Area 51 » Science

156

followers

This proposal is now in the Beta phase — example questions are locked!

93 Example Questions

active newest votes

up vote 0 down vote

added by palanik Mar 9 '14 at 20:32

up vote 0 down vote

added by aretxabaleta Mar 19 '14 at 17:18

	Possibly more a linguistics question than science/math. – GEdgar Mar 22 '14 at 19:08
	While there is a linguistics aspect to the question, the confusion between the short and long notation permeates many scientific discussions (e.g., Earth Sciences). – aretxabaleta Apr 16 '14 at 13:04

up vote 0 down vote

added by J. H. S. Mar 30 '14 at 3:37

	Bonus points: If this were not true, do you have any idea on how such an story originated? – J. H. S. Mar 30 '14 at 3:50
	This sounds like something for Skeptics … – Wrzlprmft Mar 30 '14 at 11:10

up vote 0 down vote

added by DJClayworth Apr 15 '14 at 14:19

up vote 0 down vote

added by biogirl Apr 15 '14 at 17:33

up vote 0 down vote

added by biogirl Apr 16 '14 at 16:20

up vote 0 down vote

added by DJClayworth Apr 16 '14 at 17:15

up vote -1 down vote

added by rem Feb 18 '14 at 14:55

I really like the idea, but it seems too broad - maybe you could ask about the earliest use of the term, or early examples of pseudoscientific debunkers. – Jack M Feb 18 '14 at 19:05

Thanks for the comment. I changed the question a bit. – rem Feb 19 '14 at 10:11

up vote -1 down vote

added by kassandra Feb 24 '14 at 14:19

	This seems extremely subjective and discussion-y, and is in any case much more philosophy than history. – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Feb 24 '14 at 19:17
	Yes, indeed, it is philosophy. But I think one has to address this question before doing both mathematics and even more before doing history of mathematics. – EWL Feb 27 '14 at 7:01
	..., e.g. in the case one asks for the motivation of a mathematician to have introduced or 'invented' a certain concept. Why do you call it 'extremely subjective'? Just because @kassandra did not used more elaborate words to dance around the question? – EWL Feb 27 '14 at 7:09

up vote -2 down vote

added by kaine Feb 18 '14 at 19:07

This feels very much like archaeology. – BMS Feb 18 '14 at 22:36

It is historical chemistry. Within the last decade, the french "Institut Geopolymere" (mostly Davidovits) has been claiming that the stones were made using geopolymer chemistry. Did the ancient Egyptians know how to utilize this chemical reaction? It is controversial (I was taught they were mined), based on science (chemistry), historical (ancient egypt), and must have a definite answer (whether certain or not). I could post this on archaeology, but I don't see why it isn't on topic here too. (Better actually here as I am a material scientist mostly interested in a chemistry focused answer) – kaine Feb 19 '14 at 14:03

@kaine In view of those clarifications, I would say this is on topic - it would be better phrased as "Did the pyramid builders know X chemical technique?", though, since then it's very clearly on the history of science - you're asking about the level of chemical knowledge at a specific period. – Jack M Feb 25 '14 at 20:08

up vote -2 down vote

added by frabala Feb 28 '14 at 16:45

	To be honest, I saw this question and thought that it would be perfect to ask it at this Q&A site. – frabala Feb 28 '14 at 16:47
	Analogues of this question are considered as off-topic on various sites, and I am in favor of generic requests for feedback being off-topic on this site too. – quid Mar 1 '14 at 15:05

up vote -3 down vote

added by Todd Thomas Feb 19 '14 at 18:00

This seems to be philosophy of science, not history of science. – Jack M Feb 19 '14 at 18:20

I hope you don't discouraged by your first experience with Stackexchange. Once you get a feel for the process it gets easier. – Brian Rushton Feb 19 '14 at 19:11

This seems off topic. (It is not philosophy of science anyway, it is just a terminological mistake. "Induction" is a technical term in mathematics with a different meaning.) – Andres Caicedo Feb 19 '14 at 22:13

up vote -4 down vote

added by Todd Thomas Feb 19 '14 at 18:18

This is terminology, not history. – Jack M Feb 19 '14 at 18:22

@JackM But the meaning of the concepts has evolved differently in mathematics than in science in general, and an examination of how meanings diverged or settle into their current versions is definitely on topic. – Andres Caicedo Feb 19 '14 at 22:11

@AndresCaicedo: I agree that a question on the history of this terminology would be on topic. But as of now, that’s plainly a different question. – Wrzlprmft Feb 23 '14 at 9:36