• 0 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 29th, 2023
  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Do aliens exist in our planet?
    32·
    16 days ago

    Almost assuredly not, but we know so little about abiogenisis, its entirely plausible to consider that there may have been multiple origins of life on earth. The nature of cellularization, and DNA first versus RNA first models for life (or perhaps even some other “3rd” biomolecule? maybe surface level interactions on clay?), or even RNA only models. It may well be that there are other sources for abiogensis that are extraterrestrial, but that doesn’t overcome things like the concentration dilemma (you need some biophysical process to concentration “enough” of these interesting biomolecules to do meaningful stuff).

    So extra terrestrial things that stand on legs and have heads and eyes? Almost assuredly not. But it may well be that we’ve been repeatedly (or continuously) colonized by extra-terrestrial bio-molecules. I still hold out for some missions to features like Pluto where there is obviously a kind of deep-ice geochemical cycle happening (freeze-thaw based on coming close/ further to the sun). In these cycles there might be opportunities for basic biomolecules to form and accumulate. Slam a big chunk of it into a planet that is at least cool enough to have liquid water, and a geochemical cycle, that might be all you need.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Whats the best tutorial on reading scientific literature or, like, being able to search/find/comprehend scientific literature of interest?
    0·
    2 months ago

    They’ve got an abstract that covers this in short as the first paragraph.

    and I dont want to waste time with vanity publications/articles

    This is an interesting sentiment. Almost all scientific publications undergo peer review, so this is the primary filter for keeping “crap” out.

    I’m interested where you got the idea that people are doing or publishing scientific or research material for “vanity” purposes. Where did you hear about this or decide it was a thing?

    And don’t get me wrong. There is PLENTY of crap out there. And do you know how to know it is crap? You read it. You read the entire god-damned thing and you understand and interpret, and read between the lines of what they did in their experimental design. The gaps they left in their methods or statistical analyses that weren’t obvious to the referees. You have a suspicion that its too good to be true and you spend time with that suspicion and their material, maybe even ask for their data, and you work out why you have this suspicion. You ideate, obsess over it. You think about it in the shower, on your bike, while grocery shopping. You harass strangers on the bus with the issue. You learn simulation theory and monte carlo to see how reproducible the result was. And eventually, you break through. Eureka! You’ve done one science.

    There is no faster way (other than simply developing experience, knowledge and improving by doing the thing). You need to read the crap too so that you can understand why its crap. Seeking a faster way is to miss the concept entirely.

    The process is the point. There is no where to go; there is only chop wood and carry water.

    She’s talking about art here, but I think Sarah Andersens comic makes the point:

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Whats the best tutorial on reading scientific literature or, like, being able to search/find/comprehend scientific literature of interest?
    0·
    2 months ago

    Google scholar is probably your best starting point. Just throw in the search terms you are interested in and start clicking and reading. Its free, and is a pretty complete archive.

    The biggest issue you’ll get into is that many papers are behind paywalls.

    To get around that (and you morally should) you have two options.

    Step one option a:

    The first and easier is to go onto scihub and see if someone has uploaded the paper: https://www.sci-hub.st/

    Step one option b:

    The second is to make an account on research gate, track down one of the authors, and just straight up ask them for a copy. They’ll almost always send it to you. If you can’t find them on research gate, just throw their name into the google and they might have a lab or professional email you can track down.

    Step two:

    In terms of how to comprehend? My recommendation, if the paper is English language, is to start in the upper left corner of the first page, and read from left to right in a clockwise descending manner one line at a time, until you get to the lower right corner of the page. This can vary depending on the number of columns on the page, but will generally work. If there are any sections you don’t understand, all scientific papers will have citations you can look up to get further explanation on a given subject. For each citation repeat steps one and two. Continue this process recursively until you comprehend the material.

    And the point of the last couple of lines really is the point. There is no replacement for comprehension and understanding other than to read the material over and over again, to look up what its referencing, and to keep trying and working on it and digging until you do get it. You can find some youtube videos and lectures for some understanding, but even these aren’t replacements for the conversation which is what actual publications represent.

    Its work to understand research.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Just got this message/survey from a Democratic PAC, who would you pick?
    0·
    2 months ago

    I’m just saying the same things over and over again

    Yeah. You keep just repeating the same patently wrong, historically inaccurate characterization of Obama’s campaign. The discussion was about idealism and how it sells in-terms of getting elected. My central point, is that it absolutely does sell, even its just the trappings. You run as a progressive idealist, like Obama did or like Sanders did, or based on just lift and shift the progressive platform like Biden did, and you catch W’s.

    You want to win an election as a Democrat? Either run on a progressive platform, or at least paint yourself that way in your campaign.

    The idea that you can win as a Democrat running towards the center isn’t supported (at least since Clinton).

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Just got this message/survey from a Democratic PAC, who would you pick?
    0·
    2 months ago

    I think you are muddying the water between campaign/ candidate Obama that misrepresents the fact that he campaigned as a progressive idealist, and it worked to get him into office. His platform was a very progressive platform that he did not govern to; this has been brought up repeatedly as an issue with Obama and was brought up when he was campaigning for a second term.

    I think it’s utterly disingenuous to present the Obama 2008 campaign as anything but a campaign focused on progressive idealism even if it was more of a show than how Obama ultimately governed.

    Correspondingly, Bidens 2020 platform was maybe the most progressive platform any president has run on since Jimmy Carter, and it was a horse trade that got him Sanders voters and effectively the election.