User Controls
Captain Falcon Explains Everything: Science Edition
-
2017-04-13 at 5:42 PM UTC
-
2017-04-13 at 5:59 PM UTC
-
2017-04-13 at 6:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Explain the necessary and sufficient criteria for some human activity to be considered scientific.
That's quite broad but on a basic level I would say that you "do science" when you ask a question, propose an answer for it with a falsifiable statement, then test it.
Could you specify your question a bit more so I can give a deeper answer? -
2017-04-13 at 6:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon That's quite broad but on a basic level I would say that you "do science" when you ask a question, propose an answer for it with a falsifiable statement, then test it.
Could you specify your question a bit more so I can give a deeper answer?
human activity can be considered scientific if it has a logical-mathematical basis, and a human attempting to harness these forces is performing scientific experiments. sort of like a magician but siphoning real forces.
that was an easy question -
2017-04-13 at 6:10 PM UTC
-
2017-04-13 at 6:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick How does a circumhorizontal arc happen? I saw one once and was awe-stricken, now I need to know more.
Okay so fundamentally, the stuff you see with your eyes is still the same thing as with a rainbow; refraction is separating white light into its various frequency ranges, which separately hit your face and look pretty. The optical principles are the same.
The difference is that circumhorizontal arcs are formed by particularly shaped, suspended ice crystals rather than by suspended moisture. Essentially, "fire rainbows" are formed the same way as regular rainbows, but specifically appear through clouds. -
2017-04-13 at 6:12 PM UTC
-
2017-04-13 at 6:14 PM UTC
-
2017-04-13 at 6:14 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-04-13 at 6:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Literally false on every level. Like you cannot get more wrong with any other combination of words.
human activity can be considered unscientific if it has an illogical and unmathematical basis
Literally nothing wrong with these statements on any level. Like you cannot get more right with any other combination of words. -
2017-04-13 at 6:24 PM UTCexplain multiverse theory to us. there is a proposed simple experiment to prove the existance of multiverses. perform this experiment on cam for us to watch.
-
2017-04-13 at 6:25 PM UTC
-
2017-04-13 at 6:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny explain magnets
Hardest one so far, because at its core, this is a ridiculously tough concept to boil down, and the explanation is still ridiculously unsatisfactory even if you know all of the maths involved, because the final answer is just "because they do".
Okay so, why do two electrons pair? The answer is that they have opposite spin states; electrons are attracted to electrons with opposite spin. It just is the way Jesus made it work. They get together and cancel each other out. That attraction, in the moment, is called a magnetic moment. However when a jillion of them are in a magnet and all have the same spin rather than the opposite spin (i.e. they are unpaired), all their magnetic moments add up.
As for why they do that, as far as I know, that's the trillion dollar question. But we do know it's the same reason why current flows through a wire (we don't know that either). Magnetic moment is just a fundamental property of particles. -
2017-04-13 at 6:38 PM UTC
-
2017-04-13 at 6:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Take it as it comes... human activity can be considered unscientific if it has an illogical and unmathematical basis
An animal can be considered not a dog if it is not a mammal. That definitely does not mean that an animal is a dog if it is a mammal. This is like making the argument that a coconut is a dog because it has hair and produces milk. -
2017-04-13 at 6:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Take it as it comes... but why are they red or blue, what evolutionary purpose does it serve?
Pigments are different colours because they absorb and reflect different wavelengths of light. If by evolutionary purpose, you are asking me why we have developed the association between the qualia of colours and certain wavelengths of light, then I don't know. Qualitative content is not something science is willing to acknowledge or tussle with at presence because it requires a special case in nature, which scientific inquiry abhors. -
2017-04-13 at 6:41 PM UTC
-
2017-04-13 at 6:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon An animal can be considered not a dog if it is not a mammal. That definitely does not mean that an animal is a dog if it is a mammal. This is like making the argument that a coconut is a dog because it has hair and produces milk.
except that isn't logical. i'm not talking about babby if A is C and A is B bullshit. newton discovered gravity from an apple fapping because he tuned into the logic of the world around him.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Pigments are different colours because they absorb and reflect different wavelengths of light. If by evolutionary purpose, you are asking me why we have developed the association between the qualia of colours and certain wavelengths of light, then I don't know. Qualitative content is not something science is willing to acknowledge or tussle with at presence because it requires a special case in nature, which scientific inquiry abhors.
no im asking what evolutionary purpose these pigments have for the animals, especially their specific pigments -
2017-04-13 at 7:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Take it as it comes... except that isn't logical. i'm not talking about babby if A is C and A is B bullshit. newton discovered gravity from an apple fapping because he tuned into the logic of the world around him.
Sure it's logical. The fact is that not everything with a mathematical or logical basis is a scientific activity in any regular sense of the word "science". Things that have just that, are known simply as logic or mathematics. That is, unless you're calling them a subset of science, in which case they cannot define their superset. That right there would be illogical and circular.no im asking what evolutionary purpose these pigments have for the animals, especially their specific pigments
Your question is illogical. Evolution is not a force of design or purpose. Not all traits contribute to a species' fitness i.e. its ability to breed or survive. So to give a positive answer would be disingenuous.
However, there can be some link between the specific pigmentation of the birds and their persistent survival. Going off my knowledge of flamingoes, I would hazard a guess that both birds gain their pigmentation through their diets. Those diets are probably determined by what is available where these birds can effectively survive, and is a part of their effective survival. So my answer would be that cardinals are red because they eat food that makes them red, and it is the most food they eat, because their traits are suited in some way to eating that food, and that good is abundant in the environment. The same night be true for Bluejays. -
2017-04-13 at 7:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Sure it's logical. The fact is that not everything with a mathematical or logical basis is a scientific activity in any regular sense of the word "science". Things that have just that, are known simply as logic or mathematics. That is, unless you're calling them a subset of science, in which case they cannot define their superset. That right there would be illogical and circular.
Your question is illogical. Evolution is not a force of design or purpose. Not all traits contribute to a species' fitness i.e. its ability to breed or survive. So to give a positive answer would be disingenuous.
However, there can be some link between the specific pigmentation of the birds and their persistent survival. Going off my knowledge of flamingoes, I would hazard a guess that both birds gain their pigmentation through their diets. Those diets are probably determined by what is available where these birds can effectively survive, and is a part of their effective survival. So my answer would be that cardinals are red because they eat food that makes them red, and it is the most food they eat, because their traits are suited in some way to eating that food, and that good is abundant in the environment. The same night be true for Bluejays.
It's not logical because you're making a proposal with variables ABC and skipping out all the other letters/numbers that are relevant to the reality of the situation. Science is applied logic to describe real world phenomena to the best of our abilities, and if variables deduced from perception are insufficient to construct a proper model of the real world, we revise the logic until the results can be replicated.
Bluejays and cardinals still exist today after indefinite periods of darwinism of competing ecological niches. We do not fully understand how animals perceive the world, especially other animals. What may seem to be the antithesis of camouflage to humans could be effective for them hunting their prey because who knows what wavelengths the prey is able to understand.
