The Harpy


suicideblonde:

Nikola Tesla in his laboratory in 1899

suicideblonde:

Nikola Tesla in his laboratory in 1899

The Science of Body Language

fakescience:

The Science of Body Language

e-myself-and-pi:

transhumanisticpanspermia:

Are Physics and Philosophy at Odds?

philosophersdog:

It seems very popular nowadays for scientists to dismiss all too easily the importance of philosophy. Scientists just can’t see how philosophy is relevant anymore. I suspect that this is because science more or less deals with the physical while philosophy more or less deals with the theoretical. Scientists see results from what they do, but not from what philosophers do. And many scientists get really mean about it.

Philosophy needs to be treated with a lot more respect than it is given. Philosophers are just too nice to ask for it.

Forget for a moment that science started out as philosophy—philosophers were (and many still are) scientists. Making an argument for respecting philosophy just because philosophy has a history would be foolish. I am not trying to claim that philosophy deserves respect because it has been around longer or anything like that.

Philosophy deserves respect for what it is doing right now.

  1. Philosophy gives science a direction by making fantastic theories and claims which scientists can then test to help provide evidence for one theory or another. When scientists come back with the results, philosophers use the new information to create more theories which, in turn, science can put to the test. They built off of each other.
  2. Philosophy made the scientific method and philosophy is currently perfecting it, making it possible for fancy scientists to make fancy discoveries and take full credit while criticizing philosophers for doing nothing. Philosophy of science determines what qualifies as evidence, what qualifies as proof and the appropriate means to get both. Science would be blind without the philosophy behind it.
  3. Most importantly (for me, at least—as it is where my focus lies), philosophy figures out what we are supposed to do with the new discoveries made in science. Philosophy critically analyzes the new information and determines what the information means and what kind of consequences come from it. For instance: we figure out a way to live forever, but should humans live forever? What would the consequences of living forever be? Should we also stop reproducing? Is it ethical to deny poor people the chance to live forever just because they can’t afford it? etc. etc. etc.

Philosophy is important. Philosophers may not always be right, but neither are scientists. It is essential that philosophy (and, really, the humanities in general) and science work together. It only hurts to have bickering over what discipline is most or least important.

Most scientists I’ve met (or rather, most science majors I’ve met) completely disregard the hulking amounts of philosophy involved in interpreting data, especially when interpreting unexpected data.

the-star-stuff:

Neil deGrasse Tyson is behind the only major technical change in theTitanic re-release

It took James Cameron 60 weeks to prepare Titanic for its rerelease, but apart from remastering the original at 4k resolution and converting it to stereoscopic 3D, nothing about the movie has really changed.
Well, almost nothing.
According to Cameron: “Neil deGrasse Tyson sent me quite a snarky email saying that, at that time of year [April 15, at 4:20 am], in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen.”
“And with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in. So I said ‘All right, send me the right stars for that exact time and I’ll put it in the movie.’”
So Tyson did just that, and Cameron re-shot the scene. According to the Telegraph , it is the only major technical change in the film’s re-release.

the-star-stuff:

Neil deGrasse Tyson is behind the only major technical change in theTitanic re-release

It took James Cameron 60 weeks to prepare Titanic for its rerelease, but apart from remastering the original at 4k resolution and converting it to stereoscopic 3D, nothing about the movie has really changed.

Well, almost nothing.

According to Cameron: “Neil deGrasse Tyson sent me quite a snarky email saying that, at that time of year [April 15, at 4:20 am], in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen.”

“And with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in. So I said ‘All right, send me the right stars for that exact time and I’ll put it in the movie.’”

So Tyson did just that, and Cameron re-shot the scene. According to the Telegraph , it is the only major technical change in the film’s re-release.

the-star-stuff:

One little black hole really wouldn’t hurt Earth that much
Primordial black holes are theoretical mini black holes that were formed in the Big Bang. If they are around, they could pass right through our planet at tremendous speeds…and, as it turns out, that wouldn’t be that big a deal.
These black holes would only be about the size of an atomic nucleus, but their mass would of course be far greater - in the most likely case, roughly the mass of an asteroid. Primordial black holes are sometimes put forward as a possible doomsday scenario, with one disproved fringe theory suggesting the 1908 Tunguska event was actually a black hole zipping through the Earth. So just how bad are these little black holes, really? [Continue reading…]
For more, check out the original paper over atarXiv.
Via ScienceNOW. Artist’s conception of decidedly non-mini black hole via NASA/JPL-Caltech - click to expand for a closer look at it, because this is one seriously beautiful image.

the-star-stuff:

One little black hole really wouldn’t hurt Earth that much

Primordial black holes are theoretical mini black holes that were formed in the Big Bang. If they are around, they could pass right through our planet at tremendous speeds…and, as it turns out, that wouldn’t be that big a deal.

These black holes would only be about the size of an atomic nucleus, but their mass would of course be far greater - in the most likely case, roughly the mass of an asteroid. Primordial black holes are sometimes put forward as a possible doomsday scenario, with one disproved fringe theory suggesting the 1908 Tunguska event was actually a black hole zipping through the Earth. So just how bad are these little black holes, really? [Continue reading…]

For more, check out the original paper over atarXiv.

Via ScienceNOW. Artist’s conception of decidedly non-mini black hole via NASA/JPL-Caltech - click to expand for a closer look at it, because this is one seriously beautiful image.

myampgoesto11:

Ernst Haekel. Illustration from Art forms of Nature

myampgoesto11:

Ernst Haekel. Illustration from Art forms of Nature

— hkthemes