4 ms·
> The researchers came across this entirely by accident, and one of the questions that remains is how the trout is able to sense its surroundings well enough to
by soheil 5y ago
> The researchers came across this entirely by accident, and one of the questions that remains is how the trout is able to sense its surroundings well enough to intentionally take advantage of the effect.
Should have been:
The researchers came across this entirely by accident, and one of the questions that remains is how ignorant we are about some of the most basic aspects of the world.
- jjoonathan 5y agoHard disagree. "How is the trout able to sense..." is a good question and answering it will advance our understanding. Navel-gazing about ignorance will not.
- soheil 5y agoWhy are you conflating what scientists are doing vs what civilization as a whole has always thought about the subject?
- Cipater 5y agoWhat a strange thing to say on a post about researchers working to dispel ignorance.
- soheil 5y agoFor millennia people thought fish swam upstream until literally today. If that’s not sheer ignorance I don’t know what is.
- grkvlt 5y ago> until literally today you know this research was published in 2006, and is based on earlier work (from the citations you can see papers from the early 1970s onwards) which suggests the ignorance might be more localised ;)
- Maursault 5y agoI believe GP meant 'figuratively' (a common modern use of 'literally,' disconcertingly) and could also be mixing unrelated idioms such as swim like a fish and swimming upstream, though it is commonly known salmon swim upstream, I'm not sure this fluid dynamics epiphany changes anything there. If it could technically be incorrect to say salmon swim upstream, how should it be phrased correctly? Salmon get sucked upstream?