In search of the lost gene

[Ishmael]

So in the news we are treated to this-

Half of all people may carry "Gay" gene.

Is that so? The only problem with the article is that after decades of research at God only knows how much cost science has yet to find a single, or group, of genetic markers associated with homosexuality.

But here we are, faced with an article that states with some degree of positivity that there IS a "gay" gene. Further, they've even run "gay" gene population propagation models.

Seems like science is taking us into AGW land with the 'gay' issue.

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

Highly Authoritative and trustworthy source!

My fave line from the article:

The sisters of gay men tend to have more children, helping explain the persistence of homosexuality in larger populations

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3644/3393998282_772932e766.jpg


He was gay???

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So in the news we are treated to this-

Half of all people may carry "Gay" gene.

Is that so? The only problem with the article is that after decades of research at God only knows how much cost science has yet to find a single, or group, of genetic markers associated with homosexuality.

But here we are, faced with an article that states with some degree of positivity that there IS a "gay" gene. Further, they've even run "gay" gene population propagation models.

Seems like science is taking us into AGW land with the 'gay' issue.

Ishmael

When will people wake up and fully understand that models are not Science (outside of some physical problems where the physics is well understood and the variables and parameters can all be accurately and precisely defined; I worked on such models for the telecommunications industry*) but rather "political" science...



* you know, when you have to be right to get paid, rather than when you have to produce results in order to gain government grants and left-wing billionaire funding.

 

[Ishmael]

When will people wake up and fully understand that models are not Science (outside of some physical problems where the physics is well understood and the variables and parameters can all be accurately and precisely defined; I worked on such models for the telecommunications industry*) but rather "political" science...



* you know, when you have to be right to get paid, rather than when you have to produce results in order to gain government grants and left-wing billionaire funding.

If you mean the general population-----------never.

Ishmael

 

[Saint Peter]

Science does not always have the luxury of knowing the parameters that seem to be so important to your definition. Just because the unknowns are not known does not mean the science cannot make progress on solving the problem.

When will people wake up and fully understand that models are not Science (outside of some physical problems where the physics is well understood and the variables and parameters can all be accurately and precisely defined; I worked on such models for the telecommunications industry*) but rather "political" science...



* you know, when you have to be right to get paid, rather than when you have to produce results in order to gain government grants and left-wing billionaire funding.

 

[Ishmael]

Science does not always have the luxury of knowing the parameters that seem to be so important to your definition. Just because the unknowns are not known does not mean the science cannot make progress on solving the problem.

So "gay" is a problem now huh?

Ishmael

 

[NOIRTRASH]

When will people wake up and fully understand that models are not Science (outside of some physical problems where the physics is well understood and the variables and parameters can all be accurately and precisely defined; I worked on such models for the telecommunications industry*) but rather "political" science...



* you know, when you have to be right to get paid, rather than when you have to produce results in order to gain government grants and left-wing billionaire funding.

Darling? Models are science. We call the models THEORY.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If you mean the general population-----------never.

Ishmael

It was partly a rhetorical jest...

 

[Lancecastor]

So "gay" is a problem now huh?

Ishmael

I will still think of you the same way.

 

[Bert Notorius]

the gay gene
in always in
the last place
you look for it.

 

[Sean]

Science does not always have the luxury of knowing the parameters that seem to be so important to your definition. Just because the unknowns are not known does not mean the science cannot make progress on solving the problem.

AJ insists that models that are not 100% are worthless. Yet he'll get on a plane where the airflow over the wings is so chaotic and non laminar that it can't be modelled. Seems his scientific belief has more to do with politics than with actual science.

 

[Saint Peter]

So "gay" is a problem now huh?

Ishmael

The problem occurs when the results do not line up with your political agenda(s).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Science does not always have the luxury of knowing the parameters that seem to be so important to your definition. Just because the unknowns are not known does not mean the science cannot make progress on solving the problem.

This is a pretty vacuous statement which really seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the difference between simple closed systems and chaotic systems. If you do not have all the parameters to a chaotic system, then you cannot diffy-Q your way to an answer. Political science uses models to advance an agenda. Calling that "Science" means that you do not understand what Science is, but are very open to the ideas being advanced by political science.

 

[Saint Peter]

This is a pretty vacuous statement which really seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the difference between simple closed systems and chaotic systems. If you do not have all the parameters to a chaotic system, then you cannot diffy-Q your way to an answer. Political science uses models to advance an agenda. Calling that "Science" means that you do not understand what Science is, but are very open to the ideas being advanced by political science.

No, my statement does no such thing.

You want easy answers to easy questions? Keep adding soap to your peppery water.

Leave the science to those better tooled for it.

 

[Sean]

This is a pretty vacuous statement which really seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the difference between simple closed systems and chaotic systems. If you do not have all the parameters to a chaotic system, then you cannot diffy-Q your way to an answer. Political science uses models to advance an agenda. Calling that "Science" means that you do not understand what Science is, but are very open to the ideas being advanced by political science.

So aerodynamics isn't science, it's political? I'm sure the boffins at BAE will be shocked to find this out.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, my statement does no such thing.

You want easy answers to easy questions? Keep adding soap to your peppery water.

Leave the science to those better tooled for it.

Yes, your statement does. You entire post history screams it.

Isn't it about time you start yelling about how I hate education and science?

If you think that modeling chaotic systems is possible, then it is you who eschews science for political science and outcome-driven results.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let me rephrase that into something more illustrative. You make a general statement which is true in the instances that I have described and then apply it to a specific problem where it cannot possibly be true. This is a logical fallacy.

The only way to create a valid model is to know all of the inputs.

Period.

You cannot correctly guess or ignore poorly understood inputs being put into a model and expect robust, measurable and actionable results.

 

[Saint Peter]

Yes, your statement does. You entire post history screams it.

Isn't it about time you start yelling about how I hate education and science?

If you think that modeling chaotic systems is possible, then it is you who eschews science for political science and outcome-driven results.

I never claimed it was possible. Where do you get this shit?

If the chaos overwhelms the data a new approach is taken. We learn from failure.

If it is too big of a problem for you, if it is too scary, then go to your fucking happy place and let the real scientists do their work.

 

[Ishmael]

The problem occurs when the results do not line up with your political agenda(s).

And as you seem to be able to read minds, just what IS my "political agenda" here?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I never claimed it was possible. Where do you get this shit?

If the chaos overwhelms the data a new approach is taken. We learn from failure.

If it is too big of a problem for you, if it is too scary, then go to your fucking happy place and let the real scientists do their work.

Let me rephrase that into something more illustrative. You make a general statement which is true in the instances that I have described and then apply it to a specific problem where it cannot possibly be true. This is a logical fallacy.

The only way to create a valid model is to know all of the inputs.

Period.

You cannot correctly guess or ignore poorly understood inputs being put into a model and expect robust, measurable and actionable results.

This.

And I have been involved in real Science, real research, real models and produced real results. You have never done anything other than weld according to the specifics given to you by real scientists.

 

[Saint Peter]

And as you seem to be able to read minds, just what IS my "political agenda" here?

Ishmael

Separate bathrooms.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And as you seem to be able to read minds, just what IS my "political agenda" here?

Ishmael

Separate bathrooms.

Here we go with the bumper stickers again...

 

[Ishmael]

Separate bathrooms.

Hell, I was always in favor of co-ed locker rooms and showers, so why not bathrooms?

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hell, I was always in favor of co-ed locker rooms and showers, so why not bathrooms?

Ishmael

*chuckle*

Were you in favor of them being "mandatory?"

 

[Saint Peter]

Hell, I was always in favor of co-ed locker rooms and showers, so why not bathrooms?

Ishmael

Adding a third room just screws up design.

Keep the plumbing in one wall.