Leaderboard

Abstinence only sexual education goes hand in hand with the pro life movement. It's virtually impossible to disentangle the two. The problem with this is that abstinence only sex education doesn't reduce the rate of premarital sex. What it does instead is leads to people having sex without the knowledge of how to prevent the spread of STI's. So, it not only fails at its intended purpose, it needlessly exposes people to preventable infectious diseases. In a similar vein, stricter abortion laws are not only correlated with higher abortion rates, but also an increased risk of death for women seeking illegal medical procedures. Legislating morality generally backfires. Approaching people with compassion, without judgement, and trying to minimize suffering tends to lead to a positive result for all.

As you're referring to the U.S., a major reason is the success of the religious right in inhibiting access to sex education, safe sex info, treatment for STIs, contraception and abortion. Maximising harm to those who do not adhere to their concept of morality is an aim of evangelicals etc.

On a forum such as this one, we often hear people claiming that science has proved theory X or Y. Later, the person may partially recant claiming that theory X isn’t completely proven, but it is 99.999999% certain. Because of the evidence, the theory has been so repeatedly confirmed that it would be wrong to withhold provisional assent. However, philosophers disagree because of the problem of underdetermination. To understand underdetermination, we can simply look at the following graph: We have three data points, and we are trying to express these data points as a graph. As you can see, a simple straight line adequately expresses the data. Unfortunately, we can also generate other graphs. Two sine-wave-shaped graphs have also been provided, each with a different amplitude. Nor do our choices end there. Even if we just stick to sine waves, we could easily construct an infinite number of graphs to express those data points. Perhaps you think that the problem is too few data points. After all, three points do not a theory make. What if we had 4, or 5, or 29,842? Actually, it would make no difference at all. We could still construct an infinite number of graphs to describe the points in question. Yes, it is true that some theories will have been eliminated as inconsistent with the data points, but new theories can constantly be constructed that will match the data. Since the theory in question is merely one of an infinite number of theories, it would be wrong to consider it correct, proved, or even favored. We should say that the theory is empirically sufficient and leave it at that. Still, not everyone agrees. The most pervasive dismissal of underdetermination is the idea that all these different graphs are not really different theories — they are merely different permutations of the same theory. Yes, we may argue about the details of evolution, one may insist, but evolution itself is firmly established as reality. We can argue over punctuated equilibrium, Darwinism vs epigenetic expression, but at the end of the day, science is united: Evolution is a fact. Kyle Stanford, an expert on underdetermination in science, would bring up the concept of the unconceived alternative. Back in Newton’s day, everyone considered Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation as the best and only explanation simply because quantum gravity and Einstein’s theories had yet to be conceived. Once new explanations were conceived, Newton’s laws had to be consigned to the dustbins of science. This is not because Newton’s laws hadn’t done well for centuries — they had. But an unconceived alternative turned all of science on its head. At the end of the day, a theory is just a theory. A thousand years from now, even our most cherished theories will have been eliminated. Evolution, quantum mechanics, yes even the laws of thermodynamics will have been eliminated. It is hubris to claim that we know the truth. As Socrates said, we are ahead of the game only if we realize that we truly know nothing. P.S. This topic is about underdetermination in science. Evolution was mentioned merely as an example. I would hate to see this topic devolve into a debate between creationists and Darwinists.

Generally, the only people who talk about science proving things are people who know littler nothing about science. How do you know that? Some may have been and some may remain. The fact that everything is open to challenge and change does not mean that everything will be replaced. There have been very few theories (so far) that have been shown to be completely wrong. For example: Newton's theory has not been consigned to the dustbin. It is still valid and in use every day. It is, in some ways, a better theory than GR for most purposes. Similarly, there may one day be a "better" theory than GR, but that won't make GR wrong; it won't suddenly start producing results that don't match reality. Whether it continues to be a useful part of science depends, partly, on the nature of the new theory.

This would entail a brand-new series of experiences! While still employed, my primary job was to conceive automated equipment aimed at reducing the labor costs of our product: tennis balls. Programmable Machine Controllers were a fairly new concept on the open market then, and we employed them in our machines. Thus, I developed the feeling that computers actually DID have a place in the world, back in 1979, doing highly useful work beyond the casual emptiness of cell phones, etc. However, I have been away from such endeavor many years now, and only got internet service in our very rural area of the Missouri Ozarks in about 2005, and only dial-up at that. HughesNet was probably available, but prohibitively expensive. I shall look into your suggestion.

Buy C/C++ book, read it, learn programming. Get Arduino Kits, shields, DC motors, step-motors, servos etc. You can connect them together with your metal work knowledge to build electric and electronic devices, programmed and controlled from computer. I can straight away give you couple ideas for devices like e.g. remote controlled chair for disabled people. I am building such at the moment. https://www.ebay.com/bhp/arduino Find a reason to wake up every day.

Have you watched any of the upmarketing and restoration shows? I particularly like Find It, Fix It, Flog It. They go around to junk yards and storage sheds/barns to find old items that can either be upmarketed (repurposed to make something completely new, like turning an old plow into a chaise lounge) or restored (clean up something old that has new value as a relic or memorabilia, such as an old automotive oil can or antique signage). This way you use your skills on projects where you set your own pace. You create a new lifestyle that matches your abilities. I also think these shows miss the mark by not looking for customers beforehand. If you know any retail business owners, many are looking for restored pieces or anything interesting that will catch the eyes of their clients (not necessarily for resale - I think you'd get more money from something they would display). One creative piece was a bunch of old suitcases secured on top of each other. They cut the fronts (tops? the side with the handle) off the bottom four and glued drawers onto them, leaving the top suitcase to lift open as normal. Easy sale to a retail shop for display, especially a luggage or leather store.

Allow me to clarify - you justified why it was acceptable for you to simply make things up and dismiss evidence provided by others. When you did that, you demonstrated that nothing you have to say is worth listening to. A worthwhile discussion requires a preponderance of evidence.

Once you set up a physically impossible scenario, you can get pretty much whichever answer you like, since there is no physics that you can validly apply. You can't have an infinite force, so the scenario is moot. However, you can look at the scenario without putting an unreasonable constraint on it, and the answer is yes, if it's energetically allowed. Electron capture is a known decay mode of nuclei with an excess of protons. For the proton and electron to combine, the formation of the neutron and neutrino must release energy in order for this to happen spontaneously. As a bare neutron is more massive than a proton, that only happens when the N/Z ratio is low compared to that of stable nuclei of similar mass. One could extrapolate this and see if it becomes more favorable if the electrostatic interaction were stronger, with all else being the same*. That would imply that protons in the potential well had a larger repulsion, making it more likely that converting to a neutron would release energy. * in reality, this would likely have other effects as well.

This is up there with the weakest rebuttal to a peer reviewed paper I’ve ever seen. Data is immune to ideology. If there is a study out there to support that abstinence only sex education reduces rates of premarital sex, I’m sure it would add to the discussion. Out of hand dismissal of the data and a rebuttal of “I’m sure I can find evidence to support my argument if I tried” is worthless and indicates a lack of good faith.

That's all very well, but it loses sight of the feedback. It is certainly plausible that (1) The police, for some arbitrary reason- possibly sheer chance, arrest a disproportionately large number of black people. (2) As a consequence of that, the arrest rates are higher for black people. (3)The police interpret that as implying that black people commit more crime (which should be a valid implication). (4)On that basis, they target black people for "suspicion" (Again, this should be a valid way to act; if you see some group as being more likely to be involved in committing crime, it makes sense for the police to target that group) and, (5) as a consequence of spending more time looking at black people, they arrest disproportionately more black people. (and, yet again, that should be a sensible outcome) (6) And that drives the arrest rate for blacks up still further. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has made a logical error except in failing to check the statistical (and other) validity of the first step. In reality, it's possible that part of the reason for the initial high arrest rate is racism, but it's not necessarily the cause. The real problem is that an arrest rate should be an indicator of criminality, but it may not be.

Yes indeed +1

get a dog... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-10-health-benefits-of-dogs-and-one-health-risk_us_57dad1b8e4b04a1497b2f5a0?guccounter=1

I can fully appreciate your diligence applied, as I had to do many times when I exhibited the daftness of mind present when beginning design and building of a 1-1/2-inch scale 4-8-4 Steam Locomotive:

Sir, your remark, above, may be interpreted in many ways, few not demeaning in some way to both the forum, and the New Member. First, it has no relevance whatsoever to the OP. Thus, it can only be concluded that: My post was so ignorant of the field of Chemistry, it did not deserve an answer, OR, My post could not be successfully refuted, OR, The intent was simply to belittle. Please be aware, I came here hoping to learn, even if that means taking "licks" when I'm wrong. I have never claimed to be a Chemist, but have always thoroughly enjoyed the study of Chemistry. I must apologize if my inabilities so related bring about brusque dismissal. imp

Maintaining a plasma is an extremely difficult operation. It has to be kept in shape with phenomenally powerful magnets, and the hotter it gets, the more unstable it gets. It's very impressive that they kept it going for ten seconds. We have a Tokamak in Oxford called JET and there's one in the USA called TFTR. They are all research Tokamaks, they are nowhere near sustainability. The JET and TFTR found that as energies and densities of the plasma increased, stability got worse, and couldn't be improved with machines of their size. That's what led to the ITER project. Interestingly, JET have recorded temperatures of 200 million C, according to this : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27138087 and they did set the record for Q . To break even on energy in/out you need Q of 1 and they managed 0.67. The break even point is a bit misleading. You need five to ten times energy in/out ratio to be economic, because the energy in is expensive electricity, and the energy out is low value heat. Some of the problems to be overcome to enable a continuous run are stability at higher energies, materials for shielding and heat collection that can withstand the constant bombardment from neutrons, and robots to remotely handle materials in a harsh environment. I'm amazed that with the joint effort being made, the budged is less than twenty billion, for something that's potentially world changing. Bill Gates could have funded ITER three times over. I think I read somewhere that the USA spends more on pet grooming, than it does on fusion research. It shows how seriously government actually take climate change. ITER is pin money to them. There are other approaches to fusion being followed, using high-powered lasers to heat pellets of fuel, but they don't seem to be as optimistic about those at present. I'd like to see the money going into ITER and it's successor DEMO doubled or trebled, to speed it along. There must be a profit in it at the end, looking at what the world spends on electricity, and how it's forecast to rise.

I live somewhere where half a degree is often the difference between frost and no frost on any given winter night - and perennial weeds that were kept in check by frosts can and are becoming rampant with warmer winters and fewer frosts. More labour, more cost for weed control. Around here the fire danger season starts sooner and finishes later with that "insignificant" half a degree of global average warming - and, significantly, the non-fire danger season is noticeably shorter. Burning during the cool season to reduce fuel loads is an important part of reducing the intensity and risks of out of control bushfires later - the opportunities for doing so are fewer and the risks of them escaping containment are increasing. More labour, more equipment requirements, more vigilance. The impacts of "hardly change at all" are actually very real. When I consider the likelihood of several more degrees I am legitimately alarmed. This relates to one of the questions I asked - "If where you live appears to benefit from global warming but other places suffer does that have any influence on your thinking?" Not irresponsible - looking at worst case scenarios is an essential part of risk management - although my own mention of 3-6 degrees of warming was not even looking at the worst case. I was asked for a citation for further temperatures rises reaching those levels and I gave one, and it showed the potential for higher temperatures than what I suggested. The 2000ppm CO2 levels probably is unrealistic - well, it is clearly labelled as an EXTREME scenario - but there are still influential people who do advocate maximising the use of fossil fuels, who want no limitations placed on their use, who want and expect all known reserves of fossil fuels to get used, which could indeed take it to that 2000ppm level - so scenarios for very high emissions continuing for the rest of this century are not impossibilities. A total breakdown of international agreements and internal policies to reign in emissions is something actively being campaigned for and undermining confidence in climate science has been a key theme being used to do so. I sort of presume views like Mistermack's, if widely shared by policy makers, would raise the likelihood of that, making "unlikely" and "extreme" scenarios more likely. If we don't end up with the extreme scenarios it will be in large part because of people taking the science on climate change seriously enough to seek and campaign for alternatives. One of the other themes of anti climate action campaigning is blaming the messengers - ie climate scientists and climate action advocates. Who is it labelling reasonable climate change proponents as alarmist? I suggest it is predominately people campaigning against strong climate action, as part of counter-messaging efforts to undermine overall confidence in all those expert studies and reports - who want the whole issue to be seen (falsely) as exaggeration. Suggesting we should try and avoid worst case scenarios (which, within those reports, are scenarios, not exaggerations) isn't what gets climate change proponents seen as alarmists, it is constant and widely disseminated counter-messaging claiming they are alarmists that is promoting the idea that they are alarmists. In the absence of constant counter-messaging what was in those reports - which is by any measure, genuinely alarming - would be much more likely to be taken seriously and acted upon. Which would, of course, make the extreme scenarios less likely. Organised opposition engaging in counter-messaging to prevent strong climate action has never been a reaction to irresponsible alarmist exaggeration, it is a response to the legitimately alarming mainstream expert advice. That opposition chose to do so for their own reasons - I think mostly responsibility avoidance although they may well have alarmed themselves with their own alarmist economic fears of going without fossil fuels.

I hope all works out for you and the family. All the best!

! Moderator Note Daedelus approached us to coordinate this with the Admins and Mods. We've helped out a member in need before, so please feel free to participate (or not). We wish Daedelus the best of luck in funding his treatments. Thanks to everyone for spending your time here, in reasoned dialogue and intellectual honesty. SFN members are fantastic!

Today I learned the first compass was probably made in China between 200 and 300BC. It was made of made of lodestone, a naturally magnetized ore of iron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_compass This is a picture of one of the first compasses.

That must have been right after the Vitamin Sea dried up.

If you think I'm making too much of the diagram here, then you think I have no business here discussing things with you, as I don't see how an informed conversation on this topic can be led without posting at least these two diagrams, and I would resent that thought of yours. If you think there is too little diagrams posted here that show all the stages in between, in the development of the african lungfish circulatory network from the single circulatory network of its ancestor, then fine, please post them. I'm struggling to find them, but in the process of searching for it, I think I maybe answered one of my questions by my self. The reason for showing a double bypass in the first picture is to present the bypass arterioles of the third and fourth gill arches (which do not actually have gills), as explained here in "Perfusion of water" chapter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish These bypasses also get open and closed with a system of valves, ie not only ductus arteriosus and the pulmonary artery although I mentioned only them previously when talking about bimodal respiration and circulation. If you actually read what I wrote, instead of constructing what you think I think, you would understand that I'm interested in how many stages of development there are exactly, and what they look like. I asked that here: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/68470/replumbing-of-a-swim-bladder "In how many stages could have such change occur? In one of the first papers in topology, ..." But the feedback there is equally insightful and informative as the one I received here so far. And yes, I think that the "lung" is separate from "tissues" in a very precise manner in the first picture, and that is how it is connected to the circulatory system, and how it actually contributes to blood oxygenation, which other "tissues" don't.

Preaching? You mean like this comment below? (and many others similar to it) "All science is speculation until shown otherwise. That is the greatest benefit of science and the scientific method." (page 2) No evidence was provided to support the existence of this supposed entity called "The Scientific Method". I personally consider the evidence for the existence of "The Scientific Method" to be exiguous at best, on a par with the evidence for God perhaps. Many others, including Nobel Prize-winning scientists agree with me. But said poster "insists it is correct while ignoring reasoned, supported arguments against it". As you rightly say, it is indeed "a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a preacher" since he is "unwilling to change their mind after hearing the best supported argument". Whoops! Sorry to hijack your own hijacking.

Off topic. Even assuming that your figures were true (they aren't) it still would hardly show that religion was dying. The latest information from Pew research shows that religious people are more devout than before. At any rate, even assuming that people were becoming less religious, that would mean nothing about belief or disbelief in God. Irrelevant. Off topic.

Put it a few extra cords of wood for winter though. My forecast lands in the water, usually, but my hindcast usually hooks the trees behind me.

Very often that is the case. In science and other fields including religion 'learned' men spend many years and much money acquiring their document of education, they have ticked all the right boxes, pleased all the right people, are awarded with a good salary and sense of pride and accomplishment, any doubt that they may be wrong in any way may cause them great discomfort, and the fight or flight response kicks in , they have too much at stake emotionally and financially to run, so they MUST attack, the fortress MUST be defended against barbarians.

I think science proves the value of questionnaires but if we differ on that we'll have to disagree until one of finds and shows proof of their position. The topic is STIs which included HIV, HPV cancers, and many others. If people have corrected some of what they consider my misunderstandings I hope I appreciate their help. However, right now I can't remember anyone doing that. Perhaps you can bring forward some demonstrations? I do see where one person on the first page I can't remember their name answered my question, that science has taken a scientific approach to morality, so it has not failed. That perhaps answers my specific question, which was a question, not a statement of condemnation of science. I repeat, I believe in the value of true science. I do not question the Big Bang for instance because I believe in the bible, but because I believe in science which says quantum fluctuation is an alternative to BB, and I do NOT want to discuss that here, only an example of my belief in the power of science to help us understand and know. If an open minded person is truly open minded they might consider how they can help someone they consider wrong, by examining what that person is saying, and providing evidence that they are wrong. Of course not all of us have that time and energy. Posit what you want. The figure was from a study I may or may not be able to relocate. Here's some CDC stuff that seems to dispute both our numbers. Studies will vary of course. http://www.aidsmap.com/Consistent-condom-use-in-anal-sex-stops-70-of-HIV-infections-study-finds/page/2586976/ An analysis by Dawn Smith of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported at the 20th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2013) on 4 March has provided the first estimate of the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV transmission during anal sex since 1989. It found condoms stop seven out of ten anal transmissions – the same efficacy found by the 1989 study. However, it also found that sometimes using condoms is not effective at preventing HIV infection, and that long-term 100% condom use is a minority behaviour: only one-in-six gay men actually managed to maintain it over the three- to four-year time frame of the analysis. One ongoing problem in assessing the effectiveness of different HIV prevention methods is that anal sex is under-studied. We do not have enough data on rectal viral loads and their effect on transmission, or on whether HIV treatment reduces transmission via anal sex as well as it does for vaginal sex. We are also unclear about to what extent condoms actually prevent HIV transmission in anal sex. This last fact may seem surprising, given that condoms have been recommended since the mid-1980s as the only effective HIV prevention method for gay men who have anal sex. In fact, there is only one large study in gay men, dating from 1989. In this study of 2914 gay men, HIV incidence among those who said they used condoms 100% of the time was 70% lower than in men who did not use them at all. There has been one small study in the era of antiretroviral treatment (ART), which found an efficacy of approximately 75%. These are somewhat lower than efficacies computed for vaginal sex, which is in the order of 80 to 85%, and may reflect both that HIV is at least ten times more easily transmitted via anal than vaginal sex, and also that condoms may be more likely to fail during anal sex.

Xi ito phi gamma does and and I repeat does not prove quantum relativity and all of math physics and.models fails it's first and last proof due to the very first law of adherency to what constitutes that of approximation, it is just that any model given constraints and method is in turn that of a approximation Seriously 8x^N! has little to do with transpositional factors of parrellels of collodial representation and yes base triangle approximations fail to any factoid carried over in base open ended 2 binomial variation and lastly but not least 1 is not an integer of a carrying power from 0 which approximates a circle using a box does 4-3-1 = 1 Why 8/2 = 4 and I just told you all 3 is a phallacy and 10.01 is not 12 even though 1+1 may seem to equal 2 it does not Moderator who deleted my.last post I am removing you in truth even if you shallowly have prescence over this forum you never learned addition never mind theory Goodbye Math-god What is open ended box /Delete Hack-sign

Jesus loves you.

I fail to see how saying we shouldn't kill babies leads to the spread of STI's. This is a complete misrepresentation of the aim of evangelicals. 1. Not all evangelicals are the same. 2. This is not the goal of the overwhelming majority of evangelicals, let alone all of them. 3. Many evangelicals don't even agree on what morality is, let alone who's adhering to it. From what I've seen the majority of the fight is aimed at trying to keep people from killing babies, and the idea that it's only the religious right is a flawed one. And while there are people who don't want people with STIs to be treated, don't want there to be safe sex info, and who oppose sex education, I'd say it's a completely different category then what the majority of them are fighting over, like abortion. It reminds me of a joke where a question asks "Have you ever convicted of a murder, been convicted of a hit and run, been convicted of a rape, or been convicted of a parking ticket?" One thing in the category, yes, the majority of people have done. Doesn't mean that all of those things are done equally. Abortion is where the vast majority of the fight is, and limiting access to Abortions is not causing the spread of STI's, it's not related. I'd imagine the lack of people practicing safe sex. Morality cannot be defined scientifically. No. Science deals with things you can measure. Morality can't be measured. People haven't abandoned "morality". They've changed their opinion of what it is. Rape is still considered immoral. Murder is still considered immoral. Stealing is still considered immoral. Etc.

verb past tense: gimped; past participle: gimped limp; hobble. "she gimped around thereafter on an artificial leg" I have thoroughly advocated googling as a way to enhance discussion. LOL? Can you relocate every instance of what you have ever googled? Can you remember the exact question or statement you ever googled? One question can located 10s of millions of replies. Your sense of superiority is obvious.

"The problem with this is that abstinence only sex education doesn't reduce the rate of premarital sex. What it does instead is leads to people having sex without the knowledge of how to prevent the spread of STI's. So, it not only fails at its intended purpose, it needlessly exposes people to preventable infectious diseases." Links will most often of course lead to information substantiating the statement of the link's provider. But there WILL be other links with different information. Each side of a discussion will view the other side's link as suspicious. Statistical science on results of health for those different categories of morality can show the good and bad results of those categories. Some of those results will vary also, but a general picture will result saying, 'yes, this behaviour leads most often to health and well being, this behaviour leads most often to the hospital. Compassion will publish those results .. but of course those results will result in some people accusing the publishers of fearmongering and hatemongering.