nerdgirl

Reminds me of a fundraiser I was at for Senate hopeful Jim Martin (Georgia) earlier in the fall. At one point, Martin's campaign chief asked for a show of hands of how many of us in the audience watched PBS' "Newshour" ... good 90% or so of the hands went up. Then he asked how many of us watched ["x" game show], ["y" reality show], & ["z" night-time soap opera]. There were a few hands for each ... literally less than half a dozen. (And altho' it wasn't among the named tv shows, I do have my own fave 'guilty mental saccharine' show .) Everyone in the room recognized the irony, that we who were motivated to know the issues (& one could say the same of his opponents closest supporters) also were the least likely to see the ads for which our contributions were being solicited. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How do you define “true” scientist? What are the metrics? Do you exclude Linus Pauling, Joseph Rotblat, Hans Bethe, Helen Caldicott, Herb Abrams, etc? Or how about about James Warf? James C. Warf dies at 91; Manhattan Project chemist became peace activist, USC professor "While working on his doctorate in inorganic chemistry at Iowa State University in the 1940s, Warf headed the analytical chemistry section of the Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb during World War II. ... "But as the decades passed, Warf's views evolved. He began sounding alarms about the effects of radiation after studying data collected over many years from residents near a nuclear test site in Kazakhstan and from victims of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. "Warf also held patents for the process of separating plutonium from high-level nuclear waste, the result of his work on the Manhattan Project. "Warf traveled widely to lecture on nuclear disarmament, testified before congressional hearings and served on independent review panels that surveyed safety and storage methods at nuclear power plants. "He also continued to advocate for nuclear technology applied to peacetime uses, such as energy and medicine. ... "Warf also wrote several chemistry textbooks, including six in Indonesian, or Malay, after having taught at various universities in Southeast Asia while on sabbatical from USC. ... "For 40 years, Warf read chemistry texts for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic. His family suggests contributions in his name to that organization: www.rfbd.org." RIP Prof Warf. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Between those two choices, the 'nice guy' wins every time for me. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Would you respond to my question/post? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Hmmm ... I consider myself fairly literate. I've haven't seen either interview but did find transcripts: interview w/Gov Palin and interview w/Sen Obama. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If you're looking for a large sign or single experiment - the closest is Stanley Miller-Harold Urey's now-classic experiment showing that amino acids, the building blocks of organic life, can be formed inorganically. These days there's *a lot* beyond that. The internet notwithstanding, the contentious debate is over direct abiotic synthesis of RNA or DNA versus biotic derivation of RNA/DNA from TNA or GNA (the latter are forms of RNA/DNA with other sugars). Just one example with which I am familiar: pre-biotic synthesis of RNA from Jack Sutherland's lab (Univ Manchester). Other people working in the area, include the late Leslie Orgel from Scripps. Some other thoughts on prebiotic synthesis of amino acids. (And this is *way* beyond Stanley Miller-Harold Urey’s classic experiment.) It gets even more fascinating, im-ever-ho, when you start examining the intersection of organic synthesis and photocatalysis with early Earth geochemistry of reducing atmosphere. And that’s all terrestrial synthesis, other folks (mostly astrophysicists, like Lew Snyder, UIUC) are pursuing the search for amino acids in the interstellar medium, of which the component molecules have already found. Concur heartily. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Noice /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I can believe it. I knew a family that home-schooled their kids, and those kids were smart as hell. One advantage of home-schooling is the classes don't have to be "dumbed down" to match the lowest common denominator. And they can focus on the actual lessons rather than spending time on keeping order in a classroom full of 25-30 kids who don't want to be there. What the article doesn’t acknowledge is that they’re comparing standardized test scores for students who take SATs. So high-achieving, highly-motivated students there may be advantages. What’s been found is that home-schooled children tend to have greater parental involvement (which is almost tautological). Greater parental involvement one independent variable that correlates to higher achievement, as does higher education of the parents to begin. It also matters what kind of home-school one is assessing. Essentially one is trying to compare two different groups, i.e., all the apples in the country and apples that were hand-selected by farmers. This claim -- “adult illiteracy rates in 1840 Massachusetts were a low 2%” -- from Max's cited piece seems dubious, to put it diplomatically. VRR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In one sense, I think I can see that argument: most religious faiths have traditional norms and rules that its observers are meant to follow. Many of these are directed toward controlling behaviors that have negative consequence for functioning of society, e.g., Commandment #6 (or #5 if Roman Catholic or Lutheran) about murdering/killing … it’s bad for the functioning of society if homicide is rampant. (Judeo-Christian) God’s Commandments put down rules of behavior that demand self-responsibility. Depending on the sect, failure to follow those Commandments and other traditional rules is believed to result in ultimate condemnation. It’s a very effective driver for behavior. As I understand, the argument is that lack of adherence to religious practice is a causal factor for lack of responsibility because there is nothing to prevent one from being irresponsible, e.g., without rules, one has social/moral/ethical anarchy. Otoh, one can argue that the individual who acts ethically without religious imperative is taking literally a more self-responsible view on self-responsibility. That is, one behaves ethically because one makes a conscious choice that is the ‘right’ or ‘just’ way to act not because of tradition, not because of external rules, or not because of threat of ultimate condemnation. Both approaches (religious-based or individual choice) based can get to the same end – self-responsible behavior. The process (ways) is different. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How do you define “true” scientist? What are the metrics? Do you exclude Linus Pauling, Joseph Rotblat, Hans Bethe, Helen Caldicott, Herb Abrams, etc? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The posted video was a satirical parody that _attempts_ to show the hypocrisy of some assertions. It’s a parody of actual attempts by scientists to isolate a “gay” gene, to which ironically most anti-homosexual groups have objected because if homosexuality is genetic than objecting to sexuality is like objecting to one’s race. The video is also a parody of certain fundamentalist Christian groups who make efforts to convert homosexuals to being straight or suppress their sexuality. Did I find it particularly funny? No. For content-based reasons/inaccuracies in the inversion and general dislike of things that try to make people look stupid. Given that the video is a satirical parody, how many of you would be objecting if the target was instead – & I’m intentionally citing subjects that have been discussions on dz.com – mentally handicapped people, physically handicapped people, overweight people, spousal abuse, etc.? Why are those legitimate targets but this one group not? Why do some things elicit "can't you take a joke" responses? (Many that are vitriol filled and blame the objecter.) And others elicit different responses? To be explicit, I don’t find outright denigrating mockery of any of those groups ‘funny,’ and I find some of it, e.g., “jokes” about spousal abuse, repulsive. Funny, imo, needs creativity and thought. Picking on someone weaker or less powerful than you doesn’t show creativity, thought, or any normatively good/attractive things, imo. Again, to be explicit, not finding them funny does not equal wanting them banned or prohibited (made illegal). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks ... my pyschic powers just haven't been working of late ... clearly need more dancing naked under the moonlight ... hence the reliance on words. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Really? There's no room for them on an internet chat board?

I’m not trying to take away anyone’s right or exclude anyone. There were a couple assertions in another thread that I quoted at the start of this thread: Yes they do. legally yes morally no. the choice of voting for president is very important, almost the most important choice you could ever make, therefore voting without knowledge of the situation would be disservice to you and the country. That brought up what I considered to be (1) issues separate from the thread in which it was contained, and (2) prompted me to think more deeply about the underlying ethical and moral arguments for (near-)universal enfranchisement. Historically people have been excluded from voting based on phenotype & genotype (race, sex, ethnicity) and class (property owning versus non-property owning; slave vs freeman). The quote cited above suggests neither … but asserts a moral imperative connected to some knowledge, which suggests a requirement of certain attainment/level of knowledge. It also infers some means to determine that the electorate has met that ‘moral’ bar (suggested in the quote) for making the choice for President. I don’t do ‘set-up’ or ‘gotcha’ arguments … which is not to say if someone opens a door, walks in, and delivers something on a gilded platter, that I might not elect to take advantage of the situation. (How I take advantage depends on what he’s carrying and how lascivious I’m feeling. ) On reading the cited quote, the counter-arguments that initially occurred to me resembled a number of the comments posted here: core belief in ideals of personal and civil freedoms, core belief in democracy as a civil institution, historical problems of any ‘reasonable-appearing’ vote-test, etc. But what’s the moral or ethical arguments underlying either the quote or the counter-argument? There was a genuine question in my mind beyond the immediate responses on the underlying moral and/or ethical arguments for or against an inherent requirement of some knowledge for enfranchisement, i.e., epistemology of enfranchisement – aka ‘how do I know what I know' or what I think I know about a right to vote. And what are the underlying ethical arguments for universal enfranchisement. One approach to logical argumentation (dialectics) is to explore counter-propositions/counter-hypotheses. For me, the process that leads one to a conclusion can sometime be as interesting as the conclusion. I do look forward to you and others making such objections to limiting enfranchisement the next time a poster invokes the oft-cited, purported Heinlein stance, e.g., a most recent occurrence. Also, if I was trying to make an argument for or against something do you really think it would not be more definitive? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur – in thinking through the ethical argument while hiking around backwoods of southeast Georgia this afternoon (

so...for now, is it safe to say that it's morally right to vote if a particular candidate motivates your lazy ass to get out of bed and vote for him/her/it...whatever motivation that may be? Is it morally right? Or morally wrong? Why? What are the underlying moral arguments? (That question is just as much to anyone reading.

Congratulations!!!!!!

Over 18 and registered. That's it. If you live in a truly free country, there should be no need for any other "requirements." What is the ethical or moral reasoning behind the criteria you suggest: "Over 18 & registered"? Utilitarian? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What kind of intelligence test? Or to measure intelligence of what? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

One of those losts books of the Monty Python canon. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Good point. Are we condemned to repeat history? Or is there some underlying ethical issue with disenfrancisement that trumps the potential for even the most apparently and rigorously vetted reasonable test? Historically the tests/barriors have not always been knowledge-based. E.g., XY chromosome does not automatically equal informed. But what about a requirement for community service? What's the ethical &/or moral basis for discarding such a requirement? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

As I'm reading it you're setting up some limits on a spectrum (& please correct any mis-assumptions on my part); at one end "less informed" voters and at the other end "smart well-educated people." I would note that smart may not equal well-educated & vice-versa ... but that's my opinion. Or maybe it's more of a Venn diagram ... Is it ethical/moral to set/create some method for determining where along the spectrum one falls into the "too uninformed" range? What's the hurdle to move from "too uniformed"? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What can't be done? (I'm looking for clarification.) Set requirements or even meaningfully set come up with methods to determine such requirements? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I don't understand what you mean by that. (Seriously) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I’m rather fond of the Song of Songs or Song of Solomon. 1:2,4 “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine. “Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.” Also Matthew 5:9 VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying