1. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197226 by nother person on June 21, 2008 at 11:57 am

I don't understand the kudos this article is receiving. Finding one particular gene that is 'the' selfish gene doesn't vindicate Richard's book. It implies all the other genes are something else. Utter rubbish.

2. From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy

Comment #193160 by nother person on June 14, 2008 at 10:32 pm

This is indeed excellent, particularly because of the attention to explaining how we know rather than the standard science video fare that stops with a description of what we know, and which leaves the impression that it is the authority of science that is important and not it's methods.

But one small quibble. 'Knowing' the location of a point by triangulation is a different kind of 'knowing' than 'knowing' that the big bang happened. The big bang, for all its status as the reigning paradigm, is still a guess. It's what must have happened only if a number of assumptions are held. The assumptions are reasonable, but they are still assumptions. This wouldn't be a big deal if the producer didn't stress his knowledge claim so strenuously. Kids (at least some of them) always know when adults are bullshitting.

3. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184667 by nother person on May 25, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Yes, totally bogus manufactured controversy. Wallace's contribution is universally acknowledged. He and Darwin were rivals, but very friendly rivals. Although Darwin presented brief papers on the matter to the royal society, one of his own and one of Wallace's, a year or two before 'Origin' was published, Wallace never published anything nearing the significance of Darwin's book. Nor can credit for 'the idea' be granted to Wallace, as their were half a dozen others speculating along the same lines at the time. It took darwin to put it all together.

4. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184662 by nother person on May 25, 2008 at 11:03 pm

This is good news. Many of these children will forget all the propaganda. Some of them will grow up interested in animals and some of those will become biologists and zoologists and, as adults, will confront data that corrects the false impressions of creationism. The important thing is the stimulus of the interest in fauna. If the children follow their interests they will at some point encounter the real world and theories with more explanatory power. This is not a bad thing.

Bad news would be that children interested in fauna are being diverted with tales of Noah's ark and retellings of the biblical creation myth and being denied access to information about animals. Children will remember interesting animals and facts about them. The theoretical framework will not be that important to them.

How do we know this? It has happened many, many times in the past. Thousands of christians have become good scientists. Interest in the natural world leads to investigation and theorizing. Initial theories are not insurmountable obstacles, merely starting places. Though I wouldn't choose such a text for my own children, I am pleased that children being raised in religious environments will have, through this book, increased access to information about the natural world.

5. Missing matter found in deep space

Comment #182728 by nother person on May 20, 2008 at 10:50 pm

rivetheretic - Oxygen, and iron as well, are relatively abundant because they are produced in the interior of stars, just as helium is, only at a later stage and in less quantity. Oxygen, if I'm not mistaken is the third most abundant element in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

6. Justice In The Brain: Equity And Efficiency Are Encoded Differently

Comment #178376 by nother person on May 11, 2008 at 10:09 am

82abhilash,

You have an interesting view of "central planning." If you are correct that the demise of the Soviet Union was a failure of central planning,you might still question the validity of generalizing from that example to the conclusion that central planning never works. Just about every successful corporation you ever heard of is "proof" that central planning does work, at least as much as the Soviet Union is "proof" that it does not. Top management generally makes all the plans and requires subordinates to implement them and it seems to work just fine in most cases. Perhaps you'd like too rephrase your hypothesis or define what you mean by "central planning"?

7. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170650 by nother person on April 27, 2008 at 9:45 pm

G = M; M ≠ I; therefore G ≠ I. Oh sublime moral calculus! Absolutely correct and perfectly meaningless.

8. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170138 by nother person on April 27, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Shermer is an optimistic technophile. Nothing wrong with that, but I have trouble with some of his rhetoric. First of all, he talks about engineering. I don't know what engineering means to you, but to me it is basically the manipulation of pre-existing matter to create novel arrangements of matter to serve specific purposes. An Alien Intelligence 'engineering' a universe is not creating in the sense that a divine creator is said to create. Yes, we can 'imagine' a race of super beings that goes beyond engineering, but there is no more evidence for such than there is for god the creator. If we encountered such beings we might well name them gods, but it would not be because they were good engineers.

Enclosed within the concept of "sufficiently advanced" is the notion that no matter how much we know, there will always be a "magical" dimension to reality the recedes from our understanding. We might as well ask, "does science in principle have an endpoint?" If we answer no, then Shermer's argument may have weight with us. If we answer, yes, his argument has no weight.

The optimistic technophile position is routinely adopted within certain schools of economics. The market will provide the motive to "create" technological solutions that we have no ability to foresee. If it is possible at some point to bring the enterprise of science to a close, then this view is false in the long term.

9. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170082 by nother person on April 27, 2008 at 10:51 am

Obsolete for what? Comment #2 (steve) seems to indicate obsolete as an explanation for a certain category of evidence. We are all familiar with at least one other utility argument, that religion is necessary to underpin social morality. These are just two different possible utility functions of religion. In order to answer the question as posed in the affirmative, one would need to identify every possible utility function of religion (here's another oneâ€"it makes me feel good to believe it) and refute them all. Thus the TF has set an impossible task for those who wish to argue in the affirmative. As soon as you refute all the utility functions you can think of, someone will claim at least one you didn't cover. The ever moving goalposts are built right into the question.

10. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161981 by nother person on April 16, 2008 at 12:24 am

Ack, two pages of comments already. I'm late to the conversation again. Just in case anyone is still reading though : )

I have a shelf full of science videos, starting with Cosmos and including many Nova and BBC productions. So I thought the suggestion to make more videos was rather lame. It does bring up an issue for me though. Many of those videos are guilty of what Lawrence was describing... they tell little stories. So much of filmed science is in this vein. This happened. That happened. Gradually this happened, then suddenly something else happened. The universe is this big and that wide and shaped like this or that. The Earth is round, the Sea is wet...

Do you get the point? Cogent explanations of how we know all this are few and far between. Descriptions of experiments... only a handful. Why should we believe all this? Because its Science! (or because it's mathematical... but don't worry we won't scare you away by showing you any of THAT!)

No wonder people like D'souza turn around and say atheists (scientists, materialists) have an unacknowledged belief structure. Most of the science popularizations lean very heavily on this kind of argument from authority. It's true because Galileo said so (or Newton, or Einstein or some unidentified scientist). A dash of science history, a few short biographical sketches and many frames worth of expensive computer animation that don't add a thing to the story makes for an exciting vid that leaves the audience wondering, "what has science to do with me?" This is particularly true of programming aimed at children.

Lawrence touched on this when he said the Bronowski film was gripping, even though it did not resort to expensive fx. But he didn't quite draw the conclusion... He left it that feature length films can't be made because they are too expensive and producers think they won't draw an audience. I remember very vividly a cartoon (made by Bell Labs, I think), explaining relativity theory that was shown to us in elementary grades in the 60's. I don't recall if the name 'Einstein' was even mentioned. But I clearly recall learning that light bends, clocks and rulers stretch and shrink, and acceleration is like gravity. All this was conveyed in a few simple images. What made it memorable was that it was simple, colorful and the narrator had a great, confident voice. Science was part of the culture then. It was part of the cold war effort as well. No one, including Christians, thought it was strange to expect grade schoolers to get science, and to want then to get it, because raising a generation of scientists was the way to defeat the 'godless communists.'

Cosmos is still the pinnacle of science popularization, and part of its appeal was certainly Carl's personality and his communication skills, but I think a large part of the success of the series, Cosmos, is because it asks questions, talks about when science got it wrong and how it corrected itself, admits to not knowing everything and generally invites people to think about deep matters. Carl and Ann did not approach the subject as a body of facts to be handed down, like tablets from the mountain top. When they invite people to think with them they don't mean, "let us tell you what to think."

Cosmos has great art, great music, and extensive dramatizations which add depth (and expense) to the production, but those aren't the things that make it great. What make it great is the knowledge and understanding of the universe, and especially the enlargement of one's 'personal universe' that is gained by watching. It seems to me that Carl and Ann were more interested in celebrating science as process and locating ourselves within that process, than in describing the odd facts of reality that are, in one sense, the result of that process.

Too much of what passes as science programming does the laterâ€"and that just won't sell soap to a mass audience. Instead it leaves us disappointed and estranged.

11. In search of the God particle

Comment #157667 by nother person on April 9, 2008 at 11:55 am

I am not a physicist but I recall reading in, "Nothingness: the science of empty space," by Henning Genz that some physicists have raised a concern about very high energy collisions such as performed by LHC that has nothing to do with black holes.

As I understand it (perhaps not very well) the concern has something to do with the Higgs field and the possibility of a sort of 'crystallization' or 'condensation' of a state of (matter? space/time?) other than the state our universe exhibits. Apparently the conditions we find in our universe represent only one, perhaps randomly occurring, out of a range of possibilities set at or during the big bang. If conditions in an experiment were to ever replicate those of the first instant in which these values were set for our universe, might they not, in that instance, "re-crystallize" with different parameters and might such a change propagate?

Mr. Genz did not present this idea in an alarmist manner, but simply as something not categorically excluded by current theoretical physics. He was at pains to make clear that the probability is small that this would happen and that the LHC, for all its power, might not achieve the energy in collisions that would be prerequisite.

Though I have tried very hard to follow Mr. Genz's reasoning, I undoubtedly am mis-representing him here. His book was a serious and accurate exposition of his subject. If what I wrote above sounds like nonsense that is most likely due to my vague apprehension of the subject.

12. The business of natural selection

Comment #144164 by nother person on March 15, 2008 at 8:30 am

GIGO

13. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144161 by nother person on March 15, 2008 at 8:26 am

What a crock! Sure scientists need to think (at least some of us) about how we talk to the public, but this article as much as tells us to give up informing the public in favor of propagandizing. Should scientific organizations spend money to hire PR flacks instead of research? The recent successes of books like TGD would seem to indicate the opposite. Speak clearly and you will be heard. It is not necessary to resort to images of whirlwinds in smokestacks and similar emotional (fear based) appeals. Just tell the efing truth!

14. The atheist delusion

Comment #144028 by nother person on March 14, 2008 at 10:27 pm

I could swear I've read this before... Are they not only figuratively repeating themselves, but actually literally re-publishing the same tired crap?

15. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92979 by nother person on December 1, 2007 at 9:22 pm

I enjoyed listening to this event (couldn't watch, but the visuals of these things don't usually add much). There was some public expression of concern before the event about Dan's ability to 'handle' Dinesh, but he did superbly. He even made a couple of concessions that allowed Dinesh the space to show his own humanity. One can't be certain, but I think Dinesh was sincere when he said he wanted to read Dan's books to learn more. To me, that comes closer to a definition of victory than "Dinesh was destroyed."

Dan displayed a quality that was evident in the talks of Carl Sagan that helped to make him so popular. When confronted with hostile questions or criticism, he gave calm answers that addressed the subject and at the same time managed to convey that he did not consider his questioner an enemy. I can't analyze it, but there is something more there than just being calm. Something inviting.

There is a phenomena in political discourse, it seems, that the more something is discussed, the more polarized the discussion gets. The more we hear this process in action, the harder it is to hold on to the hope that someday we will reconcile our differences. We despair and begin to dismiss others as 'non-intelligent.' Here, in small ways, we heard the reverse.

I was also gratified by the number of intelligent questions posed by the students. There are obviously a lot of people out there thinking things through who are not taken in by Dinesh's rhetorical gimmicks. A refreshing change from the christian venues we have seen so much of.

The whole thing has got me thinking more about style. Are there styles of discourse in which some questions simply cannot be asked or some answers cannot be contemplated, not because they are illogical, but merely because they fall outside one's stylistic framework? Do we (do I), perhaps, overemphasize logical argument. Dinesh's examples are uniformly from the humanities except when he is forced to discuss science because it is the topic. When he is attempting to be his most persuasive, he reaches for analogies from literature and art... not science. Clearly he does not appreciate the scientific viewpoint. But in this he needs to be instructed, not defeated. I, for one, am not ready to exclude literature and art from human experience and contemplation.

And we ought to give him credit where it is due, as Dan did. Yes, I agree with many of the criticisms leveled against him. I think he makes many errors, and it is sometimes hard to believe he is not deliberately obfuscating, He is shrill, simplistic, arrogant and rude. But not always. Some of his points are sound. Some of his arguments are merely clever (and some are downright stupid, or seem to rely on his audience being stupid), but not everything he says is wrong (I do think his main conclusions are wrong, and perhaps for some that's all that matters).

But hearing him move from his dogmatic assertions to begin to consider another point of view, even in the tiniest way, makes me appreciate the work that Dan does more than ever. Hitchens' style did not work. Dinesh was defeated by Hitchens but walked away unscathed (IMO). I think Dan got to him... and I am left thinking, maybe there is a point to all this talking, after all.

16. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88410 by nother person on November 16, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Arrrgh!

17. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #86995 by nother person on November 10, 2007 at 10:28 pm

I'm for hoisting the flag of criticism, but not simply for its own sake. I think PZ's article rocks! Norman put forth his best thinking—fair enough—and PZ put forth his, in my opinion, better thinking. Well the guy who goes second always has the advantage (but doesn't always make something of it). The point, for me, is that we kick around all the ideas and the best ones out. Of course, what I think is best may not be what you think is best... but you won't know if you don't hear them all.

The thing about criticism is, it has to be valid. I don't think that means it can't offend or hurt anyone's feelings. A 'critical' environment in which everyone is too scared to speak because someone (maybe a whole gang of some-ones) is going to pick part everything they say is atrocious. A lot of academia (from my admittedly outside-looking-in view) seems like this. One can't take a proper breath without being prepared to defend it. And a lot of theist arguments don't have any validity (they don't start out from a consideration of known and knowable reality—they give up that validity from the get-go).

I think PZ's criticisms are valid, and I don't like people saying he should be quiet because his ideas are maybe going to upset some notion they have of playing politics. But all I'm saying is I don't like it... I'm not telling you not to do it. Go ahead... put your idea out there too. In general there is some merit in recognizing divisiveness and trying to forestall it. But there is a serious question that needs to be addressed concerning just what is the more divisive—criticizing 'teammates' when you think you have a better idea, or trying to shut someone up and get them to tow your party line. In my personal experience nothing is more likely to create a faction than the later.

18. Go Ahead, Rationalize. Monkeys Do It, Too

Comment #85572 by nother person on November 6, 2007 at 8:17 am

It occurs to me that when theists say science is based on faith, this may be at play in the background. What they may be trying to say is, hey, we all rationalize...

19. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85397 by nother person on November 5, 2007 at 5:39 pm

I am in basic agreement with Janus. That's my conclusion stated in the first sentence.

I am not a RSS basher—I haven't a clue who Kelly or Brian are or what 'antics' they've been up to and couldn't care less. The text stands or falls on its own merits.

D'Souza is pathetic. Criticism of this piece does not necessarily imply favor for D'Souza's views. And yes, Kelly gets an 'A' for effort—at least she is responding—good for her!

The problem with the piece (in my opinion) is that it is a long string of assertions that don't amount to much with a few good arguments buried in the middle. The black hole and the democratic Greeks arguments are excellent. The equality and gays argument, though correct, has less punch. The rest pretty much comes down to point of view. Well, it was an op-ed, so maybe I have no right to expect more, but I don't really see the point in the two sides taking turns making unsupported assertions. I can see how this may appeal to 'the common man' in the way that any spectacle appeals. But I can't see it changing any minds.

I am fully aware that the value of these comments is approximately 2 cents. It's just my opinion.

20. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83967 by nother person on October 31, 2007 at 11:41 pm

Teratornis, it seems to me that this is much more of a problem for idealists than it is for materialists. If I believed that memes played a larger role in shaping reality than material conditions (for lack of a better term) I might share you concern. But allow me to suggest that vast natural resources and slave labor played a larger role in making the U.S. a 'nice place to live' (except for the slaves!) than any religious memes. I do not deny memes their power but I do think a study of the different material conditions of Sweden and North Korea would give you the explanation you seek. Which is not to say we will not someday find ourselves in a most uncomfortable despotism. Just that, should we arrive there, it will not be for loss of religion.

21. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #83960 by nother person on October 31, 2007 at 10:51 pm

D'Souza gives us a humorous response:

You may be an atheist but you grew up in a Christian culture, therefore your values are Christian values, even though you won't admit it. In fact, all of Western civilization for the past 2000 years was a Christian culture, and everything in it—science, reason, skepticism—everything is Christian. Well, Hitler and Stalin grew up in that culture too, and so their values must have been Christian values too even if they don't realize it or won't admit it. You see, It's very simple really. Christianity is the source of... well... everything!

22. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83378 by nother person on October 29, 2007 at 9:42 pm

It seems to me the best response to this question is,"I'm sure I have no idea. What's your point?"

23. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79601 by nother person on October 17, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Ha ha. I can't believe this group is actually responding to anything other than a new opportunity to make a buck. Do you really think they think a wave of 'new atheists' is a bad thing? We haven't pushed them to the wall... they are simply exploiting a new niche. This sort of mentality needs opponents like people need water and oxygen. If they didn't have atheists to utilize they would invent some other bugbear (devil, anyone?). But they must be thrilled at the 'atheist evangelists' filling their lives with meaning and purpose and indirectly lining their pockets with cash.

24. How China Got Religion

Comment #78429 by nother person on October 12, 2007 at 8:48 pm

It is strange to hear self-described democracy advocates who denounce Chinese persecution of followers of the Dalai Lama — a non-democratically elected leader if there ever was one.

Preventing or opposing suffering is and has to be a moral absolute... Suffering is suffering. And should be opposed.

25. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75129 by nother person on October 1, 2007 at 9:56 pm

No heavy lifting here, just some off the cuff thoughts...

Bonzai: Don't let anyone push you into defending a position you don't really hold (sigh, it happens to me often enough). Sharks in the water can quickly polarize the pond (I know it's a terrible metaphor). Dawkins put his definition of theology in quotes, so I don't think he made it up, but I think you have a valid point.

I agree with others who have pointed out that Academic freedom means (if it means anything) that professors profess the material they choose and students elect the courses they choose. And frankly, universities are businesses. If courses in leprechauns would turn a profit, they would be there. The social function of universities is complex, but certainly a major task they face is to turn out employable graduates (for which they are paid). There will be departments of theology as long as there are theological jobs available in society and competition for those jobs. This dynamic has little to do with the truth value of the course content and much nonsense is taught in many other disciplines besides theology. As long as it's lucrative nonsense the universities will make room for it. (No offense to all those who depend on university for a livelihood—certainly much good is also taught).

Still, it is good strategy to question theology's right to a place in the university I think. We are accustomed to being on the defensive, and without ever expecting theology departments to actually disappear, why not put them on the defensive? Why shouldn't they have to justify themselves? I think they like to believe what they do is important and it will not occur to most to justify themselves as job producers. Instead they will go through contortions and make appeals to truth, tradition and morality (as we have seen so frequently) stressing the essential nature of their work. And we can continue to stress that they are not truthful, their tradition is narrow and morality is universal—pulling the rug from under them.

Forcing theology to justify its place, however, is a far cry from banning it. I am neither a book burner nor part of some kind of thought control program... and I am sure none of you are either. Please let's leave that error on the side of religion. I think it is a big mistake to think RD intends the banning of theology. I think he is just making a rhetorical point—quite nicely.

Janus:

As I said (TWICE!), mathematics is taught and used in physics departments. Does this mean that mathematics is physics?

[tongue in cheek] Some people seem to think so, including some very respected physicists (or perhaps it is that physics is mathematics?). I don't know about you, but I have encountered some physicists who seem to think a collapsing wave function has more reality than the electrons it models. Seems to me that some parts of physics are tinged with the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. I would be delighted to be shown wrong.

I love RD. He is smart, articulate, funny, temperate but impassioned... But he's just a guy. He has a right to get upset now and then and, yes, even to wax hyperbolic... don't we all do that? He's got a bit of showman in him and that's just peachy as far as I'm concerned. He's already had a tremendous effect on the world and if he never did another thing right, I would still feel a debt of gratitude. As far as I can tell his biggest flaw is a tendency to elitism. But so what? Criticizing leaders is like a national pastime for disempowered populations. Perhaps one of the true differences between me and my christian friends is that I don't feel the need to have a perfect leader?

26. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74682 by nother person on September 30, 2007 at 1:05 am

—Nother Person, I'm taking a wild guess that your comment was directed at me;

I thought it was pretty clear that my comment was directed to A. Person.

—if this is true then you're making unwarranted assumptions.

I try not to make assumptions where I don't have too, but I'm sure I make many unwarranted assumptions nevertheless. But in particular I make no assumptions about your feelings or beliefs other than that you are human like all the rest of us.

—I can assure you that I have no desire to toe the line of the "science industrial complex", as you say…as a scientist and clinician, I care about the data and the welfare of my patients. As a psychologist, I neither prescribe medications, nor do I have any ties with pharmaceutical companies.

I never doubted your good intentions... or am I missing the point here?

—What I stated above is based on what I've read in the research, not blind adherence to the status quo.

Excuse me but you stated a number of things, some of which probably is supported by research you have read. But you must be more specific. Your very first statement concerned "The hysteria surrounding the use of antidepressants." Is it your contention that this 'hysteria' is documented fact? Or your hypothesis that "people with depression are at greater risk for suicide when one starts to experience an alleviation of symptoms"? Or your hypothesis of this hypothesis that it is explained by an increase in psychic energy? Or your assertion that this has explanatory power? All the above? Your statements may be based on research but they consist of opinion and conjecture, not data, and they do represent a very common, one might say institutionalized, point of view. That doesn't mean you are wrong, of course. But it doesn't mean you are right either.

—I am a "cheerleader" for the scientific method.

That's great! Can you explain then why you argue from the authority of 'common knowledge?' "It is common knowledge within mental health that people with depression are at greater risk for suicide when one starts to experience an alleviation of symptoms."

—Further, science, by definition, does not claim to have final answers; it is inherently tentative, and I have no idea how you derived the contrary from what I wrote above.

I am perfectly well aware that science is tentative and iterative. Which of my statements told you that I had derived the contrary from what you wrote, for I must tell you I am not aware of making any such derivation? Have you made an unwarranted assumption that everything I said had something to do with what you wrote?

—We strive for technology to help us solve problems, but we do not know if it will ever be complete in this regard.

I'm having a little trouble with the concept of 'complete technology.' Technology is tools. Tools are useful or ill-suited, but not 'complete.' Some tools may be beyond improving, but I know of no way to demonstrate that. Whether the tools of Psychiatry ever achieve completeness or not is, in my opinion, entirely irrelevant. It is not their completeness but their usefulness that is at issue.

—I am stunned that you would suggest [if you have indeed] that I used psychiatry in a "religious" manner…this is the very antithesis of my worldview.

I made no suggestion that you use psychiatry in a religious manner. I will suggest, however, that you demonstrate a certain contextual unawareness that is analogous to the voluntary self-deception of the faithful. You show great faith in the medical model of 'mental health,' which faith perhaps serves you clinically. You perhaps forget that it is just a model, and you perhaps are not aware that it has been eloquently criticized, and I don't mean by scientologists.

—By your reasoning, if I were to defend evolution against the pestilence of intelligent design, I would be mindlessly defending without cause.

This is not my reasoning at all. This is your own reasoning which I'm afraid I can't follow. I would be very happy to hear you defend evolution against intelligent design, and I would not at all be insensitive to the many good reasons to do so. If I make the perhaps warranted assumption that your post had something to do with the NYTs article on genetic links to suicidal ideation in patients taking a particular antidepressant, your defense of antidepressants would seem to pit evolution (antidepressants) against intelligent design (genetic link). But I'll bet that's not what you have in mind, is it? I'll bet that you are reacting to this line of the article: "regulators and some former patients are locked in a furious debate about the risks of antidepressant drugs." And your defense of evolution (antidepressants) is against intelligent design (former patients and anyone else who dares to question, not the efficacy, but the appropriateness of antidepressant drug therapy). Am I right? If so I think the reasons for your defense are fairly transparent, yes, but not without cause certainly.

If I am wrong, as I know I might well be, then I'm afraid I don't really understand your post, neither your purpose in posting it, which may go a long way toward explaining why I did not address any remarks to you about it.

In sum, I am perfectly happy to concede that you are a good guy doing your best to be thoughtful and helpful. I am delighted to know you value the scientific method; I never thought otherwise. I think your use of the word 'hysteria' was ill advised, and I'm betting you think so too by this point. I am happy to admit that I am riddled with ignorance and blind spots. I am very sorry if my compliment to A. Person was an affront to you, I did not mean it that way. In truth I really was making a general observation not directed to you particularly. In the back of my mind was another comment made by notsobad ("But since the latter requires personal responsibility and other things people do not know any more, it's up to science to produce better drugs.") as well as a previous discussion in which someone mentioned PETA with an attitude (not your attitude, I accept) that only the lunatic fringe would ever dare to criticize Science, and another post from days ago where an environmental issue was raised which someone took as an opportunity to rattle on about the benefits of modern industry with, again an attitude of, 'anyone who disagrees with me is a fool because, I... am a Scientist.'

I believe we could learn from each other. What do you think?

27. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #74441 by nother person on September 28, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Thank you A. Person for a nicely considered response to this issue. It is great to read the many thoughtful comments on this board about the weaknesses in the standard arguments put forward by people who one must assume are generally reasonable but who seem to have blinkers on when it comes to religion, or at least, to their own religion. But there are also from time to time posted some science cheerleading type remarks made by individuals who seem to be equally blind to the weaknesses of certain aspects of science. There's nothing wrong with being a technophile, but I find it disturbing that an attitude is sometimes expressed here that technology can and will solve all problems, that everything science currently says is correct, that the science-industrial complex is an irreproachable boon that creates no problems only solves them or, as was hinted above, that the best way to solve problems of human suffering is to medicate people.

I have been lurking for some time now, and mostly enjoy the remarks and am impressed with the thinking expressed. I have also noticed that in almost every case where someone makes one of those cheerleading type statements, someone else posts a caution or a correction. I guess that fell to you this time around. I also felt that this was a good time to register in order to appreciate you doing that and so that I could more fully participate in the future. I don't think that reigning in zealots is the most important thing to do here, but it is significant and worthy work.

I would like to emphasize that what we are reading here is a report in the NYT, not a peer reviewed journal article. The authors of the original work called it preliminary. What they apparently reported was a duel correlation in about 1% of the depressed population from which the study sample was drawn. Even if their results prove to be robust, they are not likely to mean much to the majority of clinically depressed people. On top of all that, hard evidence of a genetic link to a psychiatric disorder is the holy grail in some sociobiology circles. Given all that, it seems just a tad premature to be hashing out the subtitles of the differences between expressing a feeling state, expressing an intention and taking an action. But one can understand why the NYT would spin it this way...