Recent comments in /f/askscience

LORD_HOKAGE_ t1_jdwc2ks wrote

Long story short it created a more complex magnetic system that was kinda forced to be stable because of gravity forcing the inner core to be stable thus the more complex system allowed for more this stronger magnetic activity

1

dittybopper_05H t1_jdwaczh wrote

This is true, but it's also irrelevant if you live in, say, Topeka, Kansas and Aunt Edna lives in Stevens Point, Wisconsin or Abilene, Texas.

The topography required for that kind of soaring requires both the right topography and the right weather conditions.

I mean, sure, the Perlan 2 sailplane beat the altitude record set by the U-2 spy plane. That doesn't mean the USAF is going to start using sailplanes for photoreconnaissance flights.

1

ramta_jogi_oye_hoye t1_jdw8uzm wrote

Drinking a lot of water helps the kidney to filter blood easily. However too much water can simply dilute the nutrients, making you feel weak. Also, if someone has a serious heart condition, the excess water can put pressure on the heart, resulting in swelling. As long as your pee is light to pale yellow, you are fine. Creatinine test once or twice a year can help monitor kidney health.

1

Gtronns t1_jdw86h9 wrote

Yeah, ive heard some theories like that, basically we are hairless water apes.

Ive also heard that we made leaps and bounds intelligence wise once when we started cooking our food with fire. Some theories say that we started eating cooked food after scavenging the remains after a forest fire, and finding cooked meat. Hard to say what actually happened, but i find that one to be a fun one.

5

Lonely-Description85 t1_jdw7lyh wrote

There is biological evidence, can't find link atm, that when our species first started to eat saltwater fish was when our brains' frontal and temporal lobes really started to develop. Our occipitals were already highly evolved from our ape ancestors. So as we started to initially travel along ocean and river lines, eating omega rich foods skyrocketed our cognitive development even more.

5

h3rbi74 t1_jdw7iae wrote

The point of the double blinding is specifically to counteract the unconscious biases that may occur in a single blind trial, but it can’t always be proof against someone very consciously trying to circumvent the system.

Let’s say you have a single-blind trial of a new pain killer for example. The subject doesn’t know if they are getting the new drug being investigated, an old drug that’s the usual treatment, or a placebo. But because it’s NOT double blind, the researcher DOES know which bottle contained which medication and which patient gets each one. Now even if he tries really hard to be objective and impartial, he might accidentally rate one group as limping less on the treatment he thinks is going to work best, or he might avoid giving the placebo to someone he feels sorry for and wants to make sure is getting a real treatment, and accidentally skew the groups so it’s not a fair comparison.

If the same experiment were run as a double-blind experiment, one researcher or team will divide the participants into randomized groups and pass out the medication— and if at all possible that medication will be formulated to appear identical (each dose is 2 capsules of the same size and color, for example, no matter what’s inside them), and once they’ve told the participants the instructions for how to take the meds and what surveys to fill out to track their progress and when they need to come back for rechecks with the doctor(s), they’re done for now. An entirely different researcher or team will actually collect the data, and they will have absolutely no idea who is getting what. So in order to fudge the results they would need to break into the other team’s files and sneak a peek at the list of who got what, but that’s deliberate cheating at that point, not unconscious bias.

However: you’re not wrong that— like life in general— there are a LOT of ways very subtle unconscious bias can slip into the process (who gets recruited for the study, for example— do you only advertise in certain neighborhoods? In certain languages? And so on…) I just did a search for “experimental design to avoid bias” and there was no one particular great link to point you at because there were MANY resources and webinars and publications, meant to train university and medical researchers and also to look back and evaluate any bias that might only be obvious in hindsight, the better to avoid it in future.

17

Gtronns t1_jdw5plw wrote

Exactly. There are some great theories out there by evolutionary biologists.

So the idea is that we adapted a long time into trees, then the trees receded, and we adapted to the ground.

Now that we had gripping hands, and feet that could walk us places, we started being able to shape our environment and our tools, which led to greater intelligence.

Combine all of that, leads to us spreading out. Humans that went borth to Europe adapted to the lack of sunlight evolved. The humans that went on to asia evolved differently, to their climate, and they were the ones that were the ones that kept migrating, until they got to the americas (land bridge from russia to alaska that was exposed when ocean water receded into the ice caps - ocean water evaporates, clouds flow over the continents, it snows/rains, that precipitation turns to ice and stays as ice, ie a glacier, thus leading to the exposed land bridge). There they kept migrating south. The evidence for this is found in similarities that asians and native americans share genetically.

TL;DR We evolved in trees, trees stopped growing where we were, we evolved for the ground, ground got dry, we evolved to travel. We traveled far while the oceans were low. Go humans!!

3