Is -6 colder than -8?

[Peace]

I really don't know.The way Berkinstock sizes their sandals is weird.

My feet are 10 1/2 but translate that to "Berkshire" and it becomes 30-40 something.

 

[Lau]

I really don't know.The way Berkinstock sizes their sandals is weird.

My feet are 10 1/2 but translate that to "Berkshire" and it becomes 30-40 something.

I didn't know it was that exact.

 

[skunk]

See! I put "Berks" on my feet.

Actually, they would probably be "Birks"... unless you're really weird. Perhaps you're thinking of Merkinsocks.

 

[BKKbill]

The only reason I came to this thread was to see how there could be 128 posts for the question is -6 colder than -8. Now I know. As for weather just use a rock.
* If rock is wet it is raining.
* If rock is white it is snowing.
* If rock is shaking there is an earthquake.
* If rock is dry, the weather is fair.
* if rock is swinging, it's windy.
* If rock is warm, the sun is out.
* If rock is not visible, it's dark outside...or your eyes are closed.
* If rock is under water, there is a flood.
* If rock is gone there is a tornado (Run!!)

 

[shikimo]

It is more just the state of a lot of basic science people just do not seem to get.

I can think of countless example of things I have read or seen people argue that would make anyone with an understanding of basic science just drop there jaw.

It just a sad state that next to now one has ever heard of a lot of basic science jargon.

Read your last two posts carefully...how can anyone with your apparent knowledge of written English possibly comment on the level of education and awareness in the general public?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Read your last two posts carefully...how can anyone with your apparent knowledge of written English possibly comment on the level of education and awareness in the general public?

Go live with dyslexia for a while and come back and talk to me. It is not that I do not understand written English and how it to write it. It is more I do not see the errors. Between the brain to my hands words or parts of words will get dropped. I speak correctly I know the rules I just physically do not see the errors. Some one else makes mistakes in their post and I will not see the errors. Because of my disability my brain adapted to words getting dropped when I read by automatically putting them in. It relays on common patterns in writing and automatically puts them in so I never will see them. As for as my brain see it is corrected. If you read what my brain is telling me my eyes are seeing it would look corrected. My brain corrects the errors to what the grammar rules say it should be.


So yes I can comment on the general public. Believe me live with dyslexia long enough it not hard to pick out who is dyslexic and who just has very poor understanding of written English.

 

[shikimo]

Go live with dyslexia for a while and come back and talk to me. It is not that I do not understand written English and how it to write it. It is more I do not see the errors. Between the brain to my hands words or parts of words will get dropped. I speak correctly I know the rules I just physically do not see the errors. Some one else makes mistakes in their post and I will not see the errors. Because of my disability my brain adapted to words getting dropped when I read by automatically putting them in. It relays on common patterns in writing and automatically puts them in so I never will see them. As for as my brain see it is corrected. If you read what my brain is telling me my eyes are seeing it would look corrected. My brain corrects the errors to what the grammar rules say it should be.


So yes I can comment on the general public. Believe me live with dyslexia long enough it not hard to pick out who is dyslexic and who just has very poor understanding of written English.

Fair enough...but see the other side of the coin. Some people's brains work in such a way that they don't understand numbers and scientific things without great trial and difficulty; why should they be labeled as 'sad'? I've never picked on anyone in these forums for bad writing before--and there's plenty of it to pick on--but you were deploring the state of scientific awareness in the general public as if you were better than people who don't have whatever math/science background you have. It is of course unfair for me to pick on you for not being able to write correctly without knowing more about you...but that was the POINT: you did the same thing. There are many types of knowledge and ability, none more or less valuable to the human race.

In my academic career I have known a number of brilliant dyslexics who have beaten the odds and done great work, despite heaps of discrimination added on to the dyslexia-related problems...my sister-in-law is about to finish medical school after years of fighting dyslexia-related discrimination and I have piles of respect for her. I don't think I would've handled it so well. But she and the others, as people extra-sensitive to this sort of abuse, don't usually chide people for not being better at another facet of human knowledge and talent. Rather than giving you the right to make such comments, your struggle should make you more sensitive than anyone to the danger of judging without knowing all the facts.

 

[Evangelion]

Hold on a moment. The grammar on your website is not so great either, maybe she is really good at that. Being poor at maths does not make someone a 'tard.

This isn't about math, this is about common sense.

I remember a friend of mine having a similar discussion as this with our teacher. But we were 7 year old at the time, and my friend understood the concept after 5 minutes of explanation.

 

[Evangelion]

Not really. All I need is here.

Well, all I need is in my homecountry as well. The point of going abroad is not because they have something that your home does not. Most people go there to visit other cultures. It would do you (and everyone else for that matter) good to visit other countries. It would give you a new and wider perspective on things.

 

[Evangelion]

I'm just arguing that the fact that Celsius is based on water doesn't make it any less an arbitrary system (or any better a system) than Fahrenheit.

Well, Fahrenheith is based on body-temperature, right? typical body-temperature is 100F, right? Well, there's arbitration right there. Whose body-temperature? On what circumstances? Evening or morning (there's a difference in body-temperature in evening and mornings)? After standing naked in snow or not?

Compare that to Celcius: Freezing-point of water and boiling-point of water at air-pressure of one atmosphere. There's not much room for questions there.

while you might say that Celsius is "arbitary", since it's creator had to select certain points of reference. But fact remains that those points of reference are a lot more universal and objective than the reference-points in Fahrenheith are. Hell, creator of Fahrenheith got one of his reference-points by sticking the thermometer under his armpit and checking the result!

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Fair enough...but see the other side of the coin. Some people's brains work in such a way that they don't understand numbers and scientific things without great trial and difficulty; why should they be labeled as 'sad'? I've never picked on anyone in these forums for bad writing before--and there's plenty of it to pick on--but you were deploring the state of scientific awareness in the general public as if you were better than people who don't have whatever math/science background you have. It is of course unfair for me to pick on you for not being able to write correctly without knowing more about you...but that was the POINT: you did the same thing. There are many types of knowledge and ability, none more or less valuable to the human race.

In my academic career I have known a number of brilliant dyslexics who have beaten the odds and done great work, despite heaps of discrimination added on to the dyslexia-related problems...my sister-in-law is about to finish medical school after years of fighting dyslexia-related discrimination and I have piles of respect for her. I don't think I would've handled it so well. But she and the others, as people extra-sensitive to this sort of abuse, don't usually chide people for not being better at another facet of human knowledge and talent. Rather than giving you the right to make such comments, your struggle should make you more sensitive than anyone to the danger of judging without knowing all the facts.

Sorry if I came across that way. Those countless examples of arguments that would make your jaw just drop have been across multiple forums. It is one thing not to understand science it is another to argue like you are right. Some of the one people have had where so sad that I could not even think of how to debate it back because it was basic principles they had a complete lack of understanding. Like I said it is one thing not to understand basic science it is another to argue argue against those things. That is when I start getting a little more condescending. You are not going to see me trying to argue against some grammatical or finer points of English. I know I do not understand it.

It sad how few people have seen all the temperatures scales in this world. I found it annoying the first time I ever heard the term Rankine was in college. Now yeah it is a scale never really used but still I think people should be seeing it in basic HS science like they do the other scales. It is just some basics.

 

[notjustjay]

It sad how few people have seen all the temperatures scales in this world. I found it annoying the first time I ever heard the term Rankine was in college. Now yeah it is a scale never really used but still I think people should be seeing it in basic HS science like they do the other scales. It is just some basics.

I'm 29, went through two engineering degrees (both in computers and software, granted, but there was at least a year of "core" engineering courses) and the first I heard about the Rankine scale (that I remember!) was just now in this thread.

But hey, you learn something new every day. And, as previous posters have mentioned, I am not arrogant enough to ever presume that what I believe is true is absolutely correct.

 

[shikimo]

Sorry if I came across that way. Those countless examples of arguments that would make your jaw just drop have been across multiple forums. It is one thing not to understand science it is another to argue like you are right. Some of the one people have had where so sad that I could not even think of how to debate it back because it was basic principles they had a complete lack of understanding. Like I said it is one thing not to understand basic science it is another to argue argue against those things. That is when I start getting a little more condescending. You are not going to see me trying to argue against some grammatical or finer points of English. I know I do not understand it.

It sad how few people have seen all the temperatures scales in this world. I found it annoying the first time I ever heard the term Rankine was in college. Now yeah it is a scale never really used but still I think people should be seeing it in basic HS science like they do the other scales. It is just some basics.

Right on...peace.

Now, what I would really love to know is...what the hell is the Rankine scale, in what sort of science is it employed, and what does it do that Kelvin does not? Add me to the list of well-educated people who learned about it in this thread.

 

[Peace]

Actually, they would probably be "Birks"... unless you're really weird. Perhaps you're thinking of Merkinsocks.

I was under the influence that day.No excuse for bad spelling though.

 

[imac/cheese]

Right on...peace.

Now, what I would really love to know is...what the hell is the Rankine scale, in what sort of science is it employed, and what does it do that Kelvin does not? Add me to the list of well-educated people who learned about it in this thread.

Rankine is used a lot in certain calculations that require an absolute temperature while using other english based units. A lot of heat transfer equations use rankine. You need an absolute temperature if you are going to raise that temperature to a power during your calculations. It doesn't do anything that Kelvin can't do except keep the units in the English system while using absolute temperatures.

In other words, it is not used in basic science very much at all and no one ever needs to know the rankine scale unless you plan on using it for a design or other technical purpose.

 

[Rhosfelt]

The easiest explanation for "math" instead of "maths" is that while we were being introduced grammar we had one mathematics class and thus were not talking 2 mathematics classes... so we were taking "math"..

However during my senior year I had AP Statistics or "stats" and a geometry class (not "geo(s)" that is studying rocks -_-) so I remember saying "maths" and everyone looked at me weird, including my AP Argument and Rhetoric/journalism teacher...

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Right on...peace.

Now, what I would really love to know is...what the hell is the Rankine scale, in what sort of science is it employed, and what does it do that Kelvin does not? Add me to the list of well-educated people who learned about it in this thread.

Well I am going to assume you know what kelvin is. 0 kelvin is absolute 0.

0 Rankine is absolute Zero as well.

The steps between each degree in Rankine is the same distances as it is Fahrenheit . Which is why in a early post Rankine is to Fahrenheit as Kelvin is to Celsius

I hope that clears things up.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Rankine is used a lot in certain calculations that require an absolute temperature while using other english based units. A lot of heat transfer equations use rankine. You need an absolute temperature if you are going to raise that temperature to a power during your calculations. It doesn't do anything that Kelvin can't do except keep the units in the English system while using absolute temperatures.

In other words, it is not used in basic science very much at all and no one ever needs to know the rankine scale unless you plan on using it for a design or other technical purpose.

Same thing can be said about the Kelvin scale. The only time it is needed to be used is in the same things Rankin needs to be used. In basic science it is not used very often. Just not one ever learned about Rankin but most people know about Kelvin and they are the exact same thing.

 

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

The easiest explanation for "math" instead of "maths" is that while we were being introduced grammar we had one mathematics class and thus were not talking 2 mathematics classes... so we were taking "math"..

However during my senior year I had AP Statistics or "stats" and a geometry class (not "geo(s)" that is studying rocks -_-) so I remember saying "maths" and everyone looked at me weird, including my AP Argument and Rhetoric/journalism teacher...

I think the best explanation for "math" (though an explanation isn't necessary at all; see above post that explains how "math" came first) is that "mathematics," while a plural noun, is thought of as singular nowadays. It used to mean all of the math fields (algebra, trig, geometry, etc.) combined, but now it is one field inofitself. It's like "scissors" and "pants" now; singular nouns that appear plural. "Mathematic" isn't even a noun. There is no singular form. In America, we just kind of see "mathematics" as the singular form. Therefore, when you shorten the word the "s" isn't necessary.

Either way, what makes sense is going to be how you were raised to say it. I'm not going to try to persuade brits our way is right, and I won't be persuaded that their way is right. All I can say is I'm glad we say "math" here, since "maths" is harder to say.

 

[maven8]

Fair enough...but see the other side of the coin. Some people's brains work in such a way that they don't understand numbers and scientific things without great trial and difficulty; why should they be labeled as 'sad'? I've never picked on anyone in these forums for bad writing before--and there's plenty of it to pick on--but you were deploring the state of scientific awareness in the general public as if you were better than people who don't have whatever math/science background you have.

I'll tell you why that is sad. Because if taken to its logical conclusion your thinking basically equates: everyone is "special" in their own "special" way. They all have their special skills or talents or whatever it may be.

Such thinking completely takes away any incentive for anyone to be a better, more well rounded individual. If I'm already great the way I am, why should I learn more? Why should I try to find out about things that may not have any relevance to what I do? It's hard, and I may not get it at first!
Yes, you can live your whole life not caring about anything other then what you're already familiar with, or even just be happy about the fact that there's a roof over your head and food on your table.
But those of us who are interested in science have one thing in common. We want to know more about the world that we live in, and it's fundamental truths. We seek answers to the most basic questions, such as where we came from, what kind of universe we live in, etc.

I don't think anyone is expecting you to know something obscure like say the albedo of the earth, but I have met plenty of people that don't even know that the sun is a star, or that it's what makes life possible for us.
By thinking about such things we aspire to know more, and not just be content with being just like everyone else.

 

[shikimo]

I'll tell you why that is sad. Because if taken to its logical conclusion your thinking basically equates: everyone is "special" in their own "special" way. They all have their special skills or talents or whatever it may be.

Such thinking completely takes away any incentive for anyone to be a better, more well rounded individual. If I'm already great the way I am, why should I learn more? Why should I try to find out about things that may not have any relevance to what I do? It's hard, and I may not get it at first!
Yes, you can live your whole life not caring about anything other then what you're already familiar with, or even just be happy about the fact that there's a roof over your head and food on your table.
But those of us who are interested in science have one thing in common. We want to know more about the world that we live in, and it's fundamental truths. We seek answers to the most basic questions, such as where we came from, what kind of universe we live in, etc.

I don't think anyone is expecting you to know something obscure like say the albedo of the earth, but I have met plenty of people that don't even know that the sun is a star, or that it's what makes life possible for us.
By thinking about such things we aspire to know more, and not just be content with being just like everyone else.

Whoa, easy there Ayn Rand; I'm pretty sure if you read my post closely you will not find any recommendation that we all put on Mao suits, stop going to school and smelt iron in our backyards to maintain social equality. In fact, what you will find is me saying that some of the people I respect the most in the world are my colleagues who have beaten the odds of dyslexia through hard work, thus BETTERING THEMSELVES through individual effort. And the post that you hijacked to make your Objectivist rant against was written in the context of whether or not it is sad to be unaware of an obscure temperature scale that has no application in the normal world and of which a vast majority of people are, in fact, unaware.

And besides, what's wrong with saying that everyone has their own special talents to develop? You either are or want to be some sort of scientist: fantastic! I wish you the best. Another guy wants to be a translator, another guy wants a good union job to take care of his family, someone else wants to be a businesswoman and maybe aanother person wants to be a travel agent or a plumber. Who gives a rat's ass if other people don't know jack about what interests you? Is science more special than history or journalism or waste removal? If my garbageman picks up the trash on time, drives safely and lives a nice life with his well-earned union paycheck, does it make him 'sad' if he doesn't understand the exact nature of the yellow thing in the sky that keeps us warm?

 

[maven8]

Whoa, easy there Ayn Rand; I'm pretty sure if you read my post closely you will not find any recommendation that we all put on Mao suits, stop going to school and smelt iron in our backyards to maintain social equality.

Nice try except that I never said you are arguing for communism. I said that you are arguing for the status quo, which I don't think is making our society any smarter.

In fact, what you will find is me saying that some of the people I respect the most in the world are my colleagues who have beaten the odds of dyslexia through hard work, thus BETTERING THEMSELVES through individual effort.

You only said that after you realized that the person you were replying to was not "arrogant".

And the post that you hijacked to make your Objectivist rant against was written in the context of whether or not it is sad to be unaware of an obscure temperature scale that has no application in the normal world and of which a vast majority of people are, in fact, unaware.

Nice attempt at twisting things, but what he was actually arguing was that people not knowing "basic" truths about science is a sad thing. Which you don't agree with. That's fine, but don't make it out to look like he was expecting you to memorize random temperature scales.

And besides, what's wrong with saying that everyone has their own special talents to develop? You either are or want to be some sort of scientist: fantastic! I wish you the best. Another guy wants to be a translator, another guy wants a good union job to take care of his family, someone else wants to be a businesswoman and maybe aanother person wants to be a travel agent or a plumber. Who gives a rat's ass if other people don't know jack about what interests you? Is science more special than history or journalism or waste removal? If my garbageman picks up the trash on time, drives safely and lives a nice life with his well-earned union paycheck, does it make him 'sad' if he doesn't understand the exact nature of the yellow thing in the sky that keeps us warm?

First, I apologize for quoting an animated film, but if everyone is special, no one is. Second, I actually have nothing to do with the scientific community, I'm an artist (designer). And there's nothing wrong with aspiring to be whatever you want to be since we certainly don't need every person on the planet to be a scientist. But people should ask questions, people should have some interest in the world around them. If everyone thought the way you do we wouldn't even HAVE scientists. Everyone would be content with the pursuit of whatever it is they are doing, and not give a rats ass about anything else as you put it. What that does is lead to a general dumbing down of society.

 

[notjustjay]

First, I apologize for quoting an animated film, but if everyone is special, no one is.

Your movie reference and the Ayn Rand reference above led me to discover this movie review, which I thought was interesting. I had never thought about the connection between (neo) Objectivism and The Incredibles.. fascinating.

 

[shikimo]

If everyone thought the way you do...

Tell me how it is that I think, please. It would be very enlightening, especially from someone who knows me so well.

 

[maven8]

Your movie reference and the Ayn Rand reference above led me to discover this movie review, which I thought was interesting. I had never thought about the connection between (neo) Objectivism and The Incredibles.. fascinating.

That is indeed fascinating, though the philosophy doesn't really come from Pixar, it comes specifically from Brad Bird. Just like Ratatoille shows a different facet of his philosophy, that genius can be found in the unlikeliest of places.