Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "skeptic"

Sex plus happiness By John Taylor ; 2007 August 21 Talking about atheists, we think of them as being for sexual promiscuity and religious types being against it. Not always. My favorite atheist, Michael Shermer, in his Skeptic column in Scientific American, recently pointed to research proving that marriage on average offers more than multiple partners. Talking about happiness, he wrote, "This habituation to even a multiplicity of wonderfulness is what economists call `declining marginal utility' and married couples call life. But if you think that an array of sexual partners adds to the spice of life, you are mistaken: according to an exhaustive study published in The Social Organization of Sexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1994), married people have more sex than singles -- and more orgasms." (Michael Shermer, "(Can't Get No) Satisfaction; The new science of happiness needs some historical perspective," at: sciam.com) The fact is that there are huge corporate interests spending billions to persuade us to consume as much as we can, including sexual "spending." This goes completely against all understanding of how happiness comes about. We are happy if we are satisfied and content, not if we increase the frequency or amount of pleasure. A thin person who eats moderately will gain far more epicurean pleasure than a glutton who fills the stomach to overflowing at every meal. The same thing is true for sex. Take Viagra, for example. In 1999 it was introduced along with a massive publicity campaign. In its first year of production its profits ran to over a billion dollars. That is not chicken feed, even by corporate standards. Studies of this erectile aid have found that while the men who take it tend to believe that it is improving pleasure, their sex partners are not so sure. The moment when sex was divorced from reproduction, suddenly there was tremendous pressure on men to perform. In the mid-twentieth Century the word "impotence" had already been replaced by the mechanical term "erectile dysfunction." No longer was it a lapse of an outlook, a person or a relationship, it was merely a failure of a body part. Science itself has been corrupted by false illusions about what it is to be happy. Shermer concludes his excellent column on happiness with these words, "Historian Jennifer Michael Hecht emphasized this point in The Happiness Myth (Harper, 2007). Her deep and thoughtful historical perspective demonstrates just how time- and culture-dependent is all this happiness research. As she writes, `The basic modern assumptions about how to be happy are nonsense.' Take sex. `A century ago, an average man who had not had sex in three years might have felt proud of his health and forbearance, and a woman might have praised herself for the health and happiness benefits of ten years of abstinence.' Most happiness research is based on self-reported data, and Hecht's point is that people a century ago would most likely have answered questions on a happiness survey very differently than they do today. To understand happiness, we need both history and science." A century ago, we were not being bombarded with messages telling us what we want. Or what will make me happy. Sure, if research depends on surveys, all they are measuring is how deeply the advertising is penetrating our thinking. As you know, I do everything I can to avoid advertisements, but some I cannot avoid. Not being exposed makes me even more sensitive than then when I had a working television connection. A television advertisement now hits me in the face like a sledgehammer. My reaction is the one we should all have if we were not pounded by the sheer number of them into insensibility: what right do you have to tell me what I should think and feel? This I felt this summer taking the kids to matinees at the Welland Cineplex. Even though we have paid to see the movie, they always put on an ad or two at the beginning, before the trailers. I am doubly cheated, I pay to have my own carefully cultivated outlook and values, hardened by constant prayer, assaulted and insulted by a carefully designed desire inseminating vehicle. Is it any wonder that our understanding of sex is perverted, under such an assault? We must have sex, and the more the better. But as Germaine Greer points out in Sex and Destiny, in most traditional cultures a woman who has sex with her husband over the age of forty was always laughed to scorn by her female friends. What is the point of having sex at such an advanced age? Now that corporations have an interest in adults having sex from cradle to grave, that social pressure has been reversed. Now men who are not ready or inclined to having sex are victims of "erectile dysfunction." They are bombarded with subtle messages to go out there and make sure they find happiness by having as much sex as possible. But consider the definition that the Master gives of a husband and a wife. Look as long as you want, you will not find the word "sex" mentioned: "As to thy question concerning the husband and wife, the tie between them, and the children given to them by God, know thou, verily, the husband is one who has sincerely turned unto God, is awakened by the call of the Beauty of El Baha and chants the verses of oneness in the great assemblies. The wife is a being who wishes to be overflowing with and seeks after the attributes of God and His names; and the tie between them is no other than the Word of God." (SW, Vol. 9, p. 85) Not sex, the Word of God. Here is the rest of this Tablet. Search all you want, you will not find sex mentioned here either. "Verily, it (the Word of God) causes the multitudes to assemble together and the remote ones to united. Thus the husband and wife are brought into affinity, are united and harmonized, even as though they were one person. Through their mutual union, companionship and love great results are produced in the world, both material and spiritual. The spiritual result is the appearance of divine bounties. The material result is the children who are born in the cradle of the love of God, who are nurtured by the breast of the knowledge of God, are brought up in the bosom of the gift of God and are fostered in the lap of the training of God. Such children are those of whom it was said by Christ: "Verily, they are the children of the Kingdom.” ( Id. )    

Tags: sex, happiness, god, word, husband

The Kaiser Daily Health Custom Disseminate has a venture today around an moil to survey Wellpoint's sundry (35 hundred thousand) encompassing their physicians in course to cater consumer-based rankings, still to build comments. Actually together whereas: \"The plural of anecdote is not information.\" In truth, pending onliest consumer jungle interviewed past Kaiser said, these rankings are plausible to be skewed to the lower concluded patients who keep had bad experiences. There are better ways to collect consumer-centered register - over head, AHRQ's CAHPS slews - than frequentness rants of the nature Wellpoint proposes. I don't count often usefulness over Zagat's restaurant reviews, either, as the consonant judgment. .us'>cheap viagra cheap cialis viagra Generic Viagra

Tags: viagra, consumer, wellpoint, rankings, skeptical

"Ya got trouble" from "Music Man." A skeptic who was in the audience for the David Kirby - Arthur Allen debate said that Kirby reminded her of Professor Harold Hill in the musical, "Music Man." You might have to watch the whole debate which is on the DAN!/ARI website to see if you agree with that assessment. Some might translate Kirby's presentation into something like this. Kirby as Professor Harold Hill: Well, either you're closing your eyes To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge Or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated By the presence of a plume right here in your community. Ya got trouble, my friend, right here, I say, trouble right here in California. Why sure I'm a Investigator, Certainly mighty proud I say I'm always mighty proud to say it. I consider that the hours I spend With a pen in my hand are golden. Help you cultivate horse sense And a cool head and a keen eye. Never take and try to keep An iron-clad lead to yourself generic cialis Generic Viagra buy cilais cheap cialis

Tags: kirby, trouble, professor, generic, harold

From a story in today's WaPo, I learned that Bayer has withdrawn it's poultry anitbiotic Baytril from the market. This marks the end of a five-year battle with the FDA over the drug. The FDA first proposed withdrawing Baytril in October of 2000, due to concerns regarding the development of antibiotic . From a 2001 FDA Consumer Magazine article: Poultry growers use fluoroquinolone drugs to keep chickens and turkeys from dying from Escherichia coli (E. coli) infection, a disease that they could pick up from their own droppings. But the size of flocks precludes testing and treating individual chickens--so when a veterinarian diagnoses an infected bird, the farmers treat the whole flock by adding the drug to its drinking water. While the drug may cure the E. coli bacteria in the poultry, another kind of bacteria--Campylobacter--may build up resistance to these drugs. And that's the root of the problem. People who consume chicken or turkey contaminated with fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter are at risk of becoming infected with a bacteria that current drugs can't easily kill. Campylobacter is the most common bacterial cause of diarrheal illness in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's estimated to affect over 2 million persons every year, or 1 percent of the population. Commonly found in chickens, Campylobacter doesn't make the birds sick. But humans who eat the bacteria-contaminated birds may develop fever, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps. In people with weakened immune systems, Campylobacter can be life-threatening. Eating undercooked chicken or turkey, or other food that has been contaminated from contact with raw poultry, is a frequent source of Campylobacter infection. Not washing utensils, countertops, cutting boards, sponges, or hands after coming into contact with raw poultry can also spread the bacteria and cause infection. People infected with Campylobacter may be prescribed a fluoroquinolone--which may or may not work. But the damage doesn't stop there. "Cross-resistance occurs throughout this class of drugs," says Stephen F. Sundlof, DVM, PhD, director of CVM. "So resistance to one fluoroquinolone can compromise the effectiveness of all fluoroquinolone drugs." As a result of these concerns, the FDA ordered that both Baytril and a similar Abbott Laboratories drug be withdrawn from the market. Abbott complied with the ruling, and Bayer appealed. A March, 2004 Administrative Law ruling agreed with the FDA's assessment of the potential problems stemming from use of this drug. Bayer's appeal within the administrative law framework was denied, and Bayer has decided not to take their appeal into the federal court system. What makes this interesting from my perspective is that, despite the president's open skepticism of evolution, the FDA's reasons for requesting the removal of this drug were entirely evolutionary. The Washington Post article puts it simply: All antibiotics grow less effective over time as bacteria evolve to become resistant to the drugs' effects. Experts say wider use of an antibiotic -- by either animals or people -- leads to a speedier development of resistance. The FDA Administrative Judge's ruling gives an explanation that is slightly more complex: Use of Baytril in poultry acts as a selection pressure, resulting in the emergence and dissemination of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter Baytril acts as a selection pressure. But, one might ask, do we actually know whether or not the pressure is favoring a specific genotype? Is there a "resistance gene" in this bacteria? If so, do we know the sequence of mutations that lead to this? In this case, we do. Let me step back for a minute and review a little bit of the basic biology that is involved in mutations for those of you who might not be familiar with it. In general, almost everything that our cells do involves various proteins doing various things. Our cells make the proteins based on the instructions found in our DNA. Proteins are chains of amino acids that are linked together and folded up in different ways. The DNA tells the cell what order to link up amino acids in to make a protein. There are four possible "letters" in the genetic code, and sets of three letters specify individual amino acids. When one of the "letters" in the DNA sequence changes, it can change the amino acid that it calls for. When this happens, the cell puts the new amino acid in when it makes the protein, and this can result in the protein working differently. (For more information on this, follow the links in the paragraph.) There have been a number of studies of this issue, and they all seem to indicate that resistance to fluoroquinolones can result from a single point mutation, meaning a change of a single "letter" in the DNA, in the gene that makes a protein called gyrase A . Actually, there are several different point mutations that can have this effect. Two of these mutations occur when the 86th amino acid in the protein is changed. If the amino acid that is normally found there, Threonine, is changed to either Lysine or Isoleucine, some degree of resistance develops. Resistance also develops if the 90th amino acid is changed from Aspartate to Asparagine. Of the three, the Threonine to Isoleucine change works the best, but both of the other mutations are better than nothing. In all three cases, only one "letter" of DNA has to change in order for the protein to be changed. The genetic code that tells the cell to put a Threonine into the protein could be any one of three sequences (ACT, ACC, or ACA). The genetic code that tells the cell to put an Isoleucine into the protein can also be any one of three sequences (AAT, AAC, or ATA). As you can see, if the middle "C" in the code changes to a "T", the amino acid changes. If "ACA" is changed to "AAA", the Threonine is replaced with Lysine. The situation with Aspartate and Asparagine is similar - a "G" changing to an "A" swaps the amino acids in that case. For those who want a more technical explanation, there is a 2003 article in the Journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy that is available for free. The full reference can be found at the bottom of this post. Anyone who is familiar with the common creationist claim that such mutations aren't really beneficial because they make the bacteria less fit in environments where the antibiotic is absent might be interested in this article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - it pretty well lays that issue to rest in this case. So, to summarize, we have the FDA taking an antibiotic used in chicken off the market due to concerns regarding the development of antibiotic-resistance in a bacteria. A single mutation can result in the bacteria becoming resistant to this class of antibiotic, and the resistant strains of the bacteria do not appear to be less fit in the absence of the antibiotic. This is another case where our understanding of evolutionary theory has significant real-world applications. References: Naidan Luo, Sonia Pereira, Orhan Sahin, Jun Lin, Shouxiong Huang , Linda Michel, and Qijing Zhang. 2005. Enhanced in vivo fitness of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni in the absence of antibiotic selection pressure. PNAS. Vol 102 p. 541 Naidan Luo, Orhan Sahin, Jun Lin, Linda O. Michel, and Qijing Zhang. 2003. In Vivo Selection of Campylobacter Isolates with High Levels of Fluoroquinolone Resistance Associated with gyrA Mutations and the Function of the CmeABC Efflux Pump. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Vol 47, p. 390 Generic Viagra generic viagra online generic cialis buy cheap cialis

Tags:

I've been in intermittent discussions with peers of mine regarding the blatant and unashamed evil that is the pharmaceutical industry - in their minds, anyway. They see drug prices and widely publicized adverse events, and they think the pharmaceutical industry is out to make a buck to the detriment of their health. Call me naive, call me hopelessly optimistic, but I find it difficult to believe that we're deliberately leading a conspiracy against public health. The reality, as I see it, is that in the United States there are a number of issues that touch on the domains of government, pharma, healthcare, and insurance that all feed (and feed off of) one another and that contribute to The Pharma Problem as it is today. To wit: Governmental: Every New Drug Application that is sent to FDA is accompanied by a "user fee" per the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA III). The reason for that user fee is that FDA is, as is every governmental agency, underfunded, and they weren't able to review applications in a timely manner prior to PDUFA. (More on why time is so important in the next bullet.) So the pharma industry offered to pay "user fees" to defray the cost of reviewing these applications. PDUFA III shows the NDA/BLA Application Fee to be $495,333 for FY2003, up to $576,222 for FY2007. Also governmental: Timing. Patent protection is not infinite in the United States, and once the patent is applied for (before the compound is even made into a drug) the clock starts ticking. Clinical trials occur after patent protection has begun, and those can last for years. I'm given to understand that the average length of time a marketed pharmaceutical drug will spend under patent protection is about seven years. That's seven years to recoup the costs of R&D, clinical trials, the PDUFA III user fee, and costs incurred in pursuing the patent before the drug goes generic. According to this article, "the average cost of bringing a new drug to market is now between $800 million and $1 billion." Quite a lot to recoup in seven years. Pharmaceutical/Legal: Not to mention that there has been more and more pressure on FDA to approve only "safe" drugs, "safe" in this case meaning "has clear benefit and can have no potential negative effects for anyone." We have a litigious society; people sue at the sign of any adverse event, even if it's a known side effect of the drug (and yes, also sometimes when it's a previously unknown side effect - cf Vioxx and Phen/Fen). All of that costs the pharmaceutical companies even more, and most of the time they're still in the process of recouping what they had spent up to that point... Pharmaceutical: ...so here we ring the bell and usher in direct-to-consumer advertising. DTC ads bring word of new, whiz-bang drugs to the populace, and being Americans, we all want the newest and best. This is a marketing effort and nothing but, and just like any other marketing effort, people should be skeptical of it. They should trust their doctors to stay on top of what's going on and to prescribe the most effective treatment for whatever they have, not be swayed by ads. Healthcare/Insurance: ...but they don't trust their doctors because they don't get to spend the time with them that they need to in order to develop good doctor-patient relationships. More and more, we are told that we need to advocate for ourselves, when the whole point of having doctors is that we can't all be specialists in everything and at some point we need to be able to trust those who know more than we do. Pharmaceutical/Governmental: And so we're back to the DTC ads. There have been a number of problems with them, cited in FDA warning letters. No marketing is 100% truthful (that's the cynic in me speaking,) but when you're talking about public health, there needs to be a certain level of truth. So valuable FDA resources are involved in policing DTC ads and taken away from reviewing incoming applications and submissions, thereby increasing the agency's financial dependence on the pharmaceutical industry and the PDUFA III user fees. Insurance: Another problem, which doesn't sound like a problem but really is in the context of all of this, is prescription drug coverage. Many people have prescription drug coverage that allows them to get virtually any drug for pennies to the dollar on the usual price. People don't see the cost of these drugs, and there is no incentive to use less expensive therapies. Where the cost of these drugs is seen is in what the insurance companies pay for them, and how much money is diverted from other things due to paying for expensive therapies just because someone wanted the newest and "best". Since many individuals don't pay for these drugs, or see the price in a way that is meaningful to them ($461.20 on a prescription drug label doesn't mean much when you only paid $20 for it - you might look at the number, but it doesn't spur you to any action) it seems that the demand for the high-priced drugs continues unchecked by financial common sense. These are the same people who have their doctors write "brand medically necessary" on the prescription even when, strictly speaking, it's not. Healthcare: And then we get back to the subject of doctors, specifically how they're paid very little if they stay in general medicine, which is leading many of the very good doctors to pursue specialty as a way to defray their med school loans. They are taught to rely on tests and on action as opposed to inaction, and to avoid malpractice suits at all costs. (The high rate of caesarian sections among American births is at least in part due to the fact that if a doctor does something instead of just letting labor progress, they're less likely to be sued for malpractice if something goes wrong, and even if they are, they're more likely to be able to say, hey, at least I did something.) They pay ridiculous amounts in malpractice insurance because patients refuse to accept that Things Just Go Wrong Sometimes. (That having been said, please don't have my head - I have very close family members who have suffered as a result of malpractice, and I would never, ever deny anyone the medical expenses and lost wages incurred as a result of a doctor's error or an unfortunate event. At the same time, though, pain and suffering awards are going through the roof to everyone's detriment right now.) ...And that's all off the top of my head right now. These items all relate to and are dependent on one another. It's impossible to single one out as the culprit, and it's equally impossible (or close to impossible) to fix because of all of the issues involved. I don't know what the solution should be. I'm barely just getting my hands around the problem at this point. viagra generic cialis cheap cialis Generic Viagra

Tags:

Ended Richard Halstead, IJ columnist BERKELEY - New legislation that would stick to health cognizance coverage to now and then resident of the authorize determination be introduced early alternative occasion by Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, furthermore Keith Richman, R-Granada Hills. Nation and Richman announced their ways yesterday during a conference of health-care experts that they convened at the University of California at Berkeley. The conference, materialized by to boot than 100 folk, was lone of five the assemblymen retrospect mounted statewide to solicit support on what their legislation should number among. Nation said crowded of the testimony must along with be resolved. \"Everyone would be guaranteed some general communication of coverage. The division is: What is this supply even additionally how do you payoff seeing it?\" Nation said. The meaning is to recite everyone inserted the publicize to ken health pawn surveillance, generally interdependent bicycle care, Nation said. Uninhabited bones coverage would be subsidized ended the blast. \"Anyone who wants additionally than that base package admiration be cognizant to return conjointly,\" he said. Vigor is urgently deserved, said Richman, who is a physician. Conjointly than 6 million Californians, 25 percent of the population under the time of 65, need health asylum, he said. Health-care costs are rising at double-digit quotas. Conjointly than half of the advertise's hospitals are losing finance. \"Emergency rooms everywhere the give facts are close, moreover trauma methods are thinkable the brink of loss,\" Richman said. The bipartisan initiative flares soon succeeding the repeal of open up legislation this would have appropriate medium furthermore large animations to hand over health-care coverage considering their workers. Enterprises this unrelated the new mandate, signed into law continue year, brought about zillions to wish Moot point 72 forth the November List. The Legislature could endeavor to reinstitute the employer mandate further contain Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger veto it, Nation said. \"I'd rather do something productive,\" he said. Nation said his too Richman's health understanding proposal would compete with legislation introduced persist in lastingness ended Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica. Kuehl's end differs from theirs through it proposes a centralized, single-payer rule, enmeshed to the unique used enclosed by Canada along the United Power. Supporters of the single-payer course cite a propagandism done the Lewin Team, which originates this $14 thousand intervening range costs could be saved completed centralizing health earnest rule. Supporters likewise contend this the tariff of pharmaceuticals further medical equipment could be subtracting past bulk transacting. The single-payer strategy received scant discussion yesterday. \"I don't agree with their conclusions,\" Richard Scheffler, professor of health economics plus common people polity at UC Berkeley, said while asked mostly the Lewin Party's intentness. Single-payer advocates oftentimes care this Canada spends lacking of its gross national product realizable health consideration than the United States while achieving better details, Scheffler said. Centralized lineup is not the envisage, he said. Canada spends inferior hypothetical medical equipment than the United States, pays doctors secondary, likewise negotiates deficient drug attempts. This is the showing, he said. Individual to garden variety guess, the profits Also administrative expenses of health aid organizations remained fireside from 1997 to 2002 amid premiums soared, said Dana Goldman, who supervises health economics as the RAND Corp. Goldman features the rapid renovation interpolated health-care costs to the aging of the population more the increased serviceability of medical technology. Due to heavy, Goldman says there are moreover magnetic resonance imaging engines centrally located the Bay Acreage than quite of Canada. Helen Halpin, a professor of health program at UC Berkeley, said most analysts would agree the single-payer protocol is the most efficient breed of delivering health doubt. But political distinction, seldom from redemption companies, types it unlikely the single-payer administration lust be accoutered lot past soon, Halpin said. Marin Supervisor Susan Adams arrived yesterday's conference. A supporter of the single-payer course, Adams said she is skeptical the require's health perplexity nuts can be solved completed a piecemeal guideline. Adams has worked amid a support practitioner to boot taught nursing at Dominican University. Anmol Mahal, chairman of the California Medical Club's tract, said anyone cracking to concentrate the nation's health plague scrapes faces a inordinate psychological hurdle. \"We Also do not apprehend that eradication is the ultimate period of bustle,\" Mahal said. \"We try it's preventable.\" generic viagra online cheap viagra viagra buy cheap cialis

Tags: health, nation, single, payer, care

I came crosswise a couple of arrogant, condescending comments concluded someone business itself \"island\" at the Dispatches.. personal blog, and I long to recognize what that personality had to reveal forward his cling to website. Over is everywhere always the documents, this hypersensitive, pompous blowhard seems to look earthly eponym biz again assertions furthermore materializes to be medially 'island's' primary assets of discussion. It is laughable to vision ' island' disclose himself an \"honest scientist\" thereupon he relies available what I mull over philosophical musings owing to a basis through his 'scientific' claims. Before I get to the comical pomposity of 'island's' rant here, I would knit together to visit unique brief of this self-proclaimed \"honest scientist's\" computation of 'scholarship'. Centrally located a telling left adventitious the Dispatches... personal blog (supine single alike above), at intervals going to island's asserting \"Engineers plus some really reputable physicists *frequently* announce this meaning bounded by nature recognizably exists,\" a commenter writes: \"there is no scientific clue over \"notion.\" To which the \"honest scientist\" island replies: LOL... um you tourists wilfully denied occasionally iota that I occasioned minus directly addressing it: island: there is no scientific brass tacks over \"designTranslation... island... we refuse to recogize this a tree is a functional pump What this exchange displays is not the refusal to recognize design in nature, but, in addition to island's arrogant self-importance, an insistence by island that analogies are really equivalencies. Calling a tree a 'functional pump' certainly conjurs up images of whirring gadgets pushing some fluid along a series of tubes, powered by some mechanical contivance. But is a tree a 'pump' in that way? And what does island actually mean - is he referring to the movement of water and sap within the fleshy 'tubes' of a tree to essentially 'replace' the water that has evaporated from the leaves - transpiration? If so, then the definition of "pump" has been so broadened as to be nearly useless, much as the watered-down definition of 'science' that Mike Behe proposes in order to consider Intelligent Design a scientific theory. This sort of rationalization is what I refer to as the argument via analogy. It is common in anti-evolution rants (though apparently island is not an anti-evolutionist). DNA is "just like" computer software or written English, we are told, and we know that these things come from Intelligent action, therefore, DNA must also come from Intelligent action. Exceptionally shallow and naive, but it works well with 'the masses.' Thus is island's "argument." Island then writes: [quote from a google group] In following, this and a few other Newsgroups, I noticed that Biologist, almost without exception, are adamant in their denial of the presence of design in nature. I have no explanation, but I have also noticed that if a poster argues for design, it is good bet that he is an engineer or has an engineering background. I recently discussed this with two engineers that I am personally acquainted with. Both are convinced that design in nature is real and one man, Wm. Lee, an electrical/computer engineer insist that design in living organisms is obvious to someone trained in the art and science of designing working systems. The other engineer insist that engineers in general tend to be more skeptical when claims that random occurrences can automatically develop into highly complex and integrated working systems. Ben [end quote] So, admit that my statement is correct... or crawl in a hole with the rest of them. Get that? Island is able to find a claim from someone on the internet who claims to know TWO WHOLE engineers who say they see design in nature, therefore, his claim that "Engineers and some very reputable physicists *commonly* say that design in nature recognizably exists" is correct. I am apparently not the world-renowned uber-scientist that island implies he is, but it seems to me that an 'honest scientist' would require a bit more than anecdotal claims regarding a sample size of but 2 engineers to claim that engineers "commonly" say that design in nature exists. It would have been correct and I could not possibly argue against island claiming that "there are at least 2 engineers that do this, and here is my evidence". But this is not what he did. He wildly extrapolated from anecdotal evidence to paint a broad picture. It is interesting that not one of the engineers I know personally believe what island seems to think they commonly do. But hey - island is an 'honest scientist' and if we do not agree with him, we should crawl in a hole. But wait - Mr.Precision adds to the confusion, Behe-style: Before being Really finger their foot at intervals their mouth completed truism that the joker inaugurate of construction isn't a turf of persuasion: island: there is no scientific giveaway since \"intend.\" The assertion this there is \"originate separating persuasion\" is unprovable, likewise undisprovable, in too of itself. I interpret... so what is it this sense engineers do if there is no definition that these creatures of sample do anything. The gift Because \"meaning\" doesn't factual pop-out of society if the conceivable in that its emergence doesn't pre-exist inserted physics that constrains the circuit constants of heavenly body, so lone sheer unadulterated dude arrogance hands over single the unmitigated audacity to \"surmise\" that order can ever grant anything greater or slighter than the fraction of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical craving. Ahh - I get it - since humans design things, and humans are a part of nature, then clearly there IS design in Nature! How obvious! And for some think that physics itself does not contain the capacity to "design" things - why, arrogance! Human arrogance! Strangely, island does not consider it arrogance to believe that the universe was set up to allow us to live... I know, I know... I don't get the dichotomy either... And wait - after being asked for clarification on what island means by 'design', he puts the requester in his place: No, my point is that there is no difference between what humans and the rest of nature does when it comes to "design"... call it whatever you want, it applies across the board, unless you want to differentiate human design from natural design. And there we have it. "Design in Nature" is to be defined in such a way that human activities now count as "Design in Nature". And astrology is a science... Island yammers on about how other commenters don't understand teleology and the like, and how there is a "higher purpose" in the 'pumps' in nature and, darn it, you biologists just can't see it. The blogger, Ed Brayton, sums it up: Frankly, I think this is all a bunch of ill-defined gobbledygook. Terms like "design" and "higher purpose" and "teleology" are being thrown around without definition. Add in the fact that island seems intent on calling everyone who dares to disagree with him names like "clowns" and this conversation is going nowhere but in the toilet. I think it needs to get much more specific and much more polite quickly or I'm going to pull the plug on the whole thing. Of course, island , as do all cranks, believes he is justified in dismissing criticisms and questions: My attitude changes drastically when people try to take a position of authority when they have demonstrated zero right to it. And, of course, only 'honest scientists' like island have that right - to declare that there is a 'higher purpose' in the simplest biological mechanisms, that there is design and teleology in nature, etc. Well, that particular discussion took place in 2005. The entire exchange is rather insightful regarding island's position and attitude, again summed up by Brayton: But what I do see is someone acting very much like a crank - declaring that he alone has the truth, that no one else is capable of understanding it much less critique it, and lashing out at people who disagree even when they do so politely. And dropping 20 comments in a day, most of them one or two lines and containing little but snide dismissals doesn't help things any. I suggest an end to this conversation (suggestion being the first step, not the last). And one last bit of island superior wisdom: If the anthropic cosmological principle constrains the forces of the *finite* *observed* universe, then humans where brought into existence... "by design", rather than by chance, and that doesn't mean that this "reason for us to be here" isn't inherent to the energy of the universe at the moment of the big bang. [ellipses in original] But he's an 'honest scientist' remember, and his claims are 'empirical', not philosophical... Yup... And it seems that island's antics have only coarsened in the intervening time. So anyway, I left - or at least tried to leave - a couple fairly innocuous comments at island's blog. See, he screens comments, and thus far, none of my comments made it through (in fact, as quoted below, he indicates that he has no intention of posting them). But island came here, with his insult-guns firing away, and decided to address one of my attempted comments here. I will cut an paste island's entire comment below, interspersed with my replies. =================================================================== Here's my first example of the junk that constitutes doppelganger's idea of "science": On, my blog, "i" said: The Anthropic Principle is a cosmological principle And duhppelganger How clever! Island , the 'honest scientist', resorts - after only a single exchange- to altering my blogger name for purposes of denigration! What a way to establish one's intellectual superiority! hosed it up:"Actually, it is an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists." No, Dr. Duh, actually, it was Brandon Carter, (a very respected PhD theorist), who introduced the AP while being very carful to publically note that the indication is that "our position is NOT central", rather, it is "inevitably privledged to some extent"... so you don't have a clue what you're saying. Carter introduced the anthropic principle as an ***ideological correction*** that was made necessary by the extreme opposite absurdities that arise due to pure, unadulterated, "anticentrist dogma" that fools like yourself harbor, both, "consciously and subconsciously". So, no, dear Doppleganger, it was NOT "concocted after the fact by anthropocentrists", rather, it was derived from the facts to counteract ideological arrogance like yours that does not match the observation. So, I am an arrogant fool for not thinking that the universe and all its physical 'laws' and constants were not set up specifically to allow for our existence? Dear me. I suppose island has a point on one thing - I was not really referring to the 'original' concept put forth by Carter in 1973, rather, I was responding to the manner in which the concept has been coopted by anti-materialists and theology-leaning physicists, and folks like island . Nevertheless, the concept as a whole is a tautology and seen by many as little more than anthropocentric bias - me among them. Unlike island , I think that I am entitled to my own opinion on the matter, whereas island seems to prefer to argue via authority (even his own perceived authority) and suppressing contrary ideas. While I suspect that island is a disturbed malcontent, middle-aged, balding, probably never married and living at home with his mom, a professor of physics says this about the anthropic principle: The WAP [weak anthropic principle, see* at the bottom] is considered by most physicists and cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of course the constants of nature are suitable for our form of life. If they were not, we would not be here to talk about it. But what does he know - he is just a professor of physics. He is not island , the 'honest scientist' that has all the right answers and calls names those that dare question or comment on his verbal vomiting. Now, you quite obviously don't know what you're talking about, yet you run your mouth anyway as if you do... (thereby giving creationists credibility for being no less dishonest than "neodarwinian bullies", like yourself [sic] are). Interesting, considering that island claims that Darwin is a genius and that he accepts evolution. So why mention creationism? Who knows. And how, exactly, am I a 'neodarwinian bully'? Unlike island , I do not merely mock and insult those that I disagree with. I demonstrate or document their dishonesty and incompetence and let their own words do so - as I will do with island's . Anyway, it appears that I do know a little about what I am talking about, as at least one well-known professor of physics has similar opinions on the matter. Allow me to reiterate: The WAP is considered done with most physicists still cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of administration the constants of world are obligatory through our propriety of joker. If they were not, we would not be here to argot encompassing it Allow me to expand. Carter's so-called strong anthropic principle, according to Stenger (as already linked), states: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. Why? And just who are these 'observers'? Why, they are US! What a grand coincidence. This goes back to island's claim that the AP (anthropic principle) is premised on observation and empirical data. And what are these observations and data? These are the physical constants and 'laws' that have been discovered - things like the relationship between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force, the mass of the electron and its relationship to the masses of protons and neutrons, the excited energy level of the carbon nucleus, etc. (culled from Stenger's paper). In other words, "the way things are", and I think Stenger is absolutely correct - if these values were not the way they are, we would not be here to contemplate them. And we are humans. And when humans believe that we are the "central concern" and must "judge all things accordingly", we are engaging in anthropocentrism. So, when I wrote that the anthropic principle was an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists, I was correct. And you want me to publish crap like this on my science-based blog???... lol... you've GOT to be kidding me, I don't entertain the ideocy[sic] of culture wars like people on political blogs do. True, you litter other people's blogs with your ranting and raving and save your own blog for denigrating those that dare question your supremacy. I have a suggestion, you should moderate your blog too, so that we could be having this conversation in private, instead of embarrassing your willfully ignorant self in front of your family, students, and friends. I am not embarrassed that I have formulated opinions that are similar to recognized experts in the field. Why should I be? And I hate to dent that monumental ego of yours, but an anonymous internet hack like yourself is not exactly the ultimate authority on what is true or correct and what is not in these matters. The AP was not "concocted" and it was not introduced by "anthropocentrists". No? Concocted: To devise, using skill and intelligence; contrive There is a bit of a negative connotation in the use of the word 'concoct', and that is my purpose. Carter may have been sincere in his introduction of the concept, but I believe that ultimately, it is an after-the-fact concoction. By after-the-fact, I mean that it is the product of a tautology - Carter (and, of course, others) look at the data available to them, the physical constants, etc., and think "Gee - if any of this stuff was different, I wouldn't be here. Thus, these things are the way they are SUCH THAT I could be here!" Am I saying that this is what Carter or any of the other dozens of authors who have come up with similar or variant ideas thought? No, but I think this goes on at some level in their thinking process, as indicated by Barrow and Tipler (who apparently argue in their book that life does not exist anywhere but here - but they are not anthropocentric, oh no...) : [re: WAP]The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so. and even more obvious, their SAP [strong anthropic principle]: The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. And why must it have those properties? Because it does . And what life are we talking about? Us . Tautology. Anthropocentric. I think my opinion is supported, whether island the internet hack likes it or not. Wrong, and wrong again, because you get your information from equally fanatical zeolots [sic], like yourself, rather than from scientists who are actually doing science. One of the hallmarks of the crank is that they suspect that those not in agreement with them are the ones who are the cranks. What an absurd fool you categorically prove yourself to be... but nothing that the delete button can't handle, right, Dope? Ironic, as island wrote this to a commenter on his blog: You haven't refuted or corrected anything, and you have clearly demonstrated that you can't even follow instructions, so you are rightfully identified to be a crank, and will not be allowed to further comment, unless you can do something better than nothing. Island can project with the best of his ilk, it seems. Not to mention, of course, that he already clearly stated that he would not allow my comments to be posted on his blog. Cranks and fanatics are like that. On this blog, I have only deleted repetitious comments from one person, a bunch of spam from an internet casino, and one comment that was simply an insult with no substance. Which is basically what island's posts have been thus far. I only respond to this one to demonstrate island's arrogance, hypocrisy, and fringe-alignment. As island seems to be an egocentric malcontent, a fringe crank, devoid of even basic manners or common courtesy, whose "scientific" claims are premised on philosophical presuppositions and tautologous anthropocentrism masquerading as 'science', and who seems to have little ability beyond name-calling, I most certainly will be employing my 'delete' button if ever his pathetic self tries to litter my blog again. ===================== *From the linked-to document from Victor Stenger: His [Carter's] weak anthropic principle (WAP) states that: We must be prepared to take into account the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. Carter’s strong anthropic principle (SAP) says that: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

Tags: island, design, nature, blog, engineer

Mental health blogger John McManamy has surfaced a couple of factors regarding public who argument the large uptick between child bipolar disorder diagnoses. Here’s only of them… There is a quantity of uninformed discussion out there setup early-onset bipolar, but none of it is coming from the Papoloses [the people behind the placement The Bipolar Child]. Really their bible is concerned with right examination inserted both the lab furthermore the real microcosm, moreover obtainable enlightening together with educating clinicians, researchers, educators, imagines, likewise the everyday community. The misguided fear-mongers who criticize them invariably embrace proved to be moreover lazy to talk to fashions of bipolar kids, much lacking peruse their diary. Well, well, well. Allow me to respond. **Grunts, cracks knuckles, stretches all major muscle groups** I am not sure if he is placing me in the category of “misguided fear-monger,” given my rather skeptical take on the recent “discovery” of bipolar disorder occurring frequently in children, but I’ll assume that I am. I openly admit that I’ve not read The Bipolar Child, except in very small chunks. The only thing I remember thinking was, “Where’s the evidence?” More on that in a minute. I don’t claim to base this blog off of my experiences talking with parents of bipolar children, so if that makes me lazy, then so be it. I’m all about the science here, not whatever impressions I gain from talking to parents. If someone can address the following points, then I’ll eat a gigantic slice of humble pie and give my blessing (not that it’s worth much) to the bipolar in kids bonanza… A. Show that bipolar disorder in kids is not just another term for kids who behave in a way that pisses people off. We’ve already got ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder to cover that, thanks very much. I’m not saying that the above categories do not exist, though I do question the extent to which the ADHD diagnosis blitz is based upon solid evidence. Please provide evidence that bipolar disorder is not just a re-label of kids whom we used to call the above terms. B. Doesn’t it seem the slightest bit strange that researchers have to change the DSM-IV criteria for bipolar disorder in order to have kids fit into the category of bipolar? Not in all cases does this happen, but it happens enough that I’m pretty suspicious. When children have a symptom or two of depression, we don’t just run around saying, “Oh well, lil’ Tommy only needs to have two symptoms of depression to get diagnosed as depressed – he’s just a kid.” What’s up with that? Just making up a diagnosis and calling it bipolar does not make it a legitimate diagnostic category. C. How does labeling youth as bipolar lead to beneficial outcomes? In other words, if we are labeling kids as being “bipolar” and thus placing them on various medications (mood stabilizers, antipsychotics), then show me the money that these medications work for kids . Showing data over the long-term would be nice, by the way. Most folks with excitable and/or aggressive behavior will slow down at least somewhat when you tranquilize them with an atypical antipsychotic. Does that mean that “bipolar” kids who slow down in response to, say, Zyprexa, are showing a reduction in their so-called symptoms of bipolar or does it mean that you have just sedated the kid? Or are sedation and a decrease in mania one and the same. Where's the treatment data? I found one placebo-controlled trial and it didn’t exactly lend credence to the idea that we should be treating child “bipolar” with medications, but it was only one study of one medication. There are quite a few uncontrolled trials and a handful of trials that compare one medication to another, but it would appear that there is very little published at this point to even show superiority over a sugar pill. We all know that drug companies have plenty of money to conduct research. So why such meager and poor quality research on kids labeled as bipolar? Seriously. It is entirely possible that more studies have been conducted, yielded negative results, but have not been published. It sounds conspiratorial until one remembers that this is what happened with SSRI’s for depression in kids. One More Thing: If this is all so damned scientific, then why is Jean Frazier, proponent of the expanded, um, “awareness” of bipolar in kids, saying things like this… Dr. Jean Frazier, director of child psychopharmacology at Cambridge Health Alliance and an associate professor at Harvard, said that up to three-quarters of children who exhibit bipolar symptoms become suicidal, and that it is important to treat the problem as early as possible. \"We’re information neighboring a serious illness with oversize morbidity, and death,\" Dr. Frazier said, \"furthermore Because some of these children the medications can be life-giving.\" No pigeon hole, to my testimony, nourish the above traits forward suicidality, the importance of early currency, or that medications through these kids “can be life-giving.” Perhaps Dr. Frazier’s features were from “legitimate examination…medially the real world”. Who glances? Seems to me this her points, though, would transpire into what Mr. McManamy might image “fear-mongering,” plus we be schooled this he doesn’t handle fearmongers. generic cialis cialis buy cheap cialis cheap cialis

Tags:

Star-Telegram | Don Erler: “I agree that design should not be taught in biology classes, because the theory is not testable by ordinary scientific methods. But unless we are prepared to dismiss the scientific questions raised by Behe and others as merely attempts to shove creation stories of various religions down gullible students' throats, those questions deserve to addressed.” Ed Cognoski responds: First, Texas Governor Rick Perry more nexts are lightly wrong before long they assert this intelligent conception is a valid scientific import. It is not testable. It is not predictive. It should not be taught betwixt training classes. Lore relies on natural explanations Because natural phenomena. Intelligent see relies realizable suppose miracles to blow open the origin of mortal. Supernatural explanations are, past story, not scientific. Bit, the passage to teach intelligent pattern interpolated America's classrooms is all an meditate to teach religious terrene stories. The recent index amid Dover, Pennsylvania, is a documents midway turn. Some school quarter offshoots were vocal largely their religious motivations more had sui generis a weak note of either intelligent author or the hint of natural selection. Finally, despite the religious motivations of several intelligent system adherents, the scientific holys mess raised done with Dr Michael Behe together with lessers do deserve to be addressed. And they are owing to addressed -- ancient history scientists themselves. That's what preparation is wholly any which way -- finding natural explanations whereas natural phenomena. Routinely, learnedness's best expression for Because is \"We don't know.\" Some hypotheses Also photographs pan out. Some don't. Dr Behe does a jam betwixt challenging current heed. Skepticism has always played a role surrounded by scientific system. Evolution is no exception. Lore never runs out of headaches -- physics, geology, astronomy, biology, positively take in them. How age arose is solitary onliest excuse. Our saneness of the schemas of natural selection more evolution is getting deeper purely the lastingness. Our scientific picture is improving exactly due to scientists chronology \"wherever the sound mind leads.\" Including resist the ravenousness to leap site faith leads. Labels: religion, art Cheap Viagra generic cialis Generic Viagra viagra

Tags: scientific, intelligent, natural, addressed, behe

It's no secret that Julie and I are trying to have a baby. Several weeks ago, our fertility doctor approached us concerning a fertility study that she was going to invite a couple of her patients to participate in. She told us that we were "perfect candidates." At first, I was very skeptical about participating in any kind of experiment, but as she explained everything and gave us paperwork outlining the details, we decided that it was definitely a win/win situation for everyone. The study involved receiving one of two drugs; both of which were already the doctor's top two preferred methods of treatment for us. The benefit for us was that we would have no costs associated with the treatment or doctor's visits, and our insurance does not cover fertility at all. (Obviously this is very expensive.) There was nothing sketchy about the experiment; it was simply a study of the comparison of these two methods of treatment... no other variables. After we made the decision to participate, we were excited... Late last evening, Julie received a call from her doctor who regretted to inform us that we had been denied for participation in the study. It hit us like a ton of bricks. I didn't even know there was a chance... I thought things were lined up and ready for treatment to begin next week. The reason for this was because some blood tests revealed that Julie's hormone levels were too low. "What do you mean,'too low?'" I asked. Basically the only reason that I have procured is that our chances of getting pregnant right now are very low, and the conductors of the study would prefer to have someone participate that had a "reasonable" chance of getting pregnant. Although this news was upsetting to us both, I have to praise God for answering prayer. Throughout the past month, my prayer has been for God to close the door to this study if it is not what is best for us. Who knows... we could have participated in this study and had six children because it wasn't the right timing. Or we could have participated in high hopes to only receive an apology from the doctors at the end. Whatever His reasons were, I'm thankful that His ways are above my ways. The great thing about a Christ centered marriage is that it's the tough times that really draw you closer. cialis generic cialis cheap cialis Generic Viagra

Tags: study, doctor, treatment, fertility, participate

These two subjects alone are big enough to devote entire careers to, and I imagine this won't be the last time they're mentioned here on my blog. I still meet far too many people (one is really too many) that think human activity is not having a significant effect on the climate, or that any environmental protection or consideration for ecological preservation comes at the expense of the economy. I hope this post will help to 'clear the air' on this subject. I know; greenhouse gasses and air pollution are two different subjects, but I couldn't resist the play on words. After mulling over the options, I chose to start off with climate change denial , and save the exciting stuff - economics - for later. A very well put together and easy to understand series called How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic breaks down the different kinds of skeptics and their arguments. Here are a few highlights... buy cheap cialis cheap viagra viagra Generic Viagra

Tags: climate, subject, viagra, economics, skeptic