shush

All languages have their inconsistencies and their lunacies. But I do agree that since the root has a soft c, the obvious english equivalent should use the same. At least that is what I have heard all my fellow physicians pronounce it as.

Dreams, sleep and music are three things that have proven really difficult to analyze scientifically. So this question which covers all these three topics is a really tough one to answer scientifically. It is thought that the events in short to medium term memory do influence dream content. So there is reason to suppose that music heard just before falling asleep could influence dreams - but in what ways and how would be a question that would take a lot of years to be answered.

Then the ID guys would ask us biologists to find a common ancestor who could half-fly (whatever it might mean). What if USA was an island?

Of course, the brain is the most amazingly complex system in the known universe....and we understand very little of it. But to say that just because we do not understand a phenomenon , the phenomenon does not exist at all is to make a fundamental logical error. We do not understand even the least bit about how consciousness is generated in the brain....does it mean that we are unconscious? We do not understand the basis of emotions and decision making....but does it mean that we cannot feel these emotions or make decisions? The most important psychiatric disorder are disorders of such very systems. So when we have very sketchy understanding of the normal phenomenon, it is difficult to have a more concrete understanding of their disorders. I do not dispute that a lot of psychiatry is empirical, but the empirical proof of psychiatric disorders is enormous. And the contributions of these empirical treatment strategies has been huge. But as neuroscience makes more advances, psychiatric therapeutic approaches can only get better.

This has been a very long and complex controversy. There are as many sides to the story as there are characters in it. But there are some details which many people agree on. 1. Watson and Crick used Franklin's data which they heard during a presentation but which was not published. But they never referenced it in their paper. They defend by saying that the data was not published and hence they could not reference it. 2. However, this data was not the whole soul of the paper. It included a LOT of other stuff which made their case very strong and hence is not tantamount to 'stealing' her research and claiming it as their own...because most of the research was their own. But Franklin's data was undoubtedly an important supplementary evidence. Complicating the story is the strong personalities of the protogonists. Watson is widely regarded as an egotist and Franklin was reportedly aloof and introvertish. So it is very difficult to believe either side of the story. Later on, a feminist angle was applied to this which further muddied the situation. I had not read Wilkin's account....will have to see what he says. Surprisingly, Crick said very little about this whole controversy. He moved on and made many more seminal contributions to biology. Widely respected, his word would have carried a lot of weight. His silence, hence, I feel, shows that there is some guilt conscience! You can see 'The Race for the Double Helix' which was a BBC short film. (Don't know if it is available as DVD). Jeff Goldblum does a very good portrayal of Watson.

What can I do....Science is my passion and I am a self taught scientist

And I thought I was the only doofus with a blank desktop!

Hi all... A physician by training but a neuroscientist by inclination (currently a grad student in neuroscience). I believe there are only two mysteries in this universe.....the universe and the tool we use to understand it - the brain. So physics (as much as can be understood by a biologist) and neuroscience are my interests. Since there is no biology without evolution, it is my third interest.

My commiserations are with you. All I can say is that you should stay strong and have patience. The brain is a wonderful organ in that it manages to reorganise itself to make up for losses....but it takes a little time to do so. So he just needs your support, love and above all, your devoted care. Find out how you can help with the physiotherapy. Get to know about preventing bed sores and preventing aspiration pneumonia (food and liquids getting into the lung). With such support, I am sure he will improve well.

These are the 3 areas where i expect neuroscience to make the most progress: 1. Genetic basis of psychiatric disorders (and even behavior, intelligence and other such qualitative traits!): The power of the completed human genome will be fully exploited in the next two decades or so. Hence I expect a lot of genes turning up which contribute towards behavioral and psychiatric disorders. I also expect that the first steps towards relating the gene product involved and the actual way in which it acts. This should also be accompanied by better designed drugs to treat these disorders. 2. Memory research is another area I expect great progress in. In addition to better therapies for disorders like alzhiemer's, this research will also improve our knowledge about how memories are formed and how they influence decision making. 3. Computational neuroscience is another area I would hedge on. Biological neural networks will get better delineated and a better picture will emerge about how information is represented and processed in the brain. On the other hand, I think that the progress in areas like 'mind' and 'consciousness' will be contingent on progress in physics and on the number of smart physicists who will undertake to explore this question.

Bush would shift his priority from Iran and attack California saying that he saw Commando last night and Arnold is by himself a WMD! What if GRE included a Age of Empires section in it?

Charles Darwin to me epitomises the ultimate scientist. The amount of effort he put into getting his data, then honing it till he was certain that it could withstand all the possible criticism that could be levelled at it showed me what science was all about. Always the consummate logician, his mastery of words enabled him to convey what he wanted in precise and unambiguous terms. Astonishing human being.

Then the vendors for pop-up blockers would form a lobby and make it illegal again. What if our fertility were directly proportional to our intelligence? (Forbidden answer: Then you'd have no kids :smile: )

I don't agree with him getting an A. He should have got an A+! The only point I would like to question is his assumption of hell being thermodynamically isolated. What if the souls of dead trees are being burnt to continually add heat to the system from outside?

Then we'd all be in church on sunday............and monday and tuesday and thursday and friday and saturday and yeah.....again on sunday! What if we had evolved such that thinking wicked thoughts would be intolerably painful?