john5746

I disagree. While many would be fine with sending marriage to its proper place, many who oppose same-sex marriage would not. It isn't just a language game for many people. They do not want social acceptance of homosexual couples - period. That is the basic fear - that little Johnny will go over to his friends house and "experiment" with Bobby, because Bobby has two fathers.

One of my first doctors believed this to be true. I'm not sure, but I think it more important to reduce refined carbs in general and try to ingest more fiber, especially with refined carbs. I don't think replacing HFCS with sugar would be nearly as effective as a reasonable diet and exercise, but that's just my opinion.

Here is a much better example of not answering the question. Dodging the question I'm not sure why the need to ask questions like this for such a shallow pagent, but Miss California did start off with people having the choice for same-sex marriage, which is false. That is the whole point of the question. I guess if you are looking for someone who can provide a politically correct answer, then she doesn't fit the bill.

Awesome! and its a white bird too!

Can't be another white guy - anything but that. When he does select a woman or other minority, I am sure they will be more qualified than GW's first pick. Hopefully, it will be easier to find someone without tax or babysitting problems than his other picks.

Sleep more.

Staphylococcus Epidermidis is a girly bacteria.

I think its better to change to independent. Switching like that just to try and keep his job is kind of.... crappy.

Retain more capital Loan more Spend less I have been hearing for quite a while that banks need to lend more, which was the purpose of the bailouts, but now we are seeing that some of these banks need to retain more capital for hard times. I understand Obama's call to spend less, but that alone isn't going to allow capital increase while lending more, IMO. Is Obama asking the impossible from the banks?

I had the feeling he was making it sound too simple. He mentions decades at one point, which just seems very soon to me. But, since I am ignorant in these areas, I thought I would see what others thought. Thanks for the comments. I found it to be too general, that may be why we have such disagreement in this thread. You bring up good points, in fact some of the other attendees bring up similar points in later discussions. Individual vs social well-being would be one big hurdle.

His main argument is that as neuroscience reveals more details about the brain, we will be able to measure human well-being and the effect moral codes have on it. He also argues that science should be concerned with the application of knowledge gained towards human flourishing. Just as we know that certain diets are better for people than others, the same would be true for moral codes. There may be no absolute best even for one individual, but still there are good and bad diets.

I agree. The goals or desires of humanity cannot be decided by science, but I think given goals and constraints, science should be able to provide best paths to reach them. Certainly better than trial and error? Or maybe we simulate the trial and error and implement accordingly.

I think if we agree that the Earth wasn't designed, that planets were not designed, that stars were not designed, that anything we have observed in the cosmos doesn't seem to have been designed, then I think we have quite a bit of evidence that the universe probably wasn't designed either.

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and George Washington are on a sinking ship. As the boat sinks, George Washington heroically shouts, "Save the women!" George W. Bush hysterically hollers, "Screw the women!" Bill Clinton asks excitedly, "Do we have time?"

ROFL! Did this really happen?

Dig a hole and place the dirt beside it. Now, you have a hole, flat land and a small hill. To express quantity of dirt for these three areas, we can say +X for the hill, 0 for flat land and -X for the hole. Its all definitions anyway, numbers do not exist

Yes, because "God did it" explains nothing. Its the same as saying "Its too complicated"

If you work a muscle group, you should give it a rest the next day. So with full body, lift weights one day, then rest/aerobic the next day.

I don't think so at all. MM6 completely contradicts himself and calls it a glitch, makes completely subjective value judgements on life and calls it scientific and comes to the same conclusion as the rest of us. Animal testing is a necessary evil if you value humanity. Then he suggests Skeptic might be a racist. I think he "owned" himself.

Wait till you start seeing doctor's more, then it will make perfect sense, except practice doesn't make perfect.

There will be FOX bots, NBC bots, etc. or bots that are set to % bias. The results would be statistical as well, unless you just tell it to dumb the information down and give you an answer.

yeah, I think I'd try to talk the neighbors into paying half of the sprinkler.

hmmm..... When you first enter high school.

Interesting that you mention math equation, because I was going to mention that in the OP. His talk is pretty general, but it sounds like it would be more similar to economics than physics, with no one complete answer, but multiple best answers for given situations. In his analogy, I think the tricky part would be picking the best foods, rather than just weeding out the poisons. The problem I see there is similar to medicine - prescribing medication based on population statistics for individuals. Maybe we will eventually model brain types and link it to genetics and can then prescribe best fit for that type within the social constraints?

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/sam-harris-1 In the video, Sam Harris makes the argument that science can be utilized to determine right from wrong, to determine modes of thought that will be a maximum for human flourishing. Do you think that science will someday be able to determine the best moral codes for human societies?