Mokele

Judging by the death toll, it certainly is. Fallacy, equivocation. Define "nation building". Does it involve shit blowing up *every day*? Does it involve dozens of deaths *every day*? The fact that we're in the 'occupy and rebuild' phase does not make it any less of a war. When I fell of the bike, thousands of people didn't die. If it's something we're not good at, myabe we shouldn't be doing it. This is not a ****ing experiment, this is people's *lives* we're talking about. If you want to practice, go bring civilization to Utah. You do NOT gamble the lives of millions on some ridiculous ideological crusade. Hey, I've got an idea. I think that if I set off a dirty bomb in New York City, it won't hurt anyone, it'll give them all super-powers like in the comic books. Sure, it's an idea that any rational person disagrees with, but you've already shown your willingness to sacrifice thousands of innocent lives in a 'learning experience'. Maybe everyone else had the sense to see it was stupid. "The only ones with the balls to do it" can also refer to the drunken frat boy dumb enough to try to pull the rock out from under the running lawnmower. Whose ass did you pull that analysis out of. Last I recall, Spain *caught* the people responsible. Where's bin laden? Oh, right, we were supposed to forget about him after our total *failure* to find him. How the **** does the most advanced military in the world not catch a 6 foot Arab who's on dialysis? You seem to have bought into this cowboy BS. Who foiled the last terrorist plot? Oh, that would be MI6, not the US. So much for everyone else being wusses. Gee, the other side wants to win? Holy shit, I never thought of that! Where would we be without your brilliant insights? Have you considered that if the insurgents lose, they still win, since they can claim oppression and such crap? There's *no* way to spin this that doesn't result in *more* terrorists than before, not less. Yes, it allows them to train all their new recruits in one place. We've become their Human Resources department. Yeah, here at Scienceforums, we're all about just taking assertions on faith, without any evidence to back them up.... Needed? Why? Yes, he was a horrible dictator, but the US has no problem with that in other countries. If we were intervening on ethical reasons, we would do something about Dafur. Oh, wait, Dafur doesn't have oil. Never mind. In case you missed it, we have a ****ing armada. We don't *need* staging points. Yeah, there hasn't been a single terrorist plot elsewhere since Iraq. They're all in Iraq. They haven't done anything in London or Spain. No recent plans to blow up a dozen airliners in mid-flight. Nope, they're completely contained in Iraq. Great, that's our purpose. By yet another measure, we've failed. How many meter-sticks must we use before we conclude we're in a hole? It's like religion: Oh, the WMDs are there, you just can't see them and have no evidence of their existence, past or present. Oh, that's because they were moved, although there's no evidence of that, either. Faith is a wonderful thing. So then why did we attack Iraq? I seem to remember another country, one with *actual* terrorist ties, name started with an A. Hard to remember, what with it being swept under the carpet in favor of Iraq. Something about us fighting terrorism, only not actually capturing who we were after. Mokele

I think one thing worth keeping in the top of your mind is characters and their interactions. A great universe is nice, but almost all of what makes a book good or bad is characters, dialog and character-based plot. I've invested *far* more time in my characters than my universe, and IMHO, it's made my work so much better. Mokele

Funny, I seem to remember a certain someone standing in front of a 'Mission Accomplished' banner openly proclaiming 'the end of major combat operations'. Yay, I'm a brilliant professor! After all, I've successfully gotten my undergrad degree and moved on to grad school. Sure, I haven't actually published anything yet, and that is the actual goal of a research scientist, but I did the easy parts already, so I'll just call it a success on the whole! Seriously, that argument holds *no* water. We have the most technologically advanced military in all of history. Claims of success because we conquered a country running on technology 50 years old at best with minimal casualties ring shallow for good reason. Yes, we did the easy part. And so far, we've failed miserably at the second, harder part. That's success? Your argument is a peculiar hybrid of the fallacies of equivocation and circular reasoning. We claim no success, because we've failed to create a stable government in the aftermath of an exceptionally one-sided fight. You claim success, then you change the definition so it's defined in terms favorable to your proclamation. Is it? Let's take a look. At the beginning, there's some terrorists, and several countries with varying WMD capacity. We invade one of the *least* WMD-capable countries, destroying no real WMD-construction progress, and create thousands upon thousands of new terrorists. Not to mention that you yourself state that you believe it should have only been a 'fringe reason'. With what, the mythical WMDs? IIRC, Iraq was found to have *no* terrorist ties; it's an entirely separate issue. Mokele

How about taking a zip-lock bag, putting the paper in, inflating it, sealing it, and then moving the paper? As long as we can see the bag is plumped with inflated air, we know there's no strings. Ruling out other methods is tougher, especially with the level of high-quality video editing done nowadays. Mirrors help. Another important feature would be setting; some sort of featureless room, where we can see *everything* to ensure there's no funny-business going on just outside the camera's view or under the table. This is why Randi is so good at this; he's a magician, and makes a living fooling people, so he knows all the dirty tricks people can try. Rotating the paper ball would also help, around all 3 axes. Another good thing would be something you cannot influence. Buy some sort of kid's toy at a store that has plastic balls sealed in some sort of container. Keep it sealed in the box and open it on camera. Expensive, but it rules out before-scene tinkering with the apparatus. Also, have a standardized method to determine when you're trying (like denoting a test period by saying 'I'm starting now' & 'I'm stopping now'), and formally record both successes and failures. It's proven that humans 'remember the hits and forget the misses', which is actually a big part of the gambling industry. Keep records. To give you an idea, I have over 400 pages of records and 16 hours of video for the project I'm writing up now. Extensive, detailed, and omit nothing. If you failed, write it down, no excuses. In the end, though, you'll need some sort of expert witness. Mokele

It's also worth noting that the level of language you use affects not just how well your convey ideas, but how you are perceived. I actually just got a newsletter from one of the divisions of a scientific society I'm part of, written by the editor, and it's entirely in lower-case. No capitalization anywhere. And I must say, it certainly affected my view of the person writing it, and not in a good way. In a 'you won't make tenure and I'll have your job' way. Mokele

Well, there's got to be a way to circulate air throughout the ship and return it to the portion of the ship where it's cleansed (method depending on the particular sci-fi setting). Plus temperature must be controlled, since it *is* something like -270 C outside. Mokele

But does that actually happen? Outside of comedy and hypothetical examples? What are the *real* PC terms that have been proposed, and what's just funny stuff that people have made up using the concept of PC? And by the way, from now on, the correct term is 'morally-deficient intellectual'. Mokele

Why do you think that? Because you can't see it on your monitor? Fishing line is a staple of the special effects industry, or was in the days before CGI. Massively strong, but in the right lighting, it's invisible on video. They've been using it since they've been making claymation dinosaurs fight. Because they're only evidence if they can't be debunked. If there's a more plausible explanation, it must be accepted. What's the temperature of the bottom glass? If the wax the needle was stuck in, or the bottom glass itself, was hot or warm, the air close to it would rise, even if inside a contained area, spinning the pinwheel. Mokele

I dunno, I think it can be very useful, if you're single. If they don't correct you, well....;-)

First and foremost, observation. Many great discoveries have begun not by claiming something then proving it, but by noticing something really odd and investigating. Not really, no. I've wasted too much time on this thread as it is, and I'm very busy writing up a paper at the moment. I can see the string. Mokele

The animal is currently in an aquarium, and experiments are surely in progress as we speak. No doubt many scientists and grad students are slaving over these exact problems. But doing good science takes a while, so it may be a while before the results are published. IMO, the rear legs are likely to be a hindrance due to extra drag, and possibly disrupting flow heading to the tail. Mokele

The problem is, it's all just speculation until someone *does* find it. Yeah, it's a nice idea, but so is the idea of an entire civilization living on a dust-speck. Neither can be proven wrong, but neither has any evidence. Mokele

Try a stereomicroscope, aka 'dissecting scope'. They have magnification from about 4-40x, and because the object is lit from above and the scope has stereo vision, you can see surface details in 3D. High-end ones are expensive as hell, but you can get simpler models for less than $100. Mokele

One thing she neglects is the problems rarity causes. Rare 'alternate microbes' would fulfill her criterion of being hard to find, culture and detect, but like all rare groups, they would also be more prone to extinction. Mokele

Thanks; I don't use non-parametric stats much, plus I'm learning on a new software package. Yes it does. Do scientists keep considering a Geocentric universe, in case one day new evidence comes up? No, they consider it a closed case. Same thing here; we considering, you could provide no evidence, so we decided against it, simple as that. Now, if you come up with new, more convincing evidence, we'll re-evaluate, but until then, why bother with an idea unsupported by any evidence? No. Think about it; people believe in all sorts of weird stuff, ranging from CIA mind control satellites to big men in the clouds who control everything, that doesn't make them right. I can't just take people's word for things, or I'd have to also give credence to the rantings of the local homeless guys. Probability is involved in *every* aspect of science. Just because you can see it doesn't mean you don't need stats. For instance, one of my labmates is currently doing experiments on lizard perch choice. Simple, easily observable, but he *still* needs lots of replicate experiments and to run stats. Otherwise, how do we know their behavior isn't random? Stats isn't optional; it's a MUST for *any* good experimental design. In that case, you need an unbiased outside observer, someone who's a skeptic and won't feel a subconscious desire to simply confirm his beliefs. Read them. Crap research gets published too, hence why scientists are so skeptical. That requires the assumption that, for some reason, there's a negative consequence. Why would there be? And why would it matter for all species? What about ants? If the worker ants, who are sterile anyway, could express a psychokinesis gene, they'd have no losses, and can you image how scary psychokinetic ants would be? Mokele

I dunno about better plans, but there's another flaw: magnetized clothing wouldn't provide gravitational resistance to the upward flow of the blood, which leaves astronauts with the issue of cardiac atrophy. In fact, it could even make things much worse; a major source of venous blood return is the contraction of the leg muscles. If your leg muscles are strong, while your heart is weak, that may well be worse than having both weak. Mokele

I've actually switched to printing; I no longer use cursive at all. It's just as fast, and much more legible, especially since my cursive is atrocious. Mokele

Please do; it would be a truly remarkable discovery. But from where I'm sitting, it's much more probable that those clips are fake than real, and I see no compelling evidence or logic to illustrate otherwise. I disagree, and I'd need to see the full experimental paper before I could conclude either way. See, this is why we're so keen on scientific journals; a journal article gives the whole details of the method, so that any flaw can be clearly seen. Without such a detailed account, we're left guessing and taking it on faith, which I, nor any other scientist, does. I said *real* results. Those results are *not* significant, and are so poorly laid out that nothing can be concluded. Some info on science: much of science involves doing the same thing over and over and over again, taking all of those measurements, and running stats on them. It also involves extensive control of outside variables, and, in this case, double-blind testing would be appropriate. None of those were followed. I also not the site casually dismisses multiple initial failures. That's shitty science right there, plain and simple. You cannot throw out data for *any* reason other than something plainly obvious like equipment malfunction. Why not? No, seriously, why not? Why should I give credence to a wildly improbable claim that lacks evidence, rather than dismissing it? If I'm at a used car dealer, and he tells me the car he wants to sell me gets 10000 miles per gallon, but offers no proof or evidence, why shouldn't I dismiss his claims? I disagree; your 'knowledge' may not be worth anything if the effect is not real. A priest has extensive knowledge of the Bible, but since none of that knowledge has any empirical or provable validity, his opinion on the existence of God is no more valid than mine. Furthermore, during my gullible youth, I researched, and even believed, much of this 'psi' stuff. However, like everything that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, I eventually abandoned it. All of those possibilities do exist, but not all are of equal probabilty: you must admit it's more likely that someone is a liar or insane than a genuine telekinetic. Furthermore, you ignore the next step: evidence. Since there is none, then it's much more likely that your claims are false. Approaching something with an open mind does not mean being unwilling to discard impossible or highly improbable possibilities when nothing is shown to support them. My mindset, by which this is extraordinary, is the default: since we do not see telekinesis regularly, or anything like it in day to day life, it is *not* ordinary, and thus must be treated as an extraordinary claim. It doesn't need to be: if any psychic had proven their ability, it would be considered proven by now, and would definitely have made news. See, this is the problem: you're ignoring the next steps. We *have* considered the possibility. In doing so, we asked for evidence. Since there is none, we say no reason to continue consideration. You can't simply ask us to keep considering a possibility in the total absence of evidence; that's faith, not science. On a tangent, because I believe it's essential for any educated person to understand statistics and probability. If people understood how stats worked, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with half the shit they do. Also, if, as you claim, you are trying to prove this scientifically, you will *need* stats to do it, and the right tests. It's a vital part of experimental design. For instance, consider a psychic trying to guess cards. All answers are either right or wrong, and they don't get 100%. What's significant? You can't just say they got some right, so it works, since that could be chance. You need a Pearson's chi-squared (I think; I don't use non-parametric stats often) to tell you whether the results are different from chance. And that's just scratching the surface. If you're serious about this, read up on experimental design; there are problems that can arise that you'd never notice without a good stats background, but can tank your experiment. Big flaw: you're neglecting all the ideas that *don't* make it through these stages because they *are* bullshit. And there's lots of those, both grand theories and small. Just because science treats something with skepticism doesn't mean it's destined to overcome. Look at creationism; 150 years and we still laugh at it's idiocy. The majority of the world's population also believes in God or Gods. That doesn't make them any less silly. Technically, this is a fallacy, argumentum ad numerum. Just because a large number of people believe something doesn't make it true. Most people in the US believe snakes are slimy, but this is demonstrably false. And how do you know they wouldn't have gotten better in the first place? *THAT* is why you need properly conducted scientific tests - to rule out such possibilities and determine whether the effect is real or not. No matter how many anecdotes you have, it's still anecdotal evidence. Show me. Show me the evidence, the direct results, unfiltered by interpretations. I also require a complete and in-depth description of the experiment. If this is real, show me the evidence. That's all I ask. Not tales of evidence, or the testimony of 'experts' but the evidence itself. If it's real, if the evidence is there, show me. And how are we supposed to distinguish the fake from the real without proper tests and experiments? Flat-out wrong. That's an urban legend of the 'Gators in the sewers' variety. The truth behind it is that an aerodynamicist was at a dinner party, and was asked to explain how bumblebees fly, in spite of their chubby appearance. Using only simple, memorized formulae on the back on napkins, he was unable to do it. Thus the idiots concluded that science doesn't know, when in reality, we do: insects rely on turbulent vorticies to generate lift, a mechanism FAR to complex for any back-of-a-napkin explanation. Furthermore, there's a HUGE difference between being unable to explain a real phenomenon and having no evidence of a possibly fake, never-observed phenomenon. Wrong. The burden of proof is on you, the claimant, not me. I have *real* science to do. I'll gladly read your results and determine if they are valid, but it's not my job nor is it my obligation to prove your beliefs. If it's real, prove it. Show me the evidence. One should NEVER, EVER start an experiment assuming the hypothesis is correct. In fact, the best way is to assume the opposite. Consider it false, and ask what it would take to convince you otherwise. Consider all possible flaws, every possible objection. Starting by assuming things are correct is precisely what went wrong with Project Alpha. That doesn't mean he knows what he's doing. Sadly, most science teachers have a degree in education and a few classes in whatever science it is. Unless he's done post-graduate research, he may not have the skills you need. Remember, there's a *reason* why the time from entering college to gaining a faculty position can be from 10 to 18 years. Wow. He's never done real science, has he? My experiment has 3 factors, and works fine; it's called a multi-way ANOVA test. This is what I mean by reading up on experimental design. that quote above is how science was done 200 years ago. Thing are much, much more sophisticated now. No. No, no, no, this is NOT evidence. This is anecdotes and tales. What we want is *raw data*. I want to see the Psychic Bob guessed 23/45 cards corrects, that the Pearson's chi value is 15, with a p of 0.0024 and I want to see a perfectly detailed account of the methods used to get those numbers. Anyone can *claim* Psychic Bob was real or fake. Those numbers, the raw data, and the methods are what makes a truly convincing argument. Mokele If you want to design an experiment, we'll point out flaws and tell you the stats you need to know.

As a side note, teratomas are the coolest cancer *ever*. A tumor with hair, teeth, even eyes...

Prove me wrong. Real tests, not badly faked clips on youtube. And maybe we can all shapeshift into giant dinosaurs and fight crime, but nobody's learned how to do it yet. No. Oh, please, what a crappy dodge. Is there any reason why not? It would be a *huge* survival advantage, and *any* advantage would rapidly be selected for and spread through the population. You are aware that dogs have an excellent sense of hearing, right? Bullshit. Show me the source for this, and it had better be a peer-reviewed article. Even if it is, it's a shitty experimental design. They "calculated" that the dog couldn't smell them? How, precisely, did they do that? We don't have anywhere *near* the understanding of olfaction necessary to pull that off, not to mention the chaotic and turbulent air currents in a room. It still needs to be controlled, even if it originates from outside. And that still requires a mechanism. Sources? And crappy websites containing unverified claims are not sources. You can blow on an empty soda can! Congratulations, you have the power of respiration! I've seen a pic just like that on Deviantart, only much higher quality, with an apple. Trick photography is neat, but not proof. It's not lame, it's a cheap dodge to get around why you have no proof whatsoever. Seconded, strongly. Science is based around skepticism, and until you can prove your abilities, we will remain unconvinced and write you off as either a liar or delusional. After all, both are more common than real psychics (who, numbering a total of zero, are pretty easy to outnumber). Look at it this way. Say I approached you and told you that I'd made a functional nuclear weapon in my garage, in spite of the fact I've got next to no knowledge of nuclear physics. Would you just assume I was telling the truth? Or would you demand proof? And how do you know I didn't just make a big, bomb-shaped exterior, hollow on the inside? You'd need to look inside it, of course. You get the drift. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far no 'psychic' of any stripe has even been able to provide ordinary evidence. Mokele

Read it again: I specifically mention humans. If psychokinesis were possible for modern humans, why not for ancient ones? Why would they have not honed this ability? Since such individuals would have a huge advantage, why hasn't the genetic basis for this talent spread so that *all* humans are highly telekinetic? Furthermore, human brains are no different than other species brains; ours is just bigger and more complicated. Any sort of 'force', 'energy' or what-have-you must be produced by some physical mechanism. Since our brains are made of the same components as other species, there's no reason to assume they would be unable to tap into this force as well, with the right configuration brain cells. Even if you claim it's a learned skill, all learning is is changing the neural connections, so it's possible that, via mutation, some human or animal would be born with the right pattern already in their brain. From there, evolution takes over. That goes for all 'psychic' abilities, too: if the capacity exists, why haven't other animals developed it, and why haven't earlier humans developed it? It's all about the mechanism. In this case, we *know* there would have to be physical force involved, because an object moves. Therefore that force has to come from somewhere, and if it's a person, there must be a biological mechanism to generate that force. A biological mechanism must be part of the structure of the organism. No structure, no function, simple as that. Oh, and by the way, anything with 'psion' that isn't science fiction automatically has no credibility with me, since the only other person I know who uses that term is some batshit-insane moron who thinks she sucked an 'energy vampire parasite' out of her body and imprisoned it between a pair of speaker magnets. But of course she can't take pictures of this 'psychic snotball' (her words), for some bullshit reason or another. Mokele

Think of it in an evolutionary context: the ability to affect physical objects with the mind alone would be a *phenomenally* useful trait. If it were possible, why hasn't it arrisen in others species and become the norm? Or even just in the 500,000 years of human evolution? The fact that, in all of the incredible biological diversity in the world, not a single species has ever developed the ability to use psychokinesis to me indicates that there's nothing there to use. Mokele

Essentially, cancer is the term for a particular type of cellular malfunction, causing the affected cells to multiply out of control. This can happen to most cells in the body, and because different cells have different properties (speed of reproduction, etc), the resulting cancer can be different. Think of it like a metal part of a car breaking; it's the same sort of thing, but the effects are different based on whether the metal part that breaks is in the transmission or the shocks. Mokele

For something new to check out, watch Heroes on NBC Mondays (or find the episodes online). It's a seriously kick-ass show about people with superpowers, and not at all as cheesy as such things usually are. Essentially, it conforms to my general rule: it's characters, not plot, that make a series good. Mokele

But will it? It'll give them a different basis for bullying etc, but will it actually influence the *intensity* of bullying? In other words, if you remove one thing for them to pick on people for, will they actually reduce how much they pick on others, or will they pick on others just as much, but for different reasons? Personally, I think it's just a band-aid so that schools can claim to be adressing bullying without actually tackling the real issue (since the solutions would actually be, well, difficult). I doubt it'll make a scrap of difference in the intensity of bullying. Mokele