Space Babe

@CharonY I agree with your opinion. Your remarks are very logical. I am not really introduced with the methods and types of reviews that were applied during that time (since you mentioned that peer-review was not an established process), but I often wonder why would they give more relevance to a paper that lacks evidence to support a claim? Also, what kind of review was used instead of peer-review? What was the factor that made that change, or transfer, for papers to start being peer-reviewed?

I completely agree with your opinion. Linguistics represents the application of a scientific method in order to question the function and nature of language. It's fascinating how linguistics tend to overlap not only with social sciences, but with natural sciences as well, with the purpose of discovering how language exactly is reserved in the humans brain, and how language is relevant in human behavior, which actually makes us special compared to the other living creatures on this planet.

@Mordred Thank you!

I see what you mean. Thank you so much for your advice, I really appreciate it I originally have one supervisor, or mentor (he is actually my mentor since I was 18 - when I presented a scientific hypothesis to him). He is also a part of the research project, so I guess that he will negotiate in my name with the other researchers. But I suppose that, if things get really serious, than the student doesn't have much power in that fight. You may have a point, even though your opinion is biased. As I can remember, I don't think that Franklin ever proposed the model. But when you think about it, Franklin is acknowledged in some sort of way, even though it is not how it is usually expected; Thank you. Yes, I am aware of that, since the idea must be supported and validly proven, otherwise, it may not even be taken seriously.

I hope so. I know that they all contribute to the research project, however I believe that I deserve to be the lead author as you say. Because as I have mentioned before, all the research ideas are mine, I just presented them to the researchers and they agreed to work with me. I am feeling nervous mostly because they are much more experienced than me (they have like over 100 published papers and researches) and of course because they are much older.

I see what you mean. In any case, that really seems unfair and I think than anyone would feel displeased in this situation. Once again, thank you for explaining.

Nobel prizes aren't awarded posthumously, so she did not receive any credit in the research, nor do I believe that she received a share in the prize for her contribution. However, I think that all of this credit stealing started when Wilkins (who worked separately from Franklin) showed Watson and Crick (without permission) Franklin's image of DNA, also known as Photo 51.

I completely agree with your opinion, as I have also experienced that. Usually I have always published scientific papers with only one mentor, who would often like to contribute. But I never had any experience with group publishing. I am a bit nervous about this because I started working with three researchers (even though all the research ideas are mine) and I don't really know how things will turn out when we will have to publish our results.

I have also heard about this. I think that Rosalind Franklin was not awarded the Nobel Prize for her contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA. In other words, she was snubbed due to sexism.

I have never heard of this case, thank you for telling me about it. But are you trying to say that all three of them together were considered as coauthors? Did Bethe even contribute to the paper?

This is a very interesting topic, not to mention very useful Just like Arete, I was also a bit confused by the question since I couldn't tell if the member was asking about papers before or after being published in scientific journals. Because once you publish a paper in a scientific journal, that means it is officially your idea and other interested people can only cite your work or base their own paper on it. But when it comes to someone stealing your idea before you officially publish it as your own, I would say that the most likely possibility of that happening is if you share your idea with other people, among who someone might want to steal it and write a paper about that same topic. I agree with Strange that, when it comes to publishing a scientific paper, that is not really necessary. So far, I have managed to publish a couple of scientific papers, even though I haven't even graduated from college. However, according to my personal experience, you will need a mentor who can also be your professor or someone who has a Master's degree or a PhD in order to publish your paper. Of course, you and your mentor can be both considered as coauthors, even if you are the one that wrote the paper. But in most cases, the mentor usually wants to contribute as well. And even if this is the case, you must be careful and make sure that you can trust your mentor, because I have heard about some situations where the professor or mentor steals the student's idea and publishes it as his/her own. This has not happened to me, fortunately, but still you need to be cautious whom you present your idea to.

I guess your explanation makes sense. Like in technology, pre-wiring represents the ability to add something is present in the basic design, but the option must still be added; So, the basic design represented the listener's hearing (that is, the interaction between our brain and our ears) before the auditory illusion. However, after the auditory illusion is heard (for the first time), its effect is added in the way our brain, through our hearing ability, can easily be tricked into hearing sounds differently, hearings sounds that are not part of the stimulus, or "impossible" sounds. We can't experience auditory illusions if we have never heard them before, if we can only partially hear them (or if we cannot hear them at all due to being deaf).

I know, right? Initially, I had the same thought but when I heard the sound demos again after a long period of time, I realized that the illusion still works. I wonder why is that so?

I am not necessarily talking about religion here, but rather explaining that people often see themselves as superior in comparison to the other living organisms on this planet. Therefore, this may be one of the reasons and possible motivations as to why people (of all religions) believe in an afterlife - they perceive their existence to be more relevant than the rest of the animals. Of course, this can also apply to atheists as well, but they perceive their place on this planet a bit differently. In general, I don't think humans believe that there is an afterlife for animals as well. Except maybe in ancient times when people were polytheists and worshiped animals... In other words, the psychology of human's self awareness and self-perceptions compared to the other living creatures may give us an explanation for the question why people believe in god. But like I've said in my previous post, this is just my personal opinion.

I have listened to this auditory illusion before, I think from a documentary called Mind Works on Da Vinci Learning I listened to all seven sound demos and no matter if the sentence is sung or spoken, I always hear it as singing. This confirms what you said that you can't hear the sentence as not being sung! In the first sound demo particularly, from the whole sentence, only the part saying "Sometimes behave so strangely" is heard as being sung. It's like when you suddenly start singing while talking, and when that particular part is pronounced, you continue to hear the sentence as speaking.