<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just be glad that none of you boys have to go through cramps and bloating... But the worse part is when you boys accuse women for being on their period when they are just being assertive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->actually theres alot of guys who wish women would be MORE assertive...while we don't have the *ahem*...internal pressure, we tend to make up the difference in the outside pressure society (and our women) put on us to perform. The grass is always greener, so the saying goes...

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Granted there are times when you might be right but it is really annoying when you do that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It must be *especially* annoying when we're right

Oh that is a LOAD of crap!! make up the difference in the outside pressure society... It is a society that was made by men to benefit men. How else could explain two people with equal skills and equal experience having the same job but one person gets paid more based on their gender? It a fact that men make more than women for the same jobs. So women make men dance more before they decide to give up the goods... Blame it on the society created by your forefathers.

I thought I might get some negativity on that one...

I DO blame it on the forefathers and their contemporaries in the Administration (No women presidents, non-white presidents, young presidents..etc, etc.)

As a massage therapist however I work in an industry dominated by women so the tables are turned abit...all the upper management is women, more people request women etc...

On a personal note I was only making light and didnt mean to offend anyone (hence the smileys...) guess thats forum discussions for ya. I DO understand that on average women make less than men and thats not cool...we should be enlightened enough to live in a meritocracy. But since we dont I just dont like hearing women with feminist values berating the entire sex of men...Can't we get beyond the "battle of the sexes?" Can't we realize that we aren't opposite...we are complimentary...Im not a feminist or a masculanist (?) Im a HUMANIST!!!
Anyone feel free to respond as you like but I am bowing out of this topic of discussion before I attract any more ire...its just too emotionally loaded and shame on you Richard for broaching the subject!!!!

What can I say .... my player knows well the ways of the Dark Side.

Then again, if that question was to be asked ... the truly evil way to do so would be to ask Chronos, not Eve.

Actually I don't think the reason is clear. Granted the effect does exist, but it is my understanding that we are still trying to figure out why, and I had thought that paying a woman less just because she is a woman was illegal. It's also been my impression (although this isn't my field and I'm just talking out of my hat) that the bulk of the gender pay imbalance comes down to either taking time off to have children and/or men being more wired to be risk takers.

<a href="http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/13/gender" target="_blank">http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/13/gender</a>

Actually I don't think the reason is clear. Granted the effect does exist, but it is my understanding that we are still trying to figure out why, and I had thought that paying a woman less just because she is a woman was illegal. It's also been my impression (although this isn't my field and I'm just talking out of my hat) that the bulk of the gender pay imbalance comes down to either taking time off to have children and/or men being more wired to be risk takers.

<a href="http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/13/gender" target="_blank">http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/13/gender</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yeep. I'd be mighty careful with any "men are wired to be..." argument. Just as an FYI.

Very interesting article Doc. Thanks for the link.

"I'd like to report my wiring as shoddy. Can I get an electrician in here anytime soon? "

Yeah, I know, not very PC. What's the expression, "Put hand on hot stove foolish?"
But since I?ve gotten this far without getting lynched?

My intuition says it'd be odd if men were not wired for running risks (or at least some men). AFAICT evolution would (at least potentially) reward men for running risks and punish women for the same. Looking at the animal kingdom (which admittedly may or may not be relevant), the male cardinal is a risky bright red while the female is not. The peacock has the tail while the peahen doesn?t. In theory, if a man ?wins? a high risk strategy, biology allows him to sire more than his fair share of the next generation. See also genetics studies on how many men per generation as a percentage sire the next generation. The number that sticks in my head is 50%-60%, and while this may not be true in modern society it is part of our evolutionary heritage.

But that?s my intuition, which should be suspect, especially since I?m not an expert and I?m talking out of my hat. So the next step would be to look confirmation, some non-controversial way of measuring ?general risky? behavior that isn?t sex or culture related. We could use violence (the murder rate or something), but that?s a measurement of violence/aggression, not risk. Aggression is risky, but it?d be nice if we could measure risk tolerance directly for the population as a whole.

IMHO a good measurement of risk tolerance would be auto-insurance rates for male and female drivers. Before the state stepped in and forced the insurance companies to give the same rates for both sexes, the highest rates were for the 16-25 year old males (from my personal experience, both of the serious car accidents I?ve had were the fault of a male teenager doing risky/stupid things).

While we are on this subject, here is a link on the math behind why small differences between the sexes could be magnified and result in very large employment differences (i.e. why aren?t there more lady engineers). <a href="http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm</a>

Kara...please dont go there, and you know what I am referring to if you read carefully Doc's last post. Leats keep this clean and above the waste.

Why Keebler, what in the heavens do you mean?

Just because some people choose their ancestry to be monkeys or chimps does not mean that I will go below the belt with it. Just because some people want to make excuses for animalistic tendencies saying that it is based on some theory that is being forced fed as fact, does not mean that I going to be obnoxious about it.

And here I thought I was about to get flamed.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because some people want to make excuses for animalistic tendencies saying that it is based on some theory that is being forced fed as fact...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sounds like a change in subject.

If you wish we could cut the stuff about the birds and the Insurance rates by them selves would be pretty convincing. The theory of Evolution just puts everything in a framework. Looking at risk tolerance is a different issue. Or to put it a different way, getting rid of the theory of evolution does not deal with the facts we are trying to examine.

Or we could talk about the Theory of Evolution and it's alternatives.

Wouldn't that be the orbs?

"Intelligent Design" is not a valid scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, and it's the only alternative I know about. (Aside, obviously, from strict biblical creationism, which is even less of a valid scientific alternative.)

Wouldn't that be the orbs? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
classic!
"Intelligent Design" is not a valid scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, and it's the only alternative I know about. (Aside, obviously, from strict biblical creationism, which is even less of a valid scientific alternative.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I recently had a similar discussion with a friend and I think a more appropriate vehicle for the topic would be from the perspective of epistemology or the study of how we know things. The scientific method is only one way of looking at things (though granted a useful one that has freed us from much backward superstition). Scienc can only deal with the material and the measured and evolution is one possible way of explaining how things got to be the way they are now. I applaud recent advances in the (admittedly very theoretical) realm of quantum mathematics (physics) that show that our more eastern thinking philosophers (including Rama)weren't so far off in their mystical ideas of the nature of the cosmos. I agree there are certain "mechanistic" properties that are clearly visible in the operations of elements, atoms, molecules, cells, higher organisms et al. A really good book for synthesizing eastern and western (mind and matter) philosophies is Ken Wilber's Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality. It is a brilliant work attempting the monumental task of finding a holistic perspective in the midst of the post-modern deconstructionist perspective so prevalent in academic circles today...

The question isn't whether these other ways exist, they do. The question is how useful they are.

I'm open to the various "big" theories being dethroned, I even welcome it. IMHO the one most likely to go down in our lifetime is gravity. We know the current model has problems (dark matter, dark energy), we don?t know what to do about them. However whatever replaces gravity is still going to have to explain why if I drop a pen it falls down? i.e. the new theories have to do a better job than the old ones.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A really good book for synthesizing eastern and western (mind and matter) philosophies is Ken Wilber's Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality. It is a brilliant work attempting the monumental task of finding a holistic perspective in the midst of the post-modern deconstructionist perspective so prevalent in academic circles today...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The reason science's followers are arrogant is because until they came along, it wasn't possible to build computer chips. Put a different way, it has a very good track record.

Granted, "Very good" is not perfect. Also granted, the other ways of knowing things have a longer record, long enough that there could easily be something to them. However, AFAICT, science and it's methodologies should be the senior partner in any merger.

As far as gravitation goes, I assume you mean the Einsteinian theory of gravitation...cuz, I mean, you can't really disprove GRAVITY. As you note, something's pulling matter together. It's not the presence of that force, but rather the nature of that force that's under dispute.

One thing that's always made me giggle about all this is that, for all of Einstein and all of quantum mechanics and how they revolutionized how we think about space, time, gravity and even such things as existence itself...we still use good, old-fashioned Newtonian physics for most things. Why? It's easier. And for most things that we're worried about, it's "close enough."

I mean, to really notice relativistic effects, you have to have some pretty exotic environments. Monumental gravity fields, and/or extremely high accelerations. To have any inkling of quantum physics at work, you have to split the tiniest particles imaginable and watch them like a hawk.

But in the world that WE live in, day to day, none of that really exists anymore. Oh, it's still going on; forming a kind of 'substrata' to the reality we all know and love...but the additive effects of all those wild and wooly theories don't amount to much on a scale we can occupy. Quantum mechanics is limited by observability phenomona, and the fact that probabilities against the more exotic behaviors (tunneling, etc) shoot up asymptotically as the number of particles involved (and masses therof) increase.

And, sure, you CAN use relativity equations, or QM equations, to plan a rocket launch, or a ballistic trajectory, or to work out the angles of support needed for a building or bridge...but why go for multiple PhD's worth of hard physics and weird math when you can use Good Ol' Newton and get the same result...at least in our frame of reference? Sure, you can't use Newton to work out a path through an event horizon, or work out the dimensions of a rotating singularity...but these are exercises we leave to people who don't have to deal with the real world.

My point? Oh. Er. I just think it's funny. Our understanding of the universe has by now far outpaced what we know what to DO with that understanding. On a strictly practical level, we're still back in the days of algebra and calculus. And sure, every so often we hear about "quantum computers" or other exotic devices that are supposed to make use of all these newer ideas...but nothing ever seems to materialize.

And you have to admit, no matter how our THEORY of gravity may evolve, the actual PHENOMENA of gravity will keep ticking along, like always. Silently mocking our attempts to comprehend it.

Goddamnit. I want my flying car.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Granted, "Very good" is not perfect. Also granted, the other ways of knowing things have a longer record, long enough that there could easily be something to them. However, AFAICT, science and it's methodologies should be the senior partner in any merger.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I agree that the scientific method of "observe and record" is a good methodology. The trouble we have now is that its difficult to observe "consciousness." Science has many underlying assumptions that effect how it sees things. For example science assumes that "mind" is a phenomenon that arises from matter...chemical reactions of molecules and cells in our brains, but it is also possible to realize that matter is only observable through the faculties of the "mind." That is what I was refering to when I called eastern and western mind and matter. On a related note to respond to Allisons comment about observing small particles on the quantum level like a hawk...Heisenburgs uncertainty principle shows that observing such things affects the behavior of them. We use Newtonian concepts to describe things because we have built so much consensus on a global scale such that it appears that way. When people start experimenting outside the box a bit more, quantum theory may prove to have more radical implications AND applications for our day to day lives.

And for the record science IS coming around and making its first crude attempts to understand the nature of conciousness. Part of the fun for me in playing a Mega Mega Intelligent character like Rama is to remind myself that even when you can know so much, it becomes more and more obvious how much we dont know. Sure the average person takes so much for granted that the world can seem mundane, but when I get out of the city and can look up at all the stars and I remember how small I am and yet still connected to the vastness....I feel something that I can only describe as a "mystical"...literally a sense of awe and wonder and mystery and then above all gratitude...in the end it doesn't matter what we believe...for we are still here and we are here together. all of us.

While I agree with a lot that you say in spirit, the devil in me just can't let that part about Heisenburg go.

It's a biiiiiiiiig leap from the Uncertainty Principle to a statement like, "By observing the universe, we create it." That's way beyond the scope of the theorum. The Uncertainty Principle establishes that in order for a phenomena to be observed, it must be interacted with. Therefore we can only observe the phenomena in its "interacted with" state. It's important to realize that the so-called Observer Effect is practically nil at scales that we live on. It's only when you're viewing incredibly small particles that the methodology of observation starts causing serious perturbations in your expected results.

For example:

In order for us to see a rocket, there must be light reflecting from the rocket's surface and reaching our eyes. Now, TECHNICALLY, this light exerts pressure on the rocket, and increases its temperature, and does lots of other things to it. Those effects are the "observer effects" of our interaction with the rocket in order to see it. However, none of them have any significant impact on its' trajectory or any other measurable aspect of the rocket's performance. They're simply too small compared to the forces exerted by its engine, momentum, and so on.

Another example. We can't use visible spectrum light to distinguish far off planets. Our ability to resolve distant sources of light is simply not up to the task. Therefore, we have resorted to watching distant stars for telltale fluctuations, or "wobbles." These wobbles are the result of gravitational stresses on the star...much like tides. By observing the strength and frequency of the wobbles, we can deduce some facts about the gravitational field causing them, and thus the planet that is the source of the field. In this case, the Observer Effect is the wobble. But does the 'wobble' have any real world significance? Consider our own sun. It's wobbling constantly, pulled by every planet in the solar system.

Final example. When viewing subatomic particles, we also can't use light. Photons tend to have massive effects on subatomic systems, and we can't resolve individual ones anyway. Similar to planets, we use more indirect means. Electromagnetic fields, as well simply crashing them into each other and making inferences from the recorded "splats" of energy released. In many cases, in order to observe subatomic phenomena, we must also destroy the very phenomena we're observing. At this scale, observer effects are so powerful that this is very often the case. Thus, the Uncertainty Principle is much better at describing things at this scale than any other.

After all, we CAN know the position, direction and speed of a rocket, right? If we couldn't, we couldn't so much as plot a reliable course through space. Well, Heisenburg says technically our calculations are WRONG. But they may only be off by microns. The uncertainty principle's effects are simply not noticible.

The real revolution of Heisenburg is more conceptual than it is practical. He stated, and proved, that there's a "dark side" to particle physics. That measuring particles to get SOME information, destroys OTHER information. He made it clear that we can never know -everything- there is about a system...a theory that flew in the face of accepted scientific tradition (we can and will learn everything eventually). I don't want to sell him short, but it's very easy to take the -idea- of the principle and get carried away with the -application- of it. Quantum Tunnelling has the same problem. People latch onto it and say, "Oooo! Teleportation! Time Travel!" And physicists kinda shuffle their feet and go, "Yeah, er, kinda...but...it doesn't really work like you think."

Holy Hoboken. Do I go on. Sorry.

Just wanted to say that its cool to be playing with such well informed people. I DO understand that quantum mechanics seem to not apply on our scale...but then again I cant help but wonder...if it IS true that we (and eveything else we percieve) is really just empty space filled with electronic force fields...if reality is based more on frequencies of waves interacting and not solid matter...

essentially we know so little about some of the most important things...we hardly understand the brain at all and science still cant explain how things like the placebo effect can work...though research into mind over matter healing is finally getting some credibility.

I would not be surprised if we find out that the reason things work the way we expect to on our scale has some direct linknto things operating on the quantum scale...after all...all of these scales do exist simultaneously.

Another related but tangential thought I would share is that moment that I realized that with the finite speed of light bouncing off of an object and then hitting my retina and then the electrical information traveling to the brain and interpreted (another fascintaing topic might I add.) that everything we see, feel and percieve is ever so minisculy in the past...

You all bring out some very interesting aspects of the world that we live in. The only thing that differs from my point of you and yours is that to me that all points to a DESIGNER. The more that we learn about the brain, the stars, gravity, etc., the more that we see the intelligence in the designing of the universe. None of this is logical for me to conclude that it came about by chance. Just like you if you put Two slices of bread, jelly, and some peanut butter, even include a knife, and you put it all in a jar, you are not going to get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. No matter how long you keep them in a jar. You add a catalyst, intelligent design, and you have someone use the ingredients to make a sandwich.
I guess when I see the horizon, I marvel at the intelligence behind the design. I may wonder how eveything works but it makes sense because of the design. An accident just doesn't make sense to me.

Exactly. The fact of Gravity is what has forced us to create the theory of Gravity, and one has to be matched up against the other.

This is also true for the other big theories. Poking holes in Evolution the theory does nothing to get rid of Evolution the fact, and Evolution the fact is what forced us to create the theory.

What can I do to kill this post?

To Heisenburg, who never could make up his mind!

Exactly. The fact of Gravity is what has forced us to create the theory of Gravity, and one has to be matched up against the other.

This is also true for the other big theories. Poking holes in Evolution the theory does nothing to get rid of Evolution the fact, and Evolution the fact is what forced us to create the theory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Er...actually we have seen no evidence of species evolving from other species....the fossil record is FULL of holes. There is NO fact of evolution...since humans were not alive to see it and it hasn't happened in our lifetime. We CAN see examples of natural selection but not to the point of cross species transformation. We created the theory to TRY and explain how we got to the diverse bioshpere we have today but don't fool yourself...the scientific method can not observe the last many millions of years and has yet to observe it happening now...

While I dont know enough about the theory "Intelligent Design" to offer comment I can say that studying biology has always amazed me with the perfection and completelness by which organisms occur and interact within their niches. If evolution were going on, we would see partly formed, half stage examples everywhere..probably dying quickly without reproducing since they would be ill adapted to compete with the more completely developed species..

On the other hand we see species NOT evolving but going extinct at an alarming rate due to the massive changes humans are wreaking upon the subtly balanced ecosystems...

Is it not reasonable to conclude that humans and other species are created/designed with the ability to adapt. Look at species like the wolf and even our species, humans. We are found all over the world, in the extremes of climates and not only are we surviving, we are flourishing. Since only the same species can breed with one another would it not be reasonable to conclude that we are designed to adapt. Part of that adaptatation would produce in us the resilience to survive in adverse climates or areas.

The problem is that adding a designer to the theory adds nothing to the explanation from a scientific sense, and is actually contraindicated in some ways. For example islands have species very similar to the species on the mainland that they are next to. If the island is close then they might be the same species, if the island is far then they would only be similar but could be a different species altogether.

If there was a designer then there is NO reason why the species on an island couldn?t be TOTALLY different than the mainland. A designer wouldn't need to follow the rules. Even though he used Blue on one part of the painting he could use Red on the next part. But he never did. We?ve never found rabbits in the fossil record before creatures with backbones evolved. We?ve never found creatures with wheels rolling around. The intermediate stages aren?t viable, but a designer could skip the unviable intermediate stages and go right for the viable end product. But he didn?t. Every time we try to look for a designer breaking the rules, we see the rules being followed.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science</a>

Evolution is a ?theory? in the scientific sense. Intelligent Design is only a theory in the common usage. There is a big difference.

The Theory of Evolution is actually stronger than the Theory of Gravity since we know there are problems with Gravity. Evolution is not currently under serious attack and is almost universally accepted within the scientific community. There simply aren?t any alternatives on the table.

The Idea (Guess? Hunch?) of Intelligent Design is up there with the Idea of the Flat Earth. (BTW they both come from the same book in the Bible. <a href="http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/febible.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/febible.htm</a> ) Both ID and Flat Earth enjoy similar levels of respect within the scientific community and have similar levels of experimental support and predictive success. ID is more popular in the general population, but being popular doesn?t make it a real theory in the scientific sense.

?Half formed? creatures never exist. It doesn?t work that way. Evolution is about gradual change from one viable step to another. That?s why we don?t have creatures with wheels rolling around, although the end creature would be viable, the intermediate steps are not.

And we do see evolution all the time, on various mountains, people pick the big long stem flowers, so those flowers have evolved to not be big and long stemmed because that?s a disadvantage. Diseases evolve drug resistance. Birds evolve different types of beaks. For a different example the evolution of the human eye was done by stages, and not only do we have a decent idea for what the stages were and how they happened, but there are still animals running around with eyes in these various stages.

The issue you are raising is the lack of ?Speciation?, or the evolution of new species and the lack of observation of it. This isn?t true, we have observed a fair number of new species. (See ?5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation at <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5</a> )

Speciation is further supported by DNA studies and mutation analysis, i.e. not only can we tell that two species have a common ancestor, but we can tell how long ago this ancestor existed. The evidence is there and is surreally strong.

On a side note, we?ve never directly observed atoms fusing but that didn?t stop us from building nukes off of Atomic Theory. This is one of the real powers of the big theories, they let us predict things that aren?t obvious and then go find the evidence afterwards. For example my prediction that Male Humans are more risk tolerant than Females, then backed up by Insurance rates.

I remember two things that go along with this:

Doing genetic research on snow leopards (which are the big cats most affected by genetic diseases, apparently), the scientists are fairly certain that all modern-day snow leopards are descended from a single litter around the end of the last ice age, because of the degree of genetic similarity.

An article in Newsweek a few years ago was talking about genetic testing of humans to attempt to determine a common ancestor. One of the snags they were running into was that mitochondria testing gave them "Eve" back around forty thousand years ago - but X- and Y-chromosome testing gave them "Adam" at only about twelve thousand years ago. So some of the scientists on the project theorize that at some point before recorded history, humans operated similarly to lion prides, where one male mated with all of the females, and the rest of the guys were SOL.

Hmm, maybe Narr should split off the DNA and evolution stuff into another thread.