New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Limits of Perception

Editor in Chief Mariette DiChristina introduces the March 2010 issue of Scientific American

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”
—Arthur Schopenhauer, Studies in Pessimism

Riding in a Manhattan subway car the other morning, I read that quote by 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer on one of the transit authority’s “Train of Thought” posters. It amused me that I had actually gone underground to see the light. That is, Schopenhauer’s words captured clearly what I had been only vaguely mulling about some of this issue’s major features and what they represent: the utility of looking at an area of science anew by coming at it from a different perspective. In this, I realize, I am hardly the first person to notice that when attempting to solve a problem, changing your physical vantage point or mental framework can loft you past perceived limits. In some cases, it can be difficult to recognize evidence that may be right before your eyes because you fail to appreciate it for what it is.

And so it was with the subject of this month’s cover story. What scientists once thought was unremarkable cellular “noise” in neuron signaling has come to be viewed as important to overall system-wide functioning in the brain. It’s common, and completely understandable, for researchers to strip noise from any signals they are trying to measure. But neuroscientist Marcus E. Raichle, author of “The Brain’s Dark Energy,” was one of the first to wonder whether the noise itself had meaning. As he later said at a conference on brain network dynamics, “It turns out that this is yet one more signal in the biological world whose ‘noise’ is highly important and is very information rich.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Raichle, a pioneer in the use of brain imaging, and his colleagues have observed that in brains at “rest”—when you are not thinking of anything in particular or even when you are asleep—dispersed areas are still buzzing with communication. This intrinsic activity he calls the brain’s default mode. Determining the exact role of this previously unappreciated “dark energy” is an ongoing area of study, but it appears to be involved in how the brain prepares for future events that involve conscious processing. Disruptions of such activity may underlie certain brain disorders as well.

In another feature article, geochemist Robert M. Hazen also proposes a new view—one applied to our understanding of how Earth’s deep geohistory shaped its mineral riches. Once there were mere dozens of minerals in the universe, but today our planet has more than 4,400 known mineral species. How did that diversification happen?

In “Evolution of Minerals,” Hazen suggests we reconsider mineralogy, which does not traditionally look beyond minerals’ timeless properties. He and his colleagues use “Earth’s history as a frame for understanding minerals and the processes that created them.” With this long-range lens, it becomes clear that the rise of life and its metabolic activities dramatically directed our planet’s uniquely diverse mineral kingdom. Up to two thirds of the mineral species co-evolved with life through a series of epochs. The “rock of ages” takes on a whole new meaning.

Mariette DiChristina, Steering Group chair, is dean and professor of the practice in journalism at the Boston University College of Communication. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature.

More by Mariette DiChristina
Scientific American Magazine Vol 302 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Limits of Perception” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 302 No. 3 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican032010-3V8Ihd9mYxItOBPhdutvWM

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe