Comments on: Morning reads *UPDATED* http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/ Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts. Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:24:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: echeccone http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23324 echeccone Mon, 12 May 2008 19:58:38 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23324 suek, thanks for the question on speciation. It is important to understand that observing the formation of a species under recorded time (i.e., the last 5-10k years) is tough because these changes are occuring over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Only over long periods of time will genetic material between two populations cease to mix, thereby allowing sterility in offspring to occur. That it is hard to observe is why evolution detractors like to take this tact in rebutting the theory, which is great. A robust theory should be able to handle all comers. The problem with the persistent criticism along these lines is that confirmed observations, although not enormous in number for the reason mentioned earlier, have been made. I would refer you to the following website for a summary of some of the literature: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html I believe the critique du jour amongst anti-Darwins is no longer speciation but rather irreducible complexity; however, this rebuttal of evolution has many problems also. I can send a link if you are interested. You are correct that there is still debate on evolution. More than a little, actually. However, it is at the level of working out details of the theory rather than questioning its overall validity. Any theory to displace it will likely uphold most of its tenets and observations but in a novel manner, much like Einstein's theory of general relativity explained Newtonian physics even as it transcended it. You see, the formation of scientific theories is itself very much an evolutionary process... And any legitimate criticisms of the theory will come out of peer-reviewed journals rather than fake scientific foundations that are funded by religious or political groups committed to an ideology rather than scientific integrity. suek, thanks for the question on speciation. It is important to understand that observing the formation of a species under recorded time (i.e., the last 5-10k years) is tough because these changes are occuring over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Only over long periods of time will genetic material between two populations cease to mix, thereby allowing sterility in offspring to occur. That it is hard to observe is why evolution detractors like to take this tact in rebutting the theory, which is great. A robust theory should be able to handle all comers. The problem with the persistent criticism along these lines is that confirmed observations, although not enormous in number for the reason mentioned earlier, have been made. I would refer you to the following website for a summary of some of the literature:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

I believe the critique du jour amongst anti-Darwins is no longer speciation but rather irreducible complexity; however, this rebuttal of evolution has many problems also. I can send a link if you are interested.

You are correct that there is still debate on evolution. More than a little, actually. However, it is at the level of working out details of the theory rather than questioning its overall validity. Any theory to displace it will likely uphold most of its tenets and observations but in a novel manner, much like Einstein’s theory of general relativity explained Newtonian physics even as it transcended it. You see, the formation of scientific theories is itself very much an evolutionary process… And any legitimate criticisms of the theory will come out of peer-reviewed journals rather than fake scientific foundations that are funded by religious or political groups committed to an ideology rather than scientific integrity.

]]> By: echeccone http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23323 echeccone Mon, 12 May 2008 19:41:00 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23323 suek, thanks for the questions. you are correct that the Constitution sets the Congress as the funder of forces for a common defense, as well as the body to declare war and set regulations for armed forces; meanwhile the President is the leader of these forces. I was not suggesting otherwise. My point was that certain functions cannot be delivered effectively by a private market, and the military is one of these. Basic scientific research is another one. Drug companies do some basic research, but the vast majority of their work is dedicated to finding compounds that will lead to effective therapeutic treatments that generate a lot of profits (applied research). Hence, a lot of technological breakthroughs occur in government labs and then move into the private sector. The internet is one famous example of this, but not the only one. Software-defined radios are being developed by the military, but will be in your childrens' or grandkids' phones some day. NASA has amazing solar powered satellites and rovers, and that technology might become commercially viable and worked on by tech companies in the next decade, but not yet. So to say that a government not funding science is not silencing is a little naiive. The funding will occur outside the US, this is true, but then we will not benefit from that research as we would have otherwise. This is why we Californians opted to ignore Bush and fund at the state level. Hopefully, this decision will withstand judicial scrutiny... suek, thanks for the questions. you are correct that the Constitution sets the Congress as the funder of forces for a common defense, as well as the body to declare war and set regulations for armed forces; meanwhile the President is the leader of these forces. I was not suggesting otherwise. My point was that certain functions cannot be delivered effectively by a private market, and the military is one of these. Basic scientific research is another one. Drug companies do some basic research, but the vast majority of their work is dedicated to finding compounds that will lead to effective therapeutic treatments that generate a lot of profits (applied research). Hence, a lot of technological breakthroughs occur in government labs and then move into the private sector. The internet is one famous example of this, but not the only one. Software-defined radios are being developed by the military, but will be in your childrens’ or grandkids’ phones some day. NASA has amazing solar powered satellites and rovers, and that technology might become commercially viable and worked on by tech companies in the next decade, but not yet. So to say that a government not funding science is not silencing is a little naiive. The funding will occur outside the US, this is true, but then we will not benefit from that research as we would have otherwise. This is why we Californians opted to ignore Bush and fund at the state level. Hopefully, this decision will withstand judicial scrutiny…

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23254 Ymarsakar Fri, 09 May 2008 21:06:09 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23254 <B>I’m sure no member of the GOP would say that Democrats were hurting the military…</b> In case you hadn't noticed, hurting the government's ability to make citizens into slaves is a good thing. Hurting the US military that protects those same citizens from oppression, foreign and domestic, is a bad thing. I’m sure no member of the GOP would say that Democrats were hurting the military…

In case you hadn’t noticed, hurting the government’s ability to make citizens into slaves is a good thing. Hurting the US military that protects those same citizens from oppression, foreign and domestic, is a bad thing.

]]> By: suek http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23251 suek Fri, 09 May 2008 20:27:14 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23251 >>given that the government is the only supplier of funding for basic research>> Cites please. What is the function of the drug companies? Are you stating that they have nothing to do with medical research? >>If you disagree, then I would ask you whether conservatives would not be crying bloody murder if Democrats removed all defense spending by arguing that private enterprise could pick up the tab>> I disagree. The primary function of government according to the Constitution is the defense of the country. Research for medical benefits is _not_ one of the authorized functions of the government. If _you_ disagree, please point out where in the Constitution research is a legitimate governmental function. And by the way, there _is_ still some debate on evolution. I'd be happy if someone - anyone - could explain to me how speciation occurs. Or give me proof of even one occurrence of same. Just one. Varieties of species does not qualify as mutation of one species to another. And of course, given that within the definition of species is the inability to breed and produce fertile offspring, how does a single mutation reoccur with sufficient frequency within a population so that a separate species can establish itself? In other words and to keep it simple, how many mules have been produced in the world in recorded time, and when has a mule bred to another mule ever produced a mule? >>given that the government is the only supplier of funding for basic research>>

Cites please. What is the function of the drug companies? Are you stating that they have nothing to do with medical research?

>>If you disagree, then I would ask you whether conservatives would not be crying bloody murder if Democrats removed all defense spending by arguing that private enterprise could pick up the tab>>

I disagree. The primary function of government according to the Constitution is the defense of the country. Research for medical benefits is _not_ one of the authorized functions of the government. If _you_ disagree, please point out where in the Constitution research is a legitimate governmental function.

And by the way, there _is_ still some debate on evolution. I’d be happy if someone – anyone – could explain to me how speciation occurs. Or give me proof of even one occurrence of same. Just one. Varieties of species does not qualify as mutation of one species to another. And of course, given that within the definition of species is the inability to breed and produce fertile offspring, how does a single mutation reoccur with sufficient frequency within a population so that a separate species can establish itself? In other words and to keep it simple, how many mules have been produced in the world in recorded time, and when has a mule bred to another mule ever produced a mule?

]]> By: echeccone http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23235 echeccone Fri, 09 May 2008 14:30:06 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23235 Bush's administration has blacked out scientific findings on climate change. Conservatives posing as a scientific foundation have systematically sought to remove evolution from public school curricula or, alternatively, to teach a non-scientific theory alongside it as if there were a debate. The EPA has shifted procedures to report on air quality, over the objection of atmospheric scientists, and stone walled making it public--and Whitman had some interesting things to say about the Bush Administrations commitment to scientific integrity in her book. And that's just the conservatives. Liberals protested the Bell Curve's non-PC conclusions, although they were scientifically robust. These are all clear examples of politicians silencing experts or trying to. And, as to the funding issue, given that the government is the only supplier of funding for basic research, witholding funding is essentially silencing scientists. If you disagree, then I would ask you whether conservatives would not be crying bloody murder if Democrats removed all defense spending by arguing that private enterprise could pick up the tab; I'm sure no member of the GOP would say that Democrats were hurting the military... Bush’s administration has blacked out scientific findings on climate change. Conservatives posing as a scientific foundation have systematically sought to remove evolution from public school curricula or, alternatively, to teach a non-scientific theory alongside it as if there were a debate. The EPA has shifted procedures to report on air quality, over the objection of atmospheric scientists, and stone walled making it public–and Whitman had some interesting things to say about the Bush Administrations commitment to scientific integrity in her book. And that’s just the conservatives. Liberals protested the Bell Curve’s non-PC conclusions, although they were scientifically robust. These are all clear examples of politicians silencing experts or trying to. And, as to the funding issue, given that the government is the only supplier of funding for basic research, witholding funding is essentially silencing scientists. If you disagree, then I would ask you whether conservatives would not be crying bloody murder if Democrats removed all defense spending by arguing that private enterprise could pick up the tab; I’m sure no member of the GOP would say that Democrats were hurting the military…

]]> By: suek http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23219 suek Thu, 08 May 2008 23:18:47 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23219 >>...the politicians shouldn’t silence the experts either.>> And they have not done so. They have simply refused to finance their work. If ECT was so promising, why has it not been pursued commercially? >>…the politicians shouldn’t silence the experts either.>>

And they have not done so. They have simply refused to finance their work. If ECT was so promising, why has it not been pursued commercially?

]]> By: echeccone http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23209 echeccone Thu, 08 May 2008 19:40:54 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23209 sorry for the double post. there was a computer glitch. sorry for the double post. there was a computer glitch.

]]> By: echeccone http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23205 echeccone Thu, 08 May 2008 19:04:59 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23205 I understand the moral argument. Don't agree, but respect it. I don't agree that the scientific argument is now moot. A friend heads the stem cell research at the Whitehead Institute (MIT) and he has pointed out the differences between omnipotent embryonic stem cells and pluripotent adult stem cells, which have serious implications for their research and delivery of medicines. Conservatives have papered over these differences. Similarly, conservatives appear to have discounted (IMO) the problems with the mouse-DNA-tainted lines approved by the Bush administration, as well as the time needed to develop adult stem cell alternatives (which remain unproven). Finally, I wonder why conservatives have made the moral arguments on stem cells but not on IVF, the treatment for fertility that nearly always involves multiple "abortions" in the petri dish. My wife, an MD, has seen this first-hand. Look, I don't think that scientists should be making the decisions, but conservatives shouldn't be silencing or ignoring the experts because of inconvenient scientific findings. This debate is far from moot. On the climate study, there were many articles on the Bush censor. Here is the first one i found on Google: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63 Thanks for the empathy research. As I said before, I don't know about the validity of it or how scientific it really is. perhaps it is best to judge individuals rather than large groups of people. I'm sure it'll be a fun read nonetheless... I understand the moral argument. Don’t agree, but respect it. I don’t agree that the scientific argument is now moot. A friend heads the stem cell research at the Whitehead Institute (MIT) and he has pointed out the differences between omnipotent embryonic stem cells and pluripotent adult stem cells, which have serious implications for their research and delivery of medicines. Conservatives have papered over these differences. Similarly, conservatives appear to have discounted (IMO) the problems with the mouse-DNA-tainted lines approved by the Bush administration, as well as the time needed to develop adult stem cell alternatives (which remain unproven). Finally, I wonder why conservatives have made the moral arguments on stem cells but not on IVF, the treatment for fertility that nearly always involves multiple “abortions” in the petri dish. My wife, an MD, has seen this first-hand. Look, I don’t think that scientists should be making the decisions, but conservatives shouldn’t be silencing or ignoring the experts because of inconvenient scientific findings. This debate is far from moot.

On the climate study, there were many articles on the Bush censor. Here is the first one i found on Google: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63

Thanks for the empathy research. As I said before, I don’t know about the validity of it or how scientific it really is. perhaps it is best to judge individuals rather than large groups of people. I’m sure it’ll be a fun read nonetheless…

]]> By: echeccone http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23204 echeccone Thu, 08 May 2008 19:04:41 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23204 I understand the moral argument. Don't agree, but respect it. I don't agree that the scientific argument is now moot. A friend heads the stem cell research at the Whitehead Institute (MIT) and he has publicly pointed out the differences between omnipotent embryonic stem cells and pluripotent adult stem cells, which have serious implications for their research and delivery of medicines. Many conservatives have papered over these differences, to the detriment of medical research. Similarly, many conservatives appear to have discounted (IMO) the problems with the mouse-DNA-tainted lines approved by the Bush administration, as well as the time needed to develop adult stem cell alternatives (which remain unproven). Finally, I wonder why nearly all conservatives have made the moral arguments on stem cells but not on IVF, the treatment for fertility that nearly always involves multiple "abortions" in the petri dish--far more than stem cell research. My wife, an MD, has seen this first-hand. Look, I don't think that scientists should be making the decisions, but conservatives shouldn't be silencing or ignoring the experts because of inconvenient scientific findings. This debate is far from moot. By the way, how many conservatives will still buy the drugs made from embryonic stem cells, produced in Singapore or the UK, when their child needs a cancer treatment or their parent needs an Alzheimer's cure? I bet a lot of them. On the climate study, there were many articles on the Bush censor. Here is the first one I found on Google: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63 Thanks for the empathy research. As I said before, I don't know about the validity of it or how scientific it really is. perhaps it is best to judge individuals rather than large groups of people. I'm sure it'll be a fun read nonetheless... I understand the moral argument. Don’t agree, but respect it. I don’t agree that the scientific argument is now moot. A friend heads the stem cell research at the Whitehead Institute (MIT) and he has publicly pointed out the differences between omnipotent embryonic stem cells and pluripotent adult stem cells, which have serious implications for their research and delivery of medicines. Many conservatives have papered over these differences, to the detriment of medical research. Similarly, many conservatives appear to have discounted (IMO) the problems with the mouse-DNA-tainted lines approved by the Bush administration, as well as the time needed to develop adult stem cell alternatives (which remain unproven). Finally, I wonder why nearly all conservatives have made the moral arguments on stem cells but not on IVF, the treatment for fertility that nearly always involves multiple “abortions” in the petri dish–far more than stem cell research. My wife, an MD, has seen this first-hand. Look, I don’t think that scientists should be making the decisions, but conservatives shouldn’t be silencing or ignoring the experts because of inconvenient scientific findings. This debate is far from moot. By the way, how many conservatives will still buy the drugs made from embryonic stem cells, produced in Singapore or the UK, when their child needs a cancer treatment or their parent needs an Alzheimer’s cure? I bet a lot of them.

On the climate study, there were many articles on the Bush censor. Here is the first one I found on Google: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63

Thanks for the empathy research. As I said before, I don’t know about the validity of it or how scientific it really is. perhaps it is best to judge individuals rather than large groups of people. I’m sure it’ll be a fun read nonetheless…

]]> By: echeccone http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/07/morning-reads/comment-page-1/#comment-23203 echeccone Thu, 08 May 2008 18:54:59 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=2863#comment-23203 Danny, To the extent that stem cell opponents have argued on moral grounds, then I have no problem, although I would disagree with them; the problem is that they have mischaracterized the science, as you have done here. The argument is not moot because a great many scientists have argued that pluripotent non-embryonic stem cells is not as effective as omnipotent embryonic stem cells in their research. Further, most conservatives I read or spoke with also highly discounted the concerns about mice gene taint in the embryonic lines that Bush has approved. Finally, no conservative that I have read or spoken with has ever explained why the GOP and related groups have not gone after IVF and other fertility procedures even though they nearly always result in multiple "abortions" in the petri dish. These are serious scientific issues that are papered over because they don't fit the ideology. And I know these scientific claims are valid because my wife is an MD and has seen the IVF procedure first-hand, and because a friend who heads up research at MIT's Whitehead Institute, a leader in stem cell research, has spoken publicly about the problems associated with mouse-tainted approved lines and non-omnipotent lines. Look, the scientists should not make the decisions, but the politicians shouldn't silence the experts either. By the way, the current administration's censoring of climate research was well-publicized. This NYT article was the first that came up on a Google search: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63 Thanks for the empathy research you referenced. As I said before, I wasn't sure about the validity of these psychographic studies. I don't even know how scientific they are. Perhaps this is an area where it's best to simply judge individuals as individuals on the basis of their actions rather than trying to categorize broad groups of people. But I'm sure your link will be fun reading nonetheless. Danny, To the extent that stem cell opponents have argued on moral grounds, then I have no problem, although I would disagree with them; the problem is that they have mischaracterized the science, as you have done here. The argument is not moot because a great many scientists have argued that pluripotent non-embryonic stem cells is not as effective as omnipotent embryonic stem cells in their research. Further, most conservatives I read or spoke with also highly discounted the concerns about mice gene taint in the embryonic lines that Bush has approved. Finally, no conservative that I have read or spoken with has ever explained why the GOP and related groups have not gone after IVF and other fertility procedures even though they nearly always result in multiple “abortions” in the petri dish. These are serious scientific issues that are papered over because they don’t fit the ideology. And I know these scientific claims are valid because my wife is an MD and has seen the IVF procedure first-hand, and because a friend who heads up research at MIT’s Whitehead Institute, a leader in stem cell research, has spoken publicly about the problems associated with mouse-tainted approved lines and non-omnipotent lines. Look, the scientists should not make the decisions, but the politicians shouldn’t silence the experts either.

By the way, the current administration’s censoring of climate research was well-publicized. This NYT article was the first that came up on a Google search:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63

Thanks for the empathy research you referenced. As I said before, I wasn’t sure about the validity of these psychographic studies. I don’t even know how scientific they are. Perhaps this is an area where it’s best to simply judge individuals as individuals on the basis of their actions rather than trying to categorize broad groups of people. But I’m sure your link will be fun reading nonetheless.

]]>