What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Requiem for Methuselah

I am always impressed the way James Daly delivered Flint's lines in this final scene. It felt like Flint had the weight of centuries in every syllable.

SPOCK: Your collection of Leonardo da Vinci masterpieces, Mister Flint, they appear to have been recently painted on contemporary canvas with contemporary materials. And on your piano, a waltz by Johannes Brahms, an unknown work in manuscript, written in modern ink. Yet absolutely authentic, as are your paintings.
FLINT: I am Brahms.
SPOCK: And da Vinci?
FLINT: Yes.
SPOCK: How many other names shall we call you?
FLINT: Solomon, Alexander, Lazarus, Methuselah, Merlin, Abramson. A hundred other names you do not know.
SPOCK: You were born?
FLINT: In that region of earth later called Mesopotamia, in the year 3834 BC, as the millennia are reckoned. I was Akharin, a soldier, a bully and a fool. I fell in battle, pierced to the heart and did not die.
MCCOY: Instant tissue regeneration coupled with some perfect form of biological renewal. You learned that you were immortal and
FLINT: And to conceal it. To live some portion of a life, to pretend to age and then move on before my nature was suspected.
SPOCK: Your wealth and your intellect are the product of centuries of acquisition. You knew the greatest minds in history.
FLINT: Galileo, Socrates, Moses. I have married a hundred times, Captain. Selected, loved, cherished. Caressed a smoothness, inhaled a brief fragrance. Then age, death, the taste of dust. Do you understand?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Brenthoven said:
All immune systems are not the same. I can't explain that part. I happen to have a strong one, and I don't know why.
I work alone, for the most part, and don't go out much, so "just for me" is also a flawed argument.
The flu is NOT something to be trifled with, don't get me wrong.
This year's flu shot was indeed a failure, by the medical community's standards. The strain that is hitting, was not covered under this year's flu shot. (yes, CNN, but forgive me anyways: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/health/flu-vaccine-mutated-virus/ )
Click to expand...

The flu shot this year is not a failure. It was not as effective as hoped, but is not a failure. From the article you posted: "The flu is bad, and you want to do anything you can to prevent getting it and to prevent giving it to other people," said Dr. Lisa Thebner, a pediatrician in New York City. "The vaccine isn't perfect, but it's the best protection we have for prevention."

Also note that the strains that are covered flu shot are still around (there are multiple strains at all times) and the shot is providing good protection against them.

Brenthoven said:
If you read my post, I respectfully disagree. On my end, it does me no good, and I friggin' hate needles with a passion. (tatts aside, it's different, you would not know, and I understand that). So no flu shot for me.
Click to expand...

Well if ya hate needles, get the nasal spray fool ;)
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

A bit arrogant? Maybe. Accurate? Totally.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2015/01/30/anti-vaccine-doctors-should-lose-their-licenses/

And some good perspective from a good doctor:
"I certainly need to be free to choose treatments based on my patients’ individual circumstances within the standard of care. If my patient has had a bad reaction to flu vaccines, I would advise against it. If they simply decline a flu shot, so be it. But if I were to advise them that flu shots “aren’t for everyone” and are “often harmful” and then spout some unscientific nonsense as many do, I’d be a lousy doctor."

So you all do not run too far with it, emphasis is mine :)

"If Dr. Sears and those like him really believe what they say about vaccination, where’s the data? Why aren’t they working on testing their hypotheses? In my opinion, it’s because you cannot reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place."
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

If the FDA would take their responsibilities seriously, people would be more inclined to trust them. Trouble is they're like any other government bureaucracy. Hundreds of studies faked.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

WisconsinWildcard said:
"...you cannot reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place."
Click to expand...

This has to be wrong, or reason would never have gotten a foothold. At some distant point every human from the most stupid to the most brilliant was 100% unreasonable -- the reason quotient was a flat zero. Then some forgotten soul, who we'll call Thales as a sort of Homeric stand-in, had an accidental glimmer. Philosophy might have pushed the reason quotient up to .001%. The proto-sciences maybe made it .01%. The enlightenment got it up to .1%, and the scientific revolution to 1%. Mass literacy and compulsory education got it to 10%, which appears to be about the practical maximum -- at that point you run into hardware deficiencies in the gen pop.

Civilization is protecting the 10% from the 90%.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Kepler said:
This has to be wrong, or reason would never have gotten a foothold. At some distant point every human from the most stupid to the most brilliant was 100% unreasonable -- the reason quotient was a flat zero. Then some forgotten soul, who we'll call Thales as a sort of Homeric stand-in, had an accidental glimmer. Philosophy might have pushed the reason quotient up to .001%. The proto-sciences maybe made it .01%. The enlightenment got it up to .1%, and the scientific revolution to 1%. Mass literacy and compulsory education got it to 10%, which appears to be about the practical maximum -- at that point you run into hardware deficiencies in the gen pop.

Civilization is protecting the 10% from the 90%.
Click to expand...

I like the cut of your jib. Clearly not a universal truth ;)

Edit: I would also add that a tactic I use to quickly cut through the bs is to ask someone what it would take to change their mind. From that, I can usually tell if is worth the time.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

geezer said:
I get too depressed just reading the review summaries of these books to sit down with them for hours. I am not a fan of the methods of big pharma or big agriculture (Monsanto really is evil considering the results of their practices in India and so on). So I bury my head in the sand and the beat goes on.
Click to expand...

The reason I continue to recommend this book is it provides a balanced look on a few of the issues and is pretty approachable. Many want to throw the baby out with the bath water but Dr. Goldacre outlines solutions that are plausible (and being done), and provides ample citations for his claims.

I am not one to buy into the term big pharma or big agriculture because I feel it just serves as a fog, muddying everything up and taking away from reasoned discussion.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

WisconsinWildcard said:
would also add that a tactic I use to quickly cut through the bs is to ask someone what it would take to change their mind. From that, I can usually tell if is worth the time.
Click to expand...

Yes. It also prevents the problem of sincere people talking past each other. Disagreements between sincere and thoughtful debaters typically come down to one or at most a very small number of conflicting axiom-like assertions. Once you reach these, you know where you stand.

I say axiom-like because the older (and more crotchety) I get the more I think that even things we consider bedrock axioms can wobble a bit, unless they are so tautological that they aren't the seed of any disagreement.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

geezer said:
I get too depressed just reading the review summaries of these books to sit down with them for hours. I am not a fan of the methods of big pharma or big agriculture (Monsanto really is evil considering the results of their practices in India and so on). So I bury my head in the sand and the beat goes on.
Click to expand...

I do the same thing, and I feel guilty about it. But not guilty enough to plow through 400 pages of misery which simply reinforces my instinctive distrust/disgust anyway.

I make do with stuff like this.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Kepler said:
I do the same thing, and I feel guilty about it. But not guilty enough to plow through 400 pages of misery which simply reinforces my instinctive distrust/disgust anyway.

I make do with stuff like this.
Click to expand...

Honestly, John Oliver gave an excellent 15 minute rundown of the main thesis of Ben Goldacre's book. It was so close, I would highly doubt they did not read the book beforehand.
 
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Kepler said:
I do the same thing, and I feel guilty about it. But not guilty enough to plow through 400 pages of misery which simply reinforces my instinctive distrust/disgust anyway.

I make do with stuff like this.
Click to expand...
Ah, you just read "articles"! :eek:
 
Last edited:
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

joecct said:
Keep reading. It's how every Catholic learned about the faith from the late 1800's through the reforms of Vatican II. It worked.
Click to expand...

It did. I have found that by substituting the word "truth" for the word "God," the catechism becomes an adequate plan for living. Sure beats most of the competing doctrines, anyway.

I would like to think that in their heart of hearts back at the Vatican, they figured out hundreds of years ago that there is no God, and they're just doing the best they can for us with what they've got. That would raise them in my mind inestimably.

We've got science to tell us what's true, but we need some sort of philosophy to tell us what to do once we know it. Strip the jejune god stuff off Catholicism and you've got a decent code to live by.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top