Quote:
The group I mainly stayed in was NZ based and drawn together by a concern for sustainability - so it was middle class and educated, and after a few years everyone knew each other and there was no point arguing about kid-related stuff. So the debate shifted to religion, politics etc. and I guess there was a bit of debate around whether it was abusive to raise your kid within the confines of a particular religion and force a religious identity on them; and similarly with political leaning whether it was abusive to raise a kid and drill into them particular political ideology. But mostly the arguments were around current events rather than parenting choices, by then. And the vibe was more about encouragement than debate |
Quote:
Genes are not entirely deterministic - the same genes in different environments might have differing phenotypes. |
i don't really believe in genes. there are many areas of science that i think make claims way ahead of their understanding, and genetics is one of them. who knows what they're actually looking at in there. it's like how they used to think saturn's rings were solid, but then figure out that they're made up of particles. i think our understanding of human genetics is so limited that i don't really trust that any scientific "findings" in that area will stand up very long.
|
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there who knows what they're actually looking at in there so you think your all that bc you know what they're actually looking at in there |
I heard the jury's still out on science.
|
Quote:
we definitely don't understand them very well and much of the research should be looked at with caution, but there's a lot of very good, solid research in some areas. for example, the APOE gene is very good at predicting who is at a very small risk of getting Alzheimer's Disease. It's not as good at predicting who will, but it's still pretty good at that, too. https://molecularneurodegeneration.b...24-020-00413-4 Having two APOE2 genes is also associated with longevity not related to Alzheimer's, and also some bad things, so who knows what exactly is going on. But I do know if you have two APOE2 genes you're unlikely to get AD, and if you do it will probably be later than those without 2 APOE2 genes: If you have APOE4/4 you have an approx 50% chance of having AD by age 70. P<0.0001. And you almost certainly will have it by 80. |
There are others like this, but this is a very well-studied area I have 2xAPOE2 so I have read a bit.
|
^ this gal knows her genes!
|
I know that Ovary likes to be facetious but I can't tell here.
Assuming he's being serious, does he mean to say that we don't know exactly what many genes do/how they interact, or that we don't really know what "genes" even are/if they are even real things? |
|
Quote:
|
Right, Ovie?
|
.
|
.
|
Quote:
|
i mean i believe scientists are seeing something that they have labeled genes but i dont believe they are what they say they are nor operate like they say they operate
|
i believe in trees a *lot* so i think on balance i am okay in terms of my magnitude of beliefs in things
|
trees have genes, bozo!
|
Quote:
|
de-ni-al yes
sci-en-ce no |
Reminds me of how 28if didn’t believe in radio carbon dating
|
the nightly crying has begun
|
Sorry, breegz. I don't really have any great words of comfort, but don't want that kind of post to go unacknowledged. I hear you.
|
Quote:
|
Have you tried getting a haircut and new clothes?
|
Sorry. I was mocking myself with that reply. I hope that was clear. I’m sorry I don’t have any actual advice, either. I hope the crying is sort of cathartic.
|
have you considered volunteering?
|
i do have some general and significant concerns with science as an epistemological method:
1. results and consensus is constantly changing. this is an intrinsic feature of science, and in some ways/instances one of its strengths. *but* it makes it difficult to trust "the current science" as a metric for truth. 2. scientific knowledge is so specialized and bureaucratized, it is difficult to translate the actual scientific consensus into terms laypeople can understand and discuss. genes, for instance, are so complex that it is really impossible for us on this board to have any kind of discussion about them at all that really relates to or reflects "the current science." we are discussing a dumbed-down version that is not accurate, but that dumbed-down version is all we have access to. this makes regular people forced to "trust" the experts. i don't trust the experts. 3. because scientific research is corrupt. this happens in blatant ways, such as the food companies' infiltration of agricultural, medical, and nutritional science, or the fact that the federal government controls most grant funding. but there are also more banal forms of corruption, such as the "publish or perish" mentality forcing individuals and labs to make sexy claims and find significant results if they want to make career progress. and there's also a lot of groupthink and social pressure to both work on certain areas and find certain results. the groupthink is exacerbated by the intense specialization and bureaucratization i mentioned earlier. 4. scientific knowledge is based philosophically in empiricism, or an assumption that the sensory devices of human beings are our best access to the truth of reality. we are now able to extend our sensory experience through technology like x-rays and telescopes and carbon dating and whatever else. i do not trust that the human senses are an accurate depiction of reality. even if i were to concede that, i think it is obvious that the human sensory experience is extremely limited and distorted. i do not trust that what we see is what is actually happening. you might say "well, the senses are all we have, so we have to trust them." yes, i agree, and i do trust that they are good enough to get along okay here on planet earth, but i think there is a lot more out there. specifically, i think that we can access to non-empirical forms of truth through imagination, theological revelation and reflection, and emotion. science has no framework to explore these apprehensions of reality, and so ignores them and often actively discounts them. so, my issue with genes kind of fires off on all these fronts. first off, i am absolutely unable to access the scientific consensus itself without years of study that i have no interest in pursuing. i'm not going to profess belief in something i can't even begin to understand. second, scientific consensus is changing, and what i'd be studying/reading about now will likely disproven later anyway, *especially* in such a new and complex field like genetics. third, i will not put uninformed trust in "experts" because of the ways all scientific knowledge is corrupt. in the case of genetics research, i assume it's largely tied up in the interests of the pharmaceutical industries. and finally, philosophically, what are the questions that "genetics science" can answer for me? why i look like my father? why i am an alcoholic? why i am struck with certain illnesses at certain times? there are scientific answers to those questions that involve "genes," but there are also emotional answers, imaginative answers, and theological answers. the latter are generally more useful and interesting to me. |
a girl i met a couple weeks ago asked me to grab coffee but i'm not big into coffee so i responded with an email asking if i could one-up her with getting lunch. she hasn't said anything yet and i just keep thinking of her saying to herself, ''that's too much time. i don't want to spend that much time with you. lunch is too intimate" and regretting asking me at all in the first place. oy!
|
Quote:
|
Back home from an ER visit with my oldest kid. Stupid croup. She's fine now but is literally a 5 year old on steroids and that's quite the experience.
|
Quote:
|
Although I'm not clear if you believe that the earth goes around the sun, really, after that
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I hope you vaccinate your baby, ovary.
|
I vaccinated my kids but not because I believe the scientific method produces reliable results. I don’t understand a lot of science relevant to immunology, epidemiology, vaccines etc. so I can’t make up my own mind about whether vaccinating my kids is a good idea. It requires specialist knowledge I don’t have.
I vaccinate because those who are specialists in those areas seem in agreement that vaccination is worthwhile. So I vaccinate - but I have never have strong enough opinions about vaccinating that I would enter into an argument about it. |
Quote:
|
There were specialists in the last 100 years who were agreed that the best position for a woman to give birth was on her back with her legs up in stirrups. We know that’s wrong now. And specialists who believed prefrontal lobotomies were an effective psychiatric treatment - we know that’s not true.
So, I’m open to the possibility that the specialists I place trust in are also wrong. I don’t trust them because I think they’re definitely right. I just don’t have any better options (and I guess the parents who trusted specialists to give their kids prefrontal lobotomies were the same). There’s a lot of talk now about the ineffectiveness of SSRIs - for the last 20 years people have trusted medical professionals in taking these. So I can appreciate ovary’s lack of confidence, I tend to share it. It’s just that trusting the experts often seems like the best option despite the strong possibility their advice will change in a few decades |
Quote:
|
Though vaccination I didn’t spend much time thinking about.
When one of my kids started having seizures I thought a lot more about specialist advice. There’s a lot about epilepsy that nobody understands. And two specialists can disagree about diagnoses and treatment (this was the case for us). So maybe I’ve spent more time agonising over trusting the experts. Actually, the first expert we spoke to (a paediatrician) didn’t believe me about the seizures. I had to argue with him to get a referral to a neurologist for an EEG. The story of Jill Viles really hit home after that https://www.thisamericanlife.org/577...only-i-can-see And this story of medical error and negligence was so chilling https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeands...pital-mistakes I guess I went to high school with enough people who are now doctors and scientists that I could never be 100% sure of anything. Everyone is human and prone to error or bias |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2022