A General Science Refresher

[J. Allen]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

It will sound like an obvious suggestion, but I found good ol' wiki quite informative and usually accurate when I wanted to read something outside my fiend of expertise. I wouldn't use it in one of my papers, of course, but it's not bad as general knowledge goes. Also, it allows you more freedom to jump from link to link instead of taking you into a pre-set journey like a book.

Yeah, Wiki's good, and I can spend (and have spent) hours going from link to link, I'm just concerned with the free editing nature.

[iguana_tonante]

J. Allen wrote:

---

Yeah, Wiki's good, and I can spend (and have spent) hours going from link to link

I know what you mean, that's one of my definitions of a perfect afternoon (some others involve vanilla-scented candles, massage oils, and chocolate cream... ).

J. Allen wrote:

---

I'm just concerned with the free editing nature.

I understand, but I've found it's pretty solid when dealing with garden-variety science.

[J. Allen]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

I know what you mean, that's one of my definitions of a perfect afternoon (some others involve vanilla-scented candles, massage oils, and chocolate cream... ).

I understand, but I've found it's pretty solid when dealing with garden-variety science.

That's true. Although when it comes to wasting time and following up on links, that award has to go to Cracked.com. HUGE time waster.

[iguana_tonante]

For me it's TVTropes. It's like a black hole of of genius and win.

[J. Allen]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

For me it's TVTropes. It's like a black hole of of genius and win.

Yep, TVTropes can keep me reading a while, too. Jesus, it's no wonder I can't get anything done! Damn you, internets!

[The Borg Queen]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

For me it's TVTropes. It's like a black hole of of genius and win.

I'm sure it has some sort of magic time-dilation effect going on.

I can spend 30 minutes reading articles and then suddenly it's 4 hours later... WTF, internet?

[KJbushway]

This forum actually helps me, my education came from GA and I just graduated and I feel the same way as you do.

This helps.

[ThankQ]

Jadzia wrote:

---

One way to change that status quo is to start science topics yourself.

Science that's new and interesting often gets posted in misc, which leaves us with:

- old science, which we already know and have no reason to talk about.
- uninteresting science, which nobody wants to talk about.
- regular stuff, like news of the latest shuttle launch... which I happen to find uninteresting.
- non-science, which we moderate out.
- hypotheticals, which have a history of drawing a crowd of critics and/or flames.

Oh, I think you're probably totally right (probably totally?). Don't misunderstand, I'm not complaining about it, I'm just getting in a quick whine. Don't know if you were part, but I made a big TNZ thread about this about a year ago, and after that I actually did try starting a thread or two a week in here, but only one or two ever caught on for more that 3-5 posts. So, I figured I'd attack it another way, and add my voice to just about every sciencie thread I saw, regardless of how much that particular subject actually interested me. That's how threads balloon, right? The replies can become exponential. But not much luck that way, either.

I gave it a shot. But now I do just what you said, I'll start one I want in MISC. Can't do it too often though, people get pissy at you if you start too many grown up-themed threads in the middle of the "Talk about you winkie" and "Is bread pudding the seed of Satan?" threads.

I should probably join different fora/boards to get what I really want, but I still have that thing in my head about joining too many interent things. I don't want to be the 21st century version of the old lady with 87 cats all named after Bible characters.

And yes, bread pudding is the seed of Satan. Nasty, nasty stuff.

[ThankQ]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

I know what you mean, that's one of my definitions of a perfect afternoon (some others involve vanilla-scented candles, massage oils, and chocolate cream... ).

I call it Burking. As in "Connections". Everyone hates it, and there's no way in hell it will catch on, but dammit, I like it!

[Zion Ravescene]

Jadzia wrote:

---

One way to change that status quo is to start science topics yourself.

Or, failing that, start a series of SciTech avatar contests.

[MetalPants]

Zion Ravescene wrote:

---

Or, failing that, start a series of SciTech avatar contests.

Yeah with the first theme being your favorite subatomic particle.

[Zion Ravescene]

MetalPants wrote:

---

Yeah with the first theme being your favorite subatomic particle.

That's actually a good idea. And they'd have to be life-sized.

[Rageforthemachine]

Some books I have found most helpful:

Asimov's New Guide To Science: Obviously dated, but very encyclopedic. Clear reading, but Asimov doesn't dumb it down either. http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-...5430001&sr=1-1

The Sciences: An Integrated Approach: Another encyclopedic work that also shows the relationships and themes that guide science. Bit of a conundrum though, the newer of a version you get the much steeper the price. http://www.amazon.com/Sciences-Integ...5430131&sr=1-1

Science Matters: By the same authors as above, but much more concise, readable, and especially cheaper. http://www.amazon.com/Science-Matter...5430131&sr=1-2

Almost Everyone's Guide To Science: Gribbin wrote the In Search Of books some of my favorite intros to topics in Physics/Astronomy. Very readable. http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Everyon...5430484&sr=1-8

[MetalPants]

I always found Stephen Hawking's books to be good myself.

[ThankQ]

^That's not exactly "general" science.