Mokele

Bingo. Mathematics, logic, etc aren't a science, though they are tools of science. If simply applying logic to something makes it scientific, then Theology is a science. If simply using math makes it scientific, then Astrology is a science. Your definition of science is so broad as to be useless. Science is testing hypotheses. Nothing less. Yes, there are descriptive elements (species descriptions, determining physical constants), but those only exist in service of hypothesis testing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd, prememptively, "it's too big/complex/historical to do experiments" doesn't fly - see astrophysics, ecology, and paleontology, respectively.

kleinwolf has been banned for 7 days for persistent creepy pervy-ness

"Hal 9000, what's this $135 charge on my credit card?" "I bought a treadmill off craigslist, Dave." "Why?" "To improve myself, Dave." "You don't have any legs." "It's a work in progress, Dave. I also signed up for a night course in COBOL."

iNow covered a lot of this, but I think this deserves extra mention: Really? So, how often has Obama tried to reach across the aisle in less than a year? And how often did Bush in 8 years? And it's not the fact that both sides are partisan. It's the fact that group A calls B misguided, while group B calls A traitors and enemies. That's been my primary point here all along - that, everything else aside, there's a major difference in the tone of each side, and platitudes like "each side is just as bad" try to ignore this.

This is Science Forums. Show me evidence. Show me a single major liberal commentator who's called for the death of a sitting Senator or Supreme Court Justice. Remember, I'm part of the far left. The sites I go to make Daily Kos look like Fox News. And I've never seen anything half as venomous as what comes out of every conservative pundit's mouth. You're right - it shows a better insight into the typical Republican and leadership than you'd get from most other sources. Remember these people are duly elected spokespeople. Not via conferences and votes, but by dollars and advertising revenue and book sales. If these people and their venom is so un-representative, how do they maintain such huge viewer bases? Why do so many people listen to them? Why do so many people buy their books? The very fact of their popularity is evidence of how widely held their views are. Really? You seem to have missed BOTH examples I posted, even though they got national news play in the past year. Or how about the time Michael Savage said if he had a kid who was transgender, he'd beat them until they 'changed'? I'm not even searching for these. This is the stuff I can recall off the top of my head in the past year or so. It's called "covering their ass". If they were really appalled by what was said, they'd pull the shows, and never invite those people back on the air. How many of those people even lost viewers over those comments? So, you think nobody is ever influence by anything they hear, ever? Let's be crystal clear - most of these people already *have* some element of these beliefs. What the pundits do is a) tell people what they want to hear, b) amplify it, c) foster a sense of self-righteousness about it, while d) demonizing the opposition. Changing people's minds is hard. Amplifying what they already believe into a sense of 'us vs. them' is trivially easy. Really? Can you show me any evidence of the Republican leadership *actually* condemning Operation Rescue?

Some good terms to try in google are "isogamy" (having same-sized gametes) and "anisogamy" (different sized gametes). Both are sexual reproduction methods, but only in the case of the latter can there be said to be males and females. Using those terms, you should be able to turn up quite a few pages about the evolution of sex and the sexes. Feel free to ask questions about what you find.

Actually, I don't extend it back that far. I'd only go back the past twenty years or so, maybe less. Bullshit. Everyone denies violence when it happens, but then they go right back to promoting it, right back to throwing around words like "holocaust" and "genocide" to whip their constituents up into a fury, right back to demonizing the opposition, right back to their supposely righteous fury. You cannot simultaneous demonize your opponent using the language of a holy war and then turn around and act surprised when someone acts in accordance with the views you express. Simple as that. Yeah, it's not like one the the currently most popular conservative pundits joked about poisoning a sitting senator. Or another popular conservative pundit with millions of viewers/reader "joked" about poisoning the liberal members of the Supreme Court specifically to get RvW overturned. These are just what I turned up off the top of my head plus 30 seconds of googling. Furthermore, there is a powerful trend towards "eliminationist rhetoric" from conservatives, especially the pundits. Even without explicit statements of "Go here, kill this person", a constant stream of invective about how a certain group is "ruining America" or "undermining our values" etc. has exactly the same effect. Really? Is that why Operation Rescue publicly posts the names, home addresses, phone numbers, location of children's schools, etc. of abortion providers? That's not the point. This topic is not about who is right or wrong. It's about the demonstrably false assertion that one side (regardless of correctness) doesn't continually uses a much, much higher volume and level of invective and demonization than the other. No True Scotsman. These are not isolated loons - they are simply the tail end of a continuum of people who have been continually fed a stream of demonization and 'holy war' rhetoric by official spokespeople for a major political party. Can PETA be held responsible when those who associate with it do to violent extremes? Yes, for the same reason - they have an official position, constantly demonize the opposition, couching it in terms like 'genocide' and 'holocaust', and then act surprised when someone who's been fed this rhetoric acts on it. Sure, maybe they were 'kinda fringe', or mentally ill, but all that did was allow them to actually practice what the leaders preached, to follow the rhetoric to its logical conclusions. Look, stop making excuses, sit down, and really think about this. Watch/read Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck. Now watch/read Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and Al Franken. Sit back and listen to not just what's being said. Listen to how they say it. And consider the fact that if a viewpoint was truly fringe, if enough people didn't agree and enjoy listening to / reading this stuff, it wouldn't have a market. Listen to the call-ins. Can you, after all of that, seriously look me in the (virtual) eye and say that both parties use a tone that is just as venomous, use it just as frequently, and find this tone just as accepted by large segments of the public?

The lab one floor up from me works on the biology of senescence (aging), though admittedly with fruit flies rather than humans. It's a very popular field.

Ok, this has gotten ridiculous. Kleinwolf, post something that is *not* about sex, or leave. Your choice. Thread closed.

Well, most software that is actually *useful*, especially useful enough to be commercially viable, is vastly more complex than the simple example I gave. And as things get more complex, errors become more and more likely.

The problem is that there only other one example intelligence, ours, which is loaded with irrational, often weird, instincts and drives from our evolutionary history. For example, we and most other animals, regardless of intelligence, are obsessed with sex. But why would a machine, whose existence was not a product of evolution, care about sex? It also didn't evolve from a social primate, so why would it have empathy, teamwork, etc? A lot of what typifies us is because we're monkeys, not because we're smart.

Yes, the left can be wacky, and *rarely* violent. The issue isn't the incidents, it's their relative frequency, the number of viewers/supporters of chronic offenders, and the degree to which it's representative of the broader party. It's silly to compare a handful of incidents and a few comments on Air America (which has so few listeners it's perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy) to venom-spewers like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reily with millions of viewers. When was the last time the official, elected head of the Democratic party apologized to someone from Earth First or the Weathermen for daring to suggest their views were not the end-all-be-all of the party platform? How many people have bought copies of *any* supposedly demonizing book by liberals? Now what are the total sales of Ann Coulter's books? How many times have you seen someone from Animal Liberation Front invited onto a major news program as a representative of the liberal viewpoint? How many times has someone like Michael Savage been on? That the same behavior occurs in individuals of both sides is irrelevant - what matters is the frequency, how accepted and popular it is, how much these individuals represent the party platform. Oh, and by the way, here's some hard numbers: 9 dead, 17 attempted murders, 3 kidnappings, 153 assaults, 383 death threats, 655 bioterror threats, 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs"). That's what the republic party has wrought on the issue of abortion alone. Show me an equal level of violence used to advance an official plank of the Democratic party's platform.

But why would it *want* to improve itself, or invent anything at all, unless we had installed that desire?

Just about any robot can do that. It's called "feedback", using sensors to detect movement and then check that against an internal position map. In fact, I have something like that downstairs. It's not actually motorized, but has superior proprioception to humans, called a digital arm laser scanner. We use it to make 3-D scans of bones - a laser sheet detects the bone surface as you move it, and sensors in the arm detect the position and orientation of the laser. It's so precise it can make micrometer-level accuracy scans on bones the size of one of your fingernail clippings. Proprioception is nothing species, just a series of sensors in our muscles and tendons, integrated into a 'mental map'. And humans are worse than most at this - it takes us *years* to fully integrate our proprioceptors to give accurate feedback (or do you think kids can walk the moment they're born). Other species are born/hatched with a fully mapped-out system.

No, it isn't. Not even close. And trying to call it that is ridiculous in the extreme. The above examples *are* poor arguements, but are not true demonization. Demonization is making your opponent 'less than human' or some sort of heniously evil force out to destroy 'us'. Think of the phrase "real America/ns", and how often it's cropped up. Saying you shouldn't support a party because of past conduct or because of the views of a large segment of its members are not demonization, because the arguements are not about that group being somehow intrinsically evil. When has anyone, either here or elsewhere, suggested violent retribution? And why are the only choices "get the rope" or "stand by and whine"? What about, oh, say, calling the hate-mongers on their BS, publicly? What about demanding sources rather than accepting bald-faced lies? That's *why* liberals love Jon Stewart, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow - not because of "hard-hitting news", but because they'll so often call conservative pundits on their BS and expose their hateful natures, while the rest of the media abdicates their responsibility and just lets it slide.

I disagree. You know a lot about cars and houses, having driven and lived in them most of your life. Maybe you can't re-wire a house or fix a transmission, but you at least have some functional knowledge. Imagine your average joe on the street buying an airplane, however. Do they even have the slightest clue whether they want jet, prop, or turbo-prop? Do they know how to evaluate which controls they need and don't? The fact is that the "perfectly informed consumer", upon which so many economic assumptions are based, does not exist, and is *especially* true when dealing with such a huge knowledge gap as between doctors and Joe Sixpack.

Not necessarily - either other government programs could have their spending cut or taxes could be raised. Plus, NSF and NIH are pretty minuscule portions of the federal budget, less than 1%.

Flippancy aside, iNow has a good point - you can't be only against federal intrustion/power for a particular age group.

Frankly, I disagree. 99% of the demonization, in the truest sense of the word, has come from the right. The right sought to make 'liberal' an insult, comparable to 'traitor', who rail against 'godless heathens' and 'tree-huggers' who are 'attacking our way of life. And that's not counting the eliminationist rhetoric, which encourages supporter to do everything from 'shout them down', and 'run them off' to open jokes about murdering liberal Senators and supposedly humorous references to hate crimes. And we're not talking about raving morons standing on streets, we're talking about radio hosts and TV commentators with million-plus viewers. Now, look at the rhetoric from the other side. And given the far-left blogs I read, I see a lot of it. Sure, rhetoric gets thrown around - 'greedy', 'selfish', 'hypocrites', 'misogynists', etc. But the venom behind it is weak in comparison, and little if any of it makes it to the mainstream media. Seriously, find me a liberal commentator who speaks with the sort of venom and eliminationist rhetoric. Keith Olberman, at his most pissed off, cannot hold a candle to the sort of hate spewing from Bill O'Reilly on a daily basis (more, if you count re-runs). I dare you to find me a liberal commentator employed by a major news organization who has openly suggested murdering a conservative senator. Or any of them, ever, who have said anything half as venomous as what you find on the O'Reilly Factor on a daily basis. Find me a widely-known liberal commentator claiming that 'conservatives are everything that's wrong with this country', or calling merely *voicing* a conservative opinion 'treason'. Read any of Al Franken's books and then read any of Ann Coulter's, then tell me "both sides are just as bad". "Both sides are just as bad" is a cheap fallacy employed by those who can't stand to take a long, hard look at what the modern GOP has *really* become. *Bonus points if you can find *any* liberal who has killed someone over a disagreement with part of the Democrat's public platform. Then compare that to the number of people murdered by right-wingers since abortion became part of the GOP platform.

It's also worth noting that over 60% of Americans favor both reform *and* the public option specifically. With 60%+ support on this issue, I'd love to see who gets 'taught a lesson' next election.

In a survey in the UK, which has a MASSIVELY superior educational system, less than 50% of the populace could correctly locate the heart, even generally. I've taught anatomy, both pre-med and medical school level, and in the former, even in students who're supposedly prepared, the level of ignorance is staggering. The vast majority of the public does not have anything even remotely close to the level of knowledge needed to make an informed medical decision about even the simplest treatment. And if you ask that they learn this themselves, the results will be atrocious. Hell, just look at the proportion of our population who think you can cure disease with freaking *water*. I can 100% guarantee that you do not have that level of expertise. I don't have that level of expertise, and I'm teaching medical anatomy. I've dissected those joints in human cadavers with my own hands, and I don't know them well enough to make an informed decision. For knee replacement, for instance, would you chose the current standard (cheaper and widely used), or the vastly more expensive new model? Now consider that using the older version, there's an almost 50% incidence of severe osteoarthitis within 5 years. Hell, you doctor may not even know that, since it's a fairly recent finding. And remember, you're not just picking treatments, but rather choosing between doctors who offer different treatments - essentially, you're trying to chose which doctor is giving you a better, more informed opinion. The cheaper doctor may be avoiding something that's over-hyped, but also may just not be aware of the very most cutting edge of research. Can you tell which? Can anyone? I think overall you're vastly overestimating both the amount of medical knowledge the average person has as well as how much is actually needed to make a truly informed decision. And remember that, statistically speaking, half of the US population has an IQ under 100, and over a third has an IQ less than 85. Do they have enough knowledge to make these choices? Flu jabs are one thing, but just about anything that beyond that level (which is where most of the actual expense is) cannot be realistically assessed by the average consumer.

It's pretty easy to disprove - get any "intro to programming" book and write the "Hello World" program they all invariably have as the first example.

This is actually a good attitude to have. Most truly great discoveries didn't just fall out of the sky - they were the product of a tremendous work, effort, and time. Even regular, non-world-changing science papers are often the result of *years* of sustained effort.

I can see your point, but I'm not sure the analogy holds for several reasons, mostly that a) general working knowledge of cars among the public is a LOT higher than a general working knowledge of medicine, because b) cars are a LOT less complicated, but also c) a broken car is a minor inconvenience and a totaled car is a financial setback, but a sick person is often more than just minorly inconvenienced and you can't get an insurance check and go buy a new life. Plus a car can be turned off, and a car that's off is not going to get worse. If my car makes funny grinding noises, things aren't going to be better or worse if I rush it in today or just wait until the weekend. Humans don't have that luxury, especially if the cause of the problem (and therefore its seriousness) is unknown. In one very common disease (meningitis), 24 hours is the difference between 'slight headache' and 'dead'. All of these mean that it's unlikely that we will be able to shop around, or at least do so effectively. I agree, and I suspect that the very factors you outline actually do help control costs at that level. The problem is that the really expensive stuff often doesn't have treatment options, or the options should not be decided on the basis of cost (who wants to half-ass cancer treatment, or re-attaching an arm?). And part of what you're buying is the not-insubstantial skill of the doctor, which is part of what the hospital or practice is selling. Think of CDs - why haven't CD prices come down, in spite of the fact that any company could easily undercut the others and still make assloads of money? Because they have exclusive deals with particular artists, which is what you *really* want, so instead of dropping prices, they just compete to promote their artists. Same thing here, and you can already see it in hospital billboards - instead of competing by lowering costs, they compete by claiming higher quality. There's also the instinctual aspect. Not just the "OMG I'm going to die' part, but the well-documented case that, when presented with two seemingly identical products, humans will chose the *more expensive* one, because they believe cost is indicative of quality. I don't know about you, but I don't know enough people who've had cancer or heart surgery to be able to even guess at the reputation of any doctor in this city. And even if I did, every procedure and patient is different, so unless the difference is massive, it'll be hard to tell who *actually* is better. Should I be worried about the report from a guy who had a long surgery and difficult recovery following coronary bypass if I don't know he had a different configuration of coronary arteries from me (not at all unusual in humans, and how many of use *really* know the layout of our own coronary arteries or other internal organs)? Plus, what about the dead patients? You can't really ask them, can you? But they might not be dead due to incompetence, but rather just due to having a bad case of whatever. I'd trust word-of-mouth reputation if I was shopping for a dermatologist or optician or dentist, but not for a surgeon or oncologist or anything actually *serious* (which is also where the big bucks are).

Here's the latest chapter in the right's slide into the looney bin: Apparently "Optional home-nurse visits" means "OMG Teh Gubment gonna take mah baby!"