Disturbing Scientific Discoveries
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
I'm still a teenager, so I've got plenty of time. Who am I to say it's wrong or right? For the most part I believe everything here, but that's because of what I see with the media and everything. This is good. :)
No you whipper-snapper, it's not good.
Sweeping generalisation: I weep for the teenager of today.
At least they're interested, that's a beginning.
Apathy is a much bigger problem than being still an uncritical consumer.
I remember the first time I had first hand knowledge of an event that was covered by the media, and how much my personal, eye-witness experience deviated from what I read in the newspaper and saw on TV the next day.
It was a moment of absolute amazement, and then I suddenly realized I'd probably been duped to a greater or lesser extent for years about any number of things.
It's just more rare than previously thought.
First there was no good reason to assume that telescopes provided a good image of distant bodies, so observations made using them had no credibility and could thus not be counted as 'evidence' as the article states. Secondly, if the earth moved and we with it, why did an object that was dropped from a tower, land at the bottom of that tower and not a good distant away from it? Assuming that the earth and the tower moved with it, but not the object since it was touching the earth nor the tower.
Galileo had a lot of explaining to do: the observations he made simply could not be placed in the prevalent scientific model. The easy way out is was to refute the evidence because it did not fit, the long way out was to rebuild the model.
True, but this is from an organization who accepts appealing to the revealed devine word as a methodology.
For instance, the roman catholic churches stand on on condoms is absolutely irresponsible and causes a lot of trouble for a lot of people every year.
The only thing they'd have to do is to be able to admit they were wrong all along, wipe some of that dogmatic slate clean, but that's too high a price to pay for them, because it will lead people to wonder about what else they might be wrong about.
The pope should not be handing out medical advice precisely because he is not a doctor, but that does not seem to stop him.
Real damage is done by this dogmatic stance.
An insult in an apology :)
Joke for you: Judge: John, what did you say? John: I said he was an asshole. Judge: Apologize for that! John: Ok. "George, I'm sorry you're an asshole".
It wasn't meant as bait, sorry you interpreted it as such. It's just that the way the church has dealt with scientific stuff (and medicine is science too) is really painful and problematic to me.
Lives are at stake here, millions of them, especially in Africa and one word from one guy could change this, and he chooses not to speak it.
This is not 'proof' but some background:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7950671.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18wed2.html
the Cochrane paper:
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102272852.h...
Scientist says >>The best way to avoid transmission of the virus is to abstain from sexual intercourse or have a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected person.
Sounds like the old dude knows what he is talking about. From those links it looks like the best plan of attack is condoms for high risk people and partner reduction strategies for the general population. The condoms for everyone approach seems to spend time and materials ineffectively.
If you don't play the game don't mess with the rules.
The reality is: people will have sex, both inside and outside of their relationships.
'Marital Fidelity' as a concept is great, but it is about as mythical as the tooth fairy, contrary to popular belief.
http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/s...
The reality is: once a virus is present in a population it will spread, even if you are 'careful', for one because even if you are monogamous your partner that you are sure is too may not be, and they have possibly (make that probably) slept with others in the past.
To willfully ignore the reality on the ground is stupid at best and criminal at worst.
In some countries in Africa there is a 20%+ rate of sero-positivity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_a...
The scientists view is to state the 'optimum' solution, to realize that reality is different and to hold up condom use as the second best solution.
Taking it out of context like that is simply silly.
The Pope also condemns the use of condoms.
So, between being unfaithful with a condom and being unfaithful without a condom, a good Catholic should go with #2, the lesser of the two evils.
On another note, your expectations are wholly without merit, the use of condoms can only halt the spreading of aids, but not its prevalence, and hence will never cause a decline.
Only the grim reaper causes a decline in aids.
Deleted comment
Once you show that the church has in the past allowed their dogmatic stance overcome reason which led to hardship for the parties involved I think it is fair to show that the same thing is still happening today, and that even if the church has come around on some of their mistakes in the past they have a long way to go with respect to the present.
I also note that it is the second word that makes the argument, you could have simply let it go, instead you decided to answer in a flippant manner.
Don't blame me for your choices, half this conversation is kept up by you (even now) ;)
Edit: Er, actually, the Diophantine equation question would be uncomputable (like the halting problem), not undecidable. The ideas are closely related, though.
Douglas Adams said it better than I can: "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
Why? If I had to guess, I would say you are uncomfortable with intrinsic uncertainty. Or is it something else?
- We’ve already changed the climate for the rest of this century - There have been mass extinctions in the past, and we’re probably in one now.
Seriously?
Among the actual scientists, the overwhelming consensus is that climate change is happening on a scale that is threatening, and to a significant extent caused by humans.
Personally, I find what people capable of in our darker moments disturbing, but science is essentially the antidote for that. Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" being strongly recommended:
Does that number actually tell anyone anything?
What would the equivalent thought process be in imperial units? Lets say you have 1 lb of mass and want to figure out the amount of energy contained in it with the equation E = mc² and c² being 3.47 × 10^10 miles per second, just to know the scale of things (which was kinda the point in the article imho). How would you do that?
edit: Another point of view: velocity and kinetic energy. E = 0.5mv², that should be familiar to anyone familiar to physics. So with a velocity of 5.5 × 10^9 inches per year you don't need a lot of mass to have a lot of energy, because the multiplier is so huge, right?