Instagram

Liked Posts

Mail Online | Photographer Ron Miller creates incredible pictures of what it would look like if planets were closer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2345679/Photographer-Ron-Miller-creates-incredible-pictures-look-like-planets-closer.html

I’m no expert on what planets would look like if they replaced The Moon’s position in proximity to the Earth, but Jupiter seems out of whack. Wouldn’t the Earth basically be a moon of Jupiter at that point, not to mention a tiny, imperceivable pinhole of a dot by comparison? Shouldn’t it take up our entire sky and then some?

Not really.

I’m trying to highlight the hypocrisy of solving a problem by pointing the finger at any potential culprit but That Thing You Love.

Any large cultural topic, especially the US’s penchant for violence in all forms, has an incredible number of complex moving parts, each worth discussing and investigating. That includes the thing I personal love, which is video games in all their forms, especially shooters. Ironically, I don’t and won’t own a gun.

We’re happy to throw science at topics and problems like this because science is illuminating; it helps us understand the world, solve problems, and move forward. But when it comes time for science to investigate the part of this machine that is near and dear to some people—guns, games, film, news media, whatever—some people point the finger in another direction, any direction, besides Their Thing.

If we’re going to discuss a big complicated machine like violence in the US, all its parts need to be fair game, including the one you, I, and everyone else with an opinion loves.

Not really.

I’m trying to highlight the hypocrisy of solving a problem by pointing the finger at any potential culprit but That Thing You Love.

Any large cultural topic, especially the US’s penchant for violence in all forms, has an incredible number of complex moving parts, each worth discussing and investigating. That includes the thing I personal love, which is video games in all their forms, especially shooters. Ironically, I don’t and won’t own a gun.

We’re happy to throw science at topics and problems like this because science is illuminating; it helps us understand the world, solve problems, and move forward. But when it comes time for science to investigate the part of this machine that is near and dear to some people—guns, games, film, news media, whatever—some people point the finger in another direction, any direction, besides Their Thing.

If we’re going to discuss a big complicated machine like violence in the US, all its parts need to be fair game, including the one you, I, and everyone else with an opinion loves.

We want to throw science at everything to understand it better and make better things. After all, it’s how we got to where we are as a species. It’s also far more productive than burning or beheading people who say or discover truths we don’t like.

But when faced with the prospects of what science may find were it to study the potential dangers of the thing they like—guns, films, or video games—some science proponents respond with “no no, leave my thing alone, it’s perfectly fine. Go investigate that thing over there, that’s the problem.”

Truth is truth. We may not like what we find, but that doesn’t mean we should be afraid of investigating this thing but not that thing. Disagreeing with the results or fearing what change they might bring is not an excuse to silence science.

Many of the topics that are supposedly controversial are not really contentious at all among people who are properly informed and rely on a scientific understanding of the physical world around us. However, due to the fact that scientific literacy is sadly lacking on this great planet of ours, “controversy” emerges when individuals, groups, societies, and nations are forced to confront their nonscientific worldviews with the findings of science. Of course, skepticism is a healthy and powerful thing. But skepticism in the face of overwhelming evidence is not healthy, so long as you remember what the word “overwhelming” means. And facts themselves are not controversial.

Why it’s critical we cover so-called “controversial” science | Ars Technica