zoom

mothernaturenetwork:

100 years later, scientists still working to unlock mysteries of Antarctica
Scientists have turned their attention from mapping Antarctica to shedding new light on the inner-workings of the continent.

How to Pull an All-Nighter Effectively and Still Do Well on Your Exam

zoom

canisfamiliaris:

Interactive Human Brain in 3D

Heath­line offers an inter­ac­tive Human Brain in 3D you can explore, as part of their over­all Body Maps. You may choose to explore the entire body of either a male or female. 

(via neuropsy)

zoom

canisfamiliaris:

“‘Duh science’: Why Scientists Spend So Much Time Proving The Obvious,” written by Eryn Brown and published May 28, 2011, in the Los Angeles Times, is as far off the mark, focusing on trivialities and missing the important message. Here’s what the author says in the first few paragraphs:

Medical researchers have unlocked the human genome, wiped out smallpox and made great strides in the fight against AIDS. They have also published studies revealing that:

Alcohol increases reaction time and errors during decision-making.

People who live in safe, well-lit neighborhoods are more likely to walk and get exercise.

College drinking is just as bad as researchers thought, but not worse than expected (try pondering that one after chugging a beer).

Well, duh, you might think — and you wouldn’t be the first. The practice of hypothesizing, testing and publishing the seemingly obvious is widespread.

Accounts of “duh” research abound. There are studies showing that driving ability worsens in people with early Alzheimer’s disease, that women who get epidurals experience less pain during childbirth than women who don’t, that young men who are obese have lower odds of getting married than thinner peers, that making exercise more fun might improve fitness among teens.

These reports make eyes roll. Anti-tax crusaders fume at the thought of government money spent to “discover,” once again, that stress in childhood leads to depression in adults, or that not having health insurance affects cancer survival. Just last week, a report from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) lambasted the National Science Foundation for funding what he considers wasteful projects, including $2 million to figure out that people who upload pictures to the Internet from the same place at the same time are usually friends.

But there’s more to duh research than meets the eye. Experts say they have to prove the obvious — and prove it again and again — to influence perceptions and policy.

And the author goes on to assert that, in addition to the need to ‘influence perceptions and policy,’ minute, repetitive scientific studies of ‘duh’ findings are undertaken in order to ‘draw attention to problems,’ to ‘win grants,’ or to ‘get promotions’ (publish or perish). But these arguments are akin to the arguments often made to ‘defend’ education: A diploma (at whatever level is being discussed) is necessary to get a job.

The point is not ‘to get a job.’ The point is to become educated, to know facts. More important, the point is to think well, to think critically, to be able to evaluate, to analyze, to understand.

But only near the end of the article does the author point to, then trivialize, the real reason for ‘duh’ research:

Sometimes, a study that seems poised to affirm the conventional wisdom produces a surprise. Many have taken the value of popular programs like DARE — in which police warn kids about the dangers of drug use — as an article of faith. But Dennis Rosenbaum of the University of Illinois at Chicago and other researchers have shown that the program has been ineffective and may even increase drug use in some cases.

But even if initial findings seem self-evident, Iannotti said, “you still need to establish the facts. That’s how science moves forward — incrementally.” … Still, some wonder whether incremental is just a stand-in for inconsequential. … Deficit hawks worry that the government spends too much on seemingly pointless research.

Here’s the real reason scientists study ‘obvious’ beliefs: The scientific method is legitimate in great part precisely because it requires the testing, the evaluation, the questioning of every assumption, every ‘common sense’ notion, a huge majority of which are not, in fact, true. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. An opinion, even if commonly held, is not sufficient. A single scientific study is not sufficient. And the ‘obvious’ is not, in fact, obvious. 

“It’s common sense that the Earth doesn’t spin or race around the Sun. If it did we’d all be blown off, or at least feel something. Aris­to­tle logically proved that the Earth couldn’t be moving and St. Augustine, in direct communi­ca­tion with God, agreed. Even the Bible tells us in Psalms 104:5 that the Earth doesn’t move. So there!”

“I just know we didn’t evolve from apes. It’s too degrading and goes against God’s plan for us and His word in Genesis. Besides, you can’t prove it, since no one ever saw a human evolve from an ape. It’s just too impossible to believe.”

We research in an incremental manner to ‘validate’ a finding, to increase the probability that we are not wrong, that we haven’t made a mistake, that we haven’t left out contradictory evidence, that we have not been biased, that we have not mis-measured, that we have not over-generalized, that we have not used the wrong tool, that we have not believed a false assumption, but that we (as a group of scientists, not as a single researcher) have actually found what is most probably the truth.

The sort of thinking of this author is the thinking of the anti-intellectual, right-wing, authoritarian (often religious) Americans who would like to replace the scientific method with scripture, and replace education with job preparation.

But, science is an accretion, an accumulation, a testing of the findings or assertions of others. There is, therefore, no ‘Duh!’ science.

“It is not so much knowl­edge of science that the public needs, as a scien­tific world view — an under­standing that we live in an orderly universe governed by physical laws that cannot be circumvented by any amount of piety or clever­ness.” — Robert L. Park, Professor of Phy­sics

zoom

caraobrien:

Microlending debate: an example of why academic research should be used with caution

Anxiety Gender Gap: Are Women Really More Anxious Than Men? ›

zoom

canisfamiliaris:

Loneliness

Being lonely isn’t the same as being alone. Lonely people can be surrounded by coworkers, neighbors, friends, and family. They’re no less attractive or intelligent or popular. What sets the lonely apart is a sense that their relationships do not meet their social needs. And the effects of loneliness can be severe. Read more about the science of loneliness.

(Ironically, this excellent, brief article is about the scientific exploration of loneliness, but Utne has placed it in their ‘spirituality’ section. It has nothing to do with ‘spirits’ or ‘theology’ or ‘religion’ or any other superstition.)

zoom

(via excessiveflaws)

Homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal ›