This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

info_dump's Profile

info_dump's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by info_dump

More Discussions by info_dump

Latest Comments by info_dump

Go to: Japanese researchers make brain tissues from stem cells

info_dump's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by info_dump

This could be a wonderful leap forward for treatment of Parkinson's, for one. I wonder if it could also be used to undo some of the damage caused by strokes.

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:07:00 UTC | #266589

Go to: Genes might not be so selfish after all

info_dump's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by info_dump


That thought never occurred to me. It does ease my conscience a little bit, but raises another question: how are we to know if unpublished findings mentioned in a news piece are "publication pending" or simply unpublished junk?

I guess if a reputable scientist has their name attached to it, that's a pretty good indication that it's sound. I'm sure it could be bad for one's career if they gained a reputation for circumventing peer-review.

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:58:00 UTC | #236171

Go to: Genes might not be so selfish after all

info_dump's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by info_dump

the latest medical research, some of it so new that it has not yet been published, suggests...

I know this is off-topic, but it always bothers me when I see newspaper articles citing research that's "so new that it has not yet been published."

Basically they're citing research that hasn't gone through the gauntlet of scrutiny by experts in the field. It hasn't yet passed the "is this good science" test. For all we know, it could be complete junk.

And I find myself suspicious of any scientist who would be willing to bring their research to a newspaper before it's been properly reviewed by peers.

Am I alone here, or does anyone share these sentiments?

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:52:00 UTC | #236146

Go to: The God Delusion

info_dump's Avatar Jump to comment 66 by info_dump

Oh how I love to hate that word.

It's complete bullshit, unless you are talking about fiction. Everything that exists in nature is natural. I think what you mean to say is that it is hideously disgusting which is a sentiment I would agree with, but it is a subjective sentiment which others may not agree with. Saying it is pornographic, or adult material, or not appropriate for a work computer are all fair and true.

Good point. That thought did cross my mind as I was writing it, but I thought it was the best word to describe the type of pornography where the human body is stretched (figuratively, and unfortunately in this case, literally) to its physical limits. I guess "abnormal" would be a better word to use.

On the other hand, it could be argued that most, if not all, pornography is "unnatural" in your sense, since it IS fiction.

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:15:00 UTC | #217252

Go to: The God Delusion

info_dump's Avatar Jump to comment 58 by info_dump

Just so no one else bothers to look it up, "goatse" is a rather unpleasant picture of, well, a guy doing something that you probably don't want to see.

I know curiosity is hard to resist sometimes, but just be forewarned that it's pornographic and unnatural. Definitely don't look it up at work. Don't look it up at all, actually.

[edit] oh, I see it's been described in detail above.

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:01:00 UTC | #217237

More Comments by info_dump