Science desk
< September 19	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 21 >

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.

September 20

Mental capacity/diagnosis of fictional dumb characters

Obviously, Hollywood exaggerates things for comedy, but let's say some of the really dumb fictional characters on American sitcoms existed in real life. 1. What would be the diagnosis? And, 2. Would they even function in society without some sort of supervision, group home, etc.

The reason I ask is, some friends and I were discussing the sheriff of Hazzard County, and I noted that in one episode of The Dukes of Hazzard, the balladeer talks about Rosco being a high school quarterback. I speculated that one concussion too many, over time, may have let him originally be normal and able to be elected sheriff, but then get dumber later. I also mentioned that Carter, on Hogan's Heroes, was said by someone on one forum to exhibit the classic clumsiness, confusion, etc., of someone who was left-handed but forced to do everything with his right, which would be common in that time period. Kimmy Gibbler is another we were curious about, and I noted that in the chronology fans developed for Full House to make episodes realistic and numerous other things, to make it realistic she was seen more to just not want to think (as an early episode states), and that she simply suffered from some very mild learning disorder and either was just really weird or pretended to be dumb quite a bit to hide when she was.

I guess my question, as I wrote above, really boils down to how realistic some of the dumbest people are on various sitcoms. Without forcing you to speculate, which I know you can't do, what is the realistic status of some of the dumbest characters on TV if they were in real life? Would most be considered to just have had lots of concussions? Severe mental challenges? Or what?

As an aside, I think there was a joke on Cheers about Woody Boyd having fallen from a turnip truck as a child, a reference to a comment about "I didn't just fall off the turnip truck."209.244.187.155 (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "fall off a turnip truck" isn't referring to him having an accident (say by hitting his head by falling from a literal truck). The phrase is an idiom, meaning "I'm not a stupid rural person who just came into town." See [1] and the Wiktionary entry [2] -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that later in the conversation he mentions that he did fall off a turnip truck once; though I'll admit the question is still uncertain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a repository of all things wacky Wikipedia does of course have an article related to this precise topic List of fictional characters by IQ. Dmcq (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and meat from strangled animal

Many religions not allowing people from drinking blood and the meat from strangled animal. Is there any scientific explanation for these? roscoe_x (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an animal is stressed at the time of death (and strangulation tends to be a stressful experience), various chemicals are released into the bloodstream which (negatively) alter the flavour of the meat and cause it to go off more quickly. Perhaps that has something to do with it? I wouldn't be surprised if many of these religious dietary laws started for simple 'don't do that, it's a waste of food' or 'don't eat that because it's too easy to get sick from it' (e.g. shellfish) reasons... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but I have heard of at least one dish that involves specifically strangling the animal first: Pressed duck. Bleh. What religions explicitly prohibit this? Maybe it's just about cruelty? --Haptic (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jews, Christian, and Islam have similar rules about this. roscoe_x (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no scientific explanation, since religions aren't scientific. One can formulate scientific rationalizations, but why? They don't match the religion's own explanations. For two major religions which dictate how you kill your meat: kosher laws of Judaism dictate that animals must be killed by slicing their throats in order to fully drain the blood, as the religious laws forbid the consumption of blood. Halal laws of Islam arise from the same basic prohibition of meat with blood in it. Cruelty is clearly not a concern: both kosher and halal killing require the slaughter of a conscious animal, and forbid stunning the animal first. Practitioners of both forms of slaughter consider them the "kindest" way of killing. - Nunh-huh 02:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stated reasons aren't necessarily the original reasons. As Kurt says, it seems likely that a lot of these religious laws were originally because of genuine benefits from doing it that way. They didn't have the scientific background necessary to explain it, so they attributed it to "God's will" and made it a religious law. --Tango (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And some of those health reasons may be post-hoc rationalizations, without basis in reality. From Kosher#Hygiene "There have been attempts to provide empirical support for the view that [all] kashrut laws have hygienic benefits ... For a number of reasons, however, this idea has fallen out of favor among Biblical scholars." I can't find the corresponding section for halal, but Kosher#Attempts_to_explain_the_laws_of_kashrut makes an interesting read, as does this: "Real men don't eat deer - food taboos" -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki page on Criticism of religion says "Critics such as Dr Shirin Ebadi say dogmatic religions are morally deficient, elevating to moral status many ancient and ill-informed rules that may have been designed for reasons of hygiene, politics, or other reasons in a bygone era.". Of course, I would not trust something that comes from a wikipedia page as Scientifically Authentic. I'm pretty sure there is no modern scientific basis for doing so (forbidding people from drinking blood and the meat from strangled animal). Unless it involves drinking blood from primates or bats.

PS. I have no idea how you can "drink the meat from strangled animal" but religious laws are really strange.

122.107.140.79 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should clarify the question, it should be "drink blood and eat the meat from strangled animal". roscoe_x (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are scientific and modern rationalizations which try to make sense of religious and ancient dogma, but no reason to believe these were the reasons the dogma was imposed. They are a measure of the apologists' ingenuity, not the reasonableness of the received rules. - Nunh-huh 04:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool labs in Boston

I have an anthropology assignment where I am supposed to go observe a scientific laboratory in the Boston area for awhile. I want to do a cool project. Does not have to be any particular type of lab, it is very open ended. I'm having toruble thinking of a good thing to study for something like this.. thanx for any thoughts or suggestions that you have --Haptic (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While not in Boston proper, MIT and Harvard are both in Cambridge, MA, just a short distance away. If you are looking for "cool" that would be a great place to start. Most University websites have some sort of "Research" link on their homepage, where they talk about the science going on there. Try reading through those (as well as press releases under the "News" link) to see if you get any ideas for your project. You should probably only decide on a general subject area to begin with - you're going to need to get permission to observe the labs, so you may want to contact the relevant department heads, to see if they can set you up with a laboratory who is willing to be observed. (A number of labs may decline, either due to the confidential nature of their research, or just because they don't want an anthropology student underfoot.) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Transducers

What are digital transducers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.168.80 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are transducers that provide digital (rather than analog) output. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a simple example, a potentiometer transduces the rotary position of a shaft to an analogue voltage while a rotary encoder transduces the same shaft to a digital code. SpinningSpark 00:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, identify a spider

Good day, RefDeskers! I haven't been here a while, but I return, this time to ask a favour. Namely, I have found this (at right) in my basement this morning. Does anybody know what species this spider is?

I am fairly sure, that in general terms this is a spider. The photograph was taken in northern Poland, where the temperatures have dropped to ca. fifteen Celsius in the past days, however the basement is heated with space heaters. I found it floating in a bucket of water, i guess it probably fell in there in the night, because i haven't seen it there yesterday. For size comparison - with the legs spread out like in the photo I guess it could easily stand in the rim of your average glass, so think ca. 10 cm. It was moving when i found it in the water, which is kinda surprising to me, because i thought water was sort of deadly for these creatures - but it couldn't get out.

So, if anybody has a clue, enjoy yourselves, and cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot like tegenaria domestica, they are commonly seen around houses in the autumn possibly they are attracted by the warmth. Generally harmless but can nip soft human parts if seriously provoked. Richard Avery (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the page and found the genus Tegenaria atrica after some research - my specimen resembles this much more closely. What do you think? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think you're right. Richard Avery (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Richard. Nice to know one's roomie's name, ain't it? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

burden calculation in electrical circuit

How can I calculate the burden in Current Transformer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahparth85 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work at the LHC by any chance? 163.1.148.158 (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find what you are looking for at Current transformer#Burden. SpinningSpark 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pill

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Jdrewitt (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry there is nobody else I can ask. If I ask the doctor my parents will find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet John (talk • contribs) 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing a doctor she won't be able to get a prescription for the pill anyway. So you should ask the prescribing doctor. --Lova Falk (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way a doctor would prescribe medication without explaining how and when to take it. It will also come with written instructions. I don't know where you live, but in the UK, doctor-patient confidentiality applies to children just as to anyone else - a doctor can't reveal anything to your parents without your consent. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a few exceptions, of course. Under 16's who are in danger of hurting themselves or others can and most likely will have their parents contacted and the related authorities informed. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are exceptions, you're right. Contraception isn't one of them, though (at least, not in the UK). --Tango (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even without reading the question: See a doctor now. Do not wait. If necessary, Ask a friend or your school nurse for the name of a sympathetic doctor. This advice probably applies in nearly all jurisdictions. It certaionly applies in the state of Virginia in the USA. -Arch dude (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently people have tried to make it mandatory to inform parents when a minor asks for contraception in Virginia but it failed [3] Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it counts as medical advice to say YOU NEED TO SORT OUT CONTRACEPTION BEFORE YOU DO IT. And the way to do this, is to see a doctor. As others have stated, your confidentiality should be guaranteed and if necessary, you can ask for help to find a doctor you are comfortable with (although even your family doctor should guarantee you confidentiality). If you are still too afraid to see a doctor, then frankly you aren't ready for sex. P.S. In the event you are stupid enough to completely ignore everyone telling you to see a doctor and go ahead and do it without seeing a doctor, you still should see a doctor but do it as soon as possible (i.e. not tomorrow but right now) Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question was an explicit request for advise on a sexual health issue which is of course medical advice and prohibited by wikipedia guidelines. It is not for us to advise on request specific medication or contraception to a particular individual. All the replies to this post are superflous since the only possible cause of action is to see a health professional. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree since the OP claims that they are afraid to see a doctor because a doctor will tell the parents and most of the responses have been in an attempt to alleviate this concern. I also disagree that offering more detailed advice based on the specific circumstances counts as forbidden medical advice. Note that no one has tried to advise on specific contraception types or methods.Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was a request for medical advice and was removed. The OP then asked a (implied) follow-up question which was about confidentiality, that's a topic we can help with, so we did. The only medical advice people have given is "see a doctor", which is exactly the advice we should give. --Tango (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason we can't be helpful. It's possible to be helpful without offering medical advice. The questioner was asking for advice on contraception, and in so doing he asked a question that implied that he thought a single contraceptive pill would protect against pregnancy. We should have told him it doesn't, that contraceptive pills need to be taken on a regular basis rather than just as a single pill around the time of intercourse, and pointed him to our articles on birth control for more information. We ought also to have been more helpful than "see a doctor"; if the original questioner wants medical advice about contraception in a supportive environment that will not embarass him or his girlfriend, and which will not notify his or her parents, and if he's in the U.S., he may want to talk to the nice people at Planned Parenthood, who exist to serve this need, and who would be very happy to talk with him and/or his girlfriend. Furthermore, they're equipped not only to offer advice, but to offer the actual pills or devices needed. - Nunh-huh 03:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protomap

In the book I'm studying, I found this sentence: "Neurons migrate along the radial glial fibers, which take them from the protomap in the ventricular zone to the respective region in the cortex." I wonder what the word protomap means. When I search Wikipedia and the internet, I get information about the "protomap" hypothesis by Rakic (which I basically understand), but I can't find a definition for this word protomap. What does it mean?--Lova Falk (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this context it's a quite literal meaning: it's a cortex map set up in the early stages of development where the neurons are in their correct places relative to each other, but aren't in their correct positions in the cortex. However, this kind of development I haven't studied in depth, so my words can be taken with a grain of salt. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This morning I wrote a little article on protomap. You are very welcome to take a look at it! --Lova Falk (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water as hallucinogen?

I've heard that Water if drunk in extremely excessive quantity acts as a mild hallucinogen. Can anybody provide any citation/proof to this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Hamza (talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Water intoxication. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please rade the first line of the article: "Water intoxication (also known as hyperhydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance..." -Arch dude (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The effects of water intoxication do not fit the definition of a hallucinogen. --Mark PEA (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really evidence for "classical conditioning"

On thinking about classical conditioning, including Pavlov's dogs and the Little Albert experiment, I'm troubled that the "conditioned reflex" explanation is not the only one supported by the (perhaps rather flimsy) evidence, and that other (to my mind more pragmatic) explanations aren't rejected. As I understand it Pavlov claimed that, by ringing a bell and then feeding his dogs he'd conditioned them to salivate (like some kind of fleshy biorobots) when bells are rung. But anyone who has a dog knows how the dog reacts to you taking the leash of the hook - they get excited. It's surely a reasonable hypothesis that dogs in fact remember going to the park, and enjoying themselves there, and remember that the leash coming off the hook is the first step in the great park adventure. They're not programmed, they just like the park and remember the leash. Similarly surely Pavlov's dogs remember that the bell means imminent food, and so so isn't it an equally valid (and unrejected) hypothesis that when Pavlov rang his bell the dogs were in fact fantasising about delicious meat (rather than this being an automatic reflex response). Surely the obvious falsifying experiment would be to feed Pavlov's dogs until they're replete and then ring the bell. If they're really conditioned they'll salivate anyway, but if the salivation is merely symptomatic of food-fantasies then the stuffed dogs won't fantasise about meat and thus won't salivate. But I can't see any evidence that this experiment has been done. Similarly Little Albert seems to be a rubbish experiment with a panoply of unrejected hypotheses. Are there any good, well-controlled experiments that show you really can institute a genuine "reflex" in a person or smart animal, that can't just as easily be explained by saying "the animal is smart; it remembered"? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Classical_conditioning#Theories_of_classical_conditioning is discussing that very question. --Tango (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the section that brought me here - I don't see how that rat/noise experiment at all rejects the hypothesis that "rats are smart; they remember; and if you change conditions and repeat a few times they're smart enough to remember something new". Doesn't it just prove that rats have memories? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think your viewpoint is pretty much the same as what the article calls "S-S", which was the viewpoint supported by the rat experiment. --Tango (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?Edison (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying, "they're not automatons, they are processing it cognitively on some level." Which is surely true but not necessarily at issue with Pavlov or the classical behaviorists (who just don't care about how the cognitive processing works, because they have no insight into that). (As for Little Albert, that has been known to be junk for decades.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]