ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

How much longer

Will they "fucking love science"? I wonder. Heartiste takes no little amusement in pointing to the potential ideological challenges to the secular orthodoxy increasingly being posed by genetic science:
"People really do see the world differently," says lead author Rebecca Todd, a professor in UBC's Department of Psychology. "For people with this gene variation, the emotionally relevant things in the world stand out much more."

The gene in question is ADRA2b, which influences the neurotransmitter norepinephrine. Previous research by Todd found that carriers of a deletion variant of this gene showed greater attention to negative words. Her latest research is the first to use brain imaging to find out how the gene affects how vividly people perceive the world around them, and the results were startling, even to Todd.

"We thought, from our previous research, that people with the deletion variant would probably show this emotionally enhanced vividness, and they did more than we would even have predicted," says Todd, who scanned the brains of 39 participants, 21 of whom were carriers of the genetic variation....

Compared to non-carriers, carriers of the ADRA2b deletion variant gene estimated lower levels of noise on positive and negative images, relative to neutral images, indicating emotionally enhanced vividness, or EEV. Carriers of the deletion variation also showed significantly more brain activity reflecting EEV in key regions of the brain sensitive to emotional relevance.

About the gene

The ADRA2b deletion variant appears in varying degrees across different ethnicities. Although roughly 50 per cent of the Caucasian population studied by these researchers in Canada carry the genetic variation, it has been found to be prevalent in other ethnicities. For example, one study found that just 10 per cent of Rwandans carried the ADRA2b gene variant.
So, an aggression-linked gene is 500 times more common while an empathy-linked gene is one-fifth as common in various gene pools. But aggression and empathy probably wouldn't have anything at all to do with actual human behavior, would they?

It's always fascinating to see how quickly those who claim their opinions and morality are guided by science are to throw science out the window whenever it contradicts their actual beliefs and values.

Labels: ,

78 Comments:

Blogger Alexander July 01, 2015 3:46 PM  

Boy, all those people arguing, "you have to be nice to them now so they'll be nice to us when they're the majority" are sure going to look silly when it turns out they were always going to savage us anyway.

Course, anyone who's spent time living in Atlanta, Detroit, Memphis, New Orleans, Oakland, Cleveland et. al. doesn't need some fancy study to know what's readily observable. Still, it's nice to make these facts available to those shelter behind large lawns and excellent-for-property-values demographics.

Blogger Student in Blue July 01, 2015 3:46 PM  

"This study is wrong, because it is racist.
It is racist because I think it is wrong."
-an SJW

Anonymous Randy M July 01, 2015 3:47 PM  

"Although roughly 50 per cent of the Caucasian population studied by these researchers in Canada carry the genetic variation, it has been found to be prevalent in other ethnicities. For example, one study found that just 10 per cent of Rwandans carried the ADRA2b gene variant. "

Such odd phrasing. Shouldn't that read "been found to be less prevelant in other ethnicities"? Are they implying that 50% and 10% are basically the same? It reads like they are trying to obscure the differences.

Blogger Student in Blue July 01, 2015 3:48 PM  

What a huge blunder I made!

That should be, "because I FEEL it is wrong."

Anonymous Donn #0114 July 01, 2015 3:57 PM  

Vox - OT with the camp of saints coming to Europe do you see any concern by the 'average joes'? If so, will either the people on their own or the govts do anything to stop it? I know its dwarfed by the American illegal problem but is the perception of a problem there?

Anonymous Mike M. (minion #315) July 01, 2015 4:06 PM  

There are some interesting implications. Can we have more competent government by restricting the vote to a select group? And justify it scientifically, as opposed to practical observation of performance?

Blogger VD July 01, 2015 4:08 PM  

Vox - OT with the camp of saints coming to Europe do you see any concern by the 'average joes'?

Yes, quite a lot.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer July 01, 2015 4:21 PM  

I'm reminded of David Brin's Uplift Saga. Everyone is tested by the world government to see if they are excessively aggressive or unstable or something and if you are your rights are limited.

The testing is done via showing pictures to individuals while monitoring their brain activity.

According to the study, that is racist.

Anonymous Pax Romana July 01, 2015 4:24 PM  

6. Mike: Well, the original American democracy was more based on the Greek system, which had very select, limited group of eligible voters (for instance, I would not be eligible under the original standards, because I am not a property owner. Something to aspire to.).

I think it's probably time to investigate a practical reapplication of some of those standards...which will never happen, of course. Wishful thinking.

Blogger Dominic Saltarelli July 01, 2015 4:30 PM  

I fucking love science!

Blogger Cail Corishev July 01, 2015 4:35 PM  

I'm kinda surprised that research like this still goes on at universities. Who funds it? Why study something if stating the results aloud might get you accused of a hate crime?

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo #0368 July 01, 2015 4:38 PM  

"greater attention to negative words" translates to empathy? I can certainly see how it might, but your excerpt does not show that.

"emotionally enhanced vividness".... So Caucasians feel more deeply and are better at emoting? That's.... interesting.

I would caution that we shouldn't draw too much significance from these studies just yet. Vox has linked quite a number of articles talking about fraud and sloppiness in scientific studies, remember?

That said, I would not be surprised to find that those frauds/errors/etc tend to cluster in fields dominated by SJW concerns. Genetic effects on race don't seem to be something SJWs would want to talk about, and the simple concern the researchers would have about being called "racist" would probably ensure greater attention to detail and QC.

Anonymous Soga July 01, 2015 4:40 PM  

Cail, it's a kind of catch 22. They have to study it, or else they lose their jobs. But if the result is classified as RSHD, they lose their jobs.

It's really horrible being a leftist. You have to constantly keep track of what can get you sacked or socially executed.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera July 01, 2015 4:48 PM  

For example, one study found that just 10 per cent of Rwandans carried the ADRA2b gene variant.

Before or after the genocide, I wonder?

Blogger Alexander July 01, 2015 4:51 PM  

Alternate headline:

Study finds Canadians more likely to be courteous; Rwandans more likely to be murderous.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera July 01, 2015 4:54 PM  

Study finds Canadians more likely to be courteous; Rwandans more likely to be murderous.

I'M SHEPARD SMITH AND THIS IS A FOX NEWS ALERT

Blogger kh123 July 01, 2015 4:55 PM  

"They have to study it, or else they lose their jobs. But if the result is classified as RSHD, they lose their jobs."

Reclass RSHD as bourgeois, and welcome to Soviet Union that is much most proto, comrade!

We like to call this catch of 22 "millstones of progress".

Will not rest until quota of 22 million is met! 4 Year Plan in 3 days!

Anonymous fish July 01, 2015 4:59 PM  

Apparently Google is lacking in empathy as well....

GOOGLE photo program identifies black couple as 'gorillas'...


Tough to be a progressive corporation these days.....someone will get the lash for this I'm sure!

Anonymous grey enlightenment July 01, 2015 5:00 PM  

Yeah, the left picks and chooses the science they want to believe in. People are born gay? Emphatically, yes. Some are born smarter or more physically attractive ? no. those are social constructs, says the left.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 01, 2015 5:01 PM  

Soga, I get that, but who says they have to study it? I'm picturing the conversation in the genetics data processing lab:

Boss: So, today you're going to look for a genetic marker for empathy.
Nerds: Ha ha ha! No really, what's the job for today?

From what I hear, the Canadian government is at least as PC as ours, so surely it isn't demanding such studies. Is it pharmaceutical companies funding it? If so, why aren't we seeing protests against it? This stuff is at least as politically incorrect as animal testing ever was.

I guess I'm just surprised it's still being done at state institutions, and hasn't all been driven to China or something.

Blogger maniacprovost July 01, 2015 5:07 PM  

I would think that enhanced vividness of emotionally linked perceptions is a bad thing, but it needs a few decades of study to be sure.

Anonymous Devil's Advocate July 01, 2015 5:25 PM  

@VD

Why is this REAL science methodology while AGW and Vaccs are not?

Anonymous MendoScot July 01, 2015 5:28 PM  

All BOLD-fMRI studies need to be taken with a pinch of salt, and the statistical power of an N=39 (21/18) comparison is not impressive. Still, downloaded and archived. I might even use it in next year's course.

Anonymous Soga July 01, 2015 5:30 PM  

@Devil's Advocate

Why are you questioning the validity of this study?

Blogger aut0062matthew July 01, 2015 5:31 PM  

Devil's Advocate,

Tell us exactly which AGW and vaccination studies you wish to compare to this one.

Anonymous MendoScot July 01, 2015 5:32 PM  

Why is this REAL science methodology while AGW and Vaccs are not?

One shows the data, two do not. As I posted above, I have noted the study and will wait and see if it is repeated and supported.

Blogger kh123 July 01, 2015 5:33 PM  

Assuming this isn't Tad or the usual ironic-handle suspects:

"Why is this REAL science methodology"

Given that the People's Righteousness is at such a pitch that a Nobel scientist can be sacked for saying that women cry: If the researcher is possibly the last person to benefit from observation - but likely the first to reap the whirlwind - then it's a good indicator that something genuine's in the process of being formulated. Not a guarantee, but likely.

Blogger Feather Blade July 01, 2015 5:33 PM  

"greater attention to negative words" translates to empathy?

Yeah... I would have thought that it translates to "more easily hurt or offended".

Hey! A genetic marker for SJW-ism!

Blogger ScuzzaMan July 01, 2015 5:37 PM  

Feather Blade:

not genetic marker, genetic defect.

Blogger ScuzzaMan July 01, 2015 5:38 PM  

MendoScot:

AGW fans dont show the data, they fake the data.

Of course the fake the fakery, too, so they call it "adjusting" the data ...

Blogger ScuzzaMan July 01, 2015 5:45 PM  

Devil's Advocate:

1. check out the stats on peer reviewed research that is withdrawn for plagiarism, nonsense, and just gaming the system

2. check out the meta-research on how many research studies begin with the conclusion and work back from there, selectively publishing only what supports the conclusion they started with

3. check out the long and sordid history of "scientific" frauds

4. check out the long and sordid history of failed and fraudulent doomsday sales pitches, a la "Awwwk! the sky is falling! Give us more money!" (ring a bell?)

All this information is freely available to anyone who cares to look for it.

Ignorance of it is thus willful and a sign of insincerity in the search for truth.

P.S. You should also bear in mind that the scientific method is categorically and explicitly NOT a method for finding truth; it is a method for avoiding error. It is fundamentally negative. IOW, only that which can be falsified is scientific, and while falsifying proves a theory wrong, no amount of confirmatory evidence can prove it true.

Anonymous MendoScot July 01, 2015 6:01 PM  

21. maniacprovost July 01, 2015 5:07 PM
I would think that enhanced vividness of emotionally linked perceptions is a bad thing, but it needs a few decades of study to be sure.


Enhanced vividness is an interpretation of which part of the brain lit up, when presented with the stimuli. The interpretation is based on correlative evidence from many other studies with different presumptions. In other words...

...it's contingency all the way down.

Anonymous Donn #0114 July 01, 2015 6:05 PM  

Rwandans, something comes to mind. I just can't remember what, wait did they hold election or something about twenty years ago?

Anonymous old man in a villa July 01, 2015 6:09 PM  

I don't suppose the hoi polloi will have access to the list of "negative words"?

Who chose them? In what context were they used? Single words devoid of context? In sentences? Is there a pre-existing vividness scale with increments to determine which vivid reaction is enhanced versus which vivid reaction is suppressed? Can one suppress vividness based on historical bias?

So many questions, so few Ehrlenmeyer flasks with which to properly measure them.

Anonymous MendoScot July 01, 2015 6:18 PM  

old man, it was images, not words

Twenty-five negative and 25 positive photos were taken from the International
Affective Picture System (IAPS). Twenty-five neutral photos
were retrieved from the Internet as well as the IAPS. Positive, negative,
and neutral images were selected to be equivalent across conditions on
basic low-level image statistics, equated in log luminance (F(2,72) 1)
and RMS contrast (F(2,72) 1). Positive and negative images were selected
to be equivalent in ratings of arousal or emotional salience. Based
on ratings by a separate set of participants (Todd et al., 2012), negative,
positive, and neutral images did not differ in whether they contained
single versus multiple objects (F(2,72) 1, p 0.1), difficulty of figure
ground discrimination (scale of 1–7; F(2,72) 1, p 0.5), scene complexity
(scale of 1–7; F(2,72) 1, p 0.5), or number of human figures (F(2,72)
1, p 0.6).Gauss


I agree that this is fundamental, but I'm not going to look into it now.

Blogger VD July 01, 2015 6:30 PM  

Why is this REAL science methodology while AGW and Vaccs are not?

Because they aren't starting with the conclusion and begging the question. Nor is anyone pretending that the matter is now settled. This is just a potentially informative line of scientific inquiry.

Blogger JDC July 01, 2015 6:32 PM  

Ravi on Political Rhetoric:

"the modern malady in the political arena is one of a fundamental contradiction—there is an unblushing moralizing on politics and a shameless politicizing of morality."

"But after all the verbose moralizing on politics has run its course, there comes the acid test when specific moral issues come before US as adjudicators. And masterfully, each issue becomes politicized as the wordsmiths pounce on the words like predators determined to mangle and spit out the remains. We have consequently become the hapless possessors of a society where sexuality, and even diseases, have become politicized to such a degree that one who has convictions is now being re-educated at the taxpayer’s expense, and those with no convictions make moral pronouncements."

Anonymous old man in a villa July 01, 2015 6:33 PM  

"Previous research by Todd found that carriers of a deletion variant of this gene showed greater attention to negative words."

Ah, it was Ms Todd's previous research with "negative words" that led her to this study.

Here is one of the words she should look up-

Prevalent. As in, "...it has been found to be prevalent in other ethnicities. For example, one study found that just 10 per cent of Rwandans carried the ADRA2b gene variant.

Prevalent- widespread, prevailing, frequent, usual, common, current, popular, general, universal.

Blogger Azimus July 01, 2015 6:37 PM  

I am not the strongest advocate of "genes explains this mess" theories...

For example, wouldn't this empathy gene strengthen the bonds of a civilization already extant, BUT simultaneously hamper the formation of a civilization due to the necessary exercise of, shall we say, "unpleasant necessities" in the establishment of law and order?

So is the genetic trait the cause of the difference or the effect?

Anonymous MendoScot July 01, 2015 6:42 PM  

Of course the fake the fakery, too, so they call it "adjusting" the data ...

There is a movement to have everyone post their raw data online.

I suspect that this will be approved.

With qualifications.

Blogger Leatherwing July 01, 2015 6:53 PM  

It's a bit like the interview Katie Couric had with Ted Cruz, where she was using the Pope's views on climate change as an authority argument. I wanted him to ask her any other time she would care what the Pope has to say. It's only useful when it validates her world view.

Anonymous Rolf July 01, 2015 7:06 PM  

The only science they love is the sort that supports the agenda. BadFeel discoveries, cisWhiteMale studies, PeopleAreNotInterchangble inquiries, and research that doesn't support more government funded programs are not "real" science.

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 July 01, 2015 7:09 PM  

Barack Hussein Obama gutted NASA, that's how much the left really loves science.

Blogger Sad Puppy July 01, 2015 7:11 PM  

"People really do see the world differently," says lead author Rebecca Todd, a professor in UBC's Department of Psychology. "For people with this gene variation, the emotionally relevant things in the world stand out much more."

Is this what they mean when they say "triggering" or "dog whistle" ?

Anonymous Geoff July 01, 2015 7:39 PM  

"Study finds Canadians more likely to be courteous; Rwandans more likely to be murderous."

I wonder how long Canada's "polite" reputation will last given immigration trends there.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 01, 2015 7:41 PM  

Here is one of the words she should look up-

Prevalent.


I'd guess she meant to write "less prevalent" and dropped a word. The word is rarely used without "more" or "less," and it would make sense that way.

Typos happen to the best of us, or so I hear.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 01, 2015 7:47 PM  

Genetic studies are going to be on the left wing hit list before too much longer.

For the Left; Nature versus Nurture is very much and in all ways settled science. It has been for decades.

That behavior can be strongly determined by genetics is an abhorrent aberration to them. It is a threat to the core of all their belief system.

Admittedly today's Lefty is far too poorly educated and way too damaged intellectually to manage the dialectic, that produced the concept of the New Soviet Man. But somewhere inside they all still believe in it.

Very soon now they will attempt to stamp out genetic studies. I'll bet money on it.

Anonymous jassi July 01, 2015 7:52 PM  

"Course, anyone who's spent time living in Atlanta, Detroit, Memphis, New Orleans, Oakland, Cleveland et. al. doesn't need some fancy study to know what's readily observable. "

Science always seems to be lagging and catching up to the observations of the average man.

Anonymous MendoScot July 01, 2015 8:00 PM  

Is this what they mean when they say "triggering" or "dog whistle" ?

No.

It means you pay more attention to some stimuli over others. Well, no shit.

Presented with a visual stimulus, they engage more of their attentional cortex. What it is doing is not addressed, nor addressable in this protocol.

Neuroscience at this level is inseparable from philosophy. But before you place the questions there you have to know whether they really asked the questions that are claimed to have been answered.

Much of this work has to do with the development of new psychotropic pharmaceuticals.

Anonymous MendoScot July 01, 2015 8:23 PM  

Science always seems to be lagging and catching up to the observations of the average man.

Science is based on the observation of the common man.

It advances when we progress from observation to recognition.

Now, where does that recognition come from?

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 July 01, 2015 8:44 PM  

Vox, I suspect these things are still trivial to a bigger question. What turns them on and off
So many sort of quasi intellectual rationalistic empiricists come at these observations as if they are now a new set of chiseled in granite facts. What is surprising everyone is neuroplasticity and epigenetics. How can we now play god in a non frivolous ways.

This finding is yet again reported along the lines of, we have found this certainty, this fact, this monolithic edifice rock.

I want to read the manual that hasn't been written: overcoming your genetics, the ultimate guide to epigenetic course correction

Anonymous Stephen J. July 01, 2015 9:51 PM  

"That behavior can be strongly determined by genetics is an abhorrent aberration to them."

Well, with the exception of sexual behavior and proclivities. That's hardwired and unalterable, of course.

Anonymous Fp July 01, 2015 9:52 PM  

"Such odd phrasing. Shouldn't that read "been found to be less prevelant in other ethnicities"? Are they implying that 50% and 10% are basically the same? It reads like they are trying to obscure the differences."

It's leftard weasel speak. Also leftists don't know how to write or speak coherently.

Anonymous van Allen's 54" Belt July 01, 2015 9:54 PM  

Barack Hussein Obama gutted NASA

"Gutted" from a .gov loving true believer standpoint is a radically different proposition than it being an actual issue.
That very same occulted, Nazi NASA claims to have actually put men on the moon, and claims the pictures and footage shown mankind is "truth".
Yeah.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 01, 2015 9:57 PM  

It's always fascinating to see how quickly those who claim their opinions and morality are guided by science are to throw science out the window whenever it contradicts their actual beliefs and values.

Both religion and leftism are antithetical to empiricism.

falsifying proves a theory wrong, no amount of confirmatory evidence can prove it true.

"Outside of mathematics, nothing is proven."  But the hard sciences work by creating experiments designed to falsify the existing theory by seeing if any of its predictions are wrong.  If you've been beating on the best theory for a while and its predictions hold up, you may not be right... but you are one heck of a lot Less Wrong.

It would be really easy to falsify AGW climate models.  All you'd have to do is show that increasing the concentration of specific GHGs (CH4, CO2, etc.) would not increase the altitude at which radiation in their absorption bands freely escapes to space.  Nobody's so much as tried do to that, though.  It's too obviously impossible to do.

Nor is anyone pretending that the matter is now settled.

Many of the phenomena in question have been directly measured, so there is no further question as to WHAT has happened.  That's settled.  Or is the Keeling curve a conspiracy begun by Svante Arrhenius?

There is a really simple way to deal with climate change:  switch over to nuclear power.  This also breaks the rice bowls of some extremely wealthy and powerful people, so they are playing both sides of the game:  denying that there's a problem on one, promoting totally ineffective measures on the other, and demonizing nuclear energy all around.

Anonymous T July 01, 2015 10:09 PM  

There is a really simple way to deal with climate change: look at the raw data and notice that we haven't warmed up at all.

Fixed that for ya, Rational-sama.

And since the erstwhile climate scientists are actually saying that that heat instead went into the deep ocean, we could also just thank the heavens that the largest heat sink in the world is absorbing the increased temperature, saving our butts because the ocean is much more dense than the atmosphere, rendering the warming moot.

It'll all be okay! Daijoguu! But the left doesn't seem to be interested at all in possible climate good news...hmm....wonder why? Almost like...the conclusion fits their economic agenda anyway?

Nahhh, couldn't be. That'd require people to like, talk in secret and agree on ideals and stuff. Conspiracies don't exist!

Anonymous Stephen J. July 01, 2015 10:14 PM  

"Both religion and leftism are antithetical to empiricism."

Leftism, yes; I would contend religion is orthogonal rather than antithetical to empiricism. Empiricism relies on replicable experiments using controlled variables to verify or falsify hypotheses; by definition the subject matter of religion cannot be adequately encompassed by empirical falsification.

(The honesty of any given religious speaker can be, however, and should be more often than it is.)

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo #0368 July 01, 2015 10:32 PM  

@Stephen J.

I'll agree to that. The existence of God is, by definition, not subject to empirical proof, because God isn't supposed to be a physical being. The specific material claims of religion are subject to empirical proof, but most religious claims aren't about material reality in any event.

And I will readily agree that religious people have contributed wonderfully to science. Even the RCC did a great job of promoting science, although it was a lot more enthusiastic back when it believed that science was on its side.

Anonymous The other robot July 01, 2015 10:52 PM  

Liveleaks claims something was a hoax.

I can't keep track of all the hoaxes any more.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 01, 2015 11:02 PM  

Study finds Canadians more likely to be courteous; Rwandans more likely to be murderous.

I'M SHEPARD SMITH AND THIS IS A FOX NEWS ALERT


I'm Brian Williams and I was just shot at by Canadians in Rwanda...


There is a really simple way to deal with climate change: look at the raw data and notice that we haven't warmed up at all.

But, but, but, it's the hottest summer EH-VAR! California in a drought! That's never happened before. Certainly not while Jerry Brown was Governor...

Blogger Doom July 01, 2015 11:41 PM  

Aw... You mean the neo-church is having agnostic/atheist problems of it's own? Call em', what, sino's? Scientologists in name only? Heh. That's a kick. Wait until the science wars really kick off!

Blogger Thordaddy July 02, 2015 12:47 AM  

Christianity, absolutely, is not antithetical to empiricism. In fact, Christianity ASSERTS and maintains the all-cohering metric underpinning empiricism itself. If The Perfect Man is not the indisputable arbiter of what is empirical and what is not empirical then there is no further conceivable delineator. A man himself could not possibly do what The Perfect Man had not already accomplished.

Blogger Groot July 02, 2015 12:53 AM  

It's remarkable, really, what's going on here in California. They've under-invested for decades in the water management infrastructure, and the population has exploded (mostly in illegals), so the reservoirs are low. So they've started with the result: there is a drought. Then they've come up with a villain: suburbanite lawns.

But there was a river of rain in December, and the hills were green until June, so I googled it. Literally the first result for "CA rain levels" is the NOAA.gov statistics: 2014 was completely normal, and so far No. California (source of water for the state) is at approximately 90% of normal. It's a completely political drought, but people are letting their lawns die, their golf courses dry, etc.

Blogger Thordaddy July 02, 2015 12:53 AM  

The main weakness of the "everything is a religion" crowd is the unwilling to delineate The True Relugion from the multitude of false religions and then leap to the conclusion that false religions are not really religions at all. The reason for this manufactured conundrum is the carefully hidden reality of anti-Supremacy AMONGST the most publicly vocal anti-Equalists.

One cannot be an anti-Supremacist and anti-Equalist in one. It is a totally unstable dual "loyalty."

Blogger Thordaddy July 02, 2015 12:56 AM  

^^^ The main weakness of the "everything is a religion" crowd is the unwilling[ness] to delineate The True [Religion] from the multitude of false religions and then leap to the conclusion that false religions are not really religions at all.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 July 02, 2015 2:41 AM  

Thordaddy

false dichotomy. It's singular absolute truth versus everything else. And at the limits of delineation you have Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Simply put Christians are right about everything but aren't in a position to tell you what everything is; Jesus gives out information on a needs to know basis.

We win.

Anonymous G.K. Chesterton July 02, 2015 2:48 AM  

"Has it never struck you that a man who does next to nothing but hear men's real sins is not likely to be wholly unaware of human evil? But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren't a priest."

"What?" asked the thief, almost gaping.

"You attacked reason," said Father Brown. "It's bad theology."

Blogger Thordaddy July 02, 2015 3:11 AM  

PhillipGeorge...

I'm almost certain you have repeated, in essence, exactly what I had already stated.

There is only one True Religion and all others BEING false crease to be Religion, period. Neo's Reaction, because it is fundamentally anti-perfect white man, attempts to confound the masses through a process of associating Christianity and Liberalism through a liberated use of the word "religion." Not only does Neo's Reaction falsely claim Liberalism to be a "religion," it deceptively hides the fundamental Christian Assertion. In a nut shell, Neo's Reaction will not claim Liberalism to be the homosexual "nature" (and self-evidently not a religion) and it denies the nature of the Christian as believer in an all-encompassing Perfection.... A truly religious disposition... And ASSERTS the self-annihilating "nature" of Christianity. It's a phony Matrix.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit July 02, 2015 3:46 AM  

If we could just convince them to ?!$&! love philosophy, we'd be in business: one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit July 02, 2015 4:03 AM  

#58 even the RCC did a great job of promoting science. Though they were a lot more enthusiastic when they believed science was on their side.

Since we're doing typos on this thread: "great job DOING science" and "scienTISTS"

Blogger ScuzzaMan July 02, 2015 5:17 AM  

T

I love that line about all the heat going into the "deep ocean". How do you warm the deep ocean, from above, without warming the shallows? Well, you have to posit a persistent overturning.

True there are places where this happens, but fast enough and ubiquitously enough to vanish enough energy to heat the whole fucking planet?

I've seen no evidence of that.

And then, what happens when the deep ocean is warm and shallows are less warm? Heat rises, convection currents form which cool the deeps and warm the shallows and, e voile, there's your heat again, visible on the surface.

And these people call themselves scientists.

Anonymous Jonathan July 02, 2015 9:51 AM  

"GOOGLE photo program identifies black couple as 'gorillas'"

I realize the evidence doesn't support evolution, but how else do you explain Patrick Ewing?

Anonymous FrankNorman July 02, 2015 10:13 AM  

"No, no, there is no such thing as a genetic component to differences in human behaviour! That's a hateful bigoted notion!"

...

Except when it comes to homosexuality, it seems. Then suddenly they drop the entire "tabula rasa" stuff and insist that some people are born that way and society can't and shouldn't try to change them.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 04, 2015 11:50 AM  

And since the erstwhile climate scientists are actually saying that that heat instead went into the deep ocean, we could also just thank the heavens that the largest heat sink in the world is absorbing the increased temperature

Two questions you dodge:

1.  What effect, besides the obvious thermal expansion and consequent sea-level rise, is all that heat having?

2.  What happens when the oceans are heated up and the extra heat no longer has an oceanic sink?

This is completely aside from the issue of acidification, which would remain a factor even if warming was absent or halted by engineering measures.  Carbonate-shelled organisms are already under stress, and they're the base of the food chain without which nothing else grows.

the left doesn't seem to be interested at all in possible climate good news...

When you have to twist or ignore basic facts to get your "good news", you're playing to the left's stereotype of non-leftists and justifying their projection.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 04, 2015 11:55 AM  

How do you warm the deep ocean, from above, without warming the shallows? Well, you have to posit a persistent overturning.

We don't have to posit it, it's been measured.  The Pacific trade winds have strengthened considerably and are piling up warm water near the Phillipines (which is why strong hurricanes have been a recent problem there).  Warm, saline water can sink despite being warm.

what happens when the deep ocean is warm and shallows are less warm? Heat rises, convection currents form which cool the deeps and warm the shallows and, e voile, there's your heat again, visible on the surface.

There's a lot of very cold, deep water in the oceans that needs to be warmed (and expand) first.

And these people call themselves scientists.

The rhetorical argument from ignorance is no better than an explicit one.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 04, 2015 11:59 AM  

Bah.  Auto-censor strikes again.  There is a missing comment between #74 and this one.

Anonymous hungrytales July 08, 2015 6:24 AM  

Isn't it yet another thing that confirms how close MBTI hits in nailing the human nature? The 50% Caucasian ratio seems very in line with reported estimations of how many F's and T's are there (about 40-60% according to most sources).

Blogger Meiqing Xu July 22, 2015 9:13 PM  

15723meiqing
christian louboutin shoes
tods outlet store
cheap jordans
nike air max
abercrombie
oakley sunglasses
abercrombie
adidas wings
louis vuitton outlet
pandora jewelry
celine outlet
ed hardy outlet
christian louboutin shoes
cheap beats by dre
burberry handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton uk
ray ban uk
true religion sale
burberry outlet
michael kors
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
discount oakley sunglasses
oakley
nike air max
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
michael kors bag
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
abercrombie & fitch
cheap jerseys
tory burch outlet
coach outlet
air max 90
christian louboutin
true religion

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts