The funny thing is that I recently went to a lecture by a nuclear physicist; he said nuclear as "nucular" but wasn't mispronouncing it on purpose; it's just how he said it. If it's good enough for a physicist, it's good enough for M-W.;)
Diesel hasn't been cheaper than regular gas in the U.S. since the 90s or early 2000s. I remember when I was young diesel was always cheaper but now it is always more. There might be some places in the U.S. where diesel is cheaper but I haven't see that in a long time.
Squatting on a tree branch might disturb bugs or damage the bark. It might also damage mossy growth. It's best just to get rid of all humans. After all, only humans are evil and damage the environment. [Yes, I'm being sarcastic].:)
Tithing, incidentally, goes way back before the Catholic Church. Abraham paid tithing (and no, that was not inserted into the Bible by the Catholic Church) to Melchizedek.
Good thing the switch is coming in February when there aren't generally any tropical storms or hurricanes in the U.S. You'll have some random snow or ice storms though but there could be weather problems any time the switch could be made.
Ok, I believe the earth was created by God (I do not believe it was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago but in 6 periods of time that covered billions of years). I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that if the skeleton was dated as over 13,000 years old, it's most likely over 13,000 years old.
That's just all the HOAs here in America. Some of us try to avoid living in neighborhoods with HOAs (and take care of our yards without some association forcing us to). My current neighborhood has one but it's very hands-off (I wish they were a little more hands-on though). The one good thing about HOAs is they are not governmental institutions. They do have legal rights, of course, but at least they are not governmental.
No, you missed the point of my post. I did not say that philosophy and science are the same, I just said that science is based on specific philosophies. You don't have to believe me; everyone is entitled to their own opinions. As I said, it's some pretty heavy stuff that most people (rightly) don't care about. Again, I didn't say philosophy and science are the same. The relationship (and this isn't a perfect example) is more like philosophy:science::arithmetic:calculus.
And seriously?! Worst retort ever? You must be new to Slashdot.:) I've read some pretty bad ones. Have a wonderful weekend.
I already did that in my previous post but wasn't very explicit. I don't really have room or time to get into a philosophical discussion; this is a discussion that takes months to talk about. I'm not just making things up, I've studied epistemology in college. One of the philosophical foundations of science (science is all based on philosophy, which is one reason in the U.S. all science doctorates are PhDs - Doctor of Philosophy) is empiricism. I'll quote from Wikipedia because in this case it is accurate.
"Empiricism is one of several competing views about how we know things, part of the branch of philosophy called epistemology, or "theory of knowledge". Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas."
"In the philosophy of science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."
There are other competing philosophies to empiricism. Rationalism is one of those; although in our day some ideas of rationalism are combined with empiricism. Materialism (all entities are matter and reducible to smaller entities, e.g., atoms) is another foundation for most science.
Because modern science is based on specific philosophies with specific assumptions (e.g., that all is matter) it cannot be completely impartial because science (forgive the anthropomorphism) inherently disregards anything that is not based on its same assumptions and philosophies (e.g., religion). Science has one particular view of the world and states that everything else is false, or at least unknowable. That's not impartial - that's bias. That's like Americans saying "Our world view is the only correct world view." Now, maybe it is true but that does not make it less biased. Everything and everyone have biases, even the philosophies that form the foundation for science.
As I said, this is some pretty deep philosophy. People have been arguing over this for thousands of years and will be for thousands more.
One last example. We tend to believe that mathematics is perfect and unbiased. Kurt Godel showed that it isn't. Now, not everyone agrees with his ideas but he convincingly showed that most math is flawed, or at least incomplete. Math != science but most science is founded on mathematical principles.
I answered your question, hopefully without coming across as a troll. If you still doubt me, take a class (or at least read some good books) on the philosophy of science and on epistemology. As I said in my original post, I'm not trying to discredit science (science is my job) but blindly accepting that science is perfect and completely unbiased and the only way to knowledge is demonstrating as much faith in science as many do in religion.
Actually science is not impartial. Yes, it is (supposed to be) logical but it's not impartial. Science is based on particular philosophies of knowing. At its core science is founded on particular philosophical principles and assumptions (e.g., empiricism - which is based on its own assumptions). Some of the philosophical assumptions of science might be wrong. Certainly they are only one way of looking at things and not necessarily the best or correct way.
Again, science is not impartial; it only focuses on what it wants to look at and denies everything else as invalid. It's important to be able to critically look at science (best done through studying the philosophy of science).
Note: I am a scientist, I just don't believe that science is the only source of truth. Science is not infallible; it's an awesome way to gain knowledge but it's not the only way.
You are correct about the neural pathways. That is actually my main area of research - looking at white matter (axonal) integrity (you could roughly equate that with efficiency) and how it relates to cognitive performance. Some abilities are not terribly dependent on white matter (relative to gray) but others are much more dependent on white matter.
There are so many different things that can affect intelligence and cognition: neurotransmitter transport, blood supply, extent of dendritic branching (basically affects the number of connections between neurons), rate of plasticity of the neurons and brain, motivation, emotions, etc. The central nervous system is very complex and no one thing will ever completely explain function.
No, but brain size (weight, volume, etc) is correlated moderately with IQ (of course, that means that probably only up to 20% of the variance in intelligence can be accounted for by brain size; there are a lot of other factors that affect intelligence). People with Down's Syndrome do not have larger brains than average (of course, my neuroscience research is not with Down's Syndrome patients so I'm not 100% sure). Besides, you can't pick out random single examples to "disprove" something. We talk in means and distributions, not individuals.
People also like to point out that Einstein did not have a "large" brain - it was pretty average sized - but areas within his brain were larger than most other people. It appears his brain was organized a little differently than most people's.
Brain size is very important. I control or covary for it (or total intracranial volume) all the time in my research.
So yes, you are correct. Brain size does not equal intelligence but they are significantly correlated.
There is a religion of global warming, or at least environmentalism. There is really good environmental science and then there is the religion of it that is what the media and many people preach. Kids just starting school learn all about the 3 Rs (Reduce, reuse, recycle - all of which are great) before they learn other really useful things like math and reading.
You are exactly right, anyone who doubts global warming (i.e., is skeptical about some of its tenets) is automatically demonized and sent before the Grand Inquisitor who personally represents the omniscient god of Science.
He does his part for global warming - every time he opens his mouth, he just produces more hot air. It's actually a scientifically proven fact that there was no global warming before Al Gore started talking so much about it. Or, maybe he's just trying to power a Gore-thermal power plant.
Most studies report a correlation between r=0.3 and r=0.4 between brain "size" (could be volume, or a measure of circumference, or weight) and IQ. I can't post links to the research at the moment but a simple search in PsychInfo or PubMed yields many results.
Just as a note: This is an area I'm quite familiar with - my research focuses on the relation between brain volumetrics and cognition in humans. I'm working on an advanced degree in neuropsychology.
Or, there are those who believe we have a soul so we can't do anything we like because there are consequences for our actions that extend beyond this life. Yes, that includes how we treat the earth and animals.
Slashdot Mirror
I smell bacon! ;) Good quote. [The original is: "What is Truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not wait for an answer" by Sir Francis Bacon].
The funny thing is that I recently went to a lecture by a nuclear physicist; he said nuclear as "nucular" but wasn't mispronouncing it on purpose; it's just how he said it. If it's good enough for a physicist, it's good enough for M-W. ;)
The parent post and the following sentence are both true. The previous sentence is not true.
Diesel hasn't been cheaper than regular gas in the U.S. since the 90s or early 2000s. I remember when I was young diesel was always cheaper but now it is always more. There might be some places in the U.S. where diesel is cheaper but I haven't see that in a long time.
Squatting on a tree branch might disturb bugs or damage the bark. It might also damage mossy growth. It's best just to get rid of all humans. After all, only humans are evil and damage the environment. [Yes, I'm being sarcastic]. :)
Tithing, incidentally, goes way back before the Catholic Church. Abraham paid tithing (and no, that was not inserted into the Bible by the Catholic Church) to Melchizedek.
Good thing the switch is coming in February when there aren't generally any tropical storms or hurricanes in the U.S. You'll have some random snow or ice storms though but there could be weather problems any time the switch could be made.
Yeah, but if Microsoft talked about Vista, it would ruin the commercial. ;)
Ok, I believe the earth was created by God (I do not believe it was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago but in 6 periods of time that covered billions of years). I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that if the skeleton was dated as over 13,000 years old, it's most likely over 13,000 years old.
I know this is off-topic but you can actually purchase a 1.5 TB HDD for $184. It just adds to your argument of "cheap storage"
That's just all the HOAs here in America. Some of us try to avoid living in neighborhoods with HOAs (and take care of our yards without some association forcing us to). My current neighborhood has one but it's very hands-off (I wish they were a little more hands-on though). The one good thing about HOAs is they are not governmental institutions. They do have legal rights, of course, but at least they are not governmental.
You're right, I do agree with that. I was trying to simply my arguments for the audience. :) Yours was a very well-written post.
No, you missed the point of my post. I did not say that philosophy and science are the same, I just said that science is based on specific philosophies. You don't have to believe me; everyone is entitled to their own opinions. As I said, it's some pretty heavy stuff that most people (rightly) don't care about. Again, I didn't say philosophy and science are the same. The relationship (and this isn't a perfect example) is more like philosophy:science::arithmetic:calculus.
:) I've read some pretty bad ones. Have a wonderful weekend.
And seriously?! Worst retort ever? You must be new to Slashdot.
I already did that in my previous post but wasn't very explicit. I don't really have room or time to get into a philosophical discussion; this is a discussion that takes months to talk about. I'm not just making things up, I've studied epistemology in college. One of the philosophical foundations of science (science is all based on philosophy, which is one reason in the U.S. all science doctorates are PhDs - Doctor of Philosophy) is empiricism. I'll quote from Wikipedia because in this case it is accurate.
"Empiricism is one of several competing views about how we know things, part of the branch of philosophy called epistemology, or "theory of knowledge". Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas."
"In the philosophy of science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."
There are other competing philosophies to empiricism. Rationalism is one of those; although in our day some ideas of rationalism are combined with empiricism. Materialism (all entities are matter and reducible to smaller entities, e.g., atoms) is another foundation for most science.
Because modern science is based on specific philosophies with specific assumptions (e.g., that all is matter) it cannot be completely impartial because science (forgive the anthropomorphism) inherently disregards anything that is not based on its same assumptions and philosophies (e.g., religion). Science has one particular view of the world and states that everything else is false, or at least unknowable. That's not impartial - that's bias. That's like Americans saying "Our world view is the only correct world view." Now, maybe it is true but that does not make it less biased. Everything and everyone have biases, even the philosophies that form the foundation for science.
As I said, this is some pretty deep philosophy. People have been arguing over this for thousands of years and will be for thousands more.
One last example. We tend to believe that mathematics is perfect and unbiased. Kurt Godel showed that it isn't. Now, not everyone agrees with his ideas but he convincingly showed that most math is flawed, or at least incomplete. Math != science but most science is founded on mathematical principles.
I answered your question, hopefully without coming across as a troll. If you still doubt me, take a class (or at least read some good books) on the philosophy of science and on epistemology. As I said in my original post, I'm not trying to discredit science (science is my job) but blindly accepting that science is perfect and completely unbiased and the only way to knowledge is demonstrating as much faith in science as many do in religion.
Actually science is not impartial. Yes, it is (supposed to be) logical but it's not impartial. Science is based on particular philosophies of knowing. At its core science is founded on particular philosophical principles and assumptions (e.g., empiricism - which is based on its own assumptions). Some of the philosophical assumptions of science might be wrong. Certainly they are only one way of looking at things and not necessarily the best or correct way.
Again, science is not impartial; it only focuses on what it wants to look at and denies everything else as invalid. It's important to be able to critically look at science (best done through studying the philosophy of science).
Note: I am a scientist, I just don't believe that science is the only source of truth. Science is not infallible; it's an awesome way to gain knowledge but it's not the only way.
The funny thing is that Dan Quayle is an extremely intelligent person, he just had one major blunder and was crucified for it.
Or, something called Worms on a Space Station with the main character played by Samuel L. Jackson.
You are correct about the neural pathways. That is actually my main area of research - looking at white matter (axonal) integrity (you could roughly equate that with efficiency) and how it relates to cognitive performance. Some abilities are not terribly dependent on white matter (relative to gray) but others are much more dependent on white matter.
There are so many different things that can affect intelligence and cognition: neurotransmitter transport, blood supply, extent of dendritic branching (basically affects the number of connections between neurons), rate of plasticity of the neurons and brain, motivation, emotions, etc. The central nervous system is very complex and no one thing will ever completely explain function.
No, but brain size (weight, volume, etc) is correlated moderately with IQ (of course, that means that probably only up to 20% of the variance in intelligence can be accounted for by brain size; there are a lot of other factors that affect intelligence). People with Down's Syndrome do not have larger brains than average (of course, my neuroscience research is not with Down's Syndrome patients so I'm not 100% sure). Besides, you can't pick out random single examples to "disprove" something. We talk in means and distributions, not individuals.
People also like to point out that Einstein did not have a "large" brain - it was pretty average sized - but areas within his brain were larger than most other people. It appears his brain was organized a little differently than most people's.
Brain size is very important. I control or covary for it (or total intracranial volume) all the time in my research.
So yes, you are correct. Brain size does not equal intelligence but they are significantly correlated.
There is a religion of global warming, or at least environmentalism. There is really good environmental science and then there is the religion of it that is what the media and many people preach. Kids just starting school learn all about the 3 Rs (Reduce, reuse, recycle - all of which are great) before they learn other really useful things like math and reading.
You are exactly right, anyone who doubts global warming (i.e., is skeptical about some of its tenets) is automatically demonized and sent before the Grand Inquisitor who personally represents the omniscient god of Science.
Yeah really lucky except for how we'd get a nuclear winter.
He does his part for global warming - every time he opens his mouth, he just produces more hot air. It's actually a scientifically proven fact that there was no global warming before Al Gore started talking so much about it. Or, maybe he's just trying to power a Gore-thermal power plant.
I know this is off-topic but I really liked Bee Movie. Maybe I was the only one but it was pretty funny. It actually
Most studies report a correlation between r=0.3 and r=0.4 between brain "size" (could be volume, or a measure of circumference, or weight) and IQ. I can't post links to the research at the moment but a simple search in PsychInfo or PubMed yields many results.
Just as a note: This is an area I'm quite familiar with - my research focuses on the relation between brain volumetrics and cognition in humans. I'm working on an advanced degree in neuropsychology.
Or, there are those who believe we have a soul so we can't do anything we like because there are consequences for our actions that extend beyond this life. Yes, that includes how we treat the earth and animals.