h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'd agree I'm not the most diplomatic guy on the planet. Believe it or not, my potentially more contentious postings are usually first written, and then comprehensively rewritten a couple of times before I submit them - you should see the *originals*

I think there may be a few contributory factors, some of which I suppose will apply to posts in general, rather than just to mine.

Given the irregularity of posts, if I tried to slowly and gently convince someone one by one that the pillars of argument supporting their conclusions were flawed, the conversation could take months.
The chances are that there would be many other people posting at the same time, so I fear that a measured argument delivered in bitesize pieces would be likely to be masked by other postings.

Additionally, were I to try a softly-softly approach, and especially if I did end up in a one-on-one discussion, there would be a definite possibility that any incremental argument could be interpreted simply as my reacting to separate points as they are raised. I feel that in such a situation, it could be easy to see my arguments as much as a retreat as an advance or strong defence. Presenting several arguments together does help maintain some kind of coherence, especially when many people won't bother reading more than the last few posts of a given thread.

Possibly another reason I might react robustly on occasion is that (in the religion vs. science and evolution debates in particular), I often see the same (and in my view, ineffective) arguments being put forward time after time.
Even though they may be presented by a succession of different people, I trust you understand that it can be hard at times not to get a little frustrated when such explanations repeatedly recur, though in defence, I generally try to attack ideas, rather than the people who express them, and I do make more effort than some to avoid blaming religion for all the things done in its name.

You *didn't* offend my sensibilities. Your initial posting seemed mainly to point out what people around you believed. Your sealed box was an intelligent and interesting example to take, and wasn't threatening to my personal position, as I interpreted it primarily as a focus for discussion. To the extent that it could be construed as an argument to make atheists consider agnosticism, it could be equally be considered by a reasonable theist as an argument for deism, or at least as a reminder that theirs is not the only possible religious viewpoint.)

You're quite correct about ridicule. As to whether the people I reply to are always on the defensive, I would be less sure. Also, I couldn't honestly say what percentage of my replies are intended for a specific person, how much is intended for a wider audience, and how much is simply self-expression. I can be somewhat self-analytical, but not to quite that degree.

What research is it that you are doing that involves messing around with crap? And, more to the point, do you enjoy it??

I assume the reply was to your earlier comment 'Without science, I'd be out of a job...' rather than the immediately preceding reponse.
I presume working in immunology doesn't require generally professional familiarity with fecal matter. (organisational politics excluded)

(I assumed the reply was directed at 88425)

OK - to clear things up - I've been working either down sewers or in sewage treatment plants. That involves wading about in the stuff a fair bit. But, hey, you get used to the smell, and nothing can be really repulsive to you anymore.

88425 (...and they put a lime in it!!!!)

PS - except sewers adjoining slaughterhouses - yeugh!

I'm confused!! So who works in immunology? That's where my daughter's heading (Phd first) any warnings I should give her?????

Frin E. Frin does
See the posting a couple of weeks previous to this one.

Hi there Frin, Potholer directed me here! My daughter's about to embark (if degree comes through OK) on a Phd - immunology based. Got any specific warnings, tips, etc., - I don't know what to ask!!!

Carry on the good work re diabetes. I've been diabetic for 33 years & although I'm kinda well used to it, I think I'm beginning to see the long term effects & I pity those getting it now. In my first days it was considered to be either brought on by shock or genetic, glad to find there are probably more reasons. One thought of a few years ago, (which I believe is being looked into) that a friend & I had, was that a virus could start it off somehow. Any info?

I personally don't necessarily believe in a single creator, but it's good to know that scientists are open to their own beliefs & haven't been swallowed by pure science. Some people may think it's a bit like a catholic priest doing his job, but really he believes he's a, say, protestant. i understand what you were saying & that's it's not like that.

Does Scientology fit into this somewhere?

Sorry if I've rambled

Thank youooooooooo! I've gone & rambled to him!!

I was confused. But now I am not. What a wonderful thing science is.

Haven't been back here for a while - hasn't it gone quiet!! I reckon all you scientists are beavering away

Frin never came back to my post (re diabetes, etc, etc).

Just in case anyone is interested, probably not, but I'm "kind of" very happy 'cos my offspring got a first for her MCB degree - she only thought real clever bods got firsts!!!!!!

hear hear, that sounds sound, erm would you like to attend a book burning on saturday?

No warnings here, immunology research usually means mice... lots of mice. But still not enough to generate the kind of crap that you would have to wade through.

Hello Shirps,

I tend to be a rambler myself, no rough drafts. I finally got back on to this site, the load times are incredible here. If I have one bit of advice for your daughter is that she shouldn't try to identify or find one specific immunological component in her PhD work. If that one sought after item isn't uncovered and proven to be what it seems by the time she needs to present her data she has nothing to present. This is known affectionately as a "bug hunt". It is best to focus on a system and discover some things about that system. In this way, if one avenue of theory is fruitless, there are countless others (that will be a side effect of her 1st theory) that she can pursue. There are more papers that can be published during research this way too. I suppose she probably knows this, but it is tempting to be the one to make the blind leap of discovery. Additionally, a lot of people find it easier to get research grants if they add an MD to the PhD.

It is true that diabetes can be caused by all kinds of foriegn invaders. Mostly my lab is working with the genetic variety so I don't know about specific viruses that cause it. Anything that can make a toxin which destroys the islets will cause diabetes. I would bet that includes viral toxins.

About scientology...I had heard that there was a bet between Frank Herbert (science fiction author of Dune) and L Ron Hubbard to see who could make up a lasting religion. I guess L Ron won?

I'm a diabetic myself, and did a little research into the subject for my sixth-year studies in biology... That was many years ago now, but the front-runner theory was that diabetes mellitus was a result of an inherited immunilogical dysfunction. A virus (I believe the main suspect was a variety of the common cold called something like "Coxaki B4"(sp?)) enters the body, and the immune system produces malformed antibodies which attack the islets of langerhants(sp?) in the pancreas, destroying the body's means of insulin production. The person has one hell of a cold, as the body isn't fighting the infection, and comes out the other end a diabetic, permanently immune to their own insulin-producing cells, with their own body destroying them as fast as they are produced.

The inherited propensity for this "misfiring" of the immune sysstem is double recessive, and even those who do inherit it will not develop the condition if they never encounter the proper trigger.

An interesting, if potentially "bad taste" side issue would be to find AIDS sufferers who are diabetic, and find out if they have started producing insulin again once their immune system had stopped functioning...

Interesting! I have very little occasion to research that side of things, as the lab that I work in only deals with the genetics minus any infectious agents. Thank you for filling me in.

Paleantology would be easy if everything that died left a fossil for us, but that is unfortunately not the case. I don't really know what the exact odds are of a fossil forming. Suffice to say, they're pretty bleeping slim. In order for a skeleton or an impression to be converted into rock, the scenario requires a very, very special set of circumstances, And these rarely occur. Thus, the vast majority of creatures will never be preserved as fossils. And in order for us to find what few fossils there are, the have to last for millions of years, and on top of that have to be in a location where we can find them. THIS is why we don't have a nice, neat procession of fossils that show the change of primates to man.

Though the two sides to this topic will probably never be fully reconciled, and though most of this has been said at sometime, I have to add my ideas to such a controversial heading.
Science is rarely ever crap, and when it is, it is the fault of the scientist, not the actual science.
However, it does seem a tad big-headed to say that we are so amazing and wonderful that everything we've done has been done without any help. God obviously (at least to me) has some relation to our lives, and I've lived with evidence of it--my dad survived cancer for 13 years (and was told numerous times that he had less than 6 months to live)! Now this is a perfect example of science getting a little help from prayer and God--all are necessary!

Regarding the earlier fossil comments - as far as most kinds of creatures are concerned, it's absolutely correct that preservation is a very patchy process in the first place, and that subsequent exposure and discovery are also extremely unlikely.

However, to avoid the risk of people misinterpreting that statement, I should stress that certain marine creatures with shells of calcium carbonate are preserved in unimaginably huge quantities, forming numerous mountain ranges built from marine sediments during times of ocean closure due to plate tectonic action.


Referring to the previous posting, when it comes to being positive about human acheivement, there is some distinction between saying 'We're so great' (in the sense that it is meant to imply '*I'm* so great'), and having a genuine sense of admiration and respect for the intellectual and practical acheivements of humanity, (while staying aware of humanity's failings).
However, I suppose it can often be unclear whether a pro-science argument is being put forward principally for reasons of ego, or if it's a forthright attempt to defend something greatly respected. (or, as is not unusual with humans, it's a bit of both)

I suppose ego-based self-praise by dint of praising a group within which one includes oneself is widespread in human society, from obsessive sports fans to fervent nationalists or racial supremacists. Even in the less charitable religions of the 'We'll be saved, but everyone else will burn in hell' kind, I guess it's the same basic psychology responsible.

That said, I must add that many Sundays spent sitting in a church as a child listening to someone preach about how unworthy, feeble and insignificant we are, and how *everything* good was God's work was possibly one of the earliest barriers against my developing any kind of faith (though I suspect my brain simply isn't wired up to experience true faith).

Having a moderated call for humility and modesty, as in Rosebud's comments, I'd support, since excessive ego can easily blind believer and non-believer alike to gaps in their knowledge, but in my childhood experience, the religious argument for humbleness was taken to a counterproductive extreme. Personally, I choose a secular version of humility in the face of nature's wonders and the talents and goodness of great women and men, but that is my own choice.

Potholer, regarding "...my brain simply isn't wired up to experience true faith", there's been some good research to show that all brains have this capability.

Dr. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada produced a "helmet" which stimulated the temporal lobe using a stream of electromagnetic pulses, and found that it could stimulate a full blown religous experience in all test subjects. His labs were picketed by local Christian fundamentalists until he released a statement to the effect of "Just because we can generate a religous experience in the lab, it does not reduce the validity of genuine religous experiences".

The "experience" was a combination of all or some of the following:

* A feeling of interconnectedness with the universe
* The sense of an all-surrounding presence
* The feeling of "stepping out of time" for a moment of perfect stillness
* A certain knowledge that, could you think of anything you wanted to pray for at the time, that prair would be answered
* Visions of religious symbology appropriate to the subject's upbringing

Persinger connected these effects with certain forms of "abduction phenomena", which can take place in areas of high EM fields such as below power lines, thunderstorms, above geological faults etc.

(If you're in the UK, there's a series on brain functions starting on Channel 4 next week - I caught a glimpse of Dr. Persinger in the trailers...)