Return to Scrapbook 131 - Objectivity 109 

The cat or dog would beg to differ.

Unruly child, catholic, suspected witch? I'm sure you had other options.

You - sir - are a comedian of exceptional skill. Aha. ha. haha. hah. *adjusts monocle *

It's not actually a "tooth". It's a calcified testicular tumor.

It could be a tooth, there are those tumors called teratomas that produce structures like teeth, hair, nails, skin and other stuff as the cells divide and try to organize themselves into actual organs, a kind of embryonic development gone completely wrong.

It may very well be a tooth. Teratomas commonly grow in testes and can develop into fully differentiated tissue types, creating structures such as teeth and hair.

@@RBuckminsterFuller Wow, you learn something disgusting every day.

Great idea I second this !

Of course there is! It wasn't pseudoscience at the time.

There are plenty of alchemical manuscripts in the archive. The Newton project alone shows 70 alchemical manuscripts by Newton - consider it likely that there are just as many from the other famous scientists of that time. However, you write "before those things were dismissed". This is misleading. The Royal Society never appreciated alchemy much. At best, it simply ignored the alchemical undertakings of its members, and let them practice their alchemy privately. It was never endorsed or taken very seriously by the Royal Society as an institute. For this, see Michael Hunter's 2011 article "The Royal Society and the Decline of Magic". As Hunter writes: "Fellows might dabble in alchemy or astrology, or promote miraculous cures, or compile accounts of witchcraft; but they left such pursuits behind when they attended meetings of the Society. Hence, so far from investigating such phenomena and discrediting them, the Society simply avoided them."

I whish they took things a bit slower in general. I have the feeling that Keith generally knows a lot more than what he's allowed to say in the video. Maybe they could make some longer video, like 20 minutes or so and get more in depth on a particular topic sometimes? (Sorry about my english)

I think 20 minutes videos would be a little too long... I find nearly every topic presented by those two interesting. But except for topics I am really interested in, I would probably find 20 minutes too long. And as everybody is interested in different topics...

She could have swallowed it and it would then have worked its way to her bladder. The thing IS sharp.

I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that a person in the 17th century could have survived multiple internal organ perforation with a knife they swallowed without dying after a few days at most.

NO NO NO I DIDN'T NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT

early sounding accidents?