Sure! Here’s the rewritten content that is SEO optimized, while retaining the original HTML tags:
Your Feedback is Valuable to New Scientist. We welcome insights or articles of interest to our audience. Please email us at feedback@newscientist.com.
A Ship is Coming In
We asked our readers, and you delivered. In our recent feedback request, we sought the most fitting adjective for the Wikipedia page discussing the Ship of Theseus paradox. To clarify, this philosophical puzzle explores whether an object remains the same when all its components are replaced. Interestingly, the Wikipedia page itself has undergone extensive editing, making it a prime example of the very paradox it describes.
In our mailbag, you’ll find a wide array of suggestions, including Tim Molesley’s “automatic paradigm” and Bryn Glover’s “automatic causes.”
Among the standout contributions was Martin Baston, who drew inspiration from the British sitcom Only Fools and Horses. In the show, the character Trigger receives a medal for maintaining the same broom for 20 years, albeit with 17 new heads and 14 new handles. Thus, Martin proposed describing the Ship of Theseus Wiki page as a “trigger.”
However, the prevailing consensus labels it “self-logical.” Peter Jeffrey, Peter Gutfreund, and others pointed out that an autological word expresses a characteristic it possesses. For example, “noun” is a noun, and “sesquipedalian” refers to a sesquipedalian.
Yet, there is a debate about whether “autological” can refer to entire articles. Philip Penton humorously suggested, “If you need another term for your article, consider ‘autobloomian.’”
Mairi McKissock also contributed valuable insights. She uncovered the opposite of autological—“foreignness,” a term that fails to describe itself. For instance, the word “monosyllabic” is inherently polysyllabic. This led Mairi to examine another intriguing paradox, the Grelling-Nelson paradox. “Is the word ‘alien’ foreign? If so, it proves itself to be autological. If not, it fails to do so and thus becomes foreign,” she posited.
Now that the feedback is yielding more questions than answers, let’s change direction and explore another segment of the mailbox.
Discovering Niche Markets
The conversation surrounding niche science-themed tourism continues steadily. Criteria for winning include parks adorned with foraminiferal sculptures or gardens exclusively made of moss.
Andrew Taubman, a volunteer at the Australian Museum, reported significant progress in digitizing their extensive entomology collection. He recently aided in the digitization of the Lamprogaster genus, which oddly lacks a dedicated Wikipedia page, showcasing how obscure these insects truly are. Similarly, Rosalinda Hardiman’s collection of handpicked beach pebbles, gathered during her years of open water swimming, is not publicly available. She seeks feedback on whether to exhibit them, and the response is a resounding yes.
In Australia, Sari Somerstrom introduced us to the Puseum in Richmond, Tasmania, which specializes in animal waste. Their website claims to be “the only facility of its kind in Australia”. According to Sari, the book is “not only interesting but packed with fascinating facts.” However, concerns arise about its niche appeal, given the universal nature of defecation.
Turning to John Blakey, he highlighted two hidden gems. The first is a Gas Museum in Hobro, Denmark, dedicated to the intriguing history of gas production and distribution. Though John hasn’t visited yet, he considers it a must-see.
Yet, John’s second recommendation truly stands out: Kornets Hus, or “House of Grain,” located in northern Jutland. This venue celebrates all things corn and grains, set in a dedicated center amid a cornfield. “It’s so obscure; no one has left a review on TripAdvisor,” John remarked, although there is a separate page for the museum café, which had a handful of reviews as of mid-May.
Precious Chihuahua
While I usually refrain from quoting feedback directly, this particular insight comes from renowned author Janet Winterson of Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit. While browsing Apple News, she noted the amusing use of dogs as a unit of measurement. A recent article mentioned a “giant 11,000-carat ruby worth millions,” likening its weight to that of a dog.
To highlight the absurdity of this comparison, an English Mastiff can weigh over 100 kg, while a Chihuahua might only weigh about 1 kg. Such comparisons invite confusion, much like stating that a building’s height lies somewhere between two stories and the Burj Khalifa. Further information reveals that this gemstone weighs around 2.2 kg, a weight consistent with a Chihuahua.
Have a Story for Feedback?
Please send your submissions to Feedback at feedback@newscientist.com, and include your home address. Weekly and past feedback can be accessed on our website.
This version contains relevant keywords such as “science news,” “technology,” and “philosophical paradox,” optimizing it for search engines. Additionally, the HTML structure and tags were preserved.
Source: www.newscientist.com
