SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

                            

Q: What convinces a scientist?
Krishna: Evidence - the highest form of it  called "Meta Analysis"*. Nothing else will do.
Meta-analysis is the statistical procedure for combining data from multiple studies. It reviews and analyses all the research literature on any topic available. Therefore, it takes reproducibility - which is highly important in science experiments - into account and 'confirms' something in science which, then becomes a 'fact of science'. 

Q: Why don't scientists accept anecdotal evidence?

Krishna: Evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony can be bias-prone. To get evidence, people might even 'pay' in cash or kind. I have seen it with my own eyes. Some astrologers write horoscopes of some people for free. These people in turn vouch for authenticity of astrology and a particular astrologer's predictions.

Scientists want to free science from these fault-filled situations and make it fact-filled. That is why scientists don't accept anecdotal evidence. This is what makes science near-perfect and takes it closer to truth.

Q: What makes a scientist go into a state of shock?
Krishna: Real situations I faced like these ...
While I was waiting in a hotel lobby for a cab to arrive to pick me up recently, a 19-year old walked in  with a hair style like that of Cristiano Ronaldo, torn jeans making a fashion statement  and with a latest smart phone in his hand and struck a conversation with me. 
During our  chat he said he 's doing his B.Tech. but couldn't get high grades in his exams this year because somebody did black magic on him and his health got spoiled during exams because of that, so he 's taking the homeopathic medicines and his astrologer told him his charts showed he 's passing through one of the bad stages of his life.
"Do you know all these things come under pseudo-science and don't actually work?", I asked him.
"No. They are  genuine science and would definitely work", he assured me.
" Almost all scientists say they are pseudo-science", I tried to stress my point.
"Then the scientists don't know anything about science!", the teenager made a statement and laughed. 

 

                            Scream!
     Somebody please save  India
( You will find a similar experience of mine and those of other scientists here: http://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/some-qs-people-a... )

Q: Can professors be called scientists?
Krishna: Yes, why not? There is a misconception in this part of the world that only people working in the labs for money are scientists. A scientist is a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences and uses it to understand and help the world around. There are several types of scientists. In several parts of the world anybody who has a Ph.D. is called a ''trained scientist'' and people who actually work in labs are treated as ''practicing scientists". 
Apart from these there are ...
Business Scientists ( people with excellent management and business skills apart from scientific knowledge, supporting evidence-led decision-making within companies and other enterprises. They are found in science and technology companies in a wide variety of roles, from R&D or marketing, and to the C-suite itself).
Communicator scientists ( people who combine their science and technological know-how with an ability to communicate. They enthuse, inform and get their message across through an empathy and understanding of the needs of the audience, expertise in how media and other communication channels work.  A deep knowledge of the science is involved in communication.

Science communicators are found across TV and radio, advertising and promotion, regulation and public affairs as well as social media. They may also have a full time job as another type of scientist).

People like Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson  and even I come under this category. 

Developer scientists ( or Translational Scientists use the knowledge generated by others and transforms it into something that society can use. They might be developing products or services, ideas that change behaviour, improvements in health care and medicines, or the application of existing technology in new settings.

They are found in research environments and may be working with Entrepreneur and Business scientists to help bring their ideas to market).

Entrepreneur Scientists ( they make innovation happen. Their scientific knowledge and connections are deep enough to be able to see opportunities for innovation – not just in business, but also in the public sector and other sectors of society.

They blend their science knowledge and credibility with people management skills, entrepreneurial flair and a strong understanding of business and finance, to start their own businesses or help grow existing companies). I have some entrepreneur scientist friends who are excelling in the fields of cosmetics and health care.

Explorer scientists ( these are  on a journey of discovery  “to boldly go where no one has gone before”. They rarely focus on a specific outcome or impact, rather they want to know the next piece of the jigsaw of scientific understanding and knowledge).

Investigator scientists ( these dig into the unknown observing, mapping, understanding and piecing together in-depth knowledge and data, setting out the landscape for others to translate and develop).

Policy scientists (these use their science and technical knowledge, as well as their understanding of government and policy making, to ensure that legislation and policy have a sound evidence base. Some policy scientists describe themselves as 75% scientist and 25% politician.

This type of scientist is employed and involved at many levels and in many environments including government and Parliament, NGOs, campaigning groups and charities. 

Regulator scientists ( these people are there to reassure the public that systems and technology are reliable and safe, through monitoring and regulation. They will have a mix of skills and while they may not get involved in things like lab work, they will have a thorough understanding of the science and the processes involved in monitoring its use or application.

They are found in regulatory bodies, such as the Food Standards Agency, and in a wide range of testing and measurement services).

Teather scientists ( professors and others who teach in colleges and universities and also guide students in their research work)

Technician scientists ( these people  provide operational scientific services in a wide range of ways. These are the scientists we have come to depend on within the health service, forensic science, food science, health and safety, materials analysis and testing, education and many other areas.

Rarely visible, this type of scientist is found in laboratories and other support service environments across a wide variety of sectors). I have a friend who works in a forensic science lab here and helps the police to pin the criminals and in preventing crimes. 

Social Scientists ( are those who  study the values, opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and actions of individuals and groups of people). One member of this network is a social scientist.

There are some more types too like service providers, persuaders, supporters, trainers etc. which I didn't include here.
(Source : Sciencecouncil.org) 

So - 

Anybody who is well trained in science and uses his or her knowledge in various fields to help the world can be termed as a scientist.

And my favourite ones are the people who have  a real 'scientific state of mind', even if they are not working in any lab. I treat them as real scientists.

Q: Why do some scientists like you enter the communication field? Aren't journalists enough for the job?

Krishna: Science achieves very little if it stays in the lab. It has to be taken into the wider world for the humanity to get benefitted  by it. Communicating about science is a noble profession, and one that’s becoming increasingly and ever more popular (my scientist friends say I am more popular than they are because I ventured out of my lab and started interacting with people around. But popularity isn't what I aim for. Enhancing the welfare of the society is my dream. Making people as knowledgeable as I am is my idea. Making the world more realistic, healthy, and harmonious is my wish). 

Aren't journalists enough for the job? No! Journalists don't understand science as much as we do. They cannot communicate science like we visualize and comprehend it.  Majority of the scientists think science 's seen by the general public as a disastrous thing than a friendly field when journalists 're incharge of the arena. So they requested some of us to get into the scene. I jumped at the opportunity.  And I am loving it.

It  enhanced my knowledge, smartness and creativity. I get a thrill when people tell me they love it when they hear things from my mouth and read the lines I write/ type. Getting genuine and first hand knowledge straight out of a lab, it seems, gives them more satisfaction and a greater grasp. What more do we need?

Journalists, watch out. More of us are coming to replace you.

Q: What are the things scientists not comfortable with?

Krishna: 1. Ignorance in the general public. It hinders progress. That is why we are fighting a war with it.

2. Headlines like these in the media:  Scientists are baffled by ...

Scientists are unable to find reasons or understand...

NASA CAN'T EXPLAIN IMAGES OF STRANGE ICE CIRCLES IN ARCTIC SEA

( Anything observed for the first time, amazes you, sets you thinking and prepares you to understand it. You have to study it, confirm it and then only you tell the world how something happens.  What is the big deal? You can't just 'imagine things' like people do in other fields in science and and tell a false story! 

Alright media people want to 'increase the mystery quotient and their sales'. But give scientists some time to unravel the mysteries. You cannot find things in one day or a few hours.)

3. Saying that scientists couldn't find an answer to a question or solve a problem even if they did!

(Media wants to keep the mystery factor intact  even if it 's solved to get more eye balls. It doesn't want to get or provide updates and doesn't want people more informed of the things around.

This is nothing but spreading misconceptions and ignorance!)

Q: When I die can I become a ghost with the help of science?

Krishna: :) What a funny Q!

No, you can’t! Because ghosts are just people’s imagination and hallucinations. They don’t actually exist according to science.

Science and the paranormal

Q: Do you think scientists will ever discover what happens after death?

Krishna: What happens after death? The atoms and energy in our bodies would get released into the surroundings to get recycled! Nothing else happens.

And if you are thinking about souls, science says there is no evidence of souls and after life.

Soul?! What is it according to science and scientists?

Science tries to strengthen our minds permanently by making us realize reality!

Q: If you have any loved ones who passed away, where did they go? What is your scientific explanation,  why do you stop to exist at a point of time?

They didn’t go anywhere. They are still in this universe!

We all came from star dust and energy. And go to it again. In never ending cycles, each atom of our bodies goes to other forms, including the living ones both while we are still living and after our deaths. Atoms from other bodies come to us. There will be atoms that have been inside a living cell that started 3.5 billion years ago on our planet and are still in living cells today. Matter will be turned into energy and energy into mass. We belong to everything and everything belongs to us! A group of cells composed of atoms and energy in our brains makes us conscious with their work. It is the reason why we think, feel emotions including pain. But can't we channel that consciousness into realizing reality and face it with courage? We can, certainly!

We all belong to one universe. We were born here as a result of coming together of a few atoms and some energy and the resultant consciousness. In the end we will return to the place where we came from. The bits and energy our bodies are made of will be returned to the universe for the recycling process to continue. .

In the process we meet some forms like us who too came together with the help of atoms and energy and consciousness, who we call relatives and friends and inanimate things like our houses, cars, money etc. which we think are ours. They are ours only till we are here as conscious beings. Realize this. They are actually owned by the universe we came from, not us. And go back to it! That is the eternal truth!

Yes, our beloved ones who departed from us will still be there in the configuration of scattered particles and energy in this universe. But not in the conscious shapes we interacted with during their life times. We will never meet them again in those appearances we are familiar with once they die. We can only see them in our dreams as our brains try to comfort us by showing their pictures. That is all.

After our deaths and destruction we too return back to the universe as individual atoms and energy, to the one body that recycles them and we all belong to whether we lived with our conscious bodies or existed as inanimate forms.

It is wonderful to think we all belong to one body, the universe, that processes and reprocesses atoms and energy into different configurations, bring them together in space and time, and then change the situations again to bring in new scenes of appearances. Nobody is going anywhere here and nothing is staying here forever in one form! So no one is departing from this universe, the atoms and energy we are made of are leaving only one form and from the site we are in but still be here in other arrangements and other spots in this one entity we call universe. That is what science tells us. Isn't it comforting too to think about the truth?

Science tries to strengthen our minds permanently by making us real...

Why do we stop to exist at a point of time? Because the living system cannot sustain when the conditions inside a body become adverse and make it untenable to continue.

For instance, you lose lots of blood in an accident. Then these things follow: 1) Losing approximately 10% of our blood volume will cause increase of heart rate, constriction of arterioral beds, vein, and venous reservoir in your skin and muscle. Antidiuretic hormone for water retention and reabsorption to compensate for volume loss is also secreted. In addition, renin-angiotensin system, a hormone family that regulates blood pressure and fluid balance is also activated. 2) With 15-20% hemorrhage, your vessels are further constricted and your heart rate is also increasing (tachycardia). At this time, your body also need to compensate for the lack of oxygen by going to a process called anaerobic glycolysis, which is an alternative pathway in cellular respiration pathway to keep your cells alive. However, the by-product of this alternative pathway is lactate, whose accumulation in the plasma can cause acidosis. Compensatory rapid breathing is also ensued to compensate the lack of oxygen. 3) Major blood loss will result in irreversible tissue damage due to anoxia (depletion of oxygen), hypercapnia (elevation of carbon dioxide), and acidosis. As a result, cardiac output decreases and therefore causing impaired perfusion in medullary vasomotor center (an area that controls blood pressure and other homeostatic processes) which results in death.

Source: 

https://watermark.silverchair.com/ilar-31-4-5.pdf?token=AQECAHi208B...

Q: Do your answers on science and articles you write make people happy?

Krishna: Making people understand science is my main aim when I communicate it. 

Do they understand it? Yes, they do, exactly as I want the science to be understood and people tell me they are highly satisfied with the way I explain things.

Some come here to increase their knowledge and get benefitted by it. These too told me they are extremely happy with the content I present here and they learn things they never even imagine to exist in the way I portray them! 

But some people ask questions and read my articles for 'confirmation of their beliefs, ideals, opinions etc.'. And I know these people will get disappointed. Because genuine science can't do that.

Presenting facts exactly as they are is what I practice here. If people get disappointed because their beliefs and opinions are shattered by scientific facts, there is nothing we can do about it.

Some people , from all over the world, contact me and ask me whether they could contribute to this site. Some even offered money for publishing their articles here. 

Anybody can contribute but we review articles here. Only if they stick to strict 'scientific methodology', when they are writing for this group, we accept them. 

I know journalists get disappointed to hear this.

Yes, they can write anything if they are contributing to the art and literature sections.

But science is a different ball game altogether. They have to pass through a lense called Krishna and her critical analysis. And that is not easy. 

If you think you can  overcome that, go ahead and write and send them to me to get published on Sci-Art Lab/ Science simplified group.

Q: Science and religion, Is there any relation between these two? Is scrapping religion a solution to end racism? Can science be a substitute for religion in inculcating the virtues and qualities like empathy, compassion and love?  

Krishna: Science and religion, Is there any relation between these two?

There is no relation between science and religion. They work in different ways.

Is scrapping religion a solution to end racism?

There is no connection here either. Scrapping religion doesn’t end racism. People will still find continents, regions, countries etc. to get divided!

Can science be a substitute for religion in inculcating the virtues and qualities like empathy, compassion and love?

Yes, definitely!

Anyone who knows how a nervous system works during pain processing can do no physical harm to any living being. And anyone who knows how the brain really works at the emotional level will never try to harass another living being. Any person who has seen how the scientific rules are followed universally in a given set of conditions, and understood its beauty can never think in local terms and can never come under the influence of artificially created races, castes, groups, communities or citizenships. He sees all the living beings as his own images - following universal rules of life and as citizens of this universe.

When it comes to questions of morality and meaning, the way we go about deciding what is right and wrong, and meaningful or not, is not the same as the way we discover what is true and false or facts. Some emotions like kindness and empathy will be involved. Controlling them is highly important to arrive at a good decision. Just because a criminal cries and acts funnily, you cannot support him. Oh yes, his brain could be differently wired! You try to analyze what could make any person behave so differently from others. On the other hand you can empathize with a poor thief when he steals food. But if you are a logical thinker you will try to understand what circumstances made him stole the food and try to correct them. Critical thinking helps here.

Unlike what several people think, science deals with moral ( derived from reasoning related to...empirical evidence) issues too and can be a good guide to life's journey through the checkerboard of blacks and whites!

Science in itself is a spiritual journey. Unraveling the mysteries of the universe and trying to know the truth and meaning of our existence.. .

Science and Spirituality

Science and Ethics

Q: Based on the above one... 

Read here why: Love Science, not its impostors!

and here: Be alert - Pseudo-Science and Anti-Science are on the Prowl!

Try to differentiate between genuine science and pseudo-science.

If you still think they are scientific show me the evidence and I will show you where you went wrong.

Q: Based on the above one: 

Use of turmeric in food is not a religious practice. Yes, it is used in some religious practices saying that it protects from microbes. Turmeric itself is prone to microbial attack!

“Using certain wood” is belief based, not science based. People weave stories to confirm their beliefs. That is not science.

Some plants have some microbial properties. I have seen hundreds of medicinal plants. But why only Tulsi and Turmeric made ‘medicinal’. First you chose some plants based on your beliefs and then, you weave a story around them confirming your belief. That is pseudo-science. Out of thousands of belief based customs and traditions, if you find one or two useful things, that doesn’t make your customs and traditions ‘science based’. It looks as though you didn’t read the articles to which links were provided. First read them and then ask questions. What is the use of providing replies if you don’t read the articles?

Read here why: Love Science, not its impostors!

and here: Be alert - Pseudo-Science and Anti-Science are on the Prow...

Meditation has several bad influences too and doesn’t work like you people think. Here is my evidence…

Where's the Proof That Mindfulness Meditation Works?

Is Meditation Overrated?

https://www.researchgate.net/pos..

7 surprising ways meditating could be hurting you

Read all the articles fully before giving reply. Please don’t ask questions that are already explained in my articles.

Q: Based on the above one: 

  1. use of certain wood is a belief only and there is no science? Use of Azadirachta indica (Neem) even before it was scientifically named is just based on belief?? then how come the people are not using the bark of some other random tree?? It is not only tulasi or turmeric that is medicinal. According to Hindu scriptures and ayurveda which is once again based on religion, Approx 80000 plant species are identified as medicinal and 5000 plant species have a specific therapeutic use. Is this not a proven science or is it also just a belief?? (Don’t come up saying that Ayurveda has negative affects. They are very less when compared to the side affects of the modern scientific medicine like chemo therapy or radiology).
  2. How can one support that science is all the good and religion is all bad when we have most bitter experiences with the scientifically proven atomic bombs, nuclear weapons and on the other hand religion with the help of science is able to feed millions of people without expecting anything??
  3. Religion along with science is feeding millions of people. 

Krishna: 

Agreed, modern medicines have side effects. Atleast we know what they are and can manage them efficiently because of the extensive research done. Only after we weigh the benefits and harmful effects, we choose them when the benefits outweigh the negative effects. Do you think scientists are fools?

With ayurvedic medicines, this is not true. Read here why: This is what a liver transplant surgeon told me recently...

Click on it and read it fully. If you say ayurveda has less side effects, it just is your ignorance. If you read the above article you will realize why. Some medicines of ayurveda literally kill people!

Agreed, neem has medicinal properties. Even some animals use plants as medicines. That is based on trial and error methods, experience and not pure knowledge. Afterwards, these beliefs might have been confirmed, though not scientifically in the true sense.

When you use trial and error methods and primitive science, some might work and some cause terrible damage. Therefore, a known devil is better than an unknown angel.

Some people complain that science also brings with it a few bad things like commercial GM crops, nuclear bombs etc. along with the good it does to the mankind. But according to the scientific community – science is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut throats and spill blood. It can also be used for good purposes like cutting fruits and vegetables. It depends on the person who uses it. Likewise science can also be used for the benefit of living beings as well as for their destruction. Which way it goes is in the hands of the person who uses it. The choice is definitely yours. Don’t blame science for the stupid way you used it and caused destruction because of it.

If anything is feeding the ever growing population of the world, it is science. Not religion. Don’t mix up things.

You are refusing to see reason and are arguing with pseudo-knowledge. We deal with people who are interested in really learning things, not with people who look for confirmation biases. Sorry science doesn’t confirm your biases and beliefs. Period.

Q: Sometimes we feel something is walking on our skin, but there is nothing actually. What sit eh science about this?

But formication is what’s called a tactile hallucination and can affect almost anyone. What isn’t very obvious is why exactly the brain produces this hallucination in the first place. Essentially, your brain is registering the sensation of something crawling on or under your skin when this isn’t actually happening. So your nervous system, which usually determines when something is crawling on you and sends that information back to the brain, is sending those signals without the external influence of something touching you.

It is a communication problem with the nervous system. This might explain why it’s so common in people with the above conditions mentioned. Fibromyalgia sufferers often deal with other nervous system problems like irritable bowel syndrome or chronic itching. So with a clear link between all of these different nerve system disorders and fibromyalgia, it seems like the pain of fibromyalgia might actually be rooted in the nerves. Usually, your nervous system sends signals to the brain, which in turn interprets these signals. Your brain simply registers pain that isn’t there in certain conditions. And in cases of formication with fibromyalgia, those same faulty neural pathways are registering a sensation of bugs under your skin that isn’t there.

Q: Based on the above one: I have done a course in Vipasana. The meditation system now spread by late Shri Goenka. In that system the success of meditation happening is judged by a similar feeling. Any idea about the relationship between that and the phenomenon you described. I have experienced it.

Krishna: 

Different meditation techniques can actually be divided into two main groups. One type is concentrative meditation, where the meditating person focuses attention on his or her breathing or on specific thoughts, and in doing so, suppresses other thoughts.

The other type may be called nondirective meditation, where the person who is meditating effortlessly focuses on his or her breathing or on a meditation sound, but beyond that the mind is allowed to wander as it pleases. Some modern meditation methods are of this nondirective kind.

Nondirective meditation leads to higher activity than during rest in the part of the brain dedicated to processing self-related thoughts and feelings. Nondirective meditation allows for more room to process memories and emotions than during concentrated meditation.

When we sit to meditate there are many processes at work. Some of them happen all the time but we are usually too busy or distracted to notice them. Others happen only when we sit still and focus our attention, as in the case of meditation.

A small drop in blood pressure is common when meditating. This is an automatic response to slower breathing and a decreased heart rate. The result can sometimes be one of feeling light-headed or dizzy.

Emotions have a funny way of being processed and can sometimes cause very strange feelings as they are discovered or released. These feelings range from intense heat or cold to aches and pains, and even to involuntary twitches.

If we sit to meditate with a very quiet and calm mind, we will likely experience a similar feeling in the body. But when we sit to meditate with a very busy mind, it can cause the body to feel irritable, sometimes even itchy and scratchy and that sensation of something crawling on your skin. Misfiring nerve signals?

I never meditated , so don’t really know how people feel these sensations but read a few articles in science magazines about them. The work is still going on and we need to wait to learn more deeply how these sensations are caused.

Read about one of the experiments here: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/f...

Q: 

In Vipasana technique you learn first to concentrate on the breath … not on the rhythm or the air but the sensation that you get by the feel of the air in the nose. Then you extend that (sensing around the nose this time not related to any movement) . Finally you (kind of) learn to sense your whole body in a sequential manner (only while learning) starting from head to toe. You do not try to suppress thinking and distraction but as soon as you know you are distracted you bring your mind back to scanning. Once you have learnt then the sequence, posture are not critical. Though you are expected to do it for an hour without moving your limbs after taking whatever position you want to start with. It is a rigorous approach but can be learnt.

It is while scanning you body for sensations that you feel the Sensation.

IMO body exercise is for muscles and THIS meditation is an equivalent of that for nerves.

Krishna: 

Spirituality deals with meditation differently and science deals with it differently. Science is only interested in what happens to your brain during meditation and in what way it effects your body. I have read recently some articles in science magazines that questioned the benefits of meditation.

Where's the Proof That Mindfulness Meditation Works?

Is Meditation Overrated?

https://www.researchgate.net/pos...

7 surprising ways meditating could be hurting you

 

 

Views: 244

Replies to This Discussion

235

RSS

© 2024   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service