Ringer

The instructor may have also been talking about which factor is causing the movement of the current, meaning whether the movement of ions is being caused by an electrical gradient or a chemical gradient.

Wait, the image in the link is supposed to look 2-dimensional? It looks 3-dimensional to me.

You're argument is equivalent to me saying biology isn't a science because MDs aren't scientists. Therapy is only a very, very small fraction of psychology. I don't even know what this means.

If you an voluntary control what you focus on you can defocus as well. It's just a matter finding the correct muscle contraction. I would be shocked if anyone who has fairly normal eye muscles couldn't do this.

Personally I switched to an e-reader because I got tired of carrying 5+ books around campus so I could study, then read my other books on my breaks from studying. Also, instead of printing a bunch of powerpoints I can upload them to my reader and go through them on there. Honestly though, I probably would use a tablet if I had the money, though I am still terrified that I'm clumsy enough that I'll break it too easily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IZeWPScnolo#t=305s

It looks like it started in 09, and got a necro-post in 11. So from what I can tell you may see it resurface again in 2015.

The equations aren't actually physics equations, they're probability equations. P() represents the overall probability of an event with the event specified in the (). The P( | ) is a statement representing the probability within a parameter. So P(a|b) would represent the probability of a within the parameter of b. So his P(h|e) in the first equation was the overall probability, P(), of the hypothesis, h, within the parameters of the experiment, e. This is necessary because evidence will raise or lower the probability of the hypothesis. The second part is just simplifying and using it to find the probability that the findings are true by assuming the hypothesis is true. This helps solve problems of whether it is more likely the hypothesis is false or the evidence is false. Then he goes on to use the same method to find the probability that a competing hypothesis is true given the probability of a different hypothesis. Using that you can find which one is more likely, just like you can find probabilities of the evidence vs. hypothesis truth. [edit] I'm sure ydoaPs will correct any errors I made, but do keep in mind I haven't done these kinds of Stats in a while so I may have some things mixed up. I think the overall idea is correct though.[/edit]

What my cynical mind thinks is that they're trying to set up the pro-abortion people. If they say this is wrong on moral grounds (such as due to a person being used as evidence as the article says)then they have a point of argument that if it's immoral to force someone to be evidence why can you kill them. It would still be an absolute crap argument and a myriad of ways to get around it (DNA can be obtained from the fetus) but it seems like a strategy that politicians would try to use. Or they could just be incredibly dumb. Actually maybe they all have bets against each other on who can be the most repulsive to the other side.

It's amazing the rendition of their alphabet's sounds isn't using the international phonetic alphabet, and instead seems to just use the many of the words for the proto-Canaanite letters. This would kind of suggest this construction wasn't done by professional linguists. Which means it's probably just something someone put together to make it look legitimate.

It seems like Southern Indiana, where I'm from, votes primarily Democrat, but it's pretty racist/religious/idiotic here as well.

It's not so much what's wrong with his beliefs as what the hell are his beliefs. We all do it, at least most of what you see here is backed up by some sort of evidence. That would be like me asking what the big deal is if I told a bunch of school age children that some people believe you can't get pregnant if you don't want to. It's a blatant lie and, as such, should not be tolerated from an authority figure who is supposed to be educating. The problem is that these people actually believe their beliefs trump reality. Nature doesn't care what you believe, it is going to carry on with its materialistic, deterministic ways. If we allow Creationism or ID into a science classroom there is nothing stopping anyone from saying, "My religion doesn't believe in the Holocaust/Pythagorean Theorem/F=ma/any factual occurrence. It's not about someone being converted, I couldn't care less if my child believed in a diety, it's complete idiocy that terrifies me.

Here's a kids teaching tool as well http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

Personally I wouldn't take that theory seriously until: A.) It was shown lower class people are having more children now than in times before (I would assume this is false since working class families have tended to have more children to work). B.) You can prove that because these people with lower socioeconomic status are inherently less likely to be able to learn. C.) What culturally underdeveloped means D.) Why they are unable to conceive their lives as a planned project. In every study I've read the average IQ has increased over time, see the Flynn Effect, so where are you getting the idea that the average IQ will inevitable decline.

A biologist, a statistician, a mathematician and a computer scientist are on a photo-safari in africa. They drive out on the savannah in their jeep, stop and scout the horizon with their binoculars. The biologist : "Look! There's a herd of zebras! And there, in the middle : A white zebra! It's fantastic ! There are white zebra's ! We'll be famous !" The statistician : "It's not significant. We only know there's one white zebra." The mathematician : "Actually, we only know there exists a zebra, which is white on one side."

Sleights of Mind; What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about our Everyday Deceptions. Pretty good read for winter break so far. Can't wait until Deadpool classics vol. 4 comes out next month.

What biologists believe that a single mutation can cause speciation? And what effort has been but forth to cause such a mutation? If a single mutation did cause a random species to be formed that species would not have anything to mate with and its genetic line would be moot. You may want to look at this

Meh according to the Pisa website (http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf) They have different areas of China listed, i.e. Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc. Some of those areas are average or even below the average scores. If you averaged all of the Chinese scores I don't think that the difference would be statistically significant compared to the other top countries, although I'm a bit to lazy to do it.

You also have to take into consideration the fact that, at least as far as I'm aware, they only allow most of the highest scores continue on. I'm not sure how whatever studies were done saying orientals were the smartest, but for the most part western societies allow anyone to attend school eastern societies have to take standardized tests to proceed further into the educational process. This could account for eastern societies testing higher on standardized tests. Also, there are different types of IQ tests, any ideas on what ones they were taking?

GIYF - google is your friend. or unfriendly use is google it you FOOL