MonDie

There's ambiguity in asking whether any entity is sufficiently god-like to be a god, so IMO it's more practical to view (a)theism as a spectrum. Alas, I would call s1eep a deist.

Doesn't sexual orientation pose unique problems for a twin study? Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, so our parents tend to be heterosexual. Therefore, the twins will typically both inherit heterosexual genetics regardless whether they're identical. That's why it's worth considering that homosexuality often results from a mutation or epigenetic alteration rather than an inherited allele. I can further the case for de novo mutations for sex-independent androphilia. All males have an X-chromosome (XY), yet the Y-chromosome must do something to make them gynephilic, unlike their androphilic XX counterparts. It's foreseeable that a mutated Y (or a chromosome that interacts with the Y) might cause the male to default to androphilic orientation. If homosexuality can result from a mutation or epigenetic alteration occuring after the zygote splits, this genetic effect could easily be mistaken for unique environment in a twin study. I don't see why an allele for sex-independent androphilia should cause such problems, but perhaps such a mutation (or any mutation, really) might correlate with a higher prevalence of mutations.

Nor are B12-fortified foods animal based.

No copyright

"I've seen the sun set in the east and in the west." In other words, she's out-paced Earth's rotation. I'll be back August 11th. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2825218/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724125028.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796266/ Okay, now I feel okay posting this Elliott Smith song, whom I'll post since this thread seems full of middle-aged men.

I have only read the abstract yet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427196/ Sexual antagonism implies that these genes are persisting rather than being weeded out. My guess is that they heighten androphilic attraction regardless of sex. Homosexual is a "gender binary" term. Male and female orientation may be different. If vaginal photoplethysmography accurately measures arousal, then females seem to tend more toward bisexuality relative to men.

Think of the children!

Nicholas, you're looking at Stringjunky's image at the wrong scale, looking at the individual parts rather than the broad pattern. However, there's even a problem with how you look at the individual parts. You're pointing at outliers. In statistics, an outlier is an element of the sample that's far outside the standard deviation from the average. Clinical naricissists are the outliers—they're rare—, so I can deduce that I'm probably not a narcissist. In general, odds are that I'm normal rather than an exception. If I'm normal, the norm is me. Hence, odds are that most people are like me. Imagine this is an image of two possible universes. You live in a red region of a universe. Which universe do you probably live in: a predominantly red universe, or a predominantly white universe? One problem, however, is determining how large the standard deviation is. I'm probably not clinically narcissistic, but I could easily be significantly more narcissistic than most people if narcissism is highly variable between individuals. (hyperlink for nicho) Actually, the anthropic principle says that we could just as easily live in an outlier. The anthropic principle says there is selection bias.

They say the fastest way to make an atheist is to have them read the Bible.

Are you discreetly commenting on my last song link? I think I'm out of music that I can relate to math. Now I really am sad. Until August 7th, I'll be

It was a pun! I rarely listen to Elliott Smith anymore, but I used to particularly enjoy this cover of School House Rock. youtube.com/watch?v=XikZCsZkdtk

I just invented this one. "I'm a Christian!" "Why are you a Christian?" "Because Jews are thieves, muslims are terrorists, and atheists are commies!" edit note: He didn't need to be Christian; it was merely incidental. You can make him an atheist if you want!

I'll look at these. Increased religiosity has been correlated with increased prejudice and increased support for suicide attacks. My personal suspicion is that religiosity is often an expression of in-group commitment, and that in-group commitment is probability associated with out-group dislike. Dan Batson presentation - http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/science-and-religious-conflict-conference-does-religion-lead-to-tolerance-or-intolerance/dan-batson-with-commentator-steve-clarke "Religion and Support For Suicide Attacks" Ginges et al - http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/GingesHansenNorenzayan2009.pdf On the positive side, however, religion has been correlated with better health (at the individual level) and less crime (at which level??). http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0177.xml "Mortality Differentials and Religion in the U.S.: Religious Affiliation and Attendance" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035005/ All of these, however, are just correlations, and a correlation at the individual level won't necessarily appear at the societal level.

Then "outcome" = "simple event"

Popular Front India is a primarily muslim, egalitarian organization in India, where muslims are a religious minority.

Event yes. Outcome no... presumably whichever simple event occurred. I haven't learned continuous probability or calculus.

It helps a little bit. Sorry about the ninja edit. You seem to talk about two values: the actual value, and its approximated measurement. As acknowledged, measurements are necessarily discrete, i.e. the spectrum of all measurable values for any instrument is discrete. If the spectrum of all actual values is discrete too, then the probability is greater than zero regardless which value you mean. edit, edit, edit, oh I can't help myself!

I did, but I didn't understand it all. I now agree, however. For calculations from measurements, the output can only have as many significant figures as the datum with the fewest significant figures. This isn't done in typical calculations, implying that exactness is assumed.

I think even my generation is quick to dismiss scientific results by claiming that a hypothesis can't be tested. My highschool probability theory was brief and superficial, foregoing concepts like frequentism, confidence intervals, type 1 and type 2 errors, meta-analysis, ect., and I took AP psychology!

How indiscrete! More like 1.99999999999 ⊂ 2.0 ⊃ 2.000000000001 When you're reading measurements, you assume accuracy down to the last decimal place provided and no further, so it's always discrete.

I wasn't joking. Very many astrologists also endorse other New Age ideas: religious universalism, Eastern religion, meditation, reincarnation, vibrations. Basically peaceful, multiculturalist hippies.

If I had to define types of belief, I would distinguish it's underpinnings (what causes it) from its manifestations (what it causes). Faith - ????? - "active lifestyle choices" Hope - desire/fear - "passive", "without changing life" Trust - evidence - ????? Perhaps it's easy to mistake fear and desire for belief. I don't believe that you want to kill me, but I'll still run away if I fear it enough.

I've got a better question. Why doesn't a hoola-hoop fall to the ground if it's spinning around somebody's waist? No upward force is applied to it, so shouldn't it fall? ... or is there? The surface isn't perfectly vertical. Spin a plastic bottle-ring around your finger, then try to spin it around a cylindrical writing utensil.

I was surprised that he was a conservative MP!

Many astrologists deny that their beliefs can be tested, but this is nonsense. Anything that produces results can be tested. Patient outcomes are results. Until they show some results, the practice has no place in medicine. edited Train some doctors in medical astrology, but separate them into three groups: more training, less training, and incorrect training. Give them patients with mild conditions, and compare how they perform. And don't forget a follow-up that asks the doctors whether they're convinced it works!