It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Science

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I came across this article today as well. It's not often I create two thread in the same day (don't think I ever have actually)


Can you distinguish molecules from atoms? Genes from genomes? Do you know what makes an experiment statistically significant? If not, do you care? Are you embarrassed by your scientific ignorance – or almost proud of it?


Here are the 10 areas that are mentioned. Obviously it will go into more detail in the actual article:

1. Evolution
2. Genes & DNA
3. Big Bang
4. Relativity
5. Quantum Mechanics
6. Radiation
7. Atoms & Nuclear Reactions
8. Molecules & Chemical Reactions
9. Digital Data
10. Statistical Significance

The Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Science

A few of the topics on here have a potential to cause a sh*t storm, I hope it doesn't come to that.



“Science should not be seen as a boring body of facts but as an exciting series of ideas,” says Angier.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   


But it lacks the basics, which is scientific method



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I love science, although at times I find myself at odds with it, it is progressive, creative,and skeptical.
At times science is right, at times science is wrong, sometimes it is both simulatneously.
Confirm or deny, science is .....

Oh my, I think I just wrote a poem
lol



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The one that blows my mind is the observer effect





posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaanny
 


Something even stranger about that experiment...

If they measure the results but delete them before anyone looks at the pattern on the back wall, it has the same effect as not measuring at all.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


So this article implies that people should "know" the information about 10 topics
Which are mainly speculative??

I agree with the previous poster's comment on the scientific method.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaanny
 


Yeah that one is amazing, I love it, makes me think about even the smallest components having a form of conciousness


Which reminds me of a funny story...

A little while back (about 6 months ago) I have been reading up on the double slit experiment, and learning of the observer effect, did a little digging around online, and discovered that there were theories or ideas pertaining to the notion of "everthing has a conciousness". Of course this isn't the funny part .

This is the funny part, a couple of weeks after having learnt about all this, I was conversing with my son (who was 7 at the time), and during the course of it I said to him "I'm going to flush your gogo (little plastic piece of hoover fodder) down the toilet, to which he replied "No you can't do that, gogo's have a consiouness!"

Bare in mind I have never discussed with him prior to this anything of the sort, as he is only 7, and although very clever didn't think he would grasp the concept .

So I said "Erm why do you say that ? Where did you get that from ? that's just silly!"

He replied indgnitly " Of course gogo's have a consiousness, EVERYTHING has a consiousness !"

Well at that point, I gave up trying to play devils advocate, and told him how proud I was of him, whilst questioning how he knew this, to which he said he didn't know how, he just knew.

Just one of those many moments lin life where my son now appears to be smarter than me lol



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by solargeddon
reply to post by Zaanny
 


Yeah that one is amazing, I love it, makes me think about even the smallest components having a form of conciousness


That's not true. That "What The Bleep" film completely misrepresents quantum mechanics, the observer does not need to be conscious. The universe existed before us and it will continue to exist after us.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
The double slit experiment has always been fascinating to me. I haven't read into it as much as I ought to, because I've been reading into a great many things these days. So many fascinating subjects out in the wonderful world of science.

I find it a shame that I see people who are religious turning there back on science, and those who hold science as the be all and end all dismissing religion. I am a religious man, and my fascination with science does not limit my faith, neither do my beliefs limit my yearning for knowledge.

So when you bring up all these scientific topics, I delve into them eagerly.

Thank you for posting this.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by solargeddon
reply to post by Zaanny
 


Yeah that one is amazing, I love it, makes me think about even the smallest components having a form of conciousness


That's not true. That "What The Bleep" film completely misrepresents quantum mechanics, the observer does not need to be conscious. The universe existed before us and it will continue to exist after us.


The issue is the availability of information to a conscious observer.

This is why the existence of information influences the experiment.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
This reminds me of a quote I heard from a particle physicist (don't know his name, sorry I can't give correct credit there):

"Science is what we do when we don't know what we are doing."



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
The issue is the availability of information to a conscious observer.

This is why the existence of information influences the experiment.
No, it's got nothing to do with conscious anything. The experiment could be done completely by computer program with no consciousness at all and you'd get the same results.


Originally posted by john_bmth
That "What The Bleep" film completely misrepresents quantum mechanics, the observer does not need to be conscious. The universe existed before us and it will continue to exist after us.

I agree, that "What the bleep" movie is a terrible source if you want to learn real quantum mechanics, even that short clip isn't really accurate.


Originally posted by TarzanBeta
So this article implies that people should "know" the information about 10 topics
Which are mainly speculative??
What do you mean speculative? Which of those topics do you feel are speculative and which do you feel isn't worth knowing?

I have no problem with adding the scientific method and critical thinking to the list.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Speaking as a person who regards himself as better informed than average on scientific matters, I should say that out of those ten scientific theories, only the theory of evolution is something 'everyone should know'.

I think it's far more important for people to know more basic things, like

  • basic mechanics and thermodynamics

  • a little bit of electronics (circuit theory, basically) – and how common household appliances work

  • what electromagnetic radiation really is, and how microwaves, light, x-rays etc. relate to one another

  • how gravity works (in Newtonian terms, not relativistic ones)

  • how we know how far away planets and stars are, how fast they're moving relative to us, what they’re made of and so on

  • a little basic astronomy

  • a little biology and how our own bodies function

  • a little microbiology

...and so on. Essentially, the stuff they teach people in school, but which very few seem to pay attention to, or recall in later life. Maybe it's not taught well enough.

(Of course, if everyone knew this simple stuff, it would half put ATS out of business
)

And speaking of ATS, it is my admittedly elitist view that those lacking a scientific education should not bother their pretty little heads with relativity, quantum mechanics and such contempory exotica of theoretical physics as string and brane theories, holographic-universe models and the like. Without the necessary (and very specialized) education, one is apt to misunderstand these ideas and grow very confused.

(And of course, if everybody followed that advice, it would put the other half of ATS out of business
)

By the by, that article is mistitled: it shouldn’t be ‘The Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Science’ but 'Ten Scientific Ideas Everyone Should Know’. Though of course I disagree that everyone needs to know them.


edit on 21/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 
Good post! Your list does seem more practical, simpler and easier to understand.

If you'd like to simplify it, I'd like to see substantially less than one in five Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth, for starters.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Thank you, 'Trageur. A compliment from you is a compliment indeed.

And yes, I agree it's a scandal. I wonder what the figures are like for my own country. On the day Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon, I heard one old man at my local farmers' market telling another, 'They landed on the moon? How did they find room for two men on such a tiny thing?'

But that was in 1969.


edit on 21/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I am going to check this out, I'm looking to expand my education into the realm of hard science, thanks for the link. Are there more or better "science 101" sites out there you guys know about?

Thanks!



~Aura~



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Zaanny
 


Something even stranger about that experiment...

If they measure the results but delete them before anyone looks at the pattern on the back wall, it has the same effect as not measuring at all.


How do they know?

If they measure, but delete the results before anyone looks...how do they know the pattern *was* made by a wave or a particle if they delete the result before looking?

See what i mean? If the results were deleted before being recorded, the evidence for what had happened would be deleted too.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


If they measure the results for two different experiments and look at the back wall they are both the same.

If they measure the results for two different experiments but delete one set of information then look at the back wall, one is a wave function and one is a particle function.

To measure and delete creates the same results as not measuring at all, the wave pattern.

The point is the measuring does not collapse the wave function.

The existence of information collapses the wave function.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Jezus
The issue is the availability of information to a conscious observer.

This is why the existence of information influences the experiment.
No, it's got nothing to do with conscious anything. The experiment could be done completely by computer program with no consciousness at all and you'd get the same results.


Because the information is available for a conscious observer to obtain.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Jezus
The issue is the availability of information to a conscious observer.

This is why the existence of information influences the experiment.
No, it's got nothing to do with conscious anything. The experiment could be done completely by computer program with no consciousness at all and you'd get the same results.


Because the information is available for a conscious observer to obtain.

Consciousness has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry if that tramples on any beliefs you have that stem from this but unfortunately the science says nothing of the sort. Only people who have pick'n'mixed principles of QP and distorted them for their agenda say anything of the sort. "What The Bleep Do We Know" was actually a fairly astute title for the film... I do wonder what the bleep the creators of that film know because they've certainly got key points hideously wrong.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join