Crappy science on this vid, depending on the antibiotic there can be pretty severe interactions. Metabolic and liver issues are way at the top of issues:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=A7B5A5594CC2FFDBED4D7A78457C6969.inst3_3a?docId=5002334780
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antibiotics-and-alcohol/AN01802
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/5144.html

*nochannel
*femme
*viral
*happy
*anatomy

I don't take offense, such things are not personal to me. I just happen to troll bad sifts sometimes.

In any case, like I said, I have a standard for quality of factual accuracy and logic, regardless of whether the actual video is science or not. This sift didn't make the cut. I haven't watched the Hitchens video.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
With regards to my previous message, I was merely explaining my position and reasoning, please don't take it the wrong way, and I understand why you don' want to waste any more time or effort on this issue.

It is difficult to determine what is appropriate for any given channel, I run the debunked channel, and I'd hate to turn it into a political channel, for instance, but then again , where to draw the line, and why? Take, for instance the new Portal 2 trailer, Portal is a game that plays with science and experiments, but really, it doesnt have anything to do with actual science. In the recent Hitchens video "it does not follow" Hitchens talks about scientific discoveries to be sure, but is it science or an opinion-piece?

*Yawn*. I am more experienced than you as a sifter, channel owner, and, I dare say judging by your formulation of theories in this thread, a scientist. And I don't give a damn about truth by democracy. I serve the Videosift community by running a channel that is held to a certain standard of accuracy, logic and scientific credibility, not by cushioning people's feelings when they cling to ignorant or dumb ideas. Sorry if you can't deal, but that's how it is and is gonna be. I'm done wasting time on this sift.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
Are you really resorting to personal "rulings" that go against the community? You're at your most professional and appropriate when you refer to the many comments that disagree with your own as "shit."
The science channel is clearly meant to serve science and the community, not the inexperienced, self-righteous biases of a single user.

@BicycleRepairMan

I did not take your post as offensive, but you know I run my channel with an iron fist.

The question itself is worth asking, and a valid argument could be made that Islam plays a role in the low scientific output of Islamic countries in general.

That being said, this video posed the question and proposed an answer (that Islam in these nations is inhibiting scientific progress) without appropriate adequate evidence. Therefore the question is valid but the argument is unscientific and not deserving of a place in the Science channel.

I explained my judgment on Science videos. Since you don't seem to have been around when I established the channel, you should know that I have always ruled that just because a sift discusses science does not make it worthy of being in the Science channel. There are a bunch of bad science and pseudo-science videos I have booted out (homeopathy, water fluoridation conspiracies, evil vaccines, etc.) because they have misinformation and straight up incorrect theories.

Another great thing about science is that publications are judged by people with graduate degrees and correlating levels of knowledge so that people who know what they're talking about get a say.

Oh, and I am, in fact, debating whether this video is true, and that is why it doesn't belong in Science. Science aims at objective truth. Fuck this nonsense about "discuss the controversy". Shit doesn't fly up in Science.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
We're debating not whether this video's argument is true, but whether it represents legitimate debate dealing with science.
It's hard to imagine why debate about the factors underlying differential rates of science publication wouldn't be considered 'dealing with science and of interest to those interested in science.' If something is controversial, we add a controversy tag.
The great thing about science is there aren't authority figures who make personal judgments about what represents legitimate debate.

I'm late to the party, but congratulations on your doctorate and marriage MH.

Well, first of all, #3 isn't actually a theory, since it MUST be true that Islamic societies play a significant role in Islamic societies' low rate of scientific publishing. You are not actually staking a falsifiable claim here.

What you are probably trying to say with #3 is actually: "Islam (or Islamic governance) (or Islamic influence) plays a significant role in Islamic societies' low rate of scientific publishing." If this is actually what you are claiming, your theory is not backed up by #1 or #2 in the slightest because you are not providing evidence of any causation.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
Sure. Here are the 3 claims with #3 reworded.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population is Muslim living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish ~1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in their low rate of scientific publishing.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere that would disqualify this as legitimate discussion?

Chilaxe, #3 is very confusing to me. Could you please restate #3 replacing "these outcomes" with the actual outcomes you're referring to?

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar
Please make clear your dispute.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population are Muslims living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish 1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in these outcomes.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere?
>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar
Please make clear your dispute.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population are Muslims living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish 1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in these outcomes.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere?

Chilaxe, the video most certainly does not get it right. The video places the "Fraction of the world that is Muslim" side by side with the "Fraction of Scientific Papers produced by the Muslim World" to create a strawman argument that somehow the comparison of these two figures says something about the effect that Islam (as a religion in general, notably not just as a state religion) has on scientific productivity.

The statistics quoted may in fact be right, but the analysis is sure as hell wrong.

The article goes in a totally different direction and makes a better, although still sloppy, distinction between Muslims and Muslim nations, but hey, I'm just the guy booting shitty videos out of my channel, articles don't count.

A tip for stepping up your game: Stop whining. It makes you seem petulant and childish.

If you think I'm interested in checking my attitude to convince people on the internet I'm right, you're mistaken. If you think my tone takes away from my point, you're being silly. If you think I'm not going to call people out for acting like idiots....well...stop being an idiot.

And that's all I have to say.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

What game is that, dad? That is, how should I step up my game? By humbly beseeching you to teach me the error of my ways, instead of knocking you off the pedestal you put yourself on?
Note: I did not disagree with your argument. (I wrote that once already.) But you really need to check your ego. It kind of hurts your argument. You're a scientician, right? What good is the most brilliant idea in the world if no one will listen to it because of the attitude?
Here ya go. Don't say I never did anything for you.>> ^rembar:
I will when you manage to step your game up.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:
P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

I will when you manage to step your game up.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:
P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

Chilaxe, I've never run into you before, but I run the Science channel. In opposition to many other channel owners, I run my channel (when I'm around) with an iron fist. Included in my channel description is the note that "if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate and in keeping with scientific thought."

This post, video, and the related article make claims that are unsubstantiated given the evidence they cite. For fucks' sake, the post starts off with "Muslims make up about 20 % of the world population but only produce 1 % of the worlds scientific papers (according to the IOP)." which is blatant horseshit if you take the time to even browse the article for the actual statistic.

In the future, please do me the favor of not reversing my decisions for the Science channel, especially if it involves dumping garbage back into Science.

P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

*nochannel
*religion
*islam
*talks

>> ^chilaxe:

Regarding the fair question about whether this belongs in the "science" channel:
If we put atheists' videos in the "religion" channel, we don't mean they're necessarily correct about religion, we mean that the video contains an argument about religion.
The same appears to be true about videos that contain arguments about science and comparative metrics of nations & cultures' scientific contributions.
I believe it's thus consistent to retain the categorization of science, not because we're claiming the author is correct, but because the author is legitimately discussing science.

There are a few good comments here with a bunch of crap floating around them. Having just watched the video and browsed the article, I am going to boot this the fuck out of Science for shittiness.

As no-really pointed out, looking at the scientific output for nations where Islam is the state religion does not say much about the scientific output of Muslims in general. If we looked at the output for nations where some form of Christianity is the state religion, what do you think you'd see?

England + Costa Rica + Liechtenstein + Malta + Monaco + Vatican City + Cyprus + Greece + Finland + Denmark + Iceland + Norway + Tuvalu = England + meh.

England is the only real heavy hitter in there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries

At very best, a reasonable argument could be made that there is a correlation between low scientific output of nations with state religions, but I'll eat a dick or two if you can dig through the confounding factors to make a solid case for that.

Point being, this video sucks, the article linked sucked too, and don't make broad generalizations about Islam and science without being able to back it up with scientific proof.

Fuck this, I'm out.

*nochannel
*religion
*islam

Thank you for an intelligent reply. I'm booting this video out of Science. I too work with people with a range of religious beliefs, and agree that the distinction between scientific output by Muslim nations compared to Muslims in general is important to make.

In reply to this comment by no-really:
I like this guy normally, but this train of thought was so retarded that I actually registered in order to derail it. 'Muslim World' is predominantly third world, so not surprisingly, few research papers are published in countries in which there is little money for food, never mind access to journals, infrastructure for equipment, travel grants or salaries for academics.

That academic productivity is linked to resources, rather than philosophy, is supported by the observation that the rate of publication has increased at four times the global average in the middle east in the last 30 years (http://www.science-metrix.com/30years-Paper.pdf), ten-fold in Iran. This is due to resource prioritisation by the administrations of those countries, not the religiosity of the scientists.

A better way of thinking about it would be to look at the number of muslims actually publishing scientific papers globally - loads of muslims live and work in the first world conducting great research that is unbiased by any secret fantasies they (or their theist colleagues) may harbour. I actually work in a lab headed by a Jew and staffed by a few atheists, a hindu, 2 christians, 2 muslims and a few shintos, and there is no correlation between how often anybody prays and their success at work.