Prometheus

There is a popular story that the British Prime Minister asked Faraday about his discoveries of the electro-magnetic field: "What good is it?" To which Faraday reportedly responded, "What good is a newborn baby?"

Why don't you develop a way to test your theory, you seem to have a strong motivation for it. Maybe take some psychology courses towards that end.

Here's a good one.

The test is valid but you might have difficulty with statistical power depending on the effect size you wish to detect.

You have perfectly described the gambler's fallacy.

That seems a fair compromise: insurance companies incur the costs of routine care while the clinical trial team cover the cost of the experimental aspect. Orphan diseases are often funded by universities with tighter budgets so this arrangement would suit them. Maybe the FDA could be lobbied to make a statement to assure insurance companies that all studies approved by them are of equivocal quality as those funded by the NIH? If it's the same process as the UK (and they should at least be similar in that legislation is voluntarily based on the Helsinki Declaration), then the FDA should be the final arbiters of quality anyway, not funding bodies.

Not sure of the USA but in the UK patients volunteering for experimental treatments get looked after extremely well compared to those receiving standard treatment. Clinical research attracts its own funding, and plenty of it, so I imagine they would have little problem covering medical expenses for patients who sign up. I'm guessing though, as I've not seen clinical research state side. I've not heard of problems recruiting patients in the US due to insurance issues, but I have heard of companies taking clinical trials out of western countries to try to escape some of the clinical trials bureaucracy.

Are you confusing your opinion for fact or do you have evidence of this 'fact'? If so could you share it with us?

Have a quick question about FAIMS. Have a friend working on ion spectroscopy but there was one thing we couldn't figure out. In some devices the drift gas to oppose the direction of the ions, while other designs have the drift gas from the same direction as the ions. We can't figure what difference this would make to the analysis, or why one is used in preference to the other. Any pointers or help greatly appreciated.

Your incredulity lends no weight to your argument that rights originated with the big bang. The very fact that humans once happily subjected people to, and others accepted, slavery demonstrates these rights have not existed for all of human history, let alone the universes history. You have a strange definition of human being. According to your reasoning no one before the 17th century was a human being - they didn't even know about natural rights, so how could they exercise them. We we'll have to rethink evolutionary theory. Nice dodging of specific questions by the way, but i guess that is your right.

A peculiar sentiment. If i take away your chromosomes, you die. If i take away your guns, you might die a little inside given your attachement to them, but you will not literally die. So your rights are not essential to you in the same way as your chromosomes. A finality that your opinion of rights is the definitive version. Myself, as a mere Brit, cannot understand. Yes, the Old Testament god is a most fitting analogy. What of Hobbes, Locke and Paine? They were all born and raised in England. It would be helpful to know where you actually believe natural rights come from so that we might move the debate on a little. If you believe rights literally come from god we can discuss that. If you believe they are somehow implicit in the laws of physics then we can discuss that (which is what i imagine when you say natural rights, but deny they come from a god, or from man), with a small group of your friends, have decided what rights man has - and if anyone disagrees they are simply wrong. To make it easy, do you believe natural rights come from: God (literally). Laws of physics. Mankind. Other (please explain). Yes, we could all do that.

I agree that many British subjects' attitude to their monarch is crazy. How does that impact on this discussion in the slightest? Thanks for the links, i had already read the first. Unfortunately, it does not answer the questions i posed, maybe you could: here they are again. The right (to gun own and bear guns) is something humans have decided upon - it's just that these rights supersede the agency of the government. So if the government tried to ban guns you would argue this right is mine by virtue of my birth not the government so you cannot take it away? But what if the 'will of the people' had it in mind to ban guns, then lobbied the government to make the necessary changes (if any are required). In your view could this legitimately change such rights? Zapatos gave an answer i can easily identify with But i'm aware that some people regard natural rights to come from some 'ultimate' source: some god, or from the universe itself. I just wondered where on the spectrum you considered natural rights.

So you regard your right to bear arms as an inalienable right bestowed upon you by virtue of being human? Fair enough, just sounds a bit gun-toting crazy to me this side of the pond, but that's irrelevant. Let me see if i understand correctly. The right is something humans have decided upon - it's just that these rights supersede the agency of the government. So if the government tried to ban guns you would argue this right is mine by virtue of my birth not the government so you cannot take it away? But what if the 'will of the people' had it in mind to ban guns, then lobbied the government to make the necessary changes (if any are required). In your view could this legitimately change such rights? Also, i gather from this thread that the right to bear arms is important to potentially overthrow, or at least oppose, any tyrannical government? Civilians taking on the US military with guns sounds a little mad. Surely you have other means by which to oppose a government. Would not a campaign of mass civil disruption not be much more effective - a government needs people to govern, starve it long enough and it will die.

i don't quite follow this line of reasoning. I am quite happy to have my right to rape any female i so choose - endowed to me by nature by the physical strength i possess over others - taken from me. Apologies for the hyperbole but i just want to illustrate that in many contexts humanity has been quite happy to forego what were once rights. It is not a case of all rights or no rights, but a question of where we draw the line, and sometimes we redraw the line: hopefully guided by evidence and wisdom. Unless you are suggesting rights to be something somehow bestowed upon us by the universe or one god or another?

They can be very interesting sometimes, but unfortunately fear is the greatest emotion associated with them. Easy to see why people actually believe in demonic possessions and alien abductions if they have experienced such things and have never heard of isolated sleep paralysis.

Are you comparing like for like? According to a very quick google search average UK pay for an engineer is £30,000 and average pay for a cancer researcher (post doctoral), is £32,000. Both seem underpaid if that is correct.

Happy Independence Day. You're founding fathers certainly seem an enlightened bunch: as an Englishman I'm envious.

'Evolution did it', isn't a particularly satisfying answer. Surely the more interesting question is why did selective pressures at the time favour two kidneys, say, rather than one or three. Presumably there is a cost associated with having 2 kidneys over 1 so what benefit did having 2 confer, and when did this selection occur?

I would personally opt for a physics degree as my understanding is there is nothing you cannot do with a physics degree that you can with an engineering degree but there are some things you can do with physics degree that you cannot do with an engineering degree ( or at least harder to get into). Hence physics a more flexible. This is just my impression though, I'm interested to hear from others whether this is accurate.

I'm happy with the conditional probability of me being here given I'm here being one. I can't even fathom the 1 in 300 million chance you mention let alone a 1 in 300 billion or some such, so just wondering from a qualitative perspective what calculating the overall chances will add. It might be a waste of time - but if it's a fun waste of time, why not.

People have written books, some very big books, on the subject. If you give specifics we may be able to help, but to give a general overview you are better off reading around the subject yourself online or get a book. The term 'non-CTIMP study' (controlled trial of investigational medicinal product) might be helpful. For books just google medical research as a start then refine your search as needed. Good luck. Ah, it's astrology... I don't think I can help.

First, what country are you doing the study in? If in the UK I can help a lot, if outside I may be able to help a bit. Also, a more complete description of the study you a planning would be helpful.

To be fair you do seem to misunderstand both science and nihilism. You seem to conflate science with dogma. Dogma is a human frailty; scientists are not immune. But the scientific method is a good vaccine against nonsense and ignorance, and is by far the best method for understanding how our universe works. You seem to think science is some lumbering institution which sets laws of nature in stone. Is this your perception? In terms of nihilism I still don't know what your talking about, but it doesn't seem to be nihilism, and since you don't seem to want to clarify your terms I'm not going to spend time trying to guess what you mean.

Buddhism itself has no creation stories, it is one of the questions the Buddha refused to answer (though it's usually inferred he knew the answer), although cultural creation myths have been added later. Maybe it was one of these or the Upanishads. There was also a Greek school of thought which believed that animals developed from lower forms of animals, I'll try to find it when I'm home next.

Live people also tend to help, no matter how feeble, you can notice the difference. I've not noticed any qualitative difference between deceased and unconscious people myself.