ecoli

My first thought is some sort of competition experiment.. through all 5000 into a culture or model system and let natural selection enrich for the producers of quorum-inhibitors. I can't think of a way to do this with P. aeruginosa that would be specifically selective though.

read this: http://stattrek.com/regression/slope-test.aspx Correlation metrics are measuring how the data trends together, and is not a method for hypothesis testing. Linear regression is related to correlation, but is a model fitting technique. But because its a parametric method, you can use possible variance in those parameters to test a hypothesis (in this case, the null hypothesis) And here's how to do a simple linear regression in MS excel: http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/gt/gt-reg-home.html

Mann whitney is a nonparametric method for hypothesis testing between two samples. So I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. I suggest a parametric method to model the correlation: such as linear regression. If the data doesn't look linear, than we can talk about that, too.

The more usual thing to do, I believe, is a parametric method, such as linear correlation, to compute a model of how inhibitor effects absorbency readings. Though if the function isn't linear, you might need a fancier catalytic model, such as Michaelis-Menton.

! Moderator Note You've failed to add any value to this thread. This is not what scienceforums.net is about and you will be banned if you keep it up.

so your concern is that small and possibly non-random sampling of physiological artifacts, as well as post-genetic influences, can all effect morphology. This is a problem when your goal is studying the evolution of genetically-derived forms. This is a valid concern, but I don't think evolutionary anthropologists are unaware of these issues.

nice one! Wish I could have a pet, but my apartment is way too small.

in what way are ant and termite colonies self away? A set of individually acting automata is not necessarily conscious of emergent behaviors. I don't really see what benefit you get from framing the biosphere as 'god', besides for a weak philosophical point

Radiolab is good

How do you know you're thinking analytically, as they define it in the study. From the article: "Researchers used problem-solving tasks and subtle experimental priming" Seems to me that speculations about magic being the cause of the universe is not really what they meant by the term.

A thread for grammar nazis to vent! This is either the best idea ever or the worst.

Usually, the best way to develop a research project is to first do a ton of background research. Sometimes there are obvious holes/low hanging fruit neglected in the literature. Start with older papers that are highly referenced and move up from there. Don't really know much about nanotech but this usually works as general advice.

I think that was even a bit before my time here... though I do remember other staff tearing you a new one for how you used to talk! I was 17 when I first joined SFN (!) So at least I could string a few words together. Definitely the same here... swansont and YT2095 seemed pretty epic to me then (still do!)

Were you in Ann Arbor when JP opened up the brewpub? Great beer.

you can afford a label as a post-doc?

Most of my writing, even informal notes to friends, is more formal than I speak (and definitely more formal than how other people seem to write). But f- em.

find the original article and we can start to address your concerns.

but I said there are two options: either the "supernatural" are effects without causes, in which science can say nothing about them and inference and prediction is impossible. Or that the supernatural has causes, but science is only limited by technology or whatever that would allow us to observe those causes. Of course there's a third option that most observations of the allegedly supernatural are made by liars, self-delusion or mass hysteria. In which case default to option 2. Which is essentially what I said above. But how could something that is "beyond physical" have a cause? How could you show that it has a cause? The empiricists are wrong because science works. We can model causality using science and make predictions. When the predictions are wrong, it means our models are wrong not that causality doesn't exist.

Yes and none of those sources reference the original publication, at least not that I've found in 30 seconds of searching (which is about my give up point).

One of my pet peeves is when media coverage or press release refers to a publication without linking back to it or even giving the title or authors or journal. Maybe the publication is god's gift to man, but how can you evaluate properly when the don't give you enough information? That's automatically fishy. I actually see this done most frequently with papers [allegedly] from Harvard academics... as if reputation alone should be enough to ward off critical investigation.

I can't stand pleats b/c they make me look slobbish and I'm pretty slim. However, if they look good and feel comfortable, They probably go in and out of fashion though and you wouldn't look out of place wearing them. Especially in scientific/academic settings where nobody really cares about fashion as long as you look clean.

disgraceful spamvertising.

pretty much all lecture-based science classes is beyond useless (unless its background for a lab, or something). Memorizing facts is not doing science. But neither is the way labs are structured: 1) pour this liquid into that liquid 2) put the tube into a machine 3) take a reading 4) write a report. People just aren't learning what science is or how to do it. When you're spoonfed a lab project it doesn't promote creativity or critical thinking. IMO, its not really science if the teacher knows the answer before hand and grades on whether or not the results conform. Students should be developing experiments on how to test and challenge concepts they learn in the classroom!

If the goal is to maximize average (possibly even aggregate) economic benefit, then I agree. If the goal is to maximize freedom, I'm not sure I do. There seems to be an inherent assumption that freedom == utility (particularly economic) and I'm not sure that this is the case. Another [admittedly Hayekian] viewpoint is that using institutions (like the government) to enforce material equality necessarily leads to less equality under the law (to redistribute you must treat people differently).