Something something "Bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly" something something.
How is it we are shocked to find out we are sometimes wrong and not shocked that sometimes we get it right?
My critique by the way is the headline, not the actual research. The headline is clickbait IMO, and just as I suppose some don't like my comment (not well thought out, emotional, etc.), the headline is the same.
E.g., consider, "Curious unexpected aerodynamic principles of dandelion seeds lead scientists to new areas of discovery"
I agree its a bad headline. Maybe "Dandelion Seeds Fly Using Method Not Previously Described in Nature", because:
1. Of course its been _observed_ before. As the video points out, just about every kid has observed it. The claim is really that nobody has previously understood the physics of it.
2. There's nothing impossible about it, clearly. Moreover, the article doesn't claim that people had previously analyzed the seeds behavior and came to the conclusion that it defies physics.
Or that no one had been able to answer, "What makes dandelion seeds fly?" because no one had asked the question before. At least not asked it in a way that prompted someone to look at a floating dandelion seed close enough to notice the vortex.
How is it we are shocked to find out we are sometimes wrong and not shocked that sometimes we get it right?
My critique by the way is the headline, not the actual research. The headline is clickbait IMO, and just as I suppose some don't like my comment (not well thought out, emotional, etc.), the headline is the same.
E.g., consider, "Curious unexpected aerodynamic principles of dandelion seeds lead scientists to new areas of discovery"