Til that OP has no concept of what a particle is or how small it is or how many of them there are in any given scenario because our brains did not evolve to process that kind of scale accurately.
That changes literally nothing of what I said. Your brain did not evolve to process those scales accurately. If you think you can, that just means you’re lacking in self reflection.
Being factually incorrect about literally everything you said changes nothing? Okay.
More importantly, humans are capable of abstract thought. Your whole argument is specious. If you find yourself lacking the context to understand these numbers, you can easily seek context. A good starting place would be the actual paper, which is linked in OP’s article. For the lazy: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61146-4
Being factually incorrect about literally everything you said changes nothing? Okay.
Yeah bruh, it’s this little thing called being pedantic.
If I say wealth inequality is crazy, no one should have 250 billion dollars, and you say ‘well actually Jeff Bezos only has 210 billion dollars’, then I will be factually incorrect and my point will still be completely valid.
Did you really just compare the difference between 210 billion and 250 billion to the difference between 14,000 to 75,000 vs millions and one micrometer to five millimeters vs nanometers?
Yes, it’s this little thing called context, thresholds, and relative magnitude.
If your brain is only evolved to process numbers up to a hundred or two, then everything 10000+ is similarly processed through abstractions rather than your brain being able to directly comprehend and compare them.
If instead of asking a guffawing question, you actually tried to point out why my reasoning was flawed, you may have realized those basic aspects of how language and reasoning work on your own.
Because pop science articles often throw out bullshit like “blowing your nose can cause you to expel over 100 germs” because they know that 100 sounds like a big number and will get clicks.
People not questioning the actual context and meaning behind those numbers and how they connect back to something we actually care about leads to a lot of bullshit science reporting.
Til that OP has no concept of what a particle is or how small it is or how many of them there are in any given scenario because our brains did not evolve to process that kind of scale accurately.
That seems more like your problem than OP’s.
Lmao, bruh here thinks his brain evolved to process scales of millions and comprehend a nanometer.
Are you a special unique bro different from everyone else?
It’s 14,000 to 75,000, not millions.
Microplastics are in the range of one micrometer to five millimeters, not nanometers.
That changes literally nothing of what I said. Your brain did not evolve to process those scales accurately. If you think you can, that just means you’re lacking in self reflection.
Being factually incorrect about literally everything you said changes nothing? Okay.
More importantly, humans are capable of abstract thought. Your whole argument is specious. If you find yourself lacking the context to understand these numbers, you can easily seek context. A good starting place would be the actual paper, which is linked in OP’s article. For the lazy: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61146-4
Yeah bruh, it’s this little thing called being pedantic.
If I say wealth inequality is crazy, no one should have 250 billion dollars, and you say ‘well actually Jeff Bezos only has 210 billion dollars’, then I will be factually incorrect and my point will still be completely valid.
Did you really just compare the difference between 210 billion and 250 billion to the difference between 14,000 to 75,000 vs millions and one micrometer to five millimeters vs nanometers?
Yes, it’s this little thing called context, thresholds, and relative magnitude.
If your brain is only evolved to process numbers up to a hundred or two, then everything 10000+ is similarly processed through abstractions rather than your brain being able to directly comprehend and compare them.
If instead of asking a guffawing question, you actually tried to point out why my reasoning was flawed, you may have realized those basic aspects of how language and reasoning work on your own.
Just posted the article. Why not be constructive and post something more informative?
Because pop science articles often throw out bullshit like “blowing your nose can cause you to expel over 100 germs” because they know that 100 sounds like a big number and will get clicks.
People not questioning the actual context and meaning behind those numbers and how they connect back to something we actually care about leads to a lot of bullshit science reporting.