PhDP

At least on this topic, lucaspa, we're mostly on the same side

I said Dennett wasn't a scientist, that makes him a creationist ? And it's true, most people that misuse the term "Darwinism" are creationists. Mokele knows very well "Darwinism" can be used to mean "evolution by natural selection", but it shouldn't be used to describe evolution as a whole. Simple, natural selection is only one of the mechanism of evolution, it's simply part of the theory of evolution. Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, Susumu Ohno, Masatoshi Nei, and many others, they don't consider themselves Darwinists/Selectionists because they don't think natural selection is the most important mechanism of evolution (they don't think darwinian evolution doesn't exist. however). It's as simple as that. Also, I never said words like "Darwinism" or "Darwinian" were not used by scientists. You just don't read what I say. I never said scientists don't use the term "Darwinism", in fact, I started a phrase with "When a scientist say "Darwinism"...", and I often quote one of my favorite book, "Evolutionary Game Theory, Natural Selection, and Darwinian Dynamics". I said very clearly (post #9, it's not very far); When a scientist say "Darwinism", it means "evolution by natural selection". When a creationist (or Dawkins) say "Darwinism", they mean "the theory of evolution". It's an important distinction.

No, Mokele is right. I've heard scientists (Dennett isn't a scientist) using "Darwinism" to talk about evolution by natural selection, and sometime, to denotes selectionists, but they're not referring to the theory of evolution as a whole. Dawkins is an exception.

That's just fallacious, the sentence is out of context. I was defending the idea that scientists are liberal because of their personality (obviously, not ALL scientists are liberals). And if you read carefully, you'll see dogmatism (/lack of openness) is clearly an important personality trait that is correlated to conservatism, and the opposite of a trait (openness) that is considered important for scientists. So there's an incompatibility between a trait correlated to conservatives and a trait important for scientists. This is not just an anecdote. If you read [2] carefully, you'll see how dogmatism is important to understand conservatism. So you have to explain to me; what is so complicated? Where is the prejudice? It's a prejudice now to use a source that will not please everyone? I surely never said "ALL". If each time I use a correlation you accuse me of attacking "ALL people"... it's going to be a little complicated. I never said conservatives were unable to participate or understand science, please, stop putting words in my mouth. So you don't think the republican party is more hostile to science than the democrats ? I'm sure the democrats would not get a A+ from the NAS, but still, they're not denying global warming, the anti-evolution mouvement is mostly made of conservatives, and I saw them claim very often that homosexuality was a "lifestyle". And why would I criticise a crazy few liberals while I'm not criticising a crazy few conservatives ? What I just said about the republican party, it's shared by enough republicans to shape their policies. You crossed the line between arguing and lying, I never said "liberals are good, conservatives are bad". This has nothing to do with the subject and no, it would not outrage me. You probably missed the "blacks are less intelligent" debate, it wasn't about whether "blacks" had lower IQ or not, but about the cause; is it because they're black, or because of the environment. Who cares? Again, this is a diversion, it doesn't change anything to the facts, it adds nothing to the discussion, and it’s just another way of playing the victim card.

I certainly take this very seriously when someone accuses me of having prejudices, when in fact I based my comments on many serious studies. Really ? We'll see; [1] Caprara et al., 2006, Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, and Political Choice. Political Psychology 27(1) [2] Jost et al. 2003. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3):339–375. About the personality of scientists, here's two reviews; [3] Feist & Gorman. 1998. The Psychology of Science: Review and Integration of a Nascent Discipline. Review of General Psychology 2(1): 3-47. and Feist. 2006. How Development and Personality Influence Scientific Thought, Interest, and Achievement. Review of General Psychology 10(2):163–182. [3] links many personality traits to scientist/eminent scientitsts/creative scientists; Openness/Flexibility in thought. [1] associate this traits to the left. [2] provides extensive evidences that dogmatism (low flexibility) is associated to conservatism. Also, according to a very interesting article (but not very positive for those who voted for Bush), about the the "Openness" of Bush; Independence/Autonomous. [1] associate this trait to the left. Social dominance. [2] associate this trait to the conservatives. Also, [2] show conservatives are not very good at integrative complexity, that's hardly good for a scientist. Extremists (left or right), they all show high degree of dogmatism. Many sociologists on the left have been very hostile to the integration of evolution to sociology because of their political views ("The Blank Slate", by Pinker, show this very well). However, I can't believe you would seriously compare the hostility of some extremists on the left to the hostility of conservatives. We're not speaking of just one or two conservatives, the republican party have been close to many pseudoscientists when it comes to important issues like the environment, genetics, evolution... Political views are determined by many things that have nothing to do with logical reasoning, I think your statement that it has "NOTHING" to do with it is a little extreme. But anyway, I just said, and I maintain, that scientists are probably liberals because of their personality. That is based on serious studies, but for some reason, I'm the one accused of having prejudices ? Sure, liberals are more emotionally driven than logically driven. Nothing new, it's pretty clear that politics is about worldviews and personality, most of it is not driven by rationality. But the same thing can be said of conservatives, and I don't think you would be able to prove liberals are more emotionally driven than conservatives. Global warming has nothing to do with the left or conformity, this is about science, and the science is pretty clear on the subject.

Sure it is. Even if we forget for a minute of all the attacks launched by conservatives on science, we have very good reasons to think scientists are more likely to be allies of the left. It's well known in political psychology that differents traits and personal values are associated with the right and the left (it was even shown political affiliations are highly hereditable). It was shown in several studies (mostly published in "Political Psychology") that tradition & conformism is associated with the right, while self-direction is associated with the left. It's not the biggest discovery of the 20th century, but still I think that scientists are more to the left because some personability traits associated with the right are imcomptable with science. It's probably because we understand "survival of the fittest" well enough to know that it has nothing to do with capitalism, at least, not directly. In a couple of weeks I'll vote for our center-left party. I'll lose money because of this, but I really doupt my contribution to the gene pool will be reduced. I can have the number of children I want, give them everything they need. Perhaps my TV will be smaller, oh god, I hope they'll survive this terrible shock.

True. [...] Our results suggest that sequence heterochrony in embryonic stages has not been a major feature of mammalian evolution. This might be because mammals, and perhaps amniotes in general, develop for an extended time in a protected environment, which could shield the embryos from strong diversifying selection. Our results are also consistent with the view that mammal embryos are subject to special developmental constraints. Therefore, other mechanisms explaining the diversity of extant mammals must be sought. The last part of the abstract of Olaf et al., 2003. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 10(4):335-361.

Heterochrony is not seen today the same way it was seen then this book was written. Now we understand heterochrony is more "localized", no single heterochronic process accounts for the evolution of most species. Also, while it's pretty certain heterochrony had something to do with our evolution, Gould's radical view that most of our recent evolution could be explained with neoteny is too simplistic. It's a common theme with Gould; he had a lot of good ideas, but his view were often a little too simplistic.

When a scientist say "Darwinism", it means "evolution by natural selection". When a creationist (or Dawkins) say "Darwinism", they mean "the theory of evolution". It's an important distinction, it shows that creationists either don't know evolutionary biology very well, or they're not brave enough to launch an attack on the whole field, they prefer to attack a watered-down version of evolution. Probably a little of both. In my knowledge, Milton don't call himself a creationist, but his "arguments" are so similar I wouldn't be able to make a dinstinction... and like creationists, he's attacking some form of evolution that doesn't really exist ("Darwinism").

Having "good intentions" can't be a substitute for competence. Bush had responsibilities; he failed and should be held accountable. Bush can’t get away with “good intentions”, it’s not serious ! How would a private enterprise react if an employee, because of his actions, had caused half a millions deaths ? If being critical of the foreign policies of the United-States makes someone an "Anti-American", then I guess most Americans are becoming Anti-Americans. I can't say for SkepticLance, but I have a very deep respect for the US, and I wish to complete my studies there… but I have no respect for Bush, he might be a great guy, a good father, I don't care, as a president he's a disaster. His reelection is a shame and is a slap in the face of the world. This guy had the sympathy and support of most of the world after 9/11, and now terrorists are stronger, Iran and Syria are stronger, far more people are dying in Iraq now than in 2000 under the "evil" regime of Saddam, Afghans are starting to think the Talibans weren't so bad after all, Pakistan is destabilized by the war in Afghanistan and most of the people of South Korea think the North Korean crisis was caused by the US, not by Kim Jong-il (and no, it’s not because they like him). This isn't a little blunder, it's gross incompetence. Around 655 000 deaths, "excess mortality" caused by the US invasion of Iraq (393000-943000, 19 times out of 20), that makes a lot of terrorists... The Lancet gives a free access to the article.

Perhaps it'll never happen, but it certainly make sense from an economic perspective, and from a cultural perspective I also cannot find any rational objection to the merge, as long as Québec is out of the equation.

Why ?

The economic relations between the US and Canada will always be strong, most provinces have stronger ties with the US than with the rest of Canada (and this, BTW, is a major problem in Canadian politics). The only thing Harper has done is to get closer to the Bush administration in term of foreign policy, and even then, the tone has changed drastically but in practice they are doing exactly the same thing the Liberal Party was doing (... we see the same patterns in environmental policy, Liberals are "green", Conservative don't care about the environment, but in practice, both were/are doing nothing). So, I agree with you, there's no concrete changes in term of US-Canada relations for now, only the tone has changed. However, I don't think the Canadian Conservative Party is more leftish than the Republican party, with Harper as their leader they are in fact so similar to the GOP it's hard to distinguish them. Sure, many conservatives (from Ontario/Quebec) are "Progressive Conservatives" and have nothing to do with the social conservatism espoused by Harper, but in a parliamentary system, MPs are pawns and the PM is the king. It's surprising how much Harper's foreign policy, and the way he is doing politics, is similar to "hard core" republican, I guess it's why he's doing so bad in public opinion. Anyway, I don't see how the Conservatives could win a majority of seats, it's even unlikely they will survive next election.

This is just ridiculous... I hope you understand that it only means something different if there's EXACTLY 50% christians and 50% non-christians... The number is not that high at the highest level of science (just look at "Leading scientists still reject God", Nature, 1998 or at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence"). Also, it says nothing of notable evolutionary biologists, I don't really care about "all evolutionary biologist". I'm interesting in those who shaped the theory of evolution, this is not the same. First, I don't exclude people because of their religious beliefs or political beliefs, if it was the case I would excluse Mayr and Fisher and include Dawkins. It's true that my list is a least a little subjective, I've never said it wasn't. However, the scientists I've quoted are all well known, they made specifics and importants contributions, have prestigious awards/positions. Sure, there's a certain amouth of bias, I'm not interested in plants and I don't know much about evolutionary biologists studyign plants. Sure, he's one of the most effective defender of evolution, but... he's a cell biologist. Just look at the scientic papers he published, he's not an evolutionary biologist and I really don't understand how you could think he's an evolutionary biologist. Just for fun; could you name his contribution to the theory ? That's pure nonsense. First, I cannot list everyone. Second, I wasn't aware he was a christian, how can it be biased ? The amount of paranoia in your posts is simply disturbing. Not only you thought Kenneth was an evolutionary biologist, but you still haven't been able to explain to me why Ayala was the foremost evolutionary biologist in America, but somehow I'm biased because I did not listed a paleontologist in a list of notable evolutionary biologist ? And you call ME biased ? You've just decided that I'm unable to make an objective list, but I think if you'd ask some evolutionary biologists from different domains to make a list of the most importants people who changed our view of evolution you'd get a very similar picture, and, incidentally, very few christians... I do know him, but he's known for discovering fossils not for having changed our view of evolution, I don't consider that a notable contribution to our understand of evolution. Sure it is, it's why theists need faith. You haven't even found one credible evolutionary biologist that I've discareded from the list, how can you say I'm exluding theist ? I've listed some theists, but not because they were theist but because they did a lot for evolution (Like Dhobzhansky). You'd have to stop attacking me and concentrate on the data. ... Do you believe in werewolves ? And can you prove their inexistence ? If you answered "no" to both those question and replace "werewolves" by "god", that's weak atheism. It doesn't need to be always black or white. Surely, you have no idea what "anthropomorphic" means. The Judeo-Christian god has intelligence, conscience, he even have emotions. About Gould you can look at this (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_23/ai_55208043), if you're not satisfied I could look for something else, Gould's atheism/agnosticism isn't the greatest mystery on earth. Obviously, you haven't read what I wrote, I didn't said "I know", In fact I said clearly that I'm not 100% sure about all the religious affliation. I'm certain my list has a value in the sense that scientists in it were/are really important to the theory, but I've not made extentive researches on their religious views because I don't really care. I know most of them are not christians, and I know the religious affiliations of many of them, not all. My point is that the major developpements in evolutionary biology in the 20th century were made MOSTLY by nontheists/atheists/agnostics and that you have no proof to the contrary, you've just said "at least half" were christians without any proofs. I don't need faith to understand the universe, so I have no idea what you mean by "your faith". In fact, this accucation is baseless, I've said many things but I never said I had faith in something or that I knew with 100% certainly something. Anyway, you can't really disprove the TF, there's always a way around with those myths, I can say she's invisible, she's immaterial (like your god), she doesn't take a tooth when people are around, there's ALWAYS a way out with those myths. Can you also disprove the existence of vampires, werewolves or cyclops ? There's nothing wrong with the word "unlikely" (although disproving data is another matter). If I say that our understanding of biology makes the existence of vampires unlikely, it makes sense. Because according to everything we know (have tested), an undead creature "living" on blood and transforming into a bat is not in the realm of the possible. Sure, we can't say it's 100% impossible because our theories are not perfect, but again, there's no proof it can exist, no evidences, and it's unlikely. This is the "deduction/induction" cycle, imperfect, but very usefull. And christianism is as unlikely as other mythologies/religions. Can I reject it with 100% certainty ? No I can't, but I do reject faith to understand the universe, and as you need faith to believe in those stories, I don't. Also, being a christians (or muslim/buddhist/taoist) has much more to do with believing the same thing as your parents, it's not like people were starting to think as adult, "hey, THAT religion makes sense". It does happen, but it's not common practice. In fact, I said the opposite, stop inventing. They are not ALL atheists, and I never "evolution is atheism". IMO, evolution gives a lot of credibility to atheism, that's all. I've said, again, very clearly, that science (it includes evolutionary biology) isn't atheistic in nature. My discussion with you started when you said "at least half" evolutionary biologists were christians, now I know you had no reason to say that. Coulter is one of the most pathetic clown in the United-States, I don't care what she says. "even me" ! That's something ! I certainly have no reason to belittle Dobzhansky, he's one of the greatest. You're really living in another world, I never said you could not be both a theist and an evolutionary biologist. The question is totally demagogic. I think theism is irrational, but you can have both an irrational view of the world and still be a serious scientist. I wish I'm saying this for the last time; I only questionned your affirmation that "most" (or "at least half", I don't care) evolutionary biologists were christians, and that Ayala was the "foremost" evolutionary biologist in America. I really fail to see what's so hard to understand.

Are you serious ? I did not "tried" anything, I have not asked the religious affiliation of all evolutionary biologists, I really doupt you did and I really doupt you can show me a statistic proving most evolutionary biologists are/were christians. What's the basis of your claim ? ... I don't know the religious affilication of most evolutionary biologists, BUT, I do know the stance of many of the most important evolutionary scientists of the 20th century. de Chardin did nothing for evolutionary biology, he presented a rather naive teleological view of evolution, did some work in paleontology, nothing spectacular. Kenneth Miller ? Again, I can't believe you're being serious ! I'm talking about giants like Fischer, Ohno, Kimura, Haldane... Kenneth Miller is not even an evolutionary biologist, he's a cell biologist and a science popularizer. I wasn't aware that Walcott was a christian, but anyway I don't consider him a notable contributor, those people have listed have all thought a lot about evolution and our understand of the phenonemum have increased because of their intellect. Sure, the notion of "notable contributor" is somewhat arbitrary, but still I think it's fair to say Walcott have nothing to do among the other scientists I've listed. As for Ayala being the "foremost living evolutionary biologist", I don't know who you are or why you say that, but I find this claim exagerated. It's true he's an important evolutionary biologists, I really like his work, but certainly not the foremost. The problem is that many evolutionary biologists have no conctact with the public, Dawkins is probably the most "popular" evolutionary biologist, he's a succesfull science popularizer but a poor evolutionary theorist. While people like Ohno are barely known even if their contribution to evolution were phenomeral. Scientists like Nei, one of the greatest living evolutionary biologists, don't care about self-promotion and are only known to evolutionary biologists. You're right that science isn't atheistic in nature, but science and atheism are far from being mutually exclusive. I'm promoting rationality over superstitions/faith. I can recongnize when someone has done a service to science wether I agree with him/her or not, but the fact is that most of the great evolutionary biologists were not christians, you're simply dead wrong with that affirmation. First of all, the distinction between agnostic/weak atheism is not very clear in many cases. If by agnostic you mean "someone that really doesn't take any position", Gould wasn't an agnostic, he believed the existence of an anthropomorphic god to be highly unlikely, that's "weak" atheism to me. And, anyway, you said "most were christians", wether they were atheist or agnostics, something's certain; they were not christians. I'll have to verify all my informations, I never did extensive research on the religious beliefs of those people but I know they were not christians.

Meditation. Chess. Walking. Books (Nonlinear Dynamics & Chaos from Strogatz and Evolution of the Genome by Ryan Gregory are good choices...). Music, like the Canon in D minor of Pachelbel, Morning Mood of Grieg... Rêverie (Debussy).

In the 20th century, most of the contributors to evolutionary biology were atheists. Dobzhansky, Fisher and perhaps Ayala (if you consider him a notable contributor) were notable exceptions... But Haldane, Hamilton, Wilson, Gould, Lewontin, Kimura, Mayr, Trivers, Maynard Smith and Margulis were atheists. I'm not sure but I think Felsenstein, Ohta, Nei, Ohno and Wright were/are also atheists, or, at least, not Christians. Price is an ambiguous case, he was an atheist but he converts before committing suicide. As a side note, it's very sad S.Ohno doesn't get the recognition he deserves, his work on mutations/duplication was 40 years ahead.

I think the trend is toward more specialization and working in small teams, but not having necessarily a longer education (it's true for all science).

Lots of lives could've been saved with only a small fraction of the money "invested" in the Iraq war. The US wouldn't be hated as much, and terrorism wouldn't be stronger.

Pangloss, I did not find all the information about the senate vote. But the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005" was supported by 92% of Democrats and only 21% of Republicans. It's still less boring than in a British parliamentary system, still, the division is clear. There's no doubt some democrats are opposing it, but the most vigorous opposition has come from republicans. I think it's fair to say this is part of a cultural conflict between the religious right and the scientific community. I have no idea what's the religion of my prime minister (or any of his predecessors), he might be playing with black magic and sacrifices for all I know. Isn't it a problem when the president of a country is passing or blocking laws because of religion ? China is investing a lot in stem cells, it's certainly not reasonable for the US to slow the development of such a dynamic and promising research area. Also, despite the fact that I really like the American system and wish we would have a similar system, I fail to understand why the executive branch can veto the legislative branch on such issue.

I'm not, you're not understanding my position. I don't say we shouldn't care about those killed by terrorists, but those causalities are relatively low, as I don't think a guy from Israel is worth more than a guy in Africa, and as much more people are dying in Africa, I think we should focus more of our energy there. Sure, the causalities caused by terrorists are too high, it's always too high, but still, there's worse. I also agree we would be foolish to ignore terrorism, I've said it many times, but we are foolish to treat terrorism like it was the world's biggest problem. I'm only asking for a rational, proportionate reaction to the world's problems, especially about terrorism. When a few thousand deaths monopolized all the attention, there's a problem.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html Another chapter of the GOP war on science ? I'm curious, did he ever admit his motives were religious ? He says it's about morality and "being conscious", but that's a diversion, without his religious beliefs, he wouldn't see those cells as "living beings".

Hi 5614, How many people died in the past because of terrorism ? How many are dying now ? Perhaps the number of people killed by terrorists will indeed rise, it's possible, but how the hell could they do, on average, 30 000 deaths a day ? How many nuclear weapons would they need ? And it's likely Iran will never have nuclear weapons. Iran is a serious problem, I don't think it's a very big one, but still, the US and Europe are working hard to solve it. As the name imply, the best tool of terrorists is fear, while they are obviously not threatening many people on earth, the actions of occident is clearly showing them how effective they are. But I guess the first politician to say "stop panicking" will get politically burned in this post-9/11 politcal era. How could we let them shape our political landscape so dramatically ? Well, in term of suffering and deaths, both in past and in the future, poverty (and its consequences) is clearly #1. How could Iran compare to this ? I'm not ignoring the treat of terrorism, or the political instability of the middle east, I'm only denouncing the exaggerations, worse things are happening right now, nobody cares, and it makes me sick. Also, I read your post #116. If something was putting the life of a loved one in serious danger, I would care a lot more than what's happening is another hemisphere. But I don't think there's any rational or emotional justification to care more about a stranger 50 meters away or 10 000 kilometers aways.

I said that ? I'm perhaps a little naive, but I think all human life are equally valuable. Focusing all our energy on a particular region and a particular problem that is killing a few people while dozens of thousand humans life are lost each day without any mention, that's unjustifiable. A really small part of human suffering is given a disproportionate amount of attention, why ? Go ahead ! I'm curious to see why you're defending the Iraq war with such vigor...