I'll tell you, that BBC Knowledge magazine link posted in the sidebar is worth visiting just to marvel at the Web programming on display. (Starting here, actually.) I've only seen one other site where a magazine-on-the-Web is done this well, which of course I now cannot find in my bookmarks.

Et tu brute, redux?

Quoting SkepticDoc: Et tu brute, redux?

Don't understand what you mean. Are you saying I have turned against or betrayed John?

It's OK, you apologized...
from http://www.crystalinks.com/galileo.html :

In 1624 Galileo went to Rome and had six interviews with Urban VIII. Galileo told the pope about his theory of the tides (developed earlier), which he put forward as proof of the annual and diurnal motions of the Earth. The pope gave Galileo permission to write a book about theories of the universe but warned him to treat the Copernican theory only hypothetically.

The book, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, tolemaico e copernicano (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic & Copernican), was finished in 1630, and Galileo sent it to the Roman censor.

Because of an outbreak of the plague, communications between Florence and Rome were interrupted, and Galileo asked for the censoring to be done instead in Florence.

The Roman censor had a number of serious criticisms of the book and forwarded these to his colleagues in Florence.

After writing a preface in which he professed that what followed was written hypothetically, Galileo had little trouble getting the book through the Florentine censors, and it appeared in Florence in 1632.

In the Dialogue's witty conversation between Salviati (representing

Quoting SkepticDoc: It's OK, you apologized...
from http://www.crystalinks.com/galileo.html :

Remind me never to use analogies when I'm speaking to you.

Cancer screening: http://prevention.cancer.gov/program.../programs/plco PSA:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0810696 Like in most situations in Life, it depends, if an individual has strong family history of a disease, and they prefer to be screened, the best approach is to provide information (knowledge, as George advocates) and let the individual reach an informed decision.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Cancer screening:

http://prevention.cancer.gov/program.../programs/plco

PSA:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0810696

Like in most situations in Life, it depends, if an individual has strong family history of a disease, and they prefer to be screened, the best approach is to provide information (knowledge, as George advocates) and let the individual reach an informed decision.

I don't know the details of the recent studies, but if the test is as bad as George and John made it out to be, I don't agree. In an ideal world, yes -- more information=better. However, in our world, a false positive causes severe anxiety and may lead to unnecessary treatment, which can be compounded by a highly reduced quality of life as a consequence. People will not take the information into a perfectly rational calculation. Many, if not most, people still have the attitude that "doctor knows best." Also, the tests cost money, not to mention the (unnecessary) treatments, which means higher health care costs for everybody.

Quoting bjkeefe: But still, I'm sorry to have caused this hurt that you've been carrying around.

At least it's only been for a few months, and not five hundred years.

No kidding, that whole undead-zombie-hurt is the worst kind to carry around.

This discussion dovetails with last week's "Science Saturday". You bring up the issue of cost, we have not discussed evaluating "quality of life" or how much is life worth (are we all worth the same as individual human beings?, are some of us worth more than others and therefore entitled to more aggressive medical care?), who should bear the costs? The hard decisions for rationing medical care have been avoided whenever possible, our technology has outpaced our ethical decision making. I encourage the forum participants to watch: http://www.nejm.org/perspective-roun...screening.html My solution is to eliminate profit from the health care industry and provide "Universal Coverage", decide what is the budget for "Health", then reality will hit me, and I'll wake up from my dream/nightmare...

My comments here are inspired in part by John's post on his Center for Science Writings blog, where his statements about essentialism are clearer and more definitive - see BHTV link. If humans have an essence, it is to do (consciously or subconsciously) what it takes to survive and successfully pass on one's genes. How that drive manifests itself will vary by circumstance and individual attributes, nature and nurture. For some people, this drive manifests itself as a talent for aggression and violence. For others, this drive manifests itself as a talent for art or music or story-telling or manipulation of others or charm and social skills or whatever. Most people employ the strategy that works best for them in a given circumstance, given their abilities. The degree to which humans as a whole (or males as a whole versus females as a whole) display a preference for one strategy versus another reflects the open question as to whether aggression and violence are the default human nature or are a product of circumstances conducive to the success of that strategy, or are a combination of the two. The

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...ing/#more-2121

Quoting SkepticDoc: This discussion dovetails with last week's "Science Saturday".

You bring up the issue of cost, we have not discussed evaluating "quality of life" or how much is life worth (are we all worth the same as individual human beings?, are some of us worth more than others and therefore entitled to more aggressive medical care?), who should bear the costs?

You're mixing two things together. I was speaking of quality of life as an individual consideration, and costs as a societal one. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.

The hard decisions for rationing medical care have been avoided whenever possible, our technology has outpaced our ethical decision making.

Completely agreed. I'm also impatient with people who talk about a "right" to health care.

My solution is to eliminate profit from the health care industry and provide "Universal Coverage", decide what is the budget for "Health", then reality will hit me, and I'll wake up from my dream/nightmare...

I'd like to see universal coverage at some basic level made available to all, because I think that would be cheaper in the long run, and a good thing to do morally (even though I reject the

I've read books by Wrangham & Pinker, but not their critics. Here's what I got from them:
1. Apes are not monkeys, in fact chimpanzees hunt monkeys and some attribute their violence to this.
2. Hunter gatherers (including nomadic ones) are quite violent by modern standards, but less so than low-level agriculturalists such as the Yamomamo or New Guineans. Wrangham uses the !Kung specifically as an example in Demonic Males, and I've read elsewhere that the plains indians of the United States have been considered among the most violent peoples encountered by anthropologists with some really extreme torturous methods of killing (execution might be the right word, but more ritualistic and less utilitarian).
3. Human nature can include the impulse to act violent in certain circumstances. Wrangham actually puts a lot of emphasis on social structure. He claims that it is the different social structure of chimpanzees (party-gang vs gorilla harems or orangutan solitariness) that resulted in their violence and that through modern social structures like the democratic impersonal state we can hope to achieve a sort of "evolutionary feminism". I discuss that in my review here. John mentions a previous diavlog

Quoting Me&theboys: I doubt anyone is going to write a book called The Demonic Female.

Don't bet too much. ;^)

In his article linked in the sidebar John references a study by Karen Strier on muriquis:

Karen Strier ....has spent almost 30 years studying South American monkeys called muriquis, which are among the most peaceful of all primates. She has found that muriqui bands range in size from 20 to more than 80, and the ratio of males to females can fluctuate from 1/3 to its inverse. These demographic factors, Strier said, seem to affect muriqui pair-bonding, parenting, same-sex friendships and other social relations, which are highly “plastic” and “contingent.”

These animals that may eventually teach us how to live in peace are critically endangered. Here's an interview with Dr. Strier, in which she discusses how to help endangered primates around the globe.

Emergency care is already an unfunded mandate, a "right in disguise", also a very inefficient system. Vaccinations for communicable diseases should be covered by the government, it is in the interest of the whole population.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Emergency care is already an unfunded mandate, a "right in disguise", also a very inefficient system.

Vaccinations for communicable diseases should be covered by the government, it is in the interest of the whole population.

Agreed and agreed, at least to a first approximation. You sound like you think you're arguing with me about these things. Why is that?

I think it's cool that John's a peacenik, and he also plays wargames and hockey.

Hi John, Just thought I'd throw in a rave review for Suzie Gilbert's book, which I read last week. "Flyaway" is an insightful, well-written and intimate portrayal of the life work of a bird rehabber -- a compelling read for those of us who love birds with all our heart, mind and soul and those who care about their future and the future of wildlife in general. I loved it. Suzie is zany (some might say a tad crazy), so there's a lot of entertaining human drama in the book (including frequent cameos by John). But above all "Flyaway" is -- as it should be -- a book about healing and freeing amazing birds. There are crows, vultures, goshawks, cedar waxwings, wood ducks and sparrows -- each and every one a remarkable individual. P.S. Shanti (10 months old) sends regards to Mario.

George mentioned having written an essay about Galileo's persecution etc. I haven't been able to find it through his website. Does anyone know where we can find that?

I don't think John or George was clear on this prostate issue. The outcomes for men that were worse as a result of the PSA test were not because they had knowledge, but because they didn't have enough. They learned that they had a possibly slo-mo cancer, but their doctors advised them (based on LACK of knowledge) that they should get surgery and chemo/radiation. Sort of like saying, "You should do something about that cut on your finger; it could get infected." So the something turns out to be amputating part of the finger or the whole hand instead of just washing it and putting a bandage on. It wouldn't be accurate to say the knowledge about the possible infection was what got you in trouble. It's not that you are worse off for knowing it; you're worse off for going to the wrong person about it.

What is your position on Health Care as a "Right"?

Guys, Cut the crap on promoing mags.....it just totally ruined credibility. This is the first time I´ve gone so negative on a blog.... The general rule is to present your arguments and thoughts, then just maybe hype something. Nobody really gets away even with that....unless you are Paul Harvey...which neither of your are...

John Horgan, I'm hopeful you're right about humanity ending War. I think it will be a possibility once the world has completely democratized itself. Until then I don't see it happening. Scandinavia only became averse to war once they became powerless, constitutional monarchies with no imperial ambitions. Scandalously, Sweden's aversion to war kept it from joining in the War against Nazi Germany (instead they profited from it by trading iron ore to Germany). Had the Soviet Union invaded, say Finland, again post-WWII, Sweden, Norway and Denmark very likely would have gone to war to defend Finland and other Western European democracies.

Just wanted to remark on George's characterization of the Vatican position on Galileo: Just a theory. Not quite. The Vatican position was that Galileo's heliocentrism was just an instrument, a way to make predictions about the motions of the planets, occurrence of eclipses, etc. Ptolemaic celestial mechanics was seen as just an instrument, too. Both were "theories," as far as that goes. The critical point is the question of what scientific theories tell us about the world. The Vatican position was that they tell us nothing. Scientific theories are just instruments that let us make predictions, create tools, do things. Scientific theories are not a means of explaining and understanding the world. Divine revelation does that. So the apposite comparison here is not "evolution is just a theory." Rather, it might be the Copenhagen Interpretation, or positivism more generally.

Quoting SkepticDoc: What is your position on Health Care as a "Right"?

I've already said that I don't buy this claim. My view is that a plan that guarantees some minimum standard of health care for everybody is a social and economic good, but I do not think of access to health care as a "right."

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: George mentioned having written an essay about Galileo's persecution etc. I haven't been able to find it through his website. Does anyone know where we can find that?

I think this may be it.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/186...8:49&out=08:56

Should ERs turn down uninsured patients? Should private hospitals refer Medicaid patients to the "County" or "Public" hospital? It can become a "slippery slope"... If Society agrees that everybody is entitled to Basic, no frills medical care, we all benefit, "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure..: If you don't want to call it a Right, what term would you use?

Quoting SkepticDoc: Should ERs turn down uninsured patients?

Should private hospitals refer Medicaid patients to the "County" or "Public" hospital?

Depends on the situation.

If Society agrees that everybody is entitled to Basic, no frills medical care, we all benefit, "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure..:

Agreed for the most part.

If you don't want to call it a Right, what term would you use?

For the third time: a social and economic good.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/3...ens_how_is_the

About the Vatican observatory: Father George Coyne, who was head of the Vatican Observatory for many years, is a very interesting person whose views on the universe and evolution, among other things, will surprise many, including John and George, I'd say!! Here are some links (the last one is a video that gets quickly to the point) http://uanews.org/node/24290
The American Astronomical Society awarded its 2009 George Van Biesbroeck prize to a Vatican Observatory astronomer who has strong ties to southern Arizona and The University of Arizona. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-debate.html
Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHqxlj_n-nk
UCSD Guestbook: George Coyne the Vatican Observatory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi0QZTgWTj4
George V. Coyne - "The Dance of the Fertile Universe" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc
Richard Dawkins interviews George Coyne (Galileo, evolution, etc)

I wonder if the state of the more conventional forms of scientific journalism (things like newspapers or magazines like Scientific America or Discover) are in decline because people's interest in science is in decline, or if it's because people are moving to generic journals like Nature or Science. I mean one of the biggest hurdles for us laymen getting our news from a more direct source was that they sometimes were not simplified enough for us to easily understand the articles or they were to specialized. With tools like Wikipedia though, that is not the case now (or at least not as much as it used to be). Also, most people I know typically only have narrow fields they are interested in (I only know maybe one or two people who I would call a Renaissance man). If you are interested in physics, why buy a Scientific America, when it will only have some low percentage of physics articles when you can instead just get a Nature:Physics?