Ringer

There are a few ways to go about this, which have been discussed many times before. I'll sum up the more novel arguments I remember for women's reproductive rights: An embryo is basically a parasitic organism, the host should have the choice to remain the host or not The possible to women from birth and pregnancy is enough, if done by another person, that it would be acceptable to use lethal force And all the definition of life arguments that we've heard before. The arguments against, that I have heard, can all be summed up as some ethical teachings say it's wrong so it's wrong.

There are thousands of books for laymen to read, and then you have specialized books, videos, etc. specifically for teaching the material. To not have the knowledge if truly interested is not the fault of working scientists, but an assumption that everyone should be spoonfed knowledge instead of actually having to work for it. Trying to understand science without math is like trying to understand literature without letters. You can make some pretty pictures and it works well for those who don't want really understand what's going on, but you'll never really understand what's going on.

Not to mention the raise of journals allowing for open access submissions. I believe even Elsevier and Wiley allow for open access publications. At the very least you can find abstracts online and attempt to get access through a local library or university, at worst. . . well everyone knows a pirate. Hell you can usually find old editions of textbooks for around 5 or 10 USD. There is absolutely no excuse to be ignorant in an area of science that one intends to 'revolutionize'.

While I agree with most of what you're saying there is a flaw in your logic. The people who promoted positive and negative eugenics didn't tend to care about the actual scientific evidence, and only tried to promote ideology by cutting and pasting. It's tough to have a coherent argument with people like that because most of the time evidence doesn't matter.

It seems subjects are getting confused by a couple posters (I'm being lazy and not re-reading to see who) are equating aversion to homosexual stimuli to homophobia. The two are not in the least bit equal. A feeling of disgust toward an unusual visual stimuli and an unfounded hatred of a particular group are two separate phenomena. Homophobia can be found in homosexuals which should not be seen if aversion to homosexual images is equivalent to homophobia. As to the scientific, or evolutionary to be more specific, study of homophobic and if they're innate, first you would have to find a good way to measure homophobia. Which is actually, at least last time I looked, a pretty heated topic in social and sexual psychology.

They way I usually read scientific papers in order: Plenty of time Abstract --> skim introduction --> Discussion <-back and forth to make sure discussion is accurate-> Results -if something seems off-> Methods Not a lot of time Abstract --> Skim introduction --> Skim discussion

Keep in mind that rapidly for evolution is in terms of genetic change over generations. If this activity is spontaneously found in a specific population with very high frequency it is most likely a behavioral change, not necessarily a genotypic one because a mutation like that is unlikely to become high frequency in a very short amount of time (if they're more likely to be killed by predators than cars so something that hampers predator reaction is likely to be selected against). A way to test this is to isolate samples of this population and see if they have the natural behavior or the test behavior. Then breed, preferably raising some with wild type behavior adults and some with mutant adults, that population to see if that reaction is conveyed to later generations.

No it doesn't. The mechanisms needed to use entanglement for thought wouldn't really be viable for such a complex system. Not to mention we can measure electrical signals and what they do, to say it's entanglement would need a whole lot of data. So please cite sources.

Really? Please show the psychological research detailing how to filter out good ideas and geniuses from bad ideas and fools. Because if psychology had it so well it wouldn't be having the problems they've been having with p-value fishing, bad replications, etc.

The problem with any consciousness discussion is that fact that no one has a strict definition for what consciousness is. Many of the definitions are clearly circular or so vague that they are meaningless. To say that choice is meaningless because it's made before you are strictly aware is fallacious because it assumes a separate entity for awareness. Your brain, i.e. you, made the decision.

It depends on what you mean by rapidly, and I'm unsure of the examples you gave could you provide links? Things may be able to evolve relatively rapidly, the punctuated gradualism model of evolution explains processes of fairly rapid evolutionary change. Technically this isn't evolution, it's abiogenesis. Evolution only deals with things that are already alive and have a population.

Producing a sensation is extremely vague, but you're not doing anything to your nervous system that you don't do just by thinking about anything else.

I imagine the conversation went like this: Person: Hello I'd like you to explain something to me Scientist: Sure, what is it. P: Look at this picture and tell me what you see. S: . . . I see the sun? P: IT'S A CROSS, THE END TIMES ARE NEAR. YOU HEATHENS ARE GOING TO HELL!!!!!! S: What? P: HA, I KNEW YOU COULDN'T EXPLAIN IT. and baffled.

Alright so you're saying that these predictive models will be used for laws that are, in your opinion, unnecessary instead of doing good. Those are two different subjects in their own right, and the last paragraph is an entirely new subject. Not that any of these aren't interesting subjects, but it's going to be hard to actually have a conversation of all three in a single thread. Anyway, I would like to see what crimes these predictive models work on and how accurate they have been. Crime rates have been dropping significantly around the entire USA so saying there was a drop in crime doesn't mean anything and doesn't support anything other than crime rates are variable. I don't like discussing legality and what should and should not be legal because they tend not to go anywhere so I'll leave that subject alone. On the retributive nature of the United States Justice system, I agree that it's a pretty crappy self-perpetuating system. There have been some efforts to reduce this but, quite frankly, most of the people that matter to politicians(read people who yell the loudest) like to go on gut feelings. Gut feelings say punish someone who did something wrong.

I'm still not following, you want to discuss necessary vs. arbitrary laws? Or how predictive methods are/can be used?

I have no idea what you're wanting to discuss. What about predicting patterns == no stress == healthier smoking == no loitering?

Depends on how many of each species, but extremely large. Though I wouldn't call it a system since it probably wouldn't be functional.

Structurally, and with small regularly used words, English will seem more like Dutch or German because they're all Germanic languages. English just happens to be have words bastardized form Romance languages because English speakers tended to believe Latin, French, and the like were more sophisticated. Not to mention the Nordic mixing with Middle English changed the language quite a bit. But it's still a good old Germanic subject-verb-object structure. Knowledge from having a wife that studies language and literature. In case Japanese isn't one of them here's one more, "Nihongo o hanashimasen" or for don't understand, "Nihongo o wakarimasen". [edit] I didn't put I because it's assumed, but you could put 'boku wa' in front of those if you want to say I [/edit]

Wait, you're saying that words can suffice to explain everything. Yet not two posts ago you were complaining about arguing over the meanings of words. Can you really not see why words aren't that great at truly explaining things?

I didn't say they always existed, I said they exist now. Again it's not that clear since, as I read it, the entire purpose of the right to bear arms is to have a well regulated militia, so the assumed separation doesn't make sense. Yes, so the purpose of firearms is a well regulated militia, those not in a militia have no need for firearms. That's how I read it, but that is why we have a court to decide what the writing means. The problem with vague language is it can mean anything to anyone. Hence the differences on how we are both reading the exact same sentence.

I would have to guess, and keep in mind that this is just a wild guess, it's because the entire point of this thread is a discussion of the difference between if physics is about 'why' or 'how'. Or is the difference of why and how in a thread named 'is physics about why' somehow off topic?

Obviously it's not that plain since there are very large 'if's of the shall not be infringed. Felons cannot own firearms most places, surface to air missiles are not allowed, most places require a carry permit to carry a firearm, etc. Not to mention, as I said before, just saying shall not be infringed is cherry picking part of the quote. I could just as easily say that the language plainly says 'well regulated'. I am not for removal of guns in their entirety, I am for stricter regulations. Hell, all I had to do when I got my life-time conceal and carry permit is turn 18 give the police department $100. Now I can have a pistol with me in over half of the states in the US. I find that to be pretty ridiculously easy to legally own a deadly weapon.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm http://en.allexperts.com/q/Supreme-Court-Cases-340/f/List-Supreme-Court-cases.htm http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_US_Supreme_Court_decisions_be_overturned

I think he was a great speaker and a great physicist, yes. Do I agree with everything he says? Not at all. So starting from a false premise will get you no where. You're confusing why and how. Phlogiston and the like are not explanations of why things burn, it's how they burn. Why tends to be an ultimate cause, how tends to be the mechanisms. You are describing mechanisms, not ultimate causes. Again, you're not doing "why"s you're doing "how"s. Citation needed. Can you guess how something becomes popular belief in science? Evidence. So the phrases, in a scientific context, are equivalent. Currents going in the same direction attract due to the direction of the field around the wire, which are in different direction on opposite sides of the wire. Do you think that the field generated is universal in its direction?

Maybe I should have said a strict reading of the constitution alone. There have been a few cases where personal possession of certain firearms have been upheld, but ruling by the supreme court can and have been overturned.