Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   An annual poll of scientists asking what are the most misused scientific terms by the public includes "proof," "theory," "learned versus innate" and "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"   (io9.com) divider line 106
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2774 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2014 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-18 08:40:26 AM  
Reticulating Splines
 
2014-06-18 09:52:17 AM  
Read "pubic;" headline would have been more interesting.
 
2014-06-18 09:52:28 AM  
I hadn't heard that last one since 9th grade biology class. I recall the translation being "history repeats itself".
 
2014-06-18 09:53:16 AM  

colinspooky: Reticulating Splines


If you're a real programmer, this is an incredibly simple and easy concept that uses some really simple math and is O(n).
 
2014-06-18 09:53:31 AM  
What did you call my momma, subby? Thems is fighten words!
 
2014-06-18 09:54:24 AM  
I cannot believe that I read "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" on FARK.  It really does make my day.

/got that beaten into my head back in the day at UMBC.
//Go Retrievers.
 
2014-06-18 09:55:29 AM  
9.  Slideshows
 
2014-06-18 09:56:38 AM  

ikanreed: colinspooky: Reticulating Splines

If you're a real programmer, this is an incredibly simple and easy concept that uses some really simple math and is O(n).


And populating llamas?
 
2014-06-18 09:58:27 AM  
vagina
 
2014-06-18 10:00:42 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-18 10:01:47 AM  
FTFA : "Natural" is a label that helps sell woo.

"Natural" may be misused but at least it's not a baby-talk word like "woo".

/And yes, you may depart my lawn.
 
2014-06-18 10:02:37 AM  
To me, "recapitulate" means "give up again".  I was so confused by that sentence the first time I saw it (and a bunch of other times afterwards, too).
 
2014-06-18 10:03:06 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-18 10:03:07 AM  

ComaToast: "Natural" may be misused but at least it's not a baby-talk word like "woo".


Bubb Rubb's gonna be pissed.
 
2014-06-18 10:06:06 AM  
The media, marketers and politicians all roll their eyes... They know they have already won the ignorance war.

"We don't need no stinkin' scientific clarity. What we are doin' is working just fine, thank you. Now get out there and cut funding for public education some more. Someone may read this FA and actually understand it! Unacceptical!"
 
2014-06-18 10:06:33 AM  

gnosis301: And populating llamas?


A little trickier for a computer scientist, but I think a Peruvian shepherd could do it.
 
2014-06-18 10:07:09 AM  
I've got a theory that these science type guys don't have any common sense.  You see, they don't have any street smarts like me.  They've only got book smarts.  I could be one of these guys if I wanted, but I'm not a good test taker.

Unfortunately, the academic ivory tower doesn't accept me because I'm a bad test taker.  They say that my inability to show what I've learned indicates that I haven't learned anything, but that's just because they don't have any street smarts.
 
2014-06-18 10:08:17 AM  

ikanreed: gnosis301: And populating llamas?

A little trickier for a computer scientist, but I think a Peruvian shepherd could do it.


Maxis didn't seem to have any problem with it.  Unless they were lying.
 
2014-06-18 10:08:24 AM  

ChipNASA: [i.imgur.com image 482x839]


I predict this thread will be filled with denialists shortly.
 
2014-06-18 10:08:42 AM  
"Check out the hooters on that mama" didn't make the list somehow.
 
2014-06-18 10:10:50 AM  
The debate is OVER!
 
2014-06-18 10:12:45 AM  

colinspooky: Reticulating Splines


This is a link to a page that has a link to the actual article. Why not just post a link to the article?

Also, thanks to DOSBOX I can once again reticulate my splines as I once did 14 years ago.
 
2014-06-18 10:13:19 AM  
But ontogeny does recapitulate phylogeny, at least until species differentiation kicks in during gestation.

Thats why a chicken fetus in the shell and a pig embyro in utero look exactly the same until they don't. They share a lot of fundamental phylogenic traits and that is clearly seen during ontogenesis.
 
2014-06-18 10:13:51 AM  

KeatingFive: ChipNASA: [i.imgur.com image 482x839]

I predict this thread will be filled with denialists shortly.


No it won't!
 
2014-06-18 10:14:05 AM  
I find it amusing when people go on about certain foods containing lots of chemicals.
 
2014-06-18 10:14:49 AM  
gluten
 
2014-06-18 10:16:31 AM  
"Correlation is not causation"
 
2014-06-18 10:18:18 AM  

KeatingFive: ChipNASA: [i.imgur.com image 482x839]

I predict this thread will be filled with denialists shortly.


www.hitlervarenfinfyr.klaemint.com
 
2014-06-18 10:18:21 AM  
I hear subby's mom recapitulates phylogeny.
 
2014-06-18 10:18:24 AM  
The thing that aggravates me the most is when people who simply refuse to be correct in the face of overwhelming evidence resort to an unending cascade of "what if" scenarios in place of evidence or insist on formally logical end to end proofs for a theory with very, very strong evidence. They demand that a theory become a tautology before they'll accept its truth.

You see it on Fark all the time among the various deniers who simply refuse to accept facts for religious or political reasons, but it happens elsewhere for less malicious reasons too. It's as if it never occurs to some people that nothing is infallible when it comes to this universe and how we come to understand it, but that the probability of error eventually approaches zero to such an extreme extent that it is no longer practical to even consider the increasingly irrational "what ifs" required to undo the theory without some sort of seismically significant new evidence.

That and people who don't understand that even settled theories change in their details all the time as new evidence becomes available. They takes some minor tweak in a theory that makes it even MORE accurate as if it were proof that the whole thing could be wrong. It's like they think if a car manufacturer tweaks the radio to be a little clearer for the next model year that everybody with the prior model year should throw the car out because clearly that proves it's going to explode in a fireball of death the instant its turned on.
 
2014-06-18 10:18:27 AM  

WhackingDay: I hadn't heard that last one since 9th grade biology class. I recall the translation being "history repeats itself".


Yeah, We were at war in Viet Nam when I heard it.
Good thing we didn't get involved in any more unfounded Asian wars.
 
2014-06-18 10:18:41 AM  

Haircut2305: I find it amusing when people go on about certain foods containing lots of chemicals.


my food is full of dihydrogen monoxide! Take THAT, libtard!
 
2014-06-18 10:19:27 AM  
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

/go nothing
 
2014-06-18 10:19:59 AM  
also,

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-18 10:26:28 AM  
It's pronounced 'nucular'.
 
2014-06-18 10:26:38 AM  

sprawl15: also,

[i.imgur.com image 500x608]


I smiled....
 
2014-06-18 10:27:09 AM  

sprawl15: also,

[i.imgur.com image 500x608]


Interesting, I would like to know more.
 
2014-06-18 10:27:22 AM  

Russ1642: It's pronounced 'nucular'.


Then why do som any people pronounce it New-Clee-ar huh smart guy?
 
2014-06-18 10:27:59 AM  

CeroX: som any


so many

fixed
 
2014-06-18 10:29:44 AM  
Umm sprawl, water regenerates itself.  I am just saying and I am Christian.

And that "ontogeny recpaitulates phylogeny," just burns me up I hear people misusing that all the time in the check out lines at discount stores.  Just the other day in Dollar General.................
 
2014-06-18 10:42:51 AM  

skozlaw: The thing that aggravates me the most is when people who simply refuse to be correct in the face of overwhelming evidence resort to an unending cascade of "what if" scenarios in place of evidence or insist on formally logical end to end proofs for a theory with very, very strong evidence. They demand that a theory become a tautology before they'll accept its truth.

You see it on Fark all the time among the various deniers who simply refuse to accept facts for religious or political reasons, but it happens elsewhere for less malicious reasons too. It's as if it never occurs to some people that nothing is infallible when it comes to this universe and how we come to understand it, but that the probability of error eventually approaches zero to such an extreme extent that it is no longer practical to even consider the increasingly irrational "what ifs" required to undo the theory without some sort of seismically significant new evidence.

That and people who don't understand that even settled theories change in their details all the time as new evidence becomes available. They takes some minor tweak in a theory that makes it even MORE accurate as if it were proof that the whole thing could be wrong. It's like they think if a car manufacturer tweaks the radio to be a little clearer for the next model year that everybody with the prior model year should throw the car out because clearly that proves it's going to explode in a fireball of death the instant its turned on.


You are completely right about settled theories change in their details. I certainly agree with you on that. Like this theory, for example.

There was a time when 97% of doctors would have said eating fat was bad for you, based on science. Anybody who questioned that theory would have been shouted down on the John Oliver show or something. Because science, you know, is based on consensus, and following authority, and demeaning opposing viewpoints.
 
2014-06-18 10:45:21 AM  

sprawl15: also,

[i.imgur.com image 500x608]


letterstocreationists.files.wordpress.com
letterstocreationists.files.wordpress.com
letterstocreationists.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-18 10:49:58 AM  

sprawl15: also,

[i.imgur.com image 500x608]


1.386 x 1021 liters?  Drew will be the richest guy on the planet if he can get even a tiny percentage of them to join TotalFark!
 
2014-06-18 10:52:32 AM  
"Exponential"
 
2014-06-18 10:53:00 AM  

SweetMama: You are completely right about settled theories change in their details. I certainly agree with you on that. Like this theory, for example.


You know what else is annoying?

When people conflate public policy recommendations with scientific theory.
 
2014-06-18 11:00:18 AM  

sprawl15: also,

[i.imgur.com image 500x608]


Sadly, there's no evidence that image was created by a creationist.  Earliest entry I can find for it is April 26th, 2011 from a post on skepticmoney.com.
 
2014-06-18 11:00:51 AM  
Your attempt at demeaning my opposing viewpoint was sort of lame, but thanks for trying.

Here is something. In a decade or two, 97% of scientists may decide a Maunder minimum is nothing to fark with. Maybe. Who knows.

There is a guy at NASA who says climate change is 90% human caused and 10% caused by the sun. Everybody takes his word on that. When you try to point out it is just the opinion of one over-paid government employee, they shriek at you for being anti-environment. I'm not anti-environment. I just think it's dumb that everybody believes that guy. There are other opinions, of course, but that guy got the media coverage, so that's who we believe.
 
2014-06-18 11:05:17 AM  

SweetMama: skozlaw: The thing that aggravates me the most is when people who simply refuse to be correct in the face of overwhelming evidence resort to an unending cascade of "what if" scenarios in place of evidence or insist on formally logical end to end proofs for a theory with very, very strong evidence. They demand that a theory become a tautology before they'll accept its truth.

You see it on Fark all the time among the various deniers who simply refuse to accept facts for religious or political reasons, but it happens elsewhere for less malicious reasons too. It's as if it never occurs to some people that nothing is infallible when it comes to this universe and how we come to understand it, but that the probability of error eventually approaches zero to such an extreme extent that it is no longer practical to even consider the increasingly irrational "what ifs" required to undo the theory without some sort of seismically significant new evidence.

That and people who don't understand that even settled theories change in their details all the time as new evidence becomes available. They takes some minor tweak in a theory that makes it even MORE accurate as if it were proof that the whole thing could be wrong. It's like they think if a car manufacturer tweaks the radio to be a little clearer for the next model year that everybody with the prior model year should throw the car out because clearly that proves it's going to explode in a fireball of death the instant its turned on.

You are completely right about settled theories change in their details. I certainly agree with you on that. Like this theory, for example.

There was a time when 97% of doctors would have said eating fat was bad for you, based on science. Anybody who questioned that theory would have been shouted down on the John Oliver show or something. Because science, you know, is based on consensus, and following authority, and demeaning opposing viewpoints.


Way to illustrate TFA by confusing the definition of theory in the science.
 
2014-06-18 11:11:38 AM  
For what it's worth, people in academia misuse these words all the time, too.
 
2014-06-18 11:12:18 AM  
The most commonly misused term is "sideboob".
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report