No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Because adult science is complex and dull to people outside the field.
How do we know the makeup of the atmosphere of a planet in another solar system? That line on a graph is higher then the other one
Nah, astronomical spectroscopy is cool as hell and it's really easy to have simplified examples you can fiddle with. At its most basic you're using a prism to divide the sun's light and measuring the visible bands. (This is pretty much how infrared light was discovered in 1800!)
I somewhat agree, that looking purely at the data would be boring, especially when it's on a topic too complex to understand. However, I think science content creators prove it doesn't have to be boring. However, they're usually making content on specific topics. A science museum is trying to touch everything.
Idk, that seems like that’d be interesting…
I am Autistic though
So are a lot of scientists.
Ditto
By a show of hands, how many here are autistic? Upvote = Yes, Downvote =No.
Better question: how many have declared themselves autistic or even understand the DSM definition?
Is it fashionable? Or just more common than we think?
Well, statistically the individuals most likely to frequent an alternative social media platform are those with a) the technical proficiency to do so, b) Weak social anchoring to the network effects of mainstream platforms, and/or b) people whose past social interactions have led them to no longer have access to those platforms, ergo by self-selection bias there's a high probability of finding other high functioning individuals on the spectrum on this platform. Lemmy/Piefed's primary use case is basically socially-awkward-networking.
Is that why I seem to fit in so well here? I was just beginning to think I finally learned how to be normal...
Well, you ARE normal! With the right people!
-- Frost
What if you aren't convinced one way or the other?
They can upvote your comment! It's branching binaries, all the way down, until we reach enough possibilities!!
Or diagnosed?
...or mildly so. It's an imperfect system with no fractional voting. It's our burden to bare.
Upvote = Yes, Downvote = Yes, but in denial
Relevant xkcd
Pretty much.
There's nothing dull about seeing a spectrograph working.
Edit: also, how come you can't find a real hologram displayed in a museum?
Watching a beige box seems kind of dull.
I stood inside the grey box where the magic happens. It was not dull because there was a physicists explaining everything.
That's a big box.
EDIT: I like the high tech foil.
Did scientists figure out how to keep the beige box from turning into a yellow box?
Don't expose it to UV or excessive heat.
Also, the process is somewhat reversible: Retrobright
However:
Make the box transparent.
But seriously, all of those have older versions that don't work as well but look absolutely cool.
If you're gonna make it transparent, make it out of this:
Just like most any difficult work that results mostly in knowledge, it takes self-satisfaction to get the "rewarding" part.
I find that the hierarchy of evidence combined with the ability to critique research is the foundation upon which sits pretty much all of my opinions. It's a shame kids aren't taught this from a young age; it would make manipulating them as adults so much harder.
Once you realise the strength of the peer review process, you realise that most peoples opinions dont actually matter: we have strong research on that.
We also have research on people ignoring peer reviewed data in favour of random facts from random sources.
Says who?
Any study with a placebo or nocebo element.
Do we have data on people who understand the significance of peer reviewed research ignoring that research despite the understanding?
kids aren't taught that at a young age because they can't grasp it at a young age.
and frankly, most adults can't either. it's too abstract for them.
our ability to understand abstract concepts like scientific method begin at age 12. that's why you start doing science experiments in class in junior high.
But there's a third option. There's a difference between complete absence of this topic in the curriculum, and simplified versions of it that increase in difficulty with capability. Mirroring other stages of educational development.
At the moment there's a complete absence. At least in any country I'm aware of. Until late high school level which is way too late.
Young kds understand hierarchies. Social hierarchies start to form on the first day of kindergarten.
Teaching an 8 year old that science research sits at the top of a pyramid and newspapers and TV sitd at the bottom, would be easy to grasp. There's nothing stopping us removing the detail and teaching a simplified structure that can then be built upon in subsequent years.
Edit: in regards to your edit, I was taught a simplified scientific method from age 8, not 12.
you have never been around children, have you?
If kid is capable of understanding basic scientific method at 8 years old, they can understand the basic structure of a hierarchy.
"X is more important than Y"
"Why sir"
"Because X uses the scientific method like we discussed in class last week and Y does not"
"What's the scientific method again sir"
repeats for retention
that's not how kids work. nor do most people.
Okay. I don't agree with you, but that's fine. We can disagree.
I know you don't agree, because you have no real world experience.
The funny thing about the real world, is it tends to laugh in the face of our expectations about how it 'should work'.
Try teaching sometime and see how well you do with your 'just repeat at the children and they will learn' philosophy...
I mean, there's a large body of statistical data that says most people do not behave rationally unless absolutely forced to. Children most definitely do not behave rationally unless deeply emotionally engaged. The idea of humans as "rational actors" has about as much evidentiary support as Luminiferous Aether and balancing humours.
Much of education is based on following a rational thought through to its conclusion regardless of age.
I'm confused as to why the idea of teaching a logical subject is up for debate. Kids are taught math and science early and through logical foundations.
Education is built on logic! Yes, by all means wrap that boring unemotional logic up in a shiny emotional wrapper. That makes sense. That's the sign of a great teacher or a great curriculum or materials. But in that is the difference of delivery versus content.
From Ancient Greece to modern times - logic is something that still persists in education because the universe we live in is a logical rules based one. It might be boring, and not very engaging to some, not emotive enough, but it is neccessary.
In the UK kids are taught a basic version of the scientific method between the age of 5-7 years old according to the UK goverenment website. Should they scrap that because it's not naturally emotive?
Respectfully, your point seems to be a moot one. Criticising delivery, when I was talking about the subject matter and delivery is as much a skill of those delivering as anything else.
I am with you. The guy above seems to treat children as the r word.
I can say for myself that having to relearn a ton of stuff as an adult is traumatizing and I agree with you that we should teach reality no matter the age (we can tackle it from various angles but saying that teaching bollocks is ok, that is a different story).
Targeting the cognitive level of the child is not the same as not teaching logic. Your hierarchy example works fine for some levels, not for others was the point. It's a lot easier to teach a rote methodology than a hierarchy of trust.
Except, research shows that even at preschool level kids are able to distinguish expertise through various social cues. At this age it's more about authority than a hierarchy of trust.
But by the age I'm talking of, between 6 and 8, we have a wealth of research that shows that children are capable of understanding hierarchies of trust:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232520123_Children%27s_Reasoning_About_Three_Authority_Attributes_Adult_Status_Knowledge_and_Social_Position
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25425347/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096518305666
If your point is instead about the minority of students that are struggling to keep up, then that becomes more a discussion on the structure of education as a whole. Rather than this particular subject. Where funding and logistical problems meet conflicting needs of different kids.
But, the idea that we'd dumb down a curriculum for the minority is... troubling. But then so is the idea of that minority continually falling behind.
Huh. I stand corrected. I was under the impression that expressed more in the 8-12 "Pre-Teen" range.
Appreciate the humility.
Takes a well rounded and healthy mind to change your mind in the face of new information. It's increasingly rare to find this online and it takes courage especially in a public forum.
It's moments like this that renew my faith in human beings. Thank you for that gift tonight mate :).
"No Child Left Behind" peering out from the shadows, gutting programs for more advanced students.
It's easier to lower the bar than make people jump higher.