1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

sotanaht
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby sotanaht » Wed May 09, 2018 2:44 pm UTC

Image
Title text: Mathematicians give a third answer on the vertical axis, "That question is poorly defined, but we have a sub-field devoted to every plausible version of it."

I think a few of these are in the wrong place. "Geology" for example. Randal seems to be defining it as "the study of Earth", of which there is one. It's better defined as the study of the features of a planetary body, we don't know how many planets exist nor do we know how many features they might have. We don't even really know all the features of Earth alone. And don't even start on where black holes fit in the "small/big" axis.

Dr. Gamera
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby Dr. Gamera » Wed May 09, 2018 2:50 pm UTC

(a small instance of buggy spelling: there is only one "Y" in "ENTOMOLOGY")

sonar1313
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:29 am UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby sonar1313 » Wed May 09, 2018 3:39 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:[url=https://xkcd.com/1991/]
I think a few of these are in the wrong place. "Geology" for example. Randal seems to be defining it as "the study of Earth", of which there is one. It's better defined as the study of the features of a planetary body, we don't know how many planets exist nor do we know how many features they might have. We don't even really know all the features of Earth alone. And don't even start on where black holes fit in the "small/big" axis.

Seems like theology is another one. Theologists tend to know exactly how many Gods or gods they're studying.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby cellocgw » Wed May 09, 2018 3:52 pm UTC

sonar1313 wrote:
sotanaht wrote:[url=https://xkcd.com/1991/]
I think a few of these are in the wrong place. "Geology" for example. Randal seems to be defining it as "the study of Earth", of which there is one. It's better defined as the study of the features of a planetary body, we don't know how many planets exist nor do we know how many features they might have. We don't even really know all the features of Earth alone. And don't even start on where black holes fit in the "small/big" axis.

Seems like theology is another one. Theologists tend to know exactly how many Gods or gods they're studying.


But how big is/are the gods, in actuality? :P

This whole chart is a masterful achievement - it trolls nearly everyone except the vi/vim/emacs guys.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Locoluis
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby Locoluis » Wed May 09, 2018 3:55 pm UTC

2.5 × 10-11m: Radius of hydrogen atom
7 × 10-6m: Typical size of red blood cell
1.5 ~ 2m: Normal adult human height
5.5 × 105m: About the distance between Berlin and Bratislava
1.5 × 1011m: About the distance between the Earth and the Sun
Sueños del Sur - A webcomic about four siblings, their family, friends, adventures and dreams.
http://sds.lgm.cl/

User avatar
Marsh'n
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:55 pm UTC
Location: Blitzing: 609-918, then 1000-2247 +/- schizms

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby Marsh'n » Wed May 09, 2018 4:15 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:I think a few of these are in the wrong place. "Geology" for example.


Some of these issues depend on whether your counting species or individuals - is the planet one rock, or billions of separate rocks? Do you measure how many by class (sedimentary, metamorphic), by species (sandstone, granite, pumice), by count (a billion rocks), or by volume (~1.08 x 1012 km3)?

Mycology is further debatable on the "how many are there" scale, because it's unclear how to count individuals. It matters whether you're counting the fruiting bodies of mushrooms, or the vast interconnected web of filaments underground from which they spring. It has been argued that some "individual" fungi (in the form of clonal colonies) may span thousands of acres/hectares. So by that definition the number of individuals is much smaller than by, for example, counting individual colonies of athletes' foot between your separate toes, or the individual cells in a portabella mushroom, as distinct entities.

Marsh'n
P.S. Hey sotanaht, is death backwards "birth"? Or is it what happens when Chronos and Thanatos get together and start mucking with the rules?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2879
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby orthogon » Wed May 09, 2018 4:17 pm UTC

Dr. Gamera wrote:(a small instance of buggy spelling: there is only one "Y" in "ENTOMOLOGY")

Alternatively, there's no "N" in etymology. It's hard to believe Randall did this by mistake, after devoting at least one whole comic to those particular confusables. And there's a potential joke in wondering where etymology would be plotted.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

sotanaht
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby sotanaht » Wed May 09, 2018 4:53 pm UTC

Marsh'n wrote:Marsh'n
P.S. Hey sotanaht, is death backwards "birth"? Or is it what happens when Chronos and Thanatos get together and start mucking with the rules?

Hey someone who actually gets it! It's not meant to have a specific meaning, the idea is that writing it backwards opens it up to a wide range of conflicting meanings, which is exactly what I want from a name.

chrisjwmartin
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:01 am UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby chrisjwmartin » Wed May 09, 2018 6:43 pm UTC

What is the etymology of entymology?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6254
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby ucim » Wed May 09, 2018 6:53 pm UTC

chrisjwmartin wrote:What is the etymology of entymology?
Ant you look it up on the web instead of bugging me?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Wed May 09, 2018 7:23 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:This whole chart is a masterful achievement - it trolls nearly everyone except the vi/vim/emacs guys.
That's because the problem is already solved. We have nano.

User avatar
Rombobjörn
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:56 am UTC
Location: right between the past and the future

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby Rombobjörn » Wed May 09, 2018 8:49 pm UTC

Entymology must be the study of the origin of words in languages spoken by insects.

Unlike marine mammalogy, marine mammology is best practised using a rebreather at a nude beach.

qvxb
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:20 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby qvxb » Wed May 09, 2018 8:55 pm UTC

"Big Pharma" is very close to "Presidential History".

sep332
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:42 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby sep332 » Thu May 10, 2018 12:02 am UTC

Is it just me or is "xenobiology" a little... large?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu May 10, 2018 12:18 am UTC

sep332 wrote:Is it just me or is "xenobiology" a little... large?

Not all of these are xenobiology, but some are.

And there's the old standard of gigafauna, even if you don't accept ter(r)afauna.

Edit: Both of us misread/wrote exobiology as xenobiology. Same point stands, though!

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4606
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu May 10, 2018 12:47 am UTC

Is there a difference between exobiology and xenobiology?

Also, unrelated: where does philosophy go on this graph? (And is that, itself, a philosophical question, and if so, does that in turn introduce some kind of Russell-esque paradox [which would then itself be yet another philosophical question]?)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby pogrmman » Thu May 10, 2018 1:03 am UTC

SuicideJunkie wrote:
cellocgw wrote:This whole chart is a masterful achievement - it trolls nearly everyone except the vi/vim/emacs guys.
That's because the problem is already solved. We have nano.


Ahh, yes. The compromise solution everybody agrees works, albeit mediocrely. :p

mooncow
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:12 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby mooncow » Thu May 10, 2018 10:40 am UTC

Came here to post about 'ENTYMOLOGY', and how this chart trolls most everyone except me. Then realised I couldn't do both...

mooncow
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:12 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby mooncow » Thu May 10, 2018 10:43 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:where does philosophy go on this graph?


In a nod to 0435, where does mathematics go on this graph? ANS: Everywhere

Where does philosophy go on this graph? ANS: Is there even a graph? Does the graph exist? If it does, what does the graph mean? How can we determine the meaning of the graph? Does the graph have to have a meaning? Who am I to infer meaning to the graph? In fact, who am I? Do I even exist? If I do, what do I mean?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu May 10, 2018 11:48 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Is there a difference between exobiology and xenobiology?

Exo- = 'outside'/' beyond', Xeno- = 'strange'/'foreign'.

Conceivably there are things that are either, but not the other°, but one as a shortcut for being from beyond¹ and the other as a shortcut for being unrelated² both do currently apply by default to the unknown range of life that is not 'mere' biology.

That'll probably change when we learn more. I can imagine the initial future arguments over whether our interstellar visitors/visiteds are exobiological cousins or xenobiological independent entities. Or we may just think about reserving "xeno-" for non-carbon biologies, or even non-chemical ones (self-sustaining magnetic flux order within a plasma environment?), if we don't come up with a more developed vocabulary to deal with each new exciting scientific surprise…


(IMO - IANA(E|X)b)


° You could also point out that strange does not always mean foreign and foreign does not always mean strange. But let's not complicate matters. Also, xeno- also can mean "guest" or "host". Which doesn't help.

¹ Merely beyond the Earth, in some senses like Martian biology. But the whole solar-system itself is the thing beyond which exoplanets are. In less explored times, Kangaroos might have been considered exobiology.

² Martian life may not be xeno-, if found and analysed to have the same origin-story. A significantly different road-map would be expected to arise in an independent origin, and if we don't find that between us and interstellar neighbours then we probably also need to look for Progenitors in the mix, or look into a whole lot more of the possible abiotic chemical paths to see why se all developed identical chemistries.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2879
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby orthogon » Thu May 10, 2018 12:34 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Also, xeno- also can mean "guest" or "host". Which doesn't help.

It's like those languages that don't distinguish pairs like lend/borrow or rent/let, which makes the words almost autoantonyms. The distinction is often overlooked in careless speech, too, which suggests that there's normally enough context to figure out which roles the various parties are playing. (I remember one estate agent making a big deal about establishing whether I was interested in renting or letting).

Similarly, I believe that sub and super are cognates, as if, until those Roman engineers came along, people didn't need to bother too much whether something was above or below something else. The Germanic tribes, by contrast, apparently wanted to know what (or who) was on top.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26354
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu May 10, 2018 5:15 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Is there a difference between exobiology and xenobiology?

Exo- = 'outside'/' beyond', Xeno- = 'strange'/'foreign'.

Yes, we all know there's a difference between the roots.

What was asked is if there's a difference between what the words refer to, which generally there isn't.

orthogon wrote:Similarly, I believe that sub and super are cognates, as if, until those Roman engineers came along, people didn't need to bother too much whether something was above or below something else. The Germanic tribes, by contrast, apparently wanted to know what (or who) was on top.
Except, "over" comes from the same root as "super".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2879
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby orthogon » Thu May 10, 2018 6:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
orthogon wrote:Similarly, I believe that sub and super are cognates, as if, until those Roman engineers came along, people didn't need to bother too much whether something was above or below something else. The Germanic tribes, by contrast, apparently wanted to know what (or who) was on top.
Except, "over" comes from the same root as "super".

True, but under is a different word at least back to PIE.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Thu May 10, 2018 6:47 pm UTC

sonar1313 wrote:Seems like theology is another one. Theologists tend to know exactly how many Gods or gods they're studying.
A lot of the ones I've heard of have a 300% margin to start with, and while they have invested themselves heavily in their predictions, there has been a distinct lack of actual counting going on.

chenille
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby chenille » Thu May 10, 2018 6:54 pm UTC

No time to read the comments right now, but has anyone pointed out Randall has misspelled and likely misplaced entypology, the study of all things printed (έντυπος)?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu May 10, 2018 11:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:What was asked is if there's a difference between what the words refer to, which generally there isn't.

That'll probably change when we learn more.
*

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Fri May 11, 2018 1:37 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:What was asked is if there's a difference between what the words refer to, which generally there isn't.

That'll probably change when we learn more.

Also when planetary immigration and emigration eventually becomes a hot topic.

fluffysheap
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:53 am UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby fluffysheap » Fri May 11, 2018 4:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:What was asked is if there's a difference between what the words refer to, which generally there isn't.


Well, maybe. Exo, meaning outside, usually refers to the location, whereas xeno, meaning foreign, usually refers to the origin.

So if life from Earth traveled to another planet, studying it would be exobiology but not xenobiology, whereas if alien life traveled to Earth, it would be xenobiology but not exobiology.

Since neither of these things has provably even happened yet*, the distinction isn't very important. Yet.

* I don't count the moon missions because life didn't attempt to stay. If they had brought along a petri dish to see how long some bacteria could survive on the Moon, that would have been exobiology.

sotanaht
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby sotanaht » Fri May 11, 2018 4:33 pm UTC

fluffysheap wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:What was asked is if there's a difference between what the words refer to, which generally there isn't.


Well, maybe. Exo, meaning outside, usually refers to the location, whereas xeno, meaning foreign, usually refers to the origin.

So if life from Earth traveled to another planet, studying it would be exobiology but not xenobiology, whereas if alien life traveled to Earth, it would be xenobiology but not exobiology.

Since neither of these things has provably even happened yet*, the distinction isn't very important. Yet.

* I don't count the moon missions because life didn't attempt to stay. If they had brought along a petri dish to see how long some bacteria could survive on the Moon, that would have been exobiology.

And how exactly does panspermia affect this definition?

xtifr
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby xtifr » Fri May 11, 2018 8:15 pm UTC

Although I think there's no practical distinction, I think it is theoretically possible for xenobiology to cover Earth-native non-DNA/RNA-based life forms--if such a thing were discovered to exist--but such creatures would not fall under exobiology. Likewise, if DNA/RNA-based life forms were discovered beyond the Earth, I think they would fall under exobiology, but not xenobiology. (This, I think, is a partial answer to the question about panspermia.)

Both scenarios are extremely unlikely, to put it mildly, but if such a situation were to arise, then some folks might have to suddenly decide whether they were exo- or xeno-. (My guess is, they'd probably choose the one that allowed them to study whatever bizarre thing it is we've finally discovered--although I suppose they could opt for both.)

At the moment, they're both pretty theoretical disciplines, but that may change once we get around to investigating the subsurface oceans on the Jovian satellites or the methane oceans of Titan.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4606
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1991: "Research Areas by Size and Countedness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri May 11, 2018 8:44 pm UTC

I would think that xenobiology is life not related to life as we know it, even if it's based on the same chemicals, so long as it had an independent abiogenesis, while exobiology is life on other planets. Barring panspermia or an as-yet-undiscovered second abiogenesis event on Earth, one would expect them to pretty much always be the same thing.

A difficult question: if life from Earth spreads to other planets, is the study of it then exobiology?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests