Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Atoms only bond when its cold enough. They all become unbound in their Plasma (physics)-state, usually at very high temperatures. It might seem odd to mention this, as its a state usually hardly known or considered worth mentioning but actually approximately 95% or more of all known matter in our universe is in a plasma state. In "our" own local solar system its for example even 99.86% according to our article(use link)! --Kharon (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fields of study whose mere existence offend a certain group(s) of people
Rationale for this question (why it belongs here): I am not asking for opinions, I am just asking for names of the fields; Quora has eliminated the ability to provide question details (making many questions impossible to ask on that website); I do not want to see responses which contain more things (such as criticism of those fields) than the ones I asked for (I think that Refdesk regulars are less likely to do such a thing than Quora users are).
My question: What are some fields of study or sub-fields (not counting fields regarded as pseudoscientific) whose mere existence offend a certain group(s) of people, other than evolutionary biology?
It likely depends who and when, but aspects of geology and physics (in relation to dating and assessing major past events as well as discovery of how energy/matter works), neurology (mind having a lot to do, if not entirely, with physical/electro-chemical processes), astronomy (contesting geocentrism and flat earth), other aspects of biology than evolution that contest racism or sexism, come to mind. —PaleoNeonate – 11:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A lot of groups of people exist who are "offended" by various kinds of human activity. I doubt there is any area of research that is not controversial in the eyes of at least a couple of crazy lunatics. This being said, prominent examples include:
The whole of psychiatry has been opposed, notably by the church of scientology (for reasons ranging from the reasonable to the batshit crazy)
Any sociology/economics research about intergroup differences, when groups are made by religion, race, or the like, "offends" certain people. That is not really a homogeneous "field of research" in itself, though.
Good points; this reminds me that other aspects of medicine are also sensitive like vaccination (conspiracy theories in relation to autism for instance) and blood transfusions (i.e. opposed by the Jehovah's Witnesses). Organ transplant used to be considered cannibalism by the same group. —PaleoNeonate – 11:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In 1996 the US Congress forbade the CDC from spending any money on studies of any links between guns and death or injuries. There's lots of examples where people have been forbidden to talk about climate change or studying things like the possibility of flooding due to it. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "astronomy" came into existence because some of the matters studied under the discipline of "astrology" were objectionable to some. 86.133.58.87 (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not that 86 included a source (which he should have) but, against all odds and completely by dumb luck, sources confirm basically what he said. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, I suppose. here, Etymonline confirms that the term Astronomy dates from 1200 CE, but in English, it's meaning was not differentiated from Astrology until 16-17 century, and that even in Latin and Greek, the equivalent terms tended to carry the same senses of scientificness as the modern distinction. Here is the etymology of astrology, and it looks to actually be a later coining (late 1300s CE). --Jayron3217:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The study of how ethnicity/race and of how sex can be determined by the shape of certain bones is offensive to some people. Recently, scientists in the fields of both forensics and archeology who have published in scientific journals about these methods have been harshly criticized by people who believe that race and gender are entirely social constructs. Peacock (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which make me think that archaeology and paleontology also often make discoveries conflicting with national history and myths (other than about human and life origins but the OP mentioned evolution already). —PaleoNeonate – 14:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
VarunSoon—you refer to List of academic fields. Every one of them is offensive to anyone who values a certain form of "open-mindedness". Every field listed there can conceivably be thought of as a somewhat arbitrary division of rational thinking into disciplines that would be unacceptable to anyone who highly values their ability to think freely. They all qualify insofar as their mere existence [may] offend ... certain group(s) of people, namely those who resist excessively compartmentalized thinking patterns. Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who feels that constrained by words like that probably finds it hard to think without assigning words to everything, so they're already boxed in I'm afraid. Not that we aren't all boxed in by our own limitations anyway. Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think several people are misunderstanding the question (or I am). For example, people are not so much opposed to the study of how stem-cells work or could be used, but by how they are harvested. Many (but not all) anti-vaxxers are not opposed to the study of vaccines per se, but instead feel that vaccines have been poisoned by "Big Pharma". Matt Deres (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Bath Spa University 'blocks transgender research'" [2]: the implication is that it's fine to study transgenderism in general (and it does get a lot of attention) but that looking at people who change their minds ("detransition") is not. Equinox◑01:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does "see red" mean? Are you asking if they're sensitive to red light, or if they can distinguish it?
Cats can certainly see red - just try playing with a cat and a laser pointer. Some animals though just cant sense it - so badger watchers may use a red LED torch to remain near invisible to them.
Whether cats can distinguish red is another question. Physiologically they're lacking the L-cones which humans use to distinguish red from green, so in human terms they'd have protanopia. Psychologically, the jury is still out on just how well cats see. Certainly they're heavily adapted for very low lights, with a reflective tapetum lucidum, an emphasis on rods more than cones, and the usual compromises which optimisation in one direction usually requires. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our knowledge of cat sight suggests they perceive an image similarly to orthochromatic camera film such that blue objects appear lighter, and red ones darker. It would be an interesting experiment to find whether a human can see better than a cat under a dim red Safelight. DroneB (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
—2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
