Science desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 4[edit]

Why don't cyanide millipede curl like other millipedes when it got touched?[edit]

Why don't cyanide millipede curl like other millipedes when it got touched? Rizosome (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they don't? This indicates they curl up into a spiral and then exude cyanide. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read This understand it curl like other millipedes, but why it's called cyanide millipede instead of hydrogen cyanide millipede if it exude hydrogen cyanide to fight predators? Rizosome (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common names developed informally over time and are used only for convenience. They are not intended to be accurate descriptions, in fact they are often misleading.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the term cyanide can be used as a count noun (as in, “A cyanide is a chemical compound that contains the group C≡N”) or as a mass noun (as in “Cyanide is one of the most famous poisons”). When used as a mass noun to refer to a gas, the usual meaning is “hydrogen cyanide”. Compare the use of the term salt: sodium chlorate is a salt, but when a recipe requires “a pinch of salt“, this means sodium chloride and certainly not sodium chlorate. --Lambiam 07:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many millipedes exude HCN compounds when threatened. My giant African millipede Nigel would sometimes startle himself by accidentally stepping in our creek and would leave behind a nasty oil slick. He never sprayed me, though :) JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dental care[edit]

For a correct dental care, I should take before mouthwash or toothpaste? --94.247.8.8 (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Were you told they contradict? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

You should ask your dentist that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can the existence of a soul be proved or disproved with science?[edit]

As a Christian, I believe that the body has a soul that is sent to heaven or hell after one's death. In short, can the existence of a soul be proved or disproved with science? Félix An (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to look at your definition of soul which can be a translation of ancient Greek psyche. You may wish to look at the work of Frank J. Tipler. But I think proof is outside science, and the study lies in Christian anthropology and philosophy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science hasn't proven anything since 1959, when The Logic of Scientific Discovery pointed out that it doesn't really work that way and disproving things is all we can manage. Card Zero (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I produced a live Loch Ness Monster, would that not prove that such a thing exists? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the way you might hope. I mean it wouldn't answer the meaningful questions. "Something called XYZ exists" is just semantics, not a scientific theory. Consider the platypus (as I'm sure you often have). What happens is, somebody produces an animal, and nobody denies that they're seeing something and that the thing, whatever it is, exists. But they don't agree about what exactly it is, how it comes to exist and how real it is. To reach agreement they have to test theories - try to disprove them. Even after extensive testing of your creature, to eliminate the possibility that it's a fake or doesn't live in Loch Ness, new theories about what exactly it is can still arise: we only ever have our best stopgap theory, never a proven theory. Card Zero (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, we're constantly being told you can't prove a negative. We can never say the moon is not made of green cheese; the best we can say is we have found no evidence for it so far. After all, who's to say the rocks and dust we've collected from the Moon aren't made of green cheese in some weird alien way our science hasn't cottoned on to yet? So, if we can't prove stuff, and we can't disprove stuff, where does that leave us? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It leaves us with uncontroversial theories that nobody is challenging. We can't imagine an overlooked test that the rock samples would fail if they were green or cheesy, that hasn't already been covered by some less cheese-specific test. This may of course be a failure of the imagination, but collective failure of the imagination keeps us all on the same page. If anybody even had a hunch that such a test existed then they could start making a fuss about it, and bring "the moon is made of green cheese" into the realm of controversy. Card Zero (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point Card Zero is trying to make, which is apt here, is that science is about testing falsifiable concepts. Something in science (a law, a model, a theory, an explanation, whatever) is either consistent with observations and data, or it isn't. "Proof" in the colloquial sense as "shown to be incontrovertibly true for all time" is not a thing science does. It tests falsifiable ideas, which is to say ideas which could be shown wrong. If they observations and data show the idea to be unsound, then we discard the idea. If data and observations are consistent with the idea, it is strengthened as an idea we should probably hold to. The concept of a "soul" is not really falsifiable, so it is outside of the realm of science to deal with. How you deal with such unfalsifiable concepts is up to you, but it's not something "science" has a way to deal with. --Jayron 32 16:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You put that more clearly than I apparently could. I can't resist quibbling with "it is strengthened as an idea we should probably hold to" part, though. Just because an idea has navigated lots of challenges and not been refuted yet doesn't affect the probabilty of it surviving the next challenge. I'm reminded of the gambler's fallacy, and of the way survival of the fittest is often misunderstood to mean "survival of the best" in some sense. It does mean the idea has been shown to have more verisimilitude than its competitors. But we should be careful not to make an idea into a pet, and will it to succeed, and take its side when it faces new threats in the form of criticisms (though it's kind of human nature to do so). Card Zero (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, the only churches that I know of that still teach about a literal Heaven are Black churches. Most White churches believe Heaven is just where God dwells, if you are "saved," you simply become part of God's memory. So it's not "do you go to Heaven or Hell," but "do you go to Hell, or not go to Hell." 67.165.185.178 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Huh? I have never heard of a Christian church, regardless of ethnic composition, that teaches that it is possible to retain consciousness after death, but only by going to Hell. That sounds like an especially grim teaching. Reminds me of an Ian Watson story or something. Where have you come across this? --Trovatore (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this Ian Watson? Our consciousness is co-extensive with our memories, and the subjective sense of self exists only by virtue of that memory being walled in, restricted to the experiences of one individual. There is no a priori reason to think that removing these walls and allowing selves to merge is something dire. In any case, resistance is futile. --Lambiam 22:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you're utterly wrong about consciousness or self having anything whatsoever to do with memories. Those are completely different things. I can lose my memory but I am still the same person. It's imaginable that someone else could be given my memories, but that would not make that person me. --Trovatore (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that technicologically extremely advanced aliens abduct two humans from different parts of the world, say Abdul and Bobby, and as one of their evil experiments effectuate a swap of their complete memories (and nothing else). The human who wakes up in the body of Abdul will say that subjectively they are Bobby, but inhabiting the wrong body, one that is unfamiliar to them when they look in the mirror. --Lambiam 19:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, observed from the outside, that's what he'll say. But that's because his word for self is now "Bobby". His self has not actually changed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More likely this Ian Watson. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.121.112 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no verse in the Bible that literally says we go to Heaven if we're saved. (But it does talk about Hell.). I guess the Catholic church believes in a literal Heaven, if they believe in purgatory. Also, Black churches are traditionally against the death penalty, whereas White churches (non-Catholic) love the death penalty. So yes, there are some literal differences. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure how you missed what Jesus said to the repentant thief on the cross (Luke 23:43). Also he talks about "eternal life" several times (see the end of the parable of the sheep and the goats, or the Samaritan woman at the well. He tells the disciples that he goes to prepare a place for them. As far as I'm aware he doesn't use the exact words "heaven" or "saved", but it clearly sounds like personality continuing. --Trovatore (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Matt 22:30: For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven. Iapetus (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What church? Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912? Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your concept of soul is that of an incorporeal entity, that is, having no material form and not being subject to the laws of physics, it follows that no scientific experiment can contribute to any judgement about the existence or properties of souls. If, however, you believe that souls are material and possess mass, you can attempt to measure it. --Lambiam 06:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]