Interesting Stuff Thread

Hotblack Desiato

I've always thought the Opus Dei types can't be quite right in the head.

nozzferrahhtoo

For anyone who has 2 hours to spare I found the Derren Brown discussion with an evangelical Christian was worthy of the "interesting stuff" thread. Part 1 is here which I am nearly finished. There is a part 2 as well. I had not heard of Justin Brierley or his radio show before (should I have?) but he seems pretty tame and almost apologetic that he is a theist. So it was about as cordial a discussion as it gets.

jigglypuffstuff

robindch wrote: »

A study from 2013 may throw some light on the vexed question of how intelligence and religiosity may be linked:

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/study-suggests-atheists-are-more-intelligent-because-they-can-override-religious-instinct-/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868313497266?journalCode=psra

I'm not trying to pick an argument here... But did you actually read the paper?

I did...as somebody tried their best to use it as a source of credibility to underpin their own biased opinion... Shortly after I posted a nice little summary over on a thread in there..and unsurprisingly got no response

Honestly, this doesn't shine light on anything ...the amount of limitations, assumptions and lack of anything significant is shocking.. Id be happy to elaborate if you want?

smacl

pone2012 wrote: »

...the amount of limitations, assumptions and lack of anything significant is shocking..

I tend to agree. I'd question any study that treats intelligence (IQ or gi) as a single scalar variable and goes on to rank people on that basis. In this article, they also go on to conflate intelligence with rationality, which is also highly dubious, as any self respecting mad scientist would attest to. I suppose at least they drag ethics into it, so evil geniuses can breath a sigh of relief.

You have to ask if you consider various types of intelligence as intrinsic or a result of education. If intelligence were intrinsic, as many people seem to presume, doing repeated IQ tests over time would yield consistent results, yet this isn't the case. My feeling is that the plasticity of the mind is such that it continuously adapts to the information presented to it, and if that happens to be endless religious dogma, that is what it will be good at. If, instead of religious dogma you treat your mind to the study of scientific endeavour, you'll be better at analysing problems in an objective fashion, not to mention certain standardised IQ tests.

J C

robindch wrote: »

A crow shows a causal understanding of water displacement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04

Archimedes ... eat your heart out!!!:)

https://www.britannica.com/science/Archimedes-principle

nozzferrahhtoo

I have not heard it yet but I was excited today to hear that Emily Graslie (who I have a serious crush on and looks remarkably like the girlfriend I had in College, but that aside..... ) has a new podcast called "Divides Aside" comprising interfaith and atheist:theist dialogues.

Could be good, could be terrible, but certainly worth a dip in.

looksee

I wonder will she compromise them? Sorry, had to be done.

nozzferrahhtoo

Har har, damn auto spelling correction system.

robindch

The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has released a report concerning the integrity of the current scientific process and looming threats to it.

The introduction to the report is here and the report itself is here:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21896/fostering-integrity-in-research

recedite

There will probably always be a problem with research being funded by industry, but at the same time somebody has to pay for it.
This is interesting..

Researchers should routinely disclose all statistical tests carried out, including negative findings, the report says. Available evidence indicates that scientific publications are biased against presenting negative results and that the publication of negative results is on the decline. But routine reporting of negative findings will help avoid unproductive duplication of research and make research spending more productive. Dissemination of negative results also has prompted a questioning of established paradigms, leading ultimately to groundbreaking new discoveries.

If your company has just wasted a lot of money proving that X does not work, then do you really want to release that information to the public? Sure, its in the public interest. But if it saves your competitor from spending their money on the same wild goose chase, then that is not in your interests. But hey, that's capitalism.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

This is interesting..If your company has just wasted a lot of money proving that X does not work, then do you really want to release that information to the public? Sure, its in the public interest. But if it saves your competitor from spending their money on the same wild goose chase, then that is not in your interests. But hey, that's capitalism.

Plus, if your company has just proved that X does not work, but makes quite a few shillings out of selling X to people who assume or believe or hope that X does work, then it's again not in your interests to publicise your research.

So, yeah, it's a problem.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus, if your company has just proved that X does not work, but makes quite a few shillings out of selling X to people who assume or believe or hope that X does work, then it's again not in your interests to publicise your research.

So, yeah, it's a problem.

Selling products that don't work, or have highly questionable efficacy, is nothing new and certainly not limited to the scientific community, whether its the homeopathic remedies or anti-ageing creams in your local pharmacy, local faith healer, fortune teller or whatever. At the same time, if a company or individual invests large amounts of their own time and money in research, with the primary goal of making money for themselves, whether or not they choose to share that research is clearly their own prerogative. If we as a society want to reap the benefits of scientific research, we as a society should be investing in it rather than being reliant on the private sector and be a little more circumspect in granting patents.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

and be a little more circumspect in granting patents.

A very good point, and I think we are increasingly going to see a divide between Europe and the US on this. For example, in the US where "making a buck" is always seen as a good thing, they generally don't see a problem with patenting a living plant or animal. Its going to become a big issue when genetically engineered life forms become more mainstream.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Selling products that don't work, or have highly questionable efficacy, is nothing new and certainly not limited to the scientific community, whether its the homeopathic remedies or anti-ageing creams in your local pharmacy, local faith healer, fortune teller or whatever. At the same time, if a company or individual invests large amounts of their own time and money in research, with the primary goal of making money for themselves, whether or not they choose to share that research is clearly their own prerogative. If we as a society want to reap the benefits of scientific research, we as a society should be investing in it rather than being reliant on the private sector and be a little more circumspect in granting patents.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Selling products that don't work, or have highly questionable efficacy, is nothing new and certainly not limited to the scientific community, whether its the homeopathic remedies or anti-ageing creams in your local pharmacy, local faith healer, fortune teller or whatever. At the same time, if a company or individual invests large amounts of their own time and money in research, with the primary goal of making money for themselves, whether or not they choose to share that research is clearly their own prerogative. If we as a society want to reap the benefits of scientific research, we as a society should be investing in it rather than being reliant on the private sector and be a little more circumspect in granting patents.

The gov isnt great at picking winners though. it seems to be more important to have a relatively free economy with deep capital markets.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

The gov isnt great at picking winners though. it seems to be more important to have a relatively free economy with deep capital markets.

A "relatively free economy with deep capital markets" is not good at funding fundamental research. There might be funding available for a study to determine whether compression clothing improves athletic performance, for example, but good luck trying to get the "deep capital markets" to fund a gravitational observatory.

"Picking winners", when it comes to funding research projects, usually means funding projects whose results can be exploited commercially in the short term. While there's nothing wrong with commercially-exploitable results, using this as the sole or dominant criterion for funding scientific research is obviously going to significantly distort decisions about what to fund.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

A "relatively free economy with deep capital markets" is not good at funding fundamental research. There might be funding available for a study to determine whether compression clothing improves athletic performance, for example, but good luck trying to get the "deep capital markets" to fund a gravitational observatory.

"Picking winners", when it comes to funding research projects, usually means funding projects whose results can be exploited commercially in the short term. While there's nothing wrong with commercially-exploitable results, using this as the sole or dominant criterion for funding scientific research is obviously going to significantly distort decisions about what to fund.

take the US, there is plenty of fundamental research going on and I doubt its all funded by taxpayers. Also smacl did mention patents which indicates looking at research that leads to a patentable invention. Patents themselves are an interesting concept and they can often hinder development. When the steam age took off it was often when patents ran out. or one of the reasons German science took off in the 19th century was that there was no copyright law so scientific knowledge moved around quicker in Germany compared to Britain.
I'd just be against a highly centralised system where the government decides what gets researched.

magicbastarder

silverharp wrote: »

The gov isnt great at picking winners though.

such as the internet, for example?

http://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/

Peregrinus

Those who commission research decides what gets researched, to a large extent, and therefore the optimal system will have a variety of different funding sources making decisions according to different criteria. This should tend to maximise the diversity of research projects conducted.

This means, I agree, that a "highly centralised" system is not a good idea, but it also means that leaving it to the markets is not such a good idea either. There may be many players in the market, but they are all operating under the same market discipline and they will make their decision according to the criteria which that discipline imposes - viz, good prospects of short term profit.

I don't think we're facing a simple binary in which all research is funded by a single faceless bureaucrat, or research is funded only by commercial companies interested only in researching questions that offer commercially-exploitable results.

But, just looking at those two options; yeah, fundamental research in the US is largely funded by the taxpayer, and has been for decades. The share of US fundamental research paid for by the taxpayer has, it's true, been declining over the past decade, but that's not because the market has been tipping huge amounts into fundamental research; it's mainly because the government has been cutting back. In the US there's a second source of funding for fundamental research, which is universities themselves, out of their own endowment, and charitable foundations. (They, of course, are partly taxpayer supported through tax exemptions and tax breaks, but the government makes no attempt to dictate what research they should and shouldn't fund.)

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Those who commission research decides what gets researched, to a large extent, and therefore the optimal system will have a variety of different funding sources making decisions according to different criteria. This should tend to maximise the diversity of research projects conducted.

This means, I agree, that a "highly centralised" system is not a good idea, but it also means that leaving it to the markets is not such a good idea either. There may be many players in the market, but they are all operating under the same market discipline and they will make their decision according to the criteria which that discipline imposes - viz, good prospects of short term profit.

I don't think we're facing a simple binary in which all research is funded by a single faceless bureaucrat, or research is funded only by commercial companies interested only in researching questions that offer commercially-exploitable results.

But, just looking at those two options; yeah, fundamental research in the US is largely funded by the taxpayer, and has been for decades. The share of US fundamental research paid for by the taxpayer has, it's true, been declining over the past decade, but that's not because the market has been tipping huge amounts into fundamental research; it's mainly because the government has been cutting back. In the US there's a second source of funding for fundamental research, which is universities themselves, out of their own endowment, and charitable foundations. (They, of course, are partly taxpayer supported through tax exemptions and tax breaks, but the government makes no attempt to dictate what research they should and shouldn't fund.)

the whole area of research is very chaotic , advances might be because of an "Einstein character" popping up in a particular field, an unrelated advance may unlock another area not thought of or simply by having the commercial end drop the cost of computing or space travel by a large % might make it feasible to do particular types of fundamental or experimental research.
Also do you think a company like Intel only does R&D for stuff with a discounted cashflow profit? or, the fact that they are such a huge company that even a tiny % of a very big number gets you research that might only show up in 20 or 30 years?

such as the internet, for example?

a lot of benefits come off Defence spending and the like but I'd like to think a society can innovate outside of ways of figuring out beat an enemy state. Once you started getting personal computers in to peoples houses , connecting them would have been the next step.

Peregrinus

There are some companies interested in funding fundamental research, but only their chosen fields. You mention Intel; you could have mentioned a number of big tech companies. And you could also have mentioned the pharameceutical companies.

But, it's patchy. Some fields of research; yes. Others; no. And even that's to some extend politically driven. The US taxpayer may not be funding fundamental research carried out by pharmaceutical companies, but US residents are paying for it through the deplorably inefficient health system they have, which guarantees the drug companies excess profits such that, the more they spend on research, the more they can charge for their drugs, and the more profit they make. And that's the result of a political decision just as much as directly taxpayer-funded research would be.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are some companies interested in funding fundamental research, but only their chosen fields. You mention Intel; you could have mentioned a number of big tech companies. And you could also have mentioned the pharameceutical companies.

But, it's patchy. Some fields of research; yes. Others; no. And even that's to some extend politically driven. The US taxpayer may not be funding fundamental research carried out by pharmaceutical companies, but US residents are paying for it through the deplorably inefficient health system they have, which guarantees the drug companies excess profits such that, the more they spend on research, the more they can charge for their drugs, and the more profit they make. And that's the result of a political decision just as much as directly taxpayer-funded research would be.

I'd agree and patents might be part of the issue. A society can only spend so much on health and there is an opportunity cost , every rule has the potential of skewing where money goes and the cost of something. One would think that the next job of US Pharma and medicine is to halve the cost of what it does which would objectively help more people than the next batch of exotic drugs?

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

The gov isnt great at picking winners though. it seems to be more important to have a relatively free economy with deep capital markets.

It's not the job of the government to pick winners.

It is the job of the government to enact an evidence-based policy, to provide stable capital markets, reliable and fair law enforcement, various social safety nets to avoid societal disorder, minimum, mandatory standards across all areas of the economies for services and goods, tax breaks and other incentives to industries with direct and indirect high growth potential and so on.

Once there's a stable framework in place, the market will be well enough able to pick winners on its own.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

It's not the job of the government to pick winners.

It is the job of the government to enact an evidence-based policy, to provide stable capital markets, reliable and fair law enforcement, various social safety nets to avoid societal disorder, minimum, mandatory standards across all areas of the economies for services and goods, tax breaks and other incentives to industries with direct and indirect high growth potential and so on.

Once there's a stable framework in place, the market will be well enough able to pick winners on its own.

. . . for certain values of "winners".

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . for certain values of "winners".

Well, at the risk of being pedantic and possibly misunderstanding your excellent post, there's no moral value attached to the word "winner" in this case. It's much more simple - the free market will inevitably choose some products and services over others and the chosen products and services are held to have won in this restricted context.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Well, at the risk of being pedantic and possibly misunderstanding your excellent post, there's no moral value attached to the word "winner" in this case. It's much more simple - the free market will inevitably choose some products and services over others and the chosen products and services are held to have won in this restricted context.

Yes. And my point is that that't not a context in which fundamental research is likely to be chosen. So if you think fundamental research is a good thing, of value to society, advances human knowledge, yadda, yadda, yadda, then you don't want to be leaving it to the markets to pick the "winning" research.

If the win can't be measured in short-term cash or near-cash, the markets are not going to pick it.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. And my point is that that't not a context in which fundamental research is likely to be chosen. So if you think fundamental research is a good thing, of value to society, advances human knowledge, yadda, yadda, yadda, then you don't want to be leaving it to the markets to pick the "winning" research.

If the win can't be measured in short-term cash or near-cash, the markets are not going to pick it.

define market? I'd include the market for scientific ideas and the fact that in a wealthy society funds become available for research that doesn't have a dollar payoff. Most larger universities will have a decent maths department or theoretical physics department where I'd assume the important ingredient are the fairly unique individuals that have the creative ability to come up with new ideas or solutions

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

define market? I'd include the market for scientific ideas and the fact that in a wealthy society funds become available for research that doesn't have a dollar payoff. Most larger universities will have a decent maths department or theoretical physics department where I'd assume the important ingredient are the fairly unique individuals that have the creative ability to come up with new ideas or solutions

If that's the relevant concept of "market" for these purposes, then the government as a funder of fundamental research is very much part of the market. So your argument doesn't tend towards lower government involvement at all.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

If that's the relevant concept of "market" for these purposes, then the government as a funder of fundamental research is very much part of the market. So your argument doesn't tend towards lower government involvement at all.

My argument was that government shouldn't be setting the agenda or guiding research , they should certainly be tapped to grease the wheels where appropriate. There is no magic formula of various categories of research and at the end of the day well known researchers who focus on the theoretical side have a value to institutions like universities to add to their prestige so they will be supported with or without any tax dollars.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

My argument was that government shouldn't be setting the agenda or guiding research , they should certainly be tapped to grease the wheels where appropriate. There is no magic formula of various categories of research and at the end of the day well known researchers who focus on the theoretical side have a value to institutions like universities to add to their prestige so they will be supported with or without any tax dollars.

. . . Assuming the universities are sufficiently wealthy. But that of course itself requires the appropriate political decisions to be taken.

Even in the US, which has the wealthiest universities in the world by a long measure, most fundamental research is taxpayer-funded. How do we explain this? Why are the universities not funding it and, if they were to fund it, what expenditures would they cut to do so?

Canis Lupus

Don't think it requires a thread on it's own but the 2016 census results for Australia were released a few days ago. Check out this bad boy.

CabanSail

It's all the Evangelical Atheist Rallies that are showing results. Praise the ....... ummm

mikhail

On a similar note to the Aussie news,


Article.

silverharp

^^

I fear a breakout of "Other" :pac:

Calibos

A decade of a housing crisis has perpuated the Mammy effect in the census through the last 2 census and the next few too in all likelihood. Id imagine our numbers would be at least similar to OZ were the Mammies of Ireland not still filling out census forms on behalf of the percentage of young adults forced to still live at home.

Absolam

Calibos wrote: »

A decade of a housing crisis has perpuated the Mammy effect in the census through the last 2 census and the next few too in all likelihood. Id imagine our numbers would be at least similar to OZ were the Mammies of Ireland not still filling out census forms on behalf of the percentage of young adults forced to still live at home.

Good to see someone thinking ahead with good solid excuses for why the future censuses will be underreporting the non religious in the country
There's no doubt that if the numbers we imagine were considered it would be a whole different story!

Perhaps there should be a 'down with Mammies' campaign before the next census? Or perhaps the young adults will behave like adults....

Hotblack Desiato

Anyone who places much store in the RC box-tickers figure as proof of belief in anythiing, is at least as much a fool as those who place much store in the 'I can speak Irish, swear' figure.

robindch

Metropolitan Kornily, Primate of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church has called on Russian men to grow beards to "protect themselves from homosexuality". He pointed out that men with beards were less likely “corrupted” by same-sex relationships.

The Old Believers are a group which hold that Orthodox rites and customers used prior to the reforms of the mid-1600's are good and proper. And that everything after that is not. The size of the Old Believer population in Russia is contested but it's unlikely to be more than one million and quite possibly much less. Within the country, they're considered a peculiar group and, predictably enough, have spawned a number of smaller groups with even odder beliefs. They're arguably analogous to the SSPX movement in modern-day catholicism which rejects the Vatican-II reforms.

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/religious-leaders-in-russia-want-men-to-stop-shaving-to-protect-themselves-from-homosexuality-58213

More interestingly, is a beard really understood by religious people as a sign of heterosexuality? The religious obsession with promoting male beards has always puzzled me, though the similar concerns about hiding women's hair are easier to figure out, sociobiologically.

magicbastarder

the'd be hella confused if they walked through parts of san francisco.

Absolam

Isn't 'beard' a term often used to describe a woman accompanying a gay man to give the impression that he is straight? Perhaps it's a broader concept than one confined to churches. That said, it seems to me that most of the bears I know tend to quite luxurious beards; I know probably more gay men with beards than straight ones.

robindch

With its other problems all resolved, the Vatican turns its teams of crack theologians to the problem of gluten and genetically modified wheat.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40545023

The full Vatican report is here.

recedite

Gluten-free is no good because protein is needed in the bread to give it that extra "body".

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

Gluten-free is no good because protein is needed in the bread to give it that extra "body".

But meat is considered gluten free. Including, I'm sure, human meat.

robindch

Pherekydes wrote: »

But meat is considered gluten free. Including, I'm sure, human meat.

Schoolboy error there Pherekydes -
the human bit of the bread is the substance, but it's the accidents which are required to contain at least some gluten.

recedite

I'm guessing the gluten transmogrifies into a protein body, thereby making the meat gluten-free from the moment of substantialisation.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

With its other problems all resolved, the Vatican turns its teams of crack theologians to the problem of gluten and genetically modified wheat.

Well that's the OH consigned to hell then.

She'll be in good company, if it exists, though - I wouldn't like to be lonely

seamus

robindch wrote: »

With its other problems all resolved, the Vatican turns its teams of crack theologians to the problem of gluten and genetically modified wheat.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40545023

The full Vatican report is here.

"The church is adapting to the modern world and meeting the needs of young people".

"Unless the bread is prepared exactly as it has been described in this 2000 year-old, third-hand account of an unverifiable event, then it is unable to undergo the magical transformation that makes it work. After you die.".

How people don't look at this kind of thing and think, "Hang on, this seems like bull****" amazes me.

swampgas

seamus wrote: »

How people don't look at this kind of thing and think, "Hang on, this seems like bull****" amazes me.

Because the message of the church has long been that you are a poor sinner, who must accept the divine mysteries which are far beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, but the pope has special magic powers and can figure out what it is you should believe. Don't question anything, just have faith. Remember Doubting Thomas!

Fortunately we instill this wonderful message into our children in primary school, we wouldn't want their malleable young minds infected with rationality or independent thought.

CabanSail

I am sure the way it works is the same as going to the theatre, a movie, watching TV etc. The audience are compliant. They want it to be so and suspend logic to avail of the magic. Sure there will be some, but very few, who believe the magician really did pull the rabbit out of the hat. Most of us watch for entertainment and wonder how it was done. Even the Faith Healers who work their con tricks have a compliant audience. They take money by selling hope.

Hotblack Desiato

A faith healer or magician has to 'deliver' in the short term however, perhaps a bit longer in the case of a healer, but the person coughing up the cash ultimately has to believe they are getting a tangible return for their money.

How much smarter than that is it to sell a 'product' that can only be accessed after death! No chance of adverse reviews there. No chance of chargebacks or refunds!