CharonY

There have been numerous surveys among natural scientists back in the 90s and 2000s, when teaching evolution was heavily attacked by the conservative establishment in the US. The overall trend was overall lower religiosity when compared to the average population, but also interesting trends depending on discipline. IIRC the questions were more general, like "do you consider yourself religious" rather than asking things specific to a system (e.g. god or gods).

I believe biologists had the lowest number of religious folks whereas, mathematicians and medical folks had higher. I am sure they must still be available somewhere. 

I see what you mean. I think ecologists do make some distinction here in as the primary producers are fairly easy clear in a hierarchy, an often messy mid-layer of consumers of various sorts and the loop is closed by detrivores and decomposers. But then, ecologists are weird. I suppose all the fresh air gets into their head.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

See my previous post.  And learn about trophic cascades.  The chain is more like a loop, where autotrophs and heterotrophs interact in complex ways.  Please read all replies, you can learn a lot.  

This is not really my field of study, but it is really not necessarily like that. There is an hierarchical order which can be measured, e.g. by isotope ratio mass spectrometry. The lowest trophic level are occupied by autotrophs and are also called primary producers. They are frequently plants but also algae, and certain autotrophic organisms (including photosynthetic and chemotrophic bacteria). On top are various trophic levels occupied by heterotrophs, (which ecologists call consumers) and another missing category are organisms that mineralize organic matter (I believe they are called decomposers).

But obviously any food web consists of more than animal and plants (and might not have either).

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Delusion connotes mental illness.

Not necessarily. Delusion can be a symptom of mental conditions, but they do not have to be. 

It doesn't. There are many topics you can explore, discuss and/or ask about. It is just unlikely that you will find support for supposedly paradigm-changing insights without providing equivalent evidence, if that is your sole motivation.

Science is in its core a learning process. Most scientists approach questions with a learning mindset. Starting with an "I got all the answers" mindset just runs contrary to how science works and yes, for that purpose this is likely the wrong forum.

48 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I listen to these fine people, because they know more than I, but the point is: how can I present a different perspective without toppling the apple cart? I thought that this was also part of science.

The first thing to do is present clearly what the apple cart is. I.e. provide a clear understanding of the current understanding what is the current mainstream understanding of a topic and not the pop sci or a misunderstood version of it. From there you can point out specific issues. Not just handwavy opinions, but data that suggest serious issues with the prevailing model (and again, this requires a good understanding of the current model). From there you could present publications of alternate views and highlight how those are an improvement over the prevailing one (e.g. better predictions, fewer conflicts with available data and so on). The problem is that this generally requires a fairly detailed knowledge of the current scientific state of knowledge. Reading a few articles here and there won't provide that.

Remember, models were built iteratively by hundreds, if not thousands of specialists on the given topics, and toppling that requires hard work and expertise, which is unlikely obtained within a few years without formal training in the basics.

Just having a different perspective with not explanatory power is not scientific or even useful. I could propose an unlimited number of ways to categorize species, but we keep using a handful (sometimes conflicting) ones which, even if flawed, have been useful in specific contexts. You have so far not made a case how your viewpoint adds anything to the discussion, nor are the critiques specific enough that would indicate a need in a paradigm shift.

While you have cited some folks, much of the arguments you derive from them appear to be your interpretation and/or extrapolations which do not really relate with the actual scientific discourse. 

Paradigm changes are big things and the effort of tons of work. And there are always folks who think that they can provide that without putting in the work. I suggest not being one of them.

While there are studies out there suggesting strategies to convince folks of, well, reality, the issue is really that folks are bombarded by factoids to a degree that actual facts matter very little. Together with a general decline in the trust in experts (and yes, the term itself is complicated, but let's pretend it refers to folks with objective expertise in the matter) this results almost innumerable parallel realities.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

The only ones I fear are the religious delusional nutbars running Iran, if they get nukes. They will use them, and Israel will respond; not proportionately either

Interesting that you mentioned Iran, the recent exchange between Israel and Iran really looks like muted saber rattling, where either side is not that willing to escalate (in Netanyahu's case it appeared because of US intervention).

55 minutes ago, joigus said:

Plants do cellular respiration too. It's only that they are nowhere nearly as energy-demanding as animals are.

Plants have mitochondria, not just plastids. They do 'produce'.

Google for: "animals have many more mitochondria than plants"...

This is actually not the point, though. Generally speaking, the terms producers and consumers are typically used in the context of food webs. A more technical term would be trophic level. Autotrophs (basically organisms able to utilize inorganic carbon) that are consumed by heterotrophs are considered producers.

In this context, a venus fly trap that consumes insects would not be considered a producer, as they are obtaining carbon from other organisms. Or to put it simpler, it is not so much the inherent ability of an organism that is described with these terms, but rather their position in a given food web. The same organism could be placed in different position, if the composition of the food web shifts.

13 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

would be very surprised  that biologists were not influenced by Dawkins, but you have a better understanding of this than I. Also, non-biologists are taking these cues from biologists to reinforce their assumptions. Then non-biologists form their own assumptions, which influences biologists; unless you are trying to tell me that biologists are un influençable! We are all biased and these biasses permeate all of our being. It’s what we call an echo chamber. We are not impervious to this

This statement is so broad so that it is basically meaningless. But the worst part is that it fundamentally misunderstands what science attempts to do. Because bias is an important concern, natural sciences tries to set up systems that is data-driven and testable. This process ideally removes the individual from the equation as anyone else can in theory replicate experiments and test the models accordingly. It matters little if someone writes a book that is immensely popular, or not. We do not blindly follow arguments, as you seem to do. Or follow superficial tendencies we believe to perceive. If we think something is off with a model, we design experiments that might violate the model and look at the outcome. 

18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science. I persist in saying that there is a prevailing negative undertone in science.

Pop sci is a simplification and often gets things wrong as a consequence. Especially as the writers frequently lack the deeper understanding to recognize important nuances. If you get your vibe from those, you clearly are looking at a tiny, simplified version of science and extrapolate that massively.

20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 So if the conversation that we are having would not have occurred, would you be acknowledging that the larger context is missing or that you would be aware of the undertone that prevails?

I think you do not realize the amount of specialization that occurs in individual studies. If you wanted to squeeze in the whole complexity of biology in every study, each paper would be at minimum a few thousand pages. That does not make any practical sense. There is no undertone, but rather each study sets up a specific context in which it explores aspects. If you do not realize that your overall assessment of science is clearly flawed.

18 hours ago, MigL said:

Proportional response is highly over-rated.

Deterrence of any particular action depends on the realization that the consequences could far outweigh any benefit.
If I steal $100, and my only punishment is a $100 fine, I'm no worse off than I initially was, so I may as well attempt it.

There is a difference in equivalent response and punitive proportionality. Also I don't think that it makes a lot of sense to trying to translate criminal justice to diplomatic relationships.

Even worse, the literature on deterrence (going back a long time) shows not simple relationship between punishment and deterrence. But where the largest agreement is that punishment works best as deterrent on minor crime, whereas the effect in violent crime has almost no relationship to the severity of punishment (up and including death sentences). Likely because many of these acts are not part of rational decision-making.  

37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The Dawkins impact on mainstream biology could have been rather muted, but his impact on the science community as whole was significant.

That is certainly not the experience I have. And I am not sure what in your mind the difference between mainstream biology and the science community is in this context. Do you mean non-biologists? That might be true. But then it wouldn't be their field now, would it.

37 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

In the scientific literature that I read, there is a strong nature undertone.

This is so generic that is says nothing. Rather obviously if you read a molecular genetics paper on cells, it is rather obvious you will see little in terms of larger physiological context of the organism. The field of biological sciences is vast- and asserting some type of specific undertone without working in an area is very difficult.

Edit: crossposted, removed repetition.

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not talking about inheritance for now. I am talking about the prevalent mindset that we have no control over our lives because of our genes. "Doom and gloom" scenarios are prevalent in science and being percolated down to the public all the time. It is easy to acknowledge the fatality of it all, but when it comes to having at least a bit of regognition of our control over our lifetime destiny, then the talk is less forthcoming.

As far as I can remember this has never been the case in scientific circles. I remember back in high school a bit about nurture vs nature discussions, but first semester university pretty much demolished that idea. Again, popular science vs actual science.

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I stongly disagree that Dawkins did not have a significant impact on the scientific community as a whole. It reinforced already prevalent assumptions.

And you are basing it on what? As far as I can tell, Dawkins mostly wrote popular science books and I have seen him mostly cited in essay-like articles, but not really in actual original works, for example. I suspect there was more impact in areas where biology and sociology or philosophy shortly overlapped (such as the short-ish attempt at establishing sociobiology). But the impact on mainstream biology was rather muted. At best it gave us some ways to communicate certain concepts to the public. But again, I think it is the difference between a laypersons view and what is actual happening among science circles. 

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Trivial? This is an entirely different worldview than what was being promulgated. Maybe most physiologists and system biologists have come to the realization that the genome holds limited capacity, but the worldview that they espouse and communicate has not "adapted" to this change in circumstance. The way in which you responded to my latest post is testament to this.

No, your quotes are mostly about function and do not show much of a link regarding inheritance.  Function arises from interplay (obviously) it is  it is not the interplay that visitors inheritance. If you got cancer your kids won't necessarily inheritmit. But they could inherit a higher likelihood of getting cancer.

dawkins had more impact on popular rather than professional science, and I think we are still discussing the former.

Most of thar is fairly trivial and it is missing a fair bit of nuance. But most physiologist and systems biologist have long realized that except for simple functions the genome holds limited capacity. Only in conjunction with a given cellular environment does physiology and function happen.

That being said, the genetic background is still the major, though no longer exclusive element of inheritance which is a different level of functionality. Dismissing one aspect due to evidence of another does not make sense.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Most people recognize the difference between an unprovoked action, and a re-action to it.
If you walk up to me and punch me in the face, no one will fault me for breaking your arm in response.
( not implying you would; you seem a nice enough person 🙂 )

It's brutal, but it's reality; if you don't want the consequences, don't do any harm to others.

There is the aspect of proportionality, however. If someone punched you and you eat their liver in response, it may raise eyebrows.

6 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

On the other hand, why do you say that, are you religious?

What does it have to do with anything? I say that because scientific terms have specific meanings. Or don't you think that in the context of public health a pandemic affecting birds is the same as a pandemic affecting humans? 

I mean for an ecological discussion this would be a alright starting point, but certainly not if the context is public health, which is assumed if one mentions the WHO.

Edit: perhaps that is what you are confused about. In the medical field (other than veterinary medicine) the baseline is the effect on humans. Hence, if public health officials talk about pandemics or outbreaks, they imply outbreaks and pandemic affecting humans. But if they talk about zoonotic events, the movements of animals becomes relevant (e.g. to outline that human risk is not localized). This is in fact what the article is saying, they the virus is widespread as it is an animal pandemic (widespread in animals). If the health officer had said that it was a "pandemic" without the animal qualifier, the assumption would be large spread in human population over wide geographic areas. I cannot believe that it took so many posts to emphasize that.

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Have you also noticed that most of the historical sources that credit the bombings ending the war come from the USA? 

So, both, the traditionalist camp (i.e. the bomb resulted in capitulation) as well as the revisionist camp had prominent US scholars. For example the American historian Aleperovitz wrote (to my knowledge) one of the first publications arguing that the use of the bomb was ultimately a strategy toward the Soviet Union.

Funnily as student I was more familiar with the revisionist school of thought, as the lectures I attended were led by a very prominent (I was not aware of it at that time) scholar who was a proponent it. Which kind of shows how a perspective is heavily influenced where you go to school. 

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

The term is not from me, the person responsible for the UN on these issues has called it a pandemic. That's the news.

23 hours ago, CharonY said:

They said it was an animal pandemic, as in it is a pandemic among animals (specifically birds). It is not a human pandemic

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

But it is currently an animal pandemic as opposed to a human pandemic.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Using these definitions in OP refers to an animal pandemic (i.e. a large number of animals affected over a large area), but it is not a human pandemic,

Gosh, I must say either I am not communicating clearly or you have to increase your reading comprehension. He said it is an animal pandemic.  Do you understand the difference if he only said "pandemic" without the qualifier?

Or in other words, do you think that we can use the terms animal pandemic and pandemic in the given context interchangeably? 

18 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

What I found is that the difference could be explained by the greater proportion of muscle mass of the Hadza, although there is the possibility that there is an extra expenditure for exercise of approximately 8% of the total calories burned in 24 hours.

The TEE is dependent on fat-free body mass and Hadza adults are not only leaner, but are also smaller. Specifically the component relating to fat-free body mass is the BMR. In the cited study TEE was measured, but BMR was calculated based on equation given by a paper by Henry (2007), which include age, body weight, height and sex. Physical activity was estimated as TEE/ calculated BMR. So body fat is not measured or otherwise included, from what I can tell. 

Just now, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Of course, it is a zoonotic pandemic that has no human-to-human transmission. But it's also not the opposite of usual or routine, unless you're suggesting that the WHO is being alarmist.

You are missing my point entirely. I am saying you keep mixing up terms and using them in a wrong way. What we have here are zoonotic outbreaks, not pandemics. I.e. if you changed the word in the above quote, you would be accurate. Calling it pandemic in this context is just wrong from a technical viewpoint. 

And every potential jump from animal influenza to humans is worrisome, regardless of scope. The reason is that it keeps mixing in animals, including farm animals and there is a chance of new variants that might be able to spread human to human. An important example was the 2009 swine flu pandemic, where H1N1 jumped to human (and pig-human is an expected route due to many similarities between these species) and spread from human to human. 

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Maybe I didn't know how to present the idea. But, it seems to me that this zoonotic pandemic thing is not something that happens every weekend either.

You keep mixing up concepts (or using them in a bit sloppy manner) which confused matters a fair bit. To clarify things here are some rough definitions and relevant context.

Zoonotic disease: infectious disease that can cross from non-humans to humans. They are very common and happen certainly more frequently than once a weekend. A very common infection is for example salmonellosis.

Pandemic: generally refers to wide spread of an epidemic crossing international boundaries (especially spanning continents) and typically affecting large-ish number of people. It does not refer, for example, to severity. 

Using these definitions in OP refers to an animal pandemic (i.e. a large number of animals affected over a large area), but it is not a human pandemic, as there are only few jumps to humans. Any zoonotic infection can be a source of worry as mutations over time could lead to human to human infections (such as the case with swine flu and SARS-CoV-2 and ebola) but certainly it cannot be a human pandemic at the current state.

Yes of course, zoonotic disease are an ongoing concern. COVID-19 was one. It is just not a pandemic as COVID-19 is, as suggested in OP.

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

I would quibble slightly with this, in that there is also the matter of surviving long enough to actually reproduce, although I think high reproduction rates definitely are a major positive contributor to a species survival in most cases.

Actually that part is included in term "reproductive success".

No, it is a zoonotic disease as in there have been limited incidences in the spread from animal to human. That part is correct. But it is currently an animal pandemic as opposed to a human pandemic.