Not my post but I'll add a little meta observation anyway: I can't see why this isn't taking off at HN.
I've personally found the recent discovery of the giant octopus interesting. It has been reported by sailors for numerous times as far as I know, yet science has shown little intereset until a specimen was found.
In the same vein the fact that wolves have attacked humans in the last 5 years is very interesting. When I grew up we were taught that wolves were afraid of humans and none of the old stories were true. (I have come to the conclusion top trust naval officers and grandparents more than scientists in such cases.)
> I've personally found the recent discovery of the giant octopus interesting.
By "giant octopus" (creatures that have been known for a very long time) do you mean "colossal squid" (which has been known, and of interest to science, from body parts since the early 20th Century, but of which a live specimen was never discovered until the 2000s)?
Because your statement doesn't make much sense for the former, and is still wrong for the latter (science showed plenty of interest before the recent live-specimen discovery, though the popular media, at least briefly, became more interested when a live specimen was found.)
> In the same vein the fact that wolves have attacked humans in the last 5 years is very interesting. When I grew up we were taught that wolves were afraid of humans and none of the old stories were true.
When and where were you taught that? While I certainly remember being taught as a child that -- like many animals -- wolves were shy of humans, I certainly was also taught that they were dangerous, extremely territorial, aggressive pack animals and that they might attack humans in any of wide range of circumstances.
>Because your statement doesn't make much sense for the former, and is still wrong for the latter (science showed plenty of interest before the recent live-specimen discovery, though the popular media, at least briefly, became more interested when a live specimen was found.)
Thanks for correcting me.
Now tzs also has a much better example than me :-)
But there were giant squid bodies long before we managed to find a live specimen. We also found many beaks on sperm whale stomachs that showed they did exist. So while a great discovery, there was reasonable evidence of it's existence before the first intact bodies and video images.
The issue with 'scientist' is that it is a self-applied term. As the position 'scientist' carries with it some weight. Therefore those who want to boost their credibility style themselves as scientists to borrow the reputation of others.
I've found that areas of real knowledge don't call themselves scientists (ie, physicist, chemist, astronomer) whereas those fields struggling for credibility tend to add 'scientist' on the end. (ie, _____ scientist) At the extreme end you've got people who astroturf organizations and advertise people wearing white coats testing their product. (Ponds Institute, anyone?)
Add to that a deep suspicion anyone who is confidently making bold predictions about the future and you've got a two-pass filter for assessing whether to really pay attention or not. That's what works for me.
> I've found that areas of real knowledge don't call themselves scientists (ie, physicist, chemist, astronomer) whereas those fields struggling for credibility tend to add 'scientist' on the end. (ie, _____ scientist)
Since when do physicists, chemists, and astronomers not call themselves scientists? IME, they tend to do so as a more general term than their specific field name.
If you mean "they don't put 'science' in the name of their discipline", well, consider that "physics" -- which is just the latin-derived English (archaic now, but not when "physics" became a name for the field) word for "natural science" pluralized -- is probably not a good example of the trend you are trying to illustrate.
Its true that newer fields are more likely to have "science" in modern English as part of their name rather than taking it from some other source (or a Latinized-greek suffix like "-(o)logy"), but that's really not all that substantive a difference. Which is probably just because no one likes the sound of things like Computerology or Datalogy, not because those naming those fields are any more "struggling for credibility" than those who named, say, "geology".
I think he's referring to the Colossal Squid. Recently (2007) a specimen was found alive and then died and was frozen and brought to a lab to be defrosted and examined. Previously the samples found were long dead and degraded (eaten/decomposed). While we know that it existed we also knew almost nothing about it. Some people misunderstand the discovery and dissection of the squid, the largest and most intact specimen. As the discovery of the species.
I know some sailors that when they heard about the collection of that giant squid they were very happy to point out: "see? We are not liars, the krakens DO exist!!!"
I've personally found the recent discovery of the giant octopus interesting. It has been reported by sailors for numerous times as far as I know, yet science has shown little intereset until a specimen was found.
In the same vein the fact that wolves have attacked humans in the last 5 years is very interesting. When I grew up we were taught that wolves were afraid of humans and none of the old stories were true. (I have come to the conclusion top trust naval officers and grandparents more than scientists in such cases.)