We had such great fun with the "I rank number 1!" meme, that I thought it would be worth the effort to try another. This one might even guarantee you a spot in immortality - especially if your contribution manages to strike a chord with academia.
Anyway, this meme asks that you come up with your own scientific eponym. What's that exactly? Well, first read this excellent primer by Samuel Arbesman, which basically provides a step by step description of how to do this effectively. Then have a go at your own blog. If all goes well, I'd like to create a page at the Science Creative Quarterly, that collects (and links to) the good ones.
Here, I'll go first:
Where n = the number of cup holders a vehicle has.
Where f = the frequency per year where all cup holders are in use during vehicle use.
Examples:
My Honda Civic: Has two cup holders (n=2), and I would predict that both are in use during traveling at least 20 times each year (f=20). This means the Ng's Score for this particular '97 Civic calculates to a score of 11.5
A Ford Expedition: Apparently has 10 cup holders (n=10). Which I'm going to guess the vast majority of Ford Expedition owners have never had the opportunity to use all at once during the course of even owning the vehicle (f=0). Therefore, an Ng's Score here would calculate to 0.1
And now, of course, the academics can weigh in.
What exactly is this a measure of? The social value of the vehicle in question. The common sense level of the car designer? Should there be a government sanctioned minimum Ng's Score that all vehicles are legislated to meet? Does the fuel efficiency play a role (an appendum to the formula), and are there certain vehicle descriptions that should not be scored (i.e. buses or planes or boats fit can not be assessed).
Anyway, regardless, it was fun to think of an eponym. Now let the meme officially begin
Education & Careers
Comments
Here's mine :)
http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2007/11/the_higginslevinthal_dictum_or.php
Posted by: Steve Higgins | November 14, 2007 1:58 PM
Meme?
More like fad.
"A very short-lived trend, usually appealing to a narrow market."
Posted by: CGreen | November 14, 2007 2:18 PM
David... David Ng. Ng. David... Is this the same David Ng that attended the elite and possibly "so effective it's too dangerous to keep it going" Leadership Institute at Purdue University one summer during mid-to-late high school epoch? If so, this is Steve. Hello!
Posted by: Steve | November 14, 2007 3:00 PM
Here's mine
http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2007/11/gortons_law_1.php
Posted by: CR McClain | November 14, 2007 3:06 PM
For the engineers out there: the Johnson number (Js) is the ratio of useful dimensionless numbers to vanity dimensionless numbers.
Posted by: Terry | November 14, 2007 3:39 PM
I didn't name it, but I have seen it seriously invoked: Blake's Law (Ken MacLeod calls it "Stacey's Law").
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 14, 2007 4:01 PM
Mine:
The Polcz Shift (?)
? = ? × ? ? ?
The Polcz Shift (?) occureth when apathy (?) is multiplied by infinity (?), from which one discovers a resultant fractured personal concept of time, in terms of continuity and perhaps even the order in which events seem to take place (?).
Posted by: steve | November 14, 2007 4:33 PM
Since when are they "coffee" cup holders? They're cup holders, not necessarily coffee.
Posted by: RPM | November 14, 2007 5:18 PM
This number will be influenced by some factors like age of vehicle and country of design (not necessarily origin). Older vehicles had no cup holders. Even somewhat newer vehicles of German design had no cupholders, or few, or virtually useless, apparently because German engineers considered it a driver's job to drive, not drink out of a cup (or listen to a decent radio either). American designed vehilces of recent manufacture will have a high n, especially since they are advertised to hold many people. Since they never do, the score will be low for them. The calculated number should also factor in miles per gallon to be useful. A simpler measure is just person-miles per gallon averaged over a year.
Posted by: Mark P | November 14, 2007 5:28 PM
Thanks RPM. You're right - it is a cup holder (not coffee cup holder. The change has been made.
Posted by: David Ng | November 14, 2007 5:32 PM
Alan's Law of Energy
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't quit the game.
(Ha! Who needs some silly mathematical formula?)
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | November 14, 2007 8:45 PM
A word of caution though to the multitude of prestigious scientists who read The World's Fair and are tempted by this meme: please be careful not to run afoul of the Arbesman Limit.
Posted by: Sam Arbesman | November 14, 2007 11:18 PM
The Redfield Factor (and the Inverse Redfield Factor) are at my blog.
Posted by: Rosie Redfield | November 15, 2007 12:52 AM
dave, i'm sorry! i totally was confused for a day. this is steve from belmont. nifty science blog. how's teaching! good blog job!
Posted by: steve | November 15, 2007 10:58 AM
Mine's up.
Posted by: sciencewoman | November 15, 2007 3:22 PM
I gave it a try too:
http://justapie.blogspot.com/2007/11/my-constant-meme.html
Posted by: justapie | November 15, 2007 10:11 PM
Here be mine...
http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2007/11/the_rowan_sarchasmic_index.php
Posted by: Chris Rowan | November 16, 2007 6:38 AM
The (ahem) DrugMonkey Scale.
Posted by: Drugmonkey | November 16, 2007 6:39 PM
How's this:
The SBC Score, or “The likelihood you’ll get laid with a hairy-as-hell body” Score or “On factors that control the evolution of modern hairless apes”
http://nouseforadave.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/the-semeniuk-score-or-the-likelihood-youll-get-laid-with-a-hairy-as-hell-body-score-or-on-factors-that-control-the-evolution-of-modern-hairless-apes/
Posted by: Dave | November 21, 2007 12:06 AM
The first first link in this post (@ "I rank number 1!") is incorrect.
Posted by: Trinifar | November 25, 2007 3:29 AM