The Suck Zone - Need a science forum

[Saint Guinefort]

Hence my point. You both are playing semantic games about how to categorize your individual specialties.

Actually I'm NOT. I thought I had made that point very clear.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I only see pictures of indefinable objects which mean nothing, at least to me.

Until I get a better explanation of what that shit is,
not that I need or particularly want one,
I'll steer my thoughts to important things...like donuts.

Don't have any now, so I'm off to grab a brownie upstairs.
Am I, in my dotage, finally learning to make do?

Nah. I just don't have the energy for a donut shop run right now.
I might get sucked up by a black hole, anyway.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Actually I'm NOT. I thought I had made that point very clear.

You made your opinion clear, son. I disagree.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You made your opinion clear, son. I disagree.

I am genuinely curious why you think I'm attempting to play a semantic game. I see the document as both a geologic and mining text but I understand that neither field existed when Agricola wrote it. How on earth could I be playing semantics?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am genuinely curious why you think I'm attempting to play a semantic game. I see the document as both a geologic and mining text but I understand that neither field existed when Agricola wrote it. How on earth could I be playing semantics?

The argument you and Rune are having about whether or not a 500 year old book is a "geology text".

Carter was DEFINITELY among the top. He was a trained nuclear operator as I understood it.

Herbert Hoover was no slouch either. He was a mining geologist and he and his wife were the first people to translate De Re Metallica (a famous geology text from Agricola) from Latin into English.

LOL, it wasn't a geology text book.

Yeah a geology textbook. An early one, granted, but your point isn't really particularly real since geology as a field didn't exist at the time Agricola wrote it.

Hate to break it to you but among those of us who actually got our degrees in geology it is considered an early geologic text.

 

[Cypress]

I am genuinely curious why you think I'm attempting to play a semantic game. I see the document as both a geologic and mining text but I understand that neither field existed when Agricola wrote it. How on earth could I be playing semantics?

I suspect it seems like immersion in minutiae to some.

I always felt like Charles Lyell's seminal work Principals of Geology was widely considered the landmark early geology textbook. Darwin took it with him on his voyage on the Beagle.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I suspect it seems like immersion in minutiae to some.

I always felt like Charles Lyell's seminal work Principals of Geology was widely considered the landmark early geology textbook. Darwin took it with him on his voyage on the Beagle.

Yeah, I didn't do any "word games" as I understand the relationship between the two concepts. Lyell's work is definitely some of the foundations of geology but well after Agricola.

Got to see Lyell's grave in London at Westminster. It was really cool to see.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The argument you and Rune are having about whether or not a 500 year old book is a "geology text".

And as I clearly stated: it is both a geology and mining text. My original post to which Rune was replying shortened it to a geology text (which it is, as well as a mining text).

That being said, there is NO word game on my behalf as I see it as both.

And it doesn't really change my original point at all. This was Rune's issue alone.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I suspect it seems like immersion in minutiae to some.

I always felt like Charles Lyell's seminal work Principals of Geology was widely considered the landmark early geology textbook. Darwin took it with him on his voyage on the Beagle.

My expertise in geology is related mainly to HS Natural Science and a habit of picking up pretty rocks, including fossils, in my travels.

When doing background research on Rune's and Perry's tiff, it made sense that studying rocks is an ancient area of mankind's interests for multiple reasons such as soil for crops or learning different natural materials for weapons, walls, dams and other structures.

Weapons such as flint knives and arrow heads would be among the first use of geological knowledge...but suspect a good granite rock would do for bashing in skulls. LOL

https://kcl-antiquities.co.uk/a-lar...macehead--hammer-from-cornwall-sold-942-p.asp
A large, heavy and superb Neolithic Granite perforated stone Macehead / Hammer from Cornwall.

c.3000-2500 B.C. A large, heavy and superb Neolithic Granite perforated stone Macehead / Hammer found at Chysauster, Cornwall on the 24/12/1957 and from an old Cornish collection. Expertly fashioned from a most atractive speckled pale grey granite with find location and date inked on one surface in black. Generally ovate in shape with flattened impact surfaces at either end effectively allowing this large mace head to be used both as tribal status symbol and a very effective tool or weapon. A large central hole has been painstakingly bored through the mace head to facilitate it being fixed to a large wooden handle. Totally intact and in superb condition throughout, a rare Neolithic item and an excellent example of its type, 86mm long x 77mm wide x 45mm thick.

A stick and a rock.

 

[Cypress]

Yeah, I didn't do any "word games" as I understand the relationship between the two concepts. Lyell's work is definitely some of the foundations of geology but well after Agricola.

Got to see Lyell's grave in London at Westminster. It was really cool to see.

I am biased, but Lyell should be put up there with Darwin and Maxwell!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I am biased, but Lyell should be put up there with Darwin and Maxwell!

I guarantee you he is. He is taught in the earliest geology classes and everyone who goes through a BS in geology knows Charles Lyell. Now, granted, that's just the geo-geeks, you are correct outside of geology few know the name per se. Not like Darwin.

But he is remembered and lauded by the cognoscente.

 

[Cypress]

My expertise in geology is related mainly to HS Natural Science and a habit of picking up pretty rocks, including fossils, in my travels.

When doing background research on Rune's and Perry's tiff, it made sense that studying rocks is an ancient area of mankind's interests for multiple reasons such as soil for crops or learning different natural materials for weapons, walls, dams and other structures.

Weapons such as flint knives and arrow heads would be among the first use of geological knowledge...but suspect a good granite rock would do for bashing in skulls. LOL

https://kcl-antiquities.co.uk/a-lar...macehead--hammer-from-cornwall-sold-942-p.asp
A large, heavy and superb Neolithic Granite perforated stone Macehead / Hammer from Cornwall.

You're right, from a simple perspective of engineering and weapons technology, even ancient people had to have a working knowledge of geologic materials, geologic engineering, and metallurgy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You're right, from a simple perspective of engineering and weapons technology, even ancient people had to have a working knowledge of geologic materials, geologic engineering, and metallurgy.

Is there any doubt that the fantastic tales of dragons are based upon fossils of fearsome dinosaurs?

 

[Cypress]

Is there any doubt that the fantastic tales of dragons are based upon fossils of fearsome dinosaurs?

There's an interesting topic, the origins of human myths.

According to the Creation Science Museum, humans lived among dinosaurs, so that is clearly where the dragon mythology comes frome. : )

 

[Cypress]

I guarantee you he is. He is taught in the earliest geology classes and everyone who goes through a BS in geology knows Charles Lyell. Now, granted, that's just the geo-geeks, you are correct outside of geology few know the name per se. Not like Darwin.

But he is remembered and lauded by the cognoscente.

I just don't think the other natural sciences are going to get the visibility of physics and biology, because other sciences are seen as somehow derivative from them.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I just don't think the other natural sciences are going to get the visibility of physics and biology, because other sciences are seen as somehow derivative from them.

Geology takes a beating because it is kind of where all the sciences gather and as such carries none of the cache of chemistry or physics or biology but requires all of them. I retained more biology from my paleontology class than I did from the zoology class that I took in undergrad. My thing was geochemistry. So I spent a lot more time in chemistry classes than most geo grads had.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

There's an interesting topic, the origins of human myths.

According to the Creation Science Museum, humans lived among dinosaurs, so that is clearly where the dragon mythology comes frome. : )

Oh the Creation Museum drives me BATTY! That bottom feeder, Ken Hamm, rolled into the US and set up shop in one of the more economically depressed states with his goofy Creationism museum presumably because he thought he'd be able to lure in the hicks and take advantage where needed. As we saw with his follow-on the Ark Encounter where it failed to make enough money in the early years that Hamm had to play some slick funding games to get the state to help bail him out or avoid taxes.

Ugh.

 

[Cypress]

Geology takes a beating because it is kind of where all the sciences gather and as such carries none of the cache of chemistry or physics or biology but requires all of them. I retained more biology from my paleontology class than I did from the zoology class that I took in undergrad. My thing was geochemistry. So I spent a lot more time in chemistry classes than most geo grads had.

If you stopped the average person on the street they would have heard of Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Hawking.

But you could offer them 100 dollars, and they still wouldn't be able to name a geologist, chemist, ecologist, meteorologist, entomologist.

Physics and biology are just the Queens of the sciences

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And as I clearly stated: it is both a geology and mining text. My original post to which Rune was replying shortened it to a geology text (which it is, as well as a mining text).

That being said, there is NO word game on my behalf as I see it as both.

And it doesn't really change my original point at all. This was Rune's issue alone.

You started off well then, as seems your habit, fell back into a defensive "I'm right, he's wrong" position.

FWIW, it's commonly known that most human conflict is based upon miscommunication and misperception. It appears most people need to lighten the fuck up. LOL

https://www.simpplr.com/blog/2021/causes-effects-poor-communication-workplace/
The Causes & Effects of Poor Communication in the Workplace

Workplace communication is the exchange of information and ideas within an organization, and good communication is essential in the workplace for companies to work effectively and productively. With great communication between employees and employers comes increased morale, productivity, and commitment, especially with employers who spend the time and energy to create open communication lines. These types of managers quickly build trust among employees, resulting in increased productivity and performance. Employees who effectively communicate with their colleagues and bosses continue to be valuable assets to the company....

...Poor workplace communication occurs when there is a discrepancy between what is said and what is heard, whether it be between colleagues or between an employee and a manager. More specifically, the understanding between two people is not mutual when the person being communicated misunderstands what you’re communicating to them....

The effects of poor communication may cause tensions to rise, resulting in a potential conflict between employees. Failure to communicate may cause employees to make the wrong assumptions, such as leaving other employees to pick up their work, when this task was not previously discussed between a team. Good communication prevents workplace from arising in the first place....

 

[Saint Guinefort]

If you stopped the average person on the street they would have heard of Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Hawking.

But you could offer them 100 dollars, and they still wouldn't be able to name a geologist, chemist, ecologist, meteorologist.

Physics and biology are just the Queens of the sciences

Sadly you're probably 100% correct. Some folks would know Curie for chemists, but other than that I think many would be hard pressed to name any others.