EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.
Dark matter. Sounds like a catch all designed to make a math model work properly.
Removed by mod
Do you think solutions to dark matter are tied up in a unified GR + quantum mechanics theory?
Removed by mod
That sounds like it’s trying to take large scale phenomena and make them work on the quantum scale. What if the solution is the other way around: make modified quantum mechanics work on the large scale? (I guess those are effectively the same thing. You’d need a quantum gravity theory one way or another. Sorry, layman here. Just spitballin’ ideas)
The experimental observation did not reveal Dark Matter. Nobody has seen or proven Dark Matter, actually. That’s why it is called Dark Matter. The observation just showed that the math model was flawed, and they invented “Dark Matter” to make up for it.
My personal take is that they will one day add the right correction factor that should have been in the fomulas all the time.
Just like with E=mc² not being completely correct. It’s actually E²=m²c⁴ + p²c². The p²c² is not adding much, but it is still there.
Removed by mod
I know that it is not a simple scale thing here. So it might be something else. My bet is that is has something to do with angular momentum,
Removed by mod
I’m no astrophysicist - I just design computer chips. But this issue of “We need dark matter” came up with rotating galaxies, didn’t it? So I’d look into that direction if there is a potential connection. Classic bug hunting technique.
Removed by mod
You’re not wrong. According to the current scientific understanding of the universe, that’s exactly what it is. They just gave it a badass name.
Do you want slightly darker matter? Cause that’s how you get slightly darker matter!
You would like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbmJkMhmrVI
I’m with you here, I don’t understand dark matter and dark energy and the expansion of the universe. We see shit moving all the time in the universe. I’m still not convinced we just don’t understand the motion of the universe outside our envelope of observation and it’s explainable with conventional matter and energy. Im trying to learn a lot tho. I’m gonna watch that video someone posted to you.
I know, I was so hype a few years ago when a new gravity well model supposedly eliminated the need for Dark Matter, but recently it’s been in the news as a scandal that also doesn’t fix everything.
There’s no scandal. Some people who are leading proponents of MOND theory recently published a new paper using what might be the best scenario we currently have to detect MOND (wide binary stars), and their more precise calculations…are not consistent with MOND. They published evidence against the very theory they were betting on.
The best kind of researchers, I bet that really took a lot of courage to do since it’s so far from human nature.
Can we not push more anti science rhetoric please
This is like the second or third post I have seen in the past week talking about “belief” in science. Science isn’t about belief, it’s about understanding. Maybe this post should be, “What facts are you questioning because you don’t understand the underlying data?”
Seriously. Science just is. I don’t care if you believe it or not. It still is what it is.
What it is, is an extremely powerful tool for reducing uncertainty about the world. Not eliminate, reduce. What it is not is a tool for “proving” “facts”. Claiming a “proven fact” is belief, not empirical science. An extremely consistent and useful theory, of course! But not a proven fact.
Science just is the way gender just is. It’s a metaphysic.
Could you link to the studies saying this?
Do you not know what a metaphysic is? A metaphysic is something that affects the world without actually existing. Information is metaphysics. Law is metaphysics. Gender is definitely metaphysics. Science is too.
Y’all downvoting me because you’re taking offense to a word you can’t bother looking up the definition of. Peak stupidity and tribalism right here. You make up your identity(which is also a metaphysic) based on imagery and social appeal and sling shit just like chimps.
Could it be that people are downvoting you because you’re using words wrong while acting like you are educated on the matter? 😉
You don’t have to take my word for it. Try Google define: metaphysics.
That might have been a better title but it would get less responses and also the title never mentions “belief in science” as you put it, the explicit title is something Scientific that you DON’T believe in.
A lot of people not wanting to disassociate the term believe from relgion here. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I also believe the sun doesn’t rise. Neither have to do with a religious belief system for me.
The top comment is a proper debate about leading scientific theories, and the most downvoted comment is somebody who thinks the moon landing is faked, both of which have healthy and honest debate with goodwill from both sides.
This entire post is about Skepticism, which is an integral part of Science. To shut down the conversation would be Anti-Science.
Chiropracty isn’t “scientific”.
Those two examples were mostly joking, I think by now we don’t need to detect black holes either. We’ve seen them.
your mom joke
doesnt mean we are done studying the
That mothers shouldn’t co-sleep with infants. Every other primate I know of co-sleeps with their offspring. Until very recently every human mother co-slept with her infants, and in like half of the globe people still do. Many mothers find it incredibly psychologically stressful to sleep without their infant because our ancestors co-slept every generation for hundreds of thousands of years.
I would bet money that forcing infants to sleep alone has negative developmental effects.
The reason for this is that we tend to sleep deeper now than our ancestors. Because of this, we are more prone to roll onto a baby, and not wake up.
It can still be done, you just have to avoid things like alcohol, that stop you waking. You also need to make sure your sleeping position is safe. Explaining this to exhausted parents is unreliable, however. Hence the advice Americans seem to be given.
Fyi, if people want a halfway point, you can get cosleeping cribs. They attach to the side of the bed. Your baby can be close to you, while also eliminating the risk of suffocating them.
I think something on the UK’s NHS implied the risk is primarily for mothers with various kinds of problems (including drug or alcohol abuse). Made me wonder if it’s largely recommended for everyone to cover the many people who are at risk but don’t want to think they are.
A lot of the advice is almost insultingly obvious. You get treated like you have a single digit IQ. After a couple of months, I fully understand why we were treated like that! It’s a fight to keep your iq in double digits!
The baby shaking one is the big one. It’s obvious, you don’t shake your baby. It’s also obvious that they can be safe, even while screaming. After 2 hours of constant crying, combined with sleep deprivation, I fully understand why they reiterated not to shake your baby, the urge was alarmingly strong! It also made sense why they pointed out you could leave them to scream, if you really needed to. So long as they are clean safe and fed, 10 minutes down the garden is completely acceptable.
With the original advice, telling when it will apply to you is harder than you think. The default advice has to be to play it safe. Some can be deviated from, some can’t. Deviations must be consciously made however.
The other thing is SIDS, if the baby can’t lift their head from a suffocation position they suffocate.
We have ours sleep in a cosleep crib beside the bed so you get the closeness and can make contact in the night.
Maybe if you can avoid stuff like alcohol (easy for most) but also you can avoid sleep deprivation - way harder with little to no maternal leave and forget about paternal leave here in the US.
If you (Royal you, not parent commenter) can live with yourself if a tragedy occurs on your watch while you are flaunting medical advice, then go ahead and risk it, but otherwise yes! Buy the bedside attached crib!
In the UK, it’s not an absolute no, but a “be careful”. Interestingly, my wife’s sleep habits changed considerably. She was instinctively aware of where our baby was, even while asleep.
The main dangers seem to be either the dad (my instincts were far less affected) or a sedated mum. It also becomes a lot less risky when the baby can move. Our daughter was perfectly capable of making her comfort concerns felt.
It’s not zero risk, but it’s far lower than you might think. New mother sleep deprivation is quite different to normal sleep deprivation. I see why the default advice is what it is, however.
deleted by creator
Fyi, you triple posted.
Thanks. I was having connection troubles.
deleted by creator
What I’ve heard was that it is to build independence for the child, so the parent can leave the child to sleep and do something else. It depends on the age I guess.
Removed by mod
I’m going to give you a couple examples:
-
A study showed Dementia brainscans heavily correlating with a form of Plaque. For decades people believed it, but then it was debunked. Someone expressing disbelief in it before the debunking would not have been “flying in the face of everything we know about logic.” They would have been right.
-
A researcher made a study where Aspartame used to sweeten Gatorade correlated with fast developing terminal cancer in mice. The researcher who developed Aspartame shot back by saying they fed the mice daily with the equivalent to 400+ Gatorades. Of course, a French study later showed at large scales people who consumed aspartame were slightly more likely to develop cancer in the following decades, but the outcome was still preferred to the consumption of sugar. This is an example that is much more clearcut in the favor of science, but I think there is still room for skeptics to express doubts.
I think talking about these things in a welcoming environment can both alleviate certain less scientific beliefs while also giving a great idea of how the general public views certain topics. Also it’s fun. There is a guy in here who thinks maybe a dude can fight a bear, not that they should.
Okay, but if anyone forms full beliefs from single studies, they’ve grossly misunderstood the details of how science works.
This would apply to 99% of journalists.
Yeah to be fair a few of the responses were that. I just don’t know a way to keep away the oxygen consuming idiot opinions like the woman so proud of doubting the moon landing.
Basically if you’ve got a logical explanation I can get on board with your idea as a hypothesis, but some of these replies are not that and are insane.
aspartame
This reminds me of the research on saccharine that involved massive doses of it in mice. The belief that pumping huge amounts into a mouse can substitute for lower levels over long times always struck me as odd. Most systems, especially biological ones, have a critical level where systems fail. An example is the body’s ability to process toxins like alcohol in the liver. If you overwhelm the enzymes in the liver you get far different results than if you gave low levels over long periods.
-
I’ve always thought the classic Hunter - Gatherer gender division of labor was bullshit. I think that theory has gone out of fashion but I always thought it seemed like a huge assumption. It seems so much more plausible to me that everybody hunted some days (like during migration patterns) and gathered others. Did they even have the luxury of purely specialized roles before agriculture and cities?
Another reason I think that is because prehistoric hunting was probably way different than we imagine. Like, we imagine tribes of people slaying mammoths with only spears. It was probably more traps and tricks. Eventually, using domesticated dog or a trained falcon or something.
You can read the dawn of everything book which is a very interesting take at a lot of those assumptions which are indeed false. This book goes deep into the ideological bias scientists have when interpreting evidence.
I always assumed that hunter gatherer division was mostly down to the individual, some traits make some better at hunting than others.
I struggle to locate static objects, I for the fucking life of me just can’t see it. I’ll be looking for something and either look right over it or walk past it multiple times
But if I go outside and look in the trees I can spot all the squirrels within seconds. Not like that’s a talent or anything special, but my point is that I’d starve if I had to look for food in the brush, and likely I imagine these types of traits are what defined who did what job, meaning who was good at what, and likely considering lots of hunting was endurance based and not skill based at all, then most adults probably participated to some degree.
I’ve also gone shroom hunting and had to come back empty handed because I can’t see the god damned things.
Is this why I could never find stuff and then when my mother looked she would just go right to it?
Yeah, exactly that. It’s RIGHT FUCKING THERE but I’m not gonna see it.
The hunter-gatherer gender division is actually proven wrong now.
Also, hunting mammoths was a very rare activity. I would expect it to be some kind of desperate activity in fact. People weren’t more crazy than we are, they would rather live than to be trampled by a mammoth.
When you start looking at older debunked theories that lasted for a long time you can see the human bias in them. Not just a human bias but a a western bias.
Two that stick out for me:
Trees compete for sunlight - I think it makes sense to us humans because we compete for resources but in truth trees are way more ‘community’ based
The male alpha wolf - It’s how the western world has been organized for centuries so it’s easy to see that in a wolf pack even though its not true.
Hunting was mostly running a marathon while tracking until the animal collapses.
No reason to believe women didn’t participate in that.Haha, if fucking mammoths were scared of falcons then they deserved to go extinct
Yes we should be out to revoke chiropractors’ degrees, but I’m not sure why that’s coming up here since you asked about science specifically. Which chiropractic is not.
No one should be ok with people who run around pretending to be doctors and occasionally paralyzing babies and crippling people by trying to work magic. It’s also revolting that any of it is covered by insurance and health plans, which materially takes real resources away from real medicine for people.
I was making an obvious strawman with that statement to poke fun about how defensive people were getting.
deleted by creator
We don’t need more anti science rhetoric in this world. Why even start this thread?
So obscure opinions are made visible and we can talk about them?
If you can’t be questioned, you’re not science.
Disbelief≠skepticism
There are people in the comments denying literal, established, concrete facts. That’s not questioning anything,; that’s ignorance at best and malevolence at worst.
You decide what’s fact. Everything you ever thought you knew is stuff someone told you and you believed it based on their presentation. You’ve never seen evidence. You’ve seen them telling you there’s evidence.
What if you’re doing the research real-time? What if you, yourself, have done the experiments which logically are evidence? There are a lot of things you can scientifically prove yourself. And there are a lot of phenomena you can mathematically prove without even doing the experiments, although you have to try to mitigate or account for chaos / the specific environment you’re working with.
Conspiracy bullshit like “you haven’t seen the scientific evidence so it might just all be made up by so-called scientists” is garbage. You are a nut if you think that. It is on the same level as flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers.
Oh yeah, I’m not against the idea of science. Doing it yourself from the ground up is pretty solid. All of your own experiences are at the very least valid as you experienced them.
If you can believe the scale of vote fraud Trump pulled off, you can believe that textbooks are often written with an interest in influencing our young. I’m mostly against history as it’s taught. It’s written by the victors and so much of it comes off as fables and allegories to keep people in line.
All of your own experiences are at the very least valid as you experienced them.
Scientific rigor states otherwise. You must be able to prove or repeat your experiences for them to be accounted as valid within the context of experimentation.
‘Doing your own research’ isn’t the silver bullet you may think that it is. Most laypeople don’t know what effective research actually looks like; let alone understand how to actually do it or the covariates that may truly be impacting their observations or research. Further still, some may not even care to know as they may already have established biases. More often than not, it simply leads to further conspiratorial thinking.
Try doing some simple physics experiments with pendulum and stuff. It is quite simple to set up and will make you use many different physics concepts.
For quantum mechanics, I suggest diffraction and the double slit experiment that are quite easy to do with a cheap laser pointer.
That way you can rediscover scientific models yourself!
If you are not willing to try it, then you don’t really have legitimacy criticizing thé work of scientists.
I’m not criticizing work so much as all the things where the claim work is done but wasn’t.
As a flow artist, I understand pendulums more than most. I heckin live pendulums! I play with them every day!
Science is good. Science publishing is out of hand.
I agree with you that science publishing can be of variable quality. One solution for the reader IS to never trust one paper alone, scientific knowledge is established when many papers are published about the same topic and give the same conclusions.
So bigger number = more true?
Lots of stuff from both social sciences and economics.
Social science suffers greatly from the Replication crisis
Economics relies largely on so-called natural experiments that have poor variable controls.
Both often come with policy agendas pushing for results.
I take their conclusions with a grain of salt.
Economics is purely based on assumption, at it’s core. There’s no proof the assumption is true, and recent trends seem to point towards it being false.
Economics assumes people are rational spenders.
But the “economy” is often just represented by the stock market, which is both not rational, and not a good measure of the economy. It’s a great indicator of how much wealth is being extracted from the working class, but it’s shit at representing how most of the money is being spent.
Economics all makes sense when you understand that they are being paid to produce data backing up the position of the person paying them.
The moon not being made of cheese. The moon is in fact made of cheese. I do not care how much a bunch of nerds insist that it is not made of cheese. I am objectively correct about this and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
If the moon was made of spare ribs, would you eat it? I would. It’d be delicious!
And wash it down with a tall, cool Budweiser.
Budweiser is watery, go for a proper German lager.
I’m just continuing the bit (badly, admittedly, since I didn’t get the exact quote right). That’s the next thing the character says, more or less, though. In case you don’t realize, all this stuff about the moon being made of spare ribs is a bit from Saturday Night Live.
I call on the FDA, USDA, or whatever agency to use their power to add lunar regolith and all otger moon constituents to the accepted definition of cheese. I also suggest all other countries to just take our word for it since only us and the nazis have set foot on the moon and who are you going to trust? Us or the nazis?
Science articles that reference paywalled journals you can’t actually read. Most of them are probably making stuff up because they know no one will be able to call them out on it.
First, let me start off by saying that I agree with what I believe your actual premise is (or should be) - that articles in science journals should not be behind paywalls. I’m strictly against the practice, I think it’s a massive scam, and so does everyone I know who does research. I have paid to open source every paper I’ve published. Well, not me personally. But thank you taxpayers for funding me to not only do my work but to make sure you have access to it too. I’ll talk about this more at the end.
With that out of the way, I’d like to mention a couple of things. First, the scam is on the part of the academic journals, not the researchers or the journalists writing the articles. It’s not part of some scam to hide the fact that the journalist is making crap up. If the authors were unwilling or unable to pay the fees for open sourcing their papers ($3-5k when I was doing it several years ago), then you’re either going to be in an institution that has a subscription to the journal or you’re going to have to find some way of acquiring it.
Search for the exact title in quotes. Sometimes the Google Scholar engine will return with the default link to the pay walled page, sometimes it’ll have a link to a prepublication server. Arxiv is one of the more popular ones for physics, math, and computer science of all stripes. Step 2 is to go to the institution web page of the first author. Very often, researchers will keep an updated list of their publications with links to the PDFs. If that still doesn’t work, you can write the author and request the paper. We love those emails. We love it when people read our work, especially when they’re so excited that they wrote to request a copy. None of these involve copyright infringement. That prepub that you get is the same paper (usually but you can confirm with the author if that’s a question), but possibly without the masthead and layout from the journal. It’s still cited the same.
So, why are so many journals behind a paywall? Because the publishers want to monetize what today should be a cost free (or minimal) set of transactions. Here’s what happens:
- I have an idea for some research. If it’s good and I’m lucky, I get money from the government (or whomever) to do the work, and I use it to pay my expenses (salaries, materials, equipment, whatever). I also get taxed on it by my institution so they can pay the admins and other costs. When submitting a proposal, those are all line items in your budget. If you’re doing expensive research at an expensive institution, it’s pretty trivial to set aside $10-20k for pub fees. If your entire grant was $35k, that’s a lot harder to justify.
- You write the paper after doing the work. You don’t get paid to write the paper specifically - it’s part of the research that you are doing. The point here is that, unlike book authors, researchers see zero of any money you’d pay for the article. If you do locate a copyrighted copy, you’re not taking a dime out of my pocket. Again, just thrilled someone’s reading the damn thing.
- You pick a journal and send it in. The journal has a contact list of researchers and their fields, and sends out requests for reviewers. They usually require 2 or 3.
- The reviewers read the paper making notes on questions they have and recommend revisions before publication. Reviewing is an unpaid service researchers do because we know that’s how it works. The irony is that it challenges the academic notion of the tragedy of the commons. You could be a freeloader and never review, but enough people do it that the system keeps rolling.
- You revise, reviewers approve, publisher accepts and schedules date. There can be some back and forth here (this is a legitimate publisher expense, but the level of effort and interaction isn’t like with a book editor).
- Your paper comes out.
As you can see, the role of the publisher is very small in the overall amount of effort put into getting an idea from my head into yours. At one point publishers had an argument that the small circulation numbers for things like The Journal of Theoretical Biology justified their $21k/year institutional subscription price.
And I shouldn’t have saved this til the end, but for the one person who skimmed down to see where all of this was going:
Any science article / press release that cites a paper whether or not you have access to it at least is citing something that has undergone peer review. Peer review can only do so much and journal quality has a wide range, but it’s about the best we have. If it’s a big enough deal to actually matter and the media in question has wide enough reach to care, then it will get back to the author who can then clarify.
Just because you said you guys love it when people read your work, I thought I’d let you know I read your entire comment.
Thank you!
Appreciate the thoughtful and in-depth response. My worry is more that a science article’s editorialized interpretation of the paper may be wrong or misleading, than that the public isn’t very able to scrutinize the quality of science in the paper itself. Waiting for a possible email response from a researcher is pretty much always going to be a little too high effort for someone wanting to spend a few minutes comparing claims in the article and claims in the paper to potentially call bullshit on discrepancies between them in an online comment.
I absolutely agree with you there. I just commented a short time ago on an article about the effects of primate vocalizations on the human brain. The article not only got the conclusion of the paper wrong, they got the very nature of evolution wrong. I didn’t even have to read the paper - I haven’t gotten to it yet. It’s admittedly the kind of mistake non-biologists make. Journalists should probably avoid drawing conclusions that aren’t specifically in the source material. My point is that, going off of the author’s quotes the pulled and my own knowledge of evolutionary dynamics, I knew it was wrong. However, I am not at all sure that someone without a background in biology would be able to understand the paper well enough to catch the error in the article.
I am all for open access, and I share your frustration. I think you should be able to access any paper you want for free. But I’ll also say that if you don’t have the background in the subject to know what the underlying paper will have said, the chances are pretty good that you’re not going to understand the paper well enough to find the flaws.
I used to talk to a physicist named Lee Smolin who proposed a Darwinian model for universe formation. I can follow the evolutionary part, but when it gets down to the physics of it, I’m lost at sea. So when I read an article about him - I read something about him recently - I mostly have to go on my basic understanding because there’s no way I’d make it through that paper.
And literally the only reason I’m throwing this out there at all is that, unlike a physics paper that’s totally incomprehensible and obviously so, people believe in their own interpretations on social science or public health papers. I see more kinds of cherry-picking abuses and simple misunderstandings there than elsewhere.
It’s great to see people so inquisitive though.
I think most of the time it’s really not going to be as hard as all that, because the problem is something like, article makes broad claim based on a very easy to understand study where the data is results of survey questions. The paper clearly and explicitly outlined caveats and qualifications for their results, but the article chose to ignore these, so all that would be required to call them out on it is basic reading comprehension and the ability to copy paste a brief quote from the paper. Or maybe there are stark, obvious differences between the question asked in a survey and the claim of a clickbait headline.
Even for something more complex, if the paper is well written I think people without a background in the field could get stuff out of it, at least enough to spot direct contradictions between it and a summary. It’s just reading. A lot of people can read and have some higher education.
For that wikipedia article, I think it would make more sense if it expanded on “may differ slightly” and how that interacts with this criticism of black hole information transfer being impossible. Would that criticism imply the parameters for new universes must be always the same? Have infinite variance with no reference point? Not exist at all? Is “may differ slightly” a claim that each universe is a reference point around which the cosmological constants of child universes randomly vary a little bit and then there could be drift based on which constants result in a universe with more black holes? If that stuff was concisely clarified it would probably seem less arcane.
To add onto that, whenever a newspaper says “based on the findings of researchers at [Random University]” but they don’t list the citation anywhere at all. That is just evil, but somehow industry standard.
I’m incapable of coming to terms with the scientific fact that a 194cm male could not take a grizzly bear in a fight
Maybe if he was 195cm ?
I can respect that, but stay out of the enclosure.
Sorry to disappoint, but I am 200cm tall and I would get annihilated in an instant.
Don’t believe in, or can’t understand?
I don’t believe we understand the fundamental nature of time, or the universe - we are limited by our bodies, can’t perceive or even think about everything that probably exists. But I don’t distrust the math or research that scientists are doing. In terms of how it is presented to us laypeople I think profit has poisoned the message, it is impossible to be current and knowledgeable in the way you’d need to be to pull apart all that messaging.
If you mean what do you understand but still not believe? I am still not convinced radio is not magic. I understand how it works but what the heck? Magic.
I made a laser radio once - hooked up the transmitter half of it (AM) to a laser pointer, then beamed it across the room to a photoreceptor which then turned that back into sound played from my phone. Was a cool way to learn a bit of electrical engineering
I dunno, man…sounds an awful lot like magic to me…
I am out to revoke degrees from chiropractors.
Giving them a degree is like calling myself a writer because I post bullshit comments on Lemmy.
I tend to take things very literally so I will say: it’s got a lot more hoops than that comparison. Anybody can become a writer if they have the bare minimum tools, imo. They can’t all be good writers but that hardly matters given the low risks.
To play the devils advocate, almost everywhere these days regulates chiropractors requiring licensure with an organization who themselves require degrees and comprehensive knowledge testing.
For example, Doctors of Chiropractic (admittedly a 3 to 5 year program just like most entry level Engineers) are licensed in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and many U.S. territories. They are also regulated in many other countries throughout the world. Just a random specific organization, the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners require:
-
The Aforementioned Degree
-
NBCE. Chiropractic students must pass parts I, II, III, IV, and physiotherapy of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) exam to be eligible to apply for a state license.
-
A full criminal background check with fingerprinting
-
CCLE. The California Chiropractic Law Examination (CCLE) is administered through computerized testing on a continuous basis. Once the board determines the applicant is qualified to take the CCLE, the applicant will be notified by letter.
As well as a bunch of associated fees and insurance requirements.
So, no, it’s not as easy as publishing comments on Lemmy.
Do I think there should be non-medical doctors twisting people’s necks and giving X-Rays? No, I goddamn don’t, but we can say that without bullshitting.
-
Full moons do not have an impact on people with mental illness, make weird things happen, increase work load, or increase the chance of going into labor. I have worked in three separate hospitals in three separate states and the consensus is: full moons bring out the crazies and the babies.
It’s not true. Your observations may be affected by confirmation, bias, or other things.
https://www.dukehealth.org/blog/myth-or-fact-more-women-go-labor-during-full-moon
However, barometric pressure can apparently induce labor
The first part is what my husband tells me.
I do recognize that Medical Laboratory Scientists are a very superstitious lot especially funny since our degree and certification include Scientist. Don’t say it’s slow or quiet because it’s getting to get stupid busy (and everyone will blame you). Don’t run quality control more than required because you are tempting failure and will have to do a look back of all the testing to make sure it was accurate. We jokingly put an elf on the shelf out that had FDA written on the hat and the FDA showed up for an unannounced inspection a week later. I’m a Lead and every time I bring my Lead work to the bench with me, we get so busy with patient samples and orders that I can’t touch it. All are definitely confirmation bias situations.
Unrelated - kind of - but I believe there are two documented cases of obscure programming bugs that manifest according to the phase of the moon!
That’s actually really interesting, the medical professionals I’ve been acquainted with never seemed to mention that theory to begin with.
Hypothesis*, and it is very popular with nurses. Unfortunate, but people still believe many strange things.
It’s entirely confirmation bias. The crazies come out, must be a full moon. It isn’t? Oh, then it’s just a bad day. It is a full moon? See, I told ya. Full moon and no crazies? Didn’t even notice.
I have witnessed this exchange >.<
Statistics shows that the belief is wrong. It’s funny I think that despite the hard numbers the people working there still strongly believe it.
I believe there have been multiple studies that found that full moons affect most people sleeping and make sleep a bit harder
I sleep in a completely blacked out room yet I know when it’s near the full moon because my sleep gets very broken and restless.
The only difference between a full moon and a new moon is how much light it reflects towards the earth. The moon is still there. If there were some sort of magnetic or gravitational effect on you while you slept, the effect would be the same whether the sun was shining on the side you can see or not.
The reason there is a difference in how much light is reflected, is because the moon is in a different position. During a new moon, it’s on the day side of the earth (so in between the sun and the earth) while during a full moon, it’s on the night side.
So there could theoretically be a gravitational effect, although I don’t think it would impact anyone’s sleep.
If anyone is noticing a difference in sleep quality, it’s most likely indeed to do with the amount of light.
