Area54

Is it ethical to view men and women as different? It can help avoid embarrassment when selecting a public convenience.

And the English grammar.

Definitely. I think you would be hard pressed to find a discovery that was not an unknown. (The clue seems to lie in the deifnition of discovery.) So Gees must mean something else.

Don't be so bloody minded. You misread a clearly written post, making two errors. I thought to birng that to your attention (and simultaneously defend Memammal) by a lighthearted post mimicing your style. To indicate that it was offered in humour and not sarcasm I noted that I shared your puzzlement. I'm sorry you feel that pointing out errors is negative and unhelpful. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

I think you meant from, not to.

I think I know this one. The second isn't a mental disorder because few transexuals invade Russia.

The Doomsday clock is a metaphorical portrayal of how close we are to a nuclear Armageddon, or other existential threat to humanity. It is a construct of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It now stands at 2 1/2 minutes to midnight, the closest it has been to disaster since the early 1950s, at the height of the cold war. Here is the latest description of the situation from the website: 2017: For the last two years, the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock stayed set at three minutes before the hour, the closest it had been to midnight since the early 1980s. In its two most recent annual announcements on the Clock, the Science and Security Board warned: “The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.” In 2017, we find the danger to be even greater, the need for action more urgent. It is two and a half minutes to midnight, the Clock is ticking, global danger looms. Wise public officials should act immediately, guiding humanity away from the brink. If they do not, wise citizens must step forward and lead the way. See the full statement from the Science and Security Board on the 2017 time of the Doomsday Clock. Note that this was issued in January of this year. One suspects the second hand has moved on since then.

Your proposal would disenfranchise people based upon an arbitrary test. I would oppose it completely. (I understand it is very well intentioned and I applaud you for seeking a solution to a genuine and important problem, but this system would be ripe for abuse.)

I certainly shall, but thus far the Real World has intruded on the RNA World.

You forgot storgē . I forgot storgē till I checked wikipedia for the spelling of agape and there it was. Storgē - familial love, natural or instinctual affection.

Don't you think this is taking "No man is an island" a little too far?

scherado, thank you for your reply. I know I have good reading comprehension skills. Consequently the problem here is not me, but you. You may have a radicaland important idea, but you are presently unable to communicate it. For your own peace of mind I suggest you work on your communication skills before trying challenge the world. Please don't waste time replying. I shall not be wasting any more time on your posts. Edit: I should inform you I have reported this thread and suggested it be locked and placed in the Trash Can. I've also suggested, in your own interest, that you be banned.

Scherado, Your posts are incomprehensible. Your attitude is rude. Your logic is absent. You are wasting bandwidth. There are only a few days left, but I think we can safely award you Troll of the Month.

1. The clause "our relationship to that construction" does not parse with the rest of the sentence. Consequently it is not possible to know what you meant by it. 2. Please provide evidence that we have built an entire civilisation upon a conception of time. 3. If this thread is not about that subject then why mention it at all? 4. Then what is this thread about?

You do realise that the political persuasions of the persons approving the design of the test would influence the nature of the test? The point about a democracy is that, for the most part, all adults have a right to express their views through the ballot box. Now, in an effort to improve democracy you wish to restrict people's right to express their views.

mad_scientist, risk averse compared with what? Or, if you believe there is an absolute measure of risk aversion, what is it? You must specifiy this before we can proceed.

Many examples of this sort are present within geology. The rocks may be regarded as the end product of a "laboratory" experiment that the geologist seeks to interpret. The literature shows that the interpretations are almost as varied as the number of observers. Some use them (the rocks) to confirm a hypothesis, others to refute it, others to initiate a new one and some as a form of stamp collecting. beecee, your graphic is no more than a repetition of your previous statement and does not address in any way the points I raised.

Makes an observation? What determines the observation he makes? How many observations does he ignore? How does he choose which observations will garner his attention? How will he observe? What levels of precision and accuracy will he strive for? Why will he choose these values? Observes an experiment? On what basis does he choose that experiment? How does he select the criteria? How does he validate the experiment? What simplifications does he make? Why does he discard alternative designs? Formulate a hypothesis? Why does he choose this milieu in which to frame his hypothesis? Why does the hypothesis take form A, rather than form B (favoured by his rivals)? What observations does he decide to exclude from his hypothesis as irrelevant? Why does he so define them? Collect all the data? Really? All the data? There is more than enough leeway within each of these questions for great variety of methodology. I strongly suspect that many scientific investigations begin with the hypothesis then work backwards through experiment and observation in order to validate it. The Scientific Method as described by science historians and philsophers is an ideal, conceptual framework, not the reality of in-the-trenches science.

Excellent point. I already hear (metaphorically of course) offence being taken as some members imagine the course of such a discussion.

@Hypercube - which love are you talking about? Agápe, éros, philía, or storgē? One would imagine four distinct opposites are required.

My question was implicitly one about free will. That is, you are taking a reductionist, biochemical accounting of the "products" of sleep and applying the same thinking to conscious brain processes. My reading of your postiion, which may be completely misguided, is that you are seeing all brain processes, conscious and unconscious as deterministic and discount the importance of emergent properties such as consciousness. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with you, but just seeking to understand your position.

Hi Jimmy, I am a bit puzzled by your post. Which part of " Their results are published today in the journal Royal Society OS, in a paper entitled "Molecular trade-offs in RNA ligases affected the modular emergence of complex ribozymes at the origin of life” did you not understand. (i.e. it is current and it is in a journal.) The published article, in the Royal Society's open access can be accessed here. That said, I'm still studying the article to determine what they think they are saying is new. In that regard I share your puzzlement.

It ought to be a no brainer, but when a segment of the population believes that "free speech" means "the right to say what I think, but supress the speech of those I disagree with", then it exposes - as we have seen - the deep divides in American society. I grew up in the sixties, watching the civil rights movement in the US from afar. It's deja vu all over again! Only this time the racists have their own man in the White House. And - to bring it fully back to the OP - free speech is exposing him, to those with eyes to see, for what he is. (In fairness, I don't think Trump is a racist - he despises all people equally.)

I think, if you examine it carefully, you will realise that society traditionally discouraged women from entering the labour market precisely so they would have the time to have and raise babies. Since your opening question is poorly framed I don't see how it can be properly answered. (GIGO)

My knowledge of the work of Fisher and Haldane and Sewell Wright and all who came after is worse than rudimentary, but if the quantity of interest is different and the methodology to derive the solution is different, why would you expect comparable results? (Hopefully someone who knows what they are talking about will drop by shortly and put us out of our misery)