Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Magical Realist, Oct 19, 2014.
I think they didn't find science 'boring', most of people just feel like they can't understand it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
People are lazy yes. But do they want to understand or not?
Because they lack curiosity
Most books and science teachers somehow do not manage to make it interesting, they turn it into work.
Science fiction with good science does a better job:
Omnilingual (1957) by H. Beam Piper
A Fall of Moondust (1961) by Arthur C. Clarke
And they are much, much more social , then we have been before. Hence curiosity has become absent , in the young.
Whell, that would be good then.....what's a paradigm.? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The current thinking . Based on thinkers that have come before.
Of course I agree, but you missed the point re lack of humor.
There are few gifted scientist who are also gifted communicators and can present science in a way that relates to people's everyday lives with humor and clarity.
But I just followed the definition of "syntagm" and landed in the land of obstacles to overcome.
Being and able to communicate is important and one can be gifted at doing so . The problem lies not with communication so much , although it is important ; but the encouragement of independent thinking.
To see a different ......perspective
Yes, my own Euraka moment happened as a child, when I read about Einstein and the term Doppler effect was used in one of his lectures. He used the example of a motorcycle approaching and receding.
The next time I saw heard a motorcycle approach, I remembered the Doppler effect and observed the motorcycle approaching, passing and receding, accompanied by the appropriate change in pitch.
I could actually visualize the sound wave compressing into a higher pitch and then stretching into a lower pitch.
At that moment I understood the importance of relativity. I was 12 years old and that is what changed my entire worldview. There are as many realities as there are observers (of any kind).
I am now interested in the personal experience of reality.
Our minds function in the present, but the information we process is always in the past.
To me this presents a curious condition. What we think is our present is in reality our past
I suppose but by fractions of a second .
A tree is still a tree
I suppose, for TV anyway, that science doesn't move fast enough. Compared to something like computer technology that likes to outdate itself faster than you can say: "Dafuq?" And that is why programs become sucktacular.
Like, listening to some geezer telling the same story over and over again -"make it stop; kill me now!"
Science takes time to think things over. Students are no longer required to memorize basic mathematical formulas.
But the tree is no longer the tree we see. We can observe and experience a distant Supernova in our present, even though the star may no longer exist in the reality of our actual present.
Curiosity is no match for ignorance, apathy, lethargy, mediocrity or disabilities that depend on or enhance one or all of those.
I think the number of people who want to understand is great enough.
Unfortunately, popularization of science likes to present the world in a much less understandable, much more mysterious way than necessary. Quantum theory is presented as mystery pure, despite the fact that there exist interpretations like that of de Broglie and Bohm which are much more compatible with common sense than the usual Copenhagen mysticism. Similarly for relativity, where a mystical "curved spacetime" confuses everybody who hopes to understand something. The recent popularizations of string theory are even worse.
Well, the Flintstones was very entertaining and now lots of people believe that humans used to ride dinosaurs.
There is even a creationist museum, with dioramas of Flintstone scenes.
There is your peer review, it's in a museum, so it must be true.
Maybe they want at the very beginning, but 'lazy' in the way of seeking the answer.
By all means, lets just abandon reality and makeup crap that is easier to understand.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, please not.
Those who are in favour of rejecting realism in discussions about violations of Bell's inequality are those who defend Copenhagen mysticism and curved spacetime interpretation. Those who defend realism are defenders of de Broglie-Bohm theory.
Separate names with a comma.