I’d say that the article is the recipe, since it’s a set of instructions for how to reproduce the doughnut. The doughnut might be the fruits of whatever the science discovered
Sure, sorry no one says “I love the applications and derivatives of science” but like yeah people like the donut (the application of the recipe) and not the recipe. Just like people can appreciate the applications of science (cool tech and stuff) without enjoying the underlying research and math and such.
Science is discovery. Engineering is applications. Science literacy is not confusing the two.
Science isn’t done, in a “spiritual sense” other than for the discovery. If you are pushing research forward with a specific goal in mind: Thats engineering.
If you have a question, and you have an open mind and are willing to accept the conclusions your evidence forces you to make whether you like it or not: That’s science.
Sometimes science informs engineering in awesome and clever ways.
But the point of science isn’t engineering, which is what the vast majority of people interpret science as being.
I like doughnuts. That doesn’t mean I like baking them or reading the recipe.
The…
The article is the dognut.
The CGI space image with the caption is the powdered sugar leftover from the doughnut. I like to snort it, myself.
Uh, I am not a fan of dognuts, nor am I fully comfortable with the process of getting them.
Show me on the donut where the reviewer touched you.
I’d say that the article is the recipe, since it’s a set of instructions for how to reproduce the doughnut. The doughnut might be the fruits of whatever the science discovered
No.
The article is the product of scientific research. Its the final product. It the thing.
All that other stuff is derivative. The donut is the paper.
Sure, sorry no one says “I love the applications and derivatives of science” but like yeah people like the donut (the application of the recipe) and not the recipe. Just like people can appreciate the applications of science (cool tech and stuff) without enjoying the underlying research and math and such.
Science is discovery. Engineering is applications. Science literacy is not confusing the two.
Science isn’t done, in a “spiritual sense” other than for the discovery. If you are pushing research forward with a specific goal in mind: Thats engineering.
If you have a question, and you have an open mind and are willing to accept the conclusions your evidence forces you to make whether you like it or not: That’s science.
Sometimes science informs engineering in awesome and clever ways. But the point of science isn’t engineering, which is what the vast majority of people interpret science as being.
What about fucking them?