Now show me a video on how to verify this. What power of microscope would you need to determine this isn't just regular cells?

Also, this is faster if you gargle with the soap!

People saying "they need to express their data points more clearly, bla bla bla" - did you even look at the website linked in the comments? It has the source of the data listed there which you will be able to look at at your own leisure.

They're scientists. They don't present raw data to you, because you probably don't have the technical knowledge of the field to understand what those symbols and signs mean. What they do is interpret the data for you so that you can understand it, and allow you to go and look at the same freely available data for yourself if you think you can understand it.

Not everything is simple enough for people who are not trained to understand....to understand.

I mean this is starting to get flat out rediculous; people trip over themselves to question the expertise of scientists at places like NASA, but when a politician tells them everything is the other guy's fault they eat it up like ice cream.

@therealblankman it only just occured to me that your comment could have been a joke, but if it wasn't, then you should go and avail yourself of the methods available in the modern world to learn about things that we can't necessarily see with our own unaided eyes. We've got microscopes and ice cores and shit! Know what i mean!?

I hope you believe in King George, because he wasn't around in your time but we've got a lot riding on him and his descendents!

>> ^darkrowan:

Uhm... ok so in searching for the original "Powers of 10" video, which is the name that eludes you @ant, I hit up on this vid. Does this make it a dupe? The other vid is there in response to the original, which was narrated rather than a music video.
>> ^ant:
>> ^kir_mokum:
this isn't a fan made video. i'm pretty sure it's a public domain science education video. DJ shadow use to use it for his live performances. very cool video though.

Yeah, I can't remember its video name. It had no music IIRC.



I would say a dupe. I think you show throw this to SiftTalk.

Uhm... ok so in searching for the original "Powers of 10" video, which is the name that eludes you @ant, I hit up on this vid. Does this make it a dupe? The other vid is there in response to the original, which was narrated rather than a music video.
>> ^ant:

>> ^kir_mokum:
this isn't a fan made video. i'm pretty sure it's a public domain science education video. DJ shadow use to use it for his live performances. very cool video though.

Yeah, I can't remember its video name. It had no music IIRC.

@deathcow

O wow, that is all really interesting! Now that you mention it, I am a glasses wearing fellow and have to take regular eye exams. My left eye, shes a bad one, basically legally blind, all she can see is the big E. Right eye, however, sees pretty well, but not perfect. But, for whatever reason, when I use both eyes I get a better score than the highest eye. In other words, my nearly blind eye can still help my much better eye see the world more clearly. Or more accurately, the brain is able to do some magic with more information even if that information is badly corrupted. I hadn't considered that "feels larger" thing, though, for TVs that most likely won't apply because you are seeing it with both eyes already (albit 2 perspectives of one perspective). Even so, I think that is really neat! I remember the old days of looking through microscopes and could definitely remember that "smaller" feeling.

So maybe there is some fine balance that could be struck between pure fidelity and depth fidelity. Perhaps you don't have to dedicate 50/50 to each perspective (and lower the overall fidelity by half), perhaps you can get away with only showing 80% of one perspective of the native resolution and 20% of the other. Then every ones brain will be doing what my brain is doing for me, filling in the gaps and still presenting a 3d image before your minds eye. Or perhaps that will just give people headaches.

>> ^kir_mokum:

this isn't a fan made video. i'm pretty sure it's a public domain science education video. DJ shadow use to use it for his live performances. very cool video though.


Yeah, I can't remember its video name. It had no music IIRC.

It's hard to tell if they are just dumbing things down for an example or if they are just dumb. I personally lean toward the idea that these people really believe that they've come up with some explanation for why real science is flawed.

Unfortunately it's pretty simple to just tell someone like this that without a microscope and a clean environment it would be impossible to actually tell if life had been created or not in your peanut butter. Likewise, peanuts ARE living matter, so I'm not sure exactly how he plans to sort the existing living matter from the new living matter.

>> ^longde:

Medical imaging I can see; but the commercial applications he mentioned are a stretch. Why not just use CGI for that?


The applications for this are almost beyond imagining. This is a huge tool to all kinds of future research. The same way telescopes and microscopes can hardly be underestimated, this too is yet another giant leap in the tools available for researching how our world functions.

Oh look someone who doesn't understand that when you're testing new drugs, that you occasionally find something that does something else. Ever hear of Rogaine, that magical drug for hair loss recovery? Did you know it was originally a heart medication. So was viagra. I'm sure that understanding the differences between the two will be illuminating. Besides, killing microscopic parasites is hard, unless you want to kill the patient.

I'm sure it'll further amaze you that some of the immunoboosters used in cancer treatment are the class-a drugs for treating aids now.

>> ^wraith:

Oh look, someone with a "The Invisible Hand Of The Market will sheperd and protect us all" attitude!
(From wikipedia)
I don't know of a single death from Erectile Dysfunction that could have been prevented if Viagra would have been invented earlier.
>>

Do you see the problem? To prove Premise 1, Craig had to define OMVs as independent of human opinion, but in his (and your) proof of OMVs' existence, he invoked human opinion, which, by the original definition, must be irrelevant. As soon as you redefine OMVs as something humans can validate, they cease to require a God to have determined them, as we could have determined them ourselves.

As Premise 1 and Premise 2 cannot both be proven true with consistent definitions of the term "objective moral values", the conclusion that God exists remains unproven.

And this is all that is required, as nobody is trying to prove that God doesn't exist, nor explain the existence of our innate sense of morals.

There is no problem with the definition of OMVs here. This is a standard definition that you will find in any dictionary or philosophy handbook, and both premises are consistent with it. The problem is that you are bringing up two unrelated issues and conflating them. If you want to observe Jupiter and you use a microscope and don't observe it, does this mean that Jupiter doesn't exist? Does the method you use have any bearing on whether it exists or not? Then neither does how we determine whether OMVs exist have any bearing on whether they do actually exist or not. If you to argue we cannot know objective facts by making subjective determinations then we will be exactly where you said you wanted to avoid..this is my reality, that is your reality, and no objective world between us, but only mere opinion.

Yes, we determine premise 2 subjectively. I apprehend an objective moral realm which imposes itself upon my moral choices. There is nothing logically inconsistent here, and certainly nothing that invalidates the argument. We can affirm an objective truth with a subjective interpretation, it doesn't make it contingent on that interpretation. So, premise 2 will stand regardless of whether we subjectively determine it or not. OMVs can be apprehended subjectively and still exist objectively. The question is, what do you believe? That is what is truly relevant to the argument.

If you want to take a position of moral skepticism, then feel free, but you don't get to dismiss the argument over it. How we determine whether premise 2 is true or false is at the heart of how you approach this entire problem. How about you engage the argument rather than trying to break it apart so you don't have to take any position? It would be nice if we could advance the discussion.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
PART 1 OF 2
Logical discourse
It seems we
[edited for a few very minor things]

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

The truth is Isaac Asimov's reality is just around the corner... if only you knew what science is doing next. The robotics is about to change mankind.


I'm a little more worried about the microscopic robots they hope to inject in our blood stream. I'm pretty sure I can still kick this big toaster's ass at the moment.

used tape once to hold something in place under a microscope... learned then that it will slowly move with little force acting on it

Ignoring the video - which is typical bilge - I'll move on to actual substance. Here is the crux of the current panic that is gripping the Warmies... Their empire is crumbling and they know it. Hence, they are lashing out in panic and anger. This is typical of most socialist scams when they go belly-up, as is further evidenced by the riots in Europe and elsewhere.

The Warmies have always had a particularly ugly sow’s ear they were desperately trying to turn into a silk purse. Their primary concern has never been the cliimate. Their sole objectives have always been entirely oriented around the creation of expensive programs which force human beings to accept decreased standards of living, reduced freedoms, higher taxes, less food, costly commodities, limited transportation, and onerous regulations. In exchange for all these burdens, humanity was to be provided a very nebulous ‘benefit’ (0.001% lower C02) which was by no means even guaranteed by the implementation of their draconian measures. That’s a tough bottle of snake oil to sell, even IF you have ironclad proof of your argument. And of course when it came right down do it the problem with the Warmies' argument was that they NEVER had proof of any kind beyond fabrications, exaggerations, and fevered imagination.

One of the main problems with all you Warmies is that you can't put forward a position. You talk about 'scientific proof' of 'climate change'. Pht. You don't need the rigor of scientific method to tell anyone that the climage changes. Dur dur dur. Everyone accepts the premise that Earth's climate is not static. Wow - what a keen observation.

Where the Warmies have lost the argument is thier plaintive, inaccurate, unproven position that HUMAN C02 emmissions are (A) what changes the climate and (B) the climate can be changed by reducing human C02. There was never any evidence of that position. But Warmies love to muddle terminology and pretend that just because 'scientists' agree that climate is changing (again - not much of an accomplishment) that also all those scientists agree that human activity is responsible for it (which they most decidedly do NOT).

Add on top of that the fundamental reality that many of the cornerstones of the APG Warmie movement have been proven to be complete bunk. Just this week the Polar Bear guy was proven by a federal probe to be completely full of crap. He had no data that bears were dying because of human activity as he claiimed. The hockey stick chart - falsified. East Anglia university data - the numbers are cooked. The IPCC panels - all thier data is bad and the majority of thier claims have all been debunked and failed. Time and time again when you put the Warmies under the microscope of REAL SCIENCE, the argument completely falls apart.

The video has it completely backwards. It is not FOX & conservatives who are faking thier way. The entire climate change movement and all its acolytes are the ones who are lying to accomplish a biased, incorrect, inaccurate, anti-science objective entirely for political purposes.

I doubt he could actually make that video. He'd a scanning electron microscope to find the damn thing.

>> ^UsesProzac:
Hey, man, if you make that video, I'll submit it for ya. I'm sure someone else has a promote or two. >> ^ForgedReality:
I'm going to whip my dick out and flop it on the table as a joke. HA HA HILARIOUS now I'm in handcuffs and I can't even put my dick away.
When the cops question me as to why I did it, I'm going to tell them it's just something silly I can do, and it wasn't for attention at all.

yeesh... so much to discuss, so little time.

The one thing I want to say is this... biology is not impossibly complex. There are fascinating mechanism (trafficking of vesicles!) and still mysterious rules (epigenetics!), but its nothing we can't handle given time. We've only very recently invented technology that lets us BEGIN to really poke around... nearly all of the fanciest microscopes and imaging techniques still require dead, fixed, processed samples in order to investigate the sub-cellular world in detail.

Just... you-know... hug a researcher, maybe give her/him a high-five,... and give them some time to keep pulling back this curtain.