You are absolutely right, but unfortunately it seems pretty clear that this argument won't be fully resolved until the AWG deniers begin to fry along with the rest of us and will then become so unpopular that they won't even want to hear themselves, much less each other. Science requires experimentation and as usual so does evolution, its called natural selection. Everyone will have a ringside seat.
If I had to make a wager, in 5-10 years it will have already become so unbearably hot and the weather so unstable as to disrupt ecosystems sufficiently that the deniers will be seeking shelter along with everyone else.
People seem intent on making this a science vs. religion issue, when it probably isn't.
Given that it is technology and the underlying science that is the driving force in the modern world rather than religion (no one would seriously claim that any religion invented virtually any technology or scientific breakthrough) and given the reality that it is precisely that technology that is the primary driving force altering both the future and our natural world, religion is hardly a relevant factor compared to science. Sure religions will clash and many will loose their lives, but many more will die of starvation, malaria, accidents, etc. Whether or not there is a God or several is of little consequence. In contrast what the future of science and technological development is of tremendous importance, since it will shape what that future will be.
All available science strongly suggests that the planet will get much warmer much faster than anyone had expected, so perhaps soon science, at least the human variety, may not be all that important either. Ironic.
Obviously, you haven't read Otto's work, as he goes to considerable length in debunking the myth that the "whole US is established on the idea of God and religion". His comments with regard to Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence and Franklin's editorial changes to produce the final draft are quite convincing on this point. Both sought to rely on Locke's and Bacon's notion that "self-evident" implied that our nation fundamentally rests on empiricism and knowledge not faith.
"All I really learned is when I cut an animal open, I do it a little too hard with the knive and mess up the specimen a little since the lab is rushed. How does this help my knowledge of science? "
I think you miss the point of the class, which is for students to be trained to be useful to society and not for the class to be useful to you, just because you screw up. You can think of the class dissection a success as it prevented someone, who seems to have no future as a biologist or especially a surgeon or interest in becoming one, from actually becoming one. Perhaps, if you learned anything out of your experience, it is that biological organisms are far more complicated than computers, and hence, why dissection is an important skill for those who plan on studying biology.
Leave it to some to totally dismiss an honest description of a factual account of one user's experience, because it does not conform sufficiently to stereotypes.
One can only hope that you don't code UI's for a living.
If its becoming last, perhaps its because many seem more eager to adopt new ideas only if they fit in with their preconceived ideology rather than accepting reality as it is in all its messy variation and diversity. People are animals and animal testing not only works, much of modern biology, physiology and medicine absolutely depend on it. Do you have any earthly idea what fatality rates might look like for Phase I trials, if animal testing had not preceded it?
Computer models that have no measure of natural diversity are worthless to a biologist, except for the most preliminary of pedagogical requirements, which is not to say that computer models and simulations are not useful for theoretical understanding. They tell little, except about what is already inherent in various assumptions used to construct them. Because animal parts are not like machine parts, they don't come in uniform, prefabricated shapes and sizes and compositions. They result from an evolutionary process that responds to natural variability and are not borne from the factory or design floor. The reality is that the organization of organisms does not come from "intelligent design".
Certainly, most patients undergoing any kind of surgical procedure have the right to expect sufficient proficiency in dissection. Dissection skills requires more than a year or two of training in medical school to be proficient. However, its not just surgery at issue here. Those involved in drug trials where animal testing may need to know precisely how, when and were to inject a compound into an animal. Studies generally assume that this is done properly. It could make a big difference if a drug were injected into the wrong target organ when assessing its efficacy.
Perhaps that is because you don't have sufficient appreciation of just how much variation actually exists in the natural world. Its the variation that is of special importance, not where the labels are place or what color is used in the simulation. For biologists the simulations must take into account variation as it is observed for the results of simulations to be taken as realistic and informative. This is not to say biologists are heavy users of computer simulations of all kinds, which do provide a theoretical and practical means to understand certain idealized fundamentals of a given system under study. Keep in mind, however, that it is the actual scope of observed variation among organisms in the natural world that provides the test of whether the simulations are meaningful biologically, not the results of the simulations themselves since they are only a representation of reality, not actual reality.
"A good video of a surgical procedure is much more realistic",
except when someone's life depends on how you yield the scalpel and the organs of the patient on the operating table don't look anything like those in the video. That kind of training must start much earlier than a few years of medical school, since understanding anatomical variation is the key. Videos, models, and simulations simply don't cover enough variation and understanding in biology comes from understanding variation.
I would rather see 1,000,000 frogs or rats specially grown for dissection loose their lives in 1) weeding out those who should not be headed to medical school, and 2) preparing those who are for possible surgery, than see a member of my family or me loose their lives because of inadequate training. Perhaps if more people had a more realistic idea of how many actually die in hospitals as a result of "malpractice" or inadequate training, perhaps they might think differently about the consequences, including the moral ones.
"Someone working on bioinformatics is probably better served by early familiarity with computer modeling."
It is precisely thinking like this that leads to so many absolutely useless computer models. They simply have no way of beginning to comprehend the very real and most important element in all of biology, natural variation.
I think you confuse the issues involved. No one is claiming that computer simulations are not useful. However, one must understand that they are useful precisely because they are constructed from specially made parts of a predictable shape, size, and composition. Organisms are not so constructed as we derive our organization from DNA sequences that can and do actually vary from individual to individual. Would you trust a finite element analysis if cells of the equation were actually rubber as opposed to steel or aluminium but not so reflected in the algorithm? Likewise, it is not the only the parts that get tested as pilots learn how to fly, but how the pilots actually perform and respond to the airplane. Variations in how different people respond to well tested training planes is also an extremely important issue in how the "parts" that make up the plane actually perform when the pilot puts his hands on the controls. It is for this reason training planes are designed to be relatively forgiving of error. People make mistakes and this needs to be factored into the equations and training concerning performance as well. This is not to say that computer simulations at all levels, both in aircraft design and flight instruction. Its just that because humans (animals) are involved unexpected or not easily detected variation in training can be expected regardless of how one designs the plane, software, flight simulator, etc.
You make an excellent point. For those who have not studied anatomy the reality is that each animal or human is not exactly the same anatomically. In some cases one may find citus inversus in which all the internal organs are inverted (left to right or visa versa. In some cases the inversion is only partial. Likewise cancers and other diseases can greatly distort the size, position, and coloration of internal organs. To complicate matters further, many animals, including humans do not have all their blood vessels or nerves running in the same places. Its often better for physicians to start their training as early in their careers as possible so they can grow accustomed to this reality, rather than confronting it for the first time on an operating table, especially in the cases of cancer where it is extremely important that ALL of the malignant tissue be removed during the course of an operation.
Its all well an good to learn from an idealized model of anatomy that one may find in a computer program or model. However, real anatomy comes with variation that any potential surgeon or biologist needs to become familiar with, lest they wind up removing or studying the wrong organ. The reality is that life is complex, very complex. After a lifetime of studying biology, I never cease to be amazed at how little Biology I really know, as there is far more variation than one could ever imagine to exist. Those who study almost no biology have almost no clue as to what they are talking about. No legislation or software will alter this reality, which is not surprising given that that the mechanisms that control how organisms are organized evolved and undergo a rather complicated ontogeny, rather than simply being made or assembled in heaven's little factories.
So powerful are the media interests. I say boycott them all and make them feel the loss of profits, so substantially that they will abandon the idea.
Otherwise in our capitalistic system, just get used to the fact that the entire internet will be in private hands and those foolish enough to believe in social or economic justice can simply go extinct.
The choice is yours as only you can do anything about it.
Its ironic that the old, the sick, the poor, the young are not entitled to any government benefits, but wealthy media corporations are entitled to your money and your political and economic voice as a corporate birthright. Soon the only people left will be corporations.
Autos cause far more pollution, so you need to add the health care costs into the use of cars to make a more accurate comparison. The only reason one gets the figures you spout is that so many of the costs of subsidizing autos (interest free loans to Detroit Auto makers, tax exemptions, oil depletion allowance, etc) are simply left out of the actual total cost.
However, don't get me wrong, I own Boeing stock so I am not entirely unimpressed by the benefit of your inadequate accounting skills.
You obviously don't spend much time driving on I5. In ten years it will be bumper to bumper and travel times are already beginning to reflect this, but no matter, the wealthy will still be able to afford their own private jets.
Especially given the effectiveness of the OPEC and domestic oil and gas lobbies.
My guess is that Americans won't abandon the internal combustion engine until global temperatures get so high that tires literally burst into flames as they touch the ground.
" sooner or later we're going to need a high speed rail, but it might be better to wait until "later"."
perhaps by latter you mean when Chinese and other foreign investors decide to get the job done for us. The US is falling so far behind in transportation infrastructure that it will probably require foreign know-how to get the job done.
or perhaps by latter you mean when carbon dioxide levels from the burning of fossil fuels has become so high that the they will have to build trains as their wheels won't burn as they drive over super-heated asphalt.
"It *ONLY* works, when the public at large defacto agrees on the compromise."
You've hit upon it. We must demand a legal system that puts the onus on the competing parties to demonstrate that their case actually benefits the public interest. If they do not, they loose. In that way everyone ultimately benefits.
"The only limit is going to be materials cost and our imaginations. "
No. The ultimate limit will be on just how much carbon dioxide these or any other form of vehicular manufacturing pumps into the atmosphere. At current rates, all signs point to that limit being reached before the end of the century, when air conditioning will simply not be powerful enough to keep occupants of any vehicles from being roasted alive once, whether or not the doors and windows are open or closed.
Slashdot Mirror
You are absolutely right, but unfortunately it seems pretty clear that this argument won't be fully resolved until the AWG deniers begin to fry along with the rest of us and will then become so unpopular that they won't even want to hear themselves, much less each other. Science requires experimentation and as usual so does evolution, its called natural selection. Everyone will have a ringside seat.
If I had to make a wager, in 5-10 years it will have already become so unbearably hot and the weather so unstable as to disrupt ecosystems sufficiently that the deniers will be seeking shelter along with everyone else.
People seem intent on making this a science vs. religion issue, when it probably isn't.
Given that it is technology and the underlying science that is the driving force in the modern world rather than religion (no one would seriously claim that any religion invented virtually any technology or scientific breakthrough) and given the reality that it is precisely that technology that is the primary driving force altering both the future and our natural world, religion is hardly a relevant factor compared to science. Sure religions will clash and many will loose their lives, but many more will die of starvation, malaria, accidents, etc. Whether or not there is a God or several is of little consequence. In contrast what the future of science and technological development is of tremendous importance, since it will shape what that future will be.
All available science strongly suggests that the planet will get much warmer much faster than anyone had expected, so perhaps soon science, at least the human variety, may not be all that important either. Ironic.
Obviously, you haven't read Otto's work, as he goes to considerable length in debunking the myth that the "whole US is established on the idea of God and religion". His comments with regard to Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence and Franklin's editorial changes to produce the final draft are quite convincing on this point. Both sought to rely on Locke's and Bacon's notion that "self-evident" implied that our nation fundamentally rests on empiricism and knowledge not faith.
"All I really learned is when I cut an animal open, I do it a little too hard with the knive and mess up the specimen a little since the lab is rushed. How does this help my knowledge of science? "
I think you miss the point of the class, which is for students to be trained to be useful to society and not for the class to be useful to you, just because you screw up. You can think of the class dissection a success as it prevented someone, who seems to have no future as a biologist or especially a surgeon or interest in becoming one, from actually becoming one. Perhaps, if you learned anything out of your experience, it is that biological organisms are far more complicated than computers, and hence, why dissection is an important skill for those who plan on studying biology.
Leave it to some to totally dismiss an honest description of a factual account of one user's experience, because it does not conform sufficiently to stereotypes.
One can only hope that you don't code UI's for a living.
If its becoming last, perhaps its because many seem more eager to adopt new ideas only if they fit in with their preconceived ideology rather than accepting reality as it is in all its messy variation and diversity. People are animals and animal testing not only works, much of modern biology, physiology and medicine absolutely depend on it. Do you have any earthly idea what fatality rates might look like for Phase I trials, if animal testing had not preceded it?
Computer models that have no measure of natural diversity are worthless to a biologist, except for the most preliminary of pedagogical requirements, which is not to say that computer models and simulations are not useful for theoretical understanding. They tell little, except about what is already inherent in various assumptions used to construct them. Because animal parts are not like machine parts, they don't come in uniform, prefabricated shapes and sizes and compositions. They result from an evolutionary process that responds to natural variability and are not borne from the factory or design floor. The reality is that the organization of organisms does not come from "intelligent design".
Certainly, most patients undergoing any kind of surgical procedure have the right to expect sufficient proficiency in dissection. Dissection skills requires more than a year or two of training in medical school to be proficient. However, its not just surgery at issue here. Those involved in drug trials where animal testing may need to know precisely how, when and were to inject a compound into an animal. Studies generally assume that this is done properly. It could make a big difference if a drug were injected into the wrong target organ when assessing its efficacy.
Perhaps that is because you don't have sufficient appreciation of just how much variation actually exists in the natural world. Its the variation that is of special importance, not where the labels are place or what color is used in the simulation. For biologists the simulations must take into account variation as it is observed for the results of simulations to be taken as realistic and informative. This is not to say biologists are heavy users of computer simulations of all kinds, which do provide a theoretical and practical means to understand certain idealized fundamentals of a given system under study. Keep in mind, however, that it is the actual scope of observed variation among organisms in the natural world that provides the test of whether the simulations are meaningful biologically, not the results of the simulations themselves since they are only a representation of reality, not actual reality.
For those ultimately bound for medical or veterinary school, they are a lot cheaper than human cadavers.
"A good video of a surgical procedure is much more realistic",
except when someone's life depends on how you yield the scalpel and the organs of the patient on the operating table don't look anything like those in the video. That kind of training must start much earlier than a few years of medical school, since understanding anatomical variation is the key. Videos, models, and simulations simply don't cover enough variation and understanding in biology comes from understanding variation.
I would rather see 1,000,000 frogs or rats specially grown for dissection loose their lives in 1) weeding out those who should not be headed to medical school, and 2) preparing those who are for possible surgery, than see a member of my family or me loose their lives because of inadequate training. Perhaps if more people had a more realistic idea of how many actually die in hospitals as a result of "malpractice" or inadequate training, perhaps they might think differently about the consequences, including the moral ones.
To follow up on your line of reasoning, are we not wasting life when we die? Seems everyone does it. You do eat plants and animals don't you?
Why is it that so many think you can get to be a "pro" without practice?
"Someone working on bioinformatics is probably better served by early familiarity with computer modeling."
It is precisely thinking like this that leads to so many absolutely useless computer models. They simply have no way of beginning to comprehend the very real and most important element in all of biology, natural variation.
I think you confuse the issues involved. No one is claiming that computer simulations are not useful. However, one must understand that they are useful precisely because they are constructed from specially made parts of a predictable shape, size, and composition. Organisms are not so constructed as we derive our organization from DNA sequences that can and do actually vary from individual to individual. Would you trust a finite element analysis if cells of the equation were actually rubber as opposed to steel or aluminium but not so reflected in the algorithm? Likewise, it is not the only the parts that get tested as pilots learn how to fly, but how the pilots actually perform and respond to the airplane. Variations in how different people respond to well tested training planes is also an extremely important issue in how the "parts" that make up the plane actually perform when the pilot puts his hands on the controls. It is for this reason training planes are designed to be relatively forgiving of error. People make mistakes and this needs to be factored into the equations and training concerning performance as well. This is not to say that computer simulations at all levels, both in aircraft design and flight instruction. Its just that because humans (animals) are involved unexpected or not easily detected variation in training can be expected regardless of how one designs the plane, software, flight simulator, etc.
You make an excellent point. For those who have not studied anatomy the reality is that each animal or human is not exactly the same anatomically. In some cases one may find citus inversus in which all the internal organs are inverted (left to right or visa versa. In some cases the inversion is only partial. Likewise cancers and other diseases can greatly distort the size, position, and coloration of internal organs. To complicate matters further, many animals, including humans do not have all their blood vessels or nerves running in the same places. Its often better for physicians to start their training as early in their careers as possible so they can grow accustomed to this reality, rather than confronting it for the first time on an operating table, especially in the cases of cancer where it is extremely important that ALL of the malignant tissue be removed during the course of an operation.
Its all well an good to learn from an idealized model of anatomy that one may find in a computer program or model. However, real anatomy comes with variation that any potential surgeon or biologist needs to become familiar with, lest they wind up removing or studying the wrong organ. The reality is that life is complex, very complex. After a lifetime of studying biology, I never cease to be amazed at how little Biology I really know, as there is far more variation than one could ever imagine to exist. Those who study almost no biology have almost no clue as to what they are talking about. No legislation or software will alter this reality, which is not surprising given that that the mechanisms that control how organisms are organized evolved and undergo a rather complicated ontogeny, rather than simply being made or assembled in heaven's little factories.
So powerful are the media interests. I say boycott them all and make them feel the loss of profits, so substantially that they will abandon the idea.
Otherwise in our capitalistic system, just get used to the fact that the entire internet will be in private hands and those foolish enough to believe in social or economic justice can simply go extinct.
The choice is yours as only you can do anything about it.
Its ironic that the old, the sick, the poor, the young are not entitled to any government benefits, but wealthy media corporations are entitled to your money and your political and economic voice as a corporate birthright. Soon the only people left will be corporations.
People lying to politicians. I'm shocked.
Obviously, that must cease, politicians should be allowed to lie to people but the converse must be banned or it will destroy our entire way of life.
You fail to mention that the cost of building, expanding, and maintaining airports and now the TSA are not put into you cost equation.
Autos cause far more pollution, so you need to add the health care costs into the use of cars to make a more accurate comparison. The only reason one gets the figures you spout is that so many of the costs of subsidizing autos (interest free loans to Detroit Auto makers, tax exemptions, oil depletion allowance, etc) are simply left out of the actual total cost.
However, don't get me wrong, I own Boeing stock so I am not entirely unimpressed by the benefit of your inadequate accounting skills.
No need. The people who would be using SpaceX to commute to and from Mars are, for all practical purposes, already living on Mars.
Exactly, that is why all New Yorkers are so eager to scrap the subway so that they can drive to work.
You obviously don't spend much time driving on I5. In ten years it will be bumper to bumper and travel times are already beginning to reflect this, but no matter, the wealthy will still be able to afford their own private jets.
Especially given the effectiveness of the OPEC and domestic oil and gas lobbies.
My guess is that Americans won't abandon the internal combustion engine until global temperatures get so high that tires literally burst into flames as they touch the ground.
" sooner or later we're going to need a high speed rail, but it might be better to wait until "later"."
perhaps by latter you mean when Chinese and other foreign investors decide to get the job done for us. The US is falling so far behind in transportation infrastructure that it will probably require foreign know-how to get the job done.
or perhaps by latter you mean when carbon dioxide levels from the burning of fossil fuels has become so high that the they will have to build trains as their wheels won't burn as they drive over super-heated asphalt.
No progress is progress: vote republican in 2012.
"It *ONLY* works, when the public at large defacto agrees on the compromise."
You've hit upon it. We must demand a legal system that puts the onus on the competing parties to demonstrate that their case actually benefits the public interest. If they do not, they loose. In that way everyone ultimately benefits.
"The only limit is going to be materials cost and our imaginations. "
No. The ultimate limit will be on just how much carbon dioxide these or any other form of vehicular manufacturing pumps into the atmosphere. At current rates, all signs point to that limit being reached before the end of the century, when air conditioning will simply not be powerful enough to keep occupants of any vehicles from being roasted alive once, whether or not the doors and windows are open or closed.