Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 February 9

= February 9 =

Decomposition of Styrofoam and Plastics
How many years does it take for styrofoams and plastic materials to decompose in the ground? Sonic99 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Styrofoam does not biodegrade at all. It will stay in the ground indefinitely, or be eroded mechanically into progressively smaller fragments. See biodegradation, styrofoam, and Polystyrene. The article on biodegradation has data on some other plastics, as well. All this being said, it is possible that microorganisms will be found that can digest or degrade polystyrene in some way. --Dr Dima (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a quick google search just now, and I see papers on the potential use of Xanthomonas sp. and Sphingobacterium sp. for polystyrene decomposition. You can redo the search and follow the links if you want to do some research on the subject. --Dr Dima (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised how long the myth of "eternal" plastic is lasting. Long after the fact that it isn't has started staring us in the face.  Maybe not enough people have written about it? .  BTW This doesn't mean it isn't degrading into some nasty stuff on its way out. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

is there a difference between: 1) water that has been frozen + melted 2) water that never was frozen?
Is there a difference between water that has been frozen and then allowed to melt, and water that never was frozen? I mean, if I prepare new water, by mixing hydrogen and oxygen, in two beakers, and leave one out but freeze the other one, then allow it to melt... once all the ice in the second beaker has melted and it has returned to room temperature will there be any difference between the two? (I don't mean from the longer amount of time the first one was out, ie microbes and such... if you want to account for this you can imagine that I prepare the solution to be left out the whole time by just later enough to nullify this effect). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no difference in the water itself; it's all just H2O molecules and since it's a liquid they don't form structures. There could be a difference in the amount of air dissolved in it.  --Anonymous, 04:32 UTC, February 9, 2009.


 * If you mix Hydrogen and Oxygen, you do not get water, you get Oxyhydrogen (also known as Knallgas). If you then add a spark, you will get a potentially dangerous explosion and some water vapor. If you start with chemically clean water, you can, in theory, freeze and melt it without permanently changing any of its properties. In practice, the more you handle it, the more likely you will add some contaminants. But to a first approximation, the water will not change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I read that there were 9 states of liquid and 18 states of solid for water, or something like that, among many other mysteries of water. For example, tests showed water to be H1.5O. Water also forms a string of molecules, forming crystals when frozen, and this starts to break when melting, see also Mpemba effect. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

UFOs
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongoknyo (talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

I am the Investigator from Dr. J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO Studies that was given the assignment to find the origins of the UFOs.

I am a former member of the American Intelligence Community, a currently non-practicing lawyer and the Chairman Emeritus of the Budget & Policy Subcommittee with the Drug Advisory Commission in Washington, DC. The Commission no longer exist, nor has it for many years. I am currently a Realtor Associate Broker who is licensed in MD/DC/VA.

Inasmuch as the British government will over the next 2 years release most of their previously held Secret [Top Secret] information about their ONGOING UFO investigations and the open knowledge from sources like Credo Mutwa, a Zulu Shammen and fluent speaker of English that his people have known about 24 different kinds of 'aliens' existing on this planet along with the recovery of numerous crashes and alien bodies from mountains in Kenya [and indeed thruout Africa], which were similar to those recovered in Roswell, New Mexico, I would like to provide an article that is very different from anything published under a single source.

I hope that it would not surprise you to learn that most modern US Presidents are not briefed about true UFOs and alien beings on Planet Earth, unless those alleged UFOs are intelligence gathering drones/aircraft/underseas vehicles, etc. that are already known to both sides of any particular operation.

I will not be disclosing TOP SECRET material, nor is there really any need to do so, considering what is collectively already known publicly.

Thanks.

Bruce Haupt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.173.176 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, according to Ref Desk policy, I have removed your e-mail address from your posting.
 * Secondly, did you have a question, or was this just pure psychoceramica? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not familiar with the term "psychoceramica", and in looking up its meaning -- "crackpot studies" -- I found the hilarious description of the subjects as "authors of particularly unsolicited manuscripts". :) --Sean 13:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's one of my very favorite words! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally! I've been waiting for that proof for years.  Just remember to cite reliable sources and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  --Sean 13:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I must once again repeat my futile claim that "UFO" actually stands for "Unidentified Flying Object" and not "Aliens who control the United States and the World and Wikipedia through anal probes". *sigh* - Running On  Brains  18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that 99% of the public thinks "anal probes" when you say "UFOs", that claim is slipping into etymological fallacy territory. --Sean 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical differences between Ayurvedic and Unani medicine
What are the basic fundamental difference between Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine.And can the wiki community identify any ayurvedic or unani practitioner who has been hounoured scientifically in the last 100 years.(Ramanathan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.70.129 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are black people better dancers/athletes?
I always assumed this was more of a modern stereotype than anything else, but on reading the al-Jahiz article I saw that he was writing about it in the 9th century. So is there any scientific reason why black people have more "natural rhythm" than other races, and generally do seem to do better in sports? Has there been any research to see if this is actually true, or whether it is just a very old stereotype? Was Africa sufficiently more physically demanding/selective than Europe, Asia and the Americas to develop a noticeable difference so relatively quickly? Are these traits (if they exist) shared by Australian Aborigines, and if so, how? Thanks 86.8.176.85 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For atheletes you may want to look in the archives, I'm sure we've discussed it before. There are many factors which likely play a part, including the fact Africans are generally larger on average then many other others (particularly Asians) and that size is an advantage in many sports. There are some studies about it, e.g. . I don't know about the dancing/rhytm thing though, I've never heard of it before and if anything, being small is often an advantage similar to in gymnastics Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also likely a socio-cultural aspect to the athletics thing as well. For example, a group which has traditionally been at a disadvantage socioeconimically may see athletics as the only means for real advancement, and so may pursue athletic excellence to the exclusion of other forms of education or the like.  As a contrast, members of the majority culture may "give up" sports for other careers which, while they don't pay as much, are much easier to break into and be successful at.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For sports, there are two things going on here. First, there are indeed among some populations in Africa (which is a BIG place and you can't really justify lumping all "Africans" under one biological roof, mind you) which probabilistically will have certain members who are better physiologically equipped for certain sports. Note that this statement is a long way from saying "Blacks are better at sports"—we're talking about probabilistic genetics, we're talking about certain sub-populations, and we're talking probably about only certain sports. So what this means is that in certain sports, it's not improbable that, given the right conditions and access and etc., you'd see a higher percentage of star participants be African in descent. (It doesn't mean that there won't be people from other racial origins who won't individually be better or worse or whatever than individuals from Africa. Racial genetics is probabilistic and is about groups and has little to nothing to say about individuals.)
 * So that's the first thing. The second thing, which is HUGE, is the socio-cultural aspect. There was a time, for example, when Jews were known as the best boxers in the United States. How many Jewish boxers do you see today? Basically none. Why not? Because (professional) boxing is a sport that has real specific point of entry, and given other high-paying options most people will not opt to getting beat up for a living. When educational opportunities opened up for Jews, they took them, and now they become doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc.—things that pay well and don't involve being beat up.
 * So what do we see for African-American populations, especially in the United States? We see that for the last 20 years the most prominent African-Americans are those in either sports or entertainment—something which is still true even today, in our post-Obama world, and was quite evident from the "guests" at the inauguration, even though for the last 10 years or so the number of visible Blacks in politics has increased quite a bit.
 * Now the real shame of all of this—which a number of academic commentators have pointed out—is that if you asked many Black children 10 years ago (I don't know if this has changed since then—it may have recently) what they wanted to be when they grew up, the answer is an entertainer or a sports star. Neither of which are viable options—only a small, small percentage of said children would ever be able to accomplish those as career paths. Coupled with that is that most modern American sports and entertainment culture is anti-intellectual to a hilt—especially Black sports culture—meaning that if you're dreaming of being a basketball player you're not also studying to be a lawyer. (Anti-intellectualism in Black culture is deeper than sports, mind you, and is wrapped up in the idea of what it means to "act White", but that's a different story for a different day.) So in the end, some commentators have argued, individual Black success in sports and entertainment has led to a decrease in the overall success of the Black population. For every Michael Jordan, you have 200 would-have-beens who have now no marketable skills and no love of anything but the ball. So they argue. (An interesting text in this regard is John Hoberman's Darwin's Athletes.)
 * Entertainment is somewhat different here, in that there is almost surely no biological component to it whatsoever. It's a pure-culture thing. Why do Blacks dominate the entertainment industry in the USA? Because whites think everything is cooler when Blacks are doing it—it's titillating and forbidden and "raw" and all sorts of other things that white culture isn't allowed to be ("white trash") and there are vulgar sexual overtones (both male and female) running explicitly throughout the whole thing. Whites love to fantasize about the Other, even if they often don't want to live or work next to them. It's a complicated thing, to be sure, made even more complicated by the fact of a Black president! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That article singled out strength and nothing else and that is one thing Africans haven't excelled at, though for all I know they might at some time - there's more variation between them than the rest of the world put together. So I wouldn't put much reliance on it. As to personal experience the ones I've seen in Africa seem to have a hard time lifting just a single sack of cement between two of them though that could be due to any number of factors. Then again one of my uncles used to bend half crowns between his fingers as a party piece. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the socio-cultural thing is extremely relevent. Firstly with sports such as cricket (a sport with a history of Dukes, Princes and Sirs), the England Cricket Team is almost exclusively white, whereas the Kenyan Cricket Team are almost all black, yet British football teams have a very visible amount of black players. In swimming or diving they are hardly represented as most inner city schools don't have a swimming pool. As for the dancing thing, it pays to remember that most of the music that we see in the general (western) media, has it's genesis in old black musics such as jazz, blues, soul, reggae, etc. You don't hear of many black guys winning ballroom or waltzing competitions.91.111.108.123 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It also depends on the sport. In professional American Football, a person may look at the players and assume that African men are better.  However, Samoans are overly represented.  I don't remember the exact percentages from an article I read a few years ago, but it compared the racial background of NFL players to the percentage of adult males between 18 and 40 in the world.  Asians had the lowest percent (near 0%) of adult men in the NFL.  Whites were slightly lower than Africans.  Samoans were by a large margin the most represented.  Therefore, one could look at that tiny representation of sport and claim that Samoans are better athletes.  Next, you can consider hockey or NASCAR racing.  I think there was a black guy who was pretty good at turning left once, but it appears to be mostly a white thing. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As for dancing, there was a TV program ages back that examined ways kids learned how to move in various cultures. For most western cultures they found that they learned to move their limbs (arms and legs) in coordination. For African cultures they found that arms and legs were moved by separate beats.  They didn't dig deeper into that, but went on into looking how girls learned to balance loads on their heads. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some African populations have been said to have more fast twitch muscles. This has been claimed to be a reason African American basketball players can typically outjump caucasian athletes and outsprint them. Is this still accepted or has it been discredited? I have known some U.S. politicians and academics who have the view that folks from every continent are exactly equal in every mental and physical way, as if by definition, which seems of doubtful scientific validity, given that, say, Inuits and Kenyans have evolved to thrive in different environments. Edison (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Different people in different cultures have great dancing culture, so I don't know how you can make a statement that Africans are better at it than everyone else. Regarding Kenyans and marathon. From an article I read a long time ago, actually not all (or most) Kenyans are good at it. There's a small subpopulation in Kenya that have the genetic factors contributing to being good at marathons, while the rest of Kenyans are "normal". Also, remember that Africans are more genetically diverse than populations of other continents.199.76.164.202 (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Instruments that don't start at zero
If an instrument doesn't start at zero due to it not being calibrated properly or due to the way an experiment is carried out, what is it called when you set the initial reading given by the instrument to be the new "zero" --RMFan1 (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When the instrument is a scale used for measuring weight, the word is "tare". In other settings, I use "zero" as a verb. --Scray (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's a "zero error" that you fix by "zeroing" the instrument. --Tango (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always said "zeroing" but I've heard people say "nulling" and "balancing" too. I think the latter terms come from setting up a wheatstone bridge.  In general, "calibration" would be a good word too - although calibrating most instruments requires adjusting more than just the zero point. SteveBaker (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen both "zero" and "re-zero" used as verbs in this situation. More specific terms may apply to certain instruments or experiments.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * General words like "set" or "adjust" may be used as well, of course. --Anonymous, 20:40 UTC, February 9, 2009.


 * For some instruments, like a CCD camera, the offset may be called a "bias", and correcting it may be called "debiasing". -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When I worked in a testing lab, setting the zero point was called "zeroing", and was done before every measurement or series of measurements. "Calibration" was an extended procedure done once a year (or, for some sensors, after potentially-damaging incidents) that involved checking (and if needed, adjusting) the output at many different points along the full range of output. --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

deflection
i were looking for deflection .... I need avery detailed, clear theory , and the wide practicle use one ... i need to understand the basics of this theory , thank you ...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjaafreh2008 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We have various articles on Deflection, are any of them what you want? If not, you're going to need to be much clearer about what it is you are talking about. --Tango (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The most common use of the term is perhaps Deflection (engineering), which refers to the bending (or other deformation) of a material with force applied to it. Is that what you're asking about ? StuRat (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

yes ... iam talking about deflection in beams ... i need a deep ,step by step ,, thank you ..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.43.138 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let's start with the most basic theory:


 * 1) Any force applied to an object (often called a stress), will result in some deflection or deformation (often called a strain). The amount depends on the material, it's geometry, and the location, direction, and magnitude of the forces applied.


 * 2) There are three main ways a material can respond to a stress, with an elastic deformation (one that returns to it's original shape after the forces are removed), a plastic deformation (one that doesn't return), or fracture. Most material will undergo all three types of deformation, in the order listed.  However, some will undergo far more of one than the other.  As the names imply, elastics tend to undergo quite a bit of elastic deformation and plastics a lot of plastic deformation.  Crystals tend to fracture with a minimal amount of either deformation.  Metals do a bit of each stage.


 * 3) See deformation (engineering) for the types which result from each force applied.


 * Now, as for figuring how much of deflection you will get for a given applied force, our deflection (engineering) article contains links to various calculation methods. StuRat (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Frequency of Earthquake Waves
I am looking for the range of frequencies, in hertz, that can occur during an earthquake, both the S waves and the P waves. Thanks alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jony big shoe (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good question, though I am no expert on the subject. I don't find this information in our articles on Earthquake, Seismology, P-wave, or S-wave.  If this information is meaningful and missing from our articles, it would be great if someone (who has the information) could add it.  --Scray (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the heading to reflect the specific question.


 * In 1978 Bruce Bolt wrote in Earthquakes: A Primer (W.H. Freeman & Co., ISBN 0-7167-0094-8): "In earthquakes the main shaking of the ground that is felt has frequencies of 20 hertz down to one cycle per second or even lower." Of course "cycle per second" is the same as "hertz".  He does not comment on the frequencies of the different types of waves, but if they all originate from the same vibrations of the rocks at the focus of the quake, it makes sense that in any one earthquake they would have the same frequency. --Anonymous, 20:52 UTC, February 9, 2009.

Swarf
Metalworking term, refers to the chips / bits / etc. resulting from the process. Can't find origin of word. Acronym, or otherwise ? Rob&amp;Sara Wilson (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's believed to be from ye olde English: . Fribbler (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or from ye Old Norse, svarf: . The OED is squarely on the fence about the matter. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably the two share a common origin, so shall we just say it comes from Proto-Germanic? Sufficiently vague that it's highly unlikely we're wrong... --Tango (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Asking this question on the language desk may get you a better answer. This is the science desk.  SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
While I understand what this expression means and don't necessarily disagree with it, it bothers me a bit because it begs the question, "What is an extraordinary claim?". If I believe in alien abduction, maybe I don't consider this to be an extraordinary claim because I believe that this sort of thing happens all the time. If both parties can't agree on what is "extraordinary", does this saying have any meaning at all? While I am a "skeptic" (I hate that term, too, for other reasons), this statement seems a bit illogical to me because it assumes that what qualifies as an "extraordinary claim" is agreed upon. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is personal. It means that if I see claim as being extraordinary, then I must see extraordinary evidence.  If you don't see the claim as extraordinary, then you don't need extraordinary evidence.  There is no need to agree on what is extraordinary. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above, though to depersonalize it a bit, the general understanding is that the party receiving the claims/evidence is the one whose judge of extraordinariness matters. Alien abductions may be old hat to the guy who gets probed every third weekend, but they're not to the scientific community, and he'd better understand that if he wants anybody to care. &mdash; Lomn 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Being probed yourself is pretty extraordinary evidence, so it's not surprising that he would believe it. --Tango (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is and it isn't. Memories are remarkably fallible, mental illness remarkably common. If I woke up tomorrow and thought I had been probed by an alien in the night, and could find absolutely no evidence of it, I would not necessarily trust that the event itself had actually happened. Similarly, if I started hearing voices that told me they were God, I'd probably suspect mental illness creeping in my head, if I was still rational enough to suspect such a thing. (The odds of it being mental illness seem much higher than actual divine communication with me, of all people.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a rephrasing would help: "The evidence must be proportional to the claim" - so a slightly unusual claim requires slightly unusual amounts of evidence.  If I say that "water is wet" you don't require any evidence at all.  If I say that "there are two completely different colors that we call 'yellow'" - then you might need to be shown spectrograms to prove that.  If I say that "I have a machine in my back yard that can travel at twice the speed of light" - then you're going to need some REALLY convincing proof.   We simply say "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" because Carl Sagan said that on a wildly popular TV show and he was a pretty cool dude and it's a handy short-hand for what we REALLY mean...which is that proportionality of claim and evidence is what is needed.  As for what YOU believe - that's irrelevant to the discussion.  If the people you are trying to convince say that your claim is extraordinary - then you'll need to provide them with extraordinary evidence if you want them to believe you.  Claims of alien abductions are beyond "extraordinary" - so we're going to need a LOT of evidence...and right now, we have zero. SteveBaker (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness". But that's not a rephrasing, that's older than Sagan. I found it in Carl Sagan. It's attributed to Pierre-Simon Laplace. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging the likelihood of a statement being true is often very subjective. Generally, the more things that need to be different from how we usually understand the world to be, the more extraordinary a claim is. For alien abduction to be true there would need to be aliens (perhaps not too unlikely, but far from certain), those aliens would have to have a way to get here (now that's pretty unlikely, either it requires our understanding of physics to be fundamentally wrong so they can travel faster than light, or it requires them to have taken an extremely long time to get here) and they would have to be interested in rather crude sounding experimentation (I guess not impossible) and they would need to have some way of hiding from all our telescopes, satellites, radio receivers, radars, etc (which is probably not too unlikely if they are capable of getting here in the first place). You multiply all those probabilities together and, even with pretty conservative estimates, you end up with a very unlikely occurrence. --Tango (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in a quantitative framework, Bayes theorem is applicable. If something seems highly unlikely given prior information, then any new evidence to the contrary must be very strong to overcome the prior.  --Scray (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say we can apply some fairly objective means to determine how extraordinary a claim is. For example, is the claim consistent with current scientific theories, would it require an additional scientific theory, or does it go against existed widely accepted laws and theories ? Some examples:


 * 1) I say blue food coloring and red food coloring combine to make purple. That's entirely consistent with all current scientific theories (provided the dyes don't react with each other). I wouldn't say any evidence at all is needed here, unless somebody disputes the claim.


 * 2) I say trans-fats cause pimples. This requires a new theory as to how this happens.  I provide the following theory: "Trans-fats are absorbed into the blood stream via the small intestines, travel to the sebaceous pores, where they are pulled out of the blood and excreted into the pore, where they solidify and cause pore blockage, AKA, pimples."  Now this theory seems plausible, but some evidence would be needed to actually prove or disprove it.


 * 3) I state that the universe is only 5000 years old. Since this runs counter to pretty much every branch of science, including astrophysics, particle physics (radioactive decay), biology (Theory of Evolution), zoology & botany (genetic drift rates & fossils), geology (plate tectonics, sediment deposition rates, erosion rates), archeology (ancient ruins), anthropology, linguistics, etc.; some really extraordinary evidence is needed to prove such a claim. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can avoid the need for an objective opinion on what is extraordinary by always erring on the side of extraordinariness. After all, non-extraordinary claims should be very easy to provide conclusive evidence for.  If an anal probe enthusiast says "water is not wet", I can simply throw a bucket of water on his head, his wetness will be obvious to him, and QED.  Now when I say "extraterrestrials do not probe the human anus", he should be able to provide an equally unambiguous refutation.  --Sean 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, .196, you deserve a barnstar for being the first person to use the phrase "begging the question" correctly in all of human history. Bravo!  --Sean 18:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What? That's the common usage, not the tradition one... (note, I avoid using the word "correct"!) --Tango (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the OP's post as the traditional circular reasoning usage: 1) "extraordinary claims require ...", 2) "your claim is extraordinary", 3) QED. I see how it could be interpreted in the "modern" way.  --Sean 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "it begs the question, "What is an extraordinary claim?"" seems like the "modern" way to me. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here I was, planning to explain how 196 misused the phrase, and then I came across Sean commending him for it.
 * "Begging thw question" describes a logic flaw in which the question already assumes the answer. What 196 meant was that it "immediately leads to yet another question."
 * Tango is quite right, in that the phrase is more often used improperly than properly.
 * B00P (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the answers above are pretty good, but there's another thing to consider here as well: when we say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the underlying assumption of that statement is that people generally want others to believe them. So it's not that the extraordinariness of the claim somehow makes it require evidence, extraordinary or otherwise. You can claim whatever you want without a shred of evidence if you like, and a lot of people do. It's just that if you're going to convince other people -- well, sensible people, anyway -- that you're right, it's going to take more than your word, and the more your claim runs against the established and commonly accepted state of things, the more it takes to convince people. So whether you consider the claim to be extraordinary is irrelevant, because you can't convince anyone by telling them that they don't need any evidence, because you don't think it's all that weird -- and the whole point is to convince them. If you don't care about convincing them, then the point is moot. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Many mainstream scientific principles or theories were once "extraordinary." These include the idea that the earth was many millions or billions of years old, that the Earth orbited the Sun, that humans evolved from previous species, that rocks could fall from the sky (Jefferson said in 1807 that it was easier to believe "that a Yankee professor could lie than that stones would fall from heaven," or that diseases are caused by little no-see-um germs. Rather than meekly accepting the truth of these propositions, extraordinary evidence was demanded. That is altogether proper. That such a demand is quite reasonable is shown by the success of furnishing the required proof and the resulting scientific and technical advances. Fans of Extrasensory perception, Unidentified flying objects from outer space, Perpetual motion, or Homeopathy are not being held to a higher standard than proponents of the above theories or phenomena. Thus N rays and Polywater failed to meet the scientific level of proof. They could not be replicated or were based on flawed observations. Edison (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are all great examples - but the N-rays fiasco is perhaps one of the most sobering. The guy who claimed to have seen them was well-respected and even when 'due diligence' was done and his experiments repeated, too many people didn't believe that he could be wrong and misreported his results.   That was not so much a lack of evidence for such an extraordinary claim - but more that there was insufficient skepticism about results turned in by a well-respected scientist.  But it all fell apart when some genuine skeptic removed the wooden 'prism' through which the N-rays were supposedly being refracted and put it in his pocket while observations were being taken in a darkened room...and the experimenter failed to notice...or even to report 'unusual' results!  I'd like to add the "Piltdown Man" example which was outright fraud.  That was still being taught in schools as truth when I was a kid...let me make that more clear: Even though the hoax had been exposed in 1953 - it was still being taught as "true" as late as the mid 1960's.  If you ever visit Piltdown (it's in the south-east of England) go to the "Piltdown Man" pub - they serve great beer. SteveBaker (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I certainly didn't put as much effort in using the phrase "begging the question" as you guys did analyzing it and I'm not even sure if I completely understand the distinction between the two usages (or if there are even 2 usages - see below) however what I meant was that the expression "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was based on a false premise. I'm not sure if that qualifies as circular since it doesn't really loop back and forth into infinity.  It goes back to "what is an extraordinary claim" and just stops.
 * On a side note, I find our begging the question a bit confusing. The terms "contemporary" usage, "American English" usage, "British English" usage, "Traditional" usage and "Colloquial" usage are used.  Are there 2 usages or 5?  If 5 usages, what are the relationships between the 5?  If 2 usages, under which usage do the 5 terms fall under?  216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An "ordinary claim" would be accepted by scientists without demands for "extraordinary proof." If a scientist with a reputation for careful and accurate work reports some new measurement or observation, with results which are in accord with other published observations and with the currently accepted theories, it would likely just be added to the textbooks without everyone demanding to watch the experiment repeated. It would just be more ho-hum dustbowl empiricism. An example might have been if B.F. Skinner had reported the results of yet another schedule of reinforcement in an operant conditioning experiment after publishing hundreds of such papers. If he had reported that his rats started using sign language or communicating with him via ESP, it would have been questioned and other researchers would have demanded access to the special labrats to do their own testing. Edison (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anaerobe anatomy
Is it known whether anaerobic bacteria living near deep-sea hydrothermal vents have mitochondria similar to those in more "local" (terrestrial) life forms? (I hope my question makes sense... I don't have a firm grounding in microbiology.) Thanks, 168.9.120.8 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bacteria do not have mitochondria. Mitochondria are the organelle responsible for aerobic respiration in eukaryotes and would not be involved in anaerobic behavior in any case.  I don't know if eukaryotes living in that environment have specially adapted mitochondria or not.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, I understand more than I did before, and (thanks to you, Dragons flight) I think I see the articles I need to fill in the gaps. Thank you for your prompt response, and have a nice day. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

stem cells
what is the stem cells ... i looked all over for it, without a clear answer , please help me ,thank you ..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.43.138 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Try Stem cell Richard Avery (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alprazolam vs. Diazepam
Hello, I had a question. Is diazepam stronger than alprazolam? Thanks.Cssiitcic (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "stronger"? Also, how would you want to compare them - the number of pills, the maximum tolerated dose, or some other measure? The number of milligrams alone is pretty meaningless.  --Scray (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if you are concerned about the effects of the two drugs, or the actual recommended dosages of them, the only person who should provide that advice to you is a qualified medical professional. Do not trust random strangers on teh intrewebz to give you trustworthy advice over your own health.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SorryCssiitcic (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article implies that alprazolam is about 10 times as potent as diazepam. This article suggests that overdosage of alprazolam is more dangerous. You could speculate reasons as to why this is the case. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)