David’s Comments (group member since Dec 13, 2009)

David’s comments from the Science and Inquiry group.

spoko wrote: "Anastasia wrote: “Another group I belong to is very active when it comes to nominations and discussion. They have a few moderators with one assigned specifically to the discussion that month. That ..."

Those are terrific suggestions. I second them!

Caitlin wrote: "Hello, my name is Caitlin, I am currently doing my degree in neuroscience. I have just finished reading Invisible Women and it is astonishing how womens biology is ignored or neglected in medicine ..."

Welcome to our group, Caitlin! Neuroscience has always fascinated me. Please feel free to start some new topic threads!

Aryan wrote: "Hello all

I am Aryan Kumar Prasad from India, currently pursuing a PhD in Mathematics. I have been invited my by friend Pramod into this group.

I am very interested in science as well as the his..."

Welcome to our group, Aryan! Please feel free to take part in discussions, and to post new topics.

Woman Reading wrote: "
[book:The Blue Zones: Lessons for Living Longer From the People Who've Lived the Longest|2213..."

I really enjoyed that book, too! There are some great lessons about the things that help people to live long, healthy lives.

Our discussion thread "What is your most recently read science book?" often has a sentence or two about books that people have read, and brief remarks. I wonder if there is a way to give those books (the ones that are praised) a higher priority?

I remember that I nominated a book shortly after joining this group, years ago. The book looked like a fascinating combination of mathematics with linguistics, geography, literature and art. The book became the "book of the month" and I was thrilled.

Then I read the book. It was absolutely the worst book I had ever read. Since then, I rarely nominate books -- unless I have read the book and could honestly give it 5 stars.

So it does gall me that many people who nominate books don't even bother to read them! I think they should lead the discussions, since they obviously have an interest in their nominated books!

I feel like my time is precious. There are many fantastic books out there. So I don't want to waste my time reading a book that is less than excellent.

Well, I started reading this book. But I just could not get through it.

Is anybody else reading the book? What are your initial reactions?

I am in agreement with the majority of the scientific community, that climate change is real. The other day, while talking with a guy at dinner, he announced that climate change is just a hoax.

My hackles went up when I heard this pronouncement. So, I countered, "then how do you explain the melting of the Arctic ice cap?" This didn't bother him at all. But it bothers me, as I've had personal connections with experiments that showed, unequivocally, that the temperature of the Arctic Ocean is rising. In fact, the rate of rising temperatures in the Arctic is much faster than other oceans..

So, how do you go about dealing with such people? Do you throw more arguments at them? Do you think of some way to seed some doubts into their consciousness? Or do you shrug it off, as they are not going to be convinced by any rational argument?

Michael wrote: "Ultra-Processed People: Introduction

Since, I've only started reading about the science behind food that isn't food, my comments here are limited to Van Tulleken's, introductory paragraphs.

Any ..."

Okay, Michael. You have just now persuaded me to read the book!

Craig wrote: "The Institute for Creation Science has a free magazine available upon request. Here's the website link: http://www.icr.org/subscriptions/signup "

I looked up the website for a laugh. It goes to show how people misunderstand science, and how evidence is the foundation of science. There is no faith involved. Every scientific theory can be challenged, even the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Science is not a collection of facts -- it is a process. There are holes in just about every scientific theory--that is, gaps in our understanding. Gradually the gaps get filled, new gaps appear, and so on. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

A "theory" in scientific jargon is not the same as a hypothesis. It is not a wild guess or speculation. It is a model of nature, supported by a huge amount of evidence accumulated over time. When evidence is gathered that contradicts the theory, then the theory is called into question. This, in fact, is happening right now with our understanding of the early universe, with the new data from the James Webb telescope.

CatReader wrote: "Howard wrote: "12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3..."

Would this count as science or inquiry? It's a self-help book."

I agree, CatReader. It's not really a science & inquiry book.

Susanne wrote: "https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7..."

The book The Maniac looks very interesting, but it was just published in October. Let's give it a couple of months, and then nominate it again.

For a graphic novel about math and logic, take a look at this one:
Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth is a pseudo-biography about the life of Bertrand Russell, the philosopher / mathematician. Here is my review.

Jim wrote: "A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through? got a review on Ars Technica today. Looks interesting.
https://arstechnica.com..."

Very interesting concept! I wonder if the authors discuss the adverse impact of radiation on people living their lives on Mars?

Michael wrote: "Hi, I am a lifelong physics and mathematics enthusiast. My degree is in pure mathematics. I spent 40 plus years in IT and retired. My retirement is - reading math and physics books (and other thing..."

Welcome to our group, Michael!
You wrote a book on general relativity? Sounds great!

Steve wrote: "As I was reading the Epilogue I began imagining that someone like the author was on a planet orbiting the last shining star and had witnessed the disappearance of the only other visible star in the..."

Since the disappearance of other galaxies and stars would have occurred slowly, over eons, my guess is that people would have forgotten about them. You might not know that other stars ever existed.

CatReader wrote: "Did anyone else finish this book? I know 24 people voted to read it for September...."

I rarely quit reading books in the middle -- but this time I did. I found myself reading without understanding.

Yemner wrote: "I would like to read this one. The Secret Network of Nature sounds fascinating."

I cannot find this book at any library. However, this book seems to be very similar, by the same author--perhaps it is just a different edition under a slightly different title, and is more widely available:
The Secret Wisdom of Nature: Trees, Animals, and the Extraordinary Balance of All Living Things ― Stories from Science and Observation by Peter Wohlleben.

Mike wrote: "... a recent opinion piece in The New York Times discusses how the James Webb Space Telescope has discovered large, mature galaxies farther back in time where the standard model says they should not yet exist.

Yes, this is a fun time for cosmology! The question is whether the standard cosmology model has to be revised, or the model of galaxy formation. See:
https://www.wired.com/story/no-the-ja...

Anyway, I finished the book, so here is my review.

Next month our book-of-the-month will be The End of Everything by Katie Mack. (It is an easy read, very informative about cosmology and humorous, to boot!) Towards the end of the book, Katie Mack has this to say about the Drake Equation:

Of course, many of these input numbers are, at least with current data, completely impossible to determine, which means that the final answer isn't meaningful. The thing that's useful about the Drake Equation is that it makes us think about our assumptions about extraterrestrial life, and to figure out what we do and don't know about this whole question.

This quote is in complete agreement with Jim--the equation does not give us any quantitative answers, but it helps us to pinpoint what we do and what we don't know, in the search for life.