Stem cell research

Alien_Sniper said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I have detailed arguments to support such claims, but they are of necessity rather long.</DIV></DIV>

If you have them handy, I'd be interested in reading what you have to say.

i second the thought, in spite of the fact that i disagree with parts of this thread, it still had some well thought out responses.. for the most part, no one blatantly attacked another's point of view.. which i find exceedingly refreshing.

even if i disagree with yours too mike, i would still respect your right to have it.

fishy said:

Tracer Bullet said:
I don't mean to denigrate religion or "ancient knowledge" as you put it, ..............

No, no, no. Two different things. What I meant was that many people will often close their minds to something just because it comes from [what has become] a religious source.

That's not really how I meant it either, but I guess it didn't come out quite right. I know what you mean. My original comment was directed at individuals who use scientific principles or knowledge to make a religious point whilst getting their facts wrong. In many cases it doesn't really hurt their basic premise because the scientific bit is just an example which might as well be fictional anyway, but to me it makes them sound incredibly ignorant.

I think my apparent characterization of the reason/religion relationship was not quite what I meant to say either. When I say "reason", I'm thinking "scientific method", which isn't really correct. The mixing of religion and the scientific method leads to pseudo science. I have no problem with religion, I am in fact religious to a degree, but pseudo-science offends me greatly. It is a bastardization of truth that produces semi-plausible lies designed to support fallacious faith-based ideas. A prime example is the "theory" of intelligent design, or the "discipline" of "creation science".

IMO, science answers the "how", and religion answers the "why". One of
the biggest problems with the major religions is that sometimes they
also try (and fail) to explain the "how" when that is really the domain
of science. Worse, people who are fed up with religion's bogus
explanations of the "how" - the notion that earth was made in 7 days,
the notion that evolution is wrong, etc - often reject religion
altogether, when they are really missing the main point which is
answering the "why".

Science is just as bad. If you ask a biologist why we are here, he
would probably say "we are here because over millions of years we
evolved from animals". This is scientifically correct, but the
biologist answered the wrong question - he answered "how" we got here,
not "why" we are here.

Likewise, if you ask a physicist why like charges repel and opposite
charges attract, he might answer that it has to do with the quantum
interactions between subatomic particles. However, the physicist didn't
actually answer the question, he just broke it into smaller peices. Why
do those subatomic interactions occur? At some level science has to say
"this is true because we observe it to be true".

On the other hand, if you ask a Buddhist why we are here, he might
answer that our purpose here is to remove ignorance, hate, suffering
and ultimately reach nirvana. Of course all of that is unprovable, but
at least the Buddhist tried to answer the question you asked.

The ultimate scientific view of the world is that there are no answers
to any "why" questions. We are here because we are here. Life has no
meaning. There are no such things as right and wrong or good and evil.
There's no reason to do anything so you might as well just go die. Or
not, it really doesn't matter. Anyways I find that take on the world
very hard to swallow.

500 years ago you could also have argued that science doesn't really answer any "how's", too; who's to say it will never answer the why's? Science does not say there are "no answers to any why questions" at all.

And yes, religion does exist to answer the "why's", but I think it's come about because people who believe there must be some meaning or purpose to the Universe- who think that everything happens for a reason, or some such- assign it to something essentially human-like (who must also have reasons and purposes, among other things) but also unknowable. (As an atheist I deny that it worked the other way round!)

Personally, I'm quite happy with the view that life has no meaning, but it could also have a meaning that we just don't know yet :smile: Perhaps there is a condition of observation that just makes these things true- such as when we view interactive subatomic particles- and gives the question "why" meaning only in our head.

IMO, science answers the "how", and religion answers the "why". One of the biggest problems with the major religions is that sometimes they also try (and fail) to explain the "how" when that is really the domain of science. Worse, people who are fed up with religion's bogus explanations of the "how" - the notion that earth was made in 7 days, the notion that evolution is wrong, etc - often reject religion altogether, when they are really missing the main point which is answering the "why".

Er ... did you get kicked in the head today?

Science and Religion are completely different areas of study. THEY BOTH QUESTION AND ANSWER. The only difference is: Religion assumes something is true and finds evidence to support it, while science assumes something is true and tries to find evidence that disproves it. The why and how don't matter, they both respectively ask why and answer how.

If you're familiar with any sort of human logic, you'd know that it's rather easy to prove something exists, but much harder to disprove it. Likewise, you're prone to remember good things about situations and forget the negative things. You can see something that isn't there by suggestion ... all of this is very intertwined.

Leperous said:
500 years ago you could also have argued that science doesn't really answer any "how's", too; who's to say it will never answer the why's?

The scientific method is based around drawing conclusions and making models that describe measurable data. The only reason WHY a scientific theory is true is because it agrees with our observations - in other words, its true because its true. By definition that is the extent to which science can explain the "why".

Double post.

Ok, but that's not to say that there cannot be some kind of advanced scientific method that can explain "why". In the past we made theorems based on what we observed, and nowadays we often make predictions of things instead which we have not yet observed. I'm sure that in 1000 or 1000000 years time it'll have progressed much further :smile:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3959783.stm

"US scientists have successfully restored a woman's vision using eye cells taken from aborted foetuses."

Although at the end, the article says "retinal stem cells taken from adults were capable of forming the cells needed to repair damaged eyes" which would "overcome some of the ethical concerns," it is research all the same on foetus' which have been aborted (and hence have lost their potential to become humans any more). It should accelerate stem cell knowledge and perhaps one day let us take cells from adults and thus avoid upsetting people in the future, and save/better more lives!

On another controversial topic- what about growing babies for "organs"? :smile: Though that's simplifying things somewhat- what if you could engineer a foetus to simply grow into a heart or lungs or kidneys? (and nothing else, no head etc.- I believe it has been done with animals)

If you have them handy, I'd be interested in reading what you have to say.

Well, here they are: religion essays. The most relevant one is probably "(5) Evil". My ideas have changed a little since then, but since it's not a subject I'm actively pursuing, I'm not going to organise my thoughts any further. Philosophy can easily occupy a lifetime if one is not careful :wink:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3959783.stm

"US scientists have successfully restored a woman's vision using eye cells taken from aborted foetuses."

I got excited then, but it appears to be degenerative disease that this technique treats.. but hey, it's one step closer :smile:

Leperous said:
"US scientists have successfully restored a woman's vision using eye cells taken from aborted foetuses."

well, i just had to look it up.. its a word, not very common in spelling, buts a word..

i thought you were deliberately either misspelling it or somehow making it pluralized.

thankfully, the majority of the english speaking works spells it fetus.. nice short version :smile:

off topic:

i have noticed in this potter book, many, many words that have little or no meaning to me, i can only ascertain their definition due to the sentence structure.. IE "he is having another row with her" .

someday, i would like to get together with everyone here, and create a list of words, ones we all use but with corresponding words from other countries.. i am not particularly referring to alternate-spelled words like "color and colour" but words like "row and argue"

Er well, 60 odd million people use it here, as do the French in their use of English, and no doubt Germans etc..

Tis your mother tongue, show some respect :wink:

American English seems to have dropped lots of words from UK English
over the years - I used one on IRC just the other day which wasn't
known, I believe it was boffin (probably speaking about myself, hah).

I wouldn't try and compile a list, cultural differences dictate we have
a vast plethora of words that wouldn't apply (or aren't used in) to the
US - it's mainly related to the ages of the two nations, I expect.

edit: as for row, it's mainly used in the sense "They had a row" (and
its not prounounced like the boating activity for those who haven't
heard it) - or, "they were rowing". Having said that, we still use the
words argument/argue just as much.

People tend to freely alternate between different words without a thought of why they are doing it.

Gwil said:
Er well, 60 odd million people use it here, as do the French in their use of English, and no doubt Germans etc..

first off, i looked the word up , as i clearly stated..

Main Entry: foe?tal, foe?tus
chiefly British variant of FETAL, FETUS

in this way, i would look a bit less stupid this time..

i based my comment on the words "chiefly British variant"

now, try as hard not to be as stupid :razz: .. 60 od million, although a healthy figure, is tiny in the grand scheme of things..

british english is not the same as it was say?? 200 years ago, and neither is american english, so it is my considered opinion that our languages are about the same ages in their present form.. so respect, is not an option. :heee:

my goal for the list? it would be fun, and sometimes i would like to use a word you may be familiar with to forstall a misunderstanding.. sometimes when i use a word, i KNOW its definition, but i may not KNOW its impact across the pond.

A) it was a joke about the mother tongue

B) continental countries tend to be as vehemently anti-American as us, i'm fairly sure they use UK english.

So that's about 200 million people, about the same as America.
Unfortunately, it means that the rest of the developing nations adopt
your version, which, is another pet hate of mine :razz: They should learn
English, from English origin :razz:

As for the list - I think it sways back to the pissant point - a
negative phrase on both sides of the water without a doubt - more it is
to do with you choosing your words more wisely :smile: That phrase even had
an expletive for pities sake...

edit: but thats water under the bridge, such a list would be far, far
too time consuming to compile - either way you can count me out, i'll
stick with my British arrogance, ta :wink:

and this thread is about stem cell research! roll on!

communication is learning what a person is saying, not what you think it means.

it is not my job to type in a british fashion, and more than it is for you to type in an american one.. if i type pissant, or prick, it is entirely your job to establish, "did orph mean it this way or not?"

but seriously, this has happened to more than just you and i, its just at this moment, you and i are the only two participants in the conversation..

i felt bad that you and lep took the words out of my context meaning, but i can only not use them again, i will not change my definition to appease your senses of values.. neither word are offensive to me, so all i can do is refrain from using them.

no one should be forced to consider every possible outcome of a reply, in the unlikely event someone will take it poorly.. it is much easier to learn how each person is, and work from there.. orph would never say pissant=insignificant, because his history dictates he would never deliberately comment poorly on another's home.. that even was regrettable, but i hope something was learned from it..

for the record, a topic may be derailed, but it is not set in stone, if i feel someone is confused about something, i will do my best to help them back onto the path of non-confusion.. this topic is about stem cell research, but you are confused about communication.. i would rather you not be confused.

as i said, i regret the incident, but i do not feel compelled to do any pennance for it.

Maybe so, and I understand what you're saying - and I agree,
international misunderstandings will happen between languages/cultures.
Having said that however, sometimes it is wise to exercise just a
teensy bit of common sense - i'm only referring to the pissant example

• you only have to look at the word to see the word "piss" :razz: Kind of

explains it all really :smile:

Like I say, I think a list would be a long and arduous task, and it has
more to do with peoples own standards/methods of constructing
sentences.. There's so many wild cards in the equation it would be nigh
on impossible to do it.

Most of the words that aren't in your cultures language are mainly
inoffensive, weird adjectives and nouns from history. The situation of
stepping in a proverbial cow pat is few and far between, in reality.

In fact, it's only happened once here? :smile: I'm not saying it's not a
good idea, but to steal your phrase - tis more of a moot point, than
anything else.

That's my main point. For all the troubles/research/brain racking
involved to compile such a list, the benefits it would reap, are minimal, at best. :smile:

Edit: but please, do it if you desire - this isn't a round about way of saying "dont do it", i'm just explaining how I see it.

edit edit: on with stem cell research! either way I have to go to work :sad: (albeit for 2 hours, bwahah, i love being rich)

we have a small ant, its called a pissant.. its a tiny thing, its not called a pissant because it smells like piss, its not called pissant because its insignificant.. its called pissant, because it stings/bites the piss out of you..

thats out definition locally..

but it is also a very tiny ant, even by ant comparisons.. i have stopped using the word to non-americans, that the best you can hope for..

pissant=tiny

we have a small ant, its called a pissant.. its a tiny thing,
its not called a pissant because it smells like piss, its not called
pissant because its insignificant.. its called pissant, because it
stings/bites the piss out of you..

thats out definition locally..

but it is also a very tiny ant, even by ant comparisons.. i have
stopped using the word to non-americans, that the best you can hope
for..

pissant=tiny

I know what it means, foo'! :razz: It just has negative connotations over
here - to label something as pissant usually means tiny, and
insignificant - even worthless. I use it a s a derogotary (sp?) phrase
myself!

Anyhoo, carry on...

And so does any American movie that I've seen it used in.

i hadn't realized american movies were a source of word definitions, but its nice to know that hollywood understands pissant means tiny as well..

thanx for that bit of trivia.

I think Maze's point is a good one. And Crono, I don't think you've got it quite right. Only misguided religious thought bothers looking for evidence (in the scientific sense), and scientists do NOT make assumptions in the sense that you are referring to. We put forward hypotheses which is much more akin to an educated guess than an assumption. The key difference is that we recognize and accept the high potential for flaws in the model, while assumptions on the other hand are blind.

I also take issue with your assertion about proof. It is MUCH harder to prove that something exists (or is true) than to disprove it. In fact, when you come down to it, science never actually proves anything. Think about it. Consider classical physics (Newtonian mechanics etc.): It is an excellent model, and for hundreds of years people "knew" that it was true, yet it was never proved. There was a preponderance of evidence in it's favor, it could be used to make accurate predictions about most of the observable world, and yet, it was spectacularly wrong on the atomic scale. It took only three key pieces of evidence to completely overturn mankind's understanding of the universe: black-body radiation, the photoelectric effect, and electron diffraction. In just ten years and three basic observations the theory was disproved, where hundreds of years of previous experimentation could not prove it. This is how it always works. The gold standard of science is prediction. If your model can predict events in the natural world than you know it's valid, but only in those situations where you have tested it. You cannot know what situation might cause the model to fail utterly. You cannot imagine and test all possible situations.

As you say, looking for holes in a theory that might make it fail is a big part of testing model, but simply saying "we couldn't find any evidence to the contrary" is no argument. You have to present evidence that supports your model.

Mathematics is the only discipline in which absolute truth exists. In math you can prove relationships and models absolutely, but only within the confines of the equations you are using. Using maxwell's equations, scientists in the early 20th century could prove absolutely that the black-body radiation they were observing was impossible, yet it was there because their equations did not describe the nature of the radiation accurately.

On the question of "why" vs. "how" I think you are wrong, Maze that scientists are asking and answering "how". For example, ask yourself the ageless question: Why are we here?

You say that the religious answer of "making the world a better place" or "glorifying god" is somehow better than the scientific take: "to perpetuate the species". Science does in fact answer the "why"s it just does so in a cynical cold way that doesn't make you feel all worm and fuzzy inside. But stop and think about what I just said. I'm sure you're thinking "SEX", but that's not the whole, or even most of the battle. "Perpetuating the species" encompasses the whole gamut of human endeavor. Everything you do in life has an effect on the social and individual evolution of humanity. While individual evolution is largely dead in modern society, social evolution is alive and well. I, as a scientist, might say the the purpose of my life (why I am here) is to add to the collective knowledge of humanity. That sounds almost religious but it gets back to the central concrete goal and purpose of perpetuating the species.

Now in terms of the "why's" of the physical world, I happen to find observation and mechanistic explanation much more satisfying than "because god made it that way" Every time I hear a parent answer a child's question with this phrase I want to kick them in the balls just to make sure they can't have any more. You might argue that "because god made it that way" is no worse than "because we observe it to be true", but there is a key difference. The religious way is a dead-end. There is nowhere else to go with that thought. However, with the observation we can still explore, we can delve deeper into the observation and ask "what causes it to behave this way?"

I think in the end you may be right about physics, Maze. At first we though matter was indivisible, then it was made of indivisible atoms, then neutrons protons and electrons, and now we know there are a whole host of smaller particles that make up the original subatomics. I don't think there is a bottom to this well. I think we'll keep finding smaller and smaller constituents of the universe for time unending. Oh, wait... I guess I mean "until the heat death of the universe" not "time unending". My bad.

Orpheus said:
i hadn't realized american movies were a source of word definitions, but its nice to know that hollywood understands pissant means tiny as well..

thanx for that bit of trivia.

Where did you think the rest of the world gets exposure to americanisms, the The New York Times?

But, once again, you misquote or twist words to suit yourself.

The last thing Gwil said was, that he would use pissant as a degoratory term. I said 'so do American movies'. And, as far as I remember, so do you. Now you're just being a prick, by taking your original standpoint that it only means small, even after previously agreeing that it was a derogatory term.

It's enough to make a normal person wonder why you would do that. Not for too long, though.

fishy said:

Orpheus said:
i hadn't realized american movies were a source of word definitions, but its nice to know that hollywood understands pissant means tiny as well..

thanx for that bit of trivia.

Where did you think the rest of the world gets exposure to americanisms, the The New York Times?

But, once again, you misquote or twist words to suit yourself.

The last thing Gwil said was, that he would use pissant as a degoratory term. I said 'so do American movies'. And, as far as I remember, so do you. Now you're just being a prick, by taking your original standpoint that it only means small, even after previously agreeing that it was a derogatory term.

It's enough to make a normal person wonder why you would do that. Not for too long, though.

It is a derogatory word, but only very mildly so. I've never heard it used as an actual insult. It has a friendly joking connotation in my mind.

i have never changed my opinion, or standpoint of the words.. and am i to infer that you are using my definition of prick, or leps?

if you are using mine, i suppose it can be annoying to some, if you are using leps then you need to shut up, cause you are stepping across a line, i don't think you are capable, or prepared to defend.

you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to call me a liar while doing so.

be careful how you proceed, cause any issues will not be pretty ones.

pissant means tiny, you are not in any position to disregard that definition.. i apologized to gwil for my transgression, you on the other hand are attempting to inflame an already dead subject.

take this as a threat, take it as humble advice, but don't call me a liar ever again.

Orph, stop going on about "pricks" and your definitions of words, you full well know the term is abusive throughout the English world. And I don't complain every time you write the word "color" instead of "colour"...

Anyway.

Going back to question of "why." Why do we do things, what are our reasons? Because we want to influence things, we want things to be better or worse for us or our friends or our enemies. When you do something, you must have an aim (why? To pander to our human emotions, probably, which has no "meaning" in the outside world). And, I think in asking the question "why" about the Universe, you are automatically assuming that there is a deity or higher being who has a reason, that there is something that has an aim, who wants the Universe to end up in the way they want it to.

Similar abstract concepts like "respect" have no links to the physical Universe, and personally I would put "meaning" in the same boat and just say it's an artifact of consciousness, and we are trying to work out why when perhaps the answer is just "because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be"!

Leperous said:
Orph, stop going on about "pricks" and your definitions of words, you full well know the term is abusive throughout the English world. And I don't complain every time you write the word "color" instead of "colour"...

lep, stop defending fish, he is fully capable of pulling his own feet out of his mouth without any admin intervention..

how do you expect him to desist being an ass if you keep defending his actions..

if you cannot tell both of us to stop, you cannot tell only one.

i didn't mention prick first between fish and i.. in fact, the topic was adequately resolved prior to his snide remarks..

again, if you cannot tell us both to behave, stay out of it. partiality is unbecoming of you :sad:

Orpheus said:
i have never changed my opinion, or standpoint of the words..

Orpheus said:
i have now looked up the word pissant in 3 different dictionary sites, and the general consensus is, its exactly what gwil said.. but dammit it used to mean exactly how i said it,.........................

i seem to stand corrected.

Strange thing is the memory, eh?

and am i to infer that you are using my definition of prick, or leps?

You can come to your own conclusions, I'm sure. No doubt you'll get it wrong, 'though you may come close.

if you are using mine, i suppose it can be annoying to some, if you are using leps

Actually, the reason I know you'd be wrong about how I meant it, was because I'm using my own definition. It seems to be all the rage to have your very own, so I thought I'd join in.

then you need to shut up,

You're confusing what you want, with what I need. Silly man.

cause you are stepping across a line, i don't think you are capable, or prepared to defend.

Read on McDuff

you are entitled to your opinions,

Why, thank you.

you are not entitled to call me a liar while doing so.

Could you show me where I called you a liar? No, I thought not.

(slightly bigger writing^^, so as to be less easily avoided)

Anyway, where the f**k do you get off telling someone he's not entitled to voice his opinion.

be careful how you proceed, cause any issues will not be pretty ones.

Wtf does that mean? You know my ex?

pissant means tiny, you are not in any position to disregard that definition..

I'm in a position to disragard anything that I choose to, tbh. As you also appear to be. Your point?

i apologized to gwil for my transgression,

And I'm sure Gwil is delighted with that.

you on the other hand are attempting to inflame an already dead subject.

Nope, wrong again. Which, of course, doesn't make you a liar.

take this as a threat, take it as humble advice, but don't call me a liar ever again.

Or you'll release the flying monkeys? /me quivers

fish,

i'm sorry but you already used your 2 replies..

back on topic :rolleyes:

Leperous said:
Going back to question of "why." Why do we do things, what are our reasons? Because we want to influence things, we want things to be better or worse for us or our friends or our enemies. When you do something, you must have an aim (why? To pander to our human emotions, probably, which has no "meaning" in the outside world). And, I think in asking the question "why" about the Universe, you are automatically assuming that there is a deity or higher being who has a reason, that there is something that has an aim, who wants the Universe to end up in the way they want it to.

Similar abstract concepts like "respect" have no links to the physical Universe, and personally I would put "meaning" in the same boat and just say it's an artifact of consciousness, and we are trying to work out why when perhaps the answer is just "because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be"!

I would argue that such concepts are artifacts of our evolution, and that our culture would be unsustainable without them. So, in a way they do have a link to the physical world, in that they are part of the evolutionary strategy that has made humans so successful.