Nah, astronomical spectroscopy is cool as hell and it’s really easy to have simplified examples you can fiddle with. At its most basic you’re using a prism to divide the sun’s light and measuring the visible bands. (This is pretty much how infrared light was discovered in 1800!)
I somewhat agree, that looking purely at the data would be boring, especially when it’s on a topic too complex to understand. However, I think science content creators prove it doesn’t have to be boring. However, they’re usually making content on specific topics. A science museum is trying to touch everything.
Well, statistically the individuals most likely to frequent an alternative social media platform are those with a) the technical proficiency to do so, b) Weak social anchoring to the network effects of mainstream platforms, and/or b) people whose past social interactions have led them to no longer have access to those platforms, ergo by self-selection bias there’s a high probability of finding other high functioning individuals on the spectrum on this platform. Lemmy/Piefed’s primary use case is basically socially-awkward-networking.
Also, the process is somewhat reversible: Retrobright
However:
The long-term effectiveness of these techniques is unclear. Some have discovered the yellowing reappears, and there are concerns that the process weakens and only bleaches the already damaged plastic.
I find that the hierarchy of evidence combined with the ability to critique research is the foundation upon which sits pretty much all of my opinions. It’s a shame kids aren’t taught this from a young age; it would make manipulating them as adults so much harder.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
We also have research on people ignoring peer reviewed data in favour of random facts from random sources.
kids aren’t taught that at a young age because they can’t grasp it at a young age.
and frankly, most adults can’t either. it’s too abstract for them.
our ability to understand abstract concepts like scientific method begin at age 12. that’s why you start doing science experiments in class in junior high.
But there’s a third option. There’s a difference between complete absence of this topic in the curriculum, and simplified versions of it that increase in difficulty with capability. Mirroring other stages of educational development.
At the moment there’s a complete absence. At least in any country I’m aware of. Until late high school level which is way too late.
Young kds understand hierarchies. Social hierarchies start to form on the first day of kindergarten.
Teaching an 8 year old that science research sits at the top of a pyramid and newspapers and TV sitd at the bottom, would be easy to grasp. There’s nothing stopping us removing the detail and teaching a simplified structure that can then be built upon in subsequent years.
Edit: in regards to your edit, I was taught a simplified scientific method from age 8, not 12.
I mean, there’s a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as “rational actors” has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.
Because adult science is complex and dull to people outside the field.
How do we know the makeup of the atmosphere of a planet in another solar system? That line on a graph is higher then the other one
Nah, astronomical spectroscopy is cool as hell and it’s really easy to have simplified examples you can fiddle with. At its most basic you’re using a prism to divide the sun’s light and measuring the visible bands. (This is pretty much how infrared light was discovered in 1800!)
I somewhat agree, that looking purely at the data would be boring, especially when it’s on a topic too complex to understand. However, I think science content creators prove it doesn’t have to be boring. However, they’re usually making content on specific topics. A science museum is trying to touch everything.
Idk, that seems like that’d be interesting…
I am Autistic though
So are a lot of scientists.
Ditto
By a show of hands, how many here are autistic? Upvote = Yes, Downvote =No.
Better question: how many have declared themselves autistic or even understand the DSM definition?
Is it fashionable? Or just more common than we think?
Well, statistically the individuals most likely to frequent an alternative social media platform are those with a) the technical proficiency to do so, b) Weak social anchoring to the network effects of mainstream platforms, and/or b) people whose past social interactions have led them to no longer have access to those platforms, ergo by self-selection bias there’s a high probability of finding other high functioning individuals on the spectrum on this platform. Lemmy/Piefed’s primary use case is basically socially-awkward-networking.
Is that why I seem to fit in so well here? I was just beginning to think I finally learned how to be normal…
Well, you ARE normal! With the right people!
– Frost
What if you aren’t convinced one way or the other?
They can upvote your comment! It’s branching binaries, all the way down, until we reach enough possibilities!!
Or diagnosed?
…or mildly so. It’s an imperfect system with no fractional voting. It’s our burden to bare.
Upvote = Yes, Downvote = Yes, but in denial
Relevant xkcd
Pretty much.
There’s nothing dull about seeing a spectrograph working.
Edit: also, how come you can’t find a real hologram displayed in a museum?
Watching a beige box seems kind of dull.
I stood inside the grey box where the magic happens. It was not dull because there was a physicists explaining everything.
That’s a big box.
EDIT: I like the high tech foil.
Did scientists figure out how to keep the beige box from turning into a yellow box?
Don’t expose it to UV or excessive heat.
Also, the process is somewhat reversible: Retrobright
However:
Make the box transparent.
But seriously, all of those have older versions that don’t work as well but look absolutely cool.
If you’re gonna make it transparent, make it out of this:
Just like most any difficult work that results mostly in knowledge, it takes self-satisfaction to get the “rewarding” part.
I find that the hierarchy of evidence combined with the ability to critique research is the foundation upon which sits pretty much all of my opinions. It’s a shame kids aren’t taught this from a young age; it would make manipulating them as adults so much harder.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
We also have research on people ignoring peer reviewed data in favour of random facts from random sources.
Says who?
Any study with a placebo or nocebo element.
Do we have data on people who understand the significance of peer reviewed research ignoring that research despite the understanding?
kids aren’t taught that at a young age because they can’t grasp it at a young age.
and frankly, most adults can’t either. it’s too abstract for them.
our ability to understand abstract concepts like scientific method begin at age 12. that’s why you start doing science experiments in class in junior high.
But there’s a third option. There’s a difference between complete absence of this topic in the curriculum, and simplified versions of it that increase in difficulty with capability. Mirroring other stages of educational development.
At the moment there’s a complete absence. At least in any country I’m aware of. Until late high school level which is way too late.
Young kds understand hierarchies. Social hierarchies start to form on the first day of kindergarten.
Teaching an 8 year old that science research sits at the top of a pyramid and newspapers and TV sitd at the bottom, would be easy to grasp. There’s nothing stopping us removing the detail and teaching a simplified structure that can then be built upon in subsequent years.
Edit: in regards to your edit, I was taught a simplified scientific method from age 8, not 12.
you have never been around children, have you?
If kid is capable of understanding basic scientific method at 8 years old, they can understand the basic structure of a hierarchy.
“X is more important than Y”
“Why sir”
“Because X uses the scientific method like we discussed in class last week and Y does not”
“What’s the scientific method again sir”
repeats for retention
that’s not how kids work. nor do most people.
Okay. I don’t agree with you, but that’s fine. We can disagree.
I know you don’t agree, because you have no real world experience.
The funny thing about the real world, is it tends to laugh in the face of our expectations about how it ‘should work’.
Try teaching sometime and see how well you do with your ‘just repeat at the children and they will learn’ philosophy…
I mean, there’s a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as “rational actors” has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.