BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,942
Member is Online
|
Post by BigLoad on Sept 12, 2015 15:12:35 GMT -8
12 out of 12. Though I have to ask why is there an astrology question in the mix? That was really weird.
|
|
johnnyray
Trail Wise!
Argle-Bargle, Jiggery-Pokery, and Applesauce
Posts: 2,050
|
Post by johnnyray on Sept 12, 2015 15:14:28 GMT -8
Though I have to ask why is there an astrology question in the mix? To see if people can distinguish science from superstition?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2015 18:31:25 GMT -8
The polio-Salk connection was kind of a science history question rather than a physical sciences question, as the others generally were. But it still seems relevant. It's good to know something of the history of science, and that question wasn't too deep.
|
|
tomas
Trail Wise!
Posts: 1,906
|
Post by tomas on Sept 13, 2015 6:41:47 GMT -8
The polio-Salk connection was kind of a science history question rather than a physical sciences question, as the others generally were. But it still seems relevant. It's good to know something of the history of science, and that question wasn't too deep. Given the other three options were all physicists, that was a gimme question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2015 8:13:55 GMT -8
The polio-Salk connection was kind of a science history question rather than a physical sciences question, as the others generally were. But it still seems relevant. It's good to know something of the history of science, and that question wasn't too deep. Given the other three options were all physicists, that was a gimme question. Yeah, but who's going to recall that if they don't recall scientists like Salk? But yeah, given that the questionnaire concentrated on the physical sciences, Salk was something of an exception. Actually I thought all the questions were pretty simple. Thinking of the loudness of sound question, three answers referred to basically the same property: frequency, wavelength, and rate of change. But seriously, what adolescent who ever turned the sound up on his stereo didn't associate that with "amplitude"? — the one answer of the four that referred to a different property of the sound wave? Too bad all of them did not amount to "gimme questions" for anyone with an advanced degree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2015 9:35:34 GMT -8
Along the same lines of understanding a scientist's field of study, here's a trivia question: Which of the four scientists, Curie, Newton, Einstein, or Salk is considered to have written more about the Apocalypse than about her/his own field of scientific study? We all know what the Apocalypse is in biblical prophecy, right?
|
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 12,942
Member is Online
|
Post by BigLoad on Sept 13, 2015 9:58:46 GMT -8
I'm not familiar with any writing by Newton on the Apocalypse, but he was obsessed by several biblical topics, and also by alchemy. He was also a prolific writer, so he'd be my first guess.
|
|
tomas
Trail Wise!
Posts: 1,906
|
Post by tomas on Sept 13, 2015 10:01:25 GMT -8
Given he was a Mason, Newton would be my first guess as well. Followed by Einstein who was a philosophical type of fellow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2015 10:09:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Sept 13, 2015 10:32:43 GMT -8
Given as a professor in an institution where ordination was a requirement for his position (although he got an exemption) and as a "natural philosopher" at a time when there was an integration of the spiritual into the natural world his "normal" area of study would certainly have included a religious "Apocalypse", depending of course in what "we all know".., so it's a trick question and can't be Newton. I'm not familiar enough with the overall writings of the others to select a candidate. Though given all three were active when there WAS a definite differentiation between "science" and the spiritual it's certainly one of them. Jonas Salk was certainly quite eclectic in his overall interests as reflected in the wide range of subjects his institute was created to explore at any rate. And Einstein's concern over the implications of nuclear weapons would surely lead to an apocalyptic consideration. Along the lines of the quote of another physicist after witnessing the first successful nuclear detonation, ironically code named "Trinity": "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." Though that derives fromthe Hindu, not Christian, tradition. J. Robert Oppenheimer
So I'll go with Einstein.
|
|
rebeccad
Trail Wise!
Writing like a maniac
Posts: 12,689
|
Post by rebeccad on Sept 13, 2015 10:49:03 GMT -8
Not sure I'd count that all as reasoning--they worked from knowledge, which not all of us have (I didn't know, or recall, either that Newton was a Mason or that he was obsessed with Biblical topics). Of course, Newton was still my first choice just because of when he lived.
|
|
|
Post by ecocentric on Sept 13, 2015 12:39:16 GMT -8
Considering that Newton's was the most influential mind that inspired Modernism, it is surprising to most that he was so deeply invested in what we now call pseudoscience. We are only a few years away from a time when people will look back on climate deniers as people that championed fake science.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2015 12:45:11 GMT -8
. . . it's a trick question and can't be Newton. I'm not familiar enough with the overall writings of the others to select a candidate. Though given all three were active when there WAS a definite differentiation between "science" and the spiritual it's certainly one of them. . . . So I'll go with Einstein. Given that you posted "via mobile," I'm guessing you may not have seen my link to Newton's writings on the Apocalypse. I'm not a big student of Einstein, but cannot find anything he wrote in that area. So, who knows? I think the evidence thus far available would still favor Newton as the answer. About Newton, it is something I had read as early as high school when physics was a favorite subject of mine. And I've read similar comments in better sources since then. This entire survey experience now reminds me not to too sure of myself. Many of us got 12/12 correct. But I can see how during a time of preoccupation, distractions, or "multi-tasking," I might have missed one or two — on a similar test. Not so sure about the one in the OP though.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Sept 13, 2015 12:47:56 GMT -8
And yet: " considered to have written more about the Apocalypse than about her/his own field of scientific study? " How does one publication by Newton, not at all surprising in itself given religion was literally in his job description, sum to more than his output on other natural philosophy topics? For ex. his Principia, at 466 pages, is longer than the 387 of the work linked to. www.amazon.com/The-Principia-Mathematical-Principles-Philosophy/dp/1607962403
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2015 13:40:57 GMT -8
And yet: " considered to have written more about the Apocalypse than about her/his own field of scientific study? " How does one publication by Newton, not at all surprising in itself given religion was literally in his job description, sum to more than his output on other natural philosophy topics? For ex. his Principia, at 466 pages, is longer than the 387 of the work linked to. www.amazon.com/The-Principia-Mathematical-Principles-Philosophy/dp/1607962403You may be right. That is why I wrote " is considered to have written more" because I have not personally confirmed that, but that is what I recall a good source I read as having written. The author I recall was Will Durant, a Pulizer-prize-winning historian of the human intellect. Later tonight, I'll try to check for confirmation on that. I suspect that the source I linked is not all Newton wrote about the Apocalypse, but I would have done better to ask, "Which of the four wrote extensively about the Apocalypse." Or some such wording. But I still can't find anything indicating that Einstein would be a better answer. But your objection is fair. In my haste, I worded the question poorly.
|
|