DJBruce

So I am doing some work on statistical analysis of DNA microarray data, and one thing I notice is that the sample size is often quite small. For example, in Alon etc all they only have 62 tissue samples. I was just wondering why there is often a low sample size?

It most certainly can be. It has been pointed out in numerous sources that the main cause of famine is not the quantity of food, but rather the distribution of said food. However, you have also proved evidence that shows that drought can cause famine. Therefore, we have scientific facts at odd, and must therefore have a scientific debate on how to rectify these to arguments. On SFN, and more generally in the world of science the main credentials one has is their ability to effectively argue an mater in a scientific way. So in that sense all the credentials are that one needs are found in their posts. For example, Cap'n, iNow, Swanston, and numerous other members who have participated in this thread have argued rational points in a logical fashion with evidence supporting their claims, and so that is all the credentials they need to have their arguments take seriously. Yes, there people have biases, and in fact everyone has their biases, but this does not change the fact that if someone logically makes a point supported by evidence that they should be ignored. I could continue talking about how this is feeling a lot like an appeal to authority, and why I disagree with what you said, but you have already opened a thread about this where I believe much of what I have said was also said by many others. See here for that debate.

I am sure Cap'n is both very well versed in biology and completely understands inductive reasoning. Furthermore, it is evident as I pointed out earlier if you wish to claim you that your original argument was inductive, something that would contradict your previous statements then it still stands that the claims you make in your original post are not a proper use of deductive reasoning. Welcome to the world of science. Most complicated issues are just that complicated, and that means that there are numerous reports, studies, and statistics that are often at odds with each other. The point of scientific debate, and in many ways the point of SFN is to debate the validity of such things, and analyze them in order to try and come to a conclusion about whats often going on. However, in order for this debate to exist both sides of the argument most not support their opinions by fact, but instead base there opinion on facts and then provide all the appropriate material so that the other side can review and brings its critiques to the debate. It is clear to me that in this debate one side has done this while the other has pointed out that its pointless. Greg, this is a blatant Ad Hom. Regardless of your stance on religion or your religious denomination you can still debate in a respectful and scientific manner. Me being Presbyterian has never at any point during this debate or other scientific debates shaped my views or opinions I let the facts do that.

I understand you want to us inductive reasoning, however, I still contend that your argument is not logically correct. As Capn' stated you even noted that your original statement was did not use inductive reasoning, and even if you want to say it did then it did so improperly since in an inductive argument you must note that the outcome you are stating will only probably happen, and you failed to do this instead stating, "Therefore human population and economic growth cannot grow indefinitely." Please where have I been pedantic, illegitimate, or deceptive in my arguments? I feel that I have been fairly forthcoming with everything I have said. I have based my arguments on legitimate well respected sources, and have shared those sources with you so that you can review them and bring any complaints about the source. Furthermore, I have even admitted when my arguments do not full prove what I wished to prove. It seems to me that this is Ad Hom, and not much else, however, please do elaborate on this so that I can try and correct my position and arguments. Could you please provide me with links directly to the sources you are drawing from so that I can review the articles in full?

This subject of debate, and you have yet to show that it is correct. In fact numerous people have showed that it is not, and a biology expert pointed out that your comparison of humans to bacteria is not as a good of a model as one that shows your point to be false, and stated that bacteria cultures, "have a very specialized set of problems" Why? You asked the question to evaluate the logic of your argument, and that is what I am doing. If you didn't want to listen to others telling you your logic was flawed, why did you even ask the question in the first place? Then why don't you? I have provided a study that showed global poverty has decreased that was published by a very well regarded academic who holds a position at an excellent institute. So until you provide me data and show me why this article is wrong, I will believe the paper. When I cite the author's crediential I refer in part to: http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/1000%20top%20Citations.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/Indexmuppet.htm Who? What papers? What data do the use to dispute this paper? Why don't you provide these things, and instead speak in unsupported generalizations?

I am unsure of what these question have to do with your original question. You basically asked if the following logic was fallacious: If there is a finite biological system Then bacteria cannot grow indefinitely. There is a finite biological system for humans therefore humans cannot grow indefinitely. or for a more simplistic form [latex]F \Rightarrow C[/latex] F therefore H Which is fallacious, so what do all your questions have to do with that is beyond me. However, to please you: I cannot predict the future into what will be possible, however, I will point out that since 1970 the world population has just under doubled, and since then the percent of people who are in poverty has decreased. So saying that an increase population will cause a increase in world poverty, and so I would think that it is up to you the one who posited that this would happen to provide evidence that in the future it will. http://www.columbia....ibution_QJE.pdf Not that a 1999 paper by Eswaran, etc all found that it is possible for the world to support 19.82 billion people, and furthermore they found that: http://soils.usda.go...port-paper.html I think it would be better to use our massive scientific resources to continue to discover ways to help end poverty and starvation, and believe that if properly managed the Earth can provide more than enough food for the 9 billion people estimate.

Would anything short of agree with you statement be good enough for you? If you would accept a different answer what is the criteria that the answer would need to fulfill so that you accept it because certainly logical arguments, well supported arguments, and the opinions of people who are very well versed in biology have been submitted in response to your original question of wether your logic was fallacious. I certainly am not hoping or thinking any of that.

If you truly believe this are you going to make sure that you never have kids? I mean it would be somewhat hypocritical of you to tell people they shouldn't have kids, and then have kids yourself. On a different note, what does any of these really have to do with your original question: It seems to me that like some of your other threads the question you posed has been answered by numerous people, however, since their answers are not what you want to hear you have managed to somehow shift the debate away from your original question to something else.

Greg, you do realize that DDT was first synthesized in 1874, and that it would be roughly 60 years before its insecticide properties were discovered., which show a key idea about discovery in that all the use for a product or item are never totally foreseeable. I mean name any chemical or piece of technology, and I can probably think of a way that it could be used to cause harm. Also where would you stop with your suppression of dangerous knowledge? A knowledge of mathematics and physics has allowed for people create weapons that kill mass numbers of people so should have those kept those secret? I don't know about you, but I rather like the internet, computer, and all the other modern convienves that science has brought us, and I am really glad that people like Salk and Pastuer did not hide there discoveries for fear that someone might discover a dangerous use for them.

This completely oversimplifies the ideas of population growth. There are numerous models for various populations, and to simply say that humans are like bacteria due to the fact that there is finite space complete over simplifies so many things. Although not necessarily fallacious in my mind, your argument is incredibly flawed by its incredibly oversimplifications. As for the economic growth I am not sure how you pulled that out.

Greg, one thing to note is that immigration itself can boost the level of economic activity in an area since an influx of people requires an increase in production to sustain them. So in your Naru example, the migration of those 900 people could very well mean that the demand for food and housing would cause an economic boom in those sectors where more people would be needed meet the demand for those products.

Greg, the issue I find with your argument is that you like to speak in unsupported opinions, and that when people confront you with valid studies you ignore them instead of either admitting that they show that your hypothesis may very well be false, or rebut those studies. Also the one time you have provided evidence for your point the sources were dubious secondary sources, that relied an even more dubious research. Aslo although it doesn't matter, I really have no credentials as I am still at university.

Thanks, I was able use that to figure it out.

You do not need a degree to make a well thought out and logical argument, and that is what SFN is about.

I am creating a presentation in Beamer, and I am using a theme that I really like except for the fact that the boxes it creates for the theorem, definition, etc environments are white. I was wondering if there was a way to change the color of these without choosing a new theme?

Cap'n has there been consideration of adding more moderators to staff? It seems to me that a few of the moderators have slowed down a bit, and so that moderators can still enjoy the forum adding a few new mods might spread the work load out a bit.

As Swansont pointed out these figures do not agree with each other. I am not sure I would consider a group considered by both the SPLC and ADL as being at very best biased and fear mongering, and often racist with questionable financial contributors to be a non-biased source of factual data on immigration data. This is an interesting statistic, however, I would point out that we may be confounding variables in that it has long been know that those without a high school education make less and are more likely to need government assistance than those who attend college. So this really does little to show that immigrants are bad for a country. Umm, what does this have to do with the immigrant debate? It appears to me to be an attempt to portray all immigrants from Mexico as drug dealers, which is simply fallacious and flat out disgusting. Primary source please. See my above point on FAIR. Not sure where this economic argument is going. So what?

Gregg, ignoring your obvious xenophobia and ethnocentrism, which in my opinion is tip toeing racism, why don't you respond to any of the data that has been posted refuting your claim? It seems like you only wish to debate baseless opinion. Then give me the data to support your hypothesis. If you are tired of people attacking you hypothesis why don't you give us the data and the studies that you used to form the hypothesis, or is you OP only ground in your baseless opinion.

<br><br>Well then why don't you show me the actual studies instead of your unsupported opinion.<br><br> <br><br>I assume that you also received at least 12 years of free school, where the government tried to give you the necessary skills to make you a productive member of society so that you could eventually repay the state for your education. I also don't understand how in one paragraph you bash non-english speakers and characterize them not being able to find a job, and then seem to complain about the programs to teach these people English so they can find work easier. <br><br> <br><br><br>Again can you show me any study that finds a correlation between this increase in immigrants and these consequences you claim they have?<br><br>Also also appear to have ignored the actual studies that both iNow and myself have posted showing that immigration increases GDP. <div><br></div><div>As for the one link you gave about settlement grants; I could not find any data from your linked site showing the either the cost of the program or more importantly the net economic effects of the program. It seems to me that you look at the issue of immigration in the short term and do not consider the total effects of immigration. Yes, there may be initial costs when people first arrive in a new country and need some help getting their feet on the ground, but after awhile these people most often become productive members of society that boosts the GDP of the host country. <br><br> </div>

Greg, I do not necessarily agree with the assumptions of your hypothesis, nor do I understand why you dislike relative data, and instead what to compare absolute numbers to some index that is impossible to actually quantitatively create. However, ignoring all of that lets just look at the rest of your post. Well, to be honest there are differering opinions on how immgration effects an economy, however... http://www.sfgate.co...&type=printable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Americans:_Economic,_Demographic,_and_Fiscal_Effects_of_Immigration Umm, proof of this please?

The numerator is a function of N.

Books that you'll probably want to get to develop the basics: Spivak's Calculus Kunz and Hoffman's Linear Algebra Spivaks Analysis on Manifolds Artin's Algebra Covering this would probably give you a good foundation to move onto higher level mathematics. As for what you would specifically need for quantum mechanics I don't know, but I would bet you'd need these to get there.

Can you show that there is a shortage of sexual partners? According to the US census there are roughly 4 million more women in than there are men, so either there are a lot of nuns, a lot of polygamists, or your claim might not be true. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womencensus1.html Sex is much more than a biological act, in that for most people it does carry some feelings of intimacy and love. So just because sex no longer means procreation does not mean it does not have emotional ties that mean being selective important. I have to say that I don't believe this is true at all. I know numerous men who are more than happy choosing abstinence over sex. Also I don't really understand the painful or hurtful part. Marat, you are correct if we as a society treated sex as a hand shake there would certainly be a decrease in rape, however, do we as a society really want sex to lose all of the emotions of love and intimacy it normally has now days? At least for me the answer is a resounding no, as although those emotions that sex carries can be just as fulfilling as the act itself.

I am still going to have to disagree with you continuing to say that all rapes have nothing to do with sexual urges as the two articles I cited early showed date rape is more than likely in part caused by some urge of the man to have sex with the women. Yes, all rapes have power exchange, however, this does not mean that there was not sexual urges involved in the rapists motives. Obviously rape is harm for the victim, however, this does not mean the rapist's intention had only the motivation to harm his victim when he committed the act. You seem to be tying the consequences of the action to the motivation to the actions, and discounting any other source of motivation. Are the only motivations of a murderer those of taking the life of another and to hold power over another? No, there are numerous other sources of motivation that play into the act, and I would posit that the motivation of a rapist are the same. Yes, the college male was harming the girl when he was getting her drunk, but that does not mean he wasn't also thinking that he really wanted to sleep with this really attractive girl.