0
Scientists
This category is for questions about the people who apply the scientific method to solve problems, introduce new concepts, and strive to explain the natural world.
9,527 Questions
I looked into this topic and as far as I can tell on the rare occasion that an organism doesn't fit into a kingdom they create a new one. However there are so many kingdoms that it is very unlikely that an organism won't fit into one.
Who developed the classification method that is presently used by scientists?
The classification method that is presently used by scientists was developed by Carolus Linnaeus, in the 1700's. During his lifetime, Linnaeus collected around 40,000 specimens of plants, animals, and shells.
Studying the effect of one thing on another in order to test a hypothesis is?
This important step in the scientific method is called experimentation.
Why do scientists publish there work?
Mainly peer review, but also for the prestige of being published in a journal of high regard.
Gregor Mendel is famous for his work on pea plants, establishing the principles of heredity. Watson and Crick are known for discovering the structure of DNA, which helped advance our understanding of genetics.
Which scientist discovered the element mercury?
Nobody knows for sure who discovered the elemnt mercury. Records show it was used in ancient Babylon, The chemist, Antoinne-Laurent de Lavoisier, is credited with identifying mercury as an element.
After bombarding a gold foil sheet with alpha particles scientist?
Scientists concluded that the atom consists of mostly empty space.
How do scientists explore the natural world?
Some scientists observe the natural world by doing experiments outside or in a plant or animalâ??s natural habitat. Other scientists may study cells of organisms under microscopes to find out more about them.
Scientists hypothesize that life may have existed once on what planets?
Yes, demonstrably the planet Earth has life.
Scientists are currently looking for life on Mars (no proof of life recognized there yet) and are speculation that some extrasolar planets may be in the Goldilocks zone for life.
How do fossils help scientists learn what happin in the past?
Scientists can learn from a fossil of animal by its age, diet, and physical characteristics, depending on the condition of the fossil. For example, scientists would not be able to tell of a hominid was a new species or not if a few bones were missing, because of the fact that they could determine different or similar traits than other species of hominid.
What is someone who studies magnets called?
A magnetometer is a device used to measure the intensity and direction of a magnetic field.
Why are scientists interested in green fuels?
The benefits are endless : Less pollutants reduce the ozone depletion and help its rebuilding...this reduces the green house gases...adverse effects on climate change are minimized....the hurricanes...untimely rains...drought...all of it....are drastically controlled.... More oxygen to breathe and a healthy lifestyle! I'd write a book on it if I had the opportunity to.
It depends on what criteria are being used to define the period and anyway the definition is usually somewhat arbitrary.
For example, the beginning of the Baroque era in art is said to date from around 1600 and the Council of Trent. Art historians have been able to identify significant patterns in art and architecture. They have been able to suggest comparisons with music. However, they have been less successful in the case of writing.
Other eras are much easier to identify though. The Communist era in eastern Europe would be one example. Although it took some time for the Bolsheviks to establish complete sovereignty the results were obvious. At the end of this era again, although it took time for the régime to crumble the differences between what held before and after it existed were obvious.
Do scientists investigate all natural phenomena the same way?
I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking if they feel the same thrill when they discover something, then yes. If you're asking if they make the same kinds of discoveries, then oh my, no. Not with the many, many different branches of scientific research that cover many, many different subjects altogether. A geologist and a biologist are unlikely to make the same kinds of discoveries since geologists work with rocks and soil while biologists work with living things.
What is Robert Koch most famous for?
He was a celebrated microbiologist and physician. He won the "Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine" in 1905. He was a German scientist who developed Louis Pasteur's work on the germ theory. He found the germs for typhus and cholera and the cause of anthrax. He also developed a way of staining germs to make them recognizable.
He was very methodical and systematic in the way he worked. He modernized the way that surgery, public health and cures could be faced. His work saved millions of lives as it is still used today.
YOUR MOMMY
OR YOUR MOM
OR YOUR MAMAN
all of these names have been recently used by the scientists of Uranus. their most common quotes are:
'OW'
'S**T'
and best of all
'man this is a big one'
they are referring to logs
Who is elder Newton or Einstein?
Isaac Newton was born in 1643, while Albert Einstein was born in 1879. Therefore, Newton is considered the elder of the two.
A person who studies atoms is called an atomic scientist. There are several different branches of science under this category. One of them is a physicist.
What is a scientist called who studies rocks and fossils?
Strictly speaking these are two differing types of scientists.
Petrologists study rocks and paleontologists study fossils. However both these disciplines are covered in the broader training of a geologist.
What do you call a scientist who studies tissues?
The study of tissue is known as histology or histopathology (if the tissue is diseased), a branch of anatomy. Therefore a scientific professional who studies this subject would be call a histologist.
How do you spell Issac Newton?
Hi. I think it is spelled the way you spelled it. But my students in my classroom we watching a video and it said it was spelled "Issac Newton". I think its the first.
Source: Teacher
Do scientists think evolution occurs quickly or slowly?
Evolution is the stand-on ground of all biological sciences. Evolution stems its knowledge from comparative anatomy, palaeontology, archaeology, ecology and most recently and importantly, genetics and genomics. Scientists cannot 'think' much about evolution as you seem to suggest as though they have an opinion of it.
Scientists do not have an opinion on gravity or electronics or photosynthesis for example, as though they were supposed to weigh up the moral rights and wrongs of such things.
Scientists may be excited by breakthroughs of course. The unravelling of DNA structure of the emerging of natural selection as a means for species-change, or the structure of atoms revealed through encounters with gold foil, or the discovery that gene traits are expressed in pairs called alleles, or the discovery that spacetime might end, are all thrilling when stumbled upon as new insight into the world and can thus be cherished that we know a little more, but to have an opinion is not what science is all about. Thus scientists do not 'think about' science, nor of evolution. Science is about the dispassionate description of the world, however ghastly or beautiful that description may turn out to be.
The world is an unconscious babbling of atoms and their subatomic mass-energy constituents all dancing on space-time. Scientists dispassionately listen and record and try to understand the babble and try to watch the dance. They describe the babble and the dance. They do not prescribe their moral values fabricated by their own species to it. They describe the dances and leapings on the stage of space-time whether or not they think they are good are bad. Of course the unconscous, never-conscious Brownian motion leapings of atoms, whether causing embryo development or fatal cancer cannot be bad at all, or else the Universe may not even be here. But members of the public with no knowledge of science try to paste their moral values and opinions on the Universe.
Relatively educated people tend to agree there is credence in the Theory of Evolution, while less educated people often dismiss the Theory of Evolution on religious grounds. This is a pasting of one's own (maybe indoctrinated) moral values on the Universe. Some may like to prescribe these notions to the behaviour of the Universe itself. Some refuse to see credence in the Theory of Evolution or the ungodguided development of the world by the big bang or abiogenesis from a religious viewpoint. These people have no knowledge of science at all. Science is an honest description of the world which may yield alarming results.
The notion that apes and humans developed ungodguided and that there is no benevolent dominance hanging over the heads of the peoples, that all is in the vacant emptiness of the lonely Universe among randomly prancing atoms that have no knowledge of human-indoctrinated morality and can randomly prance to instigate the stirrings of embryonic life or randomly cease life carcinogenically, is a very frightening notion to some. Thus the notions of ungodguidedness or randomness in the Universe is often frowned upon and people develop opinions, and perhaps prescriptions on the truths uncovered about the Universe. Particularly, the apparent randomness, the waiting for a genetic mutation in the Theory of Evolution is frowned upon by the public. In fact Evolution is under unnecessary attack, mainly by religious objectors. Science is not a place to have opinions of the Universe, whether evolution or big bangs or DNA. Morality is a place for opinions.
A disinterested scientific picture of the Universe need not be prescribed upon. When we settle into our societies we can have the morality-opinions and the thinking-about things, but they will be based around science whose objective description need not be quibbled with. But science still seems to leave us in a vacant, random Universe full of horrible little random atoms that one cannot trust from one moment to the next. In the lonely, empty Universe, one can at least, on the curtain of space-time, be comforted by the presence of these atoms and the delicious facts delineated and expiscated by science, all swirling around one like little rainbows. You need not have opinions, or pity morality, when at least you know what the Universe is about, described by the disinterest of science.
