The prize committee specifically mentioned Obama's environmental (i.e., global warming) as a main reason they awarded him the prize. In any case, if it is for Obama's nuclear disarmament diplomacy, then award the prize to him 20-30 years down the road when we can see if what he did actually was effective.
Jefferson did found the Democratic Party but his party is more similar to modern Republicans than modern Democrats, although neither is particularly close. The Democratic party was originally a state's rights party - a small central government with limited powers. The earliest "Republicans" were Federalists wanting a strong central government with more restrictions on states. Now the Democrats are the Federalists and the Republicans are, well, Federalists too but more likely to be in favor of the smaller federal government.
That's only one of many versions of creationism and one that I as a Christian do not believe. Creationism refers to any belief that the earth was created by God or a higher intelligence or some greater power. That's it.
Science works. Science is wonderful. There are few bigger proponents of science than I am; however, we also should not discount the benefits of religion or anything else outside of science. Religion is not about increasing how long people live (although as the AC said below, studies show that in the U.S., people who are more religious - everything else being equal, at least as far as we know - they are healthier and live longer than non-religious people do) or how fast they communicate or most of whatever else we get from using science. Your bias with your post was towards science. In it you (inadvertently) discounted the benefits of literature or art or sports or just about anything else. Is science better than agriculture? Depends on how you look at it. Can you use science with your agriculture? Yes but agriculture is not science. That's my point. We can't get so fixated on science - as wonderful as it is - that we lose sight of the good we get from everything else. That's where science becomes a religion of sorts.:)
Ahh, the old troll modding! I guess I wasn't clear enough with my post. I unfortunately do not have the time (or space here) to really explain an alternative to the scientific method - there are alternatives though. People devote their careers to the philosophy of science and I've been studying it on and off for a number of years. What we currently call science is only one of a number of different approaches to knowledge.
At its core, science really is about finding out facts, not truth (I learned this distinction in an epistemology class I had in college - I know many might disagree with it though). We use the words interchangeably a lot but they are not strictly synonymous. But that's mainly semantics for most people.
Anyway, I'm not opposed to the scientific method - it's the foundation of my career! If my post came out as opposed to science or the scientific method or evolution, that was not my purpose; I am not opposed to them at all. I just do not believe science (and the scientific method - they are different things) is perfect - scientists know that but consumers of science often do not. Consumers of science can be brilliant - they can be lawyers or doctors or whatever - but if you are not actively doing science, you often just are not aware of its limitations. Wikipedia actually has pretty decent articles on the history of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method) and an article about the philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science).
That is where I'm coming from. I wasn't trolling, I was offering a brief and somewhat unwieldy philosophical critique of science. If we cannot take the time to question our methods of science and even science itself (again, the scientific method != science; it is the methods of science, not the science itself), then are we not exhibiting faith, even blind faith in science? Some of us take classes where they say "Here is the scientific method now go and do likewise" but how many people take the time (in classes or elsewhere) to understand how the scientific method came to be and why we use it. How many of us question the philosophical foundational assumptions of modern science?
I believe we should use whatever we can to understand truth. It can come from science, philosophy, art, religion, or wherever else. I just do not believe that the scientific if the "best way...to discern the difference [between truth and non-truth]." It's an awesome way but best? That discounts a lot of non-science (and not just religion).
It's not a strawman to refer to people who accept evolution as Darwinists. Besides, many staunch evolutionists (like Richard Dawkins) do profess their belief in "Darwinian evolution" and "Darwinian life" and so forth (see this article by Dawkins {scroll down to his portion of it}: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html).
Dawkins is one of the main faces of anti-Creationism / pro-evolution and he does exhibit Darwin worship. Sure, he's only one person but I've met many like him in their beliefs of evolution.
Further, many people in our world may not worship Darwin but they worship science and have science as their object of faith. Science is great but it is not perfect (I mean both that science is not perfect and the scientific method is not perfect). A study of the philosophy of science and epistemology should help people understand that. We can't get too hung up on evolution because like you said, we've had "almost two centuries of refinements and advancements since [Darwin's] work" and will have many more in the future; we might have discoveries or advancements or refinements that will completely revolutionize and change what we know about evolution!
I'm not anti-evolution; I'm a scientist working in the fields of neuropsychology, neuroscience, and neurobiology but I think it's important to not put too much faith in the scientific method either.
Exactly. All the waste would be kept nicely and safely at Yucca Mountain but certain not-to-be-named politicians have blocked Yucca Mountain over old 1960s and 1970s fears of nuclear power. So right now, as you said, the waste sits on site at nuclear power plants where it is much less safe and secure than it would be at Yucca Mountain.
I recently had an interesting discussion about this with one of the safety engineers who worked on Yucca Mountain. Needless to say, he isn't pleased with certain prominent Senators (and ex-Senators) who have blocked Yucca Mountain.
Actually, research has shown just that. I don't have the reference off the top of my head but it might be hidden under a shoe. Anyway, when patients are told a pill is more expensive than another pill, even if both are placebos, they report that the more expensive pill works better.:)
10'X10' per pig? That's more room than I get and there are 3-4 of us grad students in a room. Of course we all know grad students deserve worse treatment than our food.:)
The 100GB was just a random number. Probably low but then again, probably not. Most people with computers do not have 1TB drives. They are probably running 320GB drives if they have a newish computer.
You are not an "average" user. Most people don't have anywhere close to 22GB of photos or 308GB of video or 23GB of music (do I have a source for that? No. Someone should do a good survey). Even if your parents or grandparents have more than 100GB of user files, that doesn't mean anything. Most people do not have that much. Just because your parents or my parents buy 1.5TB hard drives does not mean a thing about what the "average" person is like.
My main computer is a laptop with 120GB on it (I also have a desktop that my wife primarily uses) and it would have plenty of storage if I didn't do a lot of video editing or processing brain MRI files on it. In other words, if I just took some pictures on a camera and some video occasionally, it would take quite a long time to fill up this 120GB hard drive. Mine is over-full (I have an external storage drive) but that's because, like I said, I do a fair amount of video processing as well as deal with large brain imaging files.
No, actually having 4TB of data is way ahead of the curve. The "standard consumer" has maybe 100GB worth of (non-OS) data on a drive, even if the drive is 1TB.
Actually heterosexuals account for 98% of the population (the other 2% are homosexual {about 1%} and bisexual {about 1%}). Even the most liberal (I'm using that word statistically) estimates place homosexuals + bisexuals at no more than 5% of the population. The old 10% number came from the Kinsey reports and has not been verified since that time. Anyway, just a little FYI.
Technically, all criminal and most civil law is enforcing (legislating) morality. In the U.S. it is mainly the morality stemming from Judeo-Christian religious tradition and values. So what you are really disagreeing with is one particular manner or level of morality enforcement and not that morality is enforced in general. Unless people are true anarchists, they are glad that morality is legislated because it protects them as much as it does others.
If I may offer my opinion as someone who researches cognitive aging and the brain, I think the link (without actually reading the article) is likely due to cerebrovascular factors. People who are overweight often have high or highly varying blood pressure. They also often have arterosclerosis and all sorts of plaque build-up in the blood vessels. Basically their cardiovascular systems in general do not work as efficiently.
The brain is very power hungry. It needs virtually uninterrupted blood flow to function well. People who have reduced blood flow (efficiency) could have lower blood perfusion in the brain. Their neurons may just be slowly starved of enough oxygen and nutrients. People who are overweight are at increased risk for developing strokes, particularly so-called "silent strokes" that might not have apparent effects at first but could over time.
I don't think it's the obesity as much as the cardiovascular issues that are associated with it. I've seen the brains of older adults who have (uncontrolled or long-term) high blood pressure and by and large, they are not pretty. Their white matter is often pretty messed up. They often have larger ventricles (more brain atrophy) and do worse on cognitive tests.
In any case, being overweight is one of the worst things you can do to your overall health. Maybe not now, but in old age overweight (particularly obese) people are going to have a lot of problems - physical and cognitive. Again, I deal not with individuals as much as with groups of people so everything I say should be taken as "on average."
I know the AC was trolling but Republicans on average have higher SES (socioeconomic status) than Democrats do (Subramanian, S. V., & Perkins, J. M. (2009). Are republicans healthier than democrats? International Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/ije/dyp152). Sure, people who live in rural areas tend to be Republican, but people who live in inner-cities tend to be Democrats. As the article I referenced shows, Republicans actually tend to be a little healthier than Democrats (related more to SES than anything else).
American Indians had the wheel. They used it on toys (or religious figures; we're not really sure if the figures are just "toys"): http://www.shields-research.org/Graphics/Wheel/P191p1.jpg. If wheels are on "toys" you could assume they used them on larger objects. Not necessarily but toys in all cultures generally are miniature versions of objects in use.
American Indians built most of their structures and tools out of wood. They used a lot of stone but most things were made out of wood. Wood objects do not last very well over time.
It's true, we don't have a lot of evidence that American Indians used the wheel, although many of them certainly knew what they were. I'll not go into the reasons people give for them not using the wheel but basically it boils down to: we don't know very much about the Indians.
Insightful? Sorry, but that was trolling. There are plenty of religions that "make sense" and plenty that do not. Things being reasonable or logical does not rule out faith.
Slashdot Mirror
The prize committee specifically mentioned Obama's environmental (i.e., global warming) as a main reason they awarded him the prize. In any case, if it is for Obama's nuclear disarmament diplomacy, then award the prize to him 20-30 years down the road when we can see if what he did actually was effective.
You don't need to disclose if you received stuff after the fact but for any future posts, you would need to disclose that you had received "payment".
You are correct but it's a two-way street. Psych issues can cause porn addictions and porn addictions can cause psych issues.
Jefferson did found the Democratic Party but his party is more similar to modern Republicans than modern Democrats, although neither is particularly close. The Democratic party was originally a state's rights party - a small central government with limited powers. The earliest "Republicans" were Federalists wanting a strong central government with more restrictions on states. Now the Democrats are the Federalists and the Republicans are, well, Federalists too but more likely to be in favor of the smaller federal government.
That's only one of many versions of creationism and one that I as a Christian do not believe. Creationism refers to any belief that the earth was created by God or a higher intelligence or some greater power. That's it.
Science works. Science is wonderful. There are few bigger proponents of science than I am; however, we also should not discount the benefits of religion or anything else outside of science. Religion is not about increasing how long people live (although as the AC said below, studies show that in the U.S., people who are more religious - everything else being equal, at least as far as we know - they are healthier and live longer than non-religious people do) or how fast they communicate or most of whatever else we get from using science. Your bias with your post was towards science. In it you (inadvertently) discounted the benefits of literature or art or sports or just about anything else. Is science better than agriculture? Depends on how you look at it. Can you use science with your agriculture? Yes but agriculture is not science. That's my point. We can't get so fixated on science - as wonderful as it is - that we lose sight of the good we get from everything else. That's where science becomes a religion of sorts. :)
I think your post should be modded funny. It made me laugh (in a good way). Thanks for replying even if you were sarcastic. :)
I posted a reply to an AC down below that might help clarify some of my original post. Here's the link to my rely: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1367441&cid=29414563
Ahh, the old troll modding! I guess I wasn't clear enough with my post. I unfortunately do not have the time (or space here) to really explain an alternative to the scientific method - there are alternatives though. People devote their careers to the philosophy of science and I've been studying it on and off for a number of years. What we currently call science is only one of a number of different approaches to knowledge.
At its core, science really is about finding out facts, not truth (I learned this distinction in an epistemology class I had in college - I know many might disagree with it though). We use the words interchangeably a lot but they are not strictly synonymous. But that's mainly semantics for most people.
Anyway, I'm not opposed to the scientific method - it's the foundation of my career! If my post came out as opposed to science or the scientific method or evolution, that was not my purpose; I am not opposed to them at all. I just do not believe science (and the scientific method - they are different things) is perfect - scientists know that but consumers of science often do not. Consumers of science can be brilliant - they can be lawyers or doctors or whatever - but if you are not actively doing science, you often just are not aware of its limitations. Wikipedia actually has pretty decent articles on the history of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method) and an article about the philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science).
That is where I'm coming from. I wasn't trolling, I was offering a brief and somewhat unwieldy philosophical critique of science. If we cannot take the time to question our methods of science and even science itself (again, the scientific method != science; it is the methods of science, not the science itself), then are we not exhibiting faith, even blind faith in science? Some of us take classes where they say "Here is the scientific method now go and do likewise" but how many people take the time (in classes or elsewhere) to understand how the scientific method came to be and why we use it. How many of us question the philosophical foundational assumptions of modern science?
I believe we should use whatever we can to understand truth. It can come from science, philosophy, art, religion, or wherever else. I just do not believe that the scientific if the "best way...to discern the difference [between truth and non-truth]." It's an awesome way but best? That discounts a lot of non-science (and not just religion).
It's not a strawman to refer to people who accept evolution as Darwinists. Besides, many staunch evolutionists (like Richard Dawkins) do profess their belief in "Darwinian evolution" and "Darwinian life" and so forth (see this article by Dawkins {scroll down to his portion of it}: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html).
Dawkins is one of the main faces of anti-Creationism / pro-evolution and he does exhibit Darwin worship. Sure, he's only one person but I've met many like him in their beliefs of evolution.
Further, many people in our world may not worship Darwin but they worship science and have science as their object of faith. Science is great but it is not perfect (I mean both that science is not perfect and the scientific method is not perfect). A study of the philosophy of science and epistemology should help people understand that. We can't get too hung up on evolution because like you said, we've had "almost two centuries of refinements and advancements since [Darwin's] work" and will have many more in the future; we might have discoveries or advancements or refinements that will completely revolutionize and change what we know about evolution!
I'm not anti-evolution; I'm a scientist working in the fields of neuropsychology, neuroscience, and neurobiology but I think it's important to not put too much faith in the scientific method either.
The question is, is it less safe than coal mining? Is it less safe than oil drilling? I bet it's just as safe.
Exactly. All the waste would be kept nicely and safely at Yucca Mountain but certain not-to-be-named politicians have blocked Yucca Mountain over old 1960s and 1970s fears of nuclear power. So right now, as you said, the waste sits on site at nuclear power plants where it is much less safe and secure than it would be at Yucca Mountain.
I recently had an interesting discussion about this with one of the safety engineers who worked on Yucca Mountain. Needless to say, he isn't pleased with certain prominent Senators (and ex-Senators) who have blocked Yucca Mountain.
Actually, research has shown just that. I don't have the reference off the top of my head but it might be hidden under a shoe. Anyway, when patients are told a pill is more expensive than another pill, even if both are placebos, they report that the more expensive pill works better. :)
I always knew there was something I didn't like about elves. Go dwarves! :)
10'X10' per pig? That's more room than I get and there are 3-4 of us grad students in a room. Of course we all know grad students deserve worse treatment than our food. :)
The 100GB was just a random number. Probably low but then again, probably not. Most people with computers do not have 1TB drives. They are probably running 320GB drives if they have a newish computer.
You are not an "average" user. Most people don't have anywhere close to 22GB of photos or 308GB of video or 23GB of music (do I have a source for that? No. Someone should do a good survey). Even if your parents or grandparents have more than 100GB of user files, that doesn't mean anything. Most people do not have that much. Just because your parents or my parents buy 1.5TB hard drives does not mean a thing about what the "average" person is like.
My main computer is a laptop with 120GB on it (I also have a desktop that my wife primarily uses) and it would have plenty of storage if I didn't do a lot of video editing or processing brain MRI files on it. In other words, if I just took some pictures on a camera and some video occasionally, it would take quite a long time to fill up this 120GB hard drive. Mine is over-full (I have an external storage drive) but that's because, like I said, I do a fair amount of video processing as well as deal with large brain imaging files.
No, actually having 4TB of data is way ahead of the curve. The "standard consumer" has maybe 100GB worth of (non-OS) data on a drive, even if the drive is 1TB.
Actually heterosexuals account for 98% of the population (the other 2% are homosexual {about 1%} and bisexual {about 1%}). Even the most liberal (I'm using that word statistically) estimates place homosexuals + bisexuals at no more than 5% of the population. The old 10% number came from the Kinsey reports and has not been verified since that time. Anyway, just a little FYI.
Technically, all criminal and most civil law is enforcing (legislating) morality. In the U.S. it is mainly the morality stemming from Judeo-Christian religious tradition and values. So what you are really disagreeing with is one particular manner or level of morality enforcement and not that morality is enforced in general. Unless people are true anarchists, they are glad that morality is legislated because it protects them as much as it does others.
If I may offer my opinion as someone who researches cognitive aging and the brain, I think the link (without actually reading the article) is likely due to cerebrovascular factors. People who are overweight often have high or highly varying blood pressure. They also often have arterosclerosis and all sorts of plaque build-up in the blood vessels. Basically their cardiovascular systems in general do not work as efficiently.
The brain is very power hungry. It needs virtually uninterrupted blood flow to function well. People who have reduced blood flow (efficiency) could have lower blood perfusion in the brain. Their neurons may just be slowly starved of enough oxygen and nutrients. People who are overweight are at increased risk for developing strokes, particularly so-called "silent strokes" that might not have apparent effects at first but could over time.
I don't think it's the obesity as much as the cardiovascular issues that are associated with it. I've seen the brains of older adults who have (uncontrolled or long-term) high blood pressure and by and large, they are not pretty. Their white matter is often pretty messed up. They often have larger ventricles (more brain atrophy) and do worse on cognitive tests.
In any case, being overweight is one of the worst things you can do to your overall health. Maybe not now, but in old age overweight (particularly obese) people are going to have a lot of problems - physical and cognitive. Again, I deal not with individuals as much as with groups of people so everything I say should be taken as "on average."
Take a few steps back and burn a book.
But at least they die free.
I know the AC was trolling but Republicans on average have higher SES (socioeconomic status) than Democrats do (Subramanian, S. V., & Perkins, J. M. (2009). Are republicans healthier than democrats? International Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/ije/dyp152). Sure, people who live in rural areas tend to be Republican, but people who live in inner-cities tend to be Democrats. As the article I referenced shows, Republicans actually tend to be a little healthier than Democrats (related more to SES than anything else).
American Indians had the wheel. They used it on toys (or religious figures; we're not really sure if the figures are just "toys"): http://www.shields-research.org/Graphics/Wheel/P191p1.jpg. If wheels are on "toys" you could assume they used them on larger objects. Not necessarily but toys in all cultures generally are miniature versions of objects in use.
They also drew pictures of wheels: http://www.shields-research.org/Graphics/Wheel/P192p1.jpg
They even made larger wheel-type objects that might have been use on carts: http://www.shields-research.org/Graphics/Wheel/P195p1.jpg
American Indians built most of their structures and tools out of wood. They used a lot of stone but most things were made out of wood. Wood objects do not last very well over time.
It's true, we don't have a lot of evidence that American Indians used the wheel, although many of them certainly knew what they were. I'll not go into the reasons people give for them not using the wheel but basically it boils down to: we don't know very much about the Indians.
Insightful? Sorry, but that was trolling. There are plenty of religions that "make sense" and plenty that do not. Things being reasonable or logical does not rule out faith.