Leaderboard

I watch MMA. Some women in the sport have raised concerns about transgender athletes, which is how it came to my attention. Some in the medical have put forward scientific reasons to legitimise this concern, others refute these reasons, and that debate continues within the medical community (links have been provided in the course of this thread). To have these concerns just brushed away as ridiculous, and to equate them with resistance against gay marriage is unhelpful at best. It's the sort of rhetoric that pushes people toward Trump and Brexit, as it exacerbates the us vs them attitude that precludes nuanced debate - the nuance here being that having concerns about transgender athletes does not automatically make you transphobic (although it's likely true that all transphobes oppose all trans athletes and will leverage legitimate concerns to muddy the waters). It may turn out that these concerns are unfounded, but i would hope, on a science forum of all places, that the concerns were addressed rather than being dismissed simply ridiculous. It is patronising.

It has finally sunk in, exchemist. Thanks for taking the time to explain further, although, many members did the same. i now understand much better the whole process of combustion and "burning". Thanks to all here.

Because cultural appropriation is frwned upon. Gender appropriation seems not to be.

This is certainly NOT like gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't infringe on any one else's rights. As JC has repeatedly pointed out, Trans athletes infringe on women's rights to fair competition. And there have been realistic examples given, Swansont; I posted one myself. INow and Zapatos are willing to put the rights of those 6 people ( the number of trans athletes, he claims ) above the rights of more than 50% of Earth's population. So, are we again telling women they are not even second best to men, but actually also behind trans people ? And Dimreepr seems to think that the only benefit from a 'game' is learning that others can compete with unfair advantages, so there is no point in actually playing.

Again. Elite female athletes cannot always compete equitably with 16 and 17 year old boys. The fastest female 100m runners in the World can be beat by some 16 year old boys. Unfair to cisgender women. No amount of testosterone will allow the fastest women athletes to compete with the fastest men. It's not just about testosterone. (or simply willingness to identify) This will be a failed experiment, hurting both cisgender females, and transgendered athletes who will likely be treated unfairly. Hopefully they will be treated as respectfully as possible...and the animus properly directed at the pseudo scientific idiocracy.

A prime example of the confrontational playground response I was complaining about. I believe in the principle of 'first things first' , so I introduced the problem and known facts first. A coil of rope and a set of reading on a dial are not assumptions. In fact the only thing I was avoiding (not skirting around) was making any assumptions. For instance, the box to be lifted may be marked 50T but it cannot be assumed this is correct. The rope may be marked or look like 100T braking but again no assumption as to the correctness of this may be made. There is no hypothesis as this is not a statistical issue. The issue is applying rational thought to develop a proceedure to decide whether or not the rope can be used to lift 50T. Obviously if we attach a 50T load and it breaks then it is not suitable so rationally we are looking for our tests to show a larger breaking load. But just being greater than 50T is not good enough. The rationale comes in the rest of the proceedure. This is one situation where science offers a rational way forward. I have though of another where we observe a phenomenon and seek a theory to explain it. Since the widespread introduction of plug in curcuit boards in the computing industry it was observed that plugged in boards tended to 'wander' out of their sockets. In this case we are not discussing what to do about this phenomenon ie debating stronger spring contacts v retaining clips or screw fixings We trying to achieve a theory of understanding of what is happening, without assumptions of little green men pulling our boards out while we sleep. Any thoughts ?

It may seem ridiculous to those whom it doesn't affect. But professional athletes who are making a career and a living may think otherwise. I actually agree that the extremes should not be discluded for consideration. If you are a professional organisation that is going to set rules or limits then the upper and lower extremes have to be considered, else why have any rules or limits at all? I'm not clued up on and so have no opinion on whether transgender athletes have an unfair physical advantage or not. But if there is a possibility that this is the case then surely it should be addressed accordingly, based on testing, data and verifiable evidence, so that people that maybe at an unfair disadvantage are not affected? In lots of sports there are all sorts of categories to try and level the playing field so that "all" have an equal and fair opportunity. We see male, female, age, size, weight, dis-ability, even skill levels often categorized. For general recreational sports the importance of this may not be such a priority. But at a professional level where the athletes are earning a living/making a career and are at the pinnacle of performance level, where the tiniest of advantage can make a huge difference then I feel this is where its even more important to make things a fair as possible.

If it is lasting centuries to millennia in soil it has to be resisting chemical compounding that consumes carbon. Activated carbon filters chemically combine with organic compounds by adsorption (making a film over the surface). My understanding is any reactivity is confined to the surface and becomes self limiting, which leaves the carbon beneath unchanged. Charcoal is activated by grinding it finely to make more surface area, for adsorption, which creates a protective barrier for the internal material - fine ground because it resists compounding once an adsorptive film is formed.

Some are and some are not. I didn't mean to imply you were were one of those proposing a ban. I was using your post to further my argument. Sorry for the awkward segue.

Feldercarb!

Not so. We are (or should be) discuscussing Religion. These are forum rules, not my opinion. Incomplete. I have already demonstrated models based on other factors (physical objects and observation) Of course reason comes into it but it is not necessarily the only starting point I have been reading through the entire thread and I see one common pattern in the discussion. Many here have prefaced their comments (right the way back to page 1) with something like Whereas @Holmes mostly states his thoughts as though they were the only gospel in town. The above two extracts demonstrate this quite well. In my opinion this debating style is the reason so many members are becomeing upset.

Well, NOT being an expert on transgender participation in sports, I am not willing to make that declaration, just as I would not have the hubris to tell you how to approach certain types of technical problems. What I am willing to do is lend my support to a minority who is dumped on every day, so that they will be heard and not prematurely dismissed, and if possible, be able to compete with the rest of their fellow human beings.

There are some that would cry cultural appropriation.

Oh well. So much for asking you not to quibble when the basic gist was right or you avoiding asking me red herring questions.

Well, so much for biology, psychiatry, neurology, chemistry, medicine, etc. Our brain function defines us every bit as much as our reproductive organ function.

It's similar to what we see when groups lobby for legislation that affects a small portion of businesses, but they use a big bogeyman company to make it scarier: "What if Amazon started doing this?"

I'm trying to think of a response that doesn't get me banned... Until I come up with something better, I'd just like to suggest that you do some research before speaking on this matter again.

One strategy to stay ahead in an argument, is to keep introducing new undefined terms and blaming the other party for them. Can you offer any instance of a Scientist offering the 'unquestioned absolute truth' as part of a scientific statement ? One thing no one has mentioned about scientific statements is that they should always come complete with caveats and descriptions of their applicability and limitations. Sadly these are often overlooked even if offered. My simple law does not overlook this aspect however. I also thought you were undertaking to so how is this not a further assumption in the same sentence? I note that you have also now introduced the word 'assumption' as a general term in place of 'axiom'. Further you have relegated axiom to Mathematics, where it belongs. This action I applaud as I have a lot of sympathy with the view or observation that most things depend upon assumptions, not only in Science but more widely as well. The thing is that the moment you introduce assumptions, be they axioms, principles, laws or other such statements, you must also introduce definitions. Definitions are so similar to assumptions (but generally more numerous) that there has been over 2000 years of controversy about the definitions supporting the prototype axiomatic system - that of Euclid. So on to my theory. You need to know that we are dealing with rope and the list of loads are the breaking loads for a particular length of the rope. The theory concerns how we go about establishing that a length of this rope is safe to lift a 50 tonne weight. No assumptions have been made, we have only (as Perry Mason would say ) the facts in evidence. The theory also complete complete with its limitation. Notably that all ropes gradually deteriorate with time so cannot be relied upon indefinitely into the future. As I said it is not a grand theory, but it has saved many lives and much property over the years and continues to do so every day all over the world.

I have no complaints against figuring out some equitable way to allow transgender athletes to compete. Science will help. Experience will help. What bothers me is the people who have already decided that it is "unfair" and shouldn't be allowed. Well, unfair to cisgender people anyway; to hell with the transgender people. This feels the same as the people who said gays getting married will destroy the institution of marriage, that women in the military will ruin the military, and that miscegenation will ruin our country.

Totally understand, and please recall I wasn't responding directly to you... People are directly affected, and I feel bad for all six of them.

...and what's with not handicapping the sprinters with fast twitch muscles? Why do they get to start at the same time as the others? I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate view point. No one should be forced to give a damn about Women's sport or drug testing to keep it clean and healthy. If you don't that's fine.

I see in police funding an issue analogous to locks on a canal. The raising and lower of the water levels; the opening and closing of the gates; there is a specific order these things have to be done in, in order for the boat to pass safely. However, in this case we don't know what that order is. We know Scandinavia achieves better results against crime by tackling its root causes than the US does by resorting to overpolicing. We don't know how the US is going to get there. If we started by raising the minimum wage, there would be pushback from moneyed interests. If we tried to cut police budgets to force those moneyed interest to accept the necessity of raising the minimum wage, crime might increase in the meantime and those moneyed interests might use it as an excuse to raise police budgets even higher than they were before, giving them and others less incentive to care whether or not the poor are turning to crime out of desperation. . . . Is there any method to force the issue that WON'T backfire?

I'm pretty sure our friend has not yet worked out the difference between the absence of a centre of the universe, to the factual centre of our observable universe, of both me and my cousin in M31.😉

https://theconversation.com/striking-a-balance-between-fairness-in-competition-and-the-rights-of-transgender-athletes-159685 I think this is could be a reasonable take (as opposed to bans):

That doesn't mean it resists compounding. Every respirator with organic filtering cartridges has activated carbon pellets in it. They filter the organics by bonding them to the carbon and letting only 'air' through. Sodium BiCarbonate has similar odour trapping properties.

No. I didn't talk about any theory of everything; I was talking about inflationary scenarios, which are falsifiable. Your explanation "god did it" is no explanation at all. I don't mind the term god, if explanatory mechanisms were provided. "God" is just a word. It doesn't bother me at all. You see? It's you who's interested in using god as a travesty for an explanation. I'm just calling you to task: Which god? How does this god operate? I don't need you to translate anything I say. It is intellectually dishonest to do so, and I would suggest you play by the rules. If you think my English is not up to par, ask me for clarification and I will oblige. You're playing semantic games because you're resting your whole case on an awe-inspiring traditional word that doesn't explain anything but is fraught with mystique. One is supposed to accept it only because of a cultural emotional baggage that we all share as a people. In fact, for centuries it has been forced on people. In a scientific theory, the whole structure would be completely the same even if you changed a key word by an arbitrary word. Example: "energy" by "mush": There is kinetic mush and potential mush. The sum of kinetic mush and potential mush is always conserved. Well, it is a bit strange that we call it "mush", but it doesn't affect at all the interrelations in the theory. On the contrary, take your first post on this thread and substitute "god" by "mush": Mush is that which brought the universe into existence, mush can be rationally inferred from that observation, it is a definition of mush. It is plain to see how ridiculous your thesis is. It doesn't prove anything, it's not falsifiable. In fact, it doesn't mean anything (much). I made no effort to rebut you because you made no argument. May I remind you that, is no argument. It's just your opinion. Translating my words to other words of your choice is also no argument.

Well, I see what you are getting at, in that the conservation laws are fundamental to physical science (temporary deviations from them in QM notwithstanding.) However my - rather simplistic - understanding is that the conservation laws are derived - from Ockham's Razor by way of Noether's Theorem, if you like - in that if we assume the (other) laws of physics do not change with time and place, then the conservation laws are the consequence. I suppose you can argue that that assumption is axiomatic, but really it is just observing and then assuming that what we observe is generally applicable, by invoking Ockham's Razor. Isn't it? And then, I suppose, there are things like the postulates of QM. But a postulate is not an axiom. The choice of term indicates it is a model being put forward, not something taken as definitively true. On which point, I couldn't help noticing that in one of your other posts you say: "The laws of physics are unproven and unprovable (science relies on inductive reasoning) therefore - like axioms in mathematics - they are assumed to be true, taken for granted, believed, I make no apology for labelling these as "axioms" it is a legitimate label epistemologically speaking. " This seems to betray a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Yes of course theories in science, including those we dignify with the description "laws", are unprovable. Science does not deal in proof. But, per Popper, they are all in principle falsifiable. That means that science does not assume them to be true. They are not "taken for granted". They are provisional models of nature, that is all, ready to be overthrown if new observations cannot be reconciled with them. Now, sure, in daily work the scientist relies on a multitude of these laws without questioning them, but he or she is - or should be - always implicitly aware that they are man-made models, open to challenge. So I don't think the term axiom is very helpful in describing them.

I think the upcoming Olympics may put an end to the notion that testosterone control alone can level the playing field (never mind identifying alone as per High School athletics in some States). It could possibly also end the notion of a lack of bias in science if it agrees with political correctness.

I know you are familiar with Richard Feynman, so you may be familiar with Feynman diagrams. In Quantum Field Theoty all the connections in these diagrams represent possible interactions. They are usually summed, then all the perturbative influences that give rise to infinities, are subtracted, by a process called re-normalization,to give the desired solution. Gravity, on the other hand, is self interacting ( that means gravity gravitates ), and the resultant infinities from the perturbative summng gets out of control, such that they cannot be removed by re-normalization. Any time infinities result in a solution, you have exceeded the bounds of applicability of your theory. So, either perturbative quantum field theory or re-normalization are not applicable to gravity. Therein lies the incompatibility. Even more simply ... In QFT, space-time is simply the stage on which events happen, and the events have no affect on the stage. In GR, space-time is the field that governs how events unfold, but it is affected, and a participant, in those events. The Wiki entry on Quantum Gravity may be helpful to you Quantum gravity - Wikipedia

First let me state quite clearly. QM and GR are not necessarily incompatible. Indeed they work quite well together in some cases. But as you point out they are different systems of thought. Now I digress a little to quote from your excellent thread in the science education section. I do not know what you mean by technology, but if you mean IT then you may find my offering easier to follow. Eddington's book S, T & G is an excellent book and you will find nothing actually incorrect in it. But it is almost one hundred years old now, and predated modern QM by a couple of decades. Up to the 1930s, work on QM was based exclusively on extending classical non-relativistic mechanics to derive mathematically the observed phenomenon of quantisation. Then in 1928 and through the 1930s Dirac introduced relativistic wave equations to replace the schrodinger equation. Developments have gone on ever since. Now quantisation arises quite naturally in the solution of energy equations like schrodinger, which ignores gravitational forces as small compared to the electrostatic ones operating inside the atom. But there are no (known) relativistic equations operating under gravity alone that result in quantisation in their solution. So the big question is Is gravity quantised, which under GR is effectively asking are space and time quantised or to put it another way are they granular? Moving on a hundred years form Eddington we are still asking this question. And an interesting modern book edited by Professor Shahn Majid explores where we are with this question. If you understood S, T & G you will be able to follow this. On Space and Time Shahn Majid Cambridge University Press 2008 Now asked if you were in IT since they have moved from the classic mathematics of continuity (analog computers) to discrete systems (digital computers) Which is a parallel change. The other big difference between QM and GR is the introduction of probability. GR is a totally deterministic system of 'continuous' mathematics, using all the apparatus of topological continuity. QM has a (highly successful) interpretation in terms of probability theory. although it is often misapplied. There are no probabilities in GR Does this help ? If you need clarification of anything (in particular I assume you understand when I say quantisation), please ask.

There are two key factors under consideration here, IMO. One is the way our drive for more (resources, safety, security, food, shelter, convenience, etc.) has been selected evolutionarily. Those who did better proactively obtaining resources tended to reproduce more successfully than those who didn’t. The other is desensitization and how our baseline for what is and is not enough is relative. We get used to what we have, but the drive to obtain more doesn’t exactly go dormant even when we have enough. It takes training and mindfulness and conscious focus to overcome these underlying tendencies which are often operating within us without us even realizing it.

Yes, but I think what the questioner is getting at is what happens to the charcoal that is produced, for instance in forest fires. The suggestion is that this, being elemental carbon, is biochemically fairly inert and thus should remain in the soil indefinitely. It seems a fair enough question. Though the amount of carbon that can get locked up in this way is pretty minor, I should think. I don't know of any soil processes that would convert charcoal to more reactive carbon compounds, anyway.

When Dawkins writes a scientific paper it is reasonable to expect scientific language. When he writes a book for the masses the expectations are different. I'm glad you are not critiquing Keats or Shakespeare.

You are confused. The analogy to the universe expanding is NOT the balloon expanding, but the surface of the balloon expanding. Small difference but huge implications, which render all your other points about the CMB, moot.

No. The Schrödinger equation for a particle in a box, for example, gives you energy eigenstates. They don’t vary in time, which is why they are called stationary. The particle has no defined motion, and it’s possible to find the particle outside of a well of finite depth. The solution gives probability of where you might find the particle.

Why deny any of it? Race is a social construct. Also, more to the point, who cares?

I wish I had the time to indulge, I have so many books I purchased this past twelve months and then I realized that I'm not reading the damn things! This is all extremely interesting though, my earlier studies in physics were really during the 1970s as I was approaching my twenties, had time etc and were quite focused on GR and various associated bits of math. This whole symmetries and groups etc were unknown to me, possibly not even discussed much at all outside of academia at that time. Are you drawing a distinction here between reality and how we represent, describe reality? Not sure, special pleading is sometimes a knee-jerk accusation whenever a discussion in metaphysics makes a reference to "god" or "supernatural", I've had it levelled at me many times, a bit like the tiresome response "goddidit" or "sky daddy" or "there's no evidence for God" and so on. Its helpful before claiming something is special pleading to at least be honest with oneself and play devil's advocate, see if you can explain (to yourself) why something is special pleading, often it is just blurted out as a precursor to dismissing what was said. This was instrumental in me abandoning atheism many years ago when I became critical of some atheist reactions (including some of my own at the time) to theists. I disagree we were discussing the merits of my claim that all theories rely on assumptions therefore asking for the theory itself (rather than a set of numbers) is reasonable. I make no apologies for making assumptions, as I said repeatedly we must make assumptions if we want to formulate and write down scientific explanations, you seem to want to contest this but appear unable to. So obviously you're assuming these "procedures" and "policies" are always sufficient to reach the levels of safety you desire.

From nothing. God in my reality: the information the first empty dot of space(time) presents: 0 At t0 a simple information is everything in proportion to nothing.

The problem is that people think of themselves too highly and think that not being a male or female or being a male when they are a born female and vice versa is some kind of statement to the world. I googled it and maybe there is some rare disease that mis shapes the penis or vagina but biologically you are either one. Isn't science about the concrete stuff you see through evidence (penis = man, vagina = woman) or is it just a floaty term we use that changes with society and we want to fit in society?

It seems to me that the main thrust of your responses are to express disapproval of me, my character and my motives and this amounts to what could be construed as an on-going ad-hominem attack. I just gave you the opportunity to address each of the three elements from my original post in this thread and you've refused and again post complaints about me or my manner or my motives all of which are irrelevant to what is being discussed. This is not how one debates in good faith, the ongoing absence of a well articulated rational response to my arguments serves to show that you are bereft of any sound counter arguments, you may want to consider how this makes you look in the grander scheme of things. I may cease discussing this subject in this thread as there is real danger of the conversation descending into pettiness, I have no desire for that and I'm sure others share that view.

I'll no longer be responding to you in this thread.

And......my hovercraft is full of eels.

I suppose the only way to know is to test it. So, let's get lean beef patty to knock on my 🚪

Cmon seriously, people saying at the start there are more than 2 genders? Wtf one has penis other vagina, and you can get surgery but still doesn't change how you were born. Also I think even scientists agree and swans agreed also that people born male are generally stronger than those born female so it makes it only fair with how the system of sport was made (category separation) that they are separated and transgenders compete in what female/male category they were born in. Or if the system was different and categories didn't exist we could just have a bunch of females coming last all the time. Dude it's called a thought experiment