Science desk
< October 8	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 9

Does anyone know of philosophers or physicists who've discussed turtles all the way down vs.

"a deeper, more general explanation at each new level, consistent with the narrower conditions at previous levels; all the way down"? I have favored the second view, but i've been wondering if turtle preferrers argue that the second view isn't that much different. Thanks, Rich199.33.32.40 (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A physicist who would take seriously the "turtles all the way down" story might have chosen the wrong career. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be conflating our deepening explanation over time with the more metaphysically fundamental layers themselves. But our order of discovery is just historical accident. Or am I misunderstanding you? μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe order of discovery depends on accidents of our particular history and life form, but how do we know for sure, and would it necessarily be a greatly different ordering anyway?-if it were a countable set of discoveries i'm betting the orderings would coincide on a cofinite set... Deeper explanations are assumed by most, not just by me, to be more metaphysically fundamental. But say we're talking about the more metaphysically fundamental layers-then what i mean is replace the word "turtles" with the words "more metaphysically fundamental layers". Couldn't someone "looking" at the column of layers from "outside" argue that "turtles all the way down" is no more and no less reasonable than "more metaphysically fundamental layers all the way down"? Isn't it the same? Thanks again. P.S. I don't mean turtles literally.76.218.104.120 (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Davies in Stephen Hawking have discussed this in their popular books. Also, you can think of the now debunked Bootstrap model as a sort of "turtles all the way down" where you then can't distinguish between which turtels are supposed to be further down than others, so you have one big soup of turtles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the grammaticality of the two statements above this, to say the least. But "How do we know for sure that not X" is not a rational argument. It places the burden of proof on the challenger, where it does not belong. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry

I want to know that Why cations are arranged in groups in salt analysis and on what basis they are arranged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgvineetgoel (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are talking about qualitative inorganic analysis? The groups are based on their properties...which ones all have similar behavior in terms of solubility, etc. The article I linked has lots of details. The deeper why ("why do they have these properties?") depends on which property you want to consider. DMacks (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saturated fat research

Why is there conflicting research about saturated fat intake in humans? Some say its linked to heart disease, others say its beneficial to the body. Clover345 (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such studies are almost always statistical, rather than physiochemical. There's little discord nowadays over things like chemical configuration, while "links" directly imply statistical analyses of various groups under various conditions and based on various assumptions. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There could also be confounding factors. Perhaps all saturated fats are not the same, health-wise, or they are only harmful in conjunction with other dietary, lifestyle, or genetic factors. One obvious problem is that foods high in saturated fats may also contain trans-fats, so, if you don't account for that, and one study of saturated fats includes trans fats in the diet, while another excludes them, the first study might well conclude they are unhealthier than the 2nd study. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And these usually aren't "controlled" studies: you can't prescribe a strict diet to healthy volunteers and register the results years later, the best you can hope for is people keeping track of what they eat, and hope they do it accurately. And even those studies are rare, most results will come from epidemiological longitudinal studies like the Seven Countries Study, or more basic like the mediterranean diet where it was noticed that cardiovascular disease rates were lower than in the rest of Europe despite the typical diet containing much fat.

One likely explanation is mentioned in Epidemiological study: Advocacy: the results are exagerated and the uncertainties and caveats aren't mentioned in public health campaigns because it's easier to get the message across if the message is black and white.

Some studies may only have had data about the high or low intake of saturated fat, not about what replaced the fats in the low intake group: in one population it may be mostly unsaturated fat, in another mostly carbohydrates. But why speculate when we have an article about it: Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy Ssscienccce (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC) edit: looks like I'm a bit late with that. Don't understand why I didn't get an edit conflict with Red Acts post, wasn't there when I edited... Ssscienccce (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming consensus among medical, nutritional and governmental authorities is that saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Contradictory findings tend to be funded by the meat and dairy industries, which don't like the mainstream consensus because their products are full of saturated fat. See Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy. Red Act (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serous ? Or are you trying to wind us up? You appear to misunderstand the root of Contradiction.This controversy did not exist until the Canola industry lobbed and financially supported prominent individuals of medical professions and lawmakers. Look at their 'logical' justifications. Why do they ignore any references that the Inuit had a diet 'very high' in saturated fats.

I put it to you that you don't mean 'consensus' but mean 'industrially paid for' apologists who are indoctrinated to accuse all dissenters of being 'fringe”.

Have you noticed that on Forums promoting Canola questioning this, The threads mysteriously comes to a halt. “This thread is ended” They can't answer why the Inuits did not have heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. The best they can do, is point to resent studies, by which time the Inuits have adopted Western diets and taken up smoking tobacco. That might satisfy sheeples in (say) the US of A but in Europe we also have the Norwegians, Swedes, Finish and Northern Russian Nenets people --- same story.

Due to climatic extremes, they require a high calorific food stuff (guess what – its fat) to survive the winter. If you don't quite understand this then question an Arctic explorer. They will inform you, that when they start feeling cold they put a large lump of butter (or similar fat) into their mouths. People in Detroit, thinking that they are further north than Canada might like to think they know what a cold winter is like. Yet, think about it, they're in a modern city. It is not the quantity of 'studies' that the Canola industry distributes that one should consider but the quality. --Aspro (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how my home town of Detroit got dragged into this, but it is north of (a tiny bit of) Canada. As for Inuits, having had that diet for thousands of years, they might have adapted to it. I believe we've already found genetic factors that make some people get heart disease from diets which don't cause this in others. So, it's quite possible that such a diet over many generations would cause the survivors to pass on more of the genes which resist heart disease, while those who were susceptible died early and left fewer offspring. This would be similar to how the sickle-cell gene became more common in African populations where malaria is endemic, since it offers some protection from malaria. And, unlike the major negative of the sickle-cell gene, where two copies is deadly, the disadvantage of the "healthy heart gene(s)", if any, is probably milder. StuRat (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stu. I don't think any reasonable man could find fault with your logic. Therefore, I think the fault is in my over simplification. The Inuit/Swede/Nenets/etc., eat (or once eat) a lot of raw fats. The ate the whole animal. So they had a higher ratio of Omega fats. These fats are lacking in the western diet. Indeed, western food manufactures like to remove them during processing because they go rancid quickly, thus shortening the self-life of their product. It appears that it it not the 'quantity' of saturated fats that per se (a fancy term used by academics that just means “by itself”) that causes western diseases but the lack of these other fats in the diet. They also took up smoking tobacco too (a compounding factor). Does this make sense? IMHO I think rape seed oil (Canola) is a very good oil to use in cooking. Yet, there are limits. For instance, I would not think of use extra virgin olive oil in a pan which the recipe requires you to heat it up until it is smoking. Olive oil is too delicate. If you want smoking hot oil, use something like coconut oil. Yes, it saturated but it can stand the heat without breaking down in to tans-fatty acids and other horrible things. (P.S. It may only be October but if any one is thinking about visiting Stu's home town – now is the time to get your long johns out and check that the moth-balls have served their purpose and not left holes where you don't want holes – spending winter in California is even better ;-)--Aspro (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I seem to be adapted to walking long distances in cold weather. I once walked home 10 miles in January when my car died on me. It was well below freezing, but I was walking through salt-water slush, since the roads had been salted. I was only wearing sneakers, which were soaked. These conditions cause frostbitten toes in others, but my feet didn't even go numb. I could easily imagine myself walking across the Aleutian island land bridge that existed during the ice age, from Asia to North America. StuRat (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

My post was totally serious, and not done to wind people up. I'm going by Wikipedia's reliable source policy. As per the article I cited, the World Health Organization, the American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, the British Dietetic Association, the American Heart Association, the British Heart Foundation, the World Heart Federation, the British National Health Service, the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority all say that saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Those organizations all count as reliable sources. I think you'd have a hard time coming up with much in the way of reliable sources to support the claim that those organizations all succumbed to some canola-funded conspiracy. Red Act (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let us take the wonderful, independent, consumer safeguarding FDA. Fist thing that Google shows is: FDA admits lobbyists influenced knee device approval. Your mistake is one of argumentum ad auctoritatem--Aspro (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Well, you're using the poisoning the well fallacy by discrediting the FDA on an unrelated matter. And I would only be using appeal to authority if I claimed that it was true that saturated fat was a risk factor for cardiovascular disease because all of those authorities said so, which I didn't actually do. What's true is irrelevant here; it's not our job to determine what's true. On Wikipedia, what's important is verifiability, not truth. And giving a source that points out that ten authorities say something does make what they're saying verifiable. Red Act (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Verifiablity, not Truth does not mean we don't care about the truth. We want Verifiable truths. The threshold for including a truth as a truth in Wikipedia is not its truthfulness, it is its verifiableness. Verifiable means "Able to be shown to be true", and you cannot have something which is verifiable which is not also true to start with. Verifability, not truth just means that asserting the truthfulness of a statement is insufficient. We also need to show that it is true by verifying it. Veri- from veritas, -ify, meaning "to make", and -able, meaning "to have the ability to" Verifiable. Able to be made true. --Jayron32 20:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake. The FDA has repeatedly poisoned their own well -not me! As for Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. This is a help page. As I have intimated, it is not quantity but quality that is important here. Consider this, by the English writer Lewis Carroll.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:

That alone should encourage the crew.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:

What I tell you three times is true." [1]

If you still believe that what you have heard three times from authority figures is the truth, then when you leave school and enter the real world you might be in for a big shock. If you go onto enter say Sales & Marketing you will be indoctrinated not to question but to endless repeat the lies/propaganda/etc. I've seen it played out many times. People get to 40's and suddenly realize that the riches that where 'promised' to them haven't arrived. Their kids are drug addicts and their maintenance payments to their ex-wives have left them paupers. They have brought upon themselves the curs of Mammon. Yet, they whine “but the people that 'promised' me riches are stinking rich!??? Yes, they are stinking rich because the know a naïve pawn when the come across one. Anyway I have gone off topic but I now see you are not trying to wind us up but are coming from an angle of naïveté.--Aspro (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess that I'm still in school is way off. And your statements have veered off into another fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. Red Act (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh. I was going by the impression 'you' were providing. Now, your turning my efforts to be guiding, in to accusing me of not only being paternalistic but attacking you -in much the same way that young teenagers do. For all I know, you might be 35. I was just going by the impression that you gave by you post, which (seamed to me) displaying the misplaced naïveté of youth. Perhaps you object to the word naïveté. OK. Forget the word. I don't think that I am attacking 'you' by pointing out that some people would do well to examine what they allow to form their beliefs. --Aspro (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L-Carnitine could be a confounding factor here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]