• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Putting 3D glasses on cuttlefish and praying mantises

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by essentialsaltes, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +5,426
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    It is not a scientific publication. It is a report on a scientific publication. It's objective is primarily commercial, not scientific.

    The results were surprising
    is more attractive than
    The results were in line with expectations based upon prior research with other species.

    The title of the scientific publication is "Cuttlefish use stereopsis to strike at prey" and it is clear from that paper that the researchers were not surprised by their finding that "although there is convergent evolution in depth computation, cuttlefish stereopsis is likely afforded by a different algorithm than in humans, and not just a different implementation."

    Caution should always be exercised when getting ones science third hand.
     
  2. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +11,484
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    Many animals have eyes basically on opposite sides of their head, so there is very little, if any, overlap between the fields of vision of the two eyes. Their eyes also often move independently, so it would seem they are not making use of stereopsis for depth perception.
     
  3. Chesterton

    Chesterton Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding Supporter

    +17,006
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    Yes, all that goes without saying.
    Well I just asked about depth perception. I know we don't need stereopsis for it; I can close one eye and still reach for my coffee cup just fine.
     
  4. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +5,426
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    Hmm. And yet you felt compelled to say "The headline of the linked article says "the results were surprising", but it doesn't really say why they were surprising."

    Should I just ignore the next implied question you ask on the basis that you are actually fully aware of the reason, "which goes without saying"?
     
  5. Chesterton

    Chesterton Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding Supporter

    +17,006
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    Well, "compelled" is a strong word. I was mildly curious.
    I don't understand your question about some "next implied question". ?
     
  6. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +5,426
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but here is how the exchange looks from my POV:
    You: I don't understand why the research results were described as surprising.
    Me: It's a click bait headline. They want to create enough interest in the mind of the casual reader to make them read the article.
    You: Yeah, I knew that.
    Me (to myself): Then why, oh why did you ask?

    You never asked a direct question originally, but one was implied in your statement - The headline of the linked article says "the results were surprising", but it doesn't really say why they were surprising.

    So, the next time you post an implied question do I invest time to answer it, if I am going to be told that you already knew the answer? Because I'm an optimist I'll probably give it a go anyway, with the hope that this time you'll perceive it to be of some value.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  7. Chesterton

    Chesterton Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding Supporter

    +17,006
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    Because someone posted the article in a discussion forum so I thought we could discuss it. If you think the headline is pure click bait, and there's nothing interesting about the study, fine, but I was hoping the OP might answer, since he's the one that "retweeted" the article, so to speak.
    I did. I asked if there were any animals which do not have depth perception. I got two replies which were strange non-answers about stereopsis and echolocation, which is kind of like asking "are there any restaurants which don't sell hamburgers" and being told of two different ways that restaurants sell hamburgers. Those responses prompted my second question about why someone would describe the findings as surprising.
     
  8. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +5,426
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    OK. It seems my posts are ambiguous, unclear and confusing. I'll try to simplify; if that comes across as rude, well, tough.

    My interest is not in your original motivation or your original question. Your second "question" was not a question: no question mark, no sentence structure indicating a question. It was an implied question. Something I already pointed out to you. I gave you an answer. Your response was rude. I tried, as diplomatically as possible to point that out. I guess I was way too diplomatic. I think we're done.
     
  9. Chesterton

    Chesterton Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding Supporter

    +17,006
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    You are correct.
    I apologize for being rude. I didn't mean to be. I did feel your response was condescending though, because the distinction between the "real science" and the reporting of same in popular press is one that's made often in this forum frequently over the years, and I thought we all kind of knew it.
     
Loading...