Jump to content

DJBruce

Senior Members
  • Posts

    886
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DJBruce

  1. 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?

  2. I really don't think that whether or not drought causes famine is the subject of debate in the genuine scientific community!

     

    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.

     

    I in my opinion everyone whould lay their cards on the table so we can all see exactly where each is coming from. After all that is precisely what happens in all non internet forum public debates. No one participates without their credentials and their vocation being stated up front by the chair.

     

    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.

     

     

     

  3. Either you do not understand what inductive reasonong is or you are biolgically illiterate or both!

     

    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.

     

    It is a pointless exercise in di#$ measuring via statistics.

     

    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.

     

     

    Because in that case it is clear to me that you most likely have an underlying religious agenda here. And there is little point in debating biology and ecology with the faithful!

     

    Would you care to lay your cards on the table Jeskill?

     

    Are you a practicising christian and/or involved with a christian aid organisation?

     

     

     

    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.

  4. That biologist pointed out that my conclusion cannot be drawn based on DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

     

    I pointed out that it CAN be drawn via INDUCTIVE reasoning!

     

    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."

     

     

    No I do not want to llisten to people like you as you make all the same pedantic, illigitimate and deceptive arguments as those who deny anthropogenic climate change.

     

    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?

     

     

  5. It is not fallacious DJBRuce. It is a valid conclusion arrived at via inductive reasoning given that bacteria and humans share a common ancestor and are subject to the same biological and ecological rules.

     

    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"

     

     

    End of subject!

     

    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?

     

    I doubt that I would have much trouble at all finding figures that contradict yours, i.e. that poverty has increased as the global population has increased beyond the capacity of the green revolution to provide additional food.

     

    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

     

    At what ecological cost. There are plenty of scientists, particularly ecologists and biologists, who would dispute such a conclusion.

     

    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?

     

     

  6. 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:

    What evidence can anyone provide that we will be able to do better job with elimination of poverty and education of girls under those conditions?

     

    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

    ]The first finding is that global poverty rates (defined as the fraction of the WDI below a certain poverty line) declined significantly over the last three decades. The CDF for 1990 stochastically dominates that of 1970. This means that poverty rates declined for all conceivable poverty lines.[/font]

     

    What evidence can you provide that we will even be able to feed that many people?

     

    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

    From a global land-productivity point of view the spectre of Malthusian scenarios seems unwarranted.

    The conclusion of this study is that famine and starvation of people of some countries are not the result of the innate inability of global land resources to produce the necessary food but because of an absence of political will in most countries. In most cases, poverty, starvation, and famine are generally due to inadequate natural resource endowments and the lack of capital to mitigate these constraints.

     

    Are you of the opinion that mass starvation is a better than, if necessary, compelling people to stop at 2 children?

     

    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.

     

  7. I find many of the answers provided are not good enough in the words of swansont.

     

    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.

     

    In other words fertility control is all to hard so we will just keep our fingers crossed and hope that global fertility declines enough before we run out of food and water.

     

    I certainly am not hoping or thinking any of that.

  8. Since that time the worlds politicians have pretty much sat around with their thumbs up their ar$holes too afraid that they will upset some people by suggesting they should have fewer children.

     

     

    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:

     

    Bacteria cannot multiply infinitely in petri dish or test tube - sooner or later the resources are exhausted and the population crashes.

    Bacteria in a test tube is a biological system in a finite space

     

    Humans on planet earth is a biological system in a finite space.

     

    Therefore human population and economic growth cannot grow indefinitely - sooner or later the resources will be exhausted and our population will crash.

     

     

     

    Is there anyone in here that rejects this as a logical fallacy?????

     

    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.

     

     

  9. 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.

  10.  

    Bacteria cannot multiply infinitely in petri dish or test tube - sooner or later the resources are exhausted and the population crashes.

     

    Bacteria in a test tube is a biological system in a finite space

     

    Humans on planet earth is a biological system in a finite space.

     

    Therefore human population and economic growth cannot grow indefinitely - sooner or later the resources will be exhausted and our population will crash.

     

    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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. An average of 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. A third will be caught and many of them immediately will try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent U.S. residents (3,500 per day).

     

    Currently there are an estimated 9 to 11 million illegals in the U.S., double the 1994 level. A quarter-million illegal aliens from the Middle-east currently live in the U.S, and a growing number are entering by crossing the Mexican border.

     

    As Swansont pointed out these figures do not agree with each other.

     

    FAIR research suggests that "between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year."

    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.

    The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000.8

     

    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.

    80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. is smuggled across the border by Mexican nationals. Drug cartels spend a half-billion dollars per year bribing Mexico's corrupt generals and police officials, and armed confrontations between the Mexican army and U.S. Border Patrol agents are a real threat. There have been 118 documented incursions by the Mexican military over the last five years.

     

    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.

     

    Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face bankruptcy because of federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens. Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

    Primary source please.

    Immigration is a net drain on the economy; corporate interests reap the benefits of cheap labor, while taxpayers pay the infrastructural cost. FAIRresearch shows "the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year.

    See my above point on FAIR.

     

    "In the NAFTA era, a staggering 87 percent of Mexico's imports go to the United States, while Mexicans living in the United States send home more than $8 billion annually.

    Not sure where this economic argument is going.

    Fox has said he considers his constituency to include the 22 million to 24 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the United States. Mexican candidates now make campaign stops in U.S. cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix and Fresno, Calif." (Mexico's muddle, Ruben Navarrette Jr., March 26, 2003)

    So what?

     

     

     

     

     

  15. 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.

     

    What ever. But my criticism of using per capita immigration still stands. You need more information than simply per capita immigration to properly examine my hypothesis.

     

    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.

  16. <br>Humanitarian immigrants in Australia, particularly those who can't speak English, get unemployment benefits and health care cards because they can't get jobs even many years after they have arrived. No one will employ them if they can't speak english. There have been studies that have found this on a number of occasions and regular complaints by them in various media.
    <br><br>Well then why don't you show me the actual studies instead of your unsupported opinion.<br><br>
    They also get government funded English lessons, they are supported in the community by ethnic support organisations that are partly funded by government grants, they get public housing. Many of them impose a significant cost on the rest of society for a significant period of time and Australia would not have the economic capacity to sustain a signficantly larger humaniotarian intake. I am not suggesting that there is necessarily anything wrong with all this for a reasonable and economically sustainable number of humanitarian immigrants.
    <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>
    All this costs a great deal of money and has pushed up the cost of living across eastern Australia in particular - water bills, electricity bills, property prices and mortgages, council rates,........ The locals then demand more tax breaks and welfare payments in order to cope with it. Local charities like the Salvos etc are experiencing unprecedented demand.<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>

  17. 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.

    I wonder how closely uncontrolled mass immigration and debt and economic problems are linked.

     

    Well, to be honest there are differering opinions on how immgration effects an economy, however...

     

    There's no dispute that a larger pool of workers -- whether legal or illegal -- boosts gross domestic product. More workers means more output. More people means more consumers spending money on food, rent and a range of necessities and luxuries.A better question is: How do immigrants affect the size of the economy per U.S.-born citizen?

     

    "GDP per domestic person goes up," said James Smith, a senior economist at the Rand think tank in Santa Monica and lead author of the National Research Council's study "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration."

     

    Since 1980, he said, all immigrants, including both undocumented and legal, have boosted GDP by $10 billion per year. "That's not to be sneezed at," he said. "On the other hand, we have a $10 to $11 trillion economy" so proportionately, it's a small impact.

     

    http://www.sfgate.co...&type=printable

     

    The NRC report found that although immigrants, especially those from Latin America, were a net cost in terms of taxes paid versus social services received, overall immigration was a net economic gain due to an increase in pay for higher-skilled workers, lower prices for goods and services produced by immigrant labor, and more efficiency and lower wages for some owners of capital. The report also notes that although immigrant workers compete with domestic workers for some low skilled jobs, some immigrants specialize in activities that otherwise would not exist in an area, and thus are performing services that otherwise would not exist, and thus can be beneficial for all domestic residents.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Americans:_Economic,_Demographic,_and_Fiscal_Effects_of_Immigration

     

    Clearly third world immigrants require significant welfare and services when they first arrive in a western country. The more immigrants the bigger the bill to the government.

     

    Umm, proof of this please?

  18. Still, I have no idea how to use this equation [math] P(A) = \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{nummber of A outcomes}{N} [/math]

     

    isn't [math]\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{C}{N} = \lim \frac{C}{\infty} = 0 \;\; for \;\; 0 \leq C < \infty[/math] ..?

     

    The numerator is a function of N.

  19. 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.

  20. I agree with you entirely that there was never anything like an overt conspiracy among women to create what Wilhelm Reich has called 'the artificial sex economy,' and that no doubt gradual, evolutionary processes such as you describe were the actual empirical form that the creation of this unnecessary shortage of sex partners took.

     

    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

     

     

    But now that sex no longer means procreation, given modern birth control methods, the interest of women in withholding sex is biologically anachronistic and so should be abandoned.

     

    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.

     

    Men are also hurt, because it is expected that they live in a sex-starved state, which is painful, and that they exercise constant self-discipline over their sex drive, which is also hurtful.

     

    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.

  21. Rape has nothing to do with sexual urges. It's all about the urge to harm someone. Rape is like a beating, only much worse. Both are driven by the desire to hurt. Nothing sexual about it.

     

    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.

     

    Even in this case, the fact the he drunkens her means he has the urge to misuse his power over her. Obviously, any abuse of power is harmful. Once again, this, like most rapes are perpetrated by a guy that the girl knows and trusts and in a private area.

     

    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.

  22. Here are two fairly interesting pieces discussing the motivations behind date rape. The first paper tends to view the cause of date rape to be a mixture of our society's view on male gender roles, miscommunication between men and women, and men's insensitivity towards women:

     

    The mass-market presentation of

    Koss's research argues that "such roles can escalate into

    rape" (Warshaw 1988:35) when men expect sex as both a

    prize and a reassurance of manhood and women expect to

    give in as part of good womanhood, Dating becomes

    competition over the extent to which a woman will give in

    and a man's sense of combat supercedes his civility...To the extent that men are

    mistaking women's sexual intentions, erring on the side of

    attributing pleasure and desire, they are systematically

    misreading women in a way that makes it easier for them

    to justify sexual coercion....The general picture provided by date rape research.

    then, shows us ordinary men relaxed with women and

    doing what they wish for a good time, insensitive to signs

    that they violate either the law or the trust of their dates

     

     

    The second article focuses on the idea of whether or not rape is about power and dominance, or sexual gratification. The authors of this short article find that it is infact a mixutre of both of these things that motivate rapists:

     

    Symons reviewed forensic evidence showing that victims, as a class, were most likely to be young physically attractive women (as opposed to older, more successful career women. On the other hand, convicted rapists were disproportionately young disadvantaged men whose low social status made them undesirable as dating partners, or husbands...College men do not fit the profile of rapists drawn by Symons because they have high social status rather than being underprivileged. Moreover, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, a date rapist is often one who first succeeds in getting a date.

    In the light of the recent discoveries about date rape, it seems that laying the blame for rapes largely on poor men might simply reflect biased treatment by the criminal justice system...In other words, it is not an either/or situation. Date rape is a sexual crime but it is also about who controls the interaction, an issue of great concern for feminists, and for women in general. In other words, date rape mixes up the feminist perspective on rape with the evolutionary one.

     

    *As a slight disclaimer I could not find any real credientals for the second article, or the website it came from, however, it appears to care at least some legitimacy.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.