To Cijadrachon (was Re: none)
markus at fastcat.ml.org
Sun Oct 18 03:12:35 EST 1998
On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, Cijadrachon wrote:
> >To Cijadrachon:
> >You are certainly not scientific at all.
> No, nor do I think much of a lot of sense-censoring science, often
> blindly theorizing. I guess taking people of the other races
> instead of going to places where babies are malnutritioned and die is
> ever so much more scientific.
Blindly theorizing is usually bad, indeed.
Fortunately, there are enough scientists who spend their
lives on figuring out how things work (be it in medicine,
> >A scientific investigation doesn't work that way.
> Well, I would have thought to sort of do some stuff some people might
> consider evil and pay some mothers whose babies died so one can cut
> up their heads and examine enough of that and ask the mothers before
> about food conditions would be rather scientific.
Well, "scientific" yes. But certainly not "ethical". (I'm glad
we both agree here.)
However, there are two ways to be a little bit more "ethical":
(of course, you might still find them un-ethical, but
we do have to draw the line somewhere)
(1) As the original poster suggested: work on animals.
(You may object, but then the vaccine for smallpox
which killed millions was found by experimenting on
(Furthermore, at least in the states, any experiment
involving the potential of harming animals would need
to pass through evaluation board (which certainly
included many animal right advocates) before being
(2) There are other circumstances where human data may be
eg. If a person in the states had previously agreed
to donate organs for scientific research after death,
then if the person unfortunately died in the hospital,
there is still time to investigate...
eg. Many people are born naturally lacking certain chemicals
due to their genes. Under such circumstance,
a systematic investigator can try to find out what the
missing chemical does to the person, by statistically
tallying up the effects of various people with AND without
> >If you have payed any attention to a real science journal
> With a lot I prefer to look straight into my brain, as it is so weird
> at times, that what is normal for it some other people do not even
> believe me, and what is normal for some other people is not so within
> me, and sometimes I have trouble even imagining it.
Imagining is nice.
I recommend you now go and just learn a BIT basic stuff
about fundamental physics.
Then you can go on and build up ideas that you can
deduce from the basic facts, and so on.
You are very talented. Unfortunately you lack SOME of the
basic information needed to allow you to go far beyond
your "blindly theorizing" and "self righteousness".
(For example, in US, after grade 11 in high school,
a student would now that the effective radius of
an electron is shorter than the MINIMUM WAVELENGTH of
human's visible light spectrum. Thus, it is
IMPOSSIBLE for today's human beings to EVER SEE an electron
by naked eye.)
(They have, however, use techniques to reflect particles off
electrons, and then display the trajectory using a cathode-ray
tube displayer. In fact, they've seen "QUARKS" using this
> >(ie. one where the article submissions are reviewed by
> >elected fellow scientists),
> Oh, great, sense-censored Westie-censored stuff.
Well... no. For two reasons:
(1) You'd be surprised to see how many Europeans there are.
(From your previous comment on Berlin, I assume you
are in Germany, which means you're European, which
means your "Westie" stereotyping merely refers to the
(2) Anyone who knows the terminology adopted by the global
community can WRITE UP a report. Then the report can be
distributed to the entire world, now thanks to the internet.
If you really have something written up that is
reasonable. (That is, someone else can come and
follow your experimental steps and obtain compatible
results...), then a few "censoring people" can not block
Furthermore, you'd get famous and then BECOME someone
who other scientists respect.
Einstein is the most FAMOUS example, even though there
are so many unsung heros constantly challenging and
further enhancing our understanding in science.
> > you'd see that the difference
> >in physiology among race is almost entirely
> >statisically insignificant.
> Sure, if I look into or behind another face it is just like mine,
> zero difference.
> I just need to read some more journals,
> then I am going to perceive, too, that there is basically zero
> difference in smell, colour, shape, brain-stuff and magical capacities
> between me and others.
> Any other jokes?
Physiology does not equal physical appearance.
(For example, a B.Sc. degree in physiology is not a degree
in physical appearance.)
Eg. The optimal single-muscle-bundle strength when
cultivated in a controled environment (ie. in the lab with
same nutrient) from white and black people
is the same within the margin of statistical significance.
Eg. Studies comparing white and black children
find that if their family have comparable income,
(ie. one is not malnutrioned, or deprived of the opportunity
then their school achievements are the same within
the margin of statistical significance.
Furthermore, there has been NO agreed-upon report
that shows a STATISTICAL SIGNIFANT difference
in ANY capability (eg. intelligence, strength...) among
people of different races.
> And maybe with malnutrition instead of seeking causes forever it might
> be more efficient to try to see to that mothers have the means to eat
> well enough and live healthily enough so that they milk they give is
You misunderstood what the original poster was asking.
He/She wasn't asking what "causes" the malnutrition.
He/She was asking what happens "after" a specific malnutrition occurs.
> If seeking to waste money or time on something along that line I
> guess there are enough places around the globe where to invest it
His/Her cause may not be of interest to you.
But as long as someone's cause is ethical, I believe he/she
should be allowed to pursue his/her dream.
Eg. If I think "swimming" is meaningless, that does not mean
I can condemn people for wasting money on "swimming lessons"
Eg. If I think "bicycling" is meaningless, that does not mean
the government should not spend money building bicycle lanes.
Furthermore, the original poster's question IS important
to general public.
By finding out what happens with certain combinations of
nutrients present/absent, it offers yet another persepective
on human brain development. And as any neuroscientist can tell
you, today we are still TOO puzzled by this amazing organ.
And we should try to learn more.
(Just look at the increasing number of psychological unstable
people... the pain suffered by families with Alzeimer's disease...
etc. etc. etc.)
To Cijadrachon: You really know too little. And you are close-minded.
More information about the Neur-sci