Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by akh

  1. Well... I am not the smallest guy in the world, so that would be a mistake . But seriously, it was shocking how quickly this guy swung () from normal conversational tone to flared nostrils, throbbing forehead vein, and slobbering. The guy literally looked rabid. I was not rude or condescending at all, I just told him that there is much more to the story. But somehow, he found the knowledge insulting. I think the final words that frothed from this guys mouth was something like "hockey stick Hussein Obama immigration hobbit home guns France Bill Nye" It wasn't even a sentence. He is not alone in this disposition. These type of people tend to see things as black and white. Its an easy way through life, I guess. Its not all bad in some situations; sometimes that point of view is needed. I know some people who have a very straight forward world view, but if you explain things that they don't understand, or propose a different perspective, they can accept it even if they don't see it for themselves. But those who are incapable or unwilling to recognize their own ignorance are the ones who truly scare me. There seems to be far too many of them. Some people have seriously advocate culling or eradication of sharks because they attacked a surfer. Who cares about the polar bear, when shipping lanes are now open? It's ignorance really. It's a failure of our educational system. It's the hijacking of knowledge and facts because of ideology and dogma. It's the perpetuation of ignorance because knowledge frightens. It's politics. In the end, I just think that some people have a very difficult time with finite concepts. You want some real sport? Get into a conversation with these people about potable water . I don't want to drift the topic, but I think we all know the type of people I to which I am referring. I think the only answer is a real political consensus about how biodiversity is essential to human welfare at all levels. Its not that hard to figure out or understand. There are endless examples of how biodiversity, or the lack there of, has immediate tangible economic and social impact. Its is a concept that should be held separate from opposing political views; it should be a universal moral concept.
  2. I will never change a thing in my life that will save animals from extiction or reduce carbon emissions if a can attribute one cent more out of my pocket or one job lost as a result. Who needs those stupid animals, I mean its survival of the fittest, right? There are plenty other animals, like cows and chickens that I eat. I will not bow to any hippie, leftist, socialist agenda. Ya bunch of doom and gloom merchants. J/k Unfortunately, there are so many people who tragically associate anything "green" or environmentally friendly as left leaning politics. We all know this. I got into an argument with I guy who really had no concept of ecology at all. I tried to explain to him about keystone species, and apex predators, and the complex interactions of different species. But he accused me of making things up or having some hidden agenda. He asked why stop logging for some stupid owl. Why did we need to stop watering our lawns and washing our cars because a drought had dried up the rivers that are home to endangered muscles species. He swore that he cared more about people and jobs, and I was some sicko that put humans second. I said, BS, your ignorance and short sightedness makes you blind to the fact that I am, without question, putting our survival first. I am not sure we can overcome this level of stupidity and ignorance. I just hope we have leaders that do understand what is at stake for all of humanity, and have the b#lls to do something about it.
  3. I would say that there is quite possibly a scientific explanation. I am not sure there would be anything. Maybe if "god" came to me and said I made you and all of this. And then "god" showed me how, then maybe. But at the same time, I would wonder about the marvelous technology behind it.
  4. I don't want to drift the topic, but you bring up an interesting point. It does boil down to concentration of a particular substance within the study. But what is often difficult to assess is all the hundreds or thousands of "other sources". What is the interaction of these other substances? So in a controlled experiment with mice, a certain concentration may be detrimental to the germ line. But if you expose the mice to all the other potential pollutants that assault our bodies daily, you may find that the threshold (might be a better term to use here) concentration is actually much lower due to synergistic interactions of the other pollutants.
  5. You may not want to discuss this paper, but it goes very far to illustrates the fact that you only see what you want to see and only go so far to understand something to make your point. So, I give you two published articles that deal with the notion of reality that is independent of our knowledge of it. And you attack it by calling it a "crap paper"? You say that it is a "very bad paper"? And your only evidence to this is a blog post? Really, a blog post? What is even more egregious, is that the blog that you linked to has been shown by others to be in error in that the author misinterprets the argument made by the paper (and so did you!). Your evidence for a crap paper, is a link to a crap blog! The irony! I would like to say that your disposition is becoming ever clearer, except that it has been all too evident from the first page of this thread. But you seem to want to give more examples, so I guess I am obliged to point them out to you. So, in case you have hidden it from yourself. Try some other blogs where the authors actually understand the argument. I'll take your blog link, and raise you three more. http://mattleifer.in...-statistically/ http://infoproc.blog...ction-real.html http://www.scottaaro...com/blog/?p=822 And sorry, blogs are not at the same level as a published article. You have missed that point again, for the 1000th time. There are other scientists who would completely disagree with your "crap paper" comment.
  6. There is evidence that smoking can cause germ line DNA damage, which can then be inherited by the progeny. http://cancerres.aac...1/5103.abstract And another suggesting germ line damage due to air pollution. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/605.full
  7. I mostly just try to eat things of color. Green things, red things, and orange things. Lean fauna but fatty flora. Recently, I have tried to avoid phytoestrogens. So no soy, and no hops! I miss my hops.
  8. Here is a fairly new paper that explains that wave function offers a complete explanation of reality. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.6597.pdf And another work from November of 2011 that approaches the subject from a completely different angle by arguing that the subjective interpretation of wave function violates the assumptions of quantum mechanics. http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf These are very recent studies, and if you look at the citations of the articles, you will find that they build upon previous (and also very recent) work that supports these findings. In other words, you don't need any ancient, or modern, religious meditations to explain or "find" reality. Wave function is the best explanation of reality. The wave function of a quantum system fully describes reality itself.
  9. There are some truly frightening people in positions of power in this country. Is this guy threatening civil war? Is he putting out the call for civil war? Is he hoping for it? Beyond inexcusable. What's next? I would hate to see this guys record as a judge. I am sure he has been unbiased.
  10. Beautiful and amazing! To think that one of the defining attributes of humans is tool use. But the more we look, the more we find that we are not so unique in this aspect. Some view science as a sterile endeavor, yet the fruit is filled with awe and wonder.
  11. ^Even the Hagfish knows this and agrees. Immortal, as I stated many posts ago, your argument is nothing new or novel. I know it is a defensive mechanism to hide the truth from oneself, but I really cannot understand your need for willful ignorance. You seem to have gone to some effort to understand some of the basics of physics, but you did not go far enough! You stopped looking as soon as you found what you wanted or found something disagreeable. Your argument may seem sound enough to fool the naive, but you are doing a great disservice to humanity by spreading half truths. Please go back to those physics books and pick up where you left off. Set aside your ideology and continue to learn beyond it. If you get stuck or have questions, there is a great physics sub-forum here for your use. I am sure there will be more than a few people happy to help.
  12. I am sure that this guy and the people who voted for him would be all to eager to point out the back asswardness of Islam. Might as well stone the woman for not having the strength to cross her legs tightly enough. What a sick f'. And Akin serves on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology? What branch of hominid did he evolve from? Ohh wait, this explains it all
  13. I honestly think there are equal anti-globalists from the right, they just tend to focus on different areas. Right wing anti-globalists tend to focus on keeping America #1 at all costs; Privileged and on top of the social-political order where all other nations are subjects. But I also don't think there is a single left wing politician, I don't care how far left you go, that spins the level of fear, paranoia, and utter hatred that comes from the right. Not even close. You may think that environmentalism or mandating health insurance (and no, this is not even in the same ball park as any form of socialism) is misguided or just plain wrong. That's fine, if that is what you believe. But the Rights' continuous attempts to keep people ignorant and fearful, is more in line with the rhetoric of some of the most nefarious institutions known to history. Its inexcusable.
  14. Sorry, but the God hypothesis in your terms is not a hypothesis, it is a belief. Why is this so confounding to you? So, of course one cannot falsify a belief. We have ample evidence of reality in the past, the same reality we experience today, as existing independent of humans. There is an entire fossil record of animals that have morphology which evolved to interact with the environment in the same way we do. There are insects trapped in amber, with wings, that allow them to fly. These insects are 95 million years old. They existed 94.5 million years before the earliest archaic humans appeared in the fossil record. That is pretty good evidence for a reality independent of the mind. Are you going to tell me that fossils are not real? That they are constructs of our minds too? What about the hag fish? Its a 300 million year old species. It has a mouth with a structure that protracts and retracts to take bites of reality to feed itself. What is truly impressive is that this mouth, which eats up yummy little pieces of reality today, is the same mouth that ate up yummy little pieces of reality 299.5 million years before "mind". What a truly transcendent creature, it has managed to exist in its own reality and also in ours! Obviously the real question is whether humans and reality exists independent of the hag fishes' mind.
  15. I am not sure of the validity of this report, but I suspect that it may be true. T. gondii has been shown to be linked to mental problems in both humans and animals. It has been linked to schizophrenia and bipolar in humans http://www.scienceda...90311085151.htm and has been shown to alter the brains of rodents http://www.scienceda...11104102125.htm. The rodent study is interesting because it appears that T gondii has evolved to manipulate the brains of rodents so they are less fearful of cats. Theses rodents are then easier prey for cats. The cats eat the rodents and become infected. People usually pick up the parasite from cat feces. I used to work with a veterinarian who was a little irrational and unstable. We used to joke that she must be infected with something. Turns out that when she got pregnant, she had bloodwork done, and she tested positive for T. gondii anitbodies.
  16. Sorry, of course this is the case, I should have been more clear about my point. I was trying to say that I think it would be a fairly complex dynamic. The last line of the article you linked (thanks) noted that the ice may actually adopt a fluid state at extremely high pressures. Do you have any links for this? I couldn't find any, but I would be interested in reading. Sans collision, I would have thought that the majority of the water that ever existed, would have accumulated much later in any case because the Earth was still in the process of cooling after accretion and heavy bombardment. There would also have to be significant enough of an atmosphere to hold water in a liquid state. I think there are competing theories as to where the water actually came from with no real consensus. Most of the theories, whether the water arrived via asteroids or hydrous minerals, necessitates a "rocky" core.
  17. As others have pointed out, there would almost certainly be some rocky and metal component. To our knowledge, these components are intrinsic to the formation of all planets in the solar systems. I also do not think there is anyway that a solar system could form with just water as the sole gas molecule. I am not sure, but I think a water core could induce a magnetic field, but possibly a weak one. So maybe there is not a need for special moons. Ahh but water ice is not your typical solid. Unlike other "ices" water expands when it freezes. So to a point, increased pressure actually lowers the freezing point of water. The phase plot for water is pretty interesting stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice. I guess its a question of how much pressure at what temperature I am not sure this would be an issue. I think there would still be thermal convections that could cycle the necessary elements.
  18. Probably the worst place to learn about ethics is religion. Both the Bible and the Koran rely on hate, fear, and subjugation for an ethical podium. There is nothing ethical about that!
  19. Its insane to think that anybody could be more deranged than M. Bachmann. But this guy is beyond stupid, he should be committed against his will, his positions are absolutely absurd, vile, and criminal. Its people like him that continue to erode the intellect of this country. He is the reason our schools are failing. He is to root of why this country is losing ground. Whats worse, is people actually voted for this guy. I am so disgusted I can't even put it into words. Guys like this seriously make me wonder the fate of humanity.
  20. Funny stuff. I think its a good example of how much we still do not know. I am not opposed to genetic screening at a certain level, but I have severe reservations about the wisdom of our engineering. There is a difference, all be it a thin one. How do we know that forced selection, or engineering of a particular gene that is seen to be detrimental, does not cause greater harm under different conditions? A fairly straight froward example is sickle cell anemia. Elimination of this gene would prevent death from sickle anemia. At the same time, in the absence of a universal, easily obtainable, inexpensive and widely administered vaccine, does elimination of the gene result in a quantifiable benefit? Maybe other "detrimental" genes purvey resistances to other diseases. Maybe a "bad" gene provides genetic flexibility that allows humans to survive the next pandemic. Extend these issues into one of the least understood biological components; the mind. You have an ever greater example of how such changes might do greater harm. What if a gene for some form of mental illness was also responsible for creativity and intelligence? What if a gene for aggressiveness was linked to survivability in extremely adverse conditions? What if it is found that a particular gene impacts apathy? What about empathy? Too much or too little of either may have grave consequences. Overall, I can't see the wisdom of intentionally imposing a genetic bottle neck on humanity. We may not ever know what "detrimental" gene may actually have benefits. But I also do not feel that we should halt our drive to understand all we can! Even if we do find absolute benefit to genetic engineering, by following economic principles, this type of engineering will not be available to all...it will only be available to those who can afford it. There is already enough hierarchy in the human condition. There is already enough inequities. Why add another, possibly quantifiable, level?
  21. That silly Jere Jenkins and Purdue University wasting money on research into decay rates of radioactive materials. Like there is any practical application....oh wait... Probably some wing jobs out there who somehow think a giant solar flare will not effect them. Scientist making crap up again to get funding.
  22. Answering a question with another question, nice. Is still does not address my point. To take your cue, what do you mean objective? Its still requires the human interaction no matter how you look at it or what you say. You can't divorce the human factor. And I as I have said before, religion at the level of one individual cannot be compared to that of another individual by any measurable means, you cannot prove that they are the same, and it cannot be put to any test. If you cannot put it to a test, then what good is it? Its not of any good, because it could very well be, and is most likely wrong.
  23. I will go back to my main position, in simple terms. That religion, is wholly subjective and is just as, and logically more so, prostrate to misrepresentation of reality as "scientific realism". Can you not at least recognize the fallacy of your own argument? The scientific method has served us very well and has told us a lot about the world.
  24. I think this is the issue I have, and it is a stance that has been repeated over and over. I will go back to your initial statements. Its a sophisticated argument. I will not attack your intelligence, but I will attack your disposition and conclusion. I don't think that anybody will deny that quantum mechanics poses some real challenges. I am not going to pretend that I am anywhere near as well versed as Bernard d'Espagnat or especially Roger Penrose, but I think I have a good mind for things. And the fact that I don't have the physicists approach; by your own words weighs in my favor. For you to make a demand, "Prove Scientific Realism then we can abandon this form of religious thinking and move forward" you are setting up a loaded argument. The argument should be; Prove that God exists then we can abandon scientific realism. But there is no proof of God, no matter how you view God. Scientific realism has not failed us, it has done remarkable things, and has brought us great understanding. There is not one physicist out there who does not want to fill the gap that quantum mechanics presents. But you can't fill the gap with a non provable approach, you can't fill the void with God. I am not undermining the power of the mind or consciousness. There may indeed be a quantum aspect to the mind, I am willing to accept that. But as of yet, there has been nothing to prove that either. Its just speculation at best, and even if found true, it does nothing to advance you disposition.
  • 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.