NationStates Jolt Archive

Here are the top ten most misunderstood terms in biology (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/11/top-ten-misunderstood-terms-in-biology.html).

I think it is unfortunate that the same words can have such different meanings in common usage and in science. This is a potential source for miscommunication between scientists and the public.

I believe you can never truly know something without understanding how to misunderstand it. ;)

Where do the missing socks go betwen the time you wash them and the time you dry them? :confused:

When science can answer that, I will feel complete. *nod*

Where do the missing socks go betwen the time you wash them and the time you dry them? :confused:

When science can answer that, I will feel complete. *nod*

*Unleashes a million monkeys on a million typewriters.*

Give them a minute.

I wait for the day when there is a recognised science of translating what scientists say so it will be properly understood by the lay public.

Where do the missing socks go betwen the time you wash them and the time you dry them? :confused:

When science can answer that, I will feel complete. *nod*

Your washing machine is powered by a black hole. Socks are the only article of clothing that can fit through the protective barriers between the black hole and the drum.

I wait for the day when there is a recognised science of translating what scientists say so it will be properly understood by the lay public.

[shameless plug]It's called "Fresh Brainz"[/shameless plug]

Though a Babel Fish will do the job even better. :)

Your washing machine is powered by a black hole. Socks are the only article of clothing that can fit through the protective barriers between the black hole and the drum.

I'll be damned!

[shameless plug]It's called "Fresh Brainz"[/shameless plug]

Though a Babel Fish will do the job even better. :)
I said a recognised science, the foolish peoples don't recognise you yet.
I'll be damned!
Nah, you'll be saved. God loves clowns.

I said a recognised science, the foolish peoples don't recognise you yet.

"Recognised science" is overrated.

*drinks media with the Media*

Hic

"Recognised science" is overrated.

*drinks media with the Media*

Hic

The lay people won't listen to you otherwise, which would mean j00 phail.




Nah, j00 are teh win.

The lay people won't listen to you otherwise, which would mean j00 phail.




Nah, j00 are teh win.


1337

If everything else fails I'll distract them with my shiny Swedish medals!* :cool:

HA, HA HA, HA

*chocolate variety

Same thing happens in mathematics. There's some very evocative terminology with very specific meaning of which laypeople are unaware. Would that being a layperson entailed a fundamental grasp of the paradigms of science and mathematics. Empiricism 4tehwin ;)

Same thing happens in mathematics. There's some very evocative terminology with very specific meaning of which laypeople are unaware. Would that being a layperson entailed a fundamental grasp of the paradigms of science and mathematics. Empiricism 4tehwin ;)

Do you know of any specific examples? :)

Everyone knows that biologists are really wannabe physicists who failed their maths but don't suck enough to become social scientists.
Ah, too true. Who doesn't want to be a physicist?

Where do the missing socks go betwen the time you wash them and the time you dry them? :confused:

When science can answer that, I will feel complete. *nod*
Usually I find them behind the dryer or on my floor, having never made it to the washing machine.

They seem to have left out 'evolution'. ;)

Ah, too true. Who doesn't want to be a physicist?

Lawyers don't.

Lawyers don't.

Poorly paid physicists don't.

In math it's a problem with all the undefined terms, really. Like "point" and "line". They're supposed to be undefined, and their meaning only given indirectly by the theory that use them, but they usually have names that mean something in the real world.

Poorly paid physicists don't.

Don't they usually just move to a new country?

Poorly paid physicists don't.

Come to think of it, I know a physicist who became a biologist.

Probably because of the pay.

Do you know of any specific examples? :)

Examples where mathematical terminology doesn't mean what you think it means? Rational and irrational numbers. real and imaginary numbers, transcendental numbers, psychotic functions . . . more?

In math it's a problem with all the undefined terms, really. Like "point" and "line". They're supposed to be undefined, and their meaning only given indirectly by the theory that use them, but they usually have names that mean something in the real world.

Who told you those terms are undifined? True, defining them does establish what kind of geometry you're using, but they can hardly be undefined yet useful.

Your washing machine is powered by a black hole. Socks are the only article of clothing that can fit through the protective barriers between the black hole and the drum.

That's as good an explanation as any I've heard.

That's as good an explanation as any I've heard.

That's because I'm right.

They seem to have left out 'evolution'. ;)

I think the one on "theory" covers the one of the big misconceptions (it's only a theory!!).

Who told you those terms are undifined? True, defining them does establish what kind of geometry you're using, but they can hardly be undefined yet useful.

My teacher in logic at university told me, but is that relevant? And yes, they should be undefined. At least if you handle them formally. That's the whole point of formal systems. What kind of geometry your using is established by your theory, that is, by which axioms you're working with.
Obviously, if we don't think about something when we actually do the math, it's really difficult, but that's another matter.

No punctuated equilibrium? Damn it, you'd be surprised how much creationists try to use that one when advancing their argument.

But then again, the most misunderstood word in science is "science". It seems like too many people are willing to use it as a belief system rather than as a means of understanding our physical world. I'm going to say it once, and I'm going to say it for everyone:

Science has absolutely nothing to say in regard to the existence of God, the afterlife, the human soul, or anything else. It is an inherently nontheistic and naturalistic discipline that deals only with what can be empirically tested, not with metaphysics or anything in the realms of theology and philosophy.

Anyone who claims otherwise is using science as a belief system, which is a very dangerous thing because it introduces explicit faith in to the equation, and that's not what science is about.

My teacher in logic at university told me, but is that relevant? And yes, they should be undefined. At least if you handle them formally. That's the whole point of formal systems. What kind of geometry your using is established by your theory, that is, by which axioms you're working with.
Obviously, if we don't think about something when we actually do the math, it's really difficult, but that's another matter.

Well, first thing you do when setting up a geometry, is define points and lines, so I'm uncertain what your teacher in logic was discussing :confused:

Where do the missing socks go betwen the time you wash them and the time you dry them? :confused:

When science can answer that, I will feel complete. *nod*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaQ7tRJiDWQ

Well, first thing you do when setting up a geometry, is define points and lines, so I'm uncertain what your teacher in logic was discussing :confused:

Well, yes, but they're implictly defined. A formal system is supposed to be devoid of meaning. Take for instance this geometry (as a geometry it's completly uninteresting, but it's a nice example):

(A1) Every point lies on at least one line.
(A2) There are at least two points.
(A3) Given two points, there are exactly one line both points lie on.
(A4) All points do not lie on the same line.
(A5) The parallel axiom.

Now, if you fomalize this you don't have to give any meaning to any of the terms. You can still prove things like

There are at least four points
or
Every point lies on at least two lines.

You can even switch the meanings of "point" and "line", if you change "lies on" to "touches", and still have the same theory.