palindnilap wrote:

katja z wrote:I'm almost done, but I'm afraid that I'll exceed the word count, and I absolutely hate having to shorten my texts. For one thing, it takes longer than the writing! I could do with some moral support right now.

From my own experience, shortening the text has always been an essential step in enhancing the quality of my writing, and can often be used to make the matter clearer.

Now you've gone and got all rational on me!

Of course you are right, and I know it. I just hate the rewriting.

I'm finding it very difficult to come up with anything concrete. The top-down processing of visual information, illusions, induced blindnesses and other things form a good primer for an essay on consciousness but it's kinda hard to debunk naive realism through them. And to make a good case about the weirdness and 'queerer than we can suppose' kinda counterintuitive nature of QM, I need to do far too much reading which is impossible when you have less than ten days to go before your 3rd Prof exam.

natselrox wrote:I'm finding it very difficult to come up with anything concrete. The top-down processing of visual information, illusions, induced blindnesses and other things form a good primer for an essay on consciousness but it's kinda hard to debunk naive realism through them. And to make a good case about the weirdness and 'queerer than we can suppose' kinda counterintuitive nature of QM, I need to do far too much reading which is impossible when you have less than ten days to go before your 3rd Prof exam.

*there, there* Why not pick something more straightforward this time and save consciousness and QM for the next essay? You can start writing it right after your exam!

katja z wrote:

natselrox wrote:I'm finding it very difficult to come up with anything concrete. The top-down processing of visual information, illusions, induced blindnesses and other things form a good primer for an essay on consciousness but it's kinda hard to debunk naive realism through them. And to make a good case about the weirdness and 'queerer than we can suppose' kinda counterintuitive nature of QM, I need to do far too much reading which is impossible when you have less than ten days to go before your 3rd Prof exam.

*there, there* Why not pick something more straightforward this time and save consciousness and QM for the next essay? You can start writing it right after your exam!

Sounds good. I have the whole weekend with me. Let's see if I can come up with something.

Where's yours. huh?

Well there's my submission, have at it folks.

Just submitted mine as well.

Medgen ! I really liked yours. It was an excellent blend of scientific knowledge and easy to understand terms and analogies that lay people could relate to and comprehend. And most of all, I learned stuff from your presentation ! Well done.

[nitpicking mode] When you wrote "vas differens", I think you meant "vas deferens". Sorry, anatomy's my thing.

I'll be voting for yours !



I'm off to read Darkchilde's now.

I liked Darkchilde's too, but if I was writing the same topic for the uneducated masses, I'd have probably included a little bit of discussion about confirmation bias and the ambiguous language used in many horoscopes....and the fact that unless all Sagittarians get hit by a bus tomorrow (as predicted!), it's waffle.

I know that it was a science essay though, so the intent was to discuss it strictly from an astronomical point of view. In this, you're done well and presented a clear, simple synopsis of some complex issues.

Durro wrote:I liked Darkchilde's too, but if I was writing the same topic for the uneducated masses, I'd have probably included a little bit of discussion about confirmation bias and the ambiguous language used in many horoscopes....and the fact that unless all Sagittarians get hit by a bus tomorrow (as predicted!), it's waffle.

I know that it was a science essay though, so the intent was to discuss it strictly from an astronomical point of view. In this, you're done well and presented a clear, simple synopsis of some complex issues.

I did not want to go into that territory, Durro. It would lead to questions like "Why do so many people believe in astrology?" Those are questions to be answered from a psychological point of view, and not an astronomical point of view. I could never delve into that territory as I know very little about psychology, and especially the psychology of belief. I was never even a believer.

Durro wrote:Medgen ! I really liked yours. It was an excellent blend of scientific knowledge and easy to understand terms and analogies that lay people could relate to and comprehend. And most of all, I learned stuff from your presentation ! Well done.

[nitpicking mode] When you wrote "vas differens", I think you meant "vas deferens". Sorry, anatomy's my thing.

I'll be voting for yours !



I'm off to read Darkchilde's now.

Thanks Durro, I'll correct that typo.

I really like Darkchildes essay. I agree that perhaps a little about the human perspective of astrology would have been interesting, however, I think the corpse of that horse has been whipped sufficiently. What I would have liked to read more about is the role of the precession of the equinoxes and what causes them. Or even to perhaps to focus on one particular reason astrology is wrong and explain that in a bit more detail. Afterall, astrology only has to be wrong for one reason for it to be falsified.

Very nice work, you two!

I am starting to read the essays now, starting from yours Durro.

I have one criticism: Quarks and other subatomic particles do not ignore gravity. However gravity is the weakest force of all, and there are stronger forces at play within the atoms, like the weak and strong interactions, and the attraction between opposite electric charges [electromagnetism]. And of course in objects like black holes, we do need a unified theory that takes into account both gravity and the quantum world. And this is one of the holy grails of science. [Damn, this is a whole subject on its own. However it is wrong to say that quarks and other subatomic particles ignore gravity. Maybe I will research the subject a bit more, about another science competition.]

MedGen, I do say that the axis rotates because of gravitational influences. More than that, and I would have to go into talking about gravity as the major force in massive objects, and it would totally derail the subject, which was about astrology. I did not want to go into very much detail, but keep it simple.

I'll write now... I'll write now... Something... Anything...

Ahhh, thanks for that Darkchilde. I'll correct that.

Excellent work, both of you.

Off to see if I can cobble something together now.

Do it, hack!

I'll have a collection of essays to read before Christmas!

natselrox wrote:Do it, hack!

I'll have a collection of essays to read before Christmas!

Aye, and what about your own submission Nats? I've been looking forward to seeing some of your writing since this competition started.

MedGen wrote:

natselrox wrote:Do it, hack!

I'll have a collection of essays to read before Christmas!

Aye, and what about your own submission Nats? I've been looking forward to seeing some of your writing since this competition started.

I'll write something by tonight. Watching Sachin score his 50th test century now.

katja z wrote:

palindnilap wrote:

katja z wrote:I'm almost done, but I'm afraid that I'll exceed the word count, and I absolutely hate having to shorten my texts. For one thing, it takes longer than the writing! I could do with some moral support right now.

From my own experience, shortening the text has always been an essential step in enhancing the quality of my writing, and can often be used to make the matter clearer.

Now you've gone and got all rational on me!

Of course you are right, and I know it. I just hate the rewriting.

Hmm why did I say that ? Now I have the sections in place, I know what I want to write, I have started the writing, and... a rapid extrapolation says that I am heading for 6000 words.

palindnilap wrote:

katja z wrote:

palindnilap wrote:
From my own experience, shortening the text has always been an essential step in enhancing the quality of my writing, and can often be used to make the matter clearer.

Now you've gone and got all rational on me!

Of course you are right, and I know it. I just hate the rewriting.

Hmm why did I say that ? Now I have the sections in place, I know what I want to write, I have started the writing, and... a rapid extrapolation says that I am heading for 6000 words.

Oh, that's simple. Divide the essay in two parts, create another account and submit part 1 as palindnilap and part 2 as palindnilap's sockpuppet. Er ... why are you giving me funny looks?