It was a 1 hour guided tour group through a National Park, it was unusual for the moose to be that close to the "human" area of the park. As such, no food or anything else that would attract it was on hand. It was just 20 feet off the path eating as we passed. I stayed behind in a tree and was whistling to it which caught it's interest. It got within 10 feet and then I set off to rejoin the group... when I looked back it was trotting after me, the faster I ran the faster it got.
No pamphlet - he just said if that ever happens again, to go back to where I was - ie: hug a tree and they won't be able to distinguish you from it. Or turn around an swear/yell at it until it goes away;)
Moose have terrible eye sight, if you're up wind of them they get curious as to what you are and can run you down unintentionally. I learned this the hard way in Gross Mourne when one chased me down a trail - would have run me over had it not been for the park ranger who scared it away (took 2 tries, after the first try it came back and started running at us again). It was not-rutting season and it was a female.
Gene detection means squat when it comes to intelligence or the positive impact it can have. Intelligence, even in a given area, means nothing without the ability to make use of it in a meaningful way.
My family would likely be ones that have the intelligence gene (there's no way to say that without it sounding like bragging/ego, it's really not meant that way). I believe that based on a number of factors, including the level of participation of extended family members in their respective fields, psycho-educational testing where scores are in the 90th+ percentiles, etc. What that intelligence gene wouldn't show is the impact it can have. Combined with the intelligence in my family comes issues with depression, ADHD, bipolar disorder, failure to recognize/interpret social indicators (partly related to ADHD), isolationist tendencies, etc. Those might be local to our genetics, however, the "absent minded professor", "genius idiot", "troubled genius", etc. stereotype exists for a reason.
For every major success in my family there's a major failure to launch, meaning they have a really hard time getting careers/life going despite what testing suggests. In my family I am one of the latter group. My Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale tests (professionally administered) showed exceptional PRI scores like 98th percentile matrix reasoning & 97th percentile visual working memory and some truly horrible WMI/PSI scores as low as the 9th percentile. For me this has resulted in problems in school, friction in social arenas, bankruptcy, and currently: driving a forklift for a living. I have diagnosed & fixed a code efficiency problem in code that had been under constant optimizations for over 3 years, in a language I've never used, without seeing more than an outline of the original code, in less than an hour. Unfortunately that ability means nothing when working memory doesn't allow me to keep method names/etc in my head. It's akin to having the latest greatest processor with a tiny amount of RAM - the OS takes up most of the RAM and everything that's left is dedicated to the problem at hand - every time something else needs that space something important gets pushed out. Sometimes that's remembering to sleep/eat, others it's any concept of time, and mostly it's the "unimportant" details like method names/attributes/outputs (information that I can look up any time and isn't essential to the abstract core of a thing).
Point is, just because you can identify a gene and manipulate it to get better scores on testing doesn't mean it's going to result in something "better".
I'm rather confused - according to the article Nigeria and Senegal are supposed to be clearing up... yet according to the Ebola map there are 3 new cases in Nigeria and 2 in Senegal.
The same argument holds true the other way. Just because the physical world has a set of rules (even if we don't understand them yet) there's nothing that precludes a "god" (whatever that may be in your view) from being able to alter those rules at will.
You obviously lack an understanding of science. While it's true that there's not a lot science can prove, there's some and sometimes more importantly what it can disprove.
Poor grammar on my part, my apologies. "It" in the previous comment was not meant to refer to statistics itself but rather anything that uses statistics to prove something. At some point, whatever that subject is, must be proven scientifically but until we're able to do so statistics acts as a 'best guess' but is not actual proof. Example: a psychological study of a group cannot prove anything about any given individual.
Honestly, I view statistics as the belief system of science. It can't be proven yet but in the mean time it's believed because of the likelyhood it can be proven.
Absolutely true. And even though science can disprove the 6k Earth it doesn't mean everything else in religious texts is false. While I don't proscribe to a religion I also don't proscribe to invalidating religion - even if certain elements are suspect that doesn't degrade some lessons to be learned from the texts - faith or not.
Because people don't understand that science is built on experimentation, they don't understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment.
This was my point in the other discussion. If you can take a test and replicate it to get a consistent result that is scientific. Psychological studies can never truly be reproducible because of the diversity of humanity.
Religion and science can co-exist if people stopped attributing religious or anti-religious views to science. Science makes no claims about religion and they are not mutually exclusive. When atheists are asked "well, if you don't believe in religion what do you believe in" - they'll often erroneously say "science". Science is not a belief system though it may cause claims of religion to be called into question example: Jesus walking on water. To our current understanding of science this is not possible unaided. Maybe it was a hoax, maybe it was a divine being, maybe it wasn't a literal claim - science doesn't know, that's for people to examine or accept on faith (as part of a religion or otherwise).
Science needs to be separated from anti-religious ideology.
[facepalm] - The article made no such claim. The claim was that they shared a view that "science was like magic" - which both of them have been quoted as saying. That's the only comparison that was being made between the two - you're reading way more into it than it actually says.
Doing experiments on something does not require physical presence. And most of what we think we "know" has not been proven yet in a scientific manner. It's likely provable, but could be completely misunderstood and only the observable effects are common between what we think we know and what is provable.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a 1 hour guided tour group through a National Park, it was unusual for the moose to be that close to the "human" area of the park. As such, no food or anything else that would attract it was on hand. It was just 20 feet off the path eating as we passed. I stayed behind in a tree and was whistling to it which caught it's interest. It got within 10 feet and then I set off to rejoin the group... when I looked back it was trotting after me, the faster I ran the faster it got.
No pamphlet - he just said if that ever happens again, to go back to where I was - ie: hug a tree and they won't be able to distinguish you from it. Or turn around an swear/yell at it until it goes away ;)
Moose have terrible eye sight, if you're up wind of them they get curious as to what you are and can run you down unintentionally. I learned this the hard way in Gross Mourne when one chased me down a trail - would have run me over had it not been for the park ranger who scared it away (took 2 tries, after the first try it came back and started running at us again). It was not-rutting season and it was a female.
Gene detection means squat when it comes to intelligence or the positive impact it can have. Intelligence, even in a given area, means nothing without the ability to make use of it in a meaningful way.
My family would likely be ones that have the intelligence gene (there's no way to say that without it sounding like bragging/ego, it's really not meant that way). I believe that based on a number of factors, including the level of participation of extended family members in their respective fields, psycho-educational testing where scores are in the 90th+ percentiles, etc. What that intelligence gene wouldn't show is the impact it can have. Combined with the intelligence in my family comes issues with depression, ADHD, bipolar disorder, failure to recognize/interpret social indicators (partly related to ADHD), isolationist tendencies, etc. Those might be local to our genetics, however, the "absent minded professor", "genius idiot", "troubled genius", etc. stereotype exists for a reason.
For every major success in my family there's a major failure to launch, meaning they have a really hard time getting careers/life going despite what testing suggests. In my family I am one of the latter group. My Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale tests (professionally administered) showed exceptional PRI scores like 98th percentile matrix reasoning & 97th percentile visual working memory and some truly horrible WMI/PSI scores as low as the 9th percentile. For me this has resulted in problems in school, friction in social arenas, bankruptcy, and currently: driving a forklift for a living. I have diagnosed & fixed a code efficiency problem in code that had been under constant optimizations for over 3 years, in a language I've never used, without seeing more than an outline of the original code, in less than an hour. Unfortunately that ability means nothing when working memory doesn't allow me to keep method names/etc in my head. It's akin to having the latest greatest processor with a tiny amount of RAM - the OS takes up most of the RAM and everything that's left is dedicated to the problem at hand - every time something else needs that space something important gets pushed out. Sometimes that's remembering to sleep/eat, others it's any concept of time, and mostly it's the "unimportant" details like method names/attributes/outputs (information that I can look up any time and isn't essential to the abstract core of a thing).
Point is, just because you can identify a gene and manipulate it to get better scores on testing doesn't mean it's going to result in something "better".
What Windows OS are you using? Mine sucks.
Neither is making the entire post bold :P
I'm rather confused - according to the article Nigeria and Senegal are supposed to be clearing up... yet according to the Ebola map there are 3 new cases in Nigeria and 2 in Senegal.
BOLD! I MUST BE BOLD!
The same argument holds true the other way. Just because the physical world has a set of rules (even if we don't understand them yet) there's nothing that precludes a "god" (whatever that may be in your view) from being able to alter those rules at will.
Go back to grade school and you can learn all about it.
You obviously lack an understanding of science. While it's true that there's not a lot science can prove, there's some and sometimes more importantly what it can disprove.
Canadians are smarter than trying to play whack-a-mole. We just go after the money.
Reject? No. Make a distinction between saying something is proven scientifically or not? Absolutely.
Poor grammar on my part, my apologies. "It" in the previous comment was not meant to refer to statistics itself but rather anything that uses statistics to prove something. At some point, whatever that subject is, must be proven scientifically but until we're able to do so statistics acts as a 'best guess' but is not actual proof. Example: a psychological study of a group cannot prove anything about any given individual.
Honestly, I view statistics as the belief system of science. It can't be proven yet but in the mean time it's believed because of the likelyhood it can be proven.
Absolutely true. And even though science can disprove the 6k Earth it doesn't mean everything else in religious texts is false. While I don't proscribe to a religion I also don't proscribe to invalidating religion - even if certain elements are suspect that doesn't degrade some lessons to be learned from the texts - faith or not.
Technically, that's just theory that hasn't been proven by science yet ;)
https://imgur.com/Mt35hob
This was my point in the other discussion
Odd, as you make entirely different points in the other discussion. Perhaps you should review your old posts to see why you were (rightly) thrashed.
I think I know my own points. Thanks for your input though.
Because people don't understand that science is built on experimentation, they don't understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment.
This was my point in the other discussion. If you can take a test and replicate it to get a consistent result that is scientific. Psychological studies can never truly be reproducible because of the diversity of humanity.
Religion and science can co-exist if people stopped attributing religious or anti-religious views to science. Science makes no claims about religion and they are not mutually exclusive. When atheists are asked "well, if you don't believe in religion what do you believe in" - they'll often erroneously say "science". Science is not a belief system though it may cause claims of religion to be called into question example: Jesus walking on water. To our current understanding of science this is not possible unaided. Maybe it was a hoax, maybe it was a divine being, maybe it wasn't a literal claim - science doesn't know, that's for people to examine or accept on faith (as part of a religion or otherwise).
Science needs to be separated from anti-religious ideology.
[facepalm] - The article made no such claim. The claim was that they shared a view that "science was like magic" - which both of them have been quoted as saying. That's the only comparison that was being made between the two - you're reading way more into it than it actually says.
What article are you reading? The part about psychology supports what I was saying completely.
Ad hominem arguments are pointless.
I still don't see the relevance to my comment but ok.
I would not disagree with your comment, but am perplexed as to its relevance.
Doing experiments on something does not require physical presence. And most of what we think we "know" has not been proven yet in a scientific manner. It's likely provable, but could be completely misunderstood and only the observable effects are common between what we think we know and what is provable.