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
How is observation used by scientists?
A.To make experiments unnecessary B.To prevent the use of peer review C.To learn new information about the world D.To make experiments less repeatable
Answer is C. To learn new information about the world.
to learn new information about the world
Why did Alexander Fleming call the first anitibiotic penicillin?
Fleming stumbled across the Penicillium bacterium by accident; he didn't mean to create the drug. When he discovered that the mold could kill other bacteria in a Petri dish, he wondered if the same could happen inside the human body, and started experimenting until he came up with penicillin. Now, penicillin is one of the most widely-used antibiotics.
The drug was named after the mold it comes from, Penicillium. The mold looks like a brush under the microscope, and "penicillus" means "small brush" in Latin.
Why did an angry mob smash the windows of professor James Jeffray?
The angry mob thought that James Jeffray had stolen the body of Janet McAlister for medical research.
Two reasons:
1) Not even Fleming believed penicillin could kill bacteria inside the human body. From 1927 to 1931 he studied this possibility, and concluded it would not. Not until the 1940s did researchers find that it was a "miracle drug" in its ability to do so.
2) Manufacturing penicillin, in quantities pure, strong, and large enough to be of medical use, was difficult and expensive -- no drug company wanted to expend the effort to find a way to do so for a drug that was still unproven. More specifically, no company wanted to expend that effort when Fleming refused to patent the drug. If a drug company did expend the resources and found a way to do so, any other company could then use the same process to manufacture penicillin -- meaning the first company to do so would spend the money and every other company would make the profit.
According to Albert Einstein What will be the religion of the future?
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other.
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists (1982) vol. ii., p. 29 * Theology; Albert Einstein * Quotes; Albert Einstein
What famous scientist introduced the idea of natural solution?
Charles Darwin was the scientist that came up with the theory of Natural Selection.
What is Richard Dawkins' views on same-sex marriage?
Richard Dawkins believes that same sex marriage is acceptable, and that no 'fundamental organisation' has the right to tell anybody whether or not they can get married.
Who are some scientists who support the biblical theory?
It is not called the 'biblical theory' in the Scripture but rather the biblical account of creation. If this is what you are referring to, then see this partial list below along with two other examples directly to follow:
[A note of importance: It is not the Scripture itself that has misinformed or misled mankind, but rather mankinds interpretations of it commonly referred to as religion. Allowing the Bible to interpret itself often reveals dramatically different outcomes of said events - flat earth, earth-centered heavens, heaven and hell, angels interbreeding with humans, age of earth via the renewal of the earth for mankind vs. the actual first creation of it...etc...]
Consider what the director of NASA, Dr. Wernher von Braun, said: "What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a 'Designer' on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him?" (Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 1997, pp. 159-160).
Or the director of France's Stasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Stasbourg, Louis Bounoure said "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Federer, p. 61).
In my opinion, the biblical account of creation was mainstream before the onset of the 'Age of Enlightenment' in the mid 19-20th Centuries. And with good reasoning, fell out of favor due to the many false/wrong religious interpretations of creation and the physical universe. However, many replaced this teaching by accepting another false teaching - Evolution which, like all religions, has a dramatic impact upon society as a whole. But this too seems the last of the 3 wrong teachings of the Enlightenment - Marx, Freud, and Darwin. Genetics or DNA will probably be evolutions downfall.
What is the kind of scientist that studies urology?
The kind of scientist who studies Urology would be a Biologist, since Urology concerns a biological function (urination). If you mean the kind of doctor who studies Urology, that would be a Urologist.
What was Doctor John Moneys theory of gender identity?
Doctor John Money theorized that sexual assignment did not happen before the "gender gate" at age two. So, a parent could reassign the sex of a child, for instance, from a boy to a girl. The child would happily live a lifestyle consistent with being a girl and then a woman. A trial with twins born in 1965 led to unhappy lives, disproving the theory in most respects. Dr. Money countered with the thought that the child was nearly two.
Are there any scientists who are Jehovah's Witnesses?
It depends on the definition of 'scientist'.
Further education at college/university level isn't encouraged amongst Jehovah's Witnesses and so any Witnesses who are 'scientists' most probably got their degrees before becoming a Witness.
Gerhard Domagk was awarded the Nobel Prize for his role in discovering which class of antibiotics?
sulfonamides (e.g. sulfisoxazole)
What kind of scientist studies atomic energy and radioactive fallout?
A Nuclear Physicist or Researcher or Technician would be scientists who know that.
Why do scientists classify a bat and a parrot in different groups?
Simply because the only thing they have in common is flight. Bats are mammals like I am. Parrots are birds descended from the dinosaurs. If you do not know what a mammal is remember this ,"mother mammals make milk", that is mammals give birth to live young, (not eggs) and mother mammals nurse the young, (they breast feed) like humans, cats, dogs, pigs, horses, sheep, whales, humans and all others that have breast, and breast feed the young. Bats have "breast" they feed the young. Parrots lay eggs, and do not have breast.
Ernst's wife was called Agnes Huschke. They married in 1867 and had a son Walter and two daughters Elizabeth and Emma.
Why do people disagree to the statement you cannot be a scientist and believe in God?
Because the statement is utterly wrong and that is why people disagree with it!
Most of the truly great scientists throughout history believed in God and most still do. Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Faraday, and many others were all Christians. Even Einstein and Darwin, though professing agnosticism at some stages of their lives, died as believers in God.
The simple fact is that when studied sensibly and thoroughly, the concept of God is not inly seen as logical and sensible, but it is also considered by many scientists as the only real explanation - full explanation - of how things came to be. The Anthropic Principle, for example, sets out scientifically the infinitessimally small chance that life should exist, and yet it does not just exist but thrives. This principle, by examining the very basic building blocks of the universe, and the most fundamental of physical constants, points to design rather than chance in the universe.
Of course, there are sime scientists, notably Richard Dawkins, who speaks out against the belief in God. Yet to those who show equal intelligence as he does, his arguments are flawed and easily countered. He is himself a man of great 'faith' making sweeping statements about his ideas of God that are themselves incorrect and show little real understanding, and yet he still believs them despite there being less evidence for his bigotries than for the existence of a Creator. And let's not forget that Dawkins is merely an evolutionary biologist and has not the grounding nor expertise in the most fundamental of sciences - that of the physics of the universe dealing with the basic building blocks of creation - and therefore any comment he makes should be taken with a very large health warning.
