Scientific American Blogs
blogs.scientificamerican.com · Group blog · on HN since 2011
Scientific American hosts blogs by various writers on neuroscience, physics, health, psychology, and science and society.
What HN saysHN commenters link it for specific pieces, like the dead salmon fMRI study, the role of luck in success, and declassified error bars.
1.3KHN people shared it
606linked it in comments
1.5Kstories submitted
34Kstory points
3 months agolast shared
2011people per year2026
Most-shared posts
- 1IgNobel Prize in Neuroscience: The dead salmon study (2012)20 people · 95 points · first shared 2016 · 18 comments on HN
- 2Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming20 people · 4 points · first shared 2015 · discussion on HN
- 3Comparing Covid-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths Is Like Comparing Apples to Oranges12 people · 94 points · first shared 2020 · 173 comments on HN
- 4“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”11 people · 961 points · first shared 2019 · 586 comments on HN
- 5The Role of Luck in Life Success11 people · 304 points · first shared 2018 · 202 comments on HN
- 6Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians11 people · 16 points · first shared 2019 · 8 comments on HN
- 7The Life of Einstein's First Wife9 people · 184 points · first shared 2017 · 133 comments on HN
- 8Study shows gender bias in science is real. Here’s why it matters.9 people · 11 points · first shared 2012 · 3 comments on HN
- 9Gabon's Natural Nuclear Reactors: The 2B-Year-Old Fission Reactors9 people · 6 points · first shared 2017 · 1 comments on HN
- 10The Story of Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures Album Cover (2015)8 people · 183 points · first shared 2016 · 38 comments on HN
- 11Dont fall prey to scaremongering about 5g8 people · first shared 2020
- 12I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s7 people · 488 points · first shared 2019 · 259 comments on HN
- 13Fat-fueled brain: unnatural or advantageous?7 people · 251 points · first shared 2016 · 315 comments on HN
- 14The Tragedy of the Tragedy of the Commons7 people · 37 points · first shared 2019 · 46 comments on HN
- 15New approaches shed light on the magnitude of sex differences in personality6 people · 461 points · first shared 2019 · 328 comments on HN
What HN people wrote when they linked it
throwup238 · 2024-02-25
Obligatory dead salmon study link: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in…
fMRI studies are largely bullshit in the best of times. Using it to study an abstract effect is doubly so.
Vox_Leone · 2024-01-25
The question you raise is fascinating. I ask the same questions when I think about the many-worlds interpretation in QM.
As for the research in focus in this thread, It seems that we are facing another Great Humiliation[0], with the potential to affect the course of development in so many other areas.
It will be interesting to see what developments this research will inspire in the cultural/anthropological field: so were the tree-huggers right all along? So is there really a harmony and connection between all the "children of Gaia"? :)
[0]https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/copernicus-darwin-and…
danboarder · 2023-12-13
My take on your perspective is that you've bought into an idea that is essentially the "tail wagging the dog". As we see in particle physics, the observation of an event affects the presentation of that event. So from this lens, the physical world as we observe itself exists in the eye of the observer.
As Schopenhauer put it, "it is the laws of nature that arise from a transpersonal will, not the will from the laws of nature".
A good read on the topic:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/yes-free-will-exists…
schiffern · 2023-12-01
The paper linked in that quote was from 2019, not 2014.
The paper is outdated because the DoD later addressed their concern about error bars. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/it-takes-a-village-t…
> And then you jump from "...a paper that is slightly too old for my taste" to "highly suspect!"
It's worse than mere age.
The paper he chooses to "conclude" a major section is cherry-picked from the middle of the story, within a highly-publicized drama within the academic field. It's unlikely that anyone even casually following could be unaware of the real ending to the story.
The author is either incompetent at research or deceptive. Either way, "highly suspect" is warranted.
toomuchtodo · 2023-10-20
At least the gas station lottery ticket winners don’t dress it up as individual exceptionalism. Not a hot take, not flippant. Enjoy the luck if you have it, but call it what it is.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-…
tough · 2023-07-10
You noticing made me research a bit more and found this article in case you or anyone else might be interested too https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/ada-lovelace-a…
yongjik · 2023-06-16
Do you have source? What I've heard is the opposite: scientists have consistently made conservative predictions because of the hostile political landscape.
Basically, if you predict bad thing X would happen by year Y, and it doesn't, then you're branded a liar. But if you don't predict X will happen, and it happens, nobody's angry at you. It creates an incentive structure where scientists would tone down their predictions, instead of doing their best to find out the most likely outcome.
E.g., https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been…
in3d · 2023-03-07
Scott Aaronson's thinking is heavily influenced by the Holocaust, which has led him to some debatable conclusions. Nonetheless, his writings are worth reading.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scott-aaronson-answer…
bigdict · 2023-02-13
Perfect symmetry:
> Don’t invade other countries murder innocents, kill babies.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/where-is-outcry-over-…
> Want to be trusted? Follow the treaties you signed.
https://qz.com/1273510/all-the-international-agreements-the-us-has-bro…
> Don’t want to be accused of breaking g your obligations? Read the UN charter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
The upshot is unfortunately might makes right in this world, and the US sure has the might.
yogthos · 2023-02-02
The difference being is that role of luck has been shown to be a factor in scientific studies [1]. And it is obvious to anybody capable of rational thought that this should be the case. People who are born into wealth have more opportunities in life than those who do not. A person who gets better education, better social connection, and more free time has the opportunity to self actualize. Meanwhile, a person born poor has none of these things.
[1]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-…
officialjunk · 2023-01-26
watch the 3D animation video here. it's pretty amazing and this knowledge is the result of decades of research condensed into a single animation. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/watch-the-life-cycle…
mistersquid · 2022-12-21
Along with a sibling, I agree that the concept of "Tragedy of the Commons" can be useful while its original author is a deeply flawed human being whose other arguments and extrapolations are insupportable and morally reprehensible.
Still, I'm grateful for your linking to this excellent critique of the source article which, among other things, provides a handy label for an ethically and morally dubious extrapolation the critique labels "lifeboat ethics" which I often seen deployed by the wealthy against the impoverished.
> an idea [Hardin] called “lifeboat ethics” [0]: since global resources are finite, Hardin believed the rich should throw poor people overboard to keep their boat above water. [1]
[0] https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Hardin.pdf (link in OP)
[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy… (OP)
Karunamon · 2022-10-23
This gentleman is scaremongering at best. A good summary is here [1], but perhaps the most salient point is that we have not seen an increase in cancer rates or any other kind of related public health indicators commensurate with the proliferation of and increasing usage of cell phones. There is not even a correlation to be found, let alone causation.
There is a lot of crap science out there.
[1]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-sc…
(Meta: what are the thoughts on flagging obviously crap articles like this one because they are misinformation at best, but possibly having a good discussion in the comments?)
civilized · 2022-10-20
You can save yourself some trouble with a bit of math. Continued fractions are known to provide the best approximations under a reasonable definition of "best": https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/what-8217-s-so-gre…
Computing the continued fraction for pi actually presents some technical obstacles though - it has to be done numerically, since there's no known pattern to the sequence, and to do that, it seems like you need to compute higher and higher-precision numerical approximations to pi in order to accurately compute higher terms in the continued fraction expansion.
Turns out there is another way:
https://math.stackexchange.com/a/720082/
theptip · 2022-10-10
I’m quite surprised in 2022 that news coverage is not mentioning the now well-known risks associated with colonoscopies. AIUI they are no longer recommended in the EU for routine screening because of the very high rate of dangerous side effects, on net increasing all cause mortality in the general population.
The article here just looks at cancer mortality, which is not what anyone should care about.
For more recent commentary, an example is https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-i-wont-get-a-colo…
michaelbuckbee · 2022-06-06
A lot of this offset is natural gas displacing coal (still an improvement) but not great long term
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/natural-gas-use-is-r…
bumby · 2022-02-23
I know sometimes "imposter syndrome" is almost a badge of honor in tech, kinda like a humble brag about your self-awareness. But it can also be indicative of a vulnerable narcissist [1], so maybe it's not best to embrace it. It's still a bit of a self-centered perspective. Contrary to the author's conclusion, it might be better to overcome it instead. One way is to less strongly couple your self-esteem to the opinion of others.
[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/are-narcissists-m…
tomrod · 2022-02-22
Unsure, but dead Atlantic salmon brains have been rigorously studied
Not exactly connected to the discussion, but still worth noting that brain activity sensing can be difficult! (And it also makes me smile, thinking about a fishmonger's prized frozen fish undergoing a brain scan).
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in…
actually_a_dog · 2022-01-04
Perhaps not, but the most successful individuals are generally not the most talented. Rather, they tend to be the luckiest. See, e.g. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-…
dr_dshiv · 2021-07-31
Here is a great article on the forerunner to this neural remote control work: Jose Delgado's "Stimoceiver".
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/tribute-to-jose-delga…
thanksforfish · 2021-04-26
That quote is:
"Suppose aliens invade the earth and threaten to obliterate it in a year's time unless human beings can find the Ramsey number for red five and blue five. We could marshal the world's best minds and fastest computers, and within a year we could probably calculate the value. If the aliens demanded the Ramsey number for red six and blue six, however, we would have no choice but to launch a preemptive attack."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/moores-law-and-ram…
JALTU · 2021-01-21
Avi Loeb's work was "validated" by his school's chair of astronomy, so we have to remember that to do science is to mitigate against being human. We all have different standards as to what is science as the anti-vax'ers demonstrate. What is interesting to me is that Loeb's chair notes that the object's trajectory differs from the expected by a statistical difference. While such difference implies a great deal of energy we can't account for, it's a hurdle to overcome in the search for understanding of this event/object.
Here's the chair of Harvard's astro dept.: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/6-strange-facts-abou…
whimsicalism · 2020-11-28
> Others here refer to the author as Dr. Hossenfelder. But to you she is Sabine. Would you refer to Brian Greene as Brian or Sean Carroll as Sean? It seems you are not even aware of your biases.
I doubt anyone is aware of all of their biases. I'm assuming you're making reference to gender bias - totally possible that I am susceptible to that, although I think:
a. Sabine is a more unique name than Brian.
b. In almost all discussions I see of her, she is referred to as Sabine - I was just following along with that precedence.
She also goes by "Bee" and dislikes her last name [0] [1]
[0]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-sabine-hoss…
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/09/name-game.html
nrki · 2020-08-17
Not a great source. Science is based on evidence, not lack of evidence.
A rebuttal to that article appears in the same publication, and adroitly takes apart it's claims: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-sc…
vlasev · 2020-07-25
You can pretty much make a telescope as large as you'd like, depending on your technological level. Hypothetically, you can use gravitational lensing to make a telescope via the sun! It's rather unfeasible at our current level of rocketry, but in time, maybe! Article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/using-the-sun-as-a-c…
You can also use Earth's atmosphere as a lens too! It's an amazing video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgOTZe07eHA
Going even crazier, I can imagine we could some day use a massive black hole as a giant telescope.
akeck · 2020-06-19
waveforms · 2020-05-31
The late Dr. Gerald M. Edelman (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine) had a fascinating theory he called "Neural Darwinism" that relied upon "reentrant mapping" he insisted was not feedback. He had a lab that formulated his ideas into software and a robot called Darwin 4. Does anyone here know what happened to that software? Is it described in detail anywhere? The following is an unflattering but useful discussion of Edelman's robot https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/my-testy-encounter-wi…
rcpt · 2020-05-08
3-manifolds have some pretty great descriptions to https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/a-few-of-my-favori…
Bill Thurstons Three-Dimensional Geometry and Topology is a great read
wnoise · 2020-05-04
Peer review being so widespread and regarded as necessary is remarkably recent, and it's not at all clear that it's necessary or terribly effective for science.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-birth-of-… has some indications that peer reviewers generally don't do a great job.