Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

There Aren't a Trillion Different Smells After All

Posted by timothy on from the but-only-two dept.

New submitter Neuronaut137 writes: Last year a paper in Science magazine reported that humans can distinguish a trillion different odors, a result that had already made its way into neuroscience and psychology textbooks. Two new papers just published in eLife overturn that result, pointing to fatal flaws in experimental design and data analysis. Oh, well; thinking I had a superpower was fun while it lasted.

48 comments

  1. Colors you can see by suso · · Score: 4, Funny

    I remember throughout the 90s seeing various textbooks or articles saying that the human eye could only distinguish 16.7 million colors. *rolls 24-bit eyes*

    1. Re:Colors you can see by Katatsumuri · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and "all the music is made of only 7 notes!.."

      Massive over-simplification, generalization, and misinterpretation of maths and science in public culture is what allows us geeks to feel superior so easily.

    2. Re:Colors you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or just sad. Though I guess your way is better.

    3. Re:Colors you can see by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      You're right - it's twelve, not seven.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    4. Re:Colors you can see by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that only 24fps is needed for super smooth motion!

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    5. Re:Colors you can see by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's seeing people (like a carpenter I hired yesterday for a job) struggle to add 75 and 60 in their head that makes me feel superior. I don't expect them to understand complicated things.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Colors you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you cum in your pants?

    7. Re:Colors you can see by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

      They are also stating that people can only see ~1,000,000 colors, which is not correct for many/most people.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    8. Re:Colors you can see by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Evidently you've never heard anyone try to sing the Star Spangled Banner (To Anacreon in Heaven) at a basball game.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Colors you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If each eye is 12 fps, but not in sync, does it still count as 24 fps?

    10. Re:Colors you can see by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      There's an app for that!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:Colors you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it's seeing people (like a carpenter I hired yesterday for a job) struggle to add 75 and 60 in their head that makes me feel superior. I don't expect them to understand complicated things.

      No, it's seeing there are people out there that aren't smart enough to build things themselves, that they have to hire a carpenter to do it for them.

    12. Re:Colors you can see by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I read something at some point that mentioned that while the eye can only see only a few million colors, it can see many many shades of each color. Which is why we easily see color banding.

    13. Re:Colors you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A list of phrases people really like to toss around these days:

      - Settled science.
      - It's a fact.
      - It's common sense. /facepalm

    14. Re:Colors you can see by linear+a · · Score: 1

      Eleventy five?

    15. Re:Colors you can see by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I don't remember ever seeing the number 16.7 million except to advertise a video card. Perhaps your memory is playing tricks on you?

      In any case, the number of colors humans can distinguish is far lower -- about 10 million.

      Also, the ability of LCDs to accurately render even 24-bit color is rare, let alone the full gamut of visible color. Many LCDs only render 18-bit color anyway, which is 131,072. Even in the case of true 24-bit displays, that's merely mapped to whatever gamut range the display has, not the complete spectrum of visible light. So that makes LSB changes almost certainly imperceptible.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    16. Re: Colors you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you hired a carpenter who can't do simple math? Way to go, smart guy.

    17. Re:Colors you can see by slashdime · · Score: 1

      Why did you hire a carpenter? Are you too fucking stupid to work word with your own hands? Were you hiring the carpenter to build a high wooden horse for you to sit on?

    18. Re:Colors you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is really only a dozen or so individual smells. All of the others smell like chicken.

    19. Re:Colors you can see by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I know a lot of dim-wits that can do math in their head but have no ability to apply math. I can't do math in my head but I can apply it. Two separate issues at hand.

    20. Re:Colors you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's seeing people (like a carpenter I hired yesterday for a job) struggle to add 75 and 60 in their head that makes me feel superior. I don't expect them to understand complicated things.

      No, it's seeing people (like a carpenter I hired yesterday for a job) struggle to add 75 and 60 in their head that makes me feel superior. I don't expect them to understand complicated things.

      Or, perhaps this is what the carpenter is thinking:
      75 plus 60 is, uh, 135 ... why is that he staring at me like that? And why is he dressed in a fur suit that looks like some kind of dog?. wtf is that? Is it a wolf?
      Aww, shit I sure hope that he's not going to ask for sex.

    21. Re: Colors you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's probably distracted figuring out how he can subtly sabotage his design so the arrogant prick paying him gets some karmic retribution. Visualising complex geometrical contraptions and the well-deserved pain they may inflict can do that.

    22. Re:Colors you can see by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I can do it myself. It's cheaper for me to hire someone to do it. My time is worth more than his.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  2. This is science by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    This is the result if news media take science publications as truth. Of course, most of them are well researched, but even if, every result can be questioned.

    1. Re:This is science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing to note here is that if the result holds, it is a major win for eLife, which not so many people have heard of.

    2. Re:This is science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science isn't perfect, but that's not a reason to accept a high error rate. The peer review process totally failed to find "fatal flaws in experimental design and data analysis", and that's a concern.

    3. Re:This is science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same computer model used to predict global warming....nothing to see here...move along! News media has been publishing theories as scientific fact for years.

    4. Re:This is science by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The problem I'm having with this is that the peer reviewers should have picked this one up. I think any statistician who looked at that and noted that the results are going to drastically change with test number should have called them out. I kinda thought that one of the things that Science (the magazine) was going do is run papers by a living, breathing statistician.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:This is science by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Oops, test number and measure of statistical significance.

      Drat Slashdot. Where is the damned edit button.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:This is science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They give you that preview button with a disclaimer and a warning.

      Proof reading. Try it.

    7. Re:This is science by codeAlDente · · Score: 1

      An average statistician would not likely have identified an error here. Their extrapolation was intended to be novel, and part of the results. An average statistician can catch an average statistical lie, but Markus Meister is no average statistician.

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
    8. Re:This is science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My post is so awesome that it should be immediately visible. Screw the "preview button", I want the World to benefit from my wisdom as soon as I'm done writing. 1 minute makes a big difference because a reader checking for comments while I'm "previewing" will completely miss my reply, and move on unknowingly diminished.

  3. Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There just HAS to be a fart joke in here somewhere, but i can't find it...

    1. Re:Jokes by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      The joke must be silent...but deadly.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    2. Re: Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many farts must a man let go,
      Before you can call him a cad?

      The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

    3. Re:Jokes by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      How about one from George Carlin?

      I've got four farts . . . my Heineken fart, my broccoli fart, my rice pudding fart, and my non-dairy creamer fart, and that's not one of my farts! I know, the DOG farted!

  4. Look Around You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There Aren't a Trillion Different Smells After All, in fact there are only seven.

    Write this down.

  5. stunning claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anytime you hear about a "stunning claim published in Science", a wise bet is that it is fatally flawed research. It is a tabloid little different from weekly world news.

  6. Now wait just a minute! by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    Every wine snob worth his inheritance knows that his nose (not yours) can be trained to distinguish at least a trillion scents, and they're all hiding in that glass of $500/bottle wine.

  7. The only thing I smell here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing I smell here is bullshit.

    1. Re: The only thing I smell here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh, man, this smells really awful! Here, you gotta smell this."

  8. But, but but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flaws in the analysis of the data?!? But, scientific data doesn't lie. It CAN'T be wrong!

  9. Flaw in Slashdot Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Slashdot summary proudly proclaims "There Aren't a Trillion Different Smells After All" (a non-species-specific claim) on the basis of a study that purports to say something about HUMAN limitations. Meanwhile, dogs and wolves are known to have a much better sense of smell than humans, so even if humans can only distinguish N different smells, that doesn't automatically imply that dogs and wolves have the same limit.

    1. Re:Flaw in Slashdot Summary by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      But perhaps humans and wolves, sharing a common ancestor have the same type of receptors -- able to detect the same compounds. With the only difference being acuity? :)

    2. Re:Flaw in Slashdot Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acuity allows more smells to be distinguished. In colors, acuity allows someone to distinguish Lime from LawnGreen from Chartreuse. For someone without acuity it's all "Green".

  10. I knew it was wrong... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    I was suspicious about the original paper because something about it smelled wrong.

    1. Re: I knew it was wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well dat smells stinkowiff!