The role of neuroscience in architecture is a contemporary concept that attaches scientific proof, measurement and research to the design of buildings.

The brain controls behavior, and genes control the design and structure of the brain. Science shows that environment can modulate the function of genes and, ultimately, the structure of the brain. So if changes in the environment change behavior, architectural design can change it too.

It has a direct impact on wellness issues and a direct influence on activity within that space.”

science has proved that natural lighting stimulates positive brain function and helps students learn. “Visual access to sky, trees and landscape stimulates brain function,”

The research argues that not only do we need order but our brain likes hearing stories

According to the book, humans are a wall-hugging species that avoids the center of open spaces. People who are outside seem more comfortable when buildings create a roomlike feel, surrounding them on several sides, Hollander said.

People also respond more positively when they can identify a “face” in building design — windows as the eyes, doors as the mouth and so on.

“Humans have a clear bias for curves over straight or sharp lines,” Hollander said. Studies have shown that curves elicit “feelings of happiness and elation, while jagged and sharp forms tend to connect to feelings of pain and sadness.”

because the seat of power of the American president — the Oval Office — is curved, the room may carry a psychological advantage for its occupant.

bilateral symmetry that humans prefer, with the desk centered on its longer axis.

Neuroscience shows that light triggers brain reactions far beyond vision. “It has an impact on heart rate,” she said

“This is a human condition that affects our well-being,” Dougherty said. “Why not take the utmost advantage of our capabilities? … Hopefully, the days of windowless classrooms to prevent vandalism and distraction are over.”

Determination of color is based on a complicated inference, involving surrounding colors, local brightness cues and shape

This dress is a nice example of how what you see isn't necessarily what you perceive.

One consequence of this is that while we all live in the same world, we don't always see it the same way.

Color interpretation relies on the same kind of contextual inference as brightness. In Bloj, Kersten, and Hurlbert (1999) the authors demonstrated that context inferred from depth could change the perceived color of an object.

Humans also have strong built in assumptions about perceived light sources. In terms of brightness, humans have a "light-from-above" prior that determines how we often interpret shapes.

In the case of the dress, one's assumptions about lighting have a strong impact on the perceived color.

It so happens that these average colors are close to being inverses of one another

Our brains have to make guesses, but they don't always make the same guesses, even though we live in the same world. One of the hardest inference problems our brains have to solve is figuring out how everyone else sees the world

Because cells are connected in a network, brain activity produces a synchronised pulse of electrical activity, which is called a “brain wave”.

Brainwaves are detected using a technique known as electroencephalography (EEG),

The pattern of activity is then recorded and interpreted using computer software.

The electrical nature of the brain allows not only for sending of signals, but also for the receiving of electrical pulses

Studies published in the last two years have reported direct transmission of brain activity between two animals, between two humans and even between a human and a rat.

The connection was reinforced by giving both rats a reward when the receiver rat performed the task correctly.

By combining EEG and TMS, scientists have transmitted the thought of moving a hand from one person to a separate individual, who actually moved their hand.

including EEG, the Internet and TMS – the team of researchers was able to transmit a thought all the way from India to France.

Words were first coded into binary notation

Now that these BBI technologies are becoming a reality, they have a huge potential to impact the way we interact with other humans. And maybe even the way we communicate with animals through direct transmission of thought.

Such technologies have obvious ethical and legal implications, however. So it is important to note that the success of BBIs depends upon the conscious coupling of the subjects.

Here we have converging evidence that these brain regions are important for trust; and if we can understand how these differences relate to specific social processes, then we may be able to develop more targeted treatment techniques for people who have deficits in social cognition

The volume of this area of the brain, which codes for emotional saliency, was greater in those that were both most trusting and least trusting of others. If something is emotionally important to us, the amygdala helps us code and remember it."

His findings became a source of inspiration and a base for study that we continue to refer back to primarily due to not only the artistic detail of the machinery but also the aerodynamic theories, the description of wind currents, the mathematical calculations and measurements, and the engineering of each contraption

When we heed respect for artists, we often commend contemporary idols with discoveries and defiant actions that tear away from the norm, but we forget those artists living at the crossroads of the arts and sciences, who contribute to society in various unique ways.

common ground where science and art meet, provided a degree of mental stimulation and a sense of independent exploration that moved society forward.

“starting to realize how powerful the responses to nonconscious stimuli can be,”

Such influences are subtle—and that’s exactly why they are so powerful. Consumers don’t perceive them as marketing messages and therefore don’t react with the usual resistance to ads and other promotions.

Consider this campaign by Dunkin’ Donuts in South Korea: When a company jingle played on municipal buses, an atomizer released a coffee aroma.

increased visits to Dunkin’ Donuts outlets near bus stops by 16% and sales at those outlets by 29%.

Bank executives should make sure that branch offices exude the reassuring, wealth-suggesting aromas of wood and leather.

The three found that imbuing pencils with the unusual scent of tea tree oil dramatically increased research subjects’ ability to remember the pencils’ brand and other details. Whereas those given unscented pencils experienced a 73% decline in the information they could recall two weeks later, subjects given tea-tree-scented pencils experienced a decline of only 8%.

“In the past, communications with customers were essentially monologues—companies just talked at consumers,”

Then they evolved into dialogues, with customers providing feedback. Now they’re becoming multidimensional conversations, with products finding their own voices and consumers responding viscerally and subconsciously to them.”

should be at the center of product innovation and marketing for many brands.

Scientists have done studies where they give people different colored candies and ask if they taste differently

Your brain is constantly filtering it through your sense of taste, touch, smell, and – most importantly – your memories.

The human eye is actually really bad at perceiving color.

Your brain has to fill in the gaps.

"When color is processed by the brain, a lot of information has to be extracted from not very much incoming information," said Mathan. "The color that we perceive doesn't correspond - at all - with the colors that are in the world."

describe bizarre situations, like physical systems existing simultaneously in multiple states, such as different positions or velocities. It gives very precise probabilities for the possible outcomes of laboratory experiments, but it defies an intuitive interpretation.

But the theorems show that this explanation simply cannot work.

a bunch of particles can share these states at the same time, effectively becoming instances of the same particle. And so: entanglement.

possible to strip away all of this indeterminateness

wave functions are very fragile, subject to a “collapse” in which all of those possibilities become just a single particle at a single point at a single time.

physicists have observed a very peculiar behavior of electrons in supercooled baths of helium. When an electron enters the bath, it acts to

two probabilities can be isolated from each other, cordoned off like quantum crime scenes

it’s possible to take a wave function and isolate it into different parts. So, if our electron has some probability of being in position (x1,y1,z1) and another probability of being in position (x2,y2,z2), those two probabilities can be isolated from each other, cordoned off like quantum crime scenes

using tiny bubbles of helium as physical “traps.

trapping the chance of finding the electron, not pieces of the electron

when a macroscopic human attempts to measure a quantum mechanical system: The wave drops away and all that’s left is a boring, well-defined thing.

repel the surrounding helium atoms, forming its own little bubble or cavity in the process.

That an electron (or other particle) can be in many places at the same time is strange enough, but the notion that those possibilities can be captured and shuttled away adds a whole new twist.

wave function isn’t a physical thing. It’s mathematics that describe a phenomenon.

The electron, upon measurement, will be in precisely one bubble.

“No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement,”

Is consciousness required? We don’t really know.”

each electron somehow acts like a wave interfering with itself, as if it is simultaneously passing through both slits at once.

Instead, we see two lumps on the screen, as if the electrons, suddenly aware of being observed, decided to act like little pellets.

the electrons go back to their wavelike behavior, and the interference pattern miraculously reappears.

. For an individual particle like an electron, for example, the wave function provides information about the probabilities that the particle can be observed at particular locations, as well as the probabilities of the results of other measurements of the particle that you can make, such as measuring its momentum.

If the wave function is merely knowledge-based, then you can explain away odd quantum phenomena by saying that things appear to us this way only because our knowledge of the real state of affairs is insufficient.

If there is an objective reality at all, the paper demonstrates, then the wave function is in fact reality-based.

We should be careful to recognize that the weirdness of the quantum world does not directly imply the same kind of weirdness in the world of everyday experience. That’s because the nebulous quantum essence of individual elementary particles is known to quickly dissipate in large ensembles of particles (a phenomenon often referred to as “decoherence”).

Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts.

Our lives are permeated by science and technology as never before. For many of us this new world is wondrous, comfortable, and rich in rewards—but also more complicated and sometimes unnerving. We now face risks we can’t easily analyze.

The world crackles with real and imaginary hazards, and distinguishing the former from the latter isn’t easy.

In this bewildering world we have to decide what to believe and how to act on that. In principle that’s what science is for.

“Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt,

“Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.”

The scientific method leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing, and sometimes hard to swallow.

We don’t believe you.

Galileo was put on trial and forced to recant. Two centuries later Charles Darwin escaped that fate. But his idea that all life on Earth evolved from a primordial ancestor and that we humans are distant cousins of apes, whales, and even deep-sea mollusks is still a big ask for a lot of people. So is another 19th-century notion: that carbon dioxide, an invisible gas that we all exhale all the time and that makes up less than a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, could be affecting Earth’s climate.

we intellectually accept these precepts of science, we subconsciously cling to our intuitions

Shtulman’s research indicates that as we become scientifically literate, we repress our naive beliefs but never eliminate them entirely. They lurk in our brains, chirping at us as we try to make sense of the world.

Most of us do that by relying on personal experience and anecdotes, on stories rather than statistics.

We have trouble digesting randomness; our brains crave pattern and meaning.

we can deceive ourselves.

Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. Like the rest of us, they’re vulnerable to what they call confirmation bias—the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. But unlike the rest of us, they submit their ideas to formal peer review before publishing them

other scientists will try to reproduce them

Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.

Many people in the United States—a far greater percentage than in other countries—retain doubts about that consensus or believe that climate activists are using the threat of global warming to attack the free market and industrial society generally.

news media give abundant attention to such mavericks, naysayers, professional controversialists, and table thumpers. The media would also have you believe that science is full of shocking discoveries made by lone geniuses

science tells us the truth rather than what we’d like the truth to be. Scientists can be as dogmatic as anyone else—but their dogma is always wilting in the hot glare of new research.

But industry PR, however misleading, isn’t enough to explain why only 40 percent of Americans, according to the most recent poll from the Pew Research Center, accept that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.

“science communication problem,”

yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe—and why they so often don’t accept the scientific consensus.

higher literacy was associated with stronger views—at both ends of the spectrum. Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that’s because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview.

“egalitarian” and “communitarian” mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it’s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they’re likely to see the risks of climate change.

“hierarchical” and “individualistic” mind-set respect leaders of industry and don’t like government interfering in their affairs; they’re apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to—some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.

For a hierarchical individualist, Kahan says, it’s not irrational to reject established climate science: Accepting it wouldn’t change the world, but it might get him thrown out of his tribe.

Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers.

organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics.

Internet makes it easier than ever for climate skeptics and doubters of all kinds to find their own information and experts

Internet has democratized information, which is a good thing. But along with cable TV, it has made it possible to live in a “filter bubble” that lets in only the information with which you already agree.

How to convert climate skeptics? Throwing more facts at them doesn’t help.

people need to hear from believers they can trust, who share their fundamental values.

We believe in scientific ideas not because we have truly evaluated all the evidence but because we feel an affinity for the scientific community.

“Believing in evolution is just a description about you. It’s not an account of how you reason.”

evolution actually happened. Biology is incomprehensible without it. There aren’t really two sides to all these issues. Climate change is happening. Vaccines really do save lives. Being right does matter—and the science tribe has a long track record of getting things right in the end. Modern society is built on things it got right.

Doubting science also has consequences.

In the climate debate the consequences of doubt are likely global and enduring. In the U.S., climate change skeptics have achieved their fundamental goal of halting legislative action to combat global warming.

“That line between science communication and advocacy is very hard to step back from,”

It’s their very detachment, what you might call the cold-bloodedness of science, that makes science the killer app.

that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science.

not a sin to change your mind when the evidence demands it.

for the best scientists, the truth is more important than the tribe.

Students come away thinking of science as a collection of facts, not a method.

Shtulman’s research has shown that even many college students don’t really understand what evidence is.

“Everybody should be questioning,” says McNutt. “That’s a hallmark of a scientist. But then they should use the scientific method, or trust people using the scientific method, to decide which way they fall on those questions.”

science has made us the dominant organisms,

incredibly rapid change, and it’s scary sometimes. It’s not all progress.

It summarized and condemned the scientific and medical fraud that the British researcher Andrew Wakefield perpetrated. Years earlier, he had falsely linked the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism. The editorial lamented that “the damage to public health continues, fuelled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals, and the medical profession.”

Reporters also seek to ensure that viewers, listeners, or readers understand that measles can afflict a victim more powerfully than does a mere passing ailment.

Measles doesn’t spread in most U.S. communities because people are protected by “herd immunity,” meaning that 92% to 94% of the population is vaccinated or immune. That level of protection makes it hard for one case of measles to spread even from one unvaccinated person to another without direct contact.

a study that “found that only 51 percent of Americans were confident that vaccines are safe and effective, which is similar to the proportion who believe that houses can be haunted by ghosts.”

In some parts of California, resistance to vaccinations including the MMR shot is stronger than ever, despite cases of measles hitting five US states.

“Vaccines are a great idea, but they are poisoning us, adding things that kick in later in life so they can sell us more drugs.”

Health professionals say those claims are unfounded or vastly overstated.

“the anti-vaccination movement is fueled by an over-privileged group of rich people grouped together who swear they won’t put any chemicals in their kids (food or vaccines or whatever else), either because it’s trendy to be all-natural or they don’t understand or accept the science of vaccinations. Their science denying has been propelled further by celebrities

the outbreak “should worry and enrage the public.” It indicted the anti-vaxxers’ “ignorant and self-absorbed rejection of science” and declared, “Getting vaccinated is good for the health of the inoculated person and also part of one’s public responsibility to help protect the health of others.”

“It’s wrong,” the editors emphasized, “to allow public health to be threatened while everyone else waits for these science-denying parents to open their eyes.”

“It’s because these people are highly educated and they get on the Internet and read things and think they can figure things out better than their physician.”

linked vaccination opposition to the “political left, which has long been suspicious of the lobbying power of the pharmaceutical industry and its influence on government regulators, and also the fringe political right, which has at different times seen vaccination, fluoridisation and other public-health initiatives as attempts by big government to impose tyrannical limits on personal freedom.”

Attempts to increase concerns about communicable diseases or correct false claims about vaccines may be especially likely to be counterproductive.

“attempting balance by giving vaccine skeptics and pro-vaccine advocates equal weight in news stories leads people to believe the evidence for and against vaccination is equally strong.”

A recent edition of the Washington Post carried a letter defending anti-vaxxers as “people who generally are pro-science and highly educated, who have high incomes and who have studied this issue carefully before coming to the conclusion that the risk to their children is greater than the slim possibility of contracting a childhood disease that [in many cases leaves] little or no residual consequences.”

anecdotal evidence suggests that some journalists, rather than omitting anti-vaxxers’ views, prefer to expose them and then oppose them.

“unwarranted fear . . . an assault on one of the greatest public-health inventions in world history.”

if there’s more than even a scant 5 percent possibility that an event occurred by chance, scientists will reject the causal claim.

correlation is not necessarily causation, because we need to rule out the possibility that we are just observing a coincidence.

. In the 18th and 19th centuries, this conservatism generally took the form of a demand for a large amount of evidence; in the 20th century, it took on the form of a demand for statistical significance

scientists place the burden of proof on the person making an affirmative claim.

the 95 percent level has no actual basis in nature. It is a convention, a value judgment.

The 95 percent confidence level is generally credited to the British statistician R. A. Fisher, who was interested in the problem of how to be sure an observed effect of an experiment was not just the result of chance.

It places the burden of proof on the victim rather than, for example, on the manufacturer of a harmful product.

it might be reasonable to accept a lower statistical threshold when examining effects in people, because you already have reason to believe that the observed effect is not just chance.

WHY don’t scientists pick the standard that is appropriate to the case at hand, instead of adhering to an absolutist one?

the history of science in relation to religion.

long tradition in the history of science that valorizes skepticism as an antidote to religious faith

scientists consciously rejected religion as a basis of natural knowledge, they held on to certain cultural presumptions about what kind of person had access to reliable knowledge.

they do practice a form of self-denial, denying themselves the right to believe anything that has not passed very high intellectual hurdles.

vigorously denying its relation to religion, modern science retains symbolic vestiges of prophetic tradition, so many scientists bend over backward to avoid these associations.

For the first time in human history, we need to

relate to the risk of destabilising the entire planet,

climate change the most serious crossed boundary

makes the planet less hospitable,

- ozone depletion, ocean acidification, freshwater use, microscopic particles in the atmosphere and chemical pollution -- have not been crossed

Passing the boundaries does not cause immediate chaos but pushes the planet into a period of uncertainty.

nine planetary boundaries within which humanity can develop and thrive.

we're seeing extreme weather events become worse, loss of polar ice and other worrying impacts,

Commodity prices, a measure of scarcity for energy and other basic goods, are also falling, leading some economists to question warnings from climate scientists and environmentalists.

yet we still do not have a clue that we are not alone.

Finding Goldilocks planets closer to home will be the job of the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, to be launched in 2017. But if we want to know what the weather is like on these worlds, whether there is water or even life, more powerful instruments will be needed.

hundreds of light-years away, too far for detailed study. We will probably never know any more about these particular planets than we do now.

“but until we can observe the atmospheres and assess their greenhouse gas power, we don’t really know what the surface temperatures are like.”

Kepler has discovered 4,175 potential planets, and 1,004 of them have been confirmed as real

investigating the concept of a starshade, which would float in front of a space telescope and block light from a star so that its much fainter planets would be visible.

studying a method known as a coronagraph, in which the occulting disk is inside the telescope.

study dark energy, and they plan to include a coronagraph to search for exoplanets

The goal is to have a pool of dozens of “exo-Earths” to study in order to have any chance of seeing signs of life or understanding terrestrial planets

perhaps because as planets get bigger their mass and gravity increase, and they are better able to hang on to gas and lighter components.

The work complements and tightens studies done last year by Geoffrey Marcy and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley; that group looks into the nature of so-called super Earths, planets bigger than ours and smaller than Neptune.

common in the galaxy.

changes in global temperature year to year, even decade to decade, have little meaning in tracking a long-term trend like the impact on temperature of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases.

the apparent slowdown has led to numerous assertions that “global warming has stopped.”

John R. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is known for his skepticism about the seriousness of global warming, pointed out in an interview that 2014 had surpassed the other record-warm years by only a few hundredths of a degree, well within the error margin of global temperature measurements.

indicates that global warming has not ‘stopped in 1998,’ as some like to falsely claim.”

It’s because the planet is warming. The basic issue is the long-term trend, and it is not going away.”