Willie71

The IPCC reports show a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, with three being most probable. The last papers I read that showed warming in the past century being about 1 degree, claim that this proves the modelling is wrong. What they are ignoring is the probability of tipping points, which are quite likely based on available data. No doubt the rate of warming was slower than it could be if certain tipping points happen. I don't appeal to common sense at all. Knowing the shortcomings of perception, and cognition, "common sense" simply means that you believe that other people should think like you, or they are irrational. Its also typically used when someone doesn't have evidence for their position, and use it as emphasis to sound more authoritarian.

I think philosophy has a use, not in answering questions, but in encouraging metacognition. If we don't stop to think "why is it like this?" something common to science, but also philosophy, we can get caught up in assuming everyone else sees and experiences the world the same way.

The question in the OP is incredibly difficult to answer. There are several theories that try to address the question including deontology, utilitarianism, virtue-based ethics, and relationship-based ethics. I am coming from a perspective taught to me in healthcare ethics environment. One of the greatest challenges surfaces when one tries to quantify benefit. Different cultures have different definitions and different social roles so universal application becomes impossible. When we tried to define any universal moral law as is advocated in deontology, the premise is based on what a reasonable person would think is right, but we know that people's definitions and sense of reason vary greatly. Coming back to altruism, every action that we take is ultimately related to our survival at some level. Under that guise, nothing can be truly altruistic, as there is an inherently selfish motivation. I think it is more appropriate to think in terms of the yin/yang, with two faces to each problem/solution.

Sociopath and Psychopath are different from an antisocial personality disorder. Robert Hare is well respected in the field, and is probably the leading expert on Psychopathy. Antisocial personality disorder is a combination of temperament and environment, whereas psychopathy exists regardless of environment. One of the distinctions is that an antisocial personality disorder experiences emotion, but tends to have a negative attributional bias, with a primary angry/aggressive response style. A Psychopath tends to have little emotion, requiring heightened levels of stimulation to experience feelings. Re: the original topic, there is a fair bit of debate in the literature for several reasons. There is not a standard definition of aggression or exposure time. It is difficult to rule out the effects of parenting style, peer influences, and other contributing factors such as substance abuse. That said, we know there are physiological changes in the brain from exposure to violent media, a pattern of desensitivity to suffering, and a glorifying of antisocial behaviour. The generally accepted stance is that vulnerable kids are affected to a much greater extent than well adjusted kids. The idea that violent kids are attracted to violent games skewing the results isn't well supported. Violent behaviour and antisocial attitudes tend to follow gaming, rather than the other way around. Boys are more affected than girls too.

When you provide real science, and I claim its not real, then I am a denier. Hasn't happened yet. There is a much simpler reason why there is a much larger number of studies supporting AGW and ACC. Mere distraction from discussing the actual topic, which is skepticism, and the use of pseudoscience to support one's claims. I am sure that you are aware that climate science is about probabilities in complex system, much like psychology. What you are stating about chemistry and physics is true, but about as useful as using chemistry to predict brain processes that result in behaviour. In reality, the more variables one knows, the better the predictions. When I did risk assessment for court, I was able to produce a 80% accurate prediction of future offending. Considering the complexity of human interactions, that is about as good as it gets. Its the same with climate, scientists are using probabilities to predict what is likely to happen, based on what has been measured historically, and what is known about the correlations and causations of previous climate shifts.

Democracy is a great idea, bit how many people are actually informed? When 10% of the population believes thay have encountered aliens, and 30% believe the world is only 6000 years old, giving equla value to each citizen seems silly. Unfortunately, the alternative has very significant problems. Its a lose/lose situation.

Yes, I am agreeing with you. I have read a number of your posts and respect what you say. I just wanted to give a rationelle, so you didn't think I was posting willy nilly. Like I said, I will just direct people to be assessed in future. Warren

Good, points. I am not dismissing what you say at all. One has to be very cautious. As I noted, I won't make these types of recommendations in future. Just for clarification, what I am referring to is not diagnosis or treatment, but a way to assess symptoms, and all we have is a vague description of symptoms that could be based on a bacteria or a virus, the specific one is not known. If there was a history that suggested long standing complications, exposure to rare pathogens, poisoning etc, then the immediate response is get checked out , preferably by someone who knows your history. In this case, the most probable causes by a long shot are minor. We are in flu season, shifting the odds significantly. What we do know about the immune system is that it takes a couple days to get a handle on what is going on, so two to three days should result in a turning of the tides. If there isn't, your body needs more rest, or a boost to help it. This is the logic behind the three day assessment/observation, and it does not dismiss the risks you note with recommendations with minimal information. To be clear, I am not trying to be argumentative, just to give background to the rationelle, which would only be appropriate under specific circumstances. In other cases, I typically strongly recommend proper assessment. (Without any other recommendation.)

I am a nurse, and this is the standard line we use. I won't post these types of responses any more. The overuse of antibiotics is a problem, and people don't give their immune system a chance to work. There is of course huge risk with the minimal information shared in a brief post.

In this article there is the claim that the planet hasn't warmed since 1998. This is quite simply false. This recent decade is the warmest on record, but the rate of warming since 1998, the year of a very strong El Nino, has been slower than predicted, but its still warming. The five warmest years on record: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, and 2013. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9/supplemental/page-1 I am sure you are aware that the CO@ levels lag the triggering event, then sustain the trend through the subsequent events. Overly simplified yes, but the whole lead lag spin has been addressed and verified. Looking at pieces rather than the whole is the only way to dismiss the "consensus" view. From the reviews I have done, it seems to me the biggest source of "skeptical publication" has been the Bush administration, and the big oil companies, who employed numerous "experts" who also happened to be experts in the lack of evidence on the link between tobacco and cancer. Just a process observation: It seems to me you are trying to poke holes in the existing knowledge, not present a comprehensive big picture. This is not how science works. If you hypothesize that the last 50 years of accumulated knowledge, with several thousand publications from numerous nations are all part of a conspiracy to toe the line, then you need to provide pretty compelling evidence. When I look at the evidence against ACC or AGW, I see similarities to the attempt to use "intelligent design" to replace evolution. There are pieces that could be plausible, if one stretches their imagination, and ignores a whole lot of other well established principles. When one looks at the evidence in its entirety, its a landslide in the opposite direction though. May I ask what your agenda is, and I don't mean that in a subversive way. What is the point you want people to see, or discuss? I think you are approaching the discussion with a battering ram, rather than open arms. What is the common ground between the consensus position, and what you think is correct, then where do you diverge from that consensus position?

My argument is that the story evolved into the messiah story over time. Elements were added as each book was added to the canon. It was added afterwards. There is plenty of evidence for that. Now, whether there was a real man named Jesus to me at least, becomes irrelevant. One could have picked any "prophet" worthy figure, and evolve the story over time. There are two debates, whether Jesus, as portrayed in the bible exists, or if there was a man, or a few men, who were used to represent the story. If that man existed, what spiritual relevance would be associated with him? A common myth was weaved into his biography, which very was very unlikely to have any historical congruity, as age, year of death etc was predetermined by the story. Jesus could not have lived under Horus, the census, and destruction of the temple. There is a 70 year gap in the timeline. People do not worship the man, they worship the salvation story. I prefer to say "we don't know" than to assume. If I had to make an assumption, based on my knowledge of urban myths, word of mouth stories, it is unlikely that there is a real person that inspired the story. The first gospel actually sets the stage in the metaphysical plane, not on the earth. Tough to be a real man in the metaphysical plane. I'm not sure where this certainty comes from. I certainly have read a lot of historians that question, or outright deny that any reliable evidence exists for Jesus being a man who lived the 30 year period in the area, as outlined in the bible. In fact, many note that he would have had to live over 70 years to be present at events as outlined in the "history" of the new testament. Its also a logical argument. Just like is there a real person who was Santa Claus? It started with a Coca Cola ad compaign (debated of course), but has been attributed to a saint. One has to decide if its the story that people value, or the man who did not do the things in the story. It seems quite reasonable to see that the person becomes quite irrelevant, when its the story that has meaning for people. Not being difficult, I am curious why you are so interested in whether the person Jesus existed, when you acknowledge that the story is not real. If youy were unsure if the myth was real, the pursuit of this verification makes sense to me. To me its like looking for the model who played Santa in the Coke commercial as being important to verify something about the history of the Santa myth. It changes nothing in terms of believability or historicity of the myth. Whether there was a warrior that inspired Hercules, or Zeus, or Mythra seems unimportant to the myth. Who inspired Anakin Skywalker? Does that person lend credence to the force? I am not being sarcastic or dismissive. I am genuinely curious to understand your reason.

OK, I was in the library today for my paper, and I looked up the article I was referring to. Bausch, D. G., Towner, J. S., Dowell, S. F., Kaducu, F., Lukwiya, M., Sanchez, A., & ... Rollin, P. E. (2007). Assessment of the Risk of Ebola Virus Transmission from Bodily Fluids and Fomites. Journal Of Infectious Diseases, 196(2), S142-S147. doi:10.1086/520545

My question becomes, why did God send so many versions of his son to be born of a virgin, to be later crucified, and be resurrected three days later to save humanity? Wouldn't once be enough? One could question if they were really the same God? If they aren't the trinity has competition. If they are false stories, how do we know which one is the real God and Son of Man? Since some of the stories are basically identical, how can one truly decide which is the real one? None have compelling historical evidence to point to "this is the one that really lived." What if the early church used the name Zoraster instead of Jesus, then our major world religion would have been Zorastianity, not Christianity. The term Christ was a a translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah to Greek, Which was Christos. It wasn't the name of a live person, but a symbolic name that has been later assigned as a "Christian" or last name. I don't like Wikipidia, but its accessible to a lot of people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian

I typically recommend three days. If you are getting worse, or not improving, then go to the doctor. If you are immunocompromized, then go right away.

I have read a few conflicting reports on this topic, and would have to agree that one could cite a paper that says there is a correlation, and some say its not significant. If one uses an analogy to athleticism, what makes a good athelete? Is a marathon runner a better athelete than a power lifter? Intelligence is much the same. There are few people who are "gifted" across all currently measured domains of intelligence, and usually there is a trade off. Using Einstein as an example, he was a visual spatial learner, likely had ADHD, and may have had asperger's disorder. He could not remember his address, but he could connect the dots better than almost anyone. Different domains of intelligence depend on a combination of genetic predisposition, an environment that nourishes and supports, and doesn't damage, and a learning curve that enriches, rather than stifles. As a therapist, I can remember the life story of every client I have ever worked with, over 2000 families/people. I must have a good memory right? I can't remember my wife's cell phone number, what the date is, or the names of most of my clients. Depending on the type of memory you measure, I will either be gifted, or retarded. Some people are specialists, and others are generalists, and rarely there are people who are brilliant in most areas, and others who will never learn to brush their teeth. Part of the problem is how we measure intelligence. Most testing is language based, at least in the instructions. Watch this video to see if there is another way to do things (there is.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2VLje8QRrwg

That sounds right, possibly. It compared acute and convalescent patients in an African hospital, and the samples were tested for the antigen and the virus, and how long the virus was detected in the samples after collection. I thought it was the early 2000's, but I went through about 10 articles that week informing myself for the debate. I access the University library online, and its REALLY buggy, often taking 30+ minutes just to log in. When I am less irritated with the computer, I will clarify my source, and post the reference/abstract here. I think this discrepancy is part of the confusion, but I think the biggest confusion comes from the media, who emphasize the 1/1,000,000,000 chance that something could happen theoretically- ie. infection via contaminated saliva, but the conditions that would result in that specific set of circumstances would be such a perfect storm its unlikely to ever happen. I am no expert, but as a nurse, I try to keep informed of infection, types of tyransmission, and risk. I really enjoyed microbiology when I took it years ago. I remember the hype regarding HIV and the fear it would go airborn, the worlds population would be wiped out etc. I remember looking at the science and thinking: "yeah, but.....?????" People love a scandal, don't they.

I'm in the middle of an ethics paper right now, but will likely have more time at the end of the week. I'll post some information on this topic then (specific body fluids and antigen/virus detction.) I'm visiting/posting as a break from my course during the day.

IQ and cranial volume are not generally related, although comparing at a species level, cranial volume might predict inteligence to a certain extent. This fell apart when it was found that crows and parrots are quite intelligent, more so than many mammals. Even crocodilians and monitor lixards have been shown to be much more intelligent than suspected even 10 years ago. In humans, there is no relation between volume and intelligence unless you look at outliers such as hydrocephalus. We need to assume that the brain is physiologically intact first, and go from there. http://www.livescience.com/32142-are-big-brains-smarter.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/?no-ist

To ad to your post, I went to some medical journals a few weeks back to clarify some of these issues, and antibodies are detected in saliva, AFTER major symptoms appear, but only one of multiple samples had the actual live virus present. These were copywrite protected journals, so I can't copy and paste prom them. What is the process for this type of info? reference it? paste the abstract? The digestive fluids in saliva are suspected kill the virus. Since the patient becomes increasingly more infectious towards death (in the wild, the virus is transmitted often via carrion) at the end stages of life, I would take precautions with saliva, but if someone is still well enough to be in public, a cough or sneeze is incredibly unlikely to transmit the virus, although theoretically "possible". The same was found with HIV years ago.

I am unaware of models failing, unless you are reporting the skeptical stance that any prediction that is not 100% accurate is a failure. Predictions are probabilities, and as new information becomes available, the predictive ability improves. No faith. There ia a peer review process, that while not perfect, is a process to look at methodology, data used, and quality of the discussion/conclusion. Anyone who equates fait with the peer review process is unaware of the definition of either or both of those terms. CO2 is not the largest climate driver. The sun is, of course. But the sun's changes are not responsible for the rapid changes we are seeing now. CO2 is responsible for changes in single digits, where the different temperature between the planets in the solar system are evidence of the sun's influence. Look at Mars or Venus, compared to earth. That is not the magnitude of the differences that are seen. I have read many of the papers included in the IPCC reports, and ther only way these are not valid is if a skeptic tries to poke holes in minor details to create doubt. The claims of corruption, climategate, a worldwide conspiracy to increase taxes etc, are talking head nonsense. I have been reviewing mental health journals for 20+ years as part of my job, and I can tell quite quickly whether something is well done, or has an agenda. That skill translates to looking at the structure of other papers (yes I am univerity trained in the multiple research designs, what they can and cannot answer, and how specific/general the study is intended to be) are relevant in all science fields. I have not seen a single skeptic paper with sound design or conclusion in the 10 years I have been following this topic. I have seen a few peer reviewed papers that weren't the best, but even the worst of these exceed the methodology and conclusions of the skeptic papers. The IPCC reports show several principles, what history has shown, what trends are probable, what trends are possible, and makes hypothesis of what is most likely. Predicting tippiong points is difficult in a dynamic system, so we have to look at possibilities and probabilities. Whether the surface temperature changes at the low end of the possible rate compared to previous predictions compared to possible other ranges does not dismiss the fact that the earth temperature is changing. As we learn how the earth absorbs heat through the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land mass, we will continually improve the predictive ability., Pot/kettle argument. No reponse. There is a minimum standard. Its possible that work outside of this standard might have some truth or good insight to it, so if it does, the peer review process will tease that out. Not going through that process makes one suspicious, immediately. If the researcher chooses not to publish in respected journals, there is a reason. Real science means peer review, repeatability, being open to all data. Have any of the "real scientists" denied that the rate of atmospheric warming is on the low end of the predictions over the past 10 years? That's what the data says. Scientists ask why, and look for answers to that question.

I believe we go where the evidence takes us. Youy lost me here, part of the messianic myth is the virgin birth, mysterious childhood, returning to lead his people, falling out of favour, being a martyr, dying, descending into hell (jesus disn't), and being resurrected three days later to return to the heavenly kingdom. The story is not in contradiction to the messianic myth, but a near perfect example of it. Is it a misquote, or making Jesus fit the myth better, as many other hero or messianic figures were half god, half human and the product of a virgin birth. I would love to learn more. I have been interested in this topic since my teens, and from what I have looked at I am unaware of any robust confirmation of a historical Jesus, as numerous other historical documents fail to mention him. Not proof, but important. If I am wronbg on this, I am open to being corrected. Re: other messianic figures. Listverse is a convenient way to address this. This is not my "sourse" of information, but there is a lot of verification of these stories in other literature. Its just easier to use the premade list in this case. I can provide much more robust information oif needed. http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/ There are many more similar messianic stories. Even modern stories such as Anakin Skywalker are based on this story. Lord of the Rings has elements of it. Jesus was not a departure from the story, but his story evolved to better capture the imagination of the tribes that already believed in this pagan myth. It united people, who alredy believed the story. It is changing. The Pontification Council has admitted the stories of the old testament are not historical events. The method to salvation is what is now important to them. http://vaticanfiles.org/tag/inerrancy/

My thoughts are that yahya515 is starting the journey by at least questioning the bible. That is better than many do. Most "faithful" people I know have never read the bible front to back. My family doesn't even read the old testament at all. Its an interesting idea. faith, and to see it as a virtue in light of the obvious issues of potential for abuse of power, is stunning to me. I see questioning as good.

I am new to this forum, but have noted a couple comments regarding blaming the West. This was a common argument on a forum I just left. I think most people looking to discuss issues such as this aren't trying to blame one side or another, but look at the contributing factors and assign some sort of correlation or causation. I personally don't think in terms of 'us vs. them" and my comments are typically emotionally neutral. I think this is difficult for many people to conceptualize. I worked in mental health in Forensics for a couple decades, and learned that people do what makes sense. Good guys vs. bad guys is something politicians use to remove moral ambiguity. Any time we take an issue and polarize it, we are oversimplifying it, a political strategy, not a genuine debate strategy. The situation in the Middle East has historical, religious, cultural, social, political, economic, military, and class factors. If one grew up in an area where military occupation, poverty, and war were your norms, then one's views of the world and the west would be very different than ours are. What there is no debate on, is that people in the Middle East kill each other much more frequently than they kill westerners, and westerners kill people in the Middle East at rates that are multitudes higher yet. The majority of people killed by western forces are civilians. By objective measures, we generate more terror, but we don't see that daily, due to our media bias, and distance from the situation. its not about believing one side is better or worse, but looking at each side's contributions to the problems, and evaluating if 40 years of bombing has made the region more peaceful, or improved relations to the west. Why continue with what doesn't work, or evaluate if the motive is stabilizing the region, if we have been there for almost a century, and the area maintains instability. Maybe that is the real goal, as it's been the constant, in spite of significant financial and technological advantages in the West.

My point is that the formula for a messianic figure was in place long before the Jesus story. That makes the historical aspect of the story highly suspect. Whether Jesus actually existed, I see no compelling evidence to support this, but we are relying on hisorical accounts millenia old. I can't say Jesus did not exist as a man, but the gospels were not reporting history. It is fully possible that the messianic story was added after the fact, a stance Price strongly supports through the evolution of the story, a salient point given the first gospel missed the virgin birth, a pretty important part of the myth to miss, no? I don't know if Jesus as a man will ever be proven or disproven.

I'll make this simple. Your paper does not meet the minimum standard for scientific credibility. How much more clear does it need to be?