Done

should we have them ?
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
twistor59 wrote:Thanks Nats - good list there (neuroscience #12 inspired by any recent activity perhaps ?).
In terms of actually generating them, my suggestion would be that we first declare our interest in a particular topic here in this thread and then work on the first draft (as GenesForLife has done). The idea is that would save duplication of effort ("shit I've just spent hours writing a FAQ, and bastardx has just posted a first draft on precisely that one"). Once the first draft is there, anyone can chip in with ammendments and suggestions.
Darwinsbulldog wrote:I would like to do a FAQ on evo-devo and Hox genes and gene regulatory networks, if a real expert like Genes for Life or susu.exp can backstop me or act as editors, that would be grand.
GenesForLife wrote:Darwinsbulldog wrote:I would like to do a FAQ on evo-devo and Hox genes and gene regulatory networks, if a real expert like Genes for Life or susu.exp can backstop me or act as editors, that would be grand.
I am not an expert lol.
PS- When are the first drafts of any FAQ to be expected?
GenesForLife wrote:Darwinsbulldog wrote:I would like to do a FAQ on evo-devo and Hox genes and gene regulatory networks, if a real expert like Genes for Life or susu.exp can backstop me or act as editors, that would be grand.
I am not an expert lol.
PS- When are the first drafts of any FAQ to be expected?
Some of which I must say should NOT be done, or only with caution and/or not the way you said.natselrox wrote:I compiled a few for the Bio-section...
An FAQ entry is supposed to be a quick introduction or summary, not a small book.
I've seen threads that go on about this for pages, but not read much of them. Do they go on like that because of Creationists barging in, or because of people with serious scientific perspectives merely having a semantic dispute over real-world application of the word "random" in different scientific contexts? If the latter, then an FAQ entry should avoid delving into such a conflict and stick to debunking the Creationist claims that it has nothing to do with.
Do those Q really seem to you to be FA? (And by people who come here to ask?) A trap that "FAQ" authors tend to fall into but should be avoided is answering questions that aren't actually frequently asked, but are just on the answerers' minds.natselrox wrote:Medicine
1. What are actual risks of using the mobile phone?
3. A gene for homelessness - how true is that?
6. What is cancer? Why are we not able to treat it?
7. What is HIV? Why are we not able to counter it?
9. What is common cold?
Psychology and Neuroscience
8. What is optogenetics?
This one isn't even really a question, so I'll have to presume that, by putting it under the heading "psychology and neuroscience", you really meant for the question to be "Races: Are there psychological or neurological differences?". But even then, either an FAQ entry about it will only be an excuse for the author to preach the standard politically correct line in one way or another, or, if the author doesn't do that, it will become a target for a bunch of others to act all enraged and offended over because the author didn't do it, so the screaming buries the science.
Bound to turn into a mere opinion piece, a blog entry
Delvo wrote:Some of which I must say should NOT be done, or only with caution and/or not the way you said.natselrox wrote:I compiled a few for the Bio-section...An FAQ entry is supposed to be a quick introduction or summary, not a small book.I've seen threads that go on about this for pages, but not read much of them. Do they go on like that because of Creationists barging in, or because of people with serious scientific perspectives merely having a semantic dispute over real-world application of the word "random" in different scientific contexts? If the latter, then an FAQ entry should avoid delving into such a conflict and stick to debunking the Creationist claims that it has nothing to do with.Do those Q really seem to you to be FA? (And by people who come here to ask?) A trap that "FAQ" authors tend to fall into but should be avoided is answering questions that aren't actually frequently asked, but are just on the answerers' minds.natselrox wrote:Medicine
1. What are actual risks of using the mobile phone?
3. A gene for homelessness - how true is that?
6. What is cancer? Why are we not able to treat it?
7. What is HIV? Why are we not able to counter it?
9. What is common cold?
Psychology and Neuroscience
8. What is optogenetics?This one isn't even really a question, so I'll have to presume that, by putting it under the heading "psychology and neuroscience", you really meant for the question to be "Races: Are there psychological or neurological differences?". But even then, either an FAQ entry about it will only be an excuse for the author to preach the standard politically correct line in one way or another, or, if the author doesn't do that, it will become a target for a bunch of others to act all enraged and offended over because the author didn't do it, so the screaming buries the science.Bound to turn into a mere opinion piece, a blog entry
Paul G wrote:Any prog?
twistor59 wrote:I was just thinking - sometimes questions keep coming up repeatedly, for example:
"How come we can observe galaxies receding from us faster than light?"
"What is the evidence that our universe is (or is not) fine tuned for life ?"
Return to General Science & Technology
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest