BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Lab Meta Thread - What's our trajectory now?

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Lurid Archive
07:06 / 09.05.06
Over in the Policy, there has been a discussion about the Lab, so I thought we'd start a meta thread here with the goal of trying to stimulate Lab discussions. (id)entity offered some succint criticism of the current state of affairs,

Lab right now doesn't appear to have room for talk about science, because it seems on the face of it that a thread on any scientific topic is likely to be overrun by "maybe it was ALIENS!!1!"ism. Which has its place, I'm sure, but if the Temple can be critical of people not applying sufficient self-criticism to their spooookymojo, shouldn't we expect the same of the Lab? And can we do that without making it a place where non-scientists don't feel comfortable posting?

My own feeling is that there are now lots more people on Barbelith who are into and knowledgable about science than when I first joined, but I'm not sure why that doesn't produce threads, really. I don't think its just the talk of aliens, I think that the Lab doesn't have a tradition of in-depth discussion so that, beyond looking at shiny new tech, no one expects the Lab to do very much.

Some people have brought up science education and science reporting as a potential barrier, which is probably worth a thread all on its own. Certainly, I think you can see a worthy opposition to arguments from authority being deployed so indiscriminantly at times that the discussion feels like its taking place at the "can science ever be valid" level. Which is not to say that such discussions are invalid, but staying at these foundational type questions makes actual discussion of science a bit harder.

One thing I'd like to offer up for debate is this,

I think science just takes a little more study and knowledge than most barbelith members are willing to expend. - sleazenation

which I have mixed feelings about. Largely, though, I disagree with it...the move to ring-fence an area of knowledge because of difficulty is a bit too elitist for my taste. Sure, science can be hard, but so can most things. And the assumption that science is too hard often operates as a way of dismissing it - ignorance is practically seen as laudable, at times - and feels to me like it is tied in with how the media approaches it.

Anyway, the more inmportant question for you all, is what do you want from the Lab? What kinds of threads would you like, and what kind of discussion could we have?
 
 
sleazenation
07:40 / 09.05.06
Well, I still have a big soft spot for the space programmes of all nations, but want to talk about the how and the why.

I guess one area that interests me is the continual juggling between a science agenda and other agendas when it comes to space exploration. What useful science can now be done in the compartatively low earth orbits that the Shuttle and ISS are currently locked in? What are the benefits of ion-drive satellites?

I'd also like to ask a question about British rocket engines. The design that the British employed in their rockets from Blue Streak to Black Arrow used hydrogent Peroxide as fuel (also known as High-test Peroxide or HTP). This fuel did not need to be ignited to burn, making it a bit more efficient, but it was too unstable to allow rockets full of HTP to be stored for any length of time. This last problem led to the British abandoning a HTP fueled ICBM programme on the grounds that by the time a HTP rocket had been filled full of fuel we would have already been killed by any potential ICBM first strike...
Launching rockets into space is not quite so time sensetive and so the HTP engines were employed in Britain's Black Arrow space programme

Now my question is this- what is to stop a new generation of space scientists from using HTP engines in any future rocket design? Baring in mind that the Soviets and Chinese still using rocket technology that was developed in the 1940s, it can't really be a problem with the science, can it? Or is it more of a case that the costs of engine development and space exploration are in themselves so huge that it is cheaper to continue using engines of a type currently being made than to attempt to build something that works a bit better and/or is more efficient?

I'd probably like to see a thread of the relative merits of various designs of rocket engines too.

Would it just be Nina and myself who would be interested in such threads?
 
 
sleazenation
07:49 / 09.05.06
Bit of a science correction. HTP is a relatively poor monopropellant (rocket fuel) in and of itself, but a great oxidizer for Kerosine fuel... that is how the Black Knight and Black Arrow engines used the fuel...
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:00 / 09.05.06
Would it just be Nina and myself who would be interested in such threads?

No, not at all....though the questions do seem a little technical (wouldn't a more general discussion about the different possibilities for rocket propulsion make more sense?). I can't say I know very much about rocket propulsion...but thats not that much of a problem, imho. People can read, post links and still ask questions in a sensible way. Why not start it?
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:41 / 09.05.06
Anyway, the more inmportant question for you all, is what do you want from the Lab? What kinds of threads would you like, and what kind of discussion could we have?

I do get the impression that people feel you need to have specialist scientific knowledge to even think of posting on here. Over in Policy Phox wrote:

One thing that puts me off starting more threads in the lab is the generally poor standard of science reporting in the popular media. While you can read a couple of newspapers and be informed enough to make a contribution to Switchboard, the same really isn't true of the Lab.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Someone who has some actual qualifications in political studies is, arguably, going to do much better in Switchboard than those of us whose knowledge comes from what we read in papers or see on the telly.

I post in Temple quite a lot, despite having no real background or experience in magic, and I'd like to think I make a contribution to the discussions in there. I post, less frequently these days, in Head and Switchboard despite having no training in philosophy or politics. I don't see why Lab should be any different.

Whilst some awareness of scientific principles helps, you don't have to have a doctorate to get involved in a thread. I don't have any schooling in physics beyond the GCSE level, but I'll still get involved in a thread on time travel (do we have one of those by the way?).

There was a discussion a while ago in Policy (or Convo?) about new forums that people would like to see in here. One suggested was Body Shop, a forum to deal with health and taking care of one's body. I don't see why Lab couldn't be used for this purpose.

My major criticism of Lab as it is now is that, unlike Head or Switchboard, there doesn't seem to be any pressure on people to provide any backup for their theories. I'm all for threads discussing, for instance, whether allopathic medicines actually work or not, but they should back up their statements as they do in other forums.
 
 
Mirror
14:48 / 09.05.06
I think that Evil Scientist hit the nail on the head there - for being a forum ostensibly focused on scientific topics, there's little to no attention paid to providing support for assertions. This was the thing about the Crazy Science Idea thread that prompted me to request that it be moved out of the Lab in the first place.

In The Demon Haunted World Carl Sagan asserts, "Pseudoscience is embraced, it might be argued, in exact proportion as real science is misunderstood -- except that the language breaks down here. If you've never heard of science (to say nothing of how it works) you can hardly be aware that you're embracing pseudoscience. You're simply thinking in one of the ways that humans always have."

A significant reason that real science is misunderstood is that in science reporting, all one ever really gets to see are the results of enquiry and not necessarily the process or the evidence. Unless one has a background in science, it's very easy to miss the fact that there's a high standard of evidence that must be met before claims are asserted. In the mainstream media, where all we tend to see are the claims, it's very difficult to distinguish between the legitimate and the bogus. You see this problem even in scientific journals; the data supporting claims is frequently not published. This issue is significant enough that there have been several recent proposals to set up a web-based warehouse for supporting data and requirements that those submitting articles to peer-reviewed journals make their data available for scrutiny.

It may even be that by their very nature, bulletin board systems are not conducive to well-informed discussion of scientific topics. I find myself frequently not contributing to threads because they're outside my areas of expertise and I don't have the time to go and do a week's worth of reading to bring myself up to speed before I can comment intelligently. Also, there's the knowledge that even if I do take the time, by the time I get back to the thread there'll probably be another half dozen ALIENS!!1! posts is discouraging.

However, this has given me an idea of how it might be possible to bring up the standard of discourse in the Lab. Off to create another thread...
 
 
Quantum
17:42 / 09.05.06
I want to see threads about the headlines in the New Scientist. This week, the fundamental predetermined nature of quantum mechanics and the nature of perception were both on the front cover, surely somebody else is interested in these things? Clue to sexual attraction found in lesbian brain have any takers?

I'd love to talk rocket-science but usually there are posters who can't grasp basic physical mechanics, never mind the subtleties of HTP efficiency. That's what I find different about the Lab and science in general, it's not that it's *difficult*, it's that many people stopped learning it at age fifteen or so. My generation was taught dreadfully at school and I don't blame people for not having an interest in science, it's not as exciting as Sex and Relationships is it?
 
 
Mirror
18:31 / 09.05.06
I don't blame people for not having an interest in science, it's not as exciting as Sex and Relationships is it?

I think that this sort of viewpoint is a major part of the problem. I mean, sure, S&R are important to us as social creatures, but I think that discovery and exploration of the world around us is central to being human. I mean, what could be more exciting than discovering how the universe works?

Perhaps we need a "Why science is more exciting than sex" thread.

Sure, sex and relationships are great, but frankly orgasm can't compare with the feeling of adding something new, no matter how small, to human knowledge. The problem is, the vast majority of people have never had this experience and so simply can't relate to it.

Even learning in its own right can be eupohoric - that sensation you get when suddenly a hard problem becomes easy and everything makes perfect sense. I remember the sensation I had in college when, while taking my third semester of calculus (vector calc) all of a sudden everything in Physics 1 made sense! I felt like Archimedes, running naked through the streets of Athens yelling "Eureka!" And the satisfaction of discovery is one that lasts; it isn't contingent upon changing moods or the complexity of interpersonal relationships.
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:42 / 09.05.06
I think that Quantum makes a good point, while Mirror is perhaps overstating things somewhat. I don't think you need to do a week's reading to contribute to a thread, but the fact that people have so little familiarity with science is an issue. Unfamiliarity with the process of science, and a tendency to see scientists as faceless professionals rather than fellow humans are both issues, in this regard.

Having said that, depsite the fact that I share your enthusiasm Mirror, I don't think we want to set up a competition between science and sex, or social interaction. They are different, with different rewards. I like your little anecdote though, people should hear more about that stuff.
 
 
Quantum
18:58 / 09.05.06
In fact I agree with Mirror about the thrill of learning, but I notice there are a bazillion B&R threads and only us in the Lab- it seems people, in fact, mostly prefer to talk about sex.
 
 
Quantum
19:00 / 09.05.06
Are we white coated geeks? I played Magic-The Gathering the other day, have I gone over the geek edge into the nerd abyss? Is there any hope for me?
 
 
Mirror
21:02 / 09.05.06
I don't think you need to do a week's reading to contribute to a thread.

It depends upon what kind of contribution you want to make, I think. Uninformed posts in the Lab run a higher risk of being flat-out incorrect, and I don't think that this helps the board. I feel the same way about contributing to some of the Head Shop threads. I worry that posting without having taken the time to really read up and think on the topic and develop a new viewpoint to contribute is just a means of seeking attention and recognition.

Or, as with right now, wasting time when I should be studying. That's what the Convo's for; I'm not sure it has as much of a place in the Lab.
 
 
Evil Scientist
21:30 / 09.05.06
Are we white coated geeks? I played Magic-The Gathering the other day, have I gone over the geek edge into the nerd abyss? Is there any hope for me?

All fear my Dominating Licids!

ahem

Magic, what's that?
 
 
astrojax69
22:38 / 09.05.06
working for an eminent scientist, i can say one of our centre's tasks is to make the science and results accessible so we work with science journalism quite a bit.

generally, we pretty much have to write most of the stuff ourselves and our style is to make the abstract to a paper, no matter its internal complexity, accessible to a young mind. if you can't explain in few words, you don't understand it - is the refrain here and one that i find a refreshing change from some of our centre's colleagues, though usually interesting ideas are usually expressed by people keen to express them.

the point, per this thread then, is that i agree science reporting could be better and that this might inhibit some posts, but then posts can be questions and these questions can be enlightening. is often the way of science.

i am keen to hear what others think about the lab; i should like it to thrive.
 
 
ibis the being
23:32 / 09.05.06
I just want to stick my nose in here and say that while I don't know much about science, I am interested in it and enjoy reading articles & discussions about science. I pop into the Lab now and then to see what's being talked about, hoping for some good reading though I'm unlikely to post - this would be similar to my Head Shop exploits... unfortunately I haven't seen much to pique my interest in the Lab of late. Perhaps it's asking too much to ask the Lab to educate, but I think not, since I find that's a frequent function of Head Shop (and Switchboard to a somewhat lesser degree since I'm a bit more familiar with politics/current events). What I would like to see would be something like a scientific/medical/biological/environmental equivalent or companion to HS and Switchboard... people starting threads jogged by some article or book they've read, introducing some discussion points based on that and letting things unfold sticking as closely to the topic as possible. I know it's a little disingenuous for me to propose my vision of the Lab given how little I post here but I am an interested lurker, for what it's worth.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:11 / 10.05.06
I want to see threads about the headlines in the New Scientist.

I like that idea. New Scientist is also avaliable to read online (although it's a week behind if you don't want to pay subscription fees). They discuss science and new technologies in a way that even people without a science background can understand and enjoy.

the point, per this thread then, is that i agree science reporting could be better and that this might inhibit some posts, but then posts can be questions and these questions can be enlightening. is often the way of science.

I think that Lab would be the ideal place to discuss scientific articles from mainstream media sources. If posters read an article and either think it's incorrect or simply want another opinion on it then why not post it in Lab for discussion? I agree that a lot of media sources don't present scientific news correctly all the time (and I frequently froth at the mouth whenever someone on the telly/radio talks about the "MRSA virus").
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:16 / 10.05.06
I know it's a little disingenuous for me to propose my vision of the Lab given how little I post here but I am an interested lurker, for what it's worth.

On the contrary, I think it would be good to encourage the kind of poster you represent, an interested lurker. If anyone else is in this position, it'd be good to hear from you.
 
 
grant
18:47 / 10.05.06
I don't think we want to set up a competition between science and sex, or social interaction. They are different, with different rewards.

For you, maybe....

I find one of the main problems with science subjects on a debate forum is that unlike Head Shop, say, or Switchboard, it's kind of difficult to debate scientific studies.

You can't really be an armchair scientist the way you can be a political pundit or would-be philosopher because science works by testing things moreso than by thinking about things. You can debate the meanings of results or the social implications, but not the results themselves (unless the methodology is screwed somehow, like with the MDMA-oops-really-crystal-meth thing at Princeton a year or so back).

But having lots of threads based on New Scientist headlines suits me just fine.
 
 
Mirror
14:18 / 11.05.06
You can't really be an armchair scientist the way you can be a political pundit or would-be philosopher because science works by testing things moreso than by thinking about things.

While this is true, I think that it would be beneficial for the Lab to be a bit more conducive to people learning about science than just discussing the latest news. Part of the difficult thing about science is that it frequently requires a solid foundation of knowledge to even be able to understand how to regard new developments.

One of the issues I have with NewScientist - even though I get the paper edition - is that they still practice science-oriented journalism and frequently publish stories on data that hasn't been peer-reviewed or are highly speculative in nature. They try to to a reasonable job in keeping the speculation within the bounds of the plausible, but the content is certainly not as rigorously qualified or reviewed as what you get in, say, Science or Nature. And, as I mentioned before, you never get the data.

NewScientist is a good publication for getting an overview of interesting developments, but I'm not sure that a NewScientist article alone would be of high enough quality to be the sole resource for a thread. Just my opinion, though.
 
 
Quantum
16:11 / 11.05.06
I agree, except that it's unlikely to be the only resource, like most people I google stuff as soon as read about it and get some other info. The advantage of a net-based discussion.
 
 
sibyline, beating Qalyn to a Q
03:57 / 16.05.06
i also really enjoy reading about science, especially astronomy and cognitive science. i'll try to post here when something comes to mind.
 
 
Quantum
17:05 / 12.06.06
Is the Lab less sci-fi now? Is it a problem if it's not?

I've been thinking recently that anything that sparks an interest in someone to find out more about science is probably good. My first response to threads on teleportation and alien cloning and stuff is to groan and *headdesk*, but the Lab isn't just for me so who am I to complain. Are sci-fi threads more accessible as I think they are? Is it OK for those and 'harder' science threads to coexist, or do you end up with conspiracy theorists wading into discussions on biochemistry?
I think my perception is that those with less of a science background will get more out of a thread on teleporters than on semiconductors, and that I want the Lab to welcome people with any background and an enquiring mind. It's entirely possible to have different threads with different expectations in terms of response- a hypothetical discussion of something from Firefly could stand some wild speculation, where a discussion of the implications of the Human Genome Project might demand more rigour.

Mirror said by the time I get back to the thread there'll probably be another half dozen ALIENS!!1! posts and I think that *is* a danger, but Mirror also said I think that it would be beneficial for the Lab to be a bit more conducive to people learning about science than just discussing the latest news. So we should be trying to attract people who might not know much science already, especially those lurkers (hello!) who are shy.

Thoughts?
 
 
Ticker
01:20 / 13.06.06
... been lurking about 'cept for the probiotic thread which I felt I could contribute to. Well, that and cheer Quantum on his 'yogurt-pots are EVIL' jag.

Part of my reticence in posting revolves around what grant stated:
"I find one of the main problems with science subjects on a debate forum is that unlike Head Shop, say, or Switchboard, it's kind of difficult to debate scientific studies."

I've got two biochemists in the family and we debate the validity of scientific studies all the time. Especially when they touch on the repression/manipulation of data to validate a flawed hypothesis. But I'm not sure that's an appropriate dialogue to drag in here.

One of my biggest issues with scientific discussion is the assumption that a theory is a fact. I don't want to be the disruptive conspiracy weenie everyone loathes but I'm a critic of people dogmatically treating scientific results as absolute. Humans are doing the research, which from my POV indicates a requirement to accept margins of error.

I adore the scientific method... but I abhor the use of Science as a hypocritical stand in for Religion with its own set of prejudices, cosmologies, and exclusions but lacking the awareness of these modifers.
 
 
SteppersFan
08:08 / 13.06.06
Quantum:
Mirror also said I think that it would be beneficial for the Lab to be a bit more conducive to people learning about science than just discussing the latest news. So we should be trying to attract people who might not know much science already, especially those lurkers (hello!) who are shy.
I agree - I think Lab should be for both science "specialists" and the uninitiated. There should be scope for people who really know their stuff to really get their hands dirty, even if most people don't know what they're talking about - just as HeadShop occasionally does. Similarly there should be scope for stimulating debate between the interested generalist and the science specialists. For science has so much really weird, really interesting stuff in it that there should be a wealth of stimulating topics out there.

Above all, I'd really like the Lab to give me a "fuck me, I never knew that / never thought of that" moment fairly regularly. (That's an aspiration, not a criticism, BTW!) Temple is very good for that, and HeadShop and Switchboard are as well (though maybe to a lesser extent). The "New Scientist Headlines" idea could deliver a lot of that as long as there are people here who are sufficiently knowledgable and interested to push the topics along.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:35 / 13.06.06
Are sci-fi threads more accessible as I think they are? Is it OK for those and 'harder' science threads to coexist, or do you end up with conspiracy theorists wading into discussions on biochemistry?

My worry is that they don't co-exist at all, and that the one more or less excludes the other. I may be wrong, but I'm concerned that the level at which sci-fi discussions happen - requiring no knowledge, or rigour, beyond a devotion to lots of badly thought out 'what if?' scenarios - discourages people from actually talking about science as it is. Science is full of controversy, of course, and I'm not saying that there is no room for debate, but the style of threads that people expect have a great impact on the style of threads they are likely to start.

I adore the scientific method... but I abhor the use of Science as a hypocritical stand in for Religion with its own set of prejudices, cosmologies, and exclusions but lacking the awareness of these modifers.

I keep meaning to talk about this...but my view is that although your point has some merit, the more pressing problem of the day is the opposite. The engagement with science *purely* as ideology turns out to be a fairly reactionary position, which gains implicit support from unexpected places.
 
 
Ticker
11:44 / 13.06.06
I keep meaning to talk about this...but my view is that although your point has some merit, the more pressing problem of the day is the opposite. The engagement with science *purely* as ideology turns out to be a fairly reactionary position, which gains implicit support from unexpected places.

Lurid,


could you give me a bit more, I'm not sure how it is the opposite as I'm reading *purely* as ideology as a negative thing (and closely related to what I stated earlier). I suspect I maybe misunderstanding you. Plea for clarity!
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:55 / 14.06.06
Sure, xk. Very briefly and without sufficient justification....I think one can make the case that there is an attack on science and scientists by the current US administration, cheered on by portions of the right. This hostility takes the form of locating the unconscious bias that those pinko scientists have, and confronting them with it, or at least dimissing scientific "advances" when they are *clearly* just a function of ideology. This happens with creationism, with the lancet study in Iraq (we don't do body counts) and with global warming, to name a few examples. In certain cases, this approach is lent support by the science studies crowd, who critique science from precisely the ideological angle. And hence, I think, Steve Fuller was being quite consistent in supporting creationists.

What I'm saying is that, yes, uncovering bias and filters in science is pretty important, especially when one considers some of the awful history of science. But in fact, this procedure can be simply an ideological move itself, which I don't think one can resolve just by pushing harder the other way, given that power resides with wealth and business, largely. Now, while I am sure you don't want to side with Bush and co, xk, my point is partly that confronting ideology is pretty loaded at the moment, and can mean different things to different people.
 
 
Ticker
13:50 / 14.06.06
Lurid, please allow me to rephrase this in a way I am familiar with, and then tell me if I'm getting what you are saying..ok?

In my family (heavy on the biochemists & artists) we often groan and moan about Darwin's Theory of Evolution being taken as the only theory of evolution( I'm a fan of Lamarck ). However it always comes up that we should be wary of the Creationists seizing on this criticism within scientific discussions as a way of discrediting evolution as a whole. We know Evolution is a separate process from Darwin's theory, but it is possible for people to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Is this what you are talking about?
 
 
Red Concrete
07:49 / 18.06.06
Personally I'd prefer to see questions about scientific 'ideology' kept in the Headshop, or Switchboard where there's political shenanigans. But I'm new here, so maybe it doesn't work that way...

I would be disappointed to see creationism, for example, discussed in the Lab. It would be totally outside the Lab remit. Absolutely nothing to do with science. (I hope I'm not forcing my opinion too strenuously on anyone here, but I think this is STRONG TRUTH)
 
 
Red Concrete
07:51 / 18.06.06
Heh... just checked my homepage, and my random quote of the day is:
"Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."
- Carl Sagan
 
 
distractile
09:09 / 18.06.06
I'm another long-term lurker/infrequent poster.

I tend to disagree, Red Concrete - I think discussions of scientific ideology should be undertaken right here. My impression (pardon me for not backing up with examples, but I'm in a hurry) is that the Lab has suffered in the past because potentially productive topics have been shunted off into other forums.

I don't see why anything that touches on science shouldn't be "home" territory for the Lab. I agree that intelligent design isn't science, but isn't the Lab the right place to talk about why it's not science?
 
 
Red Concrete
15:59 / 18.06.06
Yes, well maybe you're right, maybe it should be.

But it would probably mean changing the Lab byline ("New technologies, pure science, medicine and medical ethics"). And it would mean the labs discussions can be religious and philosophical in their main thrust.

I would hesitate mainly because in, for example the evolution versus creationsism debate, there is simply a fundamental difference in the way each side views the world. It's not a debate that I have ever seen progress made in. It makes for a lot of heat, and no light, as each side simply gets more and more strident in repeating their side. (although I would expect better of the Barbelithers)

But I'm not sure a debate which amounts an epistemological (observation/logic versus faith/authority) one is really suited for the Lab. That said, it would increase the traffic, and make things more lively in here...!
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:46 / 19.06.06
It should be noted that we do actually have a thread that discusses Creationism and Intelligent Design theory in Lab.

Over here.

Red Concrete, I can see your point but I do personally feel that Lab is absolutely the place to discuss science and it's relationship to other schools of thought. Well, here and in Temple (where there are several threads currently active that discuss the science/magic relationship).

And it would mean the labs discussions can be religious and philosophical in their main thrust.

Not necessarily. A thread that specifically talks about religious experiences would be better suited to Temple. A thread that discussed why societies need religion would go in Head. However, a thread that talked about the possible neurological/chemical reasons behind a religious experience would come to Lab.

I think that the debate over Intelligent Design is best placed in here. Primarily because it attempts to use scientific arguements to prove it's points. Those points may well be deeply, deeply flawed (and they are, IMO) however theories of evolution belong in Lab.
 
 
Quantum
14:18 / 19.06.06
I agree with the Evil One. The discussions of religious experience induced by the Persinger Helmet in the Temple will be very different than those in the Lab, hopefully, and likewise discussions of the biochemistry and neuroscience behind psychedelic experience belong in the Lab. Ignorant Design belongs in the Lab because it needs debunking in a scientific way as well as being picked apart in the Headshop for it's many theoretical holes.

If as feared sci-fi and serious threads can't co-exist, how do people feel about calling Shenanigans on silly threads? Tightening up the Lab's remit to concern real science and shunting discussions of telekinesis and aliens to the convo, books, switchboard or temple as appropriate?
Would that be overly harsh, would it slow down the traffic, could it be justified, do we need to change the forum description?
 
 
delta
14:37 / 19.06.06
Hi there, another long time lurker / infrequent poster popping up with a couple of points:

One of the things that gives me the biggest thrill is the communication of science. I think the ability to communicate something that at first glance is enormously complex to someone who has no prior knowledge is essential territory for any researcher. Particularly if it involves an amusing analogy utilising badgers. And jam. However, very little gives me quite as much pleasure as a full-on geek out with someone I can bandy jargon with. A sit down, a watch through of something like Primer, and several hours worth of highly theoretical time as waveform discussion. It's that kind of activity that discoveries are made of. I think that whatever the lab ends up doing it should be very careful to get the balance right between these two. It's essential not to neglect one area of scientific discussion for the sake of the other. Unfortunately, I can't think of a particularly elegant, non-divisive way of handling it, and I suspect that my first thought of film-analagous advisory ratings (rated 18? only the foolish and the brave!) is actually quite horrid. Having said that, I would like opportunities to both exercise my badgers and throw around formulae.

Secondly, I'd quite like to see ongoing discussion about difficult topics, like why ID is/isn't science, where you draw the line on cloning and gene therapy etc., and I think the New Scientist route is a good way of keeping that interesting. I'm a physics / solar system science / climate bod (more rocketry please!), so naturally I'm biased toward 'sexy' science, but it seems like a neat solution. Those who don't get it can get it got, and then everyone can have a go at figuring out the how, the why, and the where in 20 years.

Thesis induced guilt demands that I leave it at that for now, but I'm sure there'll be more later...
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply