Arete

There's more than one kind of antibiotic, and each may have different side effects. Look up the side effects of the one you are taking. Given I've never seen your hand and am not an MD, I would be happy to have my wildly pulled out of thin air internet diagnosis contradicted by the medical professional who actually saw the injury in question. As has been said repeatedly, get a second opinion if you're unsure about the first.

*Disclaimer* I am not a medical doctor, and giving medical advice over the internet is like giving a haircut over the phone... At a wild guess, it sounds like the Dr is gave you a tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccine and some preventative antibiotics. These will not treat what sounds like mild contact dermatitis from your bandaid, and are to stop the cut getting infected or you contracting tetanus if the object you cut yourself on was rusty. I had some pretty severe contact dermatitis from adhesive bandages that were used to cover up a wound resulting from an exposed compound fracture (motorcycle accident). Once you stop using the adhesive you are allergic to, it should subside. If it doesn't, see a doctor. Again, internet forums cannot substitute for actual medical advice and my suggestions could be completely wrong - if the mods feel the above is inappropriate, please feel free to delete.

Abortion rates do not decline when abortion is outlawed. However, more abortions are conducted under unsafe conditions, resulting in even more fatalities: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8305217.stm http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2806%2969481-6/fulltext In fact, progressive, pro-choice policies including access to contraceptives is the most effective method of reducing the abortion rate: https://guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/4/gpr100402.html http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3583211?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101129705121 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4000608/abstract;jsessionid=7B3C668B510E0F7D60AF7A2BF3EA85BF.d01t03?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false This makes the comparison between the "pro-abortion lobby" and the holocaust a false comparison. Babies die via abortion whether or not it is restricted, and pro-choice policies show more evidence of lowering the abortion rate than banning it. Jews did not march themselves into gas chambers in absence of Nazi policies. Shall we get back on topic?

It should therefore be straightforward to supply evidence supporting the claim... I'm not sure how manual labor and literacy relate to marriage rates - are you trying to say people who engaged in manual labor professions are more likely to marry than those engaged in more literary pursuits? Again it would be nice to see some evidence to support such an assertion.

I believe you have it spot on. It's not that surprising, given extant species are a product of both diversification and extinction - while phlyogenetic trees are a great way to visualize species, in reality through time they by rights should look more like this - red being the "linear" evolution of extant taxa and the black lines representing lineages which have since become extinct:

There's a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars with your name on it.

Really? I'd strongly advise anyone who was adverse to saying "My experiment failed." a lot to steer well clear of science...

Did you read any of the article to put the quote in context? It critiques the usage of a popular analytical method based on a high type I error rate. The criticism of a methodological approach for providing false positive results seems dogmatic to you? Or is it simply that the article states the method in question "fails" rather than a nicer, more flowery term that leads you to conclude that it is "dogmatic"?

To add to SwansonT's post - this is verbatim from the abstract of the Evolution paper I posted a link to previously: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18973487 Scientists use words like "fails" and "flawed" to describe the hypotheses and methods of others all the time.

Actually, this is incorrect. All scientific theories are theories in the respect that they entertain the possibility, no matter how well supported they are, that they might turn out to be incorrect. Almost all scientific data is presented in terms of probability - that is with a probability of the data supporting the hypothesis. At least in my field, this is often given as the probability of data sampled at random showing the same correlations as the observed data. That means that even if the empirical data fit a curve perfectly, there is always the consideration that the observed correlation is an artifact and not actually real. As such, science as whole isn't really about providing the "true" answer in as much as it is about providing the "least incorrect" answer. There might only be a 0.0001 chance that random data would give us the same result as our observed data, but we still acknowledge that possibility. As for citizen science and academia - Emergent scientific fields generally start off with broad hypotheses that don't really have a "box". As general hypotheses are verified or rejected, "the box" of parameter space in which the answer lies slowly becomes apparent. Further hypothesis testing and experimentation leads to a shrinking of the dimensions of the "box" on the parameter space in which the answer is most likely to be. Often when the well meaning layperson presents an 'out of the box" hypothesis, they are presenting a hypothetical which lies in a region of parameter space which as been rejected by previous investigation - often due to the natural lack of knowledge that comes from not having spent a full time career investigating the problem at hand. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it happens to me all the time, only I consider it flattering to have independently come up with concepts predecessors I would consider mentors and role models did too, but then proved to be false. The trap that people not classically trained in the sciences sometimes fall into is turning a hypothesis into a pet hypothesis. They then take the robust criticism and evaluation of a hypothesis which part of the normal evaluation of science as a personal affront and subsequent rejection of those hypotheses found to be wanting as personal rejection and offense from the establishment. I'd hate for you to fall into that trap. Professional scientists will often tell each other an idea is "flawed" or a concept "fails" - e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18973487 It's best not to take it personally as it's almost never intended that way.

Chemicals can and do cause mutations which you can pass on to your offspring - acrylamide is mutagen we use in the lab that can result in male reproductive toxicity if it damage the genes in your gametes. http://www.sciencedi...890623802000783 If the acrylamide causes mutations in sperm or eggs, these mutations can be passed on to offspring, however the result is usually simply infertility. However, for a chemical to do this, it needs to create mutations in gametic cells - as the cells in your skin are not going to be involved in reproduction, any accumulated mutations in them will not be passed on and therefore won't be spread through a population. Therefore, if UV causes mutations in your skin cells, it won't cause an impact on the human species as whole, as you would have no way of passing on those mutations.

Ok say we're walking in the woods, and we come across a huge poop. I say it's probably bear poop. Moontanman says he's 100% certain it's Sasquatch poop. I thoroughly inpect the poop, find it's comprised of fish and berries (bear food) and has bear DNA in it. Moontanman says it's still Sasquatch poop. His dad told him they live in these woods. Do you understand how one position is supported by more evidence than the other? Do you understand how my acceptance that it's probably a bear poop and Moontanman's assertion that he believes it's Sasquatch poop are not equatable? One is an acceptance of a probability based on what is observed and the other is a belief. Were the healings done under controlled conditions? Did you have a control group of sick people who didn't get healed spiritually to compare to the test group? If not, how do you know that people being healed by your healer aren't getting better at the same rate as the general population? How do you know they aren't also seeking other medical solutions to their ailments and those are the reason they are getting better?

It's ridiculous that you need similar levels of evidence to compare the acceptance of two things, or equate them? No. Your observations of miracles are single data points, and given they aren't experimentally controlled or verified, they are biased and unusable for comparison.

All scientific theories require evidence meeting those criteria. I'm feeling like a broken record, but If you want to compare Biblical accounts with scientific theories, or equate your beliefs with the acceptance of scientific theories, you need equatable evidence. No, a single miracle performed by your healer, under controlled conditions would represent a single data point. Many experimentally controlled miracles by him would represent data. A statistical correlation with, say an controlled prayer experiment would provide you with a correlation - which would constitute some evidence. Multiple studies showing the same correlation in independent communities would constitute scientific evidence supporting miracle healing.

Err, plenty of olympic sports will get you a college scholarship Track and field scholarships Swimming and Diving Scholarships Cycling Scholarships And: Olympic wrestlers win up to $250,000 for winning gold.

When you want to equate a belief in Bible stories with the acceptance of a scientific theory, you need equatable evidence. Science has a rather specific definition of evidence. In this sense, if you want to say, compare acceptance of evolutionary theory with Biblical creation, or suggest that belief in God is the same as acceptance of the theory of gravity, you don't get to choose the definition of evidence, as the evidence supporting these scientific theories is precisely defined. It would be helpful in understanding this if you read through this article and understood the below diagram: http://www.dur.ac.uk...dence/cofev.htm

Actually I spent a lot of time climbing hills, pounding pavement and generally exerting myself physically to earn my bits of paper from the vice chancellor: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66966-field-trip-report-thread/ But you're missing the point. The point is lots of people work hard in all sorts of disciplines, and sometimes they get rewarded monetarily for that hard work. Why should the money an athlete earns be tax exempt, but not an academics? or a doctor who busts his butt saving lives? Or a soldier on active duty? Or etc etc etc.

Wait, so you think that an athlete's earnings - such as say, a professional tennis player who earns their living through tournament winnings, or an olympic wrestler who has a shot at $250,000 for winning gold should be tax exempt because training to become an athlete is expensive and hard? Can I argue that my PhD was expensive and hard so I shouldn't have to pay tax on my postdoc salary?

Do you drive one of those utes with the mudflaps and aerials, and frequent B&S balls perchance?

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

Not sure if radical political motivation is a common thread but there is some research on military training being a precursor to serial killing/violent crime: http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/46/4/453.short http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=74-FPUCAG5oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA107&dq=military+training+mass+murder&ots=eMxe9RiNLn&sig=Re5RC-LGDRJU2oR64ExzSX0speQ#v=onepage&q=military%20training%20mass%20murder&f=false http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07393140220122662

Timothy McVeigh (US Army, Oklahoma City Bombings) Charles Whitman (US marines, Texas University tower shootings) John Allen Muhammad (US Army, Beltway Sniper attacks) Howard Unruh (WWII veteran, Camden NJ killing spree) David Berkowitz (US Army, Son of Sam killer) Arthur Shawcros (Vietnam veteran, Genesee River Killer). ....

The point was to illustrate disproportionate responses to relative risk. Having a loaded gun under your pillow to prevent you being murdered in your sleep, whilst being reliant on the fire department to save you if your house catches fire are disproportionate measures, given the relative risk of these tragedies. Responding or preparing disproportionately to the risk of an event actually occurring, especially if that response or preparation has potentially negative outcomes (like leaving a loaded handgun under your pillow could) is not logical. If I found myself so scared of an intruder I was doing something like that, I personally, would be concerned about my phobia/anxiety.

Are you going to let us know why you specifically stated that you left the safety off, if the gun you were referring to did not have one?

A definition of what? But by your own admission, you'd have to wait for the firemen to turn up to put out your house? I'm simply curious as to the double standard and why the prospect of an intruder scares you enough to want to keep a gun under your pillow but the prospect of a house fire doesn't seem to scare you enough to want to keep a fire extinguisher by your beside... Then why specifically state that the safety was off in your post?