Summing up science education with 1 photo
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
Of course, if you also try and google information on Marijuana, you get more hits from the US and their aint-drug campaigns then you do from actual studies and information elsewhere in the world.
Yes, even google is biased
Yes, even google is biased
Of course, if you also try and google information on Marijuana, you get more hits from the US and their aint-drug campaigns then you do from actual studies and information elsewhere in the world.
Yes, even google is biased
We have to remember that Google is not biased. It is just a search engine and it will give you what you ask for. The more popular the topic, the more varied and numerous the returns. The only control you have is how careful you select the sites you get the answers you get from.
And besides, Darwin was right about some things, wrong about others. Kinda like science. Um, he's dead, too, unlike science.
Google is not biased but I here it's programmers are. Many disfavoured sights and subjects do not make it through the filters, it is said.
Darwin was 'wrong' about the tree of life because he didn't have the picture we have today. In that article it says of Darwin's tree, "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature." Well, yeah, and Darwin himself said pretty much the same thing, "The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth..."
He thought it was a good analogy, and it was. Now that we know more, his tree is simplistic. He had no idea that branches from his tree could be cut, and grafted onto other branches. That requires an in-depth understanding of biochemistry that he couldn't possibly have jumped to.
It's not so much that Darwin was wrong. He was right, he just wasn't privy to the finer details we now have, in large part thanks to folks like himself.
But, just putting the word Darwin and wrong in the same sentence is enough to whip up a frenzy of quote mining and rhetoric that lacks context. That is where I think basic science education is doing poorly.
He thought it was a good analogy, and it was. Now that we know more, his tree is simplistic. He had no idea that branches from his tree could be cut, and grafted onto other branches. That requires an in-depth understanding of biochemistry that he couldn't possibly have jumped to.
It's not so much that Darwin was wrong. He was right, he just wasn't privy to the finer details we now have, in large part thanks to folks like himself.
But, just putting the word Darwin and wrong in the same sentence is enough to whip up a frenzy of quote mining and rhetoric that lacks context. That is where I think basic science education is doing poorly.
That was just one thing. I read that in a recent article in NS. I heard more from a couple biologists on a CBC radio show. I don't think even Newton or Edison got everything right either.
Um, about the frenzy, it is nothing new. People that don't understand science are always in a frenzy about something concerning science. They don't seem to understand that science changes as new evidence and stuff shows up.
Um, about the frenzy, it is nothing new. People that don't understand science are always in a frenzy about something concerning science. They don't seem to understand that science changes as new evidence and stuff shows up.
From what I've read, Newton was a ground breaker, but Edison got rich off the people who worked for him....Like Nickola Tesla for one.
Most people get their scientific facts from the National Enquirer. The mind does not discerning about the information it receives. It files it all away in the great vault of a brain and when a subject comes up in conversation, the brain opens up a related file and then regurgitates the stored information as if it was fact.
People need to be more discriminating about the stuff they fill their heads with.
People need to be more discriminating about the stuff they fill their heads with.
That's kind of irrelevant to what I said. Perhaps I should have said that even Einstein was wrong sometimes, or Hawking. Do you like those examples better? Perhaps Pierre and Marie Cure?
I read recently that the only reason that we say there are seven colours in the rainbow is because newton decided there should be as many colours as there are days in the week.
anyone who thinks that ANYONE was always right is, obviously, wrong. You can't do science without being wrong a LOT of the time.
Actually that's wrong.
Google is indeed biased and the reason is because of not just meta tags within web sites, but the fact that if you pay google enough or join one of their fancy packages for your site, you get bumped up above the others.
It simply gives you the illusion that it's fair and give you what you ask for.
Search directly for a company's name and of course they normally pop up near the top (Minus the few that pop up above them that are advertisement sites that eventually may or may not direct you to the site you want after getting a crap load of spyware)
Search for a topic in general and you will find that the whole situation changes still. I've done enough screwing around with google and meta tags over the years to know a bit of how it works......
Example:
Google Advertising
Sometimes you can get your site on google for free if you play around with your meta tags long enough..... but chances are you will never get to the top of the first page unless you shell out some cash to them, even if you're the only one supplying a site for a paticular topic.
And with the marijuana example, half of those web sites from the US against marijuana are directly funded by the government due to the war on drugs BS..... so they have plenty of money to send to google in order to get out on top.
Google IS Biased.
It's not a conspiracy, that's how they operate and that's how they get their money.