You dont expect me to believe that??

Cavehill Red

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well just look at the threads on boards. Look at the attacks on gm crops, many scientists are targeted with hate mail for their support of global warming and look at the level of support for creationisim.

I don't think it's reasonable to equate creationists with people who are concerned about the criminal behaviour of Monsanto.
People concerned about GMO's are supported by science which indicates that GMO genetics can be easily dispersed into wider crops.
You are being more than disingenuous by slyly seeking to equate that concern with demonstrable idiocies.

Piliger

steddyeddy wrote: »

You misunderstand my post.

It's possible, but I don't believe so.

Current scientific thinking is not by definition of the reality of the world. Current scientific thinking is how scientists see the world.

Wrong yet again. Current Scientific Thinking is, by definition of the English language, the 'current' consensus. There is no scientific 'definition of this term you use. Leave the word 'reality' out ... that is another thing altogether

You seem to be under the illusion that I dont believe in evolution.

Totally incorrect. I never gave that impression an didn't comment in any way on your own beliefs.

Well thats not the case. Again evolution is a fact and also current scientific thinking. Current scientific thinking as a term does not mean "not proven".

Wrong again. Evolution is not Current Scientific Thinking at all. Your use of the words 'current' and 'thinking' are leading you down a false path and confusing the crap out of all discussion you engage in. Evolution is well establish Scientific 'Fact'. There is nothing current about it, and nothing thinking about it.
AGW and GM crop safety is another matter. They could be described as Current Scientific Thinking, in that they are the consensus of 'most' scientists. However they are not established fact because they lacks direct evidence and there are significant scientific groupings that challenge them.

Also my reference to current scientific thinking is an admission to the fact that the perception of science isnt a fixed state of affairs. That is my point. Whats thought of as safe today or accurate often wont be safe or accurate tomorrow.

Here you use the term correctly, though introducing the word 'perception' is another way to muddle your discussion. Perception can be anything.

Again .. Evolution is proven fact. It is not going to change in the future. It is and will continue to be refined, but it is not going to change. It is NOT Current Scientific Thinking.

As regards IVF I do think its largely extremely safe but I think there is more risks involved with IVF than a regular pregnancy. Those possible risks are bound to possible errors involving information other than DNA sequence that is heritable during cell division.

This may be true .. but this is not what you originally said, which is "I dont think ivf is as safe as some people think". Who are 'some people' ? and what exactly is 'safe' ?

No offence, but in my view you don't think in a scientific way - and certainly don't write in this way.

IVF shouldnt be automatically more risk bound but current attitudes to cell culturing dont always take into account sensitivity to histone acetylation, methylation, cpg methylation and possible cell enviroment reprogramming.

Maybe, maybe not. But look at the global experience of pregnancy and the global experience of still births and spontaneous natural abortion within days/weeks/hours of fertilisation. You open an enormous can of worms when you raise a questions such as 'safe' and 'some people', as well as 'perception'.

By the way scientists give weight to any scientific paper as long as the experiment methods are sound and the abstract clear. It's not a popularity contest.

Only if the evidence is meaningful and justified. One experiment can negate 20 years of theories, and 100 other claims. But one paper or experiment that does not produce sound evidence backed by sound methods is not significant. I refer you to the Arsenic-NASA-New-Life-Form debacle in California.

biko

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well just look at the threads on boards. Look at the attacks on gm crops, many scientists are targeted with hate mail for their support of global warming and look at the level of support for creationisim.

Dunno, that all just sounds made up.

steddyeddy

Piliger wrote: »

It's possible, but I don't believe so.

Wrong yet again. Current Scientific Thinking is, by definition of the English language, the 'current' consensus. There is no scientific 'definition of this term you use. Leave the word 'reality' out ... that is another thing altogether

Totally incorrect. I never gave that impression an didn't comment in any way on your own beliefs.

Wrong again. Evolution is not Current Scientific Thinking at all. Your use of the words 'current' and 'thinking' are leading you down a false path and confusing the crap out of all discussion you engage in. Evolution is well establish Scientific 'Fact'. There is nothing current about it, and nothing thinking about it.

I think this attitude you seem to developing about my semantics is not something I want to fuel. I will be using scientific consensus, scientific thinking or my favourite: “the current scientific paradigm”. These are words I’m going to be using to express the same general meaning. You can either get over it or don’t. None of the words that I use are reflective of my attitudes towards a particular area of science.


Your description of my attempts to be right are wrong are bewildering. You come across as someone on the internet who is trying to catch me out in something. My opening post is a question it’s for the large part not a statement of where my scientific loyalties lie. If you have a problem with my posts scientific loyalties please deal with the scientific principles I lay down and not the semantics I use to describe them.
I would thank you for your attempt to describe the standing of evolution but It would fall on deaf ears. You are hearing what you want to hear.

[/QUOTE]AGW and GM crop safety is another matter. They could be described as Current Scientific Thinking, in that they are the consensus of 'most' scientists. However they are not established fact because they lacks direct evidence and there are significant scientific groupings that challenge them.[/QUOTE]


Some of the problems with some people’s perception of GM crops are that the think the genetic engineering of crops and animals for that matter are something new.


I dont understand what you mean when you say they are not established fact? What aspect of genetic engineering is not established fact?

Here you use the term correctly, though introducing the word 'perception' is another way to muddle your discussion. Perception can be anything.


This may be true .. but this is not what you originally said, which is "I dont think ivf is as safe as some people think". Who are 'some people' ? and what exactly is 'safe' ?

May be true? DNA methylation and chemical modification of nucleosomes are scientific facts. As are the effects they have on gene expression. There is concern that IVF births in terms of statistics can pose an increased likely hood of producing children with certain congenital birth defects. Again though I think your lack of understand may arise form a confusion about eh semantics used and not a true attempt to understand the science behind it.

No offence, but in my view you don't think in a scientific way - and certainly don't write in this way.

No offence taken for several reasons as detailed below

1. you don't think in a scientific way- I dont believe in telepathy so I doubt you know how I think
2. certainly don't write in this way- unless you read any paper I publish I cant take offence to that. Even If you did counter any scientific theory I put forward I suspect you would be unable to get beyond the semantics.

Maybe, maybe not. But look at the global experience of pregnancy and the global experience of still births and spontaneous natural abortion within days/weeks/hours of fertilisation. You open an enormous can of worms when you raise a questions such as 'safe' and 'some people', as well as 'perception'.

Again with the semantics?

Only if the evidence is meaningful and justified. One experiment can negate 20 years of theories, and 100 other claims. But one paper or experiment that does not produce sound evidence backed by sound methods is not significant. I refer you to the Arsenic-NASA-New-Life-Form debacle in California.

How does that contradict what I said here:

By the way scientists give weight to any scientific paper as long as the experiment methods are sound and the abstract clear.

As regards the Arsenic debacle-some bacteria do oxidise certain fuels while reducing arsenate to arsenite.

--Kaiser--

steddyeddy wrote: »

some dont accept global warming (well human accelerated global warming anyway).

I don't see what's wrong with being sceptical about anthropogenic climate change. It hasn't been proven that global warming is being caused by human activity. There's a lot of knee-jerkedness around this aspect of science to be honest. Any who see it differently are labelled with term 'climate change denier' which has unpleasant and offensive connotations with those who deny the occurrence of the holocaust.

seagull

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm a scientist and I dont see anything wrong with being skeptical about current scientific thinking. As long as you can back up your argument. If people cant challenge current scientific thinking thats not science thats dogma.

What kind of scientist? There's more than one kind. I'm trying to get an idea of your knowledge on the topics you chose. In terms of your examples

There are a significant number of people in mainstream science who have issues with GM crops.

There are a significant number of scientists who accept climate change is happening (global warming is so last century's term), but dispute the extent to which it is driven by human activity. There is certainly a benefit to governments to accept it as a given, because it then gives them a justification for carbon taxes. Once they've adopted that stance, any government funding into climate change will then be directed to research groups who take the preferred position.

Ghost Buster

irish-stew wrote: »

Well they never went back for a start. Where's all this talk of moon bases and jump/relay points for further travel that we were promised.

I once got drunk in Mojacar, a tiny scenic village in the south of Spain. I declared that i would return and possibly take out a permanent share on a small villa there.
Now you have convinced me that i was never there in the first place:eek:

Ush1

I am still skeptical abot human caused global warming, having said that I haven't looked into it extensively. I have just watched some pop science documentaries on both sides.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

I am still skeptical abot human caused global warming, having said that I haven't looked into it extensively. I have just watched some pop science documentaries on both sides.

The consensus is that climate change is caused by human actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

--Kaiser-- wrote:

I don't see what's wrong with being sceptical about anthropogenic climate change.

What's wrong with it is that the issue of climate change is kind of important for the survival of Homo sapiens.

Human activity is the largest contributor to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. All the evidence points to climate change caused by humans.

Shenshen

steddyeddy wrote: »

On boards lately we have seen an increase in the number of people who dont accept some of the current scientific thinking. Some for example dont believe we're evolved from a common anscestor with the apes, others dont accept that GMOs (genetically modified organisims) are safe and some dont accept global warming (well human accelerated global warming anyway).

I'm a scientist and I dont see anything wrong with being skeptical about current scientific thinking. As long as you can back up your argument. If people cant challenge current scientific thinking thats not science thats dogma.

So is there any current scientific thinking you dont accept? Personally I dont think ivf is as safe as some people think but in fairness some studies are starting to agree with me. What science doubts do you hold and do you think the increasing distrust of scientists and science is warranted?

I'm rather sceptical about research results on what is a healthy lifestyle for human beings and what isn't.
I think the margins we're talking about regarding weight, drinking habit, smoking, etc. are much wider than what some doctors and professionals would have you believe.

--Kaiser--

Deleted User wrote: »

The consensus is that climate change is caused by human actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change



What's wrong with it is that the issue of climate change is kind of important for the survival of Homo sapiens.

Human activity is the largest contributor to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. All the evidence points to climate change caused by humans.

I know what the consensus is but it still hasn't been proven. Correlation does not equal causation. Sure the issue is important but taking it to be anthropogenic as a fact (which it is surely not) is like Pascals wager

Ush1

Deleted User wrote: »

The consensus is that climate change is caused by human actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Yeah, there's a fair bit of reading in that and it's such a new area I'd have to look into more.

asherbassad

"The Church tells me that the Earth is flat. But I've seen the shadow of the Earth on the Moon and I trust the shadow more than I trust the Church."

- Ferdinand Magellan

Piliger

steddyeddy wrote: »

You come across as someone on the internet who is trying to catch me out in something.

Coming from the Science industry and having working in Chemistry research, I am simply challenging you on your posts and the language and thinking you use, which is thoroughly non scientific. I would be happy to debate your ideas but you need to tighten up your concepts.

newmug

SunDog wrote: »

Read recently that what the US of A military uses in ac is equal to the entire NASA budget.:eek:

What is ac?

franktheplank

newmug wrote: »

Boards is not a national thermometer for anything but. It attracts a type of poster who does not represent the normal cross-section of people of Ireland in the main. Therefore, although I agree with you that there are a lot of threads contravening current scientific thinking, this in no way represents the average Irish persons opinion on same. Thankfully:D

How dare you, I'm completely normal. At least thats what the small elf that lives in my finger and puts words in my heads says. Dum de dum dum dum. Tra la la.

fussyonion

I'm sceptical that this isn't a genuine ad! :mad: http://www.daft.ie/cadbury/

Cee-Jay-Cee

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm a scientist.....

Really? You mean there is an actual job being a scientist? I always thought Scientist was a job that only existed in children's minds, you know like when you ask a child what they want to be when they grow up and you get answers like Shop keeper, train driver, power ranger, scientists etc etc

steddyeddy

CJC999 wrote: »

Really? You mean there is an actual job being a scientist? I always thought Scientist was a job that only existed in children's minds, you know like when you ask a child what they want to be when they grow up and you get answers like Shop keeper, train driver, power ranger, scientists etc etc

Yes good point. I'm a scientist by education and employment (and more importantly in attitude).

mhigh86

I like cake......mmmmmmhhh

SunDog

newmug wrote: »

What is ac?

Air conditioning

steddyeddy

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I don't see what's wrong with being sceptical about anthropogenic climate change. It hasn't been proven that global warming is being caused by human activity. There's a lot of knee-jerkedness around this aspect of science to be honest. Any who see it differently are labelled with term 'climate change denier' which has unpleasant and offensive connotations with those who deny the occurrence of the holocaust.

Hey Kaiser. I dont see anything wrong with being skeptical either. Thats why I started the thread not to have a go at any particular group or lump skeptics in with creationists ect.

There's a lot of knee-jerkedness

That's something I would agree with. Personally I accept evolution and human accelerated climate change but I hate with a passion the attitude that these should never be questioned (by the way Im not lumping you in with creationists). Everyone has the right to be skeptical. When people are unable to question science without people making ad hominin attacks on them science becomes dogma.

steddyeddy

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I don't think it's reasonable to equate creationists with people who are concerned about the criminal behaviour of Monsanto.
People concerned about GMO's are supported by science which indicates that GMO genetics can be easily dispersed into wider crops.
You are being more than disingenuous by slyly seeking to equate that concern with demonstrable idiocies.

I'm not. I'm personally concerned with Monsanto but I dont think GMOs are a bad idea in general.

Cavehill Red

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not. I'm personally concerned with Monsanto but I dont think GMOs are a bad idea in general.

You are still being disingenuous by seeking to equate Creationists with people who are concerned with GMO proliferation.

steddyeddy

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You are still being disingenuous by seeking to equate Creationists with people who are concerned with GMO proliferation.

It wasnt deliberate nor is that the intention of this thread. I'd be happy never to mention gmos again in this thread.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again with the semantics?

The purpose of language is communication; if you can get your idea across to someone, there's no need to get hung up on semantics. Unfortunately in science it's not possible to trust that people have gotten the jist - I would argue that semantics are incredibly important in science.

For example you said that some people don't think that GMOs are safe. They're by no means proven to be safe from an ecological standpoint concerning the wild gene pool. They also seem to be unsafe with regards to protecting struggling farmers being taken advantage of. In other ways they certainly seem safe, but the idea of "GMOs are safe" is very ambiguous. The validity of the phrase can be true, false or inconclusive depending on what you mean by it, and in science, you have to state what you mean or it's meaningless - you can't trust people to be on the same wavelength as you.

steddyeddy

true-or-false wrote: »

The purpose of language is communication; if you can get your idea across to someone, there's no need to get hung up on semantics. Unfortunately in science it's not possible to trust that people have gotten the jist - I would argue that semantics are incredibly important in science.

For example you said that some people don't think that GMOs are safe. They're by no means proven to be safe from an ecological standpoint concerning the wild gene pool. They also seem to be unsafe with regards to protecting struggling farmers being taken advantage of. In other ways they certainly seem safe, but the idea of "GMOs are safe" is very ambiguous. The validity of the phrase can be true, false or inconclusive depending on what you mean by it, and in science, you have to state what you mean or it's meaningless - you can't trust people to be on the same wavelength as you.

Yes getting ones point across is important. Semantics would be important if I were writing a paper on IVF ect but basing an entire argument on the semantics of a post on a internet forum is not something that has merit. Attacking someones scientific thinking based on semantics is'nt something that I have come across in my career either.

As regards saftey I was referring to IVF. I personally think it's likely that there is an increased risk of congenital birth defects from IVF treatment. My thinking relates to the lack of thought given to the reprogramming of non genetic elements and their effect on gene expression.

Finally this is after hours I dont think it's a good idea to make a thread comprised entirely of scientific langague.

PizzamanIRL

steddyeddy wrote: »

On boards lately we have seen an increase in the number of people who dont accept some of the current scientific thinking. Some for example dont believe we're evolved from a common anscestor with the apes, others dont accept that GMOs (genetically modified organisims) are safe and some dont accept global warming (well human accelerated global warming anyway).

I'm a scientist and I dont see anything wrong with being skeptical about current scientific thinking. As long as you can back up your argument. If people cant challenge current scientific thinking thats not science thats dogma.

So is there any current scientific thinking you dont accept? Personally I dont think ivf is as safe as some people think but in fairness some studies are starting to agree with me. What science doubts do you hold and do you think the increasing distrust of scientists and science is warranted?

What's the point in abbreviating something if you're going to type out the whole thing anyway? Just saying.

latenia

I think advanced theoretical physics is just as much a load of bollox as any religion- it's just mathematical masturbation by dorks.

This means that if one studied supergravity on an eleven-dimensional spacetime that looks like the product of a ten-dimensional spacetime with another very small one-dimensional manifold, one gets the Type IIA supergravity theory. (And the Type IIB supergravity theory can be obtained by using T-duality.) However, eleven-dimensional supergravity is not consistent on its own — it does not make sense at extremely high energy, and likely requires some form of completion. It seems plausible, then, that there is some quantum theory — which Witten dubbed M-theory — in eleven-dimensions which gives rise at low energies to eleven-dimensional supergravity, and is related to ten-dimensional string theory by dimensional reduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

steddyeddy

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

What's the point in abbreviating something if you're going to type out the whole thing anyway? Just saying.

Becuase not everyone knows what GMOs are. Typing out the abbreviation and full meaning now means I can use the abbreviation in later posts without worry.