scinerds:

“Just a Theory”: 7 Misused Science Words

Feel like you need to make serious distinctions within the language of science? Maybe brush up on a few key concepts of the subject? Perhaps you feel an article is using word tactics to get people to believe in something false. Scientific American (originally on LiveScience) has a great article highlighting 7 misused science words that are sure to put things into perspective for the public:

1. Hypothesis

The general public so widely misuses the words hypothesis, theory and law that scientists should stop using these terms, writes physicist Rhett Allain of Southeastern Louisiana University, in a blog post on Wired Science.

“I don’t think at this point it’s worth saving those words,” Allain told LiveScience.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something that can actually be tested. But “if you just ask anyone what a hypothesis is, they just immediately say ‘educated guess,’” aid.

2. Just a theory?

Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word “theory” to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.

“It’s as though it weren’t true because it’s just a theory,” Allain said.

That’s despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence supports both human-caused climate change and Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Part of the problem is that the word “theory” means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone’s head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.

3. Model

However, theory isn’t the only science phrase that causes trouble. Even Allain’s preferred term to replace hypothesis, theory and law — “model” — has its troubles. The word not only refers to toy cars and runway walkers, but also means different things in different scientific fields. A climate model is very different from a mathematical model, for instance.

“Scientists in different fields use these terms differently from each other,” John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote in an email to LiveScience. “I don’t think that ‘model’ improves matters. It has an appearance of solidity in physics right now mainly because of the Standard Model. By contrast, in genetics and evolution, ‘models’ are used very differently.” (The Standard Model is the dominant theory governing particle physics.)

4. Skeptic

When people don’t accept human-caused climate change, the media often describes those individuals as “climate skeptics.” But that may give them too much credit, Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in an email.

“Simply denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism … or denial,” Mann told LiveScience.

Instead, true skeptics are open to scientific evidence and are willing to evenly assess it.

“All scientists should be skeptics. True skepticism is, as [Carl] Sagan described it, the ‘self-correcting machinery’ of science,” Mann said.

5. Nature vs. nurture

The phrase “nature versus nurture” also gives scientists a headache, because it radically simplifies a very complicated process, said Dan Kruger, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan.

“This is something that modern evolutionists cringe at,” Kruger told LiveScience.

Genes may influence human beings, but so, too, do epigenetic changes. These modifications alter which genes get turned on, and are both heritable and easily influenced by the environment. The environment that shapes human behavior can be anything from the chemicals a fetus is exposed to in the womb to the block a person grew up on to the type of food they ate as a child, Kruger said. All these factors interact in a messy, unpredictable way.

6. Significant

Another word that sets scientists’ teeth on edge is “significant.”

“That’s a huge weasel word. Does it mean statistically significant, or does it mean important?” said Michael O’Brien, the dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Missouri.

In statistics, something is significant if a difference is unlikely to be due to random chance. But that may not translate into a meaningful difference, in, say, headache symptoms or IQ.

7. Natural

“Natural” is another bugaboo for scientists. The term has become synonymous with being virtuous, healthy or good. But not everything artificial is unhealthy, and not everything that’s natural is good for you.

“Uranium is natural, and if you inject enough of it, you’re going to die,” Kruger said.

Natural’s sibling “organic” also has a problematic meaning, he said. While organic simply means “carbon-based” to scientists, the term is now used to describe pesticide-free peaches and high-end cotton sheets, as well.

Check out the full article written by Tia Ghose and LiveScience

(via sav3mys0ul)

robinhoodnyc:

Working at Robin Hood, most of us eat, breath and dream about fighting poverty in New York City. And now, one staffer has taken that passion and turned it into a book.
 
Cindy Lamy is the Manager of Metrics here at the Robin Hood – which means she is responsible for creating and updated more than 170 equations that our program officers use to determine the value of each grant that is made. Her new book, American Children In Chronic Poverty:  Complex Risks, Benefit-Cost Analyses and Untangling the Knot addresses the multitude of obstacles faced by those, particularly focusing on children, living in poverty.  She outlines, what we here at Robin Hood hold as truth, that by comparing the benefit of various poverty fighting programs against the cost of programs, we can determine which programs and policies produce benefits that exceed costs, thereby providing evidence for an efficient fight against poverty.  And ultimately, she believes that when we respect and care for the least members of our society we create a strong, successful society in which everyone prospers.
 
Congratulations on this incredible accomplishment Cindy.

fastcompany:

5 Stupid Reasons You’re Underpaid- And How To Fix Them 

You are not being out-earned because you are being out-skilled.  People often have blindspots about getting paid— so pull back the veil and start earning what you’re worth. 

Dave Fecak knows whywe aren’t making enough. Fecak has had long exposure to technologists’ salaries: He’s been a part of software recruiting since 1998. And while his points are directly intended for programmers, they carry currency beyond coders.

These are the reasons you aren’t making enough.

• Image consciousness
• The first negotiation
• Know the market (and your place in it)
• Profit or cost?
• Skill scarcity

Here’s the story.

Why are you underpaid?

unconsumption:

The Internet is full of ideas for ways to reuse pallet wood. We here at Unconsumption certainly have shared a good number of them. (Browse our Pinterest board here, Tumblr archive here, and/or Facebook album here for various examples, including several ideas for DIY projects.) 

If pallet repurposing interests you, and you’ve been wondering how to go about disassembling pallets, here’s a brief tutorial from Old World Garden Farms that looks like it could be helpful.

I’m guessing that most of us don’t own the tool the tutorial recommends using: a reciprocating saw (a.k.a. “sawzall”) that can cut through nails. If, like me, you don’t own one, perhaps you live someplace where there’s a tool bank where you could rent such a tool, or a tool library where you could borrow one?

Special note: For reuse projects, many of us look for pallets that are made from harder wood that, if it’s been treated, was heat-treated, not chemical-treated. We mention it on Facebook here. 

unconsumption:

More pallet repurposing: Backyard bar, anyone?

(via Ian Riley)

humanscalecities:

The promises of open data and the same old conflicts

The open data movement is a worldwide growing trend and has become a global phenomenon setting a new agenda on access and public services delivery. Its impact on the way we build community life is undeniable, too. A hot topic crossing the borders of the first advocates and early adopters. It has become one of the issues of the day.

Of course, those working more directly on projects related to open data, both from public management (fighting, much of the time, against visible and invisible walls slowly falling down) and from private and civic sectors, creating solutions and tools for collective use of public data for different purposes, are well aware that this widespread of open data initiatives throughout the world is not a good indicator to measure the success. It simply reflects a trend. But celebrations are always tempting and might let us forget the final objective of open data.

I could not attend Future Everything last week and I fully regret it, as it gathered some panelists and speakers that are among my most favourite names regarding the intersection of technologies and urban living, open data and related topics. One of them, Usman Haque, shared some ideas worth remembering and I hope we can soon watch the video.

(…)

These inputs put a little wary of the risk of triumphalism and techno-determinism. Open data, along with other movements, have challenged traditional public management logic, creating new ways for collective and concerted action, but there is a long way forward and a less reductionist vision is needed to avoid the trap of thinking a perfect ideologically data-driven neutral future is here and algorithms will be working on our behalf. On the contrary, complexity, confrontation and  power-based conflicts are, as always, relevant.

Read the complete post

tutmondigo:

melodramagically:

legallyblindobservations:

The World’s Quietest Room

Scientists at Minneapolis’ Orfield Labs created their own soundless room, an anechoic chamber. Their studies have found that when putting subjects within the chamber, they begin to hallucinate within 30 minutes. 

With an average quiet room having a sound level of 30 decibels, the anechoic chamber’s sound level is -9 decibels. The ceiling, floor, and walls of the chamber absorb sound rather than have it bounce off as normal objects do. The chamber is so quiet that the subjects can even hear their own organs functioning.

Although extremely interesting, the experience is rather unpleasant. Not one subject has spent more than 45 minutes in the chamber alone. Leaving a person to only their thoughts, the chamber could drive them insane.

Last night my boyfriend’s roommate showed me this picture, at at least a picture of this room, on his phone which makes me wonder if he has tumblr which freaks me out. 

He asked if we ever thought about going into a sensory deprivation room. No, I hadn’t but I totally fucking would. I wonder how long I could last… like if I could get through the boredom and even make it to the crazy parts. 

Would love to sit in this room.

egotripland:

You like that good ol’ hip hop?

Then you’ll like watching Steady B, Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince, Boogie Down Productions and Kool Moe Dee… LIVE… in 1987. 

That uncut hip hop shit.

(Source: dyatica, via humanscalecities)