CharonY

By investigating methodologies and figuring out where in a given experiment or method bias can creep in and how to avoid that. The outcome is what we generally refer to as best practice. That is why a certain rigidity is presence of science and why if you come up with an entirely new approach, you have to provide evidence that your approach has less error than prevailing one. Otherwise it will get dismissed. This is also why I mentioned earlier that more rigour will throw out more claims rather than allowing more to prevail. No, if you have a group of three scientists, you likely have at least four competing worldviews. They may have similar levels of training, though the form is very discipline-dependent. A mathematician will have little experimental training, but might be able to tell you why your statistical analysis of your data is stupid. Again, rigour requires understanding of potential issues. By definition, it narrows it down to established best practices. Generally speaking, we do not want to entirely throw out new ideas if they might have merit, that is why some speculation is permissible. If you solidify it, you are more likely to reduce diversity.

Almost all our behaviour is a combination of a genetic basis, that kind of forms a certain baseline, but, especially when the brain is involved, environmental exposures, learning and other feedback modulates the outcome (after all, the brain requires input to develop). So the question of nature vs nurture is, based on what we now know, mostly nonsensical. There is no versus, there is an end. The only part that is often unknown is how much. Also note that many of these non-genetic exposures can happen before birth- exposure to hormones but also chemicals in the womb affect early neuronal development. And yes, homosexuality has been observed in at least 1,500 species, suggesting that it is a common, low-frequency outcome of how sexuality is wired https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1019-7. There have been quite a lot hypotheses why it may arise, and why genes favouring homosexuality persist. Note that genetics is not a 1:1 carbon copy of traits. Combination of genes can result in a wide diversity of traits which can be quite different from the parent. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any benefit to sexual reproduction and we would more likely continue to procreate e.g. via parthenogenesis. What seems to be the case in humans is that the foundation of sexual orientation is laid early in childhood and, once developed, it is fairly stable. I think it is not yet known if and how much flexibility there is in the developmental path to sexual (and other) identity. There are suggestions that events in early fetal development already could be an important factor. One clue is the fact at least in men, the birth order sees to have a highly reproducible impact. Across many groups men with same-sex attraction have a greater number of older brothers, than heterosexual men. One hypothesis is that had a male child have some sort of immune response that creates antibodies specific to protein involved in male brain development. These antibodies increase with each male fetus and somehow increase the likelihood of developing same-sex preferences. There is some vague support for that (mostly the enrichment of antibodies against certain fetal proteins in mothers with multiple male children), but evidence remains at the correlation stage. So in short, it is complicated and not resolved yet.

I think the main (and off the top of my head only) issue with the case is that the criminality of it hinged on a state law that has not been tested yet (or in other words, it was tested in this case). The law in question (basically prohibiting conspiring in the use of unlawful means to influence election). Without that, he would have been (clearly) guilty of misdemeanors only. The actual acts and their role in the violations on the other hand were fairly clear (and apparently perceived as such by the jury). But this does not stop the GOP from pretending to be stupid and even those with legal training claiming that no one knows what he is being accused of (which is of course preposterous).

And it also should be added that these markers are usually linked to location and time. So for example a dark skinned person in the caribbean will more likely to share those markers with a light-skinned person in that region (assuming their ancestors lived there for an extended time) than with a random dark-skinned person in, say, Madagaskar. And to add a cherry on top, the group with the largest genetic diversity are groups in Africa. So putting all dark skinned folks into single group is utterly nonsensical. But then coherence is probably too much to expect from someone who on the one hand emphasizes a soul over the physical body but then two paragraphs further forgets all about it and then overemphasizes superficial features. "We are all souls! Except when you got curly hair!"

Though generally speaking, I never really found a meaningful difference on the undergrad level. Perhaps the one thing is that many top programs are able to delay grade inflation more as they have more applicants. Maybe there is more in other disciplines that I am missing.

Thanks for that info, very interesting- I was not aware of the details just the general sense among (some) social scientists. The issue with terms such as "Bushman" arises from the fact that folks (typically colonizers) invented those names for them. Even if (that is sometimes a bit if) it is not intended in a derogatory way, the argument is that it takes away from their identity. In some cases naming groups is just a language thing (e.g. countries are named differently in different language) and that is OK as it still refers to e.g. a certain geographic origin or identity that makes sense. But giving a group a name that is basically made up and based on some outsiders perception of them, that is where things generally get iffy. I should add that from what I understand even San falls under the same issue- it is just less evocative for English speakers. So I am not saying that these things are straightforward- just the way it was used in this thread by a certain poster was really telling.

The opposite is going to happen, if you want to address bias, you have to increase rigour. I.e. you throw out more of the perhaps in order to ensure that you only keep the most scrutinized parts. There is always a balance between how many false positives to false negatives do we want to have. But if you think bias is a problem, it means we have to scrutinize more, not less.

Also, he would post it on social media how clever he was for doing that, resulting in yet another lawsuit.

They also have learned that the simple act of repeating falsehoods can make things "feel" real (which apparently is the current benchmark of things). Essentially all bases are covered. If it is a fine or probation, it is evidence that the whole thing is a witch hunt and no big deal in the first place. They are being persecuted (which apparently everyone wants to be and therefore feels real). If he gets the maximum sentence, it is clearly evidence of a witch hunt and shows that conservatives are persecuted. As apparently nothing exists beyond short-term memory (and I have doubts about that), one cane remodel reality at any moment, which is incredibly convenient if one does not want to take personal responsibility for anything. I feel like that folks think folks think that politicians have to do this complicated maneuvering and mind manipulation and so one to get folks on their side. Meanwhile current predominantly right-wing populists realized that just making stuff up on the spot works even better. Having no shame somehow became a superpower over the years. Missed that part earlier, but IIRC in the US, criminal cases does not allow for majority convictions (that would only work for civil cases). I.e. the verdict had to be unanimous, otherwise it would be considered a hung jury. I think Cruz in an interview mentioned something to the effect that one of the jurors should stand up and take one for the team to create a mistrial. Which basically tells you all you need to know about their regard for law and order.

I think the arguments also conflate two very different things. One, individual bias of researchers. These are addressed by best practices that, depending on field and question can reduce or eliminate biases, whereas in newer and fast-moving fields it might still take time to identify those best practices. The other aspect is just flawed or bad science, which does not necessarily arise from anything like bias but could be malicious, but also just based on incomplete data. These are also getting weeded out over time as new data arises. What Luc seems to propose is that because things are not perfect, we should just ignore the existing body of knowledge, which obviously does not make sense.

One thing related to perception: the USA has some of the largest federal expenditures relative to GDP in the world >3%). There are a number of European countries e.g. Germany, Sweden, Switzerland who are at similar or higher levels. However, due to the large GDP of the USA, in absolute terms it is a larger chunk of money that they can concentrate on prestige projects. In that regard, countries like Canada and UK (~1.6%) are falling behind even relative to the European average (~2%). I will also note that quite a bit of that is also pop culture and the US universities do quite a lot of PR work (which is largely absent in Europe).

Nope, even in the US tuition usually does not cover the cost of teaching. In public unis, each student is still subsidized by public monies. Tuition just covers the short fall. Similarly, the largest chunk of money in private unis are endowements. The only group making money from tuition are for-profits, but their quality is so bad, it is often around scam levels. I forgot the precise numbers, but I think tuition covers roughly 30-60% of the cost per student. So tuition does not provide excess funding.

I am not saying that there is no bias in science, there are plenty examples for that and how it created bad science (most notably around issues of race, for example). But, as you know that is not my point- rather that arguing about interpretations requires a deep knowledge of, well, what is known. And there are plenty of cases where the data simply does not rule out alternate interpretation. But obviously Bohr and Heisenberg disagreeing is not the same thing as a random youtuber deciding that infection biology is all wrong. Uh, must have missed it. I had to walk my partridge.

Yeah, but that also shows where the standard is. The evidence, especially the paper trail and the almost grotesquely inept way where they tried to conceal it. Adding to how the defense basically put themselves on fire, likely in an attempt to appease Trump, even a hung jury (not guilty was pretty much out of the window) would have been at least a major surprise.

Well, the issue is that if there is no trial until election and he wins, the federal prosecutions are likely to go away. Well, that is true.

"Truth" really has no place in science. It assumes a transcendental certainty that simply is not present in science. Anything in science can be challenged and has to survive challenge for it even to be considered. Prevailing well-tested theories and models are not deemed truths, nor are they put on pedestals. Rather, they have a huge mark on their back as any scientist able to initiate a paradigm change will indubitably make their mark in their community. That being said, the reason why theories have prevailed is because they are well supported by data and numerous studies will have to support the essence of their finding. In other words, it is not enough just to make some half-arsed assumptions and then logic your way through flawed premise- you really have to generate the data (which clearly does not exist yet, otherwise folks would have used it to challenge the models) that are so rock-solid that they can topple all the existing data in satisfactory manner. Folks don't declare any random opinion on the internet as a scientific finding for good reason. What many are not aware is that scientific work is hard and takes time and expertise. Most work from PhD students represents years of training and (hopefully) hard work, yet depending on the field, often the results alone are insufficient to publish on their own. The reason is that it takes them years to master a methodology and only towards the end are they able to implement it on a particular problem. The assumption that we can just avoid that and just reason our way to completely new insights is, frankly, quite arrogant.

I don't think that it is a top result. Based on what I have read it is so blindingly obvious that anyone else would have been long indicted for that. So essentially this is not a highlight, but rather the bar was on the floor and this time around, folks did not trip over it. They did in the other cases, though.

Not that it likely will matter much. The more serious criminal cases at this point are pretty much postponed until after the election and as long as he is not physically behind bars (which is extremely unlikely) folks will conveniently keep forgetting that he is convict (and those who don't wouldn't vote for him in the first place).

"Bushman" is frequently considered to be a derogatory term, and the poster does a good job in demonstrating why it is to be the case. Frequently they refer to the the San peoples who have developed an incredible set of traditional knowledge and survival skills. Those might in fact come handy when the rest of us have polluted the Earth in pursuit of more convenience. As a matter of fact, many "primitive" folks can teach us a lot regarding resource stewardship (a research area that has gained prominence in the last decade or so). If you want to meet clever folks who are able to eke out a living without destroying everything, you probably should talk to those that you so readily dismiss.

I too think that everyone else should behave in a way that benefits me personally, whereas I shouldn't do anything different. Also,it has been mentioned many times before that we are approaching peak population with an expected rapid subsequent decline.

Yes it is mostly related to nitrosamines. The thinking has shifted a bit in the last years, it seems and there is some lit suggesting that cured meats are not necessarily a higher health risk than regular meat. OTOH the health baseline has shifted a bit with general overconsumption of meat as well as ubiquitous presence of overprocessed foods so I guess that particular risk might be difficult to tease out. Moreover, in a healthy diet nitrates are generally derived from plant material (ca. 5% would be meat-derived). Also, quite a few traditionally cured meats are salted and dry-cured (e.g. capocollo).

No, but there is increasing evidence on the impact of nitric oxide deficiency on vascular health (as well as in the nervous system). I should add that the issue of nitrate reducers only came up in the context with antiseptic mouthwashes. To clear up some confusion, (also in response to Luc Turpin), there are generally two major routes of NO production. The first is produced by our bodies via the NOS pathway (derived from arginine). Nitric oxide itself regulated in part by oxidation to nitrate which contributes a bit to local nitrate pools. NOS-independent production can be initiated by commensals in the the mouth, which is mostly reduction of nitrate to nitrite, and the latter can be further reduced to NO non-enzymatically (which would also apply to dietary nitrite). In parallel, gut bacteria are also known to reduce nitrate, but in this case completely to NO. Going back to OP, there is limited data that suggest that mouth wash would significantly disrupt NO metabolism, though it certainly could make things worse for folks who already have issues in that regard.

Please check your image and the refs you posted. The bioactive molecule is mostly NO. If it was just nitrate, nitrate reducing bacteria would play no role and the issue with mouthwash would make no sense.

It is actually not nitrate, as that would not require bacterial action. What I assume they refer to is reduction of nitrate by bacteria to nitrite and nitric oxide. The last one is associated with cardiovascular health. Without digging through lit I am not sure whether we can clearly state that the effect size is large enough to have broader scale health issues.

Also, methanol is toxic and can be absorbed through skin.