Category Archives: Other science

aka stamp collecting

From the Files of Doctor Obvious

Posted on by

The Bikini Effect

[M]en alternately fondled t-shirts and bras (which were not being worn during the test). After touching the bras, men valued the future less and the present more, said lead researcher Bram Van Den Bergh of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium. Viewing ads with women in bikinis had the same effect.
[…]
The bikini effect does vary in strength from person to person, Van Den Bergh said. While most men are vulnerable to subtle types of stimuli — like sexy ads and touching lingerie — others may need to see a woman nude before feeling impulsive. No matter, Van Den Bergh warned, “being exposed to a sexy girl may influence what stock you invest in or what candy bar you buy.”

OMG, they may start using this to influence purchasing patterns!

What Mr. Slack Got Wrong

Posted on by

What neo-creationists get right

[I]n the debate over evolution, I also think creationists’ doggedness has to do with the fact that they make a few worthy points. And as long as evolutionists like me reflexively react with ridicule and self-righteous rage, we may paradoxically be adding years to creationism’s lifespan.

I think that the creationists’ doggedness has far more to do with the fact that their ideology comes first, and they mangle science to conform to that worldview. When “facts” are presented that can be falsified by just looking around, sometimes ridicule is the only option left. But there was much more in the article that bothered me, and to a greater degree.

Mr. Slack goes on to make four points. On the first two, I say this —
Yes, science is incomplete — I don’t think any competent scientist is claiming that there isn’t more to be found. This is true of all fields of science, and the “designer of the gaps” is a false dilemma. The complexity of the cell being unknown to Darwin also falls short and points out the misdirected nature of many arguments against “Darwinism,” (much like arguments against Einstein and relativity) because the theory has advanced quite far since the original proposal. I’ll get to the misuse of “faith” a little later on.

On to the third point
Continue reading →

Origin Not Originally Original

Posted on by

On the Origin of a Theory

Darwin’s treatise on evolution wasn’t the first and wasn’t the only attempt to explain the diversity of life.

“The only novelty in my work is the attempt to explain how species become modified,” Darwin later wrote. He did not mean to belittle his achievement. The how, backed up by an abundance of evidence, was crucial: nature throws up endless biological variations, and they either flourish or fade away in the face of disease, hunger, predation and other factors. Darwin’s term for it was “natural selection”; Wallace called it the “struggle for existence.” But we often act today as if Darwin invented the idea of evolution itself, including the theory that human beings developed from an ape ancestor. And Wallace we forget altogether.
[…]
[O]n November 22, 1859, Darwin published his great work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and the unthinkable—that man was descended from beasts—became more than thinkable. Darwin didn’t just supply the how of evolution; his painstaking work on barnacles and other species made the idea plausible.

It’s important to understand that last bit, and it applies in all of science. Saying, “I can explain that” isn’t sufficient. You need to amass scientific evidence in support of your claim — data that supports you and eliminates other explanations, along with predictions that would falsify your theory if they fail to come true.

Don't Wine About Your Carbon Footprint

Posted on by

Calculating the carbon footprint of wine: my research findings

There’s a “green line” that runs down the middle of Ohio. For points to the West of that line, it is more carbon efficient to consume wine trucked from California. To the East of that line, it’s more efficient to consume the same sized bottle of wine from Bordeaux, which has had benefited from the efficiencies of container shipping, followed by a shorter truck trip. In the event that a carbon tax were ever imposed, it would thus have a decidedly un-nationalistic impact.

via Kottke

Getting My Pants On

Posted on by

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. Churchill, inspired by Twain, pre-internet.

Genepax Unveils a Car That Runs on Water and Air

Try again, you sensationalizing hacks. Versions of this story have spread across the web like a bad rash.

Their new “Water Energy System (WES),” generates power by supplying water and air to the fuel and air electrodes using a proprietary technology called the Membrane Electrode Assembly (MEA). The secret behind MEA is a special material that is capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction.

If there’s a chemical reaction taking place, then it’s not running on water and air!

As said in the press release

The main feature of the new system is that it uses a membrane electrode assembly (MEA), which contains a material that breaks down the water to hydrogen and oxygen.

Got that? It contains a material that breaks down the water to hydrogen and oxygen. There’s a chemical reaction going on, for Odin’s sake! There are materials that like Oxygen even more than Hydrogen does. Introduce them, let them get acquainted, and they’ll get busy producing Hydrogen. But — and this is very important — the other material will eventually run out, and you’ll have to “refuel.”

To give an example, you can generate Hydrogen with water, Aluminum and Gadolinium (the latter is a catalyst which keeps the Al from forming an oxide layer, which would shut the reaction down, and the reaction is not exactly a “new process”). I don’t know if this is what’s going on here, but something sure is, because in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.

Update: good takedown over at Good Math, Bad Math

Elements of Music

Posted on by

Name that tune in three elements

Best song of the 80s? Gold by Spandau Ballet. But it seems that the frilly-collared Spandau boys were far from original in their lyrical choice. According to a survey undertaken by Santiago Alvarez, in the department of Inorganic Chemistry at the University of Barcelona, the most popular elements referred to in music are, from the top; silver, gold, tin and oxygen.

What surprises me isn’t that someone did this. No, what surprises me is that the survey appears in a chemistry journal and it’s paywalled. There is a press release that mentions some of the songs.

But . . . Gold is the best song of the 80’s? File that under ‘Things that make you go buuhhhhh!’

Say it Ain't So, Joe!

Posted on by

Er, Marlin.

As part of its case, ”Cruel Camera” showed scenes from that much-beloved series ”Wild Kingdom.” It was broadcast regularly on NBC from 1968 through ’71, and then went into syndication, although new episodes were produced through 1978. How did ”Wild Kingdom” rescue a bear, apparently stranded in a swamp? Someone pushed the bear overboard and scared him half to death first. How do you get an alligator to attack a water moccasin? Tie a string to the water moccasin’s tail; throw him out and reel him in. Wait long enough, and the alligator will attack the water moccasin out of sheer boredom or exasperation.

Oh, man, I did not need to know this. But now that I do, I’m not keeping it to myself.

Via Bug Girl, who asks

Is this just a cost of doing business? Or is it that we prefer our nature television like we prefer our porn?

Everything is pretty, the narrative is simple, and there are lots of money shots. It’s close up, sped up, and set to music. There is always a climax to the story.

And they’re faking it.