Prometheus

You mean to say you rate anecdote higher than peer-reviewed research?

Do you have you any evidence the premise is true (not anecdote)? Assuming it is true, why do you assume it's an innate behaviour rather than a learnt one?

Huh, did not know that. It doesn't seem nearly as bad as Bond's alcohol habit though, so my money's still on Sherlock. Brains over brawn and all that.

Sherlock need only to wait. Bond is an alcoholic, so will likely botch things up. http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7255

I think you're quite right to question the big bang theory. Your school has probably just taught it as a fact to remember, but there is more to it than that. Lots of reasons have been given above as to why people believe in the big bang. You should try to understand these and question them with an open mind and you will probably come to the 'belief' that the big bang theory seems sensible. If not, maybe you can suggest a better theory, and supply evidence why you think it is correct. Don't run before you can walk though, these ideas take a long time to understand. Also maybe pay more attention in English classes, communication is vital in science life.

Think you hit the nail on the head there. Certainly spins my mind out - doesn't imply anything mystical going on though.

I think 'pulmonary diseases' is too broad to answer that question. Someone with pulmonary hypertension will typically have a vastly different cardiac reserve compared to someone with say antigen induced asthma. Maybe frame the question of particular pulmonary diseases, with similar causes, you are interested in.

It's a nice thought, but online forums, such as this seem to have an optimum number of contributers - probably related to Dunbar's number - which isn't very much relative to the size of democracies. I imagine social media trends will become more influential in politics, though whether that improves things i'm not sure.

That is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer#Evading_apoptosis There are developments towards flagging certain cancer cells for the immune system to target.

Doctors are trained to be clinicians, not scientists or statisticians, which is an entirely different skill set, both of which time a lot of time and effort just to become competent. Being a good clinician and a good scientist is beyond what we should expect. We shouldn't be surprised the medical field struggle with practicing science. Surely the solution is to allow people who actually trained as scientists to undertake medical research, allowing doctors to do the job they trained for: administering to their patients. Like physica noted, biomedical engineering is one field that seems to be taking this view - we'll see if it pays dividends.

So people were talking about the collapse of a wave function, then someone said this: to which you strongly objected. It seems a reasonable enough suggestion, and people have since alluded to reasons why they think so. You obviously feel strongly otherwise, but will not allude to reasons why you think so. You have been invited (and i invite you again, i'm interested) to open a new thread to present the evidence on both sides. You decline to do so, but then rant at others for not seeking the evidence. You have levelled accusations of foot stamping and lack of dispassion, yet it seems you also display these qualities. I am therefore thoroughly confused about your position. Whoa there. On a physics forum talking about the collapse of a wave function i don't think its inappropriate for someone to question the validity of buddhism as a credible source. Maybe buddhism can contribute to a discussion on consciousness. But given that buddhism has many branches with different beliefs, with some members believing the Buddha could make himself invisible, or had a golden penis, or that monks can fly, it is not surprising that people take mention of it in a science forum with scepticism. Maybe you should explain why they are wrong. Calling someone a blithering idiot is unlikely to help.

I have the understanding that the dispersion parameter, [latex] \phi[/latex], in generalised linear models needs to be known for deviance to meaningful or otherwise it can be estimated from the model, but no analysis of deviance can be carried out. Why is it then that in binomial and poisson models in R/S+ it is always assumed [latex] \phi = 1[/latex]? If the assumption is not true then the analysis in meaningless, no?

You have evidence then? Please start a new thread and share.

But gravity is a well defined idea of a thing said to exist that has subsequently been confirmed with lots of evidence. You are asking us to provide evidence for something (consciousness independent of matter?) which we think does not exist. Rather it is up to you to provide evidence of it if you think it exists. Otherwise scientists would be forced to spend their whole time trying to disprove the vast number of things humans have thought up - flying spaghetti monsters, orbiting teacups, pink unicorns, any of the millions of gods various people say exist... If you had good reason to suspect consciousness exists independent of matter, please share (perhaps on another thread), and then someone might be convinced to look into it. At the moment we have good reason to suspect the non-existence of consciousness without matter - separating heads from bodies is just the most extreme form of seeing consciousness being altered by a physical process. If it cannot be proved either way, then the null position would be the most sensible to take surely? Especially if the claim is that matter-less consciousness does not interact with the physical (if it did interact, would be able to detect it by it's effect on matter) - then whether it exists or not has no bearing on us what-so-ever. Might as well just say we don't believe it exists unless evidence to the contrary does appear. Based on this I think it safe to assume consciousness do not exist before matter in the same way we can assume god doesn't infere with experiments just to mess with scientists - though I can't prove he doesn't.

Not even sure longevity should be the goal of medical science. A happier and healthier life isn't necessarily a longer one.

I don't understand, are you saying prolonging human life should be the main goal of science?

I look forward to hearing more, particularly about what would constitute evidence of potential harm to an ecosystem as whole.

Well, since this has become a gallery, i found those portraits of dementia: The series is here.

So you can do it?

There is an powerful depiction of dementia in a series of self-portraits drawn by an artist as their disease progresses. The pictures become more fragmented and show classic signs of neglect in one feild (forget if left or right). Wish i could find it online. Not sure it was is a journal or not - it was at a conference though. But whether or not in a journal is besides the point - it helps doctors/nurses understand what it is like for sufferers.Neither of these would make it scientific though. I think sometimes science and maths allows us access to beauty which we would otherwise not see, but that does not make it art, which is a very human activity of expressing experience.

When you can predict with certainty the result of a die roll you might have a case.

So GMOs aren't patented and farmers will be free to grow without dependence on industry? I couldn't find a reference for the drop in world from 60% to 17%. Are you anticipating a similarly spectacular drop with wholesale implementation of GMOs, and if so based on what findings? Are EPA and USDA bodies with similar powers as the FDA and MHRA (medicines regulators) in that certain strains will not enter the market if there is insufficient evidence of benefit and non-maleficence? I'm unfamiliar with the field (pun not intended), but i understand that ecosystems are very complex and not well understood. If so, what constitutes good evidence of non-maleficence?

Hi. I have two questions i hope could be addressed: 1.) I have heard it said that through GMOs it will be possible to feed the world, in the context of arguments for it. I have also heard it said that there is currently enough food in the world to feed its current population. Assuming both these are correct, and assuming of the latter that it is a problem of distribution rather than production, how is it envisaged GMO will feed the world? 2.) What assurances are made that GMOs will not upset existing ecosystems? I'm speculating about something like a plant species given some reproductive advantage, and then that species proliferates to competitively destroy its competition, leading to a single species dominating, with consequences on the rest of the local ecosystem. This is a subject i know little about, so looking forward to answers.

Got it, thanks.

Try looking up the Babylonians, they had a base 60 system so might be a good place to start.