Mokele

Projections made in 1988 accurately predicted the temperatures almost 20 years later, with simpler models running on computers less powerful than our cellphones.

Courtesy of XKCD

The way science works is that you come up with a hypothesis. You then figure out what this hypothesis predicts about the natural world. Then, you design an experiment which, if you are right, will have an outcome that cannot be explained by other theories. Then, most important of all, you perform the experiment. All science is based on data. If you don't have any data to support your hypothesis, it's not even worth talking about. That's why science is so much more effective and useful than philosophy - rather than just being content to think up neat ideas, scientists actually go out and *test* these ideas to see if they're actually right. Until an idea has been scientifically tested, until there is actual data, it's just a speculation. So, what do I want? Well, it's your hypothesis. Figure out predictions from that hypothesis, design an experiment where one of these predictions would be tested and either supported or refuted. Then run the experiment, and show us the results. Does it sound like a lot of work? Welcome to science - most scientific papers are the result of over 1 year of solid, constant work, often more. Mokele

Quantum has nothing to do with neurology. Quantum effects occur on sub-atomic scales, while neurons, while small enough to usually be invisible to the naked eye, are still quite large cells. Any random effect would become irrelevant simply due to the sheer number of atoms being affected. It would be like rolling dice 10 million times - the randomness would be overwhelmed by sample size, and the result would be 3.5

If there is no data, it's garbage.

OK, I'll make it perfectly simple - Where's the data to support this? Data, not theory. Show me some results, some phenomenon which cannot be explained any other way. I'd advise you start answering questions in a simple, forthright, and direct manner. Mokele

So, care to offer any evidence at all that there's anything *beyond* simple neuron networks? Because as I read it, all of what you claim is predicated on the notion that there is some sort of direct interaction between the brain and something'beyond' it.

The "Evolve" series, where they would talk about how certain features like eyes or wings evolved, was actually very good, because the editors ran everything past the scientists before it was released (a friend of mine was one of the 'talking heads' for the program). Predictably, it "wasn't dramatic enough" and got canceled.

Then why can the mind be altered by altering it's matter? If certain sections are cut out or damaged, the mind is altered in a predictable way. Surely you don't contend that a scalpel or blood clot is damaging the zero-point energy?

Hrm, that's actually kind of interesting, because in terrestrial limbed locomotion, gravity actually makes things easier. During walking, we act like an 'inverted pendulum' converting potential energy to kinetic and back as we vault over stiff legs. During running, KE & PE oscillate in phase, and the energy is stored in springy tendons in the limbs. Obviously, there would be differences, but assuming there are materials that can handle the forces, walking and running should work just fine. Honestly, I would *love* to see an alien world with macroscopic life, simply because based on nothing more than videos sent back from a probe, we could *truly* determine if certain aspects of locomotion are universal, or just because all Earth organisms work mostly the same way. Mokele

Jurassic Fight Club = Fail. Seriously, we're not talking about minor details nobody outside of a specialist field knows, we're talking glaring errors obvious to anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of the animals. Not to mention how some of what they say, while literally true, is just ridiculous. They described a hadrosaur ('duck-billed dinosaur') as having "dozens of rows of teeth, like a Shark!", which is like saying "Armadillos have huge claws, like a Tiger!". Even the supposedly legit shows often screw things up, ranging from species ID to grossly mis-represented behavior to presenting dubious theories as if they're definite. I distinctly remember being disappointed that Life In Cold Blood, which was otherwise excellent, presented the now-disproven osteoderm hypothesis of turtle shell evolution as if it were known definitively. Such programs can be fun, and often have useful visuals, but they aren't a great source of scientific information. Still, it was nice to see the mode of snake locomotion I discovered in a natural setting. Mokele

Impossible. So many changes would be necessary that it'd honestly just be easier to genetically engineer a huge bird and transplant a human brain into it. Birds have modified literally every aspect of their anatomy in order to fly, and still no bird has ever weighed even half of what a small adult human weights. The largest extant bird is 10% of my weight. Ditto for the pterosaurs, especially since it's been suggested that some of truly huge ones were flightless. Mokele

Exploration can be hypothesis-driven, however. For instance, I could hypothesize that a particular animal group arose from another group at around time X, and predict that if I dig in sediments at location Y of age X, I'll find an intermediate species. The problem with motivation is who decides what's cool enough or useful enough? Does it depend on species? How big is the field? The extremes are easy, but what about the middle? Who makes the call? And can you make that call in an objective manner? Mokele

Bugger, I was going to link to talk.origins but the stie seems to be down. Google "talk.origins" in a few days. Mokele

Just because something inspires scientific discovery doesn't make it science itself. To be a bit flippant, one of the most important fossil Australopithecus trackways was discovered by accident while the discoverers were throwing elephant dung at each other. Why should the results determine whether it's science, rather than the method. Simply 'finding things' certainly isn't science, because anyone with the right equipment can stumble across something. The process of science, of checking and re-checking hypotheses, distinguishes it from other ways of investigating the world. I'll pick on the LHC - the act of *building* the LHC wasn't science, but it will be used to perform hypothesis-driven scientific experiments. I'm certainly not arguing that such things aren't useful, but rather what such endeavors are *called*. Very true, but how much of this is because granting agencies want hypothesis-driven science, so to get funding, these projects need to at least pretend to be hypothesis driven? If we had more funding for purely exploratory science (which I think would be a good thing), would we still try to shoehorn them into the category of 'science' as opposed to something like 'science support'? Mokele

It's always been about reptiles for me - I just switched from dead (paleontology) to live (biology).

SkepticLance - I highly recommend reading this link on the issue of hurricanes and global warming, as well as searching the site for more. Hell, I just recommend the entire site - it's all about climate change, written by accomplished scientists in the field, which doesn't skimp on details or primary references. It can be a bit of a slog to read through as a result, but it's my first go-to for GW information. Mokele

Just a guess, but are you evaporating off the acetone at any point? If so, it may be used simply because the temperature needed to evaporate off water in a reasonable time would damage the pgiments.

There are entire books, big ones, about it, and the problem is that we're trying to draw boxes and demarcations in an immensely complex process which is continuous. Essentially, if two species are in the process of separating, at what point, and by which criterion, do you split them? Do you need to apply it to all organisms from bacteria to bunnies, or can you have different definitions of 'species' for sexual and asexual organisms?

6 populations, not 6 mice, in order to keep them in different buildings and such and thereby reduce the risk of psuedoreplication (a weird statistical problem). Flies are suggestive, but yes, mammals would be better. Mokele

Ok, open discussion time: What should be considered "Science" and receive funding as such? Should the definition be restricted to 'pure' hypothesis-driven science? Or should it include 'exploratory' or 'discovery science', such as species surveys and the Human Genome Project? Even if such exploratory studies are valuable to science, that doesn't necessarily mean the studies themselves *are* science, or does it? Have at it!

Thanks. And while I can see the issue, I think you underestimate the degree to which such cities are already protected. New Orleans, for instance, is entirely protected by a system of levees, with most of the city being above sea level. The disaster of Katrina came from inadequate levee funds, the destruction of the coastal wetlands that protected from storm surge, and building in low-lying areas - all short-term errors which can be avoided in future or repaired. I remember when I was in Guam, we got hit by two typhoons inside of 3 weeks, which is apparently typical, but the island has adjusted - for instance, all the buildings are made of concrete. Remember, most cities existed *before* there was any possibility of widespread relief from the government, and found ways to minimize the damage. We help out now simply to try to keep things working more smoothly, and due to the Principle of Inevitable Doom, the money eventually gets spread around and benefits everyone. Mokele

You mean anywhere within 1000 miles of Yellowstone national park, meaning most of the central US, given the giant volcano directly under the park? Or anywhere within 500 miles of Missouri, given the massive faultline directly under the state? Or the entire Atlantic seaboard, what with the inevitable volcanic explosion of the Azores leading to a massive tsunami? Hrm, West Virginia seems safe...oh, wait, except for the possibility that a fire will ignite in a coal seam, cooking entire towns from underneath in toxic smog. Nowhere is safe. This comforting message is brought to you by your local giant atomic reptile.

It's not worth getting excited about yet - it's just a hypothesis. Once there's experimental evidence, then we can all break out the C-14 cake. It shouldn't be too hard - six populations of standard-bred lab mice, 3 control and 3 experimental, with the experimental mice fed isotope-laced food. Given the short lifespan of mice, it would be very feasible experiment, and even with the cost of isotope-laced food, would cost less than many, many other studies. Mokele

Actually, many "species" can hybridize, including the famous Galapagos finches. Hell, I've personally seen 3 cross-genus hybrids in snakes, including one which crossed genera separated by at least 70 million years. The definition of "species" is contentious, and how much slop is allowable is subject to vigorous debate. Mokele