MetalTabs.com Forum

MetalTabs.com Forum (http://metaltabs.com/forum/index.php)
-   Chit Chat (http://metaltabs.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   The Awesome Science Thread (http://metaltabs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27778)

far_beyond_sane 2006-02-12 05:22

The Awesome Science Thread
 
During the course of any given day, I usually come across something that is both scientific and filled with quantities of pure ownage.

Let's bond.

You need to know about this.

"On Tuesday, Feb. 14, noted physicist Dr. Franklin Felber will present his new exact solution of Einstein's 90-year-old gravitational field equation."

nomad 2006-02-12 05:26

I conclude you feel better now :p

NZ black metal drumm 2006-02-12 06:08

awesome

pure awesome

Cloaca 2006-02-12 06:09

Quote:
Originally Posted by metal_monkey
did ya bitch slap her for pawning it


Get out of this thread before I suspend you.

By the way, that article rules.

johnmansley 2006-02-12 06:43

Although Einstein's Field Equation has many solutions, this is very interesting. I had to be able to derive the Gravitational Field Equation at university but, thankfully, not solve it.

brainsforbreakfast 2006-02-12 07:36

that article owns. I just want to see if it will takes us anywhere in the next 50 years

far_beyond_sane 2006-02-12 08:15

There are three big recurring methodological problems I see with experimental psychology.

1) Demand characteristics/the placebo effect - does the environment or design of the experiment suggest, consciously or unconsiously, how people should behave in it?

2) Construction of variables - for example, exactly what is 'verbal reasoning'? Or 'intelligence'? Or any number of other skills, qualities, states of mind etc. that we are quite comfortable with as concepts but have great difficulty in quantifying?

3) Correlative-causative fallacy - a fancy-arse way of saying that things that co-occur may do so because of a third unrelated factor.

Now, cast your stupid fat eyes over this.

Of course, you can't tell exactly how the research was conducted without reading it and journalism concerning science is almost always hammered shit (a source of unending frustration to me), but which of the above problems does the article suggest this study committed?

Dyldo 2006-02-12 15:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by far_beyond_sane
1) Demand characteristics/the placebo effect - does the environment or design of the experiment suggest, consciously or unconsiously, how people should behave in it?

2) Construction of variables - for example, exactly what is 'verbal reasoning'? Or 'intelligence'? Or any number of other skills, qualities, states of mind etc. that we are quite comfortable with as concepts but have great difficulty in quantifying?

3) Correlative-causative fallacy - a fancy-arse way of saying that things that co-occur may do so because of a third unrelated factor.



All of the above. In my AP psych class last year at least one (if not all) of these always floated around even the most prestige research.

johnmansley 2006-02-12 16:06

It could also be that people who are good multi-taskers are more likely to play video games rather than video gamers being more likely to multi-task well.

far_beyond_sane 2006-02-12 19:09

Close, Dyldonics. I don't think there was any relevant demand characteristic in this experiment. However, we have almost certainly have problems with constructs and with cor./caus.

Constructs - 'tricky mental tests', is it? Which ones? Will the results be different if I use entirely different tests which are still 'tricky'?

Cor./Caus. - the big problem. My first immediate thought was "People I know who are gamers are already nerds. They are computer oriented people who used Apple IIes in the 80's and are now working in software 15 years later. They spend their lives PRACTISING multitasking, and the computer games are incidental."

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmansley
It could also be that people who are good multi-taskers are more likely to play video games rather than video gamers being more likely to multi-task well.


Excellent point, cumboy! I think formally that would be a form of sample bias, but I'm not 100% sure.

The way around all of this is of course to use a randomised controlled trial.

1) Specify the outcome you expect, for the reasons you expect.
2) Take a big-as-possible group of random people who do NOT play computer games.
3) Test their 1337 skillz.
4) Select half at random.
5) Make that half play video games.
6) After a period of time, re-test them.
7) Have the hax0rz group increased in skill? Are they now m4d with phatazz sk111z?

I sincerely doubt any psychologist breathing is gay enough to attempt said research.

Dyldo 2006-02-12 19:30

Quote:
Originally Posted by far_beyond_sane
I don't think there was any relevant demand characteristic in this experiment.


Yeah, I couldn't quite put my finger on that one. I more have an "inkling" that there is some placebo effect involved.

powersofterror 2006-02-12 21:40

Quote:
Originally Posted by far_beyond_sane
There are three big recurring methodological problems I see with experimental psychology.

1) Demand characteristics/the placebo effect - does the environment or design of the experiment suggest, consciously or unconsiously, how people should behave in it?

2) Construction of variables - for example, exactly what is 'verbal reasoning'? Or 'intelligence'? Or any number of other skills, qualities, states of mind etc. that we are quite comfortable with as concepts but have great difficulty in quantifying?

3) Correlative-causative fallacy - a fancy-arse way of saying that things that co-occur may do so because of a third unrelated factor.

Now, cast your stupid fat eyes over this.

Of course, you can't tell exactly how the research was conducted without reading it and journalism concerning science is almost always hammered shit (a source of unending frustration to me), but which of the above problems does the article suggest this study committed?

Don't forget in vivo or in vitro--or however the hell you spell those. It's very hard to study shit. That article sounds good so far, but I try to be suspicious of everything. I'll wait till valentine's day to say anything worth my while......

Dyldo 2006-02-13 00:26

How fucking weird is this: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/0...rms_roachb.html

PST 88 2006-02-13 02:17

It seems like they chose entirely video gamers who are generally geeks. They certainly didn't choose the stoned-ass college kids who play each new version of Madden as it comes out and get excited and yell when they make a player run the length of the field. It's no secret that people who multi-task a lot are good at it, just like anybody who practices anything gets better at it, but not all video gamers multi-task - a lot just sit and play the game. I'm interested as to how they chose their gamers and non-gamers. Then the tests.

On the other hand, I know 3-4 languages and occasionally play video games. I must be a multi-tasking god.

Cunty Shunt 2006-02-13 02:41

My Physics homework was pissing me off earlier today. That article kicks the shit out of anything I'm learning.

far_beyond_sane 2006-02-13 06:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by powersofterror
Don't forget in vivo or in vitro.


We have an alarming tendency not to test the vast majority of propositions in experimental psychology in vitro. I think you can guess why.


Neuroscience marches ever onwards.

problematic 2006-02-13 07:02

I am seriously sceptical of the concepts presented in your first posts' article, FBS.
Ok, so people thought the sound barrier couldnt be breached ... they were all proved wrong .... but this is (approx.) 300,000 km per second we're talking about here.
So they give some explanation that theyll be hitching rides on stars -- but how close is the closest star (apart from the sun) .. hmm few light years??? and i doubt the sun's gravitational field will be strong enough, let alone the let the craft close enough, thats massive heat we're talking about here.... 30,000 or so celcius? .

Also, The fastest humans have gone so far is Mach 21 on reentry to earth in the space shuttle ... speed of light?!? thats ridiculous ....

... and I see no way they are going to blow up 30 billion tonnes of TNT to propel their craft... unless they get the Middle East involved :D

far_beyond_sane 2006-02-13 07:48

Quote:
Originally Posted by problematic
I am seriously sceptical of the concepts presented in your first posts' article, FBS.


This post is a great example of how most people today use of language like it was their own personal fucktoy.

Regardless of what the common definition of a concept it, in science it is an explanatory principle that is abstract. So what you've done is:

1) Said you are sceptical of the concept.
2) Proceeded to unload a ton of dribble about your scepticism of the practicality of said concept.

If you doubt the concept that means you doubt Felber's solution to the equation as it was solved. Seeing as it isn't being released until tomorrow, and your knowledge of hardcore theoretical physics is probably as scabby as your knowledge of the basic functions of scientific language, I think we can wait for some peer opinions on this before leaping to conclusions.

The feasibility of this idea is complete arse-in-the-air conjecture, seeing as we have no crazy rockets to launch and space payloads to send. Consider also that this article was written by a journalist and the comments about 'star-riding' aren't posed as the 'reality' Felber talks about. Even so, your objections pretty much amount to this:

OH NOES!!!1 CRAZZY SCI3NC3!!one HOWWW???>

In conclusion, you molest hedgehogs.



P.S. The speed of light is 300,000km/s IN A VACUUM. It's not a fucking constant.

problematic 2006-02-13 08:05

Jesus Fucking Christ, you elitist piece of shit. I think you were brutally abused as a child to put you in your 'insane' (Lolzzzzzzz) state of mind. I was fucking voicing my opinion, like your fucking meant to do on a forum, for fucks sake, only to be shut down by your PMS.
IM SOOO sorry that i'm not as smart as you, mr. astrophysicist, mr. cosmologist, mr. Hawking.

P.S. Go fuck yourself you homoerotic cunt.

PST 88 2006-02-13 08:13

Part of the concept of democracy assumes that people will do their research in order to allow them a voice. You're right that voicing your opinion is basically the only reason these forums exist, but what keeps them from being a total glut of bullshit is that people are held to a certain standard; if you can't attain this standard you're better off keeping your fingers off the keys. You made a nonsense post and got called on it, even after something similar happened in the math thread. Hopefully, this time you'll learn the lesson of doing a minimum of research before saying something. We're not all qualified to talk on every subject, and as long as that's true we should know when to shut the fuck up. This has just been a missed opportunity to do just that. It's sad to see it happen.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.