Skip to main content

Did I find THE best sources for my topic? Realistically, no.

    Here are the two sources I selected for this discussion:

    1: https://www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html

    2: https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-monty-hall-problem/

    Now, let's go through the CARS for each of them.

    The speed of light one doesn't fail the credibility check, but it doesn't exactly pass it, either. The author is not anonymous, and has a background in science, but it's ecology, not physics. The Monty Hall one, I think, fails the credibility check, as I could not find an author.

    Both are fairly accurate, the Monty Hall one even having a minigame where you yourself play through the scenario. The light-speed one was posted only one year ago, though the Monty Hall one was posted six years ago (though, I don't think fundamental aspects of statistics tend to change over time).

    Both are also reliable, being internally consistent, and speaking about scientific facts that have long since been proven true, and on that point, they are also both well-supported by evidence from the larger scientific community.

    My sources help establish a "so what" by explaining aspects of math and science that would otherwise seem counterintuitive to a layperson, thus establishing an idea that intuition is not a replacement for science. It also helps spark a curiosity in the reader, a curiosity of why things are the way they are. Why is there a speed limit on the universe? Why is it better to switch doors in the Monty Hall problem?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They're Called Cell Phones Because The Phone is of Out Hot Cell Eat The Phone

     (The title is a reference, if you don't understand, don't worry about it.)      These two articles are a bit more linked than normal, as one is a direct response to the other. Though aside from the fact that they both talk about phones and are written in English, there aren't many comparisons I can make, they differ from each other quite severely.     First, and most obviously, their stances on cellphones are direct opposites. The one titled "Have Smartphones Destroyed A Generation?" Is, shockingly (not really,) thinks that the impact smartphones have on the youths is negative overall, whereas the response, "No, Smartphones are Not Destroying a Generation" thinks that this is not the case (another shocking revelation, I know)     There are also some more minor differences in format, for example, the response is much shorter than the paper it's responding to, which I appreciate greatly because my attention span is garbage. The source...

Pandemic Book Part 2: Electric Boogaloo

      I'm not sure how I'm supposed to follow the note because I can't see what passages other people picked until I submit this. -writing this as I read, I find it  mildly interesting that Jeevan was a paparazzo twice. I thought it was one solid block of his life, but nope. -Also, what kind of name is Jeevan? for the remainder of this blog I'm gonna call him Jeeves -calling it now I think Frank's gonna die or otherwise be separated from Jeeves. -"his hands ached from compressing Arthur's unwilling heart" is a pretty neat line, good contender for the line I'll discuss. -when Jeeves's phone rang and he said "hua" I thought that was an exclamation of surprise, like "HUH?!" -I'm disappointed to find out Arthur wasn't patient zero, makes him less interesting to me, and it also makes the original "and this is when it happened" line I praised very dull in hindsight. Because even if "it" didn't happe...

Forget this book, let's talk about Early Modern English!

-It's nice that they have a traveling acting troupe in the post-apocalypse. -I hope Jeeves died. Not because I dislike him, but because it would be narratively interesting. We get to learn about a person: their past, their hopes and dreams, their struggles... only for their story to be cut-short by the virus. -The farther we get from Shakespeare's time the more incomprehensible plays of that time become. "The safer sense will ne'er accommodate his master thus"?? What does "thus" mean in this context? In modern English it's used like "[cause] thus [effect]," you don't just end a sentence with it! And even if thus wasn't there to muck-up the whole line, what does it mean for a safer sense to not accommodate something? My best guess on what "safer sense" means is caution. Like, "Oh I would go play on the highway but I have a safer sense for that." or something. Does this mean that the person doesn't think cautio...