[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 23 KB, 272x304, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847082 No.2847082 [Reply] [Original]

Why do scientists insist in using retarded terms when describing certain activities of inanimate objects.

Ex. "Probing a glowing bubble of gas and dust encircling a dying star".

>"a dying star" ?

WTF ?

>> No.2847087

Talk about the Big Bang.

>> No.2847097

>>2847087
at least "big bang" works

>> No.2847123

Because we like analogues and code-words. It makes talking / writing about certain things easier..

>> No.2847122

so what else would you call a star that is ending its life cycle?

>> No.2847129
File: 48 KB, 750x600, 1300286172514.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847129

>>2847122
>life cycle
:|

>> No.2847127

>>2847122
"Probing a glowing bubble of gas and dust encircling a star at the end of it's main fusion stage."

Not as poetic. But at least it's accurate.

>> No.2847136

Paraquoting Dr. Manhattan; the atomic make-up of a dead organism is identical to a living one. Posing the question, what is the difference?

Perhaps it is that the living organism is functioning in some higher way than the sum of it's parts. Couldn't it be argued that a star does this and therefore it too could be said to die?

>> No.2847166

>>2847127
I think what they're trying to do is make idiots understand.

>> No.2847169

>>2847136
Yeah, it's also possible that a star is alive then. This could explain our recent solar sunspot activity: The sun is probably bored as fuck and trolling hard us foolish humans.

>> No.2847186

>>2847082

Stars are not inanimate you fucking moron

>> No.2847191

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

This.

>> No.2847215

>>2847186
<span class="math">\0^0[/spoiler]

>> No.2847227

>>2847186
<span class="math">\ 0^0[/spoiler]

>> No.2847239

it makes things easier and faster to communicate, stop being so autistic

>> No.2847269

>>2847239
it's unscientific, not rigorous and ultimately populist

>> No.2847301

>>2847269
>TRYING
>TO
>MAKE
>NON-AUTISTIC AND/OR IDIOTS
>UNDERSTAND

>> No.2847331

>>2847169
Definitions of life are entirely subjective.

>> No.2847369
File: 135 KB, 512x512, lenna.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847369

>>2847331
I agree. That's precisely the reason why scientific terminology should be as objective as possible.

>> No.2847410
File: 127 KB, 512x512, mandrill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847410

>>2847369
> lenna.jpg
Nice nostalgia, bro. I think it's usually just spelled "Lena," though.

Anyway, here's some more test-image nostalgia...

>> No.2847431

>>2847369
>objective terminology
No such thing.

>> No.2847448
File: 23 KB, 462x238, honestly.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847448

>>2847431

>> No.2847450

>>2847410
hahaha I forgot about the monkey :)

>> No.2847464

A star may not live in the sense it has cells,
however that does not change the analogy...
make up better words, while still being as simple as the ones used for
birth (a star that is being formed, stared fusion reactions have started, and are now classified to be on the main sequence.)
young ( a star only a few million years old)
old (a start is no longer burning hydrogen)
and
death (a start that is producing iron, and will soon no longer exist)
again you have to keep it simple, were lazy...

>> No.2847470
File: 10 KB, 271x259, connery99.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847470

>>2847431
what's next? dying atoms? the killer positron?
vomiting suns? nebulae as cosmic farts?

>> No.2847478

>>2847470
and all i read was

>DURRR

>> No.2847484

>>2847448
>If I sage, then maybe he won't respond and point out that I didn't post any arguments.
Cool insecurity, bro.

>> No.2847496

I'm now just waiting for someone link to that autistic kid and how he fails to understand these analogies...

>> No.2847499

>>2847127
>main fusion stage
>stage
>implying stars are theatrical performances

>> No.2847515

>>2847499
cuz you know that's the only use for the word...
fine. started fusion, is now classified to be on the main sequence, and will remain here for a period of time as it exists...

>> No.2847516

>>2847470
I honestly don't see the problem. If people started referring to nebulae as "cosmic farts", they'd still be the exact same thing just with a different label, which is completely interchangeable to begin with. Words are just useful abstracts. The only thing that matters is that there's a consistent consensus regarding the definition of terms like "dying star".

>> No.2847529

>>2847499
I fukken lold and probably woke my brother up

>> No.2847532

are we not allowed to make our scientific advancements sound cool?

Fuck you, if i want to give something a bad-ass name like "dark energy" I'll fucking well do it.

>> No.2847538

>>2847516
consensus is not sound scientific behavior.

unrelated (captcha: insist. tingame)

>> No.2847548

>>2847538
>bitches don't know about my peer review

>> No.2847549

>>2847532
>scientific advancements sound cool
no, they have to sound RIGHT as in devoid of any hidden meaning

>> No.2847557
File: 212 KB, 863x792, 1300381901516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847557

>>2847549

>> No.2847560

>>2847538
>consensus is not sound scientific behavior.
It is when it comes to abstracts with no definitive, external meaning, or value. "Bicycle" refers to a "pedal-driven, human- powered, single-track vehicle", because we consented to give it this name.

>> No.2847563

>>2847548
Consensus as in conventionalism. This is not a notation, this is not about peer review, it's a matter of scientific vocabulary. And it's just wrong.

>> No.2847564

>>2847549
>sound RIGHT
How incredibly scientific of you.

>> No.2847566

>>2847538
Consensus regarding the words retard, not the scientific process.

>> No.2847570

>>2847566
ofc regarding the words

>> No.2847574

>>2847564
What makes a word "scientific"?
The word "star" originally comes from a word that means glowing or shiny, so I guess we need to scrap that as well.

>> No.2847582

>>2847574
no, because 'star' is not subject to anthropomorphism

>> No.2847585

>>2847563
Having a stick up one's ass is wrong too. But I digress

>> No.2847587

>>2847582
Yes it is. You're just a fucking idiot.

>> No.2847590
File: 42 KB, 317x317, 1301757474342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847590

>>2847082
It was probably a christfag scientist who coined this expression.

>> No.2847591

>>2847082
Has it occurred to you that scientists have imagination?

>> No.2847598

>>2847591
>inb4 that's unscientific
>inb4 i fucking lol

>> No.2847600

>>2847587
it's not, people do not shine, people do not glow. they cannot use these attributes to describes white dots of the sky.

>> No.2847601

>>2847591
Did it occur to you that stars do not die?

>> No.2847607

I know if economists didn't coin the phrase "invisible hand of the market" it would have avoided much head-in-ass semantic conflation from leftards and much rage from me as well.

>> No.2847616

>>2847607
Do markets "die" as well?

>> No.2847615

>>2847601
Did it occur to you souls do not die?

>> No.2847614

>>2847601
did it not occur to you >>2847464

>> No.2847618

>>2847615
yes

>> No.2847623

>>2847607
The invisible hand masturbates the market OR does the market masturbate itself with it's invisible hand?

Anyhow, economy is not a science.

>> No.2847635

>>2847623
Nor is your endless whining, science.

>> No.2847636

>>2847600
>glow (third-person singular simple present glows, present participle glowing, simple past and past participle glowed)
>2. To radiate some emotional quality like light.
>You are glowing from happiness!
>3. To gaze especially passionately at something.
>6. To sweat
>Women glow, men sweat.

>shine (third-person singular simple present shines, present participle shining, simple past and past participle shined or shone)
>3. (intransitive) To distinguish oneself; to excel.
>My nephew tried other sports before deciding on football, which he shined at right away, quickly becoming the star of his school team.

>> No.2847641

>>2847623
peer reviewing could be slang for "gangbang"
fucking scientists with their confusing ''wordery''

>> No.2847648

>>2847636
the basic sense of those words comes from physical observation
you've only presented connotations

>> No.2847658

Sure is semantics in here.
Stars die
Dealwithit.jpg

>> No.2847661

>>2847648
>the basic sense of those words comes from physical observation
[citation needed]

>> No.2847681

>>2847661
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glow
first definition:
–noun
1.
a light emitted by or as if by a substance heated to luminosity; incandescence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shine
–verb (used without object)
1.
to give forth or glow with light; shed or cast light.

peer reviewed

>> No.2847693

>>2847681
It's the first definition in a book/site, so what?
I wanted the complete etymology, not a definition (of many)

>> No.2847703

>>2847693
follow the links, big truths shall be revealed

>> No.2847706
File: 283 KB, 800x600, martian-pedophile.1302011307341.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847706

This is the same sort of rhetoric that started the holy war against GOTO statements in computer science. It's linguistic philosophy, and beneath us as scientists to spend our time on. If a term is not accompanied by a formal definition or reference to one in a published work or a candidate for publishing, don't sweat it too much.

>> No.2847710

>>2847703
I did, I don't find any references to when people first started using the words glow and shine to describe physical phenomena.

>> No.2847712

ITT AUTISM

>> No.2847716

>>2847710
0/10

>> No.2847724

>>2847716
Yes, that's how many historical references I could find on that site.

>> No.2847725
File: 42 KB, 650x274, richman.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847725

A lot of pedantic faggots in this thread.

>> No.2847728

>>2847710
A word's primary meaning matters.
"dying" is a loaded term.
"A dying star" is a crappy metaphor.
It's equivalent to measuring areas in football fields.

>> No.2847731

>>2847706
GOTO was my best friend in basic. It was a fucking wizard! AND NOW HE'S DEAD!

>> No.2847736

>>2847731
0xDEAD ?

>> No.2847739

>>2847731
fucking you: GOTO cannot DIE!

RAGE.MKV!

>> No.2847745

>>2847728
its funny cuz some people do...
or they use football stadiums....

if you think its a bad metaphor then why do all astrophysicists and astronomers use it?

do you even know what a dying start is?
again see >>2847464

>> No.2847747

>>2847728
>A word's primary meaning matters.
No, it doesn't.
>"dying" is a loaded term.
That's good.
>"A dying star" is a crappy metaphor.
No, it's perfectly viable.
>It's equivalent to measuring areas in football fields.
Nothing wrong with that if everyone is clear what type of football field your talking about. But usually the exact area doesn't even matter because you're often using it as a order of magnitude comparison.

>> No.2847762
File: 22 KB, 300x422, Bill Clinton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847762

Well OP, that depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

>> No.2847767

>>2847762
what do you mean by "definition"

>> No.2847771
File: 36 KB, 291x400, 350.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847771

You're right we should call it murdering star because it most likely kills all the life in the solar system

>> No.2847774
File: 44 KB, 500x667, Philosopher what does it mean&#44; lol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847774

>>2847767
Fuck. No clue bro

>> No.2847872
File: 3 KB, 467x193, _.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2847872

Only a biological life form can die.
A star is not one.
Thus a star cannot die.
/thread