@Louanne Learning meet @evild4ve . He likes to poke holes in things. I'm glad he's left me alone for a while—he's your problem now. For a while anyway.
An image of the red supergiant Betelgeuse, showing surface deformities due to core instability. It will go supernova sometime in the next few 100 millions years. Or else it's a slice of salami.
No, that is the beauty of science. It follows rigorous standards. Every bit of new knowledge is thoroughly peer-reviewed and subject to comprehensive critique. Science in awe? No, but neither do I dismiss its method. To say that something is hardwired into our brain is to say that it is a basic function and not easily changed. We all know cuteness when we see it. It is instinctual. To say it is neurological is the same thing as saying it is hard-wired. It most definitely is not "learned".
Insulin is a metabolic hormone that regulates blood glucose by allocating it for use and storage across the body. This guy discovered it. Countless others since have perfected its production, delivery, and glucose + ketone monitoring. My T1D girlfriend can live a mostly normal life in spite of her disability. Thank you, science. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/research/research-impact/insulin
For all writers writing about the future, I highly recommend you watch the Netflix series The Future Of. This docuseries explores how technology will change the world, from sports to fashion to skyscrapers to life after death....
That's Frederick Banting. He, along with his co-discoverers, were awarded the American patent for insulin in 1923. They sold the patent for $1 to the University of Toronto. Banting said, “Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.” His desire was for everyone who needed access to it to have it.
Well, it should be. That would be the scientific method as intended, but the scientific community isn't always so good at upholding it. Of course it's still a whole lot better than superstition.
I'm just partway through watching the video I posted on my blog, and the subject under discussion is how many of the great discoveries of science were arrived at through an intuitive leap, and then the steps between here and there riddled out afterwards. I love the combination of science with imagination and intuition.
@Louanne Learning No, that is the beauty of science. It follows rigorous standards. Every bit of new knowledge is thoroughly peer-reviewed and subject to comprehensive critique. That’s not exactly true. It’s the idea we try to uphold. In many cases the downsides of discovery might not surface until decades later. Peer-reviewed critique will not be of help at discovery... Technological Timebombs... You all know perfect examples of such a thing. In the 60s & 70s the use of CFCs in almost every household, turns out they’re extremely harmful to our ozone layer. The science community had no idea at the time. At the dawn of nuclear fusion, the possibilities saw the Science community come together and warn of the dangers and where it might lead. The cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1996 set off alarm bells around the globe. Policing the moral aspect of science discovery is tricky. The wonders learned from Dolly have helped medical science leaps and bounds. And yet, on this forum how many of you believe that a rouge nation state as already cloned the first human being? Time... The technological leaps we have made is staggering. From just a century ago (1922...) till present day, is the acceleration in discovery. This becoming ever more difficult to police scientists and the moralistic views of whom they serve. Our world is hard to imagine now pre-1994, that’s how much its changed. ...Bomb And this can turn horribly wrong in many ways for the human race. The Fermi Paradox as a hurdle where a race becomes self-extinct once it becomes addicted to technological breakthroughs. That’s why we don’t see them everywhere. Within just a short time period of a thousand years we now run the very real risk of self-annihilation. The fact we are fully aware of this doesn’t actually help us... The next 300 years will be a crucial test whether we survive or not. That’s a blink of an eye time wise in the grand scheme of things. MartinM.
======== The research article doesn't say it's neurological, and it wouldn't do because it's a behavioural study and hasn't looked at anyone's brain. Added to which it's empirical research into a phenomenon, not theoretical research into its causes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260535/#:~:text=Ethologist Konrad Lorenz proposed that,function of enhancing offspring survival. Isn't it dismissive of scientific method to say that an article says something it doesn't? And to then double down on it when this is pointed out? Are scientists' findings secondary to Science Thread? And is it open to all forum users to say scientific articles mean what we say they mean, or just the OP?
@evild4ve We are the wonders. I am in awe that the Universe created us. I am in awe at the Universe. Please read more carefully. A recent review of the existing research has discovered: ... that cuteness is more than something purely visual. It works by involving all the senses and strongly attracting our attention by sparking rapid brain activity. In fact, cuteness may be one of the strongest forces that shape our behaviour – potentially making us more compassionate ... Babies are designed to jump to the front of the queue – our brain-processing queue, that is. https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/how-cute-things-hijack-our-brains-and-drive-behaviour Neuroimaging research has shown that in adults, the orbitofrontal cortex becomes active very quickly – 140ms or a seventh of a second – after seeing a baby face. This is your brain on babies: As a side note, I'd like to say, you would make a good scientist, with your healthy skepticism.
You just made me realize, he may be our Diogenes the Cynic. Who famously brought a plucked chicken to a Plato lecture, held it up before the crowd, and said "I give you Plato's Man!" (referring to his statement that Man is a featherless biped). Even Plato had to chuckle at that. He then revised his idea to say Man is the rational animal. EDIT—OK, apparently it was Aristotle who redefined Man as the rational animal (even that isn't really known, it may have been someone else). But Plato amended his definition to include broad, flat nails, and by some accounts later to "A being in search of meaning". I can't find it now to properly attribute it, but one of those philosopher-types apparently defined man as "A reed, but a thinking reed".
Skepticism is at the heart of science. "I conclude that I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe but because I want to know." ~ Michael Shermer
It's the other part of the scientific approach—assuming something may be true even if it goes against popular wisdom, or science-as-dogma, and then testing.
Researchers have discovered a more effective way to introduce new lions into sanctuaries or reserves. A single whiff of oxytocin, a chemical that some call the “love hormone,” promotes tolerance among lions at a wildlife sanctuary. https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/researchers-created-a-potion-that-turns-loud-lions-into-placid-pussycats/ Two male lions showing a little love
Red Wolves, thought extinct since 1980, apparently have living relatives in the form of what are called Ghost wolves, a hybrid of wolves and coyotes living on Galveston Island:
The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone Park has been a success, helping to stabilize the ecosystem. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/yellowstone-wolves-reintroduction-helped-stabilize-ecosystem
“Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but he is a thinking reed. There is no need for the whole universe to take up arms to crush him: a vapour, a drop of water is enough to kill him. but even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he knows that he is dying and the advantage the universe has over him. The universe knows none of this.” ~ Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pensées
Wow, nice find!! That is a great quote. Somehow I saw a very condensed version that didn't mention anything but what I posted. Now I'm picturing a Monty Python skit with a crowd of people in the street and one of them shouts "Look out! A vapour! It's coming this way! Run away!"
Lol, I appreciate Monty Python, too! Blaise Pascal was definitely ahead of his time. Another quote of his: “Nature is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” To read more Pascal quotes: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/10994.Blaise_Pascal?page=1
There is a misconception amoung some that evolution by natural selection is a process that gives an organism what it needs, but that is not how it works. Natural selection can only act on the genetic material available to it, and genetic information only flows in one way: DNA -> RNA -> proteins (which determine the structure and function of the organism). All evolution by natural selection begins with genetic mutation.
Well…we now know the central dogma isn’t entirely accurately. Information does go from RNA—>DNA in some instances.
Yes, thank you, there is an enzyme called reverse transcriptase which produces DNA from RNA. However: Contrary to a widely held belief, the process does not violate the flows of genetic information as described by the classical central dogma, as transfers of information from RNA to DNA are explicitly held possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase And its existence does not negate my main point: Natural selection begins with genetic mutation, not a response to the environment.
