StringJunky

If you've got dozens of sensors in a small locality, it should be relatively easy to see anomalous readings and discard them or even take interest in them if they persist. No system's perfect, it's just a case of finding the error bars and working within them. Time would tighten them I'm sure.

If those individual devices and their readings were geographically pinpointed on a google map so that the owners of those devices could zoom in on their device's readings in realtime in the map, and surrounding devices, they'll likely feel an active part of a global project. People would be able to study urban micro-climates as well as national and global..

Yes, anything that gets people feeling they are contributing to finding the solution.

I think of OOTB as: that which has not attained wide consensus. It's outside the boundary of the box but still part of it. When an idea is accepted, the size of the box grows. I see progress, really, as akin to building a bridge across a chasm where the other side cannot be seen. I'm pointing at anybody in particular. I think the best approach to learning is to be like a radio and absorb the information. Spontaneous scepticism as soon as you hear something stops you absorbing and digesting properly The stuff we talk about here is very well-trodden and understood by those that do, I don't think one should try to reinvent the wheel until one understands it inside-out. I think many harbour a secret fantasy to be the next Einstein or Newton (Guilty yer 'onour! ) and, hence, constantly pushing towards being original in their forum dialogue. The only thing is, most are not willing to swot years/decades of their life learning what is already known, just like those two did.

Click on the image of the waves to see all the slit combinations.

It's been done with electrons. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/14/feynmans-double-slit-experiment-gets-a-makeover

Atoms are atoms, wherever they come from. The source makes no difference. Two identical molecules are identical in every way.. they are both the real thing.

My only contribution was that if a person was on a deliberate low-carb diet, that's not medically advised, then they should stop. There seems to be a fad with some people, thinking it's healthy. You should only take advice from qualified people, and I'm not, but the first sentence I mentioned is an obvious action to take, if it's relevant. Is your child on a vegan diet (no animal products)?

The presence of excess ketones in the urine maybe indicate that there is insufficient carbohydrates in the diet. The liver can metabolise triglycerides ( fats) in the absence of glucose (from carbs) but the result can be a high ketone reading.

How does, where an embryo develops determine what it will develop into?

Spreading the "good news".

The embryo is whatever it is genetically-encoded to be. If you put that embryo "...in an incubator and cook it for nine months". it will be a human baby.

So, what's the answer?

I'm not sceptical about stuff that's been established for many decades. Most importantly, I know that there is much I don't know and wouldn't dream of contesting that which I have little knowledge of but has been around for twice as long, or more, as I've been alive. Science progresses from what is already known... it doesn't start from thin air. Like Phi says; know what's inside the box before you look outside of it.

Yes. "If I Have seen further...." pretty much sums up the overall attitude I think.

If we compare some sodium chloride (table salt) from raw rock salt and sodium chloride made from a sodium + chlorine reaction, the two are chemically identical in every way. I'm not surprised, given the marketing towards organic stuff. but synthetically-derived chemicals.are purer and more predictable; 'natural' products are not. Quite honestly, the 'Organic' industry is just selling a dream for the purpose of making money. Going back to artificial wombs, it's rather hard for us swallow at this time but some decades in the future, society's mindset may well be different.

It's not surprising really when you consider that they hold the qualities of commitment and belief in such high esteem.

It's always a work-in-progress, so it's unlikely to be absolutely valid. The main thing is that it's useful.

Regardless of where it's development occurs and the means by which it was conceived, it is no less artificial than baby a born inside a woman. I think of an artificial object as something that is made from something different to the original.

That's basically the long and short of it. Let's see what happens.

That's right. More to do with self-discipline and consideration.

Speculation in the guise of a question. This type is especially annoying because it starts with a deceit, unless explicitly stated otherwise which it rarely is. It puts responders in the wrong starting mode for answering. I think when people do this they are trying to avoid, initially anyway, the sharp critical analysis that comes with presenting an obvious speculation

In pure science discussions egos should be left at home. Accepting ones error without a fuss is a virtue and essential for good science discussion imo. Getting emotional and egotistical is the antithesis of good scientific practice... Spock would turn in his grave.

Yeah, it's like 'chemical' vs 'natural' pills... it's ALL chemical, DAMMIT!

This raises the question: is science discussion about 'winning the argument' or mutually pursuing as a close a description of nature as we can? For me personally, winning the argument is for politics and debating societies. I'll keep it in the back of my mind.