Ringer

If you don't like Swansont's example of keeping women down how about a specific one from the Christian Bible "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) So women cannot attempt to take authority over a man, therefore if a women does something a man disagrees with she is doing wrong in the eyes of god (which usually ends in death).

The tissue itself doesn't regulate the blood flow, the arteries,arterioles, and capillaries do that. The only thing the tissue itself does is have more or less oxygen for O2/CO2 passage. The regulation has to do with the dilation or contraction of the smooth muscle in the walls of the vessels. If the local capillaries have a smaller diameter due to contraction than those of other tissues the blood flow to that tissue is limited compared to the other tissues.

Honestly at this point it's not worth me going through 7 pages to point out specific posts that you didn't pay attention to the first time around. So we would still be in caves if everyone in a given field communicated in the accepted way? Oh, so you just redefine words without letting people reading know. That's not the best way to go about this when you are arguing that you don't need math to have clarity. And it's still less than clear. What do you mean by frozen, in what reference frame is it frozen, can it not move in any reference frame, if not you would have to explain why time stopped in its own reference frame. I don't really want answers to these, it's just to point out that it still doesn't make sense because the words are ambiguous. For one it is analogous because it has to do with the way in which gravity works, which you would have to explain to cover the areas of relativity. Two, it wouldn't matter if it's analogous, if you could do it you would be able to show you don't need math to properly explain and predict nature. So it's your choice, explain my example and bring me to your side by showing that I'm wrong, or refuse and allow me to believe you refuse to do it because you know you can't. Math isn't shorthand, it is the explanation. Words, on the other hand, are analogies used to help people begin to understand the workings in a way they're familiar with.

Apparently you missed the point of my cereal analogy. It was meant to show that scientific rigor is unnecessary in normal life situations, and would probably end up with you wasting away without making a decision. That should have made the false equivalence evident. So you could navigate a room, or describe an animal in scientific detail, by seeing it a single time? Probably not, because the brain only likes to remember what is necessary, and what it remembers doesn't even need to be true. How about this, do you think that people would be able to see a gorilla walking through a basketball game? Because with your trust in people's perceptions I would bet you would be wrong.

And again you make a ridiculous false equivalence. Me seeing a bus directly in front of me, large close thing, and someone seeing a 'bigfoot' in the distance, pretty small far thing, are two totally different scenarios. Not to mention I don't live my entire life on the basis of scientific merit. If I did how would I ever choose which cereal I should eat, because I've never had a double blind study showing which cereal I like best. From a purely philosophical view seeing something could be considered empirical evidence, though if recalling something it would still be indirect evidence. But when doing science you need validity, and therefore objectivity. Eyewitness testimony has been objectively shown as unreliable on so many levels it is not used as scientifically valid evidence. Here's a quote from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research#Scientific_research Since memories don't have the ability to be analyzed objectively they cannot be used as evidence, and every video or body 'found' has been shown as fraud so far.

They have to, besides researching with a couple I also prep the biology department freshmen to junior lab classes. I get most of my sneak discussions in when they're telling me how they want the labs set up.

Could you stop making ridiculous analogies? I am not a field general and I don't have to make quick decisions to save peoples lives. So we can be more strict than what a field general could. Yes and no. Yes an uncontaminated sample is needed, but no I would not need to do it myself. Those 'narrow' goalposts are expected to be held when you're in a biology class, let alone when you're actually doing field study.

Alright, so here's an example from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rewired-the-psychology-technology/201212/weapons-mass-distraction This doesn't have anything to do with the topic specifically, but it's just an example of things I, personally, dislike about PT as well as the real problems it tends to have as a source. This article talks about how bad cells phones are by showing that younger people are more anxious when they don't have access to their cell phones, but the data shown has no reference to check the data against. So for all we know he had a sample size of 5 for each generation, and led every question in a personal interview. It also ignores all the evidence showing that texting and regular phone use increases reading and phonetic abilities (I can provide references if you would like) which would go against his basic premise of not being able to focus or attend to work since it would imply that it is easier for one to focus and retain information if they do use the phone more. On top of that, he creates a false equivalence of people's mild anxiety of not checking their phone with the debilitating anxiety of OCD. This would probably be profoundly insulting to people that have to actually deal with that problem. Also, pretty much his entire article is used to sell his book. These problems seem very common in PT from what I have seen. So I would much rather use Wiki than PT. No they are not. If I am proven wrong I do not change as a person, but my idea does change. I've never heard the idea of scientists having poor relationships with their mothers. Since I have a great relationship with my mother, and many of the scientists I know have fine relationships with their mothers, I would say that theory is crap. If it is based on Freud know that he was a quack and tended to pull things out of the air. As for him coming up with a couple good ideas, even a broke clock is right twice a day. Wouldn't it have been easier to ask them not to be so narrow and dogmatic? Because I, as well as they, did not see that angle at all. When an insult is used the argument tends to get lost because if insults are used it is usually assumed the person insulting has nothing more of interest to say. That's one reason it is a horrible idea to use a personal insult for any purpose. Philosophy and science can be discussed, but it should be made clear which is being discussed early on. And that's perfectly fine, the problem came when nothing else was brought to support that statements made. No one argued that testosterone and estrogen don't affect human cognition, so that was not the premise that needed to be supported.

No, eye witnesses are anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence due to a ridiculous amount of data on the fallibility of perception and memory. Contamination by the large amounts of organisms in the place they found the hair, by the people taking the sample, by contaminates exposure during transportation, by the lab running the samples, etc. DNA is everywhere, unless proper procedures are followed contamination is virtually guaranteed. No, the probability it will land on heads half the time are exactly the same as it landing on heads 100 times, each flip is independent from the last. Anyway, the world is very large, but bigfoot sightings are not everywhere in the world. They tend to be in a specific place that is very unlikely for a wild hominid of its description to live with a sustainable population. There is a difference between 'there are organisms we haven't discovered that exist' and 'this specific organism we haven't discovered exists.' Much like the coin flips a specific event is very unlikely (50H:50T) while a non-specific event is more likely to happen (50H +/- 15: 50T +/-15). With the first you look for only one possible outcome, 50:50 distribution. The second any distribution between 35:65 to 65:35 will be accepted.

It's amazing the rendition of their alphabet's sounds isn't using the international phonetic alphabet, and instead seems to just use the many of the words for the proto-Canaanite letters. This would kind of suggest this construction wasn't done by professional linguists. Which means it's probably just something someone put together to make it look legitimate.

You mean the statement about its report in those places and in the next sentence it says: and cites the NHS source? Yeah, I'd say they do a good job saying a reference was made to a study and the reference was inaccurate. Going on to explain why it was inaccuracy and what the study observed while properly citing the study. I'd say it does a good job. Any discussion in the science sub-forums is considered a scientific discussion and is treated as such. For non-scientific discussion you should post in the lounge. Note, though, that your topic is a scientific topic, so I don't see how this isn't a scientific discussion. I doubt you would want us all to just make things up. I don't see how post 19 was in any way off topic. He replied to what you said in appropriate ways, could you elaborate on why it shouldn't have been part of the discussion? You have been directly insulting members, not their ideas them as people, and that post is a response to that. Compared to saying someone has no understanding of how psychology works and talking about their mothers this is a very polite reply. Also those insults are not only against the rules, they have been driving the discussion even further away from being productive. It's an observation that is made, and is true, for a lot of people coming here for the first time. It's not meant as an insult, iNow's insults aren't subtle in any way, but just an observation to try to help you understand what tends to happen when someone who is use to being top intelligence in a group goes to a group that is just as intelligent. Many times it is not pretty. The way I read it he was talking about Aristotle, who got a lot of stuff wrong. It still wouldn't be an ad hominem, because it is dispelling an appeal to authority that Aristotle should be right because he is Aristotle. Bringing up Aristotle got a lot of things wrong is an argument against the claim, not the person. Therefore there was not an ad hominem. As I said, anything in the science sub-forum is considered, and treated like, a scientific discussion. He didn't change the subject, he restated that biases would harm many aspects of your experiments. That was the majority of post 9, so there was no change in subject. Also, the only source you cited that states anything about what you would be comparing was the testosterone paper, but you never stated if aggression was part of a non-feminine trait. That's why it's important to define these things.

My position of contamination still stands until it is ruled out by evidence. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the probability of existence is low. One would expect to see outliers in some cases, but for every one exception there are millions that are true to form.

But psychology today isn't a peer reviewed source so is not evidence. Since it is not peer reviewed what is written in it tends to be the psychologists conjectures, many of which aren't strongly supported. Also, since Wiki gives link to all its sources you can verify the bases of what is written, many of Psychology Today's articles do not have sources cited in a clear way. Again, Wiki is a fine source since you can easily check its sources. That shouldn't be done this way because the parameters of 'feminine' would differ from judge to judge. You would have to do an separate experiment to show femininity scores are consistent across cultures to eliminate bias. It would be much easier to define feminine in a consistent way. Depending on how you define feminine and complaining would change how this second part turns out. The cold water experiment would be skewed by pain tolerance, so it may not be a good idea to use that one unless pain tolerance is part of the measure of being feminine. Having the confederate in the room may change the outcome as well, people may complain less when being watched. Would complain constitute an obvious statement such as, 'this is uncomfortable/boring' or only when the subject is making excessive remarks about the situation. This is an arbitrary mark, but the demarcation should be known before the experiment starts so you don't fish for p-values. Other than that this part is looks fine. It's common to take a video of experiments, so you could have audio and video for more than just auditory reactions. I agree with most of the complaints John and iNow have had, since I have a background in psychology and tend to do fairly well in philosophical areas I find your complaints completely baseless. John and iNow also have a strong background in science, so their advice on scientific processes should not be overlooked just because you disagree with them. I said you have misunderstandings in those areas in a completely different thread, I don't believe he said that from what I have read, and I stand by those statements. I also haven't seen any ad hominem against you, but you have been dishing them out rather steadily. If your assumption is not baseless and is well documented, give peer reviewed evidence from a scientific journal. If you do not do that, it is considered scientifically baseless and that's all that matters in a scientific discussion of its merits. Note that even if it is baseless it doesn't mean it's not true, but trying to tell people it is scientifically true without scientific evidence is not the way to go about it. Psychology being a fairly new science doesn't give it reason to cut corners in scientific methodology. Definitions are a large part of that methodology.

After looking back through the thread and a conversation with proximity1 I realize I was mistaken about no one else having problems interpreting what was said. I was incorrect and apologize for the misunderstanding.

Whoa, hold on a second. . . The researchers above you are supposed to help? Why wasn't I told?!??! I need to talk to my Professors about this.

There are a good amount, but here's a basic one. p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1 Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium shows the distribution of alleles in a population. If the distribution is static no evolution is occuring (which is not necessarily true, but that's another matter)and here are some more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=D842ADFD2541E45A3A19507965C20C70.journals?fromPage=online&aid=8246536 So what was your point on that?

Note that I said interacting, I went back through to skim all the responses. I only saw multiple answers to his whys. Since those interacting were answering the questions, it would be a pretty good assumption that they knew what he was talking about. Why would I think otherwise? So I'm not misunderstood, I didn't mean to say that why questions are bad. In fact they can be very helpful, thus why there were so many people answering wholeheartedly to his first couple questions, myself included. But I don't see how one word questions can be pertinent or helpful, let alone when it seems to be purposefully obtuse by not explaining what he is having difficulty with other than a connotation that is extremely common. Now if his first language is not English this could be understandable, but since that has not been said, I can't assume that. So rah either doesn't know common usages of words for some reason, or he is being purposefully obtuse.

I am where you will be shortly. Since my University doesn't have a strict neuroscience major I have to double major to get the courses I will need for grad school. Keep in mind that neuroscience is a very large field with very diverse topics. Some parts are more psych related while others are more bio heavy, know that what you want to cover may be better covered in a different area than your strict major. With that in mind graduate schools aren't super picky about what your major was as an undergraduate as long as you have experience in the fundamentals of whatever area you will be in. If you have never had neuroscience, but have had cellular development classes, you can work with neurological development in graduate school. At least that's how it is many places I've looked into.

I have to ask, are you trying to go into the 'why' stage of child questioning for a purpose. Every single person interacting in this thread has had no problems interpreting what has been said except for you. So either you are being purposefully obtuse or you are not explaining your questions very well because they have been answered multiple times.

*sigh* Have you really already started ignoring what I said and answering the point you tried to make? I was saying humans are not special, because other animals have the very similar abilities to those we have. Consciousness studies from 1972 don't hold a lot of weight, let alone those of parapsychology, since much of consciousness research has changed. Where is it?

This doesn't make your statement any less of an ad hominem. I haven't seen any evidence to be ignored, so they can't be ignoring evidence can they? Now what you are asking is for them to believe vague ramblings in place of what has been well established for many years due to its consistency with experiment. Which of those scenarios sounds like the creationist position? Inconsistencies that, so far, people have shown to be misunderstandings. 'An electro-magnetic field is caused by energy' 'My definition of an event horizon is the point that no object can reach' Those are literally 2 lines of writing away from each other, and both are incorrect usages. You didn't say infinitely time dilated, you said dilated to infinity. It could be meant as time dilatation continues forever, but the amount of dilation isn't defined. Or that it was dilated extremely fast, making its mass reach infinity which could bring about your statement of going against reality. Or it could mean a myriad of other things. Do you see why words don't adequately explain things, because these misunderstandings are very common. Alright, how about this for a change of pace. Describe, using only words, the differences of the escape velocities between the Earth and moon due to gravitational forces quantitatively. Then, again using only words, predict the velocity needed to launch a 5000kg satellite in orbit around a 10*10^24 kg planet.

I'll tell you what it is. It's a poorly defined state of awareness that, while many use it to make humans seem important, a wide variety of animals have. So why don't theistic scientists have the answer? I didn't watch the videos yet because I don't want to wake my wife, but I have a feeling they are going to bring next to nothing in quality information. Not to mention there are quite a few theistic scientists working in well established positions, are they sidelining these questions as well?

Are you looking at a neuroscience class, or a neuroscience major? Virtually all schools have neuroscience classes, but not all have neuroscience as a major.

The bold part is dangerously close to an ad hominem. More to the point, people have been picking apart all the pieces of your idea that can be picked apart, which has been the majority of it. The rest that hasn't been picked apart is usually because it has no meaning without the math to make predictions. Only in the sense that they have been desperate for you to use proper terminology Because equations are how you make predictions. If you could communicate clearly I should be able to understand what you mean when you say this: The problem is that this is pretty much word salad without a meaning. What is time dilated to infinity, in what way is something defying reality, what is expanding, etc. That's why equations are so important, these things would all be explained without needing to redefine every other word. Math Answering one question while contradicting hundreds of others isn't how things work. The person behind the idea has nothing to do with being wrong or right.

Read a little part after what you quoted and it should be obvious what is meant.