Prometheus

Open a new thread about correlation vs causation if you want to try to learn. The religious question is obviously too loaded for you to put aside your emotional investment so the best thing would be try to get a firm grasp of the general concept, then apply it to this particular case.

Wow, says it all really. The fact that social science deals with messier issues than physics means it requires more rigour not less. Correlation does than imply causation regardless of the phenomena under investigation. This is uncontroversial - open a new thread if you want to explore it. I would also agree that you cherry-pick. You seem to acknowledge when people mention that Muslim communities also do good things? But then this has no bearing on your future consideration (if it did you would want to perform a statistical analysis, you've been invited several times but since you haven't i can only assume you don't care about the truth). Ignoring data like this is cherry-picking.

So you recommend tackling the Legendre equations?

So i'm looking at where the azimuthal quantum numbers come from and have a reached the point where i need to consider Legendre equations/polynomials. I'm a bit pressed for time and i think it will take me quite some time to get my head around this Legendre stuff, so i'm wondering whether i should just take the results on trust and skip the details. The main reason i'm studying quantum physics (other than fun obviously) is to understand vibrational spectroscopy. Any advice?

In my experience quite a lot. If you're using a three-lead you're not really looking for an accurate picture, you'd be using a 12-lead in that case, but rather looking for changes. So long as you can distinguish major categories of arrhythmias the placements are fine. Can you distinguish between sinus rhythm and AF, or heart block - then you're fine. Trying to distinguish between type I and type II mobitz heart block - unlikely you'll need to distinguish these on a three lead - unless you're in cardiac intensive care maybe. I've seen LL on the sternum before.

Absolutely none, and it's not coming up either. Ah, yes. I did know this, but didn't apply it. I'll try later and let you know, but i think i'll be OK now. Yep, that worked a treat, thanks.

I'm having a little trouble with some commutational relations between different components of the angular momentum operators. I'm OK up to: [math][\hat{L_x},\hat{L_y}]=\hat{Y}\hat{P_z}\hat{Z}\hat{P_x} - \hat{Z}\hat{P_x}\hat{Y}\hat{P_z} + \hat{Z}\hat{P_y}\hat{X}\hat{P_z} - \hat{X}\hat{P_z}\hat{Z}\hat{P_y}[/math] and the apparently this is equal to [math]\hat{Y}\hat{P_x}(\hat{P_z}\hat{Z} - \hat{Z}\hat{P_z}) + \hat{X}\hat{P_y}(\hat{Z}\hat{P_z} - \hat{P_z}\hat{Z})[/math] I don't understand this 'factoring out' of operators. I thought it was a typo in my notes and the answer is: [math]\hat{Y}\hat{P_z}(\hat{Z}\hat{P_z} - \hat{Z}\hat{P_z}) + \hat{X}\hat{P_y}(\hat{Z}\hat{P_z} - \hat{Z}\hat{P_z})[/math] but then the rest of the derivation doesn't work. I think i'm missing some property of commutators, but can't see what it is. Help appreciated.

I don't think science has a particular problem with snobbery, it's only as bad as in any other walk of life. That might not be snobbery: let Feynman explain: https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw?t=540

Yes, i forgot the context. This was many times speaking to doctors (radiologists are the worst for it), not written. I can see it reads much better in CharonY's example, but when chatting to colleagues, some of whom may not know the term, it just sounds pretentious - especially when they say 'the contra-lateral side'. These may well be isolated incidents though.

I'm tempted to think at least some of it is intellectual snobbery. I ask you what clarity does 'contra-lateral' add to just saying 'the other side'?

A similar sentiment from an immortal being in Babylon 5 you might like: Long has man considered this position: since the first man according to Milton in Paradise Lost:

As is your prerogative. Religious people will use other terms to describe the same experiences, which means some common ground may be unnecessarily lost when discussing such things. Sometimes (granted it really is only sometimes), someone might describe what you have experienced as god, because their culture only knows how to express these things in those terms. I hold that the various arts are the best way to communicate these experiences.

The corruption of science has thoroughly begun. We have creationism, anti-climate science, anti-vaccines, etc. With Trump and Pence maybe we'll start to see creationism taught alongside science. The public are starting to distrust experts in general (one of the pro-Brexit arguments), including scientists.

It has been explained ad nauseum to you by several members. What specifically do you not understand? Cherry picking? Correlation versus causation? Something else? Ask a specific question and we can give a specific answer. Did you look at the graphs?

True, the article itself isn't evidence but the study it is based on is, so here it is: Sueda, K.L.C., Hart, B.L. & Cliff, K.D. (2008). Characterization of plant eating in dogs. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 111, 120-132. Thanks for the links, it is an improvement. Unfortunately nothing you cited concerns why dogs eat grass. Where in that entire study do they even mention grass? I'm not arguing against the idea that cellulose increases fecal transit time. What you have is a hypothesis: that dogs eat grass for the cellulose when they are unwell. It's fine as a hypothesis and you have some evidence suggesting cellulose increases transit time (though regression estimates on a sample of four? Really?). Now we test the hypothesis and the one study humanity has on the subject ()the one above) finds it false. Your idea of science is akin to Freud's: get some data and make fit what you already believe. You need to switch that around so your beliefs fit the data, then you'd be following the scientific method. Here this video might help:

Not quite. While it is true that every drug has unwanted effects and that for some people the desired effect of the drug will not work, the decision to medicate should be based on a risk vs benefit analysis, and usually is. These risks and benefits are quantified through clinical trials and post-market surveillance: that is empirical data.

Yeah, but that's likely because the substance of the concept itself is vague, and the debates on the meanings of words just reflect that. We have the various arts though so we can communicate things without precise definitions, or even words.

Recently watched this video giving an explanation.

You'd have to ask him, not me. But typically belief in god is about faith, not evidence. If you believe faith takes precedence over evidence that is your prerogative, but you are no longer engaged in science. That's what you believe. According to the evidence you are wrong. Follow the link below if you want to know why. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201412/why-dogs-eat-grass-myth-debunked

What term would you use to describe your experience?

Believing something does not make it a fact. That is as true of 'scientific' facts as it is religious facts. The difference is that in science we take our beliefs and test them against experiment and observation. Thus, not all beliefs are equal - some have been tested against reality. Dogs do not do this.

Because it hurts my head. This may be because i have little formal maths education, so let me dumb this down a bit. When i imagine a function, i picture some squiggly line. When i imagine a vector i imagine a straight line, ending at some point. Both of these occur in a coordinate system with real numbers. The first thing my brain tries to do when imagining that one function is orthogonal to another is to have one squiggly line go off somewhere and another squiggly line at a sort of right angle to the first. But that's not what is going on here. I think i may be more comfortable just following the definitions without trying to imagine what is happening.

I attach these graphs as being demonstrative rather than definitive: some people are frustrated that their few favourite data points are not considered evidence. These plots are just a rough example of what evidence would actually look like: considering all the data, interactions of different variables etc. I've attached another pretty graph for anyone interested, from the same sources as before. ReligionvsPeace.pdf RelvsPeaceCountries.pdf

I would only add that we should also have patience and perseverance in dealing with ourselves.

Writing that is blue and underlined is a link to another page. You can find my reasons there. You may also want to revisit all those times people provided links for you to peruse without you realising it.