ResearchGate Q&A lets scientists and researchers exchange questions and answers relating to their research expertise, including areas such as techniques and methodologies.

Browse by research topic to find out what others in your field are discussing.

Browse Topics

  • Political Science is confined to studying institutional or systemic aspects of governance - is this true?
    For many political scientists, 'politics' means who gets what, when and how in society (Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950).The concept of politics adopted by political scientists influenced by American and British traditions is narrow, confined to the political system whose functions are: rule making, rule application and rule adjudication (Almond and Coleman, 1960). If that was so, what has changed in the outlook of political scientists in the past fifty years? Are they still looking to find solutions when problems arise or are they looking at the needs of the end users - people, their aspirations and dreams - and calibrating the old (even if it means to cast off the old like Democracy, Socialism, Capitalism, etc) to find newer systems that are in tune with the times?
    Howard Doughty · Seneca College
    Power is a convenient locus/focus for empirical political analysis. It probably has been since Thrasymachus and certainly since Harold Lasswell and my old teacher Abraham Kaplan composed their classic little handbook "Power and Society" in the very early 1950s. The exploration of the structure and exercise of power (whether within explicitly political institutions, the dominant corporate sector, the family or any other enduring group with two or more people in it) involves what's known as empirical analysis - whether using sophisticated statistical measures of this and that, or interpretive and hermeneutical exercises in semiotics, deconstruction or (who knows?) maybe just Foucault's ghostly gaze. At the same time, most Political Science departments in most postsecondary educational institutions also allow for reflection on the goals and aspirations of political actors, questions of justice and equity, the semantics of democracy (is it a method of selecting rulers or a much broader matter of a "way of life"?). Such matters are generally described as normative and often stashed in the intellectual drawer known as "political philosophy" or some such. I do look forward in optimistic futility to the day when the wretched fact-value dichotomy can be bridged or, better, jettisoned and when empirico-normative theory and research can finally emerge as some sort of practice/praxis. In the meantime, however, we must acknowledge that "political science" insofar as it seeks to come up with empirical answers to empirical questions isn't "political"; and, insofar as it encourages rumination upon what constitutes the 'good society' isn't "scientific."
  • Oman Zuas added an answer in Article Writing
    How is Endnote more advantageous than Mendeley?
    I was previously using Mendeley and recently I have came across Endnote. therefore I am a little bit confused about which one to use for long term usage? Because now I am engaged in multiple subjects and have generated number of libraries and want to keep it same in both.
  • Suresh N Nair added an answer in Drug Formulation
    How to confirm the solubility of a drug in a solvent (vehicle)?
    The drug concentration to be given to the rat is 400mg/kg. If I prepare the 8% stock drug solution, 4gm of the extract is dissolved in 50ml of the solvent. Theoretically, if I take 1 ml from the prepared stock drug solution, it should possess 80mg of the drug. For instance, I assume that if I want to administer 160mg of the drug to a rat, I have to take 2 ml of stock drug solution. It is obvious that 2ml of stock drug solution consists of 160mg of the drug, only when the drug has 100% solubility in a solvent (homogeneous solution). How can I confirm the solubility of the given drug in a given solvent? Is there any protocol?
    Suresh Nair · Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University
    Oral administration dosage is not calculated based on the per cent solubility of crude drug. If the quantity to be given is 160mg/rat (I assume that you have calculated assuming that the body weight of a rat is 250g), then check whether that 160g is soluble in 1 ml of vehicle. It not increase the volume to 2 ml. You may not be able to increase the volume to more than 2.5 ml max, since more than that is not recommended to be given in a rat as single dose. If not soluble, use any other suitable non toxic, non irritant and non reacting solvents. If it has to be given to multiple number of animals (say 6 animals) then add up the requirement of each animal, add up the solvent and then calculate the volume to be given to each animal, to meet the dose.
  • What is the most inert resin for size exclusion chromatography?
    I need to analyze by SEC the dissociation/association equilibrium of a dimeric enzyme, which unfortunately is prone to interact by not-specific interactions with the resin. Such interaction slow down the protein run and distort the real elution volume. I tried both superdex and sephacryl resin.
    Yamak Mehta · Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
    Add NaCl (>150mM) in buffer to prevent nonspecific interaction during run. Best Luck.
  • Gul-e- Arzoo added an answer in Human Behavior
    Is it necessary for us to be very kind always?
    Kindness is a behavior marked by ethical characteristics, a pleasant disposition, and concern for others. It is known as a virtue, and recognized as a value in many cultures and religions. Research has shown that acts of kindness does not only benefit receivers of the kind act, but also the giver, as a result of the release of neurotransmitters responsible for feelings of contentment and relaxation when such acts are committed. Then, do you think human should be very kind always? or some time you have not to be kind enough towards some people and limit your kindness.
  • Adel Amer added an answer in Pursuing PHD
    Is it necessary to have published articles to get PhD admission?
    Any opinions are highly appreciated.
    Adel Amer · Alexandria University and Taibah University
    Alkhatib, At Alexandria University (Faculty of Science), Egypt in order for the students to be enrolled in a Ph.D. program they have to hold a B.Sc. [at least with a grade: Good] and a M.Sc. in the specialized area. Also they have to pass required degree courses and a cumulative exam to be admitted in the program. No publications are required at this stage.
  • Jj Merelo added an answer in Text Mining
    Is there data on writing?
    I have been writing a novel using open source tools and also openly at GitHub http://jj.github.io/hoborg. As an added value, I have data on each and every writing session: I know how many words were writing. I'm running some analysis on it, and found that writing session word deltas (number of words written in each writing session) follow a power law. Data is already shared in the GitHub repo but I'll share more with my conclusions, but it would be interesting to have some data to compare. Does anybody know if there's some data on this? Has anybody kept a log of, for instance, how many words were written in each session?
    Jj Merelo · University of Granada
    Thanks a lot for your answers. I know I can't generalize, but that's why I'd like to see data on this, if it's been collected. Is there a power-law everywhere? Or just for indie writers? Maybe professional writers do follow a gaussian distribution?
  • Ilka Agricola added an answer in Linear Algebra
    The recent trends in Linear algebra
    What is the current research interests in Linear Algebra? Can anyone mention specifically?
    Ilka Agricola · Philipps-Universität Marburg
    Some years ago (2007, to be precise), Guenter Ziegler (a famous German mathematician) claimed in an interview that presumably, there is nothing left to discover in some areas of mathematics, like the linear algebra of finite dimensional vector spaces. Many colleagues objected - in particular, Claus Michael Ringel from Bielefeld (see http://www.math.uni-bielefeld.de/~sek/ziegler.html, which unfortunately is in German). There is a lot left to do, and what we teach students under the name "linear algebra" is far from being all that is known - for example, the results by Gantmacher and Gelfand usually never make it into classrooms. One example (out of many possible ones) of current research he cited was "Invariant subspaces of nilpotent operators" (ArXiv math.RT/0608666). His talks and papers on his homepage are a wide source of examples of others. One thing that might be misleading that part of this research does not go under the name "linear algebra" anymore, it's part of the representation theory of algebras, continues in combinatorics, algebraic Lie theory etc - but the topic is the same.
  • Enis Kostallari added an answer in Cell Signaling
    How can we check the proliferation rate in the normal cell lines?
    Is there any method to check the proliferation rate in the normal cell line apart from the Brdu FACS analysis, MTT or other cytotoxicity assays?
    Enis Kostallari · Université Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne - Université Paris 12
    You can use the EdU incorporation (invitrogen kit) or the Ki67 staining (abcam antibody). I use both of them and they work very good.
  • Didn’t computer science violate the basic scientific process?
    Please let me summarize my understanding of the process (or steps) for scientific and technological progress. Step-1: The purpose of scientific research is to discover new facts for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. Step-2: The purpose of engineering research is to choose and rely on a “set of necessary facts” to invent useful new things or innovate improvements for existing useful things. The technology progress is nothing but making such useful inventions and innovations by relying on the facts discovered in scientific research. It is a well established fact that every technological invention or innovation must rely on certain essential scientific facts. No useful thing can be invented or innovated successfully by relying on facts having errors (e.g. erroneous axioms by assuming to be facts). That is, no invention or innovation could work as expected if there are errors in the “set of necessary facts” (on which the researcher relied for the invention or innovation). All the inventions and innovations mankind is enjoying today in the 21st century are empirical evidence and/or testament to the extremely high degree of accuracy of countless facts. I can prove that software researchers violated basic scientific process by skipping the step-1 and defined nature and essential properties of many kinds of components for software products (without any basis in reality or facts). Then again, software engineering paradigm defined many kinds of CBSDs (Component Based Design for Software Products), where each kind of CBSD is nothing but using a kind of so-called component for software. My understanding of the scientific process is that mankind can’t define or dictate the nature or essential characteristics of any kind of physical beings (e.g. animals, trees or ideal physical functional components) and mankind can’t define or dictate the nature or essential aspects of any physical phenomenon (e.g. achieving controlled powered flight or achieving ideal CBD for physical products). The existing Geocentric-paradigm of software engineering evolved by relying on this huge bug (by erroneously assuming the bug is a fact) for over 45 years: Any kind of software parts either having certain useful properties (e.g. reusable or standardized) or conforming to a so-called component model is a kind of component for software (i.e. software-components). Using each kind of these so-called software components is a kind of CBSD (Component-Based Software Design). This resulted in many kinds of so-called software components and so-called CBSDs. In the context of physical products, there is no ambiguity in the questions “what are components?” and “what are not components?” (e.g. ingredient parts such as lead and acid in lead-acid batteries; steel, cement, metal-alloys, plastic or silicon in semiconductor chips). It is a huge error to assume any other kind of useful parts are components for software, since no other kind of physical parts except a very special kind of parts having certain essential characteristics can be physical components. It is possible to discover essential characteristics uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. Once the essential characteristics are discovered it is possible to invent real software-components, which are equivalent to the physical functional components by having the essential characteristics. I believe it is absolutely essential to discover essential characteristics uniquely and universally shared by ideal physical functional components. For example: Basic sciences can’t be real science if the best researchers in the field don’t know the nature and essential characteristics of basic building blocks. If no zoologist in the world can name essential characteristics of animals, then zoology can’t be a real science. If no botanist in the world can name essential characteristics of trees, then botany can’t be a real science. The same logic applies to software engineering and computer science. Until software researchers discover essential characteristics and innate nature of basic building blocks such as real-components and CBD, software engineering and computer science can’t be real-engineering and real science respectively: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/year2014/Messy-State-of-CBSD.html The objective of my research is to invent real-software-components, enabling tools and mechanisms for achieving real CBD for software (i.e. high degree of modularity): http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/year2014/Vision-Goals.html. If scientists are willing to analyze all the available facts, valid observations and known concepts of CBD (Component Based Design) of any complex one-of-a-kind product such as an experimental jet-fighter or spacecraft, it is not hard to prove that the essential purpose of components is achieving the highest degree of modularity: http://real-software-components.com/technologies/CBD-facts-rules.html & http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260795179_New_kind_of_Software_components_for_achieving_superior_modularity?ev=prf_pub
    Raju Chiluvuri · SPPS Systems Pvt Ltd
    Dear Dr. Page, Let me add few more thoughts (these are just my views): The essential characteristics of physical components fall under the domain of basic sciences. Unfortunately the researchers of basic sciences found no necessity for discover the essential characteristics, because mankind has no problem positively identifying the physical components. For example, in case of physical products only few kinds of parts are possible such as components and ingredient parts, so have no problem distinguishing between different kinds of parts. In software, parts are not constrained by any laws of nature, so we can build countless kinds parts having countless kinds of characteristics (including a special kind of software parts equivalent to the physical functional components by having the essential characteristics the physical functional components). If researchers of basic sciences already had known the essential characteristics of the physical functional components, the scientists of theoretical computer science must had defined software components to be equivalent to the physical functional components. It is not a hard task to invent software components equivalent to the physical functional components, if the essential characteristics are known. Since there is no description for physical functional components (an unfilled gap) the scientists of theoretical computer science made up a definition based on desire or fantasy (to fill the gap), where the makeup definitions are not based on any reason or logic. If there are any gaps in basic sciences, I feel it is responsibility of the scientists of theoretical computer science to fill such gaps by following rules, reason and logic established in mature discipline of basic science. If there are any such gaps in mathematics, I feel it is responsibility of the scientists of theoretical computer science to fill such gaps in mathematical concepts by following rules, reason and logic established in mature discipline of mathematics. If you find a gap in mathematics, wouldn’t you try to fill the gap by following rules, reason and logic established in the discipline of mathematics? If your answer is yes, then you must agree that any gaps we find in basic sciences must be filled by following rules, reason and logic established in the discipline of basic sciences? Please keep in mind that, the gaps we are filing are not in the computer science, but in the domain of basic sciences or mathematics. Once the gaps are filled, we can rely on the foundation of basic sciences or mathematics for adopting them or extending them, where Software Researchers can extend only in a manner consistent with rules, reasoning or logic and guidelines well established in respective scientific (or math) domains. Dr. Page, may I ask you a question? What would you do, if you find such a gap in mathematics (that must be filled for software)? I never though in this dimension before: filling gaps of other disciplines, where the filled gaps are only useful for computer science. Your question made me think. I am sure my understanding would evolve and might even change. Best Regards, Raju Chiluvuri
  • What would you do if you received a report from the reviewer of your paper asking for a major revision, with which you completely disagree?
    What would be your response? Would you appeal to the editor by asking him/her to make the final decision, would you be weak and amend what you believe is right, would you argue back with facts, would you re-submit the paper to another journal?
    Abedallah Rababah · Jordan University of Science and Technology
    Dear Prof. Ismat and Prof. Kamal, I am proud of your friendship on RG and thank you for sharing your ideas and thoughts.
  • Rajat Pradhan added an answer in Cognitive
    How did intelligence evolve? In fact why did it evolve?
    An probable explanation can be organisms needed to survive but I think that alone can't be a reason for intelligence to evolve. Something other than survival might have motivated for the evolution of intelligence. EDITED: @Artur, I would like to define intelligence as not efficient search (considered by computer scientist) neither prediction (said by Jeff Hawkins) . It is the principle that follows three fundamental things: *Minimum Energy *Least Action Principle *Minimum Space
    Rajat Pradhan · Utkal University
    As I have stated earlier Sai's definition is extremely restrictive and as such does not in any way comprehensively cover the phenomenon of intelligence or its ramifications. But there is as such no reason to say that bacteria etc. do not have intelligence. It may not be of the higher level as in humans but they do have intelligence.
  • What are the differences between a TrpC promoter and a gpdA promoter for fungus transformation, and which one works better?
    I am now working on a complementation experiment of a deleted gene with the TrpC promoter and terminator on hygromycin cassette, but it doesn't work well because the phenotype is complementary, it can't grow on the PDA with hygromycin. I suspect the TrpC promoter may not work well. It is that a problem?
    I am glad it helped. I have never been working with V. dahliea myself, but several labs in the world are. Protocols of transformation must be available on request or in publications. I am advising you to follow their selection procedure carefully. This is the best way to start solving your problem.
  • Susan Bachus added an answer in Cytopathology
    How to identify adipocytes or fat containing cells in paraffin sections?
    Is there any way to staining or identify fat cells paraffin embedded muscle cross section? Oil red O requires frozen section.
  • What are some of the barriers towards achieving sustainability?
    Sustainability or the concept of sustainable development has been discussed at large. Yet, are we truly making progress towards achieving sustainability? What are the recurring problems/barriers that are hindering us from the attainment of sustainability goals? Would love to hear your interesting insights.
    Mohamed Benmerikhi · Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille 1
    Dear Raveendra, Indeed, I agree with you as far as us as individuals are concerned. You are probably coming from a spiritual perspective, somewhat similar to Eckhart Tolle. Unfortunately, sustainability of development -on a large scale- does not lend itself to utopian spiritualist postures. It requires a lot of pragmatism, and indeed overcoming a set of barriers, while making projections.
  • Stephen Crothers added an answer in Gravity
    An old question that is still fresh: Is gravity a Newtonian force or Einstein space-time curvature?
    No gravitational wave was measured yet, no graviton was detected accordingly. On the other hand no space- time curvature was observable. There is no successful experiment to validate the current theories. What is the nature of the mysterious gravity? What is the velocity of this effect ?
    Stephen Crothers · Alpha Institute of Advanced Study
    James Dwyer said: “As I understand, the event horizon is commonly considered to be the boundary distance beyond which the effective escape velocity exceeds the speed of light - i.e., any light emitted from within would be gravitationally curved to the extent that it would never pass out of the event horizon.” You have, in the usual way of cosmologists, invoked “escape velocity” for a black hole. On the one hand it is thereby claimed that a black hole has an escape velocity. It is allegedly >= c, the speed of light in vacuum. Yet on the other hand it is also claimed that nothing can even leave the alleged black hole – the event horizon is a one-way ‘membrane’ so that things can go into a black hole but nothing whatsoever can emerge from the black hole, let alone escape from it. Nothing, not even light, can even leave the event horizon. However, escape velocity does not mean that bodies can’t leave, only that if launched from a surface of another body at less than the escape velocity, they will leave but not escape. Thus, the black hole is alleged to have and not to have an escape velocity simultaneously! That’s impossible. “black hole A region of spacetime from which the escape velocity exceeds the velocity of light.” [Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics and Astronomy, 2001] “I had already discussed with Roger Penrose the idea of defining a black hole as a set of events from which it is not possible to escape to a large distance. It means that the boundary of the black hole, the event horizon, is formed by rays of light that just fail to get away from the black hole. Instead, they stay forever hovering on the edge of the black hole.” [Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe, New Millennium Press, Beverly Hills, CA, 2002] “A black hole is, ah, a massive object, and it’s something which is so massive that light can’t even escape. … some objects are so massive that the escape speed is basically the speed of light and therefore not even light escapes. … so black holes themselves are, are basically inert, massive and nothing escapes.” [Professor Joss Bland-Hawthorn: ABC News, 24 Sept 2013] Also note that according to Bland-Hawthorn, professor of astrophysics at the Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, the escape speed of a black hole is the speed of light. Now light travels at the speed of light, and so light must therefore escape, by the very definition of escape velocity. Yet according to Bland-Hawthorn, light therefore can’t escape!
  • Daniel Baldomir added an answer in Biology
    What has been the biggest scientific injustice, fraud or intellectual illegality that you know?
    One of the most known is the cold fusion that Fleischmann and Pons claimed to find in 1989 a chemical reaction at room temperature, which had an implicit nuclear reaction produced at tens of millions of degrees at normal conditions. Their experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water at on the surface of palladium electrode and very soon it was rejected by most of the scientific community. But in spite of that the University of Utah financed one great project on this issue and also Japan opened one program from 1992 till 1997 as other countries. How can it be possible with all the presumed filters fail on such a basic knowledge? Another famous one is Woo Suk cloning human cells in 2005 and making a good publication in Science. Do you know of more recent ones in your own country?
    Daniel Baldomir · University of Santiago de Compostela
    Dear Kazaros, Thank you very much for your answer but I think that we are going to need a long time to refine it, at least my understanding of it. Let me to put some of them: 1. I do not understand how you are worry with the age of the researcher. It would be very injust to leave out of the possibility to get a project a person by its age, mainly if you consider that it has going to be paid for making such activity. 2. The first thing to take into account, from my humble point of view, should be the quality of his/her scientific results. The problem is to get an universal criteria for measuring such quality and this is related with your first contribution about the factor impact of the reviews. 3. In one paper must be distinguished the number of authors, the originality of the research, its scientific impact and to distinguish clearly what is the contribution of each other. For example I know papers in physical review made with more than 200 authors. Who is going to say what is the scientific contribution of one of them? 4. 4. I fully agree with your comment: "The government can establish prizes for best 10-20 works in distinct areas in order not to discriminate elder researchers. In this case can be used also social networks".
  • Adrián Garrido added an answer in Epigenetics
    How can I search gene sequence of histone demethylase "jumonji 8" in Arabidopsis?
    I searched in NCBI and Arabidopsis database but I couldn't find it
    Adrián Garrido · University of Concepción
    Thank you Ennio Giordano. I don't know the protein sequence...
  • Bacteria die or not? Is it true that bacteria is Immortal?
    It is generally saying that bacteria is immortal and never die. Is it true?
    Jyoti Singh · Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University
    Dear Kunal .. Everything in this world dies... .. and I agree with Christian Scheckhuber...and with these lines of the referred article... because of binary fission of bacteria it has been assumed to proceed with a nonconservative dispersion of both undamaged and damaged constituents, such that there are no adult forms of bacterial cells and the bacterial population is not age structured..
  • Conrad Noll added an answer in Neurophilosophy
    Is consciousness giving human beings an evolutionary advantage?
    While having the concept of Self as opposed to others or to the environment seems good for focusing the organism functions on survivability and on DNA spreading, is there any evidence that consciousness has an evolutionary advantage? To elaborate further, here I'm talking about consciousness as the first person experience. And for "first person experience" I'm not talking about "experience OF first person": conversly, I'm specifically addressing the "experience IN first person MODALITY" (as a corollary to this question, I'm proposing that the word "consciousness" refers to too many concepts). In this view, I consider self-consciousness "experience of first person in first person modality". If we embrace the assumption that consciousness is always consciousness of something, we still lack an explanation for the nature and the purpose ("what is/what's for" rather than "how is it") of the first person experience, and as such why evolution favored it. In a lot of other Q/A about self and consciousness people are talking about consctructs that may function even without consciousness. Two examples: -self: a neural network comprising semantic concepts about the world could very well include the concept of self as a non-other or non-environment, or even a concept of self as an independent organism with such and such features; why do we need consciousness to conceptualize it? Would a machine decoding all the concepts coming across the node of (or the distributed knowledge about) self be considered conscious? We do not have to attribute consciousness to the machine to explain the machine processing its concept of self. -thinking: processing is certainly different from consciously elaborate something, as all the studies on automatic and subconscious processing show. On the other hand, this point address the free will problem: when we consciously elaborate something, does it mean we are voluntarly doing so? Or are we just experiencing a first person "show" of something already happened subconsciously (as Libet's studies suggest)? Without touching upon the ad infinitum regression problems, this poses the question if consciousness is useful without free will: if the conscious experience is just a screen on which things are projected, no free will is needed and thus what's the whole point of consciousness? As such, do we also need free will for accepting consciousness? If we are working with the least number of assumptions, it seems unlikely the we can accept consciousness. It seems to me that the general attitude of cognitive theories in a biological information processing/computational theory of mind framework is to try to explain everything without putting consciousness in the equation. And indeed it seems to me that no one is actually putting consciousness in the equation, when explaining cognition or behaviour (at least in modern times). All in all, it seems to me that all the above reasonings bring the suggestion that consciousness is not needed and has no evolutionary advantage over automatic non-conscious entities. Or that we should make more and more assumptions (such as accepting free will) to make sense of consciousness. I think that asking why we have consciousness could lead us to understand it better.
    Conrad Noll · Royal Roads University
    Jonathan, I have been monitoring your contributions to this thread. I had not know much about Leibniz and his thoughts other than his historical relevance to science. You have raised my curiosity now, to the point I will look into his essays and other work. You wrote: "It has been said, and I suspect with justification, that you are only likely to understand Leibniz if you have already reached the same position as he had before you start reading". You may be right, it was the similarities in your descriptions of Leibniz's thoughts to my own worldview which has prompted my curiosity. In my worldview, understanding process is the key to understanding reality. It appears Leibniz may have had similar intimations, Would you concur?
  • Marvin Kirsh added an answer in Scientific Method
    Terminologies based on ‘observations’ or ‘interpretations of observations’: any thoughts?
    When scientists describe (natural) phenomena during oral presentations or in publications, they often replace the description of these phenomena by interpretations of what the phenomena are without having sufficient background knowledge of how and why these phenomena exist. Consequently, exactly the same behavioral expression (e.g. a bird is approaching a feeder) can be defined in different ways (e.g. risk-taking, feeding response, boldness or shyness, exploration behavior, etc..). Should science terminology be based on what is observed or the interpretation of what is observed?
    Marvin Kirsh · California State University, Los Angeles
    Marcel: " If everything results from cause-consequence relationships, everything is deterministic,..." I think this is where science faulters at the perspective "cause and effect". Common to anyone is the concept of contingency that rules the world. ...cause and effect is the product of, is "caused" by contingency. ..contingency "causes" contingency, so contingency is 'what is' 'determined' and is unchangable. From this perspective the question 'What causes a tree..? still is difficult to answer..requires many words and extended reflection. I think that all of the things basic to nature are also represented physically, the philosophy might not have the slightest connection to the study of the tree, other than to mean that its' study cannot be accomplished using abstractions such as compose the philosophical argument. The study of anything can be undermined with demands to avoid generality...it is a matter of common sense how far such demands can be applied. ..there would be no structured physical study possible. In my own philosophies the velocity of light cannot be constant, the world has a primary constructing shape, but all the pieces for any situation are necessarily not findable or knowable. Though I think the speed of light is variable, measuring with any possible method would not be able to discriminate the two possibilities; for practical purposes the value used as a constant has to be applied. The real difference, and makes a difference, is how the mind reresents things in concept...makes the difference of what we do and do not do with respect to nature. In your discussion of the study of trees, there is one prominent aspect, there is but one familiar thing that might be called, by humans that are but one familiar thing, a tree...it doesnt look possible in that situation for one to speak of apples while the toher is speaking of oranges, what might arise to question are conclusions of particular experiments, inately open to surface and challange. I think the real question of terminology observation and interpretation can be broken down further to include the variable "familiarty". Terminology gets stretched when understandipng is stretched, divided between philosophical and physical, to capture the "unfamiliar". Anyone might agree that the world is captured in total by 'eggs', 'trees' and "reproduction", yet one might discuss from a perspective as if inside the body, cell, sperm or egg, and proceed to call the world a bed of information based on terminology evolved from different than ordinary perspectives...there is a real problem when such terminology is translated to life experience, I do not think there is there a method to bridge perspective that also fits a category= "information"? As an example a physicist might reply to this question with "Lorenz transformation" , one can envision such terminology catching hold, other than observation oriented is militaristic entailing force to effect change e.g. the question addressed in this discussion.
  • How would you consider the collapse we are currently entering into?
    Historians and economists have recently focused on the collapse of economies, societies, cultures, and even civilizations. The ongoing crises seem to be closely intertwined. The diagnostics are clear enough. However, little if at all about space solutions. How do you see this?
    Raveendra Yasarapu · Technische Universität München
    Thank you Carlos, Glad to co-operate! Bon-appetit!
  • Is classical music still relevant today?
    Classical music is art music which is based on the traditions of western music .The term classical music entails a wide period that extends from the 11th century up to the present day. Classical music is a serious music that differs greatly from the principles of today’s music, namely it differs from folk, jazz, or other today’s popular tradition. Classical music encompasses the works of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and others. However, in today’s world rap music, rock, country, and alternative music dominate today’s tastes and today’s generation. Unlike today’s music, classical music is not usually heard everywhere or on the radio in public places. Therefore, is classical music still relevant today? Has classical music become a thing from the past and for the past? Is not classical music the music of value and real art? What is your input on classical music?
    Beata Borowska-Beszta · Nicolaus Copernicus University
    I agree with Hatem
  • Alain Celzard added an answer in Polymer Synthesis
    How can we de analysis of an insoluble polymer in common organic solvents?
    This polyimide is soluble only in DMAC
    Alain Celzard · University of Lorraine
    Well, it depends on what you want to analyse ? Please be more precise. Alain
  • Maximilian Hasler added an answer in Gravity
    In general relativity, how is gravitational force replaced by space-time geometry?
    How, in Einstein's theory of gravity, can one replace the concept of force with that of the deformations of space time? Why is the orbit of mercury described better in terms of Einstein's theory in comparison with Newton's theory? A reference link: http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/generalRT/GeomGravity
    Maximilian Hasler · Université des Antilles et de la Guyane
    Thanks for this long reply. I won't be able to give an adequate answer in a few words, let me just mention some further elements - w.r.t your 5°: In a very nice* geometric description of supergravity and matter developed by Girardi and Grimm, chiral matter fields arise as parameters of an invariance of the sugra Lagrangian (Kähler transformations). [*The complete lagrangian which yields all components of the usual sugra + matter + YM, is just the volume element of superspace !] - Also: the notion of "vector" is slightly ambiguous when dealing with "Yang Mills" thy "acting on" Lorentz indices, since usually the vector is a 1-form potential, but since the Lorentz connection carries other spinorial indices its components have higher spin. - And there is also the "problem" of the anomalous mass dimension of the associated "Yang Mills fields" and the fact that L_YM ~ F² but L_Einstein ~ R (not R²)...
  • Why do we modulate a signal during transmission and demodulation during receiving? Why don't we send a signal directly without modulation?
    What is the purpose of doing this?
  • Wilfried Musterle added an answer in Mind
    Why aren't scientists not successful in developing a science for consciousness?
    Do we reach God (here consciousness) through ‘gaps’ in the rules of nature or through the rules of nature.
    Wilfried Musterle · University of Tuebingen
    Jonathan, thanks for your clear and definitely answer.
  • How can we distinguish or recognize if the DNA sequence carries cohesive ends or blunt ends?
    I am leading a cloning using pBluescript vector. When I arrived at the ligation step I realized that it involves specific working conditions applied in the case where cohesive ends are implicated which are different where blunt ends are present. I used the same enzyme Eco R V to cut both the plasmid and the DNA (insert).
    Zoia Stoytcheva · University of Hawai'i System
    If you go New England Biolabs (catalog or online) and look at the restriction enzyme you will see what ends are produced after the enzyme digest. The arrow heads above the recognition sequence indicate the "cut" site(s) in the sequence. This will help you determine which enzyme will result in blunt or sticky ends. (See attachment ). Look on SmaI (blunt) and XmaI (sticky ends) both enzymes recognize the same sequence (cccggg).