The interesting thing about this topic is not whether Watson is right per se, but more on whether or not we should believe he is right.In genetics, James Watson is the expert to end all experts. He pretty much literally invented the field. Aren’t we supposed to respect the opinion of experts? In the Age Of Trump And Brexit, don’t we hear so often from the talking heads about how “We must respect the experts”, on economics, on climate change, on trade wars, instead of shooting from the hip with our layman prejudices?And then here’s an ur-expert saying expert things about his field, and what do those same talking heads do? “OMG DON’T LISTEN TO THIS MAN HE’S EVIL”. Excuse me, weren’t you just telling me to listen to experts? Shouldn’t I believe this guy over reporters and talking heads? He has a Nobel prize in genetics. That means that he knows more about the topic than any of the people who are character-assassinating him. If he says something about genetics, are we not beholden to at least consider the possibility, rather than tarring and feathering him?I am not a geneticist. I am not qualified to an opinion on the scientific merits of James Watson’s comments. But when choosing which side to believe, the “Moral panicing journos” are always a worse bet than a “Nobel prizewinning expert”.
Scientist should rather inform before speaking. People does’t know about topics they discuss about, so an answer becomes relevant, even if it has no scientific relief. How can they say ther is no study about? This is not true. Homeopathy begins in the late 1700 invented by Sameul Hahnemann. There are lots of books about, homeopathic repertories, homeopathic materia medica, infinite proovings, all good described during two centuries. Everibody can control, read, buy thesebooks. Let’s say this kind of medicine threatens pharmaceutica industry and, it is more difficult to apply to man. Because homeopathy looks at man in his whole. A homeopath must investigate body and mind. I find it easier to treat everybody with protocols that are based on Evidence Based Medicine whose cryteria started in 1992. 1992–1792= 200 years of clinical practice, that is become now “eretic”. Scientist (that don’t know or don’t want to study about) can keep on denigrate homeopathy, and it doesn’t matter. Everybody who has ben treated with it knows that if remedy is the right one, you will cure, you will heal. Homeopathic pills are not usual sleeping pills, for they work on man, and everyone is different from another. So, if I don’t investigate deeply in you, I won’t give you the right remedy, but this is not homeopathy fault, it’s my fault. Look for the “simillimum”, and you will find the right substance for you.
Scientist should rather inform before speaking. People does’t know about topics they discuss about, so an answer becomes relevant, even if it has no scientific relief. How can they say ther is no study about? This is not true. Homeopathy begins in the late 1700 invented by Sameul Hahnemann. There are lots of books about, homeopathic repertories, homeopathic materia medica, infinite proovings, all good described during two centuries. Everibody can control, read, buy thesebooks. Let’s say this kind of medicine threatens pharmaceutica industry and, it is more difficult to apply to man. Because homeopathy looks at man in his whole. A homeopath must investigate body and mind. I find it easier to treat everybody with protocols that are based on Evidence Based Medicine whose cryteria started in 1992. 1992–1792= 200 years of clinical practice, that is become now “eretic”. Scientist (that don’t know or don’t want to study about) can keep on denigrate homeopathy, and it doesn’t matter. Everybody who has ben treated with it knows that if remedy is the right one, you will cure, you will heal. Homeopathic pills are not usual sleeping pills, for they work on man, and everyone is different from another. So, if I don’t investigate deeply in you, I won’t give you the right remedy, but this is not homeopathy fault, it’s my fault. Look for the “simillimum”, and you will find the right substance for you.
Do you think these scientists are raising reasonable alarm, or are "alarmists"?
Dr. James McCarthy is a professor of biological oceanography at Harvard. Dr. Lisa Graumlich is the dean of the College of the Environment at the University of Washington. Dr. Chris Field is the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science. Dr. James Hurrell is a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. These four scientists testified at a recent House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing, “The Foundation of Climate Science.” They also wrote an article published in Politico. Some excerpts: "Today, a large body of evidence has been collected to support the broad scientific understanding that global climate warming, as evident these last few decades, is unprecedented for the past 1000 years — and this change is due to human activities. This conclusion is based on decades of rigorous research by thousands of scientists and endorsed by all of the world’s major national science academies. The urgent need to act cannot be overstated. Climate change caused by humans is already affecting our lives and livelihoods — with extreme storms, unusual floods and droughts, intense heat waves, rising seas and many changes in biological systems — as climate scientists have projected. Although uncertainties remain, they concern issues like the rate of melting of major ice sheets rather than the broader topic of whether the climate is changing. The biggest question is what choices we and our children should make about energy use. The more dependent we are on carbon-emitting energy sources, the more our climate will change." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/071... What do you think - are these "alarmist" statements, or do they raise reasonable, substantiated alarm?
Why was the dawn of the 20th century both a time of optimism and insecurity?
Optimism because mechanization was beginning to occur along with significant advancements in transportation. Insecurity? I'm not sure about that one. Probably because the mechanization and transportation advancements were threatening the manual labor driven traditional economy. Perhaps the optimism of the mechanization was also an insecurity for traditional commerce.
Do you think these scientists are raising reasonable alarm, or are "alarmists"?
Dr. James McCarthy is a professor of biological oceanography at Harvard. Dr. Lisa Graumlich is the dean of the College of the Environment at the University of Washington. Dr. Chris Field is the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science. Dr. James Hurrell is a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. These four scientists testified at a recent House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing, “The Foundation of Climate Science.” They also wrote an article published in Politico. Some excerpts: "Today, a large body of evidence has been collected to support the broad scientific understanding that global climate warming, as evident these last few decades, is unprecedented for the past 1000 years — and this change is due to human activities. This conclusion is based on decades of rigorous research by thousands of scientists and endorsed by all of the world’s major national science academies. The urgent need to act cannot be overstated. Climate change caused by humans is already affecting our lives and livelihoods — with extreme storms, unusual floods and droughts, intense heat waves, rising seas and many changes in biological systems — as climate scientists have projected. Although uncertainties remain, they concern issues like the rate of melting of major ice sheets rather than the broader topic of whether the climate is changing. The biggest question is what choices we and our children should make about energy use. The more dependent we are on carbon-emitting energy sources, the more our climate will change." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/071... What do you think - are these "alarmist" statements, or do they raise reasonable, substantiated alarm?
Interesting facts please!?
Here are over fifty ideas for you Phobias friends occupation dream job dream house favourite television programe What launuages do you speak Where were you born What County are you from What hospital were you born in Religion Favourite things What model Phone What network are you on Do you have Children What do you like to do What hours do you work How old are you What inspired you Lifelong dream Releationship status Favourrte website Do you play sports what do you do in your spare time Do you vote in general eletions What Football club are you a fan of Who is your favouite rugby team Favouite sport to watch Favourite sport to play Worst lesson at school Best Lesson at school Have you ever appeared on Tv Do you have a hidden tallent What is your hidden tallent Are you a loving person Are your caring Childhood School you used to go favourite number do you like traveling Favourite Foreign country Worst Foreighn Country Have you ever been abraoud Your best think you have experianced Family Why is your favourite number your favourite number Who is the kindest family member Who is the meanest family member Do you have gadgets Date of birth Are you clever Favourite Simpsons person Worst Simpsons person Best Role Model Worst role model Who is the most beautiful person you have met What is your girlfriend/boyfriends name if you have one You are on a dessert island you can only take one thing what would you take
Good point, but then, many papers seem to suffer from similar mislabeling.The New York Times doesn’t only write about time, nor does Time magazine.The Atlantic isn’t a magazine about oceanography, though one might think so, from the title.The Wall Street Journal isn’t only about one street.I’ve never read an article in Harper’s about harps or harpists.Bloomberg Business Week doesn’t only write about Bloomberg.Daily Beast is a ridiculous name, since animals can’t read and don’t care about news.Scientific American isn’t only about American scientists; it also writes about scientists from other lands.Architectural Digest is a strange title, since you can’t eat or digest architecture.My city’s paper is called the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, which is absurd, since the newspaper is not a telegram, and even if it were, one can’t dispatch a telegram to the stars.I suspect this is all just part of the general unreliability of the mainstream media.