Earthmichael is very sick right now

[Kirov]

I would like an Objectivist (more like Liberatarian) faction.  It would be interesting to see what artwork and faction attributes are there.  The biggest problem I have with most Objectivists, is that that they are rabidly anti-supernatural, rather than going with wherever the evidence leads.  A lot of scientific phenomenon was thought to be supernatural when it was the evidence was first discovered, and it was investigation of this evidence that went against conventional science that led to the scientific breakthroughs we have now.

I agree that some too rationally-oriented people may falsely infer that if science deals only with the evidence for the observable, this proves only the observable exists. A more true statement is that science is simply not concerned with the supernatural, be it God or haunted houses, so it can only shrug when you choose whether to believe such things or not.

Having said that, the supernatural is still something beyond (current) evidence and as such, gives you no reason to believe it. As some smart-ass scientist put it, a theory not backed with any evidence doesn't need any evidence to be refuted. I guess I subscribe to that school of thought. Yes of course some 'supernatural' events may be proved in the future, like for example the possible placebo effect provided by homeopathy or 'faith healers', but until researchers publish relevant study papers with conclusive results, we have no reason to assume one way or the other. And I haven't heard of any 'alternative' (meaning 'employing methods not verified positively by science') ways of healing which didn't turn out to be a scam.

This reminds me of a great routine by a comedian Tim Minch: "By definition", I begin "Alternative Medicine", I continue "has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call "alternative medicine" that's been proved to work? Medicine."  Enjoy the link below, most SMACers will probably like it:

Tim Minchin's Storm the Animated Movie

[Lord Avalon]

It looks like Mayo clinic is out for now, because I have to be narcotic free for at least two weeks to be seen, and I currently cannot endure one of my abdominal attacks without resorting to prescription narcotics.

Holy craptastic catch-22, Batman! 

I wonder if Mayo has some alternative pain management method that I can use?

Faith healing? 

[Earthmichael]

My real gripe with some Objectivists is that they will play fast and loose with evidence, only "accepting" evidence that fits their current scientific viewpoints, and rejecting all other evidence, not because of some forensic flaw in the evidence, just because the evidence does not fit their worldview.  I have seen this creative evidence ploy used in  carbon verses sunspot global warming, to determining age/intelligence level for archeological artifacts.  Also, eyewitness accounts for healing cannot just be ignored, just because they cannot be replicated.  And using hand waving arguments to dismiss difficult issues, such as how with common ancestry theory, the serious issues with evolving from asexual cell division to sexual reproduction, and what kind of common ancestor would have both plant and animal progeny, and evolving from single celled to multi-celled organisms.  These are all serious problems with the common ancestry theory.  Problem is, they want me to accept common ancestry more as a tenant of faith, not because there is strong body of evidence for this theory.

I am a very skeptical person.  I am skeptical of many theories that are in vogue.  I am very skeptical of CO2 based global warming.  I am very skeptical of evolutionary evidence of common ancestry.  I doubt modern medicine is even 50/50 for correctly explaining biochemical processes.  And I doubt more than 50% of any group of leaders is really working for the good of the masses, but are much more interested in furthering their own agenda and consolidating power.  I suspect that most of the money spent on the "war on poverty" is intentionally keeping and growing a class of people depending upon a government "dole" to ensure a political power base (just as the "dole-ist" party in the Honor Harrington novels).

Yes, the catch-22 of being narcotic-free without any alternative form of pain control being offered means Mayo clinic is off the table for now.

I am probably much more chatty and less coherent that I would be without the narcotic patches I am wearing constantly delivering a pain-reducing (and inhibition reducing) payload.  So take it as a streaming ramble of thought ...

[Buster's Uncle]

EM, you're entertaining when you're high.

[ete]

Sad to hear about this, good luck to you.

[Kirov]

Also, eyewitness accounts for healing cannot just be ignored, just because they cannot be replicated. 

There is a good reason that replication is such a key point to scientific research. First of all, if eyewitness accounts were to be accepted, there is no line to draw between crazy and non-crazy. After all, why not Elvis sightings? By now, thousands of people have seen him playing a banjo in Mexico. This is why the 'I swear I saw it but I can't show it to you' line is not enough to warrant full acceptance, at least not mine.

Second thing is, science doesn't really ask 'is it true?', what it truly asks is 'how does it work?' and for this you can't do away with stuff like blind samples, control groups, placebo injections, anal probe insertions, you name it. If something cannot be examined, science simply doesn't deal with it. It doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist or that you shouldn't believe in it. I'm just saying it is not scientific to go with second-hand observations only.

As for the rest, I don't think I know enough to discuss it. But despite being a dilettante, I still love to increase my knowledge in sciences and I also work as a  translator for the Polish issue of 'Scientific American'. I'm quite sure that there is actually no controversy as to that common ancestry thing or human-induced global warming among professional scientists who subject their work to peer-review verification. For me, this is good enough. Dismissing theories widely accepted by the collective 'body of science' doesn't fit my definition of skepticism, I'm afraid.

This reminds me how SMAC was actually important for my life. Before I played it I wasn't really interested in hard s-f or sciences which shape our contemporary world. 'MMI' or 'bio-engineering' was for me just s-f babble along the lines of 'warp drives' and 'reverse polarity generators'. But slowly I started to get immersed, I wanted to read more and explore the many topics touched upon in SMAC. I took me a while to realize that yes, a Nano Factory or Clinical Immortality may very well be a thing this very century and it made me come back to SMAC with that 'awesome, dude' feeling when you still find new aspects in a thing you knew so well. Few video game titles would go with the word 'inspiring' in the same sentence, but SMAC is definitely on the top of that list. I will forever feel grateful to Brian Reynolds and may I say, 'my hat is off to him'. He opened my eyes to many many issues concerning the relationship between the man and machine, be it sentient AI or augmentation of the human race, and he even provided comments for both sides of the discussion (say what you want about the ginger harlot, but her late-game quotes prove she's much more than just another televangelist). It's amazing how well-thought and inspiring our game was back in 1998 and it still stands the test of time. Ahh, but I ramble too much. Take care, SMACers!

[uss1701jb]

I'm not going to add to this argument, but I will say this:

Did the guy who took out your gall bladder look like this: 

Because if so, he might be your problem.

[Kirov]

After all, don't we all hate it when sideways-prancing, dastar-clad bananas perform their surgeries on us?

[Buster's Uncle]

A redrawing of him with a table in front and a scalpel in hand would be in bad taste, wouldn't it?

[Earthmichael]

The gall bladder surgeon seemed to do a good job.  She got the gall bladder, just the gall bladder was not the only problem.

Their are many who reliably logged information whose accounts were then rejected.  Not like 1000 Elvis sightings, but 100 people who saw something unusual occur.  This should be treated as evidence that things we don't yet understand can occur.  It look thousands of observations of walking owls before it finally because accepted that such phenomenon are valid.

As for CO2 Global Warming activists and other such scientific issues, there is an "orthodoxy" that does not care about scientific fact, just about promoting their viewpoint.  If you have studied the matter thoroughly, and I have, I don't see how you can be certain about CO2 based global warming, verses sunspot activity and many more likely theories.  The same with the orthodoxy concerning evolution.  If you have questions about any aspect of evolution, you are treated as a heretic bringing up a forbidden topic, rather than a person with some honest questions about how such things are evolution between asexual reproduction and bisexual reproduction could scientifically occur.  Instead of answering the question with a plausible solution, you are criticized for raising the question.  Yes, I am a skeptic for being critical of the orthodoxy.  One would not need to impose "orthodoxy" in science if the science were valid and the questions were satisfactorily answered.

Educators were hand wringing in recent years that polls were showing that few and few students "believed in" evolution after their science classes.  That tells me that the students can perceive the gaps in the arguments, and are less willing to believe the science "on faith".  Do you personally have a theory for how organisms who are reproducing by asexual fission evolve to being reproducing bisexually, simultaneously evolving a compatible male and female?  If you have such a theory, this would be the first time my question was answered, instead of just being told, don't ask the question.

[Buster's Uncle]

They aren't very bright biologists, then, or not very good teachers.  Evolution is a function of natural trial and error when there are genetic changes, usually due to replication errors during reproduction.  Sexual reproduction has a number of advantages, and not least that merging genomes every generation actually significantly increases the rate of variations and mutations.  Yes, in the long run, a higher number of birth defects is good for your species chances to become something better.

-Probably all stuff you already know, or you wouldn't have hit on such an astute question.  Thing is, a bacteria splitting to reproduce still has replication errors - just at a much lower rate.  The fact that a generation last part of a day to our 25 years or so compensates a great deal for the evolutionary disadvantage, but the difference in replication error/mutation is by an order of magnitude or two, not that different than the respective number of generations in 25 years.

And bacteria and other asexuals do have an observably much slower rate of evolution; I believe there are bacteria around of species several billion years old.  I think the big loser for sexual reproduction/evolution is the Coelacanth, a holdover from 350 million years ago.

How bisexual reproduction arose is a much more complex issue, and not nearly as well understood.  I'd have to do some googling and reading to make sure I was getting details right - not really my area of interest, biology.

[Lord Avalon]

... Yes, in the long run, a higher number of birth defects is good for your species chances to become something better. ...

Until it becomes too high, and your species goes extinct.

[Buster's Uncle]

Life is a gamble and getting born is 100% fatal.  There are some compensations for that that come with the deal.

[ete]

The theory of how sexual reproduction arose which makes sense to me is:
Bacteria can (and do, examples include passing genes for resistance to an antibiotic across species) pass genetic information between each other, particularly in the form of plasmids (separate loops of DNA).

An extreme version of this came to be beneficial to speed up adaptation; if you're virtually the same as every other bacterium you're not going anywhere long term. If you can flip a genetic coin by mixing and matching all your genes and have even a very slim chance of coming out with a notable advantage, the payoff is huge since you now out-compete everyone else around.

The extreme version of sharing plasmids consisted (roughly) of merging the cells, then redividing with the genetic material mixed up. Not initially a way to reproduce quickly, asexual will always be faster at that, but a way to adapt faster. Recombining bits which already somewhat work (otherwise the microbe you're geneswapping with would be dead) is a lot better than just increasing the chance of mutations by being less careful copying your DNA.

And from there you've got the basics of sexual reproduction. Two cells merge into one, resulting offspring have some attributes of each merging cells. There's of course a huge amount of optimization, but gradual tweaks and local hill climbing is what evolution does best, and it did take some time. BU already explained what I think about why sexual outcompeted asexual reproduction in most macroscopic species, though in some you can see asexual reproduction still persists.

[Buster's Uncle]

Okay; that's pretty much my understanding of it, yes. 

There have been recent discoveries that interspecies gene-passing is more common than previously suspected, though I don't remember details - but I think it's definitely relevant to how a regular gene-swap within a species could evolve, that being a lot more promising source for useful random DNA inserts than another species, and therefore selected for...