Why didn't dinosaurs evolve to be more intelligent?

[JackRT]

I've always seen language like that as obfuscation, not explanation, and I don't think the problem is all mine.

It is very helpful to learn the language of science before attempting to critique it. Terms used are defined very specifically and unfortunately sometimes the same term is used in everyday language with a quite different meaning.

 

[pitabread]

The use of such language, IMHO, is a bluff.

It's not. Any specialized field is invariably going to bring with it certain jargon that is utilized in that field. That's just how things work.

To question such language runs the risk of looking uneducated, and the use of it makes one look educated, unless someone with smarts can see through the linguistic fog.

The only way to know if someone is using technical jargon correctly is to understand that technical jargon in the first place.

 

[Speedwell]

The use of such language, IMHO, is a bluff. To question such language runs the risk of looking uneducated, and the use of it makes one look educated, unless someone with smarts can see through the linguistic fog. Can we move on? I did not intend to derail the thread.

Then perhaps you should not have made such an offensive and slanderous accusation.

 

[pitabread]

Terms used are defined very specifically and unfortunately the same term is used in everyday language with a quite different meaning.

To be fair, not *all* terms in science are defined that specifically. In some cases they can have varied meanings depending on the context and/or who coined them.

 

[JackRT]

The use of such language, IMHO, is a bluff. To question such language runs the risk of looking uneducated, and the use of it makes one look educated, unless someone with smarts can see through the linguistic fog. Can we move on? I did not intend to derail the thread.

I spent 20 years learning the language of science and mathematics (BSc, MSc, BEd) and another 40 years teaching it. Then you come along and call it linguistic fog. What are your qualifications?

 

[durangodawood]

I spent 20 years learning the language of science and mathematics (BSc, MSc, BEd) and another 40 years teaching it. Then you come along and call it linguistic fog. What are your qualifications?

Any concept you cant grasp in 5 or 10 minutes with a sitcom level lexicon is fake.

Sorry about the 20 years you invested.

 

[JackRT]

Any concept you cant grasp in 5 or 10 minutes with sitcom level lexicon is fake.

Sorry about the 20 years you invested.

Don't be. The life of a teacher of any subject is always challenging but very rewarding. The best is when you witness that special moment when they "get it". Some of my students have gone on to brilliant careers in science. A secondary benefit is that I kept meeting people some of whom were way smarter than me. I was able to guide them only because through my experience I "knew where the bodies were buried". Don't be Sorry for me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've always seen language like that as obfuscation, not explanation, and I don't think the problem is all mine.

It's just language commonly used in general physics; it cuts down the length of explanation. Anyone who doesn't know the jargon will find it problematic, but I was responding to an explicit use of the relevant jargon. There's a balance between using jargon and being long-winded.

If it helps:

Entropy is, very roughly, a measure of disorder.
A dissipative structure is something that, very roughly, uses up energy.
Thermodynamic free energy is energy that's available to do work, rather than degraded energy.
An out-of-equilibrium system has some free energy available to do work.
Thermodynamically favourable roughly means the system can easily change from a higher-energy, more unstable state, to a lower-energy, more stable state.

If you want any more of it explained in plainer language, I can do that, just ask; the problem is that those terms have specific meanings in physics that involve other specific physics terms, so I can only give rough approximations of their meaning in the vernacular.

But as I said before, if you mention entropy and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics in a Physical and Life Sciences forum as if you understand them, people will naturally assume you know the lingo. It seems churlish to blame them for a reasonable assumption. The solution is not to use jargon terms in topics you don't understand.

 

[durangodawood]

Don't be. The life of a teacher of any subject is always challenging but very rewarding. The best is when you witness that special moment when they "get it". Some of my students have gone on to brilliant careers in science. A secondary benefit is that I kept meeting people some of whom were way smarter than me. I was able to guide them only because through my experience I "knew where the bodies were buried". Don't be Sorry for me.

Nice. I've had some amazing teachers myself, mainly in non math/science fields where Ive focused.

But I dip into science topics as a sort of layperson-fan. And I appreciate the value of learning the special words that stand for complex concepts...aka "jargon". Its so convenient to use the special word rather than write out the whole darn concept every time.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I had to read my spouse's dissertation. She was in political science/public administration. The jargon that I remember was "satisfice" , a portmanteau of satisfy and suffice. I hated that word. But, in any case, it conveyed a concept that was known to all in her field.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I've always seen language like that as obfuscation, not explanation, and I don't think the problem is all mine.

Do you consider the jargon used by Christians to be different in some special way?

 

[JackRT]

I had to read my spouse's dissertation. She was in political science/public administration. The jargon that I remember was "satisfice" , a portmanteau of satisfy and suffice. I hated that word. But, in any case, it conveyed a concept that was known to all in her field.

You just taught me something. I have always known what a "portmanteau" was but I have never encountered that word before. Thank you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You just taught me something. I have always known what a "portmanteau" was but I have never encountered that word before. Thank you.

I think I first heard it on Jeopardy. It comes in handy every now and again.

 

[JackRT]

I think I first heard it on Jeopardy. It comes in handy every now and again.

I am 76. I will be lucky if I ever get to use the word at any point in the rest of my life. I remain hopeful.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I am 76. I will be lucky if I ever get to use the word at any point in the rest of my life. I remain hopeful.

Heh. Never give up hope. I always find an excuse to use a new word, much to my friends' chagrin. Perhaps they lack the perspicacity to fully appreciate the alacrity with which I accrue them.

 

[durangodawood]

I can't get no satisfiction.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I had to read my spouse's dissertation. She was in political science/public administration. The jargon that I remember was "satisfice" , a portmanteau of satisfy and suffice. I hated that word. But, in any case, it conveyed a concept that was known to all in her field.

Wow, I've never heard "satisfice", and I know a couple of people in public admin; maybe it's not universal?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Why didn't dinosaurs evolve to be more intelligent?

They were on top of the food chain so apparently they had evolved just fine.

 

[loveofourlord]

Also intelligence tends to be in response for something, plus animals are smarter in different ways. Dogs are smarter on a neuron scale due to being pack animals and such, where as cats are less smart on a neuron scale, but are incredibly smart in other ways. As the saying goes nescacity is the mother of all inventions, kinda fits well with evolution, if a animal has no need for higher intelligence, any more then they need to be faster, strongre, or more armoured, then there is no push for it to evolve, and gets lost in the noise.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wow, I've never heard "satisfice", and I know a couple of people in public admin; maybe it's not universal?

Well, it was 30 years ago. And, outside her dissertation I never heard her say it.