Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Skepticism / Science Talk / Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Last post by CarbShark on Today at 05:06:32 PM »
The majority, who have no invested capital whatsoever, are assuredly not shareholders.

Don't the majority, in the West at least, at least have some moeny in mutual investment funds?

Can't speak for the majority, but I certainly don't.

No 401k, IRA or Pension? 

You better hope Democratic candidates start winning, because your life will one day depend on your Social Security checks if you don't start one of those soon.
Just because you're privileged enough to be able to put some away for later doesn't mean most people are.

Quote
  In fact, the vast majority of Americans have under $1,000 saved and half of all Americans have nothing at all put away for retirement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/heres-how-many-americans-have-nothing-at-all-saved-for-retirement.html

Then we better all start hoping that democratic candidates start winning, otherwise we're all fucked.  (Since when does working hard, and watching every penny equate with privilege?)
2
Books / Re: Which books would you consider timeless?
« Last post by stands2reason on Today at 05:00:39 PM »
The movie adaptations of 1984 vs 451 are diametrically opposed. Nineteen Eight-Four (1984) is basically exact whereas Fahrenheit 451 (1966) is like they barely tried to follow the book.
3
Forum Administration and Rules / Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Last post by SkeptiQueer on Today at 04:59:57 PM »
Would you like to start by critically examining the strawman in your post?

How is the US law on hate speech relevant to this forum's rules?

Good point. I wasn't trying to argue that private platforms don't have the right to additionally regulate speech on them. I brought it up because I am suggesting that it might be relevant to look at a consistent, logically thought out, objective(?), legal standard of hate speech (with examples and case law) might inform the discussion. Unless there is some vehement disgust with the US version of hate speech laws, and maybe another version is better?


Why would we presume the US case law is consistent, logically thought out, or objective? Case law is done piecemeal by judges based on lawsuits and trials, not by careful consideration. We'd be better off looking at a country that wrote hate speech laws intentionally rather than by accident. Further, I still don't know why we're looking at any country's laws in the discussion of this forum's rules.

We're just going to ignore the strawman in the post I quoted then? Not even going to acknowledge it?
4
Books / Re: Which books would you consider timeless?
« Last post by seamas on Today at 04:48:43 PM »
Fahrenheit 451

My son just started reading this for 9th grade English.
I was reading it along with him the other night. I forgot just how overly flowery the writing is. Great story though.
5
First, skepticism and atheism are not the same thing. Most skeptics are atheists, but the reverse is certainly not true.

I don't understand this. It is "certainly not true that most atheists are skeptics"? I mean, theism is a form of magical thinking, so there is some kind of skepticism going on. BTW, how do we measure the number [scientific] skeptics? I don't believe there is any survey that counts skpetics like the Pew Religion Poll we would use for atheists/agnostic. I am not convinced that the relative size of the two groups is that different.

However, this thread does highlight the popularity of "none" label. It seems skeptics are now endorsing the narrative that atheists are cynical/mean people (the bad kind of "skeptic")? So, the literal word for "no belief in a personal God" is a bad word again—and then there were "Nones".
6
It's a dead link.

Weird...sorry.  I fixed the link in the OP.

Here it is: https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/10/11/turing-recreates-lunar-landing/
Thanks.

I'm not sure how it proves/disproves anything about moon landings and/or hoax conspiracies.

It demonstrates they have some neat technology to provide near realistic looking visuals via computer software/hardware. But realistic visuals have been possible for a long time via other methods.
7
Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine / Re: Wansink.
« Last post by jt512 on Today at 04:15:32 PM »

Steven Novella is an advocate of ‘science based medicine,’ but actually the best we can do in most cases is ‘evidence based medicine’ (infectious diseases and Koch’s postulates excluded) when we don’t really know much about the science involved.  It’s a mistake to take unproven hypotheses, such as raised blood lipids are the cause of atherosclerosis, and weave fantasies concerning treatment out of it.

First you don’t understand the distinction Novella makes between Evidence Based Medicine and Science Based Medicine.

But, by ether measure, a high carb diet, especially high in processed carbs, contributes to chronic disease.

Also, you seem to fully accept their claim that there is a U-shaped curve for carbohydrate consumption, but suggest that only applies to the Low-carb portion of the U.

What about the high carb side?  The evidence you rely on disproves your own argument.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The study in Lancet showed a steep increase in mortality with lower carbohydrates and a less steep increase in mortality with higher carbohydrates, so low carbohydrate diets appear to be more lethal than high carbohydrate diets.

What the Lancet study actually showed is that on average in the population studied mortality increased with decreasing carbohydrate intake.  But the study showed that this average is misleading: the effect on mortality depends on whether carbohydrate is replaced by animal foods or plant foods.  When carbohydrates are replaced by animal fat and protein, mortality increases; when carbohydrates are replaced by plant fat and protein, mortality decreases.  Thus the take-home message from this study is not that low-carbohydrate diets are bad; it's that low-carbohydrate, high-animal-source diets are bad; but low-carbohydrate, high-plant-source diets are good.
8
I'm definitely reading this OP as meaning "participation in the wider community of atheists" when saying "atheism" and same for skepticism.  Not the mindset/worldview in isolation, but the community.

EG.  Given "I was shocked how many mentioned atheism and skepticism as part of that process."  I am not hearing "I was shocked how many mentioned believing in no gods and valuing critical thinking as part of that process."  I am hearing "I was shocked how many mentioned active participation in the atheist and skeptic communities as part of that process."
9
General Discussion / Re: Sealioning
« Last post by John Albert on Today at 04:06:06 PM »
The purpose of a disparagement is to disparage.

If you call somebody an "idiot," the implication is that they're mentally deficient.

If you call somebody a "liar," the implication is that they're untruthful.

If you call somebody a "sealion," the implication is that they're dishonestly trying to harass you and waste your time.

The purpose is evident merely by the choice of words, without any need to assume.
10
Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine / Re: Wansink.
« Last post by bachfiend on Today at 03:54:34 PM »

Steven Novella is an advocate of ‘science based medicine,’ but actually the best we can do in most cases is ‘evidence based medicine’ (infectious diseases and Koch’s postulates excluded) when we don’t really know much about the science involved.  It’s a mistake to take unproven hypotheses, such as raised blood lipids are the cause of atherosclerosis, and weave fantasies concerning treatment out of it.

First you don’t understand the distinction Novella makes between Evidence Based Medicine and Science Based Medicine.

But, by ether measure, a high carb diet, especially high in processed carbs, contributes to chronic disease.

Also, you seem to fully accept their claim that there is a U-shaped curve for carbohydrate consumption, but suggest that only applies to the Low-carb portion of the U.

What about the high carb side?  The evidence you rely on disproves your own argument.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The study in Lancet showed a steep increase in mortality with lower carbohydrates and a less steep increase in mortality with higher carbohydrates, so low carbohydrate diets appear to be more lethal than high carbohydrate diets.

Also high glycaemic score diets (ie high carbohydrate diets) are an added fourth risk factor for type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and dementia - along with being overweight or obese, being sedentary, and consuming excessive simple sugars - if you’re overweight or obese.  Only if you’re overweight or obese.

I’m very lean.  My BMI is around 19.2 kg/m^2 (towards the lower end of the healthy range of 18.5 to 25).  I probably weigh less than when I was 20, studying medicine at university, and being more sedentary that I should have been (and also under stress, eating hospital food, and not yet a vegetarian).  So the high carbohydrate end of the curve doesn’t apply to me.  I’m one of the lucky minority who has managed to avoid the current epidemic of being overweight or obese.

The interesting question isn’t why the majority of the population in developed countries are overweight or obese, or in the process of becoming overweight - because they’ve fallen for the myth that it’s normal to put on weight and body fat as they age (Willett states it’s as bad going from a BMI of 20 to 25 as it is to be overweight).  The interesting question is how the minority of the population have managed to remain lean for their entire lifespans.  Is it diet?  Is it their habits?  Or both?  If we can determine the answers to these questions, then we’d be able to formulate better advice.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
personate-rain