EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.
Full moons do not have an impact on people with mental illness, make weird things happen, increase work load, or increase the chance of going into labor. I have worked in three separate hospitals in three separate states and the consensus is: full moons bring out the crazies and the babies.
I believe there have been multiple studies that found that full moons affect most people sleeping and make sleep a bit harder
I sleep in a completely blacked out room yet I know when it’s near the full moon because my sleep gets very broken and restless.
The only difference between a full moon and a new moon is how much light it reflects towards the earth. The moon is still there. If there were some sort of magnetic or gravitational effect on you while you slept, the effect would be the same whether the sun was shining on the side you can see or not.
The reason there is a difference in how much light is reflected, is because the moon is in a different position. During a new moon, it’s on the day side of the earth (so in between the sun and the earth) while during a full moon, it’s on the night side.
So there could theoretically be a gravitational effect, although I don’t think it would impact anyone’s sleep.
If anyone is noticing a difference in sleep quality, it’s most likely indeed to do with the amount of light.
It’s not true. Your observations may be affected by confirmation, bias, or other things.
https://www.dukehealth.org/blog/myth-or-fact-more-women-go-labor-during-full-moon
However, barometric pressure can apparently induce labor
The first part is what my husband tells me.
I do recognize that Medical Laboratory Scientists are a very superstitious lot especially funny since our degree and certification include Scientist. Don’t say it’s slow or quiet because it’s getting to get stupid busy (and everyone will blame you). Don’t run quality control more than required because you are tempting failure and will have to do a look back of all the testing to make sure it was accurate. We jokingly put an elf on the shelf out that had FDA written on the hat and the FDA showed up for an unannounced inspection a week later. I’m a Lead and every time I bring my Lead work to the bench with me, we get so busy with patient samples and orders that I can’t touch it. All are definitely confirmation bias situations.
Statistics shows that the belief is wrong. It’s funny I think that despite the hard numbers the people working there still strongly believe it.
That’s actually really interesting, the medical professionals I’ve been acquainted with never seemed to mention that theory to begin with.
Hypothesis*, and it is very popular with nurses. Unfortunate, but people still believe many strange things.
It’s entirely confirmation bias. The crazies come out, must be a full moon. It isn’t? Oh, then it’s just a bad day. It is a full moon? See, I told ya. Full moon and no crazies? Didn’t even notice.
I have witnessed this exchange >.<
Unrelated - kind of - but I believe there are two documented cases of obscure programming bugs that manifest according to the phase of the moon!
There’s something up with the placebo effect.
The prompt is dangerous and indulgent for anti-science idiots. You don’t “believe in” science… Science is. You can choose to believe in fairy tales, conspiracy theories and other made up shit like religious dogma, don’t causally equate the two categories - ESPECIALLY not while naming science directly. Maybe say, “what’s a thing that you can’t believe it’s real?” If you need to post.
I see your edit, but it’s still a bullshit post, OP.
deleted by creator
That consciousness arises from matter as some emergent phenomenon. Integrated information theory, micro-tubules, or whatever: no.
I believe consciousness is fundamental.
i agree, but i dont think any scientist seriously believes they have the answer to this debate. (i may be wrong)
How do you mean fundamental?
They probably mean that consciousness does not arrive from matter - that there is some other thing that causes consciousness, like another fundamental particle or whatever.
Essentially they are arguing for the existence of the “soul” or “spirit” in some fashion or another. Definitely unscientific as we have no evidence of such a thing.
The problem with consciousness is that everyone has different idea what is is.
That’s the fundamental problem with everything, though.
I disagree with you, but that’s because your comment means something entirely different to me.
And I, in turn, accept your apology.
Thank you for subscribing to Cat Facts
That’s not scientifically proven though, just an idea.
Lots of stuff from both social sciences and economics.
Social science suffers greatly from the Replication crisis
Economics relies largely on so-called natural experiments that have poor variable controls.
Both often come with policy agendas pushing for results.
I take their conclusions with a grain of salt.
Yes we should be out to revoke chiropractors’ degrees, but I’m not sure why that’s coming up here since you asked about science specifically. Which chiropractic is not.
No one should be ok with people who run around pretending to be doctors and occasionally paralyzing babies and crippling people by trying to work magic. It’s also revolting that any of it is covered by insurance and health plans, which materially takes real resources away from real medicine for people.
Any “science” supported only by belief/faith or trust in authority that can’t be questioned.
The moon not being made of cheese. The moon is in fact made of cheese. I do not care how much a bunch of nerds insist that it is not made of cheese. I am objectively correct about this and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
It took me awhile to accept it. But apparently planting trees on the wrong area could actually contribute to global warming. E.g. Planting on areas, traditionally has no trees, while reforesting would contribute to lowering temperature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00233-0
I learned that from a recent documentary of the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park from Vice.
Intelligence. I think that “dumb” people aren’t really dumb, they’re just processing information differently.
The Big Bang being a singular event that only happened once, as if we are so special we just happen to be at the point of time, within the spectrum of infinity where matter is in a state that can support life. (I’m not aware if that’s the prevailing theory anymore)
Also the double slit experiment. We aren’t a phantom observers, we are impacting the experiment. With our equipment.
We don’t have to be special though. We can only exist at certain points in space time, under certain conditions. Those conditions are currently met, therfore we can exist, regardless of the infinite time/space conditions where we can’t.
I don’t think a unique big bang has ever been the prevailing theory in science. If you ask science what happens before the big bang, the answer is “we don’t know”, and if you ask has there been other big bangs, you might get a “not that we’ve observed”, but science has not attempted to explain what happened before the big bang because in the most literal sense, we just don’t have the data to make an attempt.
Predictions do state that the future of the universe will look different from the beginning of the universe (by which I mean the universe since our big bang) and the maths suggest that before the big bang, we think there was a singularity of incredible density, but that doesn’t really deal with how many other big bangs there can have been.
On your second point, that’s what the science actually says. “Observer” or “observation” is used in a scientific sense and was probably a poor word choice. Science journalism gets carried away with anything that has the word “quantum” in it and it drives us mad.
You’re absolutely right that the mechanism that’s causing the wave function to collapse is the presence of whatever piece of equipment the particle is hitting. Whether that collapse happens at the two slits or the back wall changes the pattern, and that change is what shows wave-particle duality.
Also: physics doesn’t claim to know that the Big Bang only happened once. That’s just as far back as we can rewind with our current models. This is again something that science journalism takes a lot of liberty with.
You’re absolutely right that the mechanism that’s causing the wave function to collapse is the presence of whatever piece of equipment the particle is hitting.
It’s by no means clear that this is true; it depends on where you fall on interpretational questions. Hell, probably the leading approaches suggest that the wave function doesn’t collapse at all, it just appears to when our brains become entangled with the experiment.
the leading approaches suggest that the wave function doesn’t collapse at all, it just appears to when our brains become entangled with the experiment.
Aren’t you just moving the point of the wave collapse from the experiment to inside the brain? I mean if the wave function never collapsed, shouldn’t we see all superpositions at once? But instead, the brain seems to collapse to one possibility, i.e. still collapsing the wave function.
Kind of, but technically no. The idea is, when doing the double slit experiment, that you start with two essentially separate wave-functions; the wave function of the particle, which is in a super position of going through slit A and slit B, and the wave function of the experimenter/surrounding world, which is in a singular defined state.
However, by doing a measurement, the experimenter entangles their wave function with the wave function of the particle, forming one wave function for the whole system, which evolves into a super position of ‘particle goes through slit A and the observer measures the particle going through slit A’ and ‘particle goes through slit B and the observer measures the particle going through slit B’.
Importantly, the super position doesn’t contain a portion for ‘the observer measures both outcomes at the same time’, so there’s no way for us to see all superposition’s at once.
The question of why we only experience measuring one outcome is exactly the same as the question of why an identical twin only experiences one life, and not both, essentially.
Importantly, the super position doesn’t contain a portion for ‘the observer measures both outcomes at the same time’, so there’s no way for us to see all superposition’s at once.
I feel like here you’re just moving the goal post again, if you’ll excuse the expression :)
Even if there is no superposition in which an observer sees both outcomes, there must be some point in space and/or time that decides which of the two superpositions we see. Whether that is in the experiment, in the brain or in consciousness or whatever. I mean we only see one superposition, so there must be something that “decides” (randomly as far as we know) which one it is. And that decision is a kind of collapse of the wave function, no?
I am not a physicist though so this is just me rambling from my limited understanding.
Homeopathy. All about it.
There’s absolutely nothing scientific about Homeopathy, despite what its practitioners would have you believe.
There is nothing scientific about homeopathy.
True - when it’s scientific, it’s called “Medicine”
Right, but that can never be true for Homeopathy. It’s pseudoscience bullshit through and through. That said, many people conflate homeopathy with “natural remedies”, but that’s not what homeopathy is.
Homeopathy is built on the concept of “like cures like” and that as a solution becomes more dilute it becomes stronger. A newer idea (at least compared to homeopathy’s history) is that water has memory and that it “remembers” whatever it was mixed with in the past. They added this on to explain why diluting a solution so much that there’s virtually no chance of there being even a single molecule of the “medicine” left in it doesn’t actually make it not work because water remembers what you mixed it with.
So, say a person is suffering from poisoning. A typical homeopathic “cure” would be to take an amount of the poison, mix it with water, shake and stir it in a specific way, then dilute it with more water. Repeat lots of times, since the more dilute it is the stronger the “medicine” is.
Practitioners prey on the ignorance of their customers to swindle them out of their money for something that amounts to nothing more than a placebo. And while it’s possible that the placebo effect can have some beneficial effect, that doesn’t justify the existence of homeopathy.
God I hate this pseudoscience bullshit.
“By definition”, I begin “Alternative Medicine”, I continue “Has either not been proved to work, Or been proved not to work. You know what they call “alternative medicine” That’s been proved to work? Medicine.”
— Tim Minchin, Storm
I am out to revoke degrees from chiropractors.
Giving them a degree is like calling myself a writer because I post bullshit comments on Lemmy.
Obesity modeled as a disease that should be treated with drugs like Ozempic. I’ll buy that it’s like that for some very small set of people, but I can’t shake the assumption that drug companies are exaggerating so they can sell more, and most of their customers are just too lazy to try proper diet and exercise.
