301. Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells

Comment #234035 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 7:27 pm

This is a bit outside of my field, but from what I know existing cell lines can be used with funding yes. New cell lines can be used but not by programs receiving any federal funding.

So basically researchers can either choose to have the materials to do the job, or the money to do the job, but not both. Most researchers opt for the money and do what they can.

302. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #234029 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm

So no coffee? Soda? Sugar?

Yup, I'm just being a smart ass, but with a inkling of a purpose.

303. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #234024 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 6:38 pm

You don't drink water?

I think what he was referring to is natural too.

304. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234023 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Border Collie, give a keyboard to a special ed kid with tourettes, beat them over the head with a baseball bat repeatedly, all the while demanding that they type something.

After a couple hours of that you'll have something much more coherent than what you missed.

305. No credit for creationism

Comment #234018 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Lamarkism was a testable hypothesis for which there was some limited evidence. Heliocentrism is a testable hypothesis for which there is abundant evidence, therefore it is a theory. I think though you meant to refer to geocentrism. Geocentrism was also a testable hypothesis that had limited evidence. Evolution is a testable hypothesis that has abundant evidence which makes it a theory. The big bang is a testable hypothesis that has significant amounts of evidence which makes it a theory.

Is ID testable? What predictions does it make? Has there been any evidence? You seem to be claiming that the answer to the third question is yes. If so please share that evidence.

One prediction ID would make might be something like your arctic space ship. If such a thing were found than that would serve as one piece of evidence; but such a thing has not been found.

306. Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells

Comment #234014 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Mission of the NIH as per their website:

NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare

The real problem is that you, and others, think that it is the business of the Federal Government to provide funding. It is not!

307. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #234008 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 5:53 pm

A "Free agent" is incapable of behaving in a consistent manner. If it is consistent then there is some mechanism of determining and maintaining that consistency.

308. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #234006 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 5:48 pm

"That would imply that a free agent would be incapable of choosing to behave in a consistent (and thus non-random) manner. If free will did exist, it would be possible to chose to act consistently."

But who or what would be doing the choosing?

How can you propose a mechanism for free-will without invoking some sort of supernatural dualism?

309. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #234001 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Its not just his goal of heaven... Warren has made millions in book sales.

Not much selflessness there. Of, and there of course is the little thing about the notoriety that enables him to just call up the presidential candidates for a personal interview.

You know who a truly selfless person is? Of course you fuckin don't, if their actions were SELFLESS they would not get the recognition for them.

310. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233999 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Well put Rob, I can agree that once someone has gone through that process it may be worth a listen... if I myself was looking for experiments to do. Personally, if I heard someone describe such a process I'd wait for the next time their condition returned, then I'd secretly replace their "treatment" with a placebo. If that didn't work, but their treatment did, well THEN I'd actually take a better interest.

311. Life Is Short...

Comment #233992 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm

"... different animals equipped with four limbs and a backbone."

So this would exclude politicians?

312. No credit for creationism

Comment #233989 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 5:09 pm

"there isn't a dominant view on him - that's the problem! Views tend to polarise"

Odd. I don't think I would find myself on either pole when it came to Chomsky. I see him much like I see SJ Gould. They are both absolute geniuses in their own fields and have contributed more to science than I could ever hope for; but they also both have some very odd and troubling philosophies when they veer out of their own area of expertise.

313. No credit for creationism

Comment #233980 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Jesus86,

Why do you ignore the crux of the matter? To be a theory there must be substantial evidence. But once again I'd settle for ANY evidence, just a shred.

Lamarck had evidence. Turns out there was more evidence for Darwin's ideas, but based on the data available at the time Lamarkism was legitimate science.

314. No credit for creationism

Comment #233977 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm

"...think hard before getting involved in any discussions concerning, Chomsky..."

I'm curious what the dominant view of Chomsky of which it would be wise to think hard before challenging would be.

315. No credit for creationism

Comment #233972 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 4:49 pm

"ALL I'm saying is that, as silly as it is, ID has all of the formal properties needed to be counted a scientific theory."

No, the goal post to be a theory hasn't moved. One of the formal properties of a theory is that it is a hypothesis with evidence. Substantial evidence in fact, but now I'm being charitable as well, just a little would do for the sake of this argument.

And this odd definition you present of ID as this concept that we may someday find something that appears designed though it is not human made (such as your arctic space-ship), where did you get this definition? This in no way resembles the idea of intelligent design which has been proposed for teaching in schools. Is this version entirely your own creation?

316. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233950 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Rob,

That's a good and fair question.

"In isolation, it's likely to be next to useless, but if significant numbers of people report the same sorts of anecdotes, then we would have the starting point we need for real study."

That is very true. But the study then must be done. It's easy to say "I drank a cup of mint tea and the next day my stomach felt better." Thats an observation, and it's useful. If you start seeing a pattern, then you test it. But people don't go around reporting all their one time observations, it'd be quite an annoyance if they did. In the tea example I just gave, why would we assume it was the tea that helped? It could have just been time, a good night's sleep, a good crap, reading a book, scratching their nose, etc etc.

Now, the mint tea example I believe has been tested and if I recall mint tea HAS been found to ease stomach upset. But if they did the testing and they found it DIDN'T help, then it'd be back to the drawing board, you could test the effects of sleep, nose-scratching, etc.

People can "offer their anecdotes" all they want if their goal is simply to be a pain in the ass. But such people think it's evidence for something. It's not.

If I spent my entire day telling everyone all the "anecdotal cures" I came up with... well I couldn't, there's not enough time in a day.

And finally, most such anecdotes are told about things that have already been studied. These people are not witnessing the next aspirin, they are just repeating the same old wives tales.

317. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233941 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 4:05 pm

I think making inferences off of it is dubious as it seems to be the first study of its kind. It will have to be repeated and perhaps variations such as a few suggested in these comments employed. But the experiment showed a difference between the control group and the experimental group. What I liked about this write up is that it didn't make any excessive conclusions, it just pointed out that there was a difference between the two groups. How can that "smack of bullshit"? Does it matter where these people came from? That's precisely what a CONTROL GROUP is for.

318. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233936 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 3:38 pm

"The starting point for selecting treatments to test could only have been anecdotal evidence, no? Back to asparin, if there had been no anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of willow bark, would anyone have ever thought of testing that particular substance? Therefore, isn't anecdotal evidence useful (in a very limited fashion, but useful nonetheless) in directing inquiries into substances or treatments of interest?"

Your right about the starting point. But thats the STARTING POINT, not the STOPPING POINT. Observation is the beginning of the scientific method, not the end. You observe, make a hypothesis, then test it. Some "alternative" medicine is only observations, and bad ones at that; In fact most of it has been tested and has failed to be effective.

------------------

"I was not suggesting YOU or anyone else take my anecdotal evidence as factual. I was just relating ONE experience I had, where for some reason the "woo-woo" treatment worked, after experiencing nothing but failure with several conventional doctors. "

That is just stupid. If were not supposed to take your anecdotal evidence why do you give it?

319. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233892 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 2:19 pm

"I also just like to argue. "

Me too ... But I like to win even more :o)

"What I was pointing out is that lack of random behavior is insufficient for demonstrating determinism. It'll take more, such as the neural correlates to decision making that you allude to."

Why would it take more? If behavior is not random (which it isn't) then it is determined. We don't need the details of what it is determined by to know that it is determined by something.

A medical examiner doesn't need to know the cause of death before he can conclude that a man certainly is dead. SOMETHING most certainly did cause the death, what that something was he may have to get back to you on.

And the second part about "neural correlates," there IS a lot of work on that already. And over the next few years there will be more as thats precisely what I am working on.

320. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233882 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Free-will = The uncaused cause. It simply doesn't fucking exist.

321. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233880 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 2:04 pm

"...chose to wear one shirt over another without cause but no one would characterize that behavior as "completely random" or "non-explicable". We'd call it "arbitrary" Now choosing to wear one's cat as a shirt _is_ completely random and inexplicable."

I completely disagree on several counts.

1) Te reiterate what has been said previously, but perhaps in a different thread: There is an enormous difference between something being inexplicable in practice and in principle.
2) There most certainly IS a cause behind the choice of shirt otherwise the choice would never be made.
3) "Arbitrary" in that sense is a handy word for saying it is inexplicable in practice. No one sits around tracing all the variables behind such a decision, but it could certainly be done, those variables do exist.
4) Choosing to wear a cat as a shirt could have many explanations, it is not inexplicable. Perhaps the person suffered brain damage that impaired the ability to recognize familiar objects from their home, so they could not tell the difference between their shirt laying over the chair and the cat sitting on the chair.

322. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233878 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 1:59 pm

"I see the aim of criminal justice system to be to reduce or eliminate crime. Punishment has a role to play.

Some people see it as a form of revenge or retribution. I find that attitude a bit disturbing. "

Damn, I was about to say that as well. Thats the problem with having to many smart people on one forum... I don't get to say all the smart things I think, cause someone beats me to it.

323. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233861 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Well said YssiBoo. I was trying to say something like that earlier. I never did manage to.

And combining that with Brian's post, those incentives or punishments would NOT have any effect if there was free will, but they ONLY work because there is no free will.

324. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233856 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Chuck,

"Look at the Aussy doctor who back in he 80's suggested that most ulcers were caused by H.(Hylobacter?) priori. He was right, but it took decades for everybody to accept that."

He wasn't just making random guesses was he? He had evidence didn't he?

You say the bar is set to high, perhaps you are right, that's a discussion worth having. But there is a difference between saying "there's some evidence for this but were not sure if its enough to license it for public use" and "there's no evidence whatsoever for this, so lets keep an open mind."

See Decius's posts above:
"All I am asking for is some fucking evidence. "

I doesn't need to be sufficient evidence for FDA approval, but if you are going to recommend a treatment there must be SOME evidence.

325. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233845 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm

"The most precious asset we have is american blood. Throughout our history americans have gone to all four corners of the world and shed that blood in defense of someone else's freedom, no other nation on earth has ever done that."

Is McCain that ignorant, or just arrogant? Many other nations have done that. In fact our little revolutionary war a couple hundred years ago wouldn't have gotten very far without the french.

326. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233838 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 1:03 pm

So, lets compare what the candidates think is a waste of money:

Obama: the billions of dollars spent on accomplishing nothing in the middle east it the waste.

McCain: A couple million spent on genetic research is the waste, lets follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell!

How fucked in the head is McCain to say this crap.

327. Central Texas Man's Death Sentence Upheld Despite Bible In Jury Room

Comment #233752 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 11:28 am

Death sentences are a joke anyway. Ten years ago he was sentenced to death... TEN YEARS after that sentencing an execution date has not been set.

For cryin' out loud. Just give him life in prison if thats what it's going to be anyways, it'd be cheaper both because they'd avoid the cost of execution AND they'd avoid the cost of all these appeal cases.

328. Losing my religion

Comment #233744 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 11:17 am

Security blankets are handy for the lazy and stupid.

Parents often use Santa Claus to influence their children "If you don't behave Santa wont bring you any presents."

Now raising children is a hefty task, and I can hardly blame parents for taking that easy way out on occasion. But if the parents NEVER left the child grow up and learn real reasons for behaving appropriately that'd be a problem. And I agree this is the problem of religion and some to make the "we need it argument," I suppose the logic (or lack thereof) of that argument is so foreign to me that I tend to forget about it.

329. Losing my religion

Comment #233728 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 10:51 am

"problem with RD's speculations is that he doesn't contemplate the likelihood that if you had taken religion out of ancient civilizations, it would have been replaced with equally abhorent, equally primitive non-religious theories about why various forms of cruelty and oppression were needed."

This is a fair criticism, but from my perspective RD does not focus on this. At least not as much as Hitchens does. This is why I don't really follow Hitchens work or debates, its always these moral ledger sheets as if showing that religion causes bad things would prove that god doesn't exist.

Its as foolish as the theists showing that religion causes good things therefore god exists. Who the hell cares, the products of religion are not relevant to the question of their truth.

330. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #233726 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 10:43 am

"If people come to believe that they don't have free will, what will the consequences be for moral responsibility?"

None.

I was suspecting I would hate this article, but it was actually well done and fair. It avoided the stupidity of "a lack of free-will makes people cheat, therefore there is free will."

But even just sticking to the facts, I'd like to do a similar study but do a preliminary survey before anything else to get their view on free-will. I suspect the cheating behavior is not the result of the notion of no free will, but rather it is the result of the partial shattering of the individuals world-view.

In other words I suspect the cheaters were the people who THOUGHT there was free will, but through the procedure the cognitive dissonance they faced caused them to question everything else. The fact that they question morality doesn't mean there is no answer.

For better or worse ethics and morality is on the foundation of many fictions in the minds of many; we can build no more on it. If we want to build more we need to tear down what is there first.

331. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233718 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 10:17 am

Hmm, I had to look up "biofeedback" as it seems to have a different meaning than what I've heard it used for.

Some forms of so-called biofeedback DO have evidence for them, and these are the forms that are used in hospitals, by doctors, etc.

Trying to lump other weird things in under the same umbrella term as a proven treatment just to say there is evidence for it is crazy.

The biofeedback I have heard about is a behavioral approach to certain conditions, especially useful in pain management. Essentially its a Skinnerian approach 'training' the body to respond or not respond to particular stimuli. This has a good body of evidence behind it and is appropriate for use by real doctors in real hospitals.

332. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233702 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 9:43 am

While many intelligent posts have been made criticizing the "strengthening the immune system" as not possible, I'm curious what it would even mean.

The immune system is not a single one-size-fits-all-conditions entity. Even if you somehow boosted one aspect of the immune system how would that be helpful? Immune cells like all others eventually face senescence as they are able to replicate a finite number of times. In fact it is not uncommon that many age related problems and causes of death are due to the individuals immune system essentially running out of gas. So, my question to the people who make the above mentioned statement is: Would "boosting" the immune system mean that cells of the immune system would be encouraged to replicate or discouraged? The former might reduce long term health while doing nothing for the present condition, the latter certainly couldn't help the present condition.

So before you go out making statements such as "[insert bullshit here] boosts the immune system" please go read an immunology book, or at least a basic physiology text.

333. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233672 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 8:02 am

"No one likes to be rude at a fun dinner party or to risk social isolation by calling someone an idiot."

I do. And there are many people here I'd happily call idiots. Pretty much anyone who started their post with "I had a [insert symptom here] once and went to ...." If you said that, your a fucking idiot. Try reading the article again.

It reminds me giving public demonstrations of our working dogs when I was in the military. At the end of the demo we would open it up for questions. There would ALWAYS be some little brat who's Question was "I have a dog, his name is sparky, he like to jump on people, except my sister, he doesn't jump on my sister, he thinks she smells funny..."

I didn't give a damn about their dog or their sister. I don't give a damn about your runny nose or crotch-itch. You can take your anecdotal "evidence" and shove it. Especially those of you who admit your anecdotes don't apply to anyone else - you say it applies for you, then you share it with other people. Fuck off, that's all I've got to say to that.



Dinner parties tend to be short around here.

334. New Ribosomal Research Offers Fresh Evidence, Understanding of Evolution

Comment #233400 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Funny how fast faith goes out the window when they're sick.

A sick Christian's family and friends all pray for them. The sick Christian goes to a scientist for help.

Antibiotics work better than prayers, worship the fungi.

335. New Ribosomal Research Offers Fresh Evidence, Understanding of Evolution

Comment #233396 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 9:21 pm

"Why does everything in the biological sciences have to be justified in terms of medicine?"

Cause thats where the money comes from.

When NSF grants can even come close to NIH grants perhaps we'll have more science for science's sake.

336. Losing my religion

Comment #233392 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 9:00 pm

They wanted to find the unicorn guilty. But they couldn't find her at all. She is invisible after all.

337. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #233383 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 8:41 pm

So I've bounced around on this one.

My reactions in order:
1) YAY! Fuck the bible thumpers... this reaction was only an initial gut reaction before my brain kicked in and said something bad was going on here.
2) They should be as free to bring bibles in to the country as they are any other book.
3) Its none of my business, China is a sovereign nation and can run their country how they wish; if they don't allow religious nuts to be nutty that's their business.
4) For a moment I considered the "How can you support a totalitarian nation that butt-rapes its citizens with broom handles" argument... 2 things stopped me from taking that very serious:
-A) America has no shortage of broom handles under GW's control which he has firmly lodged in inappropriate places.
-B) Not allowing proselytizing is not one of the aspects of their totalitarianism that should be opposed. If they took these would-be missionaries and caned them in the town square, yes I'd have a problem. But saying "we don't allow those books here" is not exactly a crime against humanity.

So... when is all said and done China will be China, and how they be, be only their business.

338. Losing my religion

Comment #233381 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Here were people talking to God on a frequency that wasn't on my dial.

339. Losing my religion

Comment #233379 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 8:26 pm

No, I'd say you are correct about those books. But it is quite interesting to see the before and after picture. Whatever the change was in that time period it was drastic.

340. Losing my religion

Comment #233373 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Brian,
"Perhaps it's my lack of literary interest, but I find Richards prose very readable and engaging. "
In his recent writing I'd agree, but not in his early writing.

The extended phenotype for example has excellent content, however the writing is unbearable. A friend and I have always joked that Dawkins must have taken gotten some writing advice from Matt Ridley (a science writer we both enjoyed) between The Extended Phenotype and TGD. There seems to have been a night and day shift in his writing style.

341. No credit for creationism

Comment #233319 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 4:49 pm

I only masturbate my own ego thank you very much. And if I were doing it to someone else's ego, well then it wouldn't be masturbation now would it.

I've been accused of a lot of things, but ego intercourse is one I am surely not guilty of.

342. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #233318 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm

pipc I honestly can't tell if you are trying to be humorous.

Degree and gradual have acquired quite different meanings.

However throughout your post you do precisely what you accuse RD of:

"reasonable reason"
"punctual point"

As far as the point on continuity of evolution I agree with your assertion of course because it is obvious. No one says continual to mean anything smoother than one nucleotide change at a time in fact it is generally much less "smooth" than that.

By your logic we could never use the word 'continuous' for anything, because at some quantum level everything is made up of discrete units.

343. A flea we missed?

Comment #233309 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 4:27 pm

For the hell of it I put "Topic Adherence nazis" through the anagram machine. Out came "A Zit Encroached Penis."

While I'm sure someone will be upset about such language it is a fitting name.

344. No credit for creationism

Comment #233304 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 4:20 pm

V. Void,

"can't fully blame a teenager in a christian school for not understanding that evolution is an established theory while ID is repackaged creationism hypothesis."

I doubt anyone here fully blames that twit for being a twit. I don't blame her at all. I blame the teachers and the school. The dumb blond isn't the problem, the school that allows her to keep being dumb is.

345. A flea we missed?

Comment #233300 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 4:12 pm

A ELF?

LEAF?

A ELF on a LEAF?

a FLEA on A ELF on a LEAF?

346. A flea we missed?

Comment #233294 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Look at him, he doesn't know his anagrams from his acronyms.

Really makes him look like a mad buss!

347. A flea we missed?

Comment #233291 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 3:59 pm

"I know creationists who are biochemists"

You do?

I know of some theist/deist type biochemists. But I have never met a true blue creationist biochemist. Not of course because it wouldn't be allowed by "the establishment," but just because in studying biochemistry they... what's the word.... LEARN SOMETHING.

348. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #233287 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Medical doctors have to work hard to keep up on resent research in their area. Interestingly if a doctor based their decision on a 50 year old idea that has been proven faulty they'd be fired instantly. But if they base decisions on a 2000 year old idea that has been proven faulty, well, THAT is their right.

349. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #233284 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Yes, I'm familiar with that work. And there has been fMRI work on "religious experiences."

I was just making a smart ass joke. And on the theme of smart ass jokes...

If you probe the mind of a butt-head is it actually an anal-probe? Maybe the martians aren't that far off.

350. A flea we missed?

Comment #233282 by J Mac on August 19, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Ok the Anne Coulter point is good... she's twisted in ways there aren't even words for.

D'Souza on the other hand, while I rarely agree with him, is a reasonable and intelligent person.

I don't expect all books published will say things I like or agree with. But they should say SOMETHING.

D'Souza is mistaken, but I would not say he's a fool. He says something when he speaks.