Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes I had run across that story. I think the click-bait-y title is an overreach, it is not communication that happened so much as parroting, similar to talking to a parrot (and I have had a couple as pets in the past). They will mimic what you say and they appear to understand emotional valence and some degree of context and they can, with training, develop something of a shared vocabulary and answer questions about things like colors and shapes.
That said, I think whales, parrots, apes, dolphins, orcas and others have a kind of intelligence that needs to be respected. And they have feelings and values and therefore rights. It may be at a lower amplitude than our awareness but it is no less valid. For this reason I'm glad that science is exploring communication with other species.
I hope any superior aliens we contact would be AT LEAST as nice to us.
If I have a health issue, before I go to the doctor I read up on the situation as much as possible. Just the other day I had a doctor say they were surprised about how much I knew about the situation...that the vast majority of their patients just come in and ask what pill they can take.
What we're talking about, in my view, is a lack of 'audience'. The documents about all the areas of scientific research that are current (and past) are pretty much available on the world wide web. And mostly only other scientists read them.
Sad but true...
I remember when the world wide web was something of a new offering and how much smarter we would all become thanks to having access to information like never before, and no doubt it's true we all have opportunities to learn like never before thanks to the Internet. Unfortunately, this has proven something of a "double-edged-sword" as well, because now we can find information to suit just about any beliefs or opinions. Including whether one should trust the medical profession at all! So it's not only the ability to learn but what we choose to learn and by what means. Who to believe and why.
All that aside, if I had a dime for every story about doctors misdiagnosing or somehow not taking into account what people I know have learned on their own about such things, I'd have lots of dimes. My wife is much better at doing all sorts of research regarding how best to stay healthy than I am, and I have a doctor I trust enough not to second guess her, but thanks to my wife, I've been pretty healthy for a long time now. Enough to avoid going to the doctor altogether other than for check-ups. So I've not had the need to do much research or get a second opinion. Still, I've heard too many stories from friends and family that suggest everyone would do well if not better if they boned up on whatever they are seeing their doctor about. I hope your doing so has served you well.
My wife's uncle was just diagnosed with a return of melanoma that they say is in his lungs now. He's getting a second opinion...
Yes I had run across that story. I think the click-bait-y title is an overreach, it is not communication that happened so much as parroting, similar to talking to a parrot (and I have had a couple as pets in the past). They will mimic what you say and they appear to understand emotional valence and some degree of context and they can, with training, develop something of a shared vocabulary and answer questions about things like colors and shapes.
That said, I think whales, parrots, apes, dolphins, orcas and others have a kind of intelligence that needs to be respected. And they have feelings and values and therefore rights. It may be at a lower amplitude than our awareness but it is no less valid. For this reason I'm glad that science is exploring communication with other species.
I hope any superior aliens we contact would be AT LEAST as nice to us.
Unlike parrots who are simply parroting, we know whales communicate with one another in ways believed to be other than simple parroting of sounds. More like how dogs communicate by barking, and though one bark might sound like another, there are barks that mean one thing as opposed to barks that mean another thing. Different sounds made by different animals are much the same and/or different from simple parroting.
What is interesting from the story in any case is all that needs to be considered when contemplating how a species other than our own might communicate differently than we do. Makes me want to watch the movie, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" again.
There are scientists who "take up more of a messenger role." Neil deGrasse Tyson is one for example, but obviously the training and experience scientists generally get as scientists don't typically hone those skills. To be a scientist requires a good deal of time devoted to research and all the rest scientists do to. To be a messenger and/or to develop a platform from which to reach "the masses" requires a fair amount of time too. Only a few can manage to do both, and it is hard to tell to what extent "the masses" cares to pay attention to them in any case, but it doesn't seem like much. The everyday lay person is typically more concerned with putting food on the table, making enough money to pay the bills and whether their favorite team is going to win the next game.
Can't blame scientists for this either...
I might argue there are plenty of folks who are willing to learn, but one must be willing to suffer to teach. If one group rejects the message, shake the dust off and move toward another group. If a group of scientists decided to set up a workshop or apprenticeship in a poor neighborhood, there will be people who are interested. Someone must be willing to suffer to make change. Yet I believe the current day most popular scientists who are speaking outwardly, (such as Neil deGrasse Tyson) are mostly interested in fame. Yes, when the "important" crowd turn away from what they have to say, these scientists return to their circles. They need to get in these streets!!! Teach a people who society has already rejected. Give them the information that will transform society. Stop looking for awards and praises.
I might argue there are plenty of folks who are willing to learn, but one must be willing to suffer to teach. If one group rejects the message, shake the dust off and move toward another group. If a group of scientists decided to set up a workshop or apprenticeship in a poor neighborhood, there will be people who are interested. Someone must be willing to suffer to make change. Yet I believe the current day most popular scientists who are speaking outwardly, (such as Neil deGrasse Tyson) are mostly interested in fame. Yes, when the "important" crowd turn away from what they have to say, these scientists return to their circles. They need to get in these streets!!! Teach a people who society has already rejected. Give them the information that will transform society. Stop looking for awards and praises.
Again you seem wanting to throw all scientists under the same bus, and even those who might be the exceptions and actually DO teach what they do to others, you assume they are after fame.
"Damned if you do and damned if you don't."
If this is about who to blame for how the "masses" don't seem to care about what science can and does teach us, I can think of many more worthy of blame over the scientists themselves. Where are most of us supposed to learn what we should? Let's start with our system of education if you want to go there. Religion too. Just for starters...
Again you seem wanting to throw all scientists under the same bus, and even those who might be the exceptions and actually DO teach what they do to others, you assume they are after fame.
"Damned if you do and damned if you don't."
If this is about who to blame for how the "masses" don't seem to care about what science can and does teach us, I can think of many more worthy of blame over the scientists themselves. Where are most of us supposed to learn what we should? Let's start with our system of education if you want to go there. Religion too. Just for starters...
Perhaps one of the reasons why I feel this way is due to seeing this thing from the background of scientists, and their possible resources to use in making change. Its my speculation that as a group, your average scientist comes from a steady upbringing. (Compared to most folk) Most people who come from the dirt, don't have the luxury to think about science, much less wanting to become one who study it for a living. So I'm thinking most scientists come from families with resources. I would see this similarly from those who become doctors.
I say all that to point out if scientists wanted to, they can pull their resources in order to accomplish something for the least of us. They have folks in their circles, who are close to those with resources, to form a mission to the ignorant. If science deals with the application of what is true, why wouldn't they want to teach this way of thinking to the downtrodden? Yet for those who do, using Neil deGrasse Tyson again, they don't get far enough into the mud. I don't see them having an impact at the lowest possible levels of society. They mostly go where they might get attention from media. Tyson being a ADOS man (American descendant of slavery), I don't see him having an impact with the community he's from, which this community is at the bottom of America due to our history. So we as a group are in the dirt here in America, and hardly any one from the science community is teaching us anything.
So I see scientists will mainly stick to their circles. Yet again if science is our best bet at obtaining the truth of reality, why not seek to share this truth with the masses? Religion claims to know the truth, and thus practitioners do seek to share it even among the oppressed. (At least in terms of Christianity) Yeah there are evil people within religion who seek for power and destruction, but its overall theme is to enlighten everyone with the truth. In Christianity, its stated the last will be first, and Jesus said blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs's is the Kingdom of Heaven. (And of course Heaven holds all the riches there are) So the overall mission is taking this truth, seeking and helping the oppressed. That is how Christianity began and it spread like wildfire among the poor. So much so, that it convinced the most powerful empire in the western world to accept it as their religion. If science is better than this, they haven't taken the teaching of science to the poor. What good is it if no one knows or cares about it?
In my opinion the responsibility of teaching science mostly falls on those who are the scientists.
Perhaps one of the reasons why I feel this way is due to seeing this thing from the background of scientists, and their possible resources to use in making change. Its my speculation that as a group, your average scientist comes from a steady upbringing. (Compared to most folk) Most people who come from the dirt, don't have the luxury to think about science, much less wanting to become one who study it for a living. So I'm thinking most scientists come from families with resources. I would see this similarly from those who become doctors.
I say all that to point out if scientists wanted to, they can pull their resources in order to accomplish something for the least of us. They have folks in their circles, who are close to those with resources, to form a mission to the ignorant. If science deals with the application of what is true, why wouldn't they want to teach this way of thinking to the downtrodden? Yet for those who do, using Neil deGrasse Tyson again, they don't get far enough into the mud. I don't see them having an impact at the lowest possible levels of society. They mostly go where they might get attention from media. Tyson being a ADOS man (American descendant of slavery), I don't see him having an impact with the community he's from, which this community is at the bottom of America due to our history. So we as a group are in the dirt here in America, and hardly any one from the science community is teaching us anything.
So I see scientists will mainly stick to their circles. Yet again if science is our best bet at obtaining the truth of reality, why not seek to share this truth with the masses? Religion claims to know the truth, and thus practitioners do seek to share it even among the oppressed. (At least in terms of Christianity) Yeah there are evil people within religion who seek for power and destruction, but its overall theme is to enlighten everyone with the truth. In Christianity, its stated the last will be first, and Jesus said blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs's is the Kingdom of Heaven. (And of course Heaven holds all the riches there are) So the overall mission is taking this truth, seeking and helping the oppressed. That is how Christianity began and it spread like wildfire among the poor. So much so, that it convinced the most powerful empire in the western world to accept it as their religion. If science is better than this, they haven't taken the teaching of science to the poor. What good is it if no one knows or cares about it?
In my opinion the responsibility of teaching science mostly falls on those who are the scientists.
I am a scientist and have dumbed down the science for a mass audience. You have only to see this forum's reaction to my Synthesis to see the problem with your opinion.
I am a scientist and have dumbed down the science for a mass audience. You have only to see this forum's reaction to my Synthesis to see the problem with your opinion.
You may ask, but I am being very circumspect to retain my anonymity and protect my professional progeny from any taint from my mystical views. I can say I am a polymath in addition to my primary doctorate fields of study and have encompassed many fields in my lifetime.
You may ask, but I am being very circumspect to retain my anonymity and protect my professional progeny from any taint from my mystical views. I can say I am a polymath in addition to my primary doctorate fields of study and have encompassed many fields in my lifetime.
I think your field of study is how to be 'Johnny One Note'.
You give none of us a basis for believing your tale.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
