Javascript désactivé détecté

Vous avez actuellement le javascript qui est désactivé. Plusieurs fonctionnalités peuvent ne pas marcher. Veuillez réactiver le javascript pour accéder à toutes les fonctionnalités.

Cool Science. (A General Discussion Of All Things Science Related)

Débuté par Voxr , juil. 20 2015 01:15

Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre

89 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Voxr

Posté 20 juillet 2015 - 01:15

Members
6 341 messages

Well we have one about the Final Frontier, but let's get one going about just stuff in the science realm that you find interesting. Be that a cool video of a giant dry ice bubble or an interesting article explaining the cellular make up of a Rhino.

I'll start with some videos I scrounged up today.

Here's a neat video of applications of the Magnus Effect:

Also this classic:

And here is an interesting article on how the brain perceives time:
https://www.sciencen...-perceives-time

Anyway...yeah.

EDIT: So while this is a general discussion/platform of sharing for anything users find of interest in the realm of science. And certainly things related to Astronomy and the Cosmos can be shared here, I'd ask that we try and keep most of that stuff to LPPrince's thread. It's specifically for everything related to the grand expanse and can always use some love. http://forum.bioware...e-great-beyond/

Again not detrimental but I think it would be courteous at the least.

mousestalker, mybudgee, Jorji Costava et 2 autres aiment ceci

Retour en haut

#2
Voxr

Posté 20 juillet 2015 - 02:51

Members
6 341 messages

Apparently there's been quite a few explosive volcanic eruptions in the last few days as well especially in Mexico.

http://www.wired.com...uptions-mexico/

Retour en haut

#3
Fidite Nemini

Posté 20 juillet 2015 - 03:01

Members
5 732 messages

chris2365 aime ceci

Retour en haut

#4
Jorji Costava

Posté 20 juillet 2015 - 03:20

Members
2 584 messages

We don't normally think of philosophy as being very scientific, but theres's a burgeoning movement within philosophy known as "experimental philosophy" (or X-Phi for short). There are a lot of facets to experimental philosophy, but I'll just explain one of its most interesting results, the Knobe effect (named for philosopher Joshua Knobe). Here are two scenarios to illustrate:

Case 1: The CEO of a company is considering a new program which will increase profits but also harm the environment. Deciding that he doesn't care what's good or bad for the environment, the CEO puts the program into action. The program increases profits and also harms the environment as predicted. Does the CEO intentionally harm the environment?

Case 2: TThe CEO of a company is considering a new program which will increase profits but also help the environment. Deciding that he doesn't care what's good or bad for the environment, the CEO puts the program into action. The program increases profits and also helps the environment as predicted. Does the CEO intentionally harm the environment?

Knobe found that 82 percent of respondents said that the CEO acts intentionally in Case 1, but only 23 percent of respondents said that the CEO acts intentionally in case 2; this is puzzling given the close symmetry of the cases. Some of the questions which arise are, "What are the psychological mechanisms which lead us to make these judgments in these cases?", and "What are the implications of this result for philosophical theories of intentional action?"

Voxr aime ceci

Retour en haut

#5
Fidite Nemini

Posté 20 juillet 2015 - 03:26

Members
5 732 messages

We don't normally think of philosophy as being very scientific, but theres's a burgeoning movement within philosophy known as "experimental philosophy" (or X-Phi for short). There are a lot of facets to experimental philosophy, but I'll just explain one of its most interesting results, the Knobe effect (named for philosopher Joshua Knobe). Here are two scenarios to illustrate:

Case 1: The CEO of a company is considering a new program which will increase profits but also harm the environment. Deciding that he doesn't care what's good or bad for the environment, the CEO puts the program into action. The program increases profits and also harms the environment as predicted. Does the CEO intentionally harm the environment?

Case 2: TThe CEO of a company is considering a new program which will increase profits but also help the environment. Deciding that he doesn't care what's good or bad for the environment, the CEO puts the program into action. The program increases profits and also helps the environment as predicted. Does the CEO intentionally harm the environment?

Knobe found that 82 percent of respondents said that the CEO acts intentionally in Case 1, but only 23 percent of respondents said that the CEO acts intentionally in case 2; this is puzzling given the close symmetry of the cases. Some of the questions which arise are, "What are the psychological mechanisms which lead us to make these judgments in these cases?", and "What are the implications of this result for philosophical theories of intentional action?"

Why would anyone say yes? The rather obvious answer is no, he's not intentionally harming the environment. He's intentionally neglecting any environmental results, but them being good or bad is a secondary concern to the original question of intent. As if that wasn't obvious enough, how could anyone constitute a program being good for the environment (irregardless of intent) as being harmful?

Someone explain the logic there, because I'm missing it if there is any to it.

Retour en haut

#6
Undead Han

Posté 20 juillet 2015 - 03:36

Members
21 098 messages

Voxr et Simfam aiment ceci

Retour en haut

#7
Voxr

Posté 20 juillet 2015 - 03:40

Members
6 341 messages

Why would anyone say yes? The rather obvious answer is no, he's not intentionally harming the environment. He's intentionally neglecting any environmental results, but them being good or bad is a secondary concern to the original question of intent. As if that wasn't obvious enough, how could anyone constitute a program being good for the environment (irregardless of intent) as being harmful?

Someone explain the logic there, because I'm missing it if there is any to it.

Well that's what questions arise.

I think that MOST people look at the fact that CEO #1 is intentionally indifferent to the effects of the environment for profit gain. The effect of said gain has a negative impact on the environment yet CEO #1 is still continuing to use that program to increase profits. Most people look at what CEO #1 is doing, and make the assumption that the negative impact is intentional. Why? Because regardless of what CEO 1 is intending, doing something that has a bad effect on something is generally regarded as bad. And because CEO #1 doesn't care either way, good or bad. And continues to execute his program, they come to the claim that CEO #1 is intentionally having a negative impact.

That's my layman's rational anyway...

Retour en haut

#8
Jorji Costava

Posté 20 juillet 2015 - 03:48

Members
2 584 messages

Why would anyone say yes? The rather obvious answer is no, he's not intentionally harming the environment. He's intentionally neglecting any environmental results, but them being good or bad is a secondary concern to the original question of intent. As if that wasn't obvious enough, how could anyone constitute a program being good for the environment (irregardless of intent) as being harmful?

Someone explain the logic there, because I'm missing it if there is any to it.

The survey has been repeated with some alterations; in one instance, the options "The subject knowingly but did not intentionally harm the environment" and "The subject knowingly and intentionally harmed the environment" were clearly parsed out. Knobe's results were repeated; 80% of subjects chose the second answer. If you say they're wrong, you're either saying most human beings just don't understand the concept of intentional action (this result is stable across age groups and ethnicities) or that they're suffering from some kind of bias.

But the obvious bias hypotheses have been tested and found wanting (for instance, the 'blame bias' has been tested by replacing "harming the environment" with "violating a racist Nazi law"; the majority of subjects say that the CEO intentionally violates the law, even though since this law is very bad, violating it is presumably not morally blameworthy). Knobe's own view is that the subjects are judging competently and that this says something substantive about the folk concept of intentional action.

Anyways, I don't want to say any more about this, as it will derail this thread.