![\"New](\"https:\/\/images.newscientist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/23152334\/SEI_213839844.jpg\")
<\/div>Cosplay coral-ation<\/h2>\n
Getting anyone, anyone at all, to notice what you have discovered is a problem for almost every scientist. (It\u2019s a problem also for almost anyone anywhere who discovers almost anything.)<\/p>\n
Mark Patterson at Northeastern University in Massachusetts and his colleagues tried being theatrical to raise awareness about marine microplastics. They found success (\u201cattentive engagement\u201d) by doing cosplay at a Comic-Con convention in San Diego. Patterson wore a giant coral costume and wielded a swordlike \u201cmicroplastics sampling device\u201d, while another team member was dressed as Greek sea goddess Amphitrite, \u201cwith bracelets and hair made with plastic debris\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe found that the novelty factor of our costumes and accessories, not part of the traditional cosplay pantheon of characters, was a captivating way to engage convention attendees,\u201d they say. \u201cEngagement lasted 1\u20138 minutes in length, with 1\u20139 attendees at a time.\u201d<\/p>\n
Readers of Current: The Journal of Marine Education<\/a> can see stimulating photographs of the adventure, then, properly roused, go read up about microplastics.<\/p>\n Feedback wonders whether people who professionally think about thinking really think anyone really thinks those thinkers know much about it.<\/p>\n Those thinkers who think about thinking are called many things: cognitive scientists, brain scientists, neurologists, neuroeconomists, philosophers, neurophilosophers, psychologists, neuropsychologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, therapists, neurotherapists, theologians, neurotheologians, intellectual historians, et al.<\/p>\n Never mind that they call each other many things, not always admiringly.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The professionals quibble about consciousness. In the past five years alone, nearly 2000 academic papers have publishingly explored the question \u201cWhat is consciousness?\u201d<\/p>\n And they ruminate about ruminating. For example, Christopher Marcin Kowalski, Donald Saklofske and Julie Aitken Schermer at the University of Western Ontario in Canada published a paper in May called \u201cWhat are you ruminating about? The development and validation of a content-dependent measure of rumination<\/a>\u201c. These three ruminators say they think that \u201cexisting measures of rumination assess ruminative thought without reference to the content of ruminations\u201d.<\/p>\n What is the content of these ruminators\u2019 own ruminations? In some of their other papers, they give us glimpses.<\/p>\n Schermer ruminated in 2023 on the owners of noisy automobiles, in a brief report titled \u201cA desire for a loud car with a modified muffler is predicted by being a man and higher scores on psychopathy and sadism<\/a>\u201c.<\/p>\n Kowalski and Saklofske ruminated in print on \u201cEnthusiastic acts of evil<\/a>\u201c.<\/p>\n Saklofske also ruminated, also in print, on \u201cmeasuring gelotophobia, gelotophilia, and katagelasticism<\/a>\u201c.<\/p>\n Now perhaps you too \u2013 if aided by a dictionary \u2013 will ruminate on gelotophobia, gelotophilia and katagelasticism.<\/p>\n Questions arising from underground explosions, including those of buried, embalmed corpses, and toxic groundwater (Feedback, 20 July<\/a>) continue to spur thought.<\/p>\n William Drennan, a law professor at Southern Illinois University, casts a cold eye at the practice of embalming. He writes in the Dickinson Law Review<\/i><\/a> that: \u201cAttempts to make caskets air-tight and water-tight have led to a phenomenon termed \u2018exploding casket syndrome.\u2019 Basically, efforts to make caskets air-tight and water-tight lead to a disturbing conclusion because heat, gas, and liquid build up inside the coffin as the body decomposes, eventually causing an explosion.\u201d<\/p>\n Leaving aside the intrinsic value of tradition, Drennan says \u201cthere appears to be no benefit to embalming after the public viewing\u201d.<\/p>\n Recognising the intrinsic value of knowledge, Wei Guo and colleagues at the Army Engineering University of PLA in China published a wide-ranging look in the journal Underground Space<\/a> at the \u201ctheory and test of underground explosions\u201d.<\/p>\n They summarise \u201ca large number of field tests and numerical simulations [that] have been conducted at home and abroad\u201d.<\/p>\n Though they don\u2019t specifically mention exploding, buried, embalmed corpses, the team does warn that: \u201cCalculating the parameters of the ground shock induced by an underground explosion is a complex energy coupling problem.\u201d<\/p>\n We have two additions to Feedback\u2019s collection called The Title Tells You Everything You Need to Know.<\/p>\n \u201cA man who pricked his finger and smelled putrid for 5 years<\/a>\u201d edified readers of The Lancet<\/i> in 1996, while \u201cDizziness in discus throwers is related to motion sickness generated while spinning<\/a>\u201d informed subscribers to Acta Oto-Laryngologica<\/i> in 2000.<\/p>\n If you find an equally prickly, smelly or dizzyingly clear example, please send it (with citation details) to: Telltale titles, c\/o Feedback.<\/p>\n Marc Abrahams created the Ig Nobel Prize ceremony and\u00a0co-founded\u00a0the magazine Annals of Improbable Research. Earlier, he worked on unusual ways to use computers. His website is\u00a0<\/em>improbable.com<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Got a story for Feedback?<\/b><\/p>\n You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com<\/a>. Please include your home address. This week\u2019s and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nWhat\u2019s on your mind?<\/h2>\n
Exploding insights<\/h2>\n
Saying it all<\/h2>\n