Interesting Stuff Thread

Dades

Dunno if any of you are Mythbusters fans...

This is Adam Savage on accepting the Harvard Secular Society's Outstanding Lifetime Achievement award in Cultural Humanism on behalf of Mythbusters.

http://www.boingboing.net/features/savage.html



An interesting read.

Funglegunk

A site has been chosen for the world's largest proposed telescope: the E-ELT (European Extremely Large Telescope). It will have a resolution 15 times sharper than Hubble, and will be able to capture images of Jupiter-like planets in other solar systems.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100426115517.htm



Official website here.

Video about it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W38Fm8-3jE

iUseVi

Dades wrote: »

Dunno if any of you are Mythbusters fans...

This is Adam Savage on accepting the Harvard Secular Society's Outstanding Lifetime Achievement award in Cultural Humanism on behalf of Mythbusters.

http://www.boingboing.net/features/savage.html



An interesting read.

I posted this in this thread 10 days ago! I should have used flashy images to get people's attention I suppose.

Dades

iUseVi wrote: »

I posted this in this thread 10 days ago! I should have used flashy images to get people's attention I suppose.

Apologies - my missis had a baby 10 days ago! I wasn't online my usual amount.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Apologies - my missis had a baby 10 days ago! I wasn't online my usual amount.

Thats great news. We should celebrate. A&A beers in two weeks time?

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

Apologies - my missis had a baby 10 days ago! I wasn't online my usual amount.

Pft. Slacker.

legspin

Dades wrote: »

Apologies - my missis had a baby 10 days ago! I wasn't online my usual amount.

Congratulations to you and well done to your missus and the sprog.

So, as chief atheist around here, when are you going to eat your child.?... ohh hang on a minute...

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

Thats great news. We should celebrate. A&A beers in two weeks years time?

Count me in!

iUseVi

congratulations!

Galvasean

David Quinn wrote a spiel in today's Indo about how religious people will outbreed secularists into oblivion. Show him he's wrong Dades!

ChocolateSauce

Galvasean wrote: »

David Quinn wrote a spiel in today's Indo about how religious people will outbreed secularists into oblivion. Show him he's wrong Dades!

Yeah!

Congratulations Dades. It seems like just last week we were congratulating you on your first too....

liamw

Dades wrote: »

Apologies - my missis had a baby 10 days ago! I wasn't online my usual amount.

When's the christening?

5uspect

Dades wrote: »

Apologies - my missis had a baby 10 days ago! I wasn't online my usual amount.

Congratulations!

Dades

liamw wrote: »

When's the christening?

Don't mention the war!

Two will be my final contribution to the secular cause. Let's hope they don't grow up wanting to be a nun and a priest. :eek:

Flamed Diving

Does anyone remember a study which demonstrated that different cultures use different regions of the brain for maths?

Pompey Magnus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Does anyone remember a study which demonstrated that different cultures use different regions of the brain for maths?

Article on the subject

For instance, a 2006 study found that native Chinese speakers use a different region of the brain to do simple arithmetic (3 + 4) or decide which number is larger than native English speakers do, even though both use Arabic numerals. The Chinese use the circuits that process visual and spatial information and plan movements (the latter may be related to the use of the abacus). But English speakers use language circuits. It is as if the West conceives numbers as just words, but the East imbues them with symbolic, spatial freight. (Insert cliché about Asian math geniuses.) "One would think that neural processes involving basic mathematical computations are universal," says Ambady, but they "seem to be culture-specific."

MrPudding

Not sure where to put this, I was looking for something on the burkha ban and found this...

UK Current Awareness

The latest legal and regulatory developments - updated throughout every working day
April 30, 2010 08:16
© 2010 Sweet & Maxwell
Article - Newspaper
Judge rejects "irrational" idea that Christianity deserves special protection from law

Frances Gibb
Times, April 30, 2010, 17. Also reported in Independent, April 30, 2010, 25; Guardian, April 30, 2010, 17; Daily Telegraph, April 30, 2010, 16


Subject: Employment Other related subjects: Human Rights


Keywords: Christianity; Counselling; Dismissal; Homosexuality; Public interest; Religious groups; Sexual orientation discrimination


Abstract: The High Court has rejected Christian marriage guidance counsellor Gary MacFarlane's attempt to challenge his dismissal for refusing to provide sex therapy to gay couples. Dismissing Mr MacFarlane's application for permission to appeal against an Employment Appeal Tribunal, the judge stated that to protect Christianity above other faiths would be "irrational, divisive, capricious and arbitrary". The judge also rejected the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey's call for a specialist panel of judges to hear cases involving the practice of religious beliefs, describing it as "inimical to the public interest.".

Wacker

Check this out: a fish with legs!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IW8oB1cLoo

fitz0

It LIVES!!!

kiffer

Wacker wrote: »

Check this out: a fish with legs!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IW8oB1cLoo

Batfish are not good swimmers; they use their pectoral fins to "walk" on the ocean floor. When the batfish reaches adulthood, its dorsal fin becomes a single spine-like projection that lures prey.

Here's a photo to show the colour details washed out in the video... it's large so I didn't embed it...
http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Photography/Images/Content/rosy-lipped-batfish-wilms-1144526-xl.jpg

Wacker

kiffer wrote: »

Batfish are not good swimmers; they use their pectoral fins to "walk" on the ocean floor. When the batfish reaches adulthood, its dorsal fin becomes a single spine-like projection that lures prey.

Here's a photo to show the colour details washed out in the video... it's large so I didn't embed it...
http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/Photography/Images/Content/rosy-lipped-batfish-wilms-1144526-xl.jpg

Holy crap, that's Pete Burns!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42553000/jpg/_42553983_pete_burns_getty_203long.jpg

ColmDawson

Wacker wrote: »

Holy crap, that's Pete Burns!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42553000/jpg/_42553983_pete_burns_getty_203long.jpg

If this isn't proof of evolution, I don't know what is!

Dades

Interesting how the fish has also evolved lipstick in order to make it more attractive to other fish.

liamw

Dades wrote: »

Interesting how the fish has also evolved lipstick in order to make it more attractive to other fish.

Deep sea prostitution was aggressively selected in the species gene pool over a period of approximately 800 centuries. Recipients would tend to exchange food in a symbiotic relationship.

Unfortunately it wasn't long until the deep sea market became saturated. The species drifted towards an evolutionary stable balance and nowadays the prostitute fish are looked down upon in their community. True story.

stimpson

When some religiously devout people hear a charismatic healer speak the word of god , the regions of their brains involved in sceptical thinking and vigilance appear to shut down. Uffe Schjødt of Aarhus University in Denmark and his colleagues scanned the brains of Pentecostalists while they listened to recorded prayers from non-Christians, "ordinary" Christians, and a healer. The brain activity changed only in response to prayers they were told came from the healer. According to Schjødt, the same deactivation may occur in response to the words of physicians, parents, politicians, and other charismatic leaders.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627574.200-brain-shuts-off-in-response-to-healers-prayer.html

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

Mark Hamill

Woman says she became pregnant after watching porn in 3D
The most interesting thing about this, imo, is it seems the husband believes her:

Her wife Jennifer told him the child was conceived whilst watching a porn movie in 3D.
“I see it as suspicious. The films in 3-D are very real. With today’s technology, anything is possible “he said.

iUseVi

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Woman says she became pregnant after watching porn in 3D
The most interesting thing about this, imo, is it seems the husband believes her:

Sometimes you just have to facepalm at the human race.

token56

Neanderthal Genome Complete; Provides Evidence of Evolution, Interbreeding

http://www.dailytech.com/Neanderthal+Genome+Complete+Provides+Evidence+of+Evolution+Interbreeding/article18326.htm

kiffer

What do people think of this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

liamw

kiffer wrote: »

What do people think of this video?

Problem is it says 'Think about it..' at the end, and that's bound to scare away creationists

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59VT8FCA66o

The title is somewhat misleading, as he does not refer to creationists or religion once.

robindch

Last Friday, 255 members of the US's National Academy of Sciences delivered a bluntly-worded letter on the state of the current "debate" on climate change. The letter appeared in Science magazine, and reads as follows:

255 NAS Folks wrote:

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

eoin5

kiffer wrote: »

What do people think of this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

I really liked the experiment but I'd disagree with the statement that there was no goal imposed on the design (8:54). There was a very definite goal in mind, a clock, and it was imposed by making more clock like things succeed. I think the author took too much from it, its a great experiment but doesnt disprove ID on it own.

kiffer

eoin5 wrote: »

I really liked the experiment but I'd disagree with the statement that there was no goal imposed on the design (8:54). There was a very definite goal in mind, a clock, and it was imposed by making more clock like things succeed. I think the author took too much from it, its a great experiment but doesnt disprove ID on it own.

... yeah... hmmm... I guess there sort of is a goal... but it's "some sort of reasonably functional clock"
but there isn't a specific goal... "make THIS clock" which was one of the criticisms of Dawkin's Weasel ... which produced the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" ...

J C over in the monster thread is always harping on about SPECIFIC COMPLEX INFORMATION!!!! :cool::cool::P

claiming that the chances of creating a specific clotting agent or what ever is beyond possible probabilities... but the goal isn't make "Fibrinogen alpha chain" it's "survive longer, by avoiding bleeding to death, to breed more"

eoin5

kiffer wrote: »

J C over in the monster thread is always harping on about SPECIFIC COMPLEX INFORMATION!!!! :cool::cool::P

claiming that the chances of creating a specific clotting agent or what ever is beyond possible probabilities... but the goal isn't make "Fibrinogen alpha chain" it's "survive longer, by avoiding bleeding to death, to breed more"

Ah, reductionism at its finest. You could say the circumference of a pizza is "beyond possible" sizes as the smaller the units you use the larger it gets.

sonicthebadger*

eoin5 wrote: »

Ah, reductionism at its finest. You could say the circumference of a pizza is "beyond possible" sizes as the smaller the units you use the larger it gets.

Yes but if you aren't using units at all and just making a pizza that fills most folks bellies you'll find it looks and acts very much like a normal pizza. Pizzas which are inedible or infinitely small have an extremely low memetic survival rate.

Or to put it another way, what the frak have pizzas got to do with evolution? Just like you might say, what have watches got to do with evolution. And the answer keeps coming back to the same thing, the one that answers the question best gets to make more copies of itself.

In the case of the video the question was artifically imposed to illustrate a point, it doesn't diminish the strength of the answer.

The more usually imposed natural question is 'Can you make copies of yourself?'

darjeeling

This might be of interest, given all the related threads here: a two parter Beeb R4 radio prog on scientific attempts to unpick the basis of religious belief, and what happens brainwise when people are having religious experiences.

Listen to part 1 here.

.

fitz0

Really not sure where to put this, as I don't know if it merits its own thread or not.

But, anyway, hope is not lost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXVZsAMupos

I love the look of satisfaction on his face at the end.

Flamed Diving

fitz0 wrote: »

Really not sure where to put this, as I don't know if it merits its own thread or not.

But, anyway, hope is not lost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXVZsAMupos

I love the look of satisfaction on his face at the end.

He tore him in two.

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

He tore him in two.

I'm sure JC would see it differently.

Flamed Diving

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm sure JC would see it differently.

Yeah, but who cares what she thinks, eh?

Back to the clip, I love how he caught him on the Declaration quote.

fitz0

I can't remember if its mentioned in the video, it probably isn't, but he's the author of a book called "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists."

EDIT: He's introduced simply as the author of "Godless." Fox used to be subtle.

A high point of the creative arguments of the Fox side was the "You hate Christmas" line of questioning. Quality reporting.

Galvasean

Little Facebook race going on at the moment. A Creationist page stated taht it would get a million members before June. It currently has over 200,000. A similar pro evolution one was made soon after, but it has nearly 500,000.
Here it is here:
http://www.facebook.com/galvasean?ref=profile#!/pages/Kent-BR6-UK/We-can-find-1000000-people-who-DO-believe-in-Evolution-before-June/252759483743

darjeeling

Galvasean wrote: »

Little Facebook race going on at the moment. A Creationist page stated taht it would get a million members before June. It currently has over 200,000. A similar pro evolution one was made soon after, but it has nearly 500,000.
Here it is here:
http://www.facebook.com/galvasean?ref=profile#!/pages/Kent-BR6-UK/We-can-find-1000000-people-who-DO-believe-in-Evolution-before-June/252759483743

Just wondering - 500,000 called Steve?

Mataguri

Why do people see the Virgin Mary on cheese sandwiches or hear demonic lyrics in "Stairway to Heaven"? Using video, images and music, professional skeptic Michael Shermer explores these and other phenomena, including UFOs and alien sightings. He offers cognitive context: In the absence of sound science, incomplete information can combine with the power of suggestion (helping us hear those Satanic lyrics in Led Zeppelin). In fact, he says, humans tend to convince ourselves to believe: We overvalue the "hits" that support our beliefs, and discount the more numerous "misses."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k

Stercus Accidit

Galvasean wrote: »

Little Facebook race going on at the moment. A Creationist page stated taht it would get a million members before June. It currently has over 200,000. A similar pro evolution one was made soon after, but it has nearly 500,000.
Here it is here:
http://www.facebook.com/galvasean?ref=profile#!/pages/Kent-BR6-UK/We-can-find-1000000-people-who-DO-believe-in-Evolution-before-June/252759483743

I don't really like the "believe in evolution" phrase, as if its a belief on parity with magic and super invisible gods.

The question should be do you accept the stance of the overwhelming majority of the global scientific community with regards a scientific theory, or do you know better than the method which brought you the vacine, computer, and space travel? Bit of a mouthful maybe!

I hate the phrase also, 'pro evolution' or 'evolutionist', the correct terms are 'pro science' and 'scientist'.

Genghiz Cohen

Mataguri wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k

The end was awesome.

Dades

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I don't really like the "believe in evolution" phrase, as if its a belief on parity with magic and super invisible gods.

I also think even running with this type of campaign gives credibility to the suggestion that there is an alternative.

Galvasean

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I don't really like the "believe in evolution" phrase, as if its a belief on parity with magic and super invisible gods.

The page actually has a big disclaimer in the info section about this.

And Dades, it was set up to rub in the noses of a similar Creationist page. Evolutionary penis waving if you will...