[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Still, anecdotes…or rather, stories and the emotions they trigger, are how we are wired to understand the world.

[/quote]

We’re wired to do/think/feel/understand a lot of different things that really don’t translate well into living in a civilization. A small tribe, maybe. That’s kind of what we’re wired for. But not a civilization. It is up to us as rational beings to understand this, and to develop methods of coping with living in a civilization despite our wiring.

So far, I have to say we humans have been sucking at that. We continue to assault, kill, and rape each other. We’re xenophobic and ignorant. Etcetera.

If we want to survive in a tribe, we’re wired wonderfully. But to thrive in a civilization, not so much. If we don’t understand and accept this, we’ll never thrive. And if we keep listening to the wrong people, we’ll never understand and accept this.

Listen to me, motherf’ers, and everything will be great.
(kidding)

[zk]

[quote=poorgradstudent]There’s nothing wrong with alternative, testable hypotheses in science.

[/quote]

Indeed, that’s what science is all about.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]
If you had talked to these two families, you would probably have a totally different opinion about these “idiots.”[/quote]

I wouldn’t. Children with regressive autism sometimes regress rapidly at about the same age that MMR vaccines are given. So there will be many instances where the regression occurs immediately after the vaccine is given. That doesn’t mean the vaccine caused it. Many people in their 80’s have had strokes immediately after drinking a glass of water or watching tv. That doesn’t mean the water or the tv caused it. Ordinary people being 100% convinced of anything because of an anecdote won’t change my mind, especially if large studies have been done contradicting whatever they’re convinced about.

[quote=CA renter]
Remember that those who are ahead of science tend to be ridiculed by the current scientific establishment. It doesn’t help anyone’s cause to call those who have a different opinion “idiots” or “conspiracy theorists.” Anecdote almost always precedes science. Those “idiots” just might be right.[/quote]

This is a case commonly made for following non-science. What’s never mentioned (I think it’s scientific illiteracy rather than intentional misdirection) is that for every quack who’s ridiculed by the current scientific establishment and turns out to be right, there are hundreds or thousands who are wrong. For every anecdote that turns out precede science, there are a thousand or a million that don’t.

Science won’t always be right. Almost always, but not always. But when it’s wrong, it’s not afraid to admit it. If it’s afraid to admit it, it’s not science. When new evidence comes out, science deals with it unemotionally and updates the science on the matter. Science is always looking for the truth. The real truth. How many endeavors can you say that about? If you start letting mommy and daddy convince you, clearly there’s emotion in the way of figuring out what really happened. And your odds of being right plummet dramatically.

[zk]

[quote=AN]I still think it was retarded to make those statements, even in 2008. Why didn’t they consult with the CDC first before commenting and giving credence to anti-vaxxers claims. That like saying those crazy birthers who claimed that Obama wasn’t American before he showed his birth certificate were OK, as long as they only made those claims before Obama show his birth certificates.[/quote]

I disagree. They really had no way of knowing that Wakefield’s “science” was really not science at all. There was a published paper in a major medical journal saying vaccines caused autism. And there were also people saying it didn’t. So, if you didn’t know that the Lancet paper wasn’t science, then, in 2008, you’d think that “the science right now is inconclusive.”

A published paper in a major medical journal is a lot more to go on than a bunch of nutjobs’ claims. ‘Course, turns out Wakefield was (is) a nutjob.

[zk]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]Paul is a retard.

What I’m a little curious about.
Don’t public schools check immunization records?
How did these kids get past that?[/quote]
Retards love company:

“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it,” then Sen. Obama said.

“There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers. But the science right now is inconclusive,” Obama said.

“I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines,” said Clinton.

As for schools, as was said, CA does not have a mandatory vaccination. You can be exempt on personal belief. Which is why Malabu and Beverly Hills have <40% vaccination rate.[/quote]

Those Obama and Clinton comments were made, I believe, in 2008. The Lancet retracted Wakefield's paper in 2010.

[zk]

I always thought it meant that the owners were proud of their place and that that pride showed in the way they kept the place: the way it was upgraded, maintained, landscaped, etc.

But I’ve been wrong about what phrases and idioms mean before. Which reminds me of a girl I work with who, as a youth, thought that “can’t make ends meet” was “can’t make Ends Meat,” which was an expensive meat.

[zk]

[quote=njtosd]

I agree with you in large part, however, we do not have perfect information with respect to viruses in terms of their history of changing or not changing modes of infection. Since all viruses presumably evolved from a single virus, we should probably assume that such a change has taken place – but over millenia, not in a few years.[/quote]

We don’t have perfect information on the history of viruses, no. But even if all viruses evolved from a single virus, that doesn’t necessarily mean that any virus has ever changed its mode of transmission among mammals. Mammals have been around for a couple hundred million years; viruses have been around a lot longer. Maybe they have changed method of transmission at some point over those two hundred million years. Maybe not. Humans have only been around a couple hundred thousand or a couple million years, depending on how you define them. There’s a good chance no virus has ever changed its method of transmission among humans.

[zk]

[img_assist|nid=20532|title=Exactly|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=73]

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]

Way too easy.[/quote]

Yeah, I agree. But it’s kind of how we do things, if you think about it. I’ve always wondered why attempted murder carried so much less of a penalty than murder. Your aim is bad and that somehow makes your penalty less? I don’t understand that. If you’re out there trying to kill innocent people, you should be in prison forever, whether you succeed or not.

[zk]

[quote=flu]Man, I guess I’m missing out all the fun… As an enginerd I think I have 1 suit… And the last time I wore it was to a fundraiser dinner with my kid..

The last time I wore a suit for work was….Jan 2002 for an interview…And then afterwards, all my interviews were just in semi-formal collared shirt and dark pants….And even then, I think I was slightly overdressed.

So how much does one expect to spend for a “decent” suit….roughly?[/quote]

I don’t usually need a suit except at weddings, funerals, a very occasional work purpose, etc. I didn’t really know how much a decent one cost, because I’ve only bought cheap ones (and then only one every 5 or 8 years). I was thinking somewhere between $400-$1000. I looked at Brooks Brothers on line and they have some on sale for $600-$650. I was leaning towards that, based on recommendations here.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
It’s about precision cut and how well it fits on your body. You know goodlooking when you see it. [/quote]

The theme seems to be that a well-fitted suit is paramount. Is that about the tailor, or what? Or is any custom-fitted suit generally going to come out ok?

Reminds me of a joke.

[zk]

I generally stay away from brands, because you generally pay more for nothing. Or maybe for prestige in certain people’s eyes, which I’m not concerned about. Of course, my nephew (he’s almost 21) might be. But I don’t think so. I’ll have to bring that up and see what he says. Anyway, with a suit, because I can’t tell good quality from bad quality, my concern is that I’ll buy something non-brand and it’ll be poor quality and I won’t know it. How can I tell if a non-brand-name suit is any good? Are there some lesser-known names that are generally quality suits? Are there some methods of identifying quality in a non-brand-name suit? I want to get him the best suit I can for the money.

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]brand may mater in this sense if youre young and trying to fit into the adult world, a name lik e borooks bros will make you feel like youre more part of the establishment, possibly. so maybe brooks bros. someting super sober, grey or blue, and plain looking. but classy.

or jcrew

suits…sheesh.[/quote]

Great input, guys, thanks.

I wanted to ask about styles, too. Brian says, “the slim fit is in.” That’s good to know. But I’ve always preferred a classic look. (The suit is not for me, but I want to have this discussion with my nephew.) The classic look really never goes out of style. It’s usually not the height of fashion, either. But if your suit is high quality, and your build doesn’t change, you can keep it a while. Like a decade. Right? Or is that just lame? Whereas, while a “slim-fit” suit looks quite hip right now, in 2-4 years it’s going to look out of date and definitely lame. Not long after that, it will be basically unwearable.

Plus, like scaredy said, plain and sober but classy (or plain and sober and classy, depending how you look at it) is more establishment. So, if edgy and hip isn’t what you’re looking for, then you don’t really have to buy a new collection of suits every few years. Or am I wrong about that?

[zk]

[quote=svelte]

Please contact this firm immediately.

http://www.dewey-cheatham-howe.com/%5B/quote%5D

Love the website. Harry “How Much” Howe!

and

“Most people think of legislative representation as an honorable profession with a long history. At Dewey Cheatham & Howe, we reject such nonsense.”

Good stuff. What a great play on words. They thanked Groucho Marx and the Car Talk guys, but they forgot The Three Stooges. I discovered DC&H during an episode of the stooges.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]Since both of you are now “trolling” again, you would both do well to get moving and visit our illustrious local gubment buildings and check out those “chaise lounges” for yourself (don’t forget to visit all the mens rooms, as well). Their entry x-ray machines and security personnel open at 7:30 am so get moving nice and early tomorrow morning! And GOOD LUCK finding a place to park. Welcome to my (former) world! Most of it is still there …. in its original form.[/quote]

Who are “both of you?”

[Author]

Posts