afro-dominicano:


the-goddamazon:

We know why.

sean penn should be all up on this

afro-dominicano:

the-goddamazon:

We know why.

sean penn should be all up on this

sciencealert:

We love this! A chemistry set spice rack, so you can keep track of all the chemical reactions going on in your dinner preparations.Read more: http://bit.ly/1qgZh6U via Gizmodo
27

sciencealert:

We love this! A chemistry set spice rack, so you can keep track of all the chemical reactions going on in your dinner preparations.

Read more: http://bit.ly/1qgZh6U via Gizmodo

lareinaana:

yuikomoriwillfuckyouup:

lareinaana:

arienreign:

Why isn’t anyone talking about this?
http://www.dailydot.com/news/darrien-hunt-shot-by-police-while-cosplaying/

Watch non black cosplayers and lovers of cosplay stay silent on this.

Watch people turn out comments like these without using their brains. 

Y’all weebs will not shut up cos this comment got popular like cry more please!! It sustains me~

How One Of D.C.’s Worst Heroin Markets Became A Sustainable Food Source
How One Of D.C.’s Worst Heroin Markets Became A Sustainable Food Source

afro-dominicano:

sustainableprosperity:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/18/3474352/urban-gardens-transforming-communities/

These are the stories I live for.

utnereader:

Class War Continues
Can a maximum wage help bridge the income inequality gap?

utnereader:

Class War Continues

Can a maximum wage help bridge the income inequality gap?

sciencetoastudent:

inverted-typo:

This is actually a test showing how sponges pump water through themselves for filter feeding!
They simply colored the water around them so you could easily see the process :D

Sponges will never cease to fascinate me!

scinote:

Question

Why is it that the further away an object is, the smaller it appears? Obviously the simple answer is perspective; What causes perspective to be something that we perceive in the way that we do? Why is it that there being three spatial dimensions causes us to perceive objects including ourselves in the way that we do? In a universe wherein four spatial dimensions are at play, does perspective cease to exist? In 4D, do objects still appear smaller the farther away they are from the viewer?

Asked by terraf0rm

Answer:

Fascinating question! In fact, your question was so awesome that we had two teams of Experts— biology and physics— collaborate to answer.
As you alluded to, your question really gets to the heart of what perception is. When we focus both of our eyes on an object, we receive two-dimensional representations of this object on the center each of our retinas. The images are sent through the optic nerve to the occipital lobe, where our genius of a brain calculates the difference in angle between the two images. This difference, or binocular disparity, is responsible for generating our sense of immersion in our three-dimensional environments.
When viewing an object that is further away, our angle of vision of that object is much more acute than it would be if it were closer. As Stephen Pinker explains in Mental Imagery and the Third Dimension, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, ”an object will subtend a smaller visual angle when it recedes from the viewer”. This smaller visual angle makes the distant object seem smaller in our field of view than a closer object with a larger angle would appear. 
 
Hypothetically, four-dimensional human beings would view their world in the same way— by receiving two slightly different images on their three-dimensional retinas. These retinas would grant four-dimensional humans a sense of depth that isn’t accessible to us, with our mere two-dimensional retinas. Their perceptions of the four-dimensional world of space-time would seem as navigable to them as three-dimensional space is to us.
 
Just as a two-dimensional being would not be able to see inside a square that they’re next to, three-dimensional humans cannot see inside a cube that is next to them. Four-dimensional humans would have no such limitation, being able to view all sides and inside of the cube simultaneously. Utilizing the logic that perspective exists in a two-dimensional world just as it does in the three-dimensional one, we think a visual system adapted to four-dimensional vision would also be subject to the same perspective constraints, and four-dimensional objects would also look smaller to an observer with increasing distance.
But of course, we mere 3-D humans can’t know for sure. We suppose you’ll have to ask the first 4-dimensional human you meet.
Sources:
Pinker, Steven. “Mental Imagery and the Third Dimension.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 109.3 (1980): 354-71. 

Answered by John M., Expert Leader.

Edited by: Dylan S.

theaatproject:

New Steps Shown Toward Creation of Life by Electric Charge
Simulating a famous experiment to produce life’s building blocks by jolting molecules with electricity, scientists may have found a strange new intermediate state
Quantum mechanical simulations of the famous Miller experiment, in which simple molecules are exposed to an electrical discharge to produce amino acids, as may have happened on the early Earth as a precursor to life, suggest that a previously unseen intermediate, formamide, may play a key role in the chemical pathways.
The researchers, A Marco Saitta of UPMC in Paris, France, and Franz Saija of the Institute for Chemical and Physical Processes in Messina, Italy, also suggest that localized electrical fields on the surface of minerals may have had a bigger part in prebiotic chemistry than has been appreciated.
2

theaatproject:

New Steps Shown Toward Creation of Life by Electric Charge

Simulating a famous experiment to produce life’s building blocks by jolting molecules with electricity, scientists may have found a strange new intermediate state

Quantum mechanical simulations of the famous Miller experiment, in which simple molecules are exposed to an electrical discharge to produce amino acids, as may have happened on the early Earth as a precursor to life, suggest that a previously unseen intermediate, formamide, may play a key role in the chemical pathways.

The researchers, A Marco Saitta of UPMC in Paris, France, and Franz Saija of the Institute for Chemical and Physical Processes in Messina, Italy, also suggest that localized electrical fields on the surface of minerals may have had a bigger part in prebiotic chemistry than has been appreciated.

thebritishnobility:

Scottish friends,

In the words of the Queen ‘Please think very carefully’ before voting tomorrow.

And while you do consider this:

The Security that we have from the British forces.

The financial protection that the Union guarantees.

The friendly atmosphere that Scotland has had up until the now.

I don’t want this country to be broken up, and whatever the differences, neither should you, because whatever Salmond promises about a fairer society - I think we can see that will not be the case.

Please, for the country’s sake, vote No.

What are you saying in the above text because there are many double meanings there?

Are you implying that without the British Forces the country will be under siege because they have no protection of their own? 

I think you mean financial inequality that most of the citizens face on a daily basis.

So if they do separate the friendly atmosphere will then turn into hostility because they are now on their own? Well why doesn’t the union treat all of its other former colonies like they are grounded little childeren because they have a bit of independence. 

There most certainly will be a fairer society as the past 300 years have been a primarily conservative ruling while the majority of scottish citizens are of a Liberal standing. 

I am not going to state that the economic viability will result in the best outcome in the short term but at this point the rest of the world is not in much better of a position when holding a conservative standing.

Also Unicorns are a much better national animal.

How about the fact that they still hold large reserves of oil this could have no standing on why they do not want to lose the “Better Together” Slogan

inspirationofelves:

Girls change colors by agnes-cecile
244
biocanvas:

Prostate cancer masses
Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed type of cancer (skin cancer is first), and 15% of men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point during their lifetime. Research has long used cancer cell lines growing on a flat surface to study abnormal cell behavior, but cells on a 2D surface differ considerably from the 3D structure of tissues and tumors as they exist in the body. Recent research has moved towards studying cancer cell lines in a 3D matrix model, allowing scientists to reveal the complex interactions that better mimic tumor growth and dynamics as they actually occur in tissues.
Image by Dr. Louisa Windus, Griffith University, Australia.
189

biocanvas:

Prostate cancer masses

Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed type of cancer (skin cancer is first), and 15% of men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer at some point during their lifetime. Research has long used cancer cell lines growing on a flat surface to study abnormal cell behavior, but cells on a 2D surface differ considerably from the 3D structure of tissues and tumors as they exist in the body. Recent research has moved towards studying cancer cell lines in a 3D matrix model, allowing scientists to reveal the complex interactions that better mimic tumor growth and dynamics as they actually occur in tissues.

Image by Dr. Louisa Windus, Griffith University, Australia.

humanscalecities:

The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructure and Their Consequences
Rob Kitchin´s new book is available! Looking very much forward reading it. Because we still need to keep asking questions about these topics beyond the hype.
50

humanscalecities:

The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructure and Their Consequences

Rob Kitchin´s new book is available! Looking very much forward reading it. Because we still need to keep asking questions about these topics beyond the hype.

burdenedwgloriouspurpose asked:
Wondering what your thoughts are on this video, especially the evangelizing knowledge part. I apparently can't include links in messages but it's called "Does Science = Truth?," part of series called 8-bit philosophy.

sagansense:

The video you are referring to (IMO) is just a regurgitation of philosophical juxtapositions which cancel each other out by trying to stimulate a duel using similar rhetoric. 

For instance, it poses the assertion that science leads us to how the world works, but the verdict is still out on whether it reveals “truth.”

Then, channeling German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche - who was not a scientist whatsoever, but someone who spent more time “thinking” about things, and waxing philosophical about classical studies, criticizing culture, and poetically wielding metaphors, irony, and subjective truths to communicate - the video talks about the “limitations of science” using aphorisms that could literally make a persons brain ache, such as:

Science cannot EXPLAIN the world, but (according to Nietzche) “it can only DESCRIBE it.”

STOP. Let’s clear up some definitions: 

Science

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

2a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement, is the key to science." (Feynman)

Truth

1in accordance with fact or reality.

2a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true.

"[Science’s] only sacred truth, is that there are no sacred truths." (Sagan)

Explain

1. make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.

In the very definition of the word ‘explain’, the word ‘describe' is used to define it! 

Describe

1. give an account in words of (someone or something), including all the relevant characteristics, qualities, or events.

Can you guess what synonym is used for the word ‘describe’? You got it: explain.

I could stop right here without further diving into the video by suggesting that this is what philosophy does. It plays with and warps linguistics and rhetoric to express thought, idea, or opinion. It’s not explicitly out for what’s true, but for how we perceive or interpret things. 

For example…(here’s another brain buster)…the video provides the scientific definition of fire, then says, “see? it describes HOW it works, but not WHY" it works, as in "why does fire exist in the way that it does?

Going further, it says, “although science allows us to describe the word in greater detail, we’re still completely clueless as to the meaning behind it.

The best retort I can provide for this silliness is simply that all questions are actually HOW questions. Even our best “why” questions are HOW questions. For example, Lawrence Krauss said it the best:

The picture that science presents to us is, in some sense, uncomfortable. We evolved as human beings a few million years ago on the savanna in Africa to escape tigers or lions or predators, so, what makes sense to us is the world on our scale; how to throw a rock, or a spear, or how to find a cave, and we didn’t evolve to understand quantum mechanics.

And therefore, it’s not too surprising that on scales vastly different than the kind of experience we had when we were evolving as a species that nature seems strange and sometimes unfathomable - certainly violates our common sense, our sense of what is common sense and what is intuition - but, as I like to say, the universe doesn’t care about our common sense. We have to force our ideas to conform to the evidence of reality rather than the other way around. And if reality seems strange, that’s okay. In fact, that’s what makes science so wonderful. It expands our minds, because it forces us to accept possibilities which, in advance, we may never have thought was possible.

That’s part of the fun of doing science, is solving puzzles, basically. But each time we do, new questions arise. And I think for many of us, just as in our lives, the searching is often much more profound than the finding. It’s the searching for answers through life that make life worth living. If we had all the answers, we could just sit back and stare at our navels. And I think what makes the search so exciting is that the answers are so surprising.

What we’ve learned, is that we’re much more insignificant than we ever could’ve imagined. You could get rid of us, and all the galaxies, and everything we see in the universe, and it would be largely the same. So we’re insignificant on a scale that Copernicus never would’ve imagined, and in addition, it turns out that the future is miserable. You might think that should depress you, but I would argue that in fact, it should embolden you, and provide you a different kind of consolation. Because if the universe doesn’t care about us, and if we’re an accident in a remote corner of the universe, in some sense it makes us more precious. The meaning (the why) in our lives is provided by us; we provide our own meaning. And we are here by accidents, and we should enjoy our brief moment in the sun. We should make the most of our brief moment in the sun because this is all we have. And even if we’re so rare that we’re the only life forms in the universe - which I doubt - that makes us, in some sense, while we’re more insignificant, we’re more special.

We’re endowed with a consciousness that can ask questions about the beginning of the universe and learn about the universe on its largest scales; and experience everything that it means to be human: music, art, literature, AND science. So for me, it should be spiritually uplifting that we’re not created with a purpose by someone who takes care of us like a mannequin or with strings, determining everything. We determine our future, and that makes our future more precious.”

Although we throw around the word science and use it in various ways in such to provide an answer which is wrongfully used in some cases, for instance, “because SCIENCE”…belittles the arduous processes of coming to such results. If I could define the word more clearly and respectfully, it’s the process of meticulously redefining our questions and curiosity about the world into concentrated fields of study.

The video also relays another quote from Nietzsche, which - I feel - spits in the face of scientific inquiry: 

Science has no consideration for ultimate purposes.

And you see where he’s going with this when he compares the praising and celebration of science is parallel to religion, saying it’s “an objective value for a godless age.

Which treats “science” as if it were a person sharply and defiantly telling everyone what to think or feel. I would argue that scientific inquiry absolutely considers ultimate purposes. Although NASA’s Apollo program didn’t have commercial, everyday spinoffs or catalysts in mind regarding the initial expedition to the moon, more efficient food safety standards were implemented globally while NASA partnered with Pillsbury to develop measures to protect contamination of the astronaut crew’s food supply because we of course couldn’t have the crew becoming ill 238,000 miles from home.

We are the only species on this planet that has not figured out - in our short evolutionary history - how to efficiently collaborate beyond our artificially developed borders and psychological lines we’ve drawn in the proverbial sand which keep us from progress and synergy. The monetary system, for instance, served a purpose at one point, but it’s obvious to many that it - along with scientifically illiterate decision makers - impede progress toward our long term survival. And with climate change, long term habitability for the ecosystem presently enabling our ability to even stay alive and thrive while we find our way.

That Nietzsche quote is ridiculously offensive and ignorant toward the psychologists, psychiatrists, and now, neuroscientists, who have been and are continuously studying the brain in order to understand the “why” questions regarding a person’s behavior and actions as a result of mental illness. When we solve this - and we’ve made gigantic strides within the last 25 years alone - there will be subsequent generations of human beings absent of genetic mutations leading to schizophrenia, and the fatalities amidst their society at the enigmatic diseases of Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc.

Science - the persistence in asking questions - most certainly drives innovation toward ultimate purposes. 

Nietzsche advises to think critically not only about religion, but about knowledge itself, and that worshipping knowledge for knowledge sake can lead to dire consequences; for which, the video visually suggests that’s what led to war. Then, contradicting himself with rhetoric once again, suggests, “man shouldn’t be the servant of knowledge, but knowledge should be the servant of man.

Annnnd, that’s the end of the video. Basically, Nietzsche said a bunch of things that sounded poetic and can be interpreted in different ways to mean something else to various people. However, he reveals through his words that’s he’s just another man bound by the times and society in which he was born, who eludes to some grandiose wisdom, but transparently shows his lack of understanding about the words and rhetoric he chose to convey his ideologies.

My suggestion to all? Don’t shy away from reading philosophy, of course, but don’t boggle your mind and strain your brain trying to make some cosmic sense of it. I’m not vilifying philosophy as a whole, but the way that the video used Nietzsche to go about this subject with those specific quotes doesn’t necessarily depart the best job communicating the necessity for us to stay curious and slanders scientific inquiry during a time when we need it - along with skepticism - taught the most.

Recommended: Does Truth Matter? Science, Pseudoscience, and Civilization" (1996 CSICOP article by Carl Sagan)

246

readtheaboutpage:

donejustdone:

500daysofevilexes:

loseegoose:

 

This is legit.

More PSAs need to stop worrying about offending people and get down to the nitty gritty like this. It’s the only way to open so many eyes.

shit

If people are offended, they are probably guilty.