Real Clever Science

My name is Ari Einbinder. This is the journal of my travels into the realm of science and science education.
I've worked at science museums in NY (NYSCI and AMNH) and across Europe. Currently I'm studying "museology" (aka museum studies) at UW in Seattle, WA. I'm also one of Tumblr's Science Section editors.

I discuss anything that fascinates me, but popular topics include evolution, transhumanism (e.g BCI), futurism, psychology, quantum computing, climate change, sustainability, genetic engineering and occasionally politics - to name a few.

Enjoy!

~~~

Talk To Me


For a quick glance at previous posts, check out the Archive

Visit my website: RealCleverName.com
Thu Nov 1
rzinz:

sciencecenter:

All of this hurricane talk has put me in the mood to talk about global warming…
(Source)

I love this gif, but I don’t like the snark at the end- “realists”? why not scientists? statisticians? 
I mean, clearly the skeptics are fitting multiple trendlines instead of one, and therein is the obvious problem. 
I just don’t think “realists” is the correct term to describe the process of fitting a trendline to all the data. And calling the other side ‘skeptics’ is also inaccurate. If this was a problem on, say, a test about statistics, they would all have failed.
I don’t know what to call them, though. Calling them “skeptics” cheapens the word, and calling the other side “realists” doesn’t give them enough credit. Maybe “The wrong way to look at climate data” vs “The right way to look at climate data”.
But I mean still though, amazing gif

Reblogging for the gif - and the commentary.

rzinz:

sciencecenter:

All of this hurricane talk has put me in the mood to talk about global warming…

(Source)

I love this gif, but I don’t like the snark at the end- “realists”? why not scientists? statisticians? 

I mean, clearly the skeptics are fitting multiple trendlines instead of one, and therein is the obvious problem. 

I just don’t think “realists” is the correct term to describe the process of fitting a trendline to all the data. And calling the other side ‘skeptics’ is also inaccurate. If this was a problem on, say, a test about statistics, they would all have failed.

I don’t know what to call them, though. Calling them “skeptics” cheapens the word, and calling the other side “realists” doesn’t give them enough credit. Maybe “The wrong way to look at climate data” vs “The right way to look at climate data”.

But I mean still though, amazing gif

Reblogging for the gif - and the commentary.

(Source: jimharris.com)