory of gravity is clearly wrong as well. It's just frustating.
Last edited by feedme on Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:51 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Robstickle
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:07 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Robstickle » Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:36 am UTC

The amount of times I have seen people post "evolution is just a theory"...they deserve to die.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:41 am UTC

Well, they're right. Evolution is just a theory. That just doesn't mean what they think it means.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:41 am UTC

Slpee wrote:In a slightly related note, if you are ever trying to convert someone who rejects evolution on religious grounds, then go for this.
"What? You don't think that God is SMART enough to come up with evolution? You doubt his power and wisdom? BLASPHEMY"
Boom. Religious reasoning annihilated.

Wow. If I ever come across a creationist (which I haven't in my entire life) I'll use this.
By the way, are creationists common in the US? I hear a lot about people who argue incessantly about this, and in Mexico (which is overwhelmingly catholic) everybody accepts evolution as a fact.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests