Not so. There are those that believe objectivism is the true way of viewing the world. They view that we are on the way to understanding the universe as it truly is, that human perception will not pose an obstacle to that pursuit, and that there will eventually be one true method of viewing the universe in its entirety that is yet to be discovered. Constructivist beliefs directly oppose that idea, since all science is a man-made construct that can only approximate reality in their view. Constructivism also, then, leaves room for multiple theories coexisting because they provide better utility and insights in different circumstances. In the example of Einstein’s Relativity vs Newton’s Physics, we are talking about an older theory and the theory which usurped it because it was more accurate, and the general expectation is that another theory will be accepted down the line which will be better than both. That expectation is fairly objectivist, since it assumes there is a true model which we just haven’t discovered yet. Constructivism does not make that assumption, since the universe likely does not fit neatly into our constructions in its image.

The other thing, is that constructivism challenges scientific realism to some extent, in that it challenges the existence of many things which we cannot directly observe, such as quarks, proteins, particles, etc… because “how can we actually confirm these things exist, when we physically can’t observe them, and the things we’re using to show their existence are constructs made up by us?”

This topic is still very much in a state of debate that has very strong implications around the philosophy of how science works and how it should be conducted. That’s also just talking about constructivism’s implications in the physical sciences. Things get much hairier when you start looking at the social sciences, where biases and perception are extremely influential on what we discover. Constructivism directly challenges the attainability of scientific objectivity, which has serious implications across all fields of science.

That’s fair. Language changed for accuracy.

This guy should learn to view science more like a constructivist. Pretty much everything in science is just something we made up that mostly aligns with the natural world, and just because one model is less accurate than another does not mean it’s no longer useful.

We didn’t abandon Newtonion physics when Einstein’s model was accepted for instance, since Newtonian physics is still very useful, and much easier to use compared to others.

Edit: changed language from ‘proven’ to ‘accepted’.

All of these factory spaces have metrology departments for confirming product specifications are in spec, who are likely to have training and expertise in defect isolation (as in finding where a defect is coming from). I have very little doubt that they would be able to create/purchase the necessary tools for checking for microplastic dispersion within the factory floor and isolating the key locations that need fixing. That is, if regulations started requiring and testing for lower microplastic content.

“We expected the opposite result,” Ph.D. student Iseline Chaib, who conducted the research, told AFP.

“We then noticed that in the glass, the particles emerging from the samples were the same shape, color and polymer composition—so therefore the same plastic—as the paint on the outside of the caps that seal the glass bottles,” she said.

The paint on the caps also had “tiny scratches, invisible to the naked eye, probably due to friction between the caps when there were stored,” the agency said in a statement.

This could then “release particles onto the surface of the caps,” it added.

OK, so maybe a minor change in how these bottles are filled and sealed could end up fixing the issue. There’s clearly some issues with soft drink assembly lines, and if these can be addressed, then the overall amount of microplastics can be mitigated. Seems like we need to start phasing plastics out of every step of manufacturing if we want to end microplastics in food and drink.

Geneticists are like AI devs IMO. Sitting on the cutting edge of human capabilities, hoping to make the world a better place, while careening humanity into an even worse dystopia.

The mod in common across all these servers is @Sunshine@lemmy.ca and her other alternate accounts on various servers.

Sunshine, if you see this, this is a pretty overkill response from you over what is a joke about the lengths people go to to lie to themselves. If you’re thinking it was a bad joke still deserving a ban, at least diminish the sentence length down from a month to a few days instead. I will edit the post to communicate the lessened ban length.

That’s actually an interesting one.

The ‘p’ could have a different meaning for a variety of languages. ‘Puissance’ in French, ‘Potenz’ in German, ‘potential’ or ‘power’ in English, ‘pondus’ or ‘potentia’ in Latin, or ‘Potens’ in Danish (probably the Danish one originally, since it was a Danish chemist who first introduced the measurement).

It’s very fun that because of the vagueness, various languages can have its meaning directly translated to their own.

Is the other species the Western Highland Gorilla(Agorilla gorilla gorilla)?

Edit: it’s not, it’s the Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) Also, here’s a graphic for y’all to enjoy:

If they’re young enough they might be mimicking a joke without understanding the function of jokes.

Here’s a diagram of how anteaters store their tongues as well!

That tongue is for excavating insects out of wood right? That’s very interesting that it also uses it for annoying other animals.

Based on that description, that dude on the left is a tall fella.

The remaster has Nani attend University, leaving Lilo in the care of their neighbor whose known their family forever, Tūtū. She also has an alien teleporter that allows her to visit Lilo frequently.

The film seems to choose to use some fairly hand-wavy solutions at the end so that they don’t have to compromise the happy ending with bittersweetness.

Like, I don’t think anyone would say Nani made the wrong choice by fighting hard and making sacrifices to hang onto her little sister in the original film, even though that holds its own sad implications.

I also think that the backlash over this new script is fairly justified, since it completely erases all the consequences that any real person in Nani’s situation would face for making the same decision. There will be feelings of abandonment if you surrender your position as primary caregiver, even when it’s the right choice. The movie goes out of its way a bit to have its cake and eat it too.

Those enclaves are seperate cultures from mainland China’s and over time each culture will likely diverge from one another.

Cultures are physically manifested through direct interactions between individuals. Because of that, cultures constantly shift and evolve over small increments, and physical space has a large impact on how those shifts occur. Even if concerted effort is put into making the local enclave’s culture the same as mainland China’s, that enclave has surrounding influences from the American culture it’s inserted into, and it will thus shift differently from the mainland somewhat. The lived experience of each culture is also going to be different in various ways.

Because of this, I think it’s reasonable to state that a person born and raised in New York Chinatown is going to be culturally distinct from a person born and raised in LA Chinatown, and they both would be distinct from a person born and raised in mainland China.

This is the problem with heritage BS. If you are not from said region, you are not that region’s ethnicity, because you are not apart of that region’s culture. It’s that fuckin simple.

If you’re from Scottish ancestry, but born and raised in New York, you’re a fucking New-Yorker. At best, you are a Scottish-American New-Yorker. Your kids will just be New Yorkers, though.