2007 Banner Year for Science

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by sandy, Dec 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 3 of 3
  1. (Q)

    (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I don't recall being indoctrinated into anything, nor do I know anyone who has been indoctrinated, except theists, of course. Enlightenment is just another term for "latent indoctrination."

    So, to recognize someone is indoctrinate somehow means the recognizer is also indoctrinated? Huh? :shrug:

    Hardly. Gimme a break.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    (Q), Dec 25, 2007
    #41

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    A collection of American standard definitions of the word indoctrinate:
    • To instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief
    • To imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion or point of view
    • To teach uncritically
    • To fill with a certain set of opinions or beliefs
    • And last: to teach
    The nature of this discussion clearly obviates the last meaning, which in any case is practically obsolete.

    Thus is religious indoctrination distinguished from scientific education. Scientists, science teachers, and science itself urge critical thinking. It directs against adopting biased, partisan and sectarian beliefs.

    I suppose a science education could begin by asking us to believe in the fundamental principle of science: that the natural universe is a closed system that can be understood and predicted by logically deriving theories from empirical observations of its behavior--i.e., by practicing the scientific method. But it quickly applies that method to this belief itself, first by studying the empirical observations and logically derived theories that form the body of science, and then by demanding that we repeat some of those observations--which we're increasingly free to choose for ourselves--to see whether we agree with the logically derived theories. In other words we all start out as peer reviewers of those who came before us. We are not asked to accept anything as a matter of doctrine--we are not indoctrinated.

    In other words, Superstring is wrong. Science stands in opposition to religion because it demands that we observe and reason, rather than believe what somebody else tells us.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Dec 26, 2007
    #42

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hercules Rockefeller

    Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    I added an emphasis to put your comment in perspective. :bugeye:

    Until such time that we know for sure that the technique will remove the need to utilize embryos as a source of embryonic stem cells, research utilizing embryos must continue.


    “They” haven’t “proved” anything, you fool.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And what you’ve been “saying about stem cells all along” has been a load of shit like everything else you spout. I very much doubt you know the first thing about the techniques to which you are referring. This is evident from your non-specific and vague reference to the generic term “stem cells”. That you don’t understand the difference between pluripotent stem cells (so-called “embryonic stem cells”) and lineage-restricted stem cells (so-called “adult stem cells”) speaks volumes for your level of understanding of the subject.

    And, of course, this new technique of genetically engineering skin cells to become embryonic stem cell-like cells (the scientists in question have coined the term "induced pluripotent stem" (iPS) cells) could not have occurred if it wasn’t for all the embryonic stem cell research that has already occurred. And it will not be able to advance further without continuing parallel embryonic research as a comparison. But I’m sure your religious brainwashing and wilful ignorance will safely ignore this fact.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    More lying for Jesus? It’s certainly more evidence that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Unlike you who simply makes things up and draws what little knowledge you have from Fox News and other mass media, I have worked as a research scientist in an area of stem cell research. (Not directly in the field of ES cells and regenerative medicine, mind you, but more in the field of neural stem cell functioning during embryonic CNS development.) I can say from actual experience that there is absolutely no consensus opinion on whether embryonic stem cells or lineage-restricted stem cells will be more useful in the future. Research into both is necessary.

    When it comes to repopulating the bone marrow with new hematopoietic stem cells during cancer treatment or therapy for hematopoietic-related genetic disease, adult stem cell therapy is a reality. But that’s it. Hematopoietic stem cells are the only ‘adult’ stem cell that can be routinely extracted and, thus, bone marrow applications are the only adult stem cell therapies that exist as routine procedures.

    Some scientists like to speculate that hematopoietic stem cells can be manipulated such that they escape their lineage restriction and can be introduced into hearts and brains as cellular therapy (ie. they can be converted into heart and neural stem cells). Whilst there is some evidence in animal (and some human) experiments to support this, there are many problems associated with using hematopoietic stem cells in this way and it is a long way from becoming routine. That pluripotent embryonic stem cells can be directed into any lineage is a major advantage over ‘adult’ stem cells.

    The fact of the matter is this: there are no clear indications as to whether embryonic stem cells or ‘adult’ stem cells will be more useful in the future for cellular therapies and regenerative medicine. Each type has their pros and cons, their advantages and disadvantages, and both types must be researched. Anyone who says that there is no need to research embryonic stem cells is a moron who knows nothing of what they are talking about.
     
    Hercules Rockefeller, Dec 26, 2007
    #43

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Hey Herk, we all get angry occasionally and as an evangelist for the Forces of Darkness on a science website Sandy certainly knows how to push our anger buttons. You've proven her wrong and if she was deliberately lying that could qualify her for a warning. (We don't give infractions anymore, just warnings until we're exasperated enough and then we ban 'em.) But this is a pretty arcane subject and if she was merely ignorant, as so many people are, it's not the same thing as lying.

    I'm on the side of science but, like Sandy, all I know about stem cell research is what I can find in the lay press. I didn't know any of what you just presented. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she's the med school dropout she claims to be, that's no guarantee that she's qualified to obtain, read and understand the right journals to keep abreast of developments like these.

    You've peer-reviewed her assertion and disproven it. That's the scientific method at work. It's not a lie unless she posts it a second time after having failed a peer review. In that case it's simply trolling and that is a violation of the rules.

    There is no need to start violating the rules yourself and tossing around personal insults. I've done it, we've all done it, and we all cut each other some slack. That means we cut her some slack too. I've had posts of mine deleted for speaking the way you just did.

    So settle down and behave like a scientist. Prove her wrong, publicize it, and let the membership see science at work. That's good enough.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Dec 27, 2007
    #44
  8. John99

    John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I am not sure about where stand on stem cell issue and clearly there will be biased attacks in regards to motive. If we can discuss this like adults and not be saddled with this BS as in every single evolution debate then i would like to add this to the discussion:

    http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html

    Is that correct or not? And since the scientist who posted here is not from U.S then why would he be so angry? Cant he do research with any stem cells he likes?
     
    John99, Dec 27, 2007
    #45
  9. Exhumed

    Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Instead of insulting Sandy, giver her a really sarcastic :thumbsup: after debunking her.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Exhumed, Dec 27, 2007
    #46
  10. John99

    John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Do you even read the posts^....ha ha just kidding.
     
    John99, Dec 27, 2007
    #47
  11. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No it's not correct. Herc demolished that argument in great detail right here on this thread. He's got the credentials and the sources. Impressive results have been achieved with embryonic stem cells. Research is not a one-step process and to say this research is a failure, because somebody injected them into a human to cure a condition and they didn't work, is to not understand science even remotely. Or to deliberately misrepresent data, which is a far worse offense; we ban people from SciForums for doing that only once.

    I don't see how this argument can be separated from abortion because one of the primary sources of ESCs is aborted fetuses. The other is surplus embryos from fertility clinics. Regardless of where the author of this article lives (I hesitate to call him a scientist because he is not practicing good science here), if he is opposed to abortion then we can guess his reason for opposing ESC research with about 99.9999% accuracy.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Dec 27, 2007
    #48
  12. Hercules Rockefeller

    Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    Okay, point taken.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sandy really does push my buttons with her nonsense. I'll try to rise above her level and stay calm in the future.
     
    Hercules Rockefeller, Dec 28, 2007
    #49
  13. John99

    John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Banned FOR what? Asking questions in a thread?

    Show me where he demolished 'that argument'. It IS separate from abortion issue, either they are necessary or they are not. Do you think everyone has an agenda? Maybe the OP does, how should i know?

    There is still Europe, Asia and the rest of the world that can still do the research and so can the U.S.
     
    John99, Dec 28, 2007
    #50
  14. Frud11

    Frud11 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    567
    Who thinks the US can maintain its leadership with technology, esp. semiconductors?
    Dare I say the place appears to have been encumbered recently with a leadership who sees science as some kind of necessary evil, and has cut funding accordingly.
     
    Frud11, Dec 28, 2007
    #51
  15. sandy

    sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    I chose to get people saved for eternity. Not just for their time here on earth. BEST decision I EVER made.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sandy, Dec 28, 2007
    #52
  16. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I've kind of lost track of who's responding to what. The bans I referred to were for deliberately lying and for misrepresenting science. In one case a former member edited excerpts from a paper that he posted, so that it appeared to support a position that it did not. This is a far worse offense than ordinary trolling, such as the expression of a patently unscientific or antiscientific opinion.
    Well it looked like a complete demolition to me. Perhaps others did not see it that way.
    ESC research will be nearly impossible if the anti-abortion movement were to gain political control over the world community.
    Sandy, this is a place of SCIENCE. The essence of science is the thesis that the natural universe is a CLOSED SYSTEM whose behavior can be understood and predicted by deriving theories LOGICALLY from EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION of its past and present behavior. And lest that thesis be denounced as a "belief," it is recursive and is validated by continuous peer review in accordance with the scientific method.

    To state that people have an "eternal" life outside the scope of "their time here on earth" is unsupported by any empirical observations of the natural universe and, therefore, becomes an EXTRAORDINARY ASSERTION. In accordance with the scientific method, it must be immediately accompanied by EXTRAORDINARY SUBSTANTIATION. Since at its core it is a theory postulating the existence of a supernatural universe which:
    • cannot be empirically observed, and
    • is derived from irrational faith rather than logical reasoning,
    this substantiation cannot be provided.

    Therefore, to make this statement on one of the science boards is trolling, which is against the rules. You may make such statements on the boards specifically set aside for unscientific and antiscientific discussion: Religion and Crackpottery. In addition, if you wish to contest the validity of the scientific method you are urged to do so on the Philosophy board, but you'd better be prepared for more rigorous debate than you encounter over here.

    To clarify the point that this is not just a rhetorical complaint: What you promote is a doctrine that causes people pain, misery, grief and even early death, in return for unobservable benefits promised by a theory of the universe leftover from the Stone Age. This theory has failed every peer review in the history of science, is bereft of logic, has absolutely no empirical support, and is used to justify a doctrine that is all cost and no benefit.

    It does not belong in a place of science. To promote it here is trolling and you are hereby on notice to cease pursuing this argument without abiding by the scientific method and providing the required substantiation.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Dec 28, 2007
    #53
  17. sandy

    sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    I missed this. Nice personal attack/character assassination.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How do you get away with this sh!t? If I said anything close to this I would be banned. Dead babies stem cells are not going to fix/help anyone/anything. I know embryonic stem cell research is a pathetic joke with no good outcome. It is a useless waste of research money.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sandy, Dec 29, 2007
    #54
  18. sandy

    sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    WTF? All that for my one-sentence response ("I chose to get people saved for eternity") to a question about why I chose this over neurosurgery???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    WTF?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sandy, Dec 29, 2007
    #55
  19. Hercules Rockefeller

    Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    Wrong again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    For a start ES cells are not isolated from babies. That is a deliberately imprecise and emotive term that is typical of religiously brainwashed people pushing their own moral agenda.


    Oh, I see. You know this do you? And this is your opinion is a scientist? As a doctor? As anyone who actually understands what they are talking about? :shrug:

    Anyone with even half a brain can see through your wilfully ignorant rubbish. Contrary to the little fantasy world that you live in, there are many experiments in animal models that have demonstrated the ability of ES cells in regenerative therapies. There are still many technical hurdles to overcome, but this does not diminish their potential usefulness.

    It took me all of a minute to find some specific peer-reviewed scientific publications that demonstrate the awesome usefulness of ES cells, and cells derived from ES cells, in regenerative therapeutic applications. There are hundreds more.

    Here is hard science in contrast to your unsupported nonsense. Have a read and try educating yourself. Unfortunately, as is typical of the wilfully ignorant and religiously brainwashed, I’m sure you won’t.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Human Embryonic Stem Cell–Derived Cells Rescue Visual Function in Dystrophic RCS Rats
    CLONING AND STEM CELLS Volume 8, Number 3, 2006

    Differentiation in vivo of Cardiac Committed Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Post-myocardial Infarcted Rats
    Tomescot et al.
    Stem Cells doi:10.1634/stemcells.2007-0133 (2007)

    Tissue Engineering with Chondrogenically-differentiated Human Embryonic Stem Cells
    Koay et al.
    Stem Cells doi:10.1634/stemcells.2007-0105 (2007)

    Patient-Specific Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Parthenogenetic Blastocysts
    Revazova et al.
    Cloning and Stem Cells doi:10.1089/clo.2007.0033 (2007)

    Tissue Engineering with Chondrogenically-differentiated Human Embryonic Stem Cells
    Koay et al.
    Stem Cells doi:10.1634/stemcells.2007-0105 (2007)
     
    Hercules Rockefeller, Dec 29, 2007
    #56
  20. sandy

    sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    Life begins at conception.

    Fetal stem cell research is bs. It's an abject failure. You know it and I know it. Nothing good is going to come from dead babies. Rodents are not humans. And darn those immune systems and tumors. They keep messing up the dead baby research.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You can drop the personal attacks. They're weak.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=StemCell.Home

    http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimony/prentice3.htm
     
    sandy, Dec 29, 2007
    #57
  21. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No. Just call that the last straw. You've been posting unscientific and antiscientific one-liners all over our boards and you need to stop. It's trolling.

    And you've truncated your post in order to misquote yourself and make my own remark appear unfair. Your response in fact contained two sentences:
    This was not just a casual statement of religious faith that can be dismissed as a personal aside. This was an oxymoronic assertion that people continue to live after their lives end, made specifically to justify your previously stated judgment that it's okay to fail to alleviate their suffering or prolong their lives because there is a benefit that will justify that cost. This is an extraordinary assertion. If you make this assertion again on SciForums without hewing to the scientific method and providing the requested extraordinary substantiation, it will be an instance of trolling.
    Herc, I am attempting to demonstrate the proper way to respond to unscientific and antiscientific postings. Please be a scientist. Inflammatory language accomplishes nothing and personal attacks are just as much a violation of our rules as trolling. If you can't stop yourself from taking Sandy's bait, please put her on your Ignore List. But I would much prefer to continue reading the rational, scientific parts of your posts. That is all that is needed to rebut her arguments. You cite medical research journals; she cites political propaganda. We can all tell the difference.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Dec 29, 2007
    #58
Page 3 of 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page