I think your post deserves a serious answer, so I'm wasting the moderation points I've spent in this discussion.
Without a flood how do you explain these polystrate fossils [wikipedia.org]. If each layer of rock took millions of years to lay down then why is the fossil present in more than one layer.
You're right, those fossils may have been caused by a flood. There is, however, no reason to believe there was a world-wide flood. If there were, ALL fossil strata would look like that - fossils being jumbled together randomly would be the rule, not the exception.
Even Leonardo da Vinci noted, back in the 15th century, that the shells you can find high up in the mountains were not jumbled together randomly, as if carried there by a flood, but layered neatly, as if the mountain had once laid at the bottom of an ocean and then slowly risen up.
Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be false, the literal biblical account still doesn't hold up to the facts. And why should it? After all, Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God, not written by God.
It might still be easy to guess what institutions people come from from context, or even guess who the applicant is, especially if it's a small, specialised field.
The people making the ratings would need to be experts in the sub-field in question. I live in a country with a population of 9 million, and many research fields are so small the researchers know each other by name, and can easily guess who's written an application even if names of people and institutions are removed.
Maybe it would work in a country with a population of 300 million+, though - I'm not sure.
Because the prejudices are different against different races.
So are they saying ALL peer reviewers got it in for the black man?
No, it only becomes visible when you take the average of a large number of applications.
Oh and what about women? Science is old men, how are papers with female names rated?
Don't know about America, but here in Sweden, there was a study conducted which showed that male researchers tended to get significantly more acceptances than female researchers with comparable numbers of citations (citations being the most objective measure we can find on how qualified a researcher is).
If the chance for a white player to get an NFL contract was lower than for a black player currently playing at the same level, then yes, it would be a sign of racial discrimination. Because when they're playing at the same level, they've already passed through the same filters and should, on average, have the same skills.
Even if the grants process is biased by race, it doesn't have to mean the scientific community is consciously racist.
Granting research money involves making subjective judgments, like judging how competent someone seems, how likely you think they are to carry out the experiment successfully, and so on. Subjective judgments are, at best, only partially based on rational thought. The rest is based on the images which are active in your mind when you're making the judgment. For example, when reading someone's application, the name of the applicant, the name of their school, the fact that their papers are well-cited, and so on, all conjure up images which contribute to how the reader feels about the applicant. The thing is, the person making the judgment is usually not aware of which images contribute to the feeling, so it's easy for irrelevant factors to slip in. I don't think it'd be very surprising if race made a difference here.
How would you do that? Sit down with a pile of applications and rate them on a scale from 1 to 100? There's no way to do that objectively.
We can't explain this with lower IQ among the black population, since the people who have become research scientists have already gone through their education and should, on average, be as competent as their colleagues. You could possibly blame it on positive discrimination - i.e, treating black students more leniently because of fear of being racist - but that's seems to me to be just as big an assumption as assuming the grants are racist.
Interesting, but I think the bible-belt examples somewhat contradict the theory that it's all about maximising profit. Sure, the religious right use money to influence politicians, but it's just a means to an end. The goal of the religious right has more to do with ideology and power.
FYI: In Europe, it's generally legal to secretly record a conversation if at least one of the participants is aware of the recording. You don't need explicit consent, and the participant can be yourself.
Again, I'm not saying these cops where in the right. They all were wrong to a certain degree and all needed to be punished. I'm just not exactly sure what you expect his punishment should be.
I agree with you morally. It just seems that the law is unreasonably harsh for civilians who do the same - stand by while their friend beats someone up before they realise what's happening - and the law needs to be consistent.
Perhaps the better solution is to define "accessory" more stringently for everyone.
I made a blog post about in in spanish a year or two ago, were I stated the premise that governments always try to profit the most out of people and all they do is try to maximize it, they will not prevent any kind of crime if it allows them to profit more than actually preventing it.
How do you explain that marijuana is outlawed? Why don't they just tax it?
There's more to a good book than the story. A good writer can create nuanced characters, vivid descriptions, double meanings, things going on between the characters under the surface, and so on. On the second reading, you don't need to spend as much effort on following the story and can pay more attention to the other content.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your post deserves a serious answer, so I'm wasting the moderation points I've spent in this discussion.
Without a flood how do you explain these polystrate fossils [wikipedia.org]. If each layer of rock took millions of years to lay down then why is the fossil present in more than one layer.
You're right, those fossils may have been caused by a flood. There is, however, no reason to believe there was a world-wide flood. If there were, ALL fossil strata would look like that - fossils being jumbled together randomly would be the rule, not the exception.
Even Leonardo da Vinci noted, back in the 15th century, that the shells you can find high up in the mountains were not jumbled together randomly, as if carried there by a flood, but layered neatly, as if the mountain had once laid at the bottom of an ocean and then slowly risen up.
Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be false, the literal biblical account still doesn't hold up to the facts. And why should it? After all, Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God, not written by God.
Don't be too harsh; at least he tried to use the right word, instead of calling everything a metaphor, like most people.
It warms an old grammar nazi's heart, doesn't it?
asking that you give them a dollar for distributing someone else's work
There, fixed that for ya.
I wonder if it's possible to formulate those reasoning skills in general terms and teach them, or if it's just talent.
It might still be easy to guess what institutions people come from from context, or even guess who the applicant is, especially if it's a small, specialised field.
That's true.
The people making the ratings would need to be experts in the sub-field in question. I live in a country with a population of 9 million, and many research fields are so small the researchers know each other by name, and can easily guess who's written an application even if names of people and institutions are removed.
Maybe it would work in a country with a population of 300 million+, though - I'm not sure.
How come asians do well then? Hispanics?
Because the prejudices are different against different races.
So are they saying ALL peer reviewers got it in for the black man?
No, it only becomes visible when you take the average of a large number of applications.
Oh and what about women? Science is old men, how are papers with female names rated?
Don't know about America, but here in Sweden, there was a study conducted which showed that male researchers tended to get significantly more acceptances than female researchers with comparable numbers of citations (citations being the most objective measure we can find on how qualified a researcher is).
That's one of the most insightful comments I've seen on Slashdot.
If the chance for a white player to get an NFL contract was lower than for a black player currently playing at the same level, then yes, it would be a sign of racial discrimination. Because when they're playing at the same level, they've already passed through the same filters and should, on average, have the same skills.
Que? The result is statisticially significant with a margin, which means it's very unlikely it's due to chance alone.
You'll have to come up with a better explanation than that.
Even if the grants process is biased by race, it doesn't have to mean the scientific community is consciously racist.
Granting research money involves making subjective judgments, like judging how competent someone seems, how likely you think they are to carry out the experiment successfully, and so on. Subjective judgments are, at best, only partially based on rational thought. The rest is based on the images which are active in your mind when you're making the judgment. For example, when reading someone's application, the name of the applicant, the name of their school, the fact that their papers are well-cited, and so on, all conjure up images which contribute to how the reader feels about the applicant. The thing is, the person making the judgment is usually not aware of which images contribute to the feeling, so it's easy for irrelevant factors to slip in. I don't think it'd be very surprising if race made a difference here.
How would you do that? Sit down with a pile of applications and rate them on a scale from 1 to 100? There's no way to do that objectively.
We can't explain this with lower IQ among the black population, since the people who have become research scientists have already gone through their education and should, on average, be as competent as their colleagues. You could possibly blame it on positive discrimination - i.e, treating black students more leniently because of fear of being racist - but that's seems to me to be just as big an assumption as assuming the grants are racist.
But China seems determined to take over that position.
Also, some protestant churches in Europe also use the term "priest". I know the Church of Sweden (former State Church of Sweden) does.
Thanks, that's interesting.
Interesting, but I think the bible-belt examples somewhat contradict the theory that it's all about maximising profit. Sure, the religious right use money to influence politicians, but it's just a means to an end. The goal of the religious right has more to do with ideology and power.
I think the USA has done some good too, but yes, I agree you should save yourselves the expense and trouble helping people who don't want your help.
FYI: In Europe, it's generally legal to secretly record a conversation if at least one of the participants is aware of the recording. You don't need explicit consent, and the participant can be yourself.
Again, I'm not saying these cops where in the right. They all were wrong to a certain degree and all needed to be punished. I'm just not exactly sure what you expect his punishment should be.
I agree with you morally. It just seems that the law is unreasonably harsh for civilians who do the same - stand by while their friend beats someone up before they realise what's happening - and the law needs to be consistent.
Perhaps the better solution is to define "accessory" more stringently for everyone.
I made a blog post about in in spanish a year or two ago, were I stated the premise that governments always try to profit the most out of people and all they do is try to maximize it, they will not prevent any kind of crime if it allows them to profit more than actually preventing it.
How do you explain that marijuana is outlawed? Why don't they just tax it?
Irregardless, the expression is fundamentally wrongly.
There's more to a good book than the story. A good writer can create nuanced characters, vivid descriptions, double meanings, things going on between the characters under the surface, and so on. On the second reading, you don't need to spend as much effort on following the story and can pay more attention to the other content.
I get it - it's like a sales pitch.
Or they're good writers who were contractually obliged to make two sequels regardless of whether they had time, ideas or inclination to write them.