Banner
Placebo Buttons?

A recent article suggested that many of the buttons/toggles that we experience in our daily lives...

The Development Of Social Monogamy In Mammals

Two papers published this week have proposed explanations regarding the evolution of social monogamy...

Easy Answers To World Problems

After reading another article by Alex Berezow ["The Arrogance of a Well-Fed Society"] insisting...

The Precautionary Principle Review

There is an interesting series of articles published by the Guardian discussing various aspects...

User picture.
picture for Fred Phillipspicture for Heidi Hendersonpicture for Quentin Rowepicture for Camillo Di Ciccopicture for Robert H Olleypicture for Brian Taylor
Gerhard AdamRSS Feed of this column.

I'm not big on writing things about myself so a friend on this site (Brian Taylor) opted to put a few sentences together: Hopefully I'll be able to live up to his claims. "I thought perhaps you... Read More »

Blogroll
Recently I've seen the questions come up regarding why the market doesn't respond to health care or why supply and demand don't seem to work in health care as in other economic models.

The answer is simple.  There is no free market nor is there a supply/demand model for health care.

While some might dispute that claim, consider the way the process works.  Supply and demand is based upon the notion that prices will be set based on what the market will bear and consequently supply and demand will rise or fall in response to those prices.  Even though one could argue that such a premise is seriously flawed when it comes to health care anyway, there's another reason why it doesn't work; insurance.
In reading one of the other posts a casual point was made regarding the relative safety of flying versus driving.  It is generally assumed that flying is, by far, the safest of the two modes of travel, but is this really true?  In looking at the data, it appears that the data is being skewed because of some strange assumptions that tend to favor flying.
Proof of aliens within 25 years?  What's the basis for this optimism?

Well, of course, it's the Drake equation.  It had to be.  While it is certainly reasonable that everyone has their own perspective and opinion about the likelihood of alien life, it is not reasonable to pretend that the "Drake equation" provides some sort of inside track.
A post on the Science Codex caught my attention (You think of your dog as one of your children? You probably live in the city).

Of course, my first reaction was that this guy clearly lived in the city to have such an opinion.  However on closer reading I realized that I had absolutely no idea what kind of research this represented beyond examining the obvious.
...who found that people who think of animals as children tend to have a city background.
One of the problems that gave rise to the gene-centric view is the prevalence of the notion that individuals tended to evolve for the "good of the species".  In essence the gene-centric view argued that natural selection operated for the "good of the individual" and specifically for the genes that would be capable of transmitting information to future generations.

Therefore if the genes are the information carriers, then they would represent the only means by which future generations could carry on from previous successes.
It is interesting how often and freely we use these three elements of thought processing and presume that what we are expressing is being legitimately represented.  Beliefs are readily interpreted as knowledge, and knowledge is often characterized as being true to lend it weight.

However, for the purposes of this discussion let's consider some definitions for these terms so that we can distinguish how these elements are actually used.