151. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #120480 by Rational_G on February 1, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Neuroscience research will show that the brain and consciousness are natural processes, requiring no supernatural explanation.

152. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120479 by Rational_G on February 1, 2008 at 6:51 pm

The pope is an ass - a speed bump on the road to progress and happiness.

The Church says humans are wretched sinners that need saving - how's that for promoting human dignity?

153. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116843 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Robert Laughlin also takes the "observer effect" to task in his book "A Different Universe". To quote him:

"A thing cannot be deterministic only when people are not looking at it."

154. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116827 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Inflation: (from the guy who invented it)

http://web.mit.edu/physics/alumniandfriends/physicsjournal_fall_02_cosmology.pdf

String Theory: (from Brian Greene- leading string theorist)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html

Enjoy!

155. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116774 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 11:20 am

Inflation makes predictions that can be tested. String theory doesn't. Until string theory can make falsifiable predictions it is just a mathematical model, albeit a very interesting one.

156. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116769 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 11:07 am

Liz Green did a fine job - I've heard much worse. And RD did a great job of getting the salient points across in the time alloted. That's all you can really hope for.

157. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116751 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 10:36 am

RickM -

I agree - plenty of uncertainty to go around. At least inflation makes some claims that can be tested. I too hope they get the LHC running soon. Should be interesting!

158. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116731 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 9:29 am

John needs to hang with Lewis Black. He always carries a couple of fossils in his pocket for guys like John! :)

159. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116538 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm

LorienRyan - Big bang theory has not been "disproven". Best theory we have for describing the early universe. Cosmic background "electromagnetic " radiation discovered in 1965 reveals early universe "plasma" in thermodynamic equilibrium and adds weight to big bang theory. LHC will address legitimate questions on elementary particle physics, regardless of correctness of string theory.

Hope that helps.

160. Secrets of bird flight revealed

Comment #116507 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 5:12 pm

News Flash! Birds extend wings into moving air - achieve lift.

161. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116472 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Heisenburg is stopped by a cop for speeding.

The cop asks "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Heisenburg replies, "No, but I know exactly where I am!"

162. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116456 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 2:24 pm

RD is awesome. Cuts to the chase in one or two sentences.

163. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116446 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm

What Steve Zara says is true (no surprise there). There's a lot of skepticism about string theory and supersymmetric particles - since these theories make no claim that be proven false. They can always "adjust" their theory to fit the evidence. Doesn't seem right. A good theory should make a definitive prediction -like Einstein's prediction on how much starlight is bent when passing near the sun.

Nevertheless, probing nature at new energy levels is exciting in and of itself. I look forward to the results.

164. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116419 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 12:53 pm

"The only way to uncover the secrets of the universe is to go and look." - Dr. Brian Cox

Amen (if you'll pardon the expression).

165. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116418 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Great stuff. Thanks for the post!

Three cheers for The Enlightenment!!

166. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #115779 by Rational_G on January 24, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Way cool.

167. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115263 by Rational_G on January 23, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Serious -

Good point - Less fools! More bimbos!

168. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115259 by Rational_G on January 23, 2008 at 8:09 pm

This man is a fool. He should have spent more time keeping Bill away from bimbos.......

169. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114791 by Rational_G on January 22, 2008 at 8:17 pm

To infer life on extrasolar planets you want to look for certain absorption lines in the planet's atmospheric spectrum. The Kepler mission is a space based telescope designed to do this. it looks at the the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

See http://kepler.nasa.gov/

See also Europe's Corot mission, which is in orbit now.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/COROT/index.html

170. The New Theology

Comment #113522 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Science is a great adventure and it is an honest one. We just look around and use our brains to try to figure things out. And go where the data leads us. No talking about what "should be" just figuring out what "is". And what wonderful things we find. Like our REAL connection to the universe, ie the iron in our blood and the calcium in our bones forged inside stars. Our DNA revealing our interrelatedness with all other living things on earth - the list goes on and on.

Religion isn't just wrong - it's irrelevant.

171. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113456 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Someone's lost their mind.....

172. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113439 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Paula Kirby - You're my hero, too.

173. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113415 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Diacanu -

You're my hero.

174. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113412 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 2:14 pm

"New Findings Confirm Newton's Theory - Gravitational Force Inversely Proportional to the Square of the Distance"

175. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110823 by Rational_G on January 12, 2008 at 8:24 pm

The winner is......

Norman Borlaug

176. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110633 by Rational_G on January 11, 2008 at 4:54 pm

As far as I know, the 3 body problem is not solvable.

Also, I recommend the book "A Different Universe - Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down" by Robert B Laughlin. Mr Laughlin shared the Nobel prize in Physics in 1998 for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect. It's a great read, and in it he will make you re-think about which laws are truly fundamental. He argues that collective behavior doesn't follow from a law, rather the law follows from the collective behavior!
Read it!

177. Researchers use neuroimaging to study ESP

Comment #107995 by Rational_G on January 5, 2008 at 7:39 pm

ESP = Complete Bullshit

178. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107508 by Rational_G on January 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm

This was a very good debate. Usually the religious guy is a complete buffoon but I must admit the rabbi did a good job. Of course I'm on Sam's side but at least the rabbi was eloquent and intelligent. It's nice to see a well behaved debate for once.

179. A War On Science

Comment #105430 by Rational_G on December 31, 2007 at 2:27 pm

I'll bet I'm not the only one who skips the parts where the ID'ers talk because I can't stand to listen to obvious lies they are spewing.

180. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105101 by Rational_G on December 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Steve Zara -

Loved your phrase:

"Stop talking....and start measuring"

Music to my engineering ears!

Excellent!

181. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #105088 by Rational_G on December 30, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I've been a Carl Sagan fan since I bought a paperback copy of "The Cosmic Connection" back in 1975 for $1.75! I was always impressed by his ability to sift out the best images from planetary spacecraft. If you look at his books, you'll find that the images he used were often not the typical ones. He chose the ones that in my mind were the most compelling, like drainage channels on Mars long before anybody else really focused on them. Plus he was among the first to take seriously the search for life in the universe and to take a multidisciplinary approach, often enduring professional ridicule in the process. He also framed planetary exploration with the rise of the Enlightenment and how exploration, science, and the arts thrive in a rational, secular, tolerant society (eg. Holland in the 17th century).

Also bought his book (with Shklovskii) on "Intelligent Life in the Universe" my first exposure to SETI. Tellingly, Sagan dedicated this book to the biologist J.B.S Haldane, also a hero of Richard Dawkins, way back in 1966.

I lose count of all the Sagan books on my bookshelves - They're all good.

I recommend the biography "Carl Sagan - A Life", a very fair treatment by the science writer Keay Davidson.

In my opinion, Sagan's books are better than the Cosmos series. The Cosmos production is a bit tacky and over the top sometimes, but these are minor squabbles on my part. Better to be a little tacky yet inspire millions to science and reason. I certainly was inspired, before and after Cosmos. Good to see it being shown again, hopefully to inspire millions more. I still look at my copy of Cosmos (the book), open it up to any page - still a good read.

I agree that science shows today, even the good ones, are dumbed down and fluffy. They really don't have to be.

Speaking of not dumbing down, I had the pleasure of seeing the astronaut Story Musgrave (the one who installed the optical fix to the Hubble Space Telescope) give a talk at a local elementary school. When I arrived for the talk the place was filled with boy scout troops and soccer moms. Oh no, I thought, this is going to be a golly, gee whiz dumb down talk to a bunch of ten year olds!

Thankfully, I was totally wrong. Mr. Musgrave gave a talk that was inspirational, intelligent and mature. He talked about the Shuttle, Hubble, exploration, humanity's future - technical yet accessible to all! It moved me, the kids, and the soccer moms equally. He didn't dumb it down. I was most impressed by that.

Just goes to show you don't have to dumb it down.

To me, Richard Dawkins is wonderfully filling the void left by Carl Sagan's death when it comes to educating the public on science and reason. This web site is the proof!

182. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #103262 by Rational_G on December 24, 2007 at 7:43 pm

I guess the setting is important. Singing carols out in the snow seems harmless (though I would never do it) but singing them in Church, surrounded by faith heads---yuk. I couldn't stand it for a minute. Actually I couldn't stand it for a minute out in the snow either, so Richard Dawkins, don't do it! Go to the pub instead! Sing limericks!

183. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101678 by Rational_G on December 20, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Hey Reverend.

Thanks for that astronomy tip about the stars.

Been wonderin' about that.

Can always count on religion to set you straight, cosmology wise.

Just ask Galileo.

184. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101676 by Rational_G on December 20, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Gotcha, Reverend.

Now how 'bout that Resurrection thing?

185. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101674 by Rational_G on December 20, 2007 at 6:01 pm

WTF???????????????

186. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98897 by Rational_G on December 14, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Wow! What a treat!

How 'bout the Fab Four?

187. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #98484 by Rational_G on December 13, 2007 at 6:15 pm

I KNOW I dislike these debating points.

188. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #98481 by Rational_G on December 13, 2007 at 6:05 pm

I freely hate these debating points.

189. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #98478 by Rational_G on December 13, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Yeah, move these "debating tips" somewhere else. I don't remember asking to be coached. Just read TGD.

My first reaction to seeing all these postings was "WTF is this?"

190. Voyager 2 probe reaches solar system boundary

Comment #98471 by Rational_G on December 13, 2007 at 5:26 pm

This stuff makes me proud to be human being also. And proud to be an engineer.

I wouldn't be so hard on the shuttle. It was designed to be an all purpose space vehicle with the
inevitable tradeoffs. Comparing the space shuttle to Voyager is really comparing apples and oranges.

Voyager is a wonderful bird and its record speaks for itself. It is a relatively simple reliable design with a
well defined mission. The shuttle is a large complex system which must exit and enter the atmosphere on
every flight, fly hundreds of times, be man rated and be capable of carrying huge payloads. It also has to carry
a huge cryogenic fuel tank to fuel the most sophisticated liquid fuel engines every built along with those giant
Roman candle solid rocket motors. It has to be an orbiter and airplane both.

The design chosen (orbiter/booster/external tank) was not optimal, and driven in part by the dollars available.

I have a friend who worked on the shuttle and he likes to say the shuttle is not old technology but rather ahead of its
time. It's so complicated that we struggle to maintain and operate it. And the accidents occurred due to bad
management -not system failures. It's really a hypersonic transatmospheric experimental space vehicle. It's kind of
amazing there' s only been two accidents, and again, they were preventable.

I believe we will miss the Shuttle when it's retired.

Think about it. Would you lament a B747 as tired old sixties technology? I think not. It's avionics and airframe
have been constantly upgraded over the decades. Ditto the shuttle.

But back to Voyager. It, along with other interplanetary craft will certainly "outlive" homo sapiens, since they will be around a long, long time.
We will have gone extinct or evolved into something else by then.

Pretty cool, huh?


Note 1: While Voyager did not "pass Pluto" as in perform a close flyby, it did "pass" the orbit of Pluto a long time ago.

Note 2: I doubt we'll catch up to Voyager in 50 to 100 years

Note 3: The plan is for the New Horizons spacecraft to visit the Kuiper Belt after its Pluto/ Charon encounter. Awesome!

Note 4: I think it is a noble and healthy quest for humanity to support BOTH a robust robot and human spaceflight program.

Note 5: I'm looking forward to the final Hubble maintenance mission next year. Now there's a Shuttle mission we can all be proud of.

Note 6: There ain't nothing antiquated about launching rockets off the Earth.

191. A Call For a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

Comment #97208 by Rational_G on December 11, 2007 at 6:06 pm

It ain't gonna happen

192. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97200 by Rational_G on December 11, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Who gives a shit? Dumb movie vs. dumb religion.

........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

193. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95983 by Rational_G on December 9, 2007 at 4:01 pm

It doesn't matter if Hitler or Stalin were religious.

They were dogmatic father figures demanding total obedience, professing omnipotence, and intolerant of any opposing point of view.

Sounds like a secular version of monotheistic religion, does it not?

No blood was spilled in the name of atheism, only in the name of Hitler and Stalin and their totalitarian cults.

Plenty of blood spilled throughout history in the name of God, though.

194. The art of the soluble

Comment #95771 by Rational_G on December 9, 2007 at 7:27 am

Dr. Benway: "Again with the fucking fine tuning"

Good one! Cracked me up.

The anthropic principle explains nothing.

195. Why debate dogma?

Comment #94419 by Rational_G on December 5, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Umm.... getting back to Mr. Conell's argument:

I agree pretty much with what the man is saying. The time is long overdue to stop being polite.

I'll trade a little rudeness to fight for freedom from religion any day.

This is a fight you know - not a intellectual debating exercise.

As our hero Mr. Dawkins has said: "...Stop being polite.....Let's all stop being so damned respectful...."

196. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90614 by Rational_G on November 25, 2007 at 8:10 pm

The "anthropic principle" explains nothing. It is totally underwhelming. "Gee, if the constants of the universe were different, we wouldn't be here!" Well, no shit, Sherlock. They are what they are and we are here. I guess someone must have rigged the numbers! Oh yeah, there's a rational start for explaining the cosmos. Can we please get over the conceit that the Universe was designed for homo sapiens in mind? Has the last 500 years of science taught us anything?

197. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90586 by Rational_G on November 25, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Arcturus:

Right on!

I encourage all readers of this thread to read the responses to Davies artice at the edge web site.

See what top scientists have to say about Davies' lame article!!

198. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90585 by Rational_G on November 25, 2007 at 4:38 pm

"But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

I find Davies' piece in the NYTimes disturbing. I am familiar with Davies, as I have read some of his books. Science is not based on faith - indeed some scientists are trying to figure out why the laws of the universe are the way they are. Science is based on evidence.

But to equate religious faith with some scientific "faith" does a disservice to the methods of science. This article can only serve religious people who can now say - "see, science is based on faith, too!" How sad. I agree that Davies knows what he is doing and his agenda is a "religious one". I think some of you are nieve if you think this article is not damaging or a distortion of the scientific method. Of couse, science makes assumptions. That is the only way you can isolate a problem for analysis. But these assumptions are not set in stone (unlike religious ones) and can and will be changed once more knowledge is gained.

A sad article. I think Davies just likes being a contrarian. And he is in bed with the Templeton crowd.

199. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #87268 by Rational_G on November 11, 2007 at 3:48 pm

"Why don't we take a look at the world around us?"

Indeed. You tell em', Sir David!

200. Huge Black Holes May Hold Keys to Galaxy Formation

Comment #84586 by Rational_G on November 2, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Great stuff. Just goes to show you what you can find out by building instruments (telescopes in this case) to observe nature.

Sure beats listening to men in robes trying to tell you what's going on.