Prometheus

Creativity isn't the same as making up anything you want. By analogy consider the difference between a doodle by a toddler and the works of cubist artists. You might argue that both are creative processes but one has no value to society while the other provokes some response within society and so is useful. The difference is that the toddler has not learned how different brush strokes can evoke different emotions (i.e. has no technical ability) and has yet to learn about various societal norms upon which she could draw (e.g. having a crucifix in an image will inevitably provoke religious connotations and a toddler would be unaware of this, while the artist will use this knowledge). Yet we rarely complain that the creativity of toddlers is being stifled just because they are being taught mastery of the arts. Yet this is exactly what people complain about when they say creativity is being thwarted in science when they are asked to gain a little mastery of the subject. Now, there may be a case to be made that a particular process to learn to master a subject stifles creativity. But this is a general problem far from unique to science. I have heard discussions from dancers about how best to master various moves and techniques without stifling the spontaneity they seek. Many posters here do some kind of dance more akin to an seizure then cry their creativity is being stifled when no one listens. If you want to dance for your own sake, fine - dance like you're having a seizure. If you expect others to watch you and enjoy it, learn some techniques. And if you're here to learn some techniques then listen to what others have to say about your moves. This is just an analogy - don't take any of it too literally.

It depends on the vector - each will have it's own risk assessment and treatment will proceed based on those risks. I've only ever worked with very low risk vectors (fowlpox with no replicative ability) and extra advice to patients was no swimming and avoid babies and both of those were entirely precautionary with no specific rationale for them. The company supplying the drug have to supply a document like this for the risk assessment.

I thought it was quite a good definition of religion. For instance i've heard it said that Buddhism teaches the dharma but the dharma does not teach Buddhism, which i took to mean there's a meaning Buddhism tries to convey but Buddhism itself is not that meaning, which includes a load of cultural baggage picked up along the way. I thought there was a body of evidence showing that racism, or more generally the 'us vs them' mentality is an innate characteristic (as well as being reinforced by learning). I couldn't find much on a quick search - maybe someone else knows of the evidence on this?

I'm not sure my problem here is with inner product spaces (though for sure that's a problem in general, and i don't know what i don't know). I'm happy to accept that the z-component of spin can have two states based on the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, and that we can represent these two states in a 2-dimensional spin state space. But then the x-component of the spin can also be measured. So we have a separate spin state for the x-component? And also for the y-component? A total of 3 separate spin state spaces? But the fact that one spin state can be expressed as a linear combination of another spin state suggests that in fact there is just one spin state space for the x,y and z components of spin. I think my problem is in attempting to relate the x,y,z spatial dimensions to the state space. For: [latex] |\uparrow_z \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\uparrow_x \rangle - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\downarrow_x \rangle [/latex] Is the interpretation that the measurement of the z-component spin will be up with certainty and the measurement of the x-component will be up with probability 0.5 and down with probability 0.5 (which would be a manifestation of the generalised uncertainty principle). I hope so,because it'll mean i'm starting to get it...

No idea. I'll try to get my head round the mainstream stuff before considering the more speculative stuff. No worries, but i'll take up the points on the other thread to keep this one focused.

I thought his, and Eise's, main point was that indeterministic models are consistent with experiment. Some of the problem may be that the word 'complex' has been used to refer to different things: sometimes 'complex' refers to complicated, other times it refers to complex valued functions. As for myself, i have not sufficiently studied the subject and so am happy to take on trust the majority view of physicists. I have hidden variables and Bell's inequalities coming up in the next chapter of my QM course so look forward to being able to contribute more constructively then.

So if i show you one racist atheist you would be happy to admit to being wrong?

I'm so confused i'm not even sure what i'm confused about, so any help appreciated. So i understand the z-component of the spin state of a particle can represented by [math]|A \rangle = a_1 |\uparrow_z \rangle + a_2|\downarrow_z \rangle [/math], where [math] |\uparrow_z \rangle [/math] and [math] |\downarrow_z \rangle [/math] provide an orthonormal basis in spin space and [math]a_1, a_2 [/math] are complex numbers. I'm also aware that [math]|\uparrow_z \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\uparrow_x \rangle - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\downarrow_x \rangle [/math]. But my understanding of [math]|A \rangle[/math] above is that it only spans a 2-dimensional space defined by the up and down spin of the z-component. How is it then, that the x-component of spin can be expressed as a linear combination of the z-component (and similarly the y-component)?

Some might say that making the facts fit your theory rather than your theory fit the facts is the very definition of religion.

Do you really believe that? Really? No offence but you perfectly demonstrate that this is false. In various threads you have displayed an intellectual obstinacy normally associated with the religious, to the point you won't even acknowledge other people's input.

I've no idea about guns or even what an EFC is, but the lifetime of machine parts is often modelled by some kind of Poisson process or survival analysis.

I find it strange you acknowledge the tribalistic 'us vs them' mentality is the cause of many problems yet quickly engage in it yourself under the banner of 'they did it first'. Many religious people at least have the excuse of ignorance (though that becomes less compelling when it is wilful) but i expect better of someone as erudite as yourself. Thanks for the links. The first one links to google books and the relevant pages are hidden. The second one is titled Is Religion an Evolutionary Adaptation? I'm not disputing that it is: although i am very weary of the 'just so' evolutionary argument for anything which has no actual predictive power. Also, the author claims the 'central unifying feature of religion [is] a belief in an unverifiable world'. I don't think that applies to Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism - not that these faiths don't contain beliefs in various unverifiable (and sometimes just plain silly) things, but that they are not central to the religion. This problem arises (on this thread) because we have not defined religion, i'm not sure why the author of this paper hasn't though. Maybe it's just agreed to such an extent in sociology that it is deemed unnecessary to say? In short, i'm not sure how this paper verifies that religion is identical to 'us/them' tribalism. The third barely touches the subject: it's only reference to religion in 80 pages is this quote: 'Recent work suggests that religion and rites that galvanize group solidarity and deepen commitment spread by cultural group selection (Henrich 2009).' OK, some religions are under some kind of group selection. So what? And what about religions that don't galvanise group solidarity and deepen commitment spread?

If there is evidence then you should be able to provide some references. Identical is a strong word. But i generally agree in removing religion from nationhood. This is part of the reason i use the word spiritual instead of religious. As soon as someone says they are religious the question which one naturally follows. If someone says they are spiritual it is much harder for others, and themselves, to associate a label with it. As i understand it Catholicism is the only religion that asserts the clergy is a necessary intermediary to the divine. Part of the Reformation was about removing this necessity - yet the UK does not officially (or in practice, where are the 26 scientists given seats in the House of Lords?) have separation of church and state. The will to power is a human trait and religion, nationalism and identity politics have always been prone to it. For instance, the socialist agenda was entirely subsumed by dictators in soviet Russia. Take away religion and politicians will just subvert some other identity of a target population. Religion is a tempting one though, given its power to cross borders. By targeting religion specifically we are treating the symptom not the cause while alienating some of our religious brethren.

It's never wrong to expect better. Just don't berate others (or yourself) too much when they don't meet them, we're all only human.

Please don't do this. You'll likely end up with a prescription you don't need and maybe contribute to anti-bacterial resistance too. You are perfectly entitled to seek 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinions though and this would decrease your chances that something is being missed if you really think that is the case - better than harassing the same doc over and over. If you strongly suspect a certain ailment you could also ask for a referral to an appropriate specialist

The question you are failing to address is whether all these things would occur without Islam, or without religion at all. A few Muslims murdered people because of a perceived insult to Muhammad. Without Islam that particular event would not have happened. But without Islam, or religion, would a group with some identity still exist that would be quick to take offence and kill. Human history suggests emphatically yes: our tribalistic behaviours are deeply ingrained. I hypothesise that it is these evolved group behaviours that are the cause of such violence and oppression - not any particular group (if there could be said to be one cause for quite complex behaviours). Now, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the beliefs of a group make them more prone to violence. As you point out, if someone says they are killing in the name of god you should believe them. But the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, yet there are currently different levels of violence in adherents. So what is the difference? Well, the socio-political landscape is entirely different. I would suggest it has something to do with that. Simply saying 'Muslims did it', is an appeal to tribalism. Do you want to get rid of religion, or do you want to get rid of the violence and oppression inherent in being human? If by satisfying the trying the latter we also do the former so be it, but the focus should be squarely on reducing hatred at the root (the hearts of people). Focusing on particular manifestations is like playing an awful pop-up game - we smack one on the head, just for another to pop up. I would settle with that for a conclusion to this thread.

It's been while. Could only find this one, should get you started.

Conway's game of life is a fun way of seeing how very simple processes can give rise to complex patterns.

The best organs come from road traffic accident victims. The ideal donor is someone with brain stem death and a body full of young healthy organs. Seatbelts and helmets saw a significant drop in the number of organs donated. By the way, as it stands in the UK at least, make sure your family understand you are an organ donor. Many individuals have their desire to be organ donors over-ruled by distruaght family.

Quite right, saying correlation does not equal causation doesn't prove lack of causation. But it doesn't prove causation either. It is evidence of causation, as you cannot have causation without correlation. But we know of many phenomena which are correlated with no causation, so it is incumbent upon us to check more rigorously. As iNow points out usually the person making a claim should be doing this rigorous checking. Checking more rigorously might involve having some expert knowledge in the area and so you can reasonably speculate what other variables might be having an effect, or it may require some data mining techniques. So for instance, religiosity might be correlated with poverty (for whatever reason), and poverty correlated with violence. Lack of education is another variable that might influence violence. A sociologist should be able to come up with loads more potential variables. Once we have chosen some variables we need to collect data such that we know the religiosity of a country (or whatever unit of measurement you choose, which is not a trivial choice) as well as a measure of violence, poverty and education (in the minimum scenario). This is why your repetitions of citing Islamic violence have been waved away - no one is denying they happened, but they are just one of the four variables we need. Is this all agreeable? First, i didn't try to disprove you, i tried to disprove the proposition put forward by you that dogs eat grass when unwell to make themselves feel better. It's a subtle but important distinction. So in that study 68% of dogs eat plants on a regular basis, of those 91% ate plants when well and 79% ate grass, meaning about 5% of all dogs eat grass are unwell. We don't know if they happened to be unwell and were just eating grass because they would have anyway, or because they thought it would make them better. Therefore, what little data we have does not support the notion. It was a small study and far from perfect, but it is the only study on the subject in existence - you are free to conduct a more rigorous study. Open a new thread on the matter if you want to chat further about dogs eating grass, its way off topic here (again). But to the point, i'm not sure why you feel providing some peer reviewed articles in not proving anything. If you could reference such studies religiosity is causative of violence then you might have a case to feel aggrieved. Do you agree such articles would be helpful?

That's what StringJunky was talking about isn't it? Having a context and a reason for knowing, is the branch upon which the detailed leaves can hang. But memorising lists of words with no context - just leaves blowing in the wind. In my opinion this is a common trap in medical training: confusing knowing the names of things for understanding them.

During my nurse training i once memorised every bone and muscle in the hand and foot. Such a waste of time.

I had hoped house plants would work. Unfortunately it appears to be a myth so i will have to find another excuse to convince the mrs. to have some.

There was one in post 423 but the one i think you'll find more interesting is in post 425. I put these together myself so take them with a pinch of salt, but i hoped they would be a good spring board for debate.

It's not concerning semantics, it's concerning the understanding of confounding variables. I'm not trying to belittle you but multiple people on multiple threads on a science forum have said your understanding of the scientific method has gaps. Doesn't that get you thinking you might be missing something? That's no big deal, we're all in a glass house, but you don't even try. For instance, you haven't even looked at the data i provided - i know that because it supports your position, yet you have said nothing about it. Fair enough if you don't want to look at it but it's disingenuous to then say 'Can you please just answer the question'.