Interesting article in Science

[mom'sfolly]

Basic research confuses a lot of people; particularly those looking at it from the outside. It is a pretty esoteric world in some circles; and by the time it gets to the masses, it is often watered down to the point of meaninglessness. It often looks pointless, it studies things that look like they have no meaning, with no connection to the real world. But basic research is the way we learn about how things work, from celestial systems and fundamentals of physics to the biology of the human brain. The Wright brothers, Einstein, Edison and Alexander Bell did basic research, and the things they learned changed the world. Even more recently, DNA was discovered and the mechanisms of inheritance were illuminated. This happened relatively recently; 1953. Now DNA is the stuff of everyday conversation; at the time practical uses for the research weren't even o the horizon. Now we use DNA technology for making insulin, identifying people, and making new agricultural products.

Science starts with a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis, and reaches a conclusion. That is why peer reviewed science is important. It makes sure that everything actually follows a certain order and hypotheses are actually tested. Remember the guy who linked autism to shots...completely debunked, due to rigorous peer review and retesting of his hypothesis.

Just because you don't think a particular study is important or has bearing on the real world; doesn't mean that it is really so.

 

[EweSheep]

Quote:
Our brains may be (and that is something I'm really reluctant to say, knowing the intellectual ability of some humans), but our emotions and emotional responses to basic hormones/chemical reactions MOST DEFINITELY are not.

You should look at pictures of an angry human's face next to an angry chimp's face next to an angry dog's face. Surprisingly enough, those faces all look similar, even though the musculature is different. Why? Because anger is expressed the same way.

The difference is that human beings should be able to control their anger. However, if they do not recognize WHY they are doing something WHEN they are doing it, they CAN NOT BE TAUGHT not to do it anymore. These studies are to help discover the WHY, so we can work on intervention techniques to teach them how to circumvent the abuse cycle.

Good point! We CAN control our anger but the booby bird can not. Animals can only go so far in research...why not research humans, try intervention techniques on them...I am sure there are plenty of volunteers!

 

[chickened]

I just meant that studies in a large part have become a career choice for paying the bills rather than studying something tangible, job security.
Quote:

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you be a little more explicit please?

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
The government just dumped half a billion into the company, trying to push the "Green" agenda, and it has failed, because the whole concept, on a mass scale is a failure. The company was floundering, before the public money,[ your's and mine].

Too many times, some group of researchers come up with an idea, and then, try to make the research fit the desired end. The whole global warming scam was not about proving that the earth was warming up. It was about forcing everyone to reach into their pocket and pay a penance to some elite group, just for being human.

They knew that they couldn't prove it, beyond a doubt, so they falsified and twisted the numbers, to come up with the result they wanted.

Why should I put stock in any grant funded research? Once a liar, always a liar.

I wasn't asking for a political spin. Do you have any links to Solyndra's research that shows that they've drawn incorrect conclusions or had flawed data?

Good luck in that request. For a lot of people, the level of information required to be considered "known" is hearing the same thing from two different people....one of whom could be a neighbor, and the other could be a person working at the feed store. For them, an emotional connection is enough for something to be "known" and there won't be a further seeking of evidence, because like the saying "why are the things I lose always in the last place I look?" (because you stop looking when you find them), there is no need to further confirm that which is "known" by their philosophy. So whether there is actual research conducted by Solyndra or not is irrelevant to it being "known" to be true.

And from their perspective, all this funding into research and studies that seek evidence is a waste of money, because their system of "knowing" things does not require such diligence. As such, there will continue to be objections and disparagement toward these studies, and toward the people who tout them as a better source of "knowing." It's a fundamental philosophical difference that really can't be settled on a poultry forum.

 

[EweSheep]

mom'sfolly :

Basic research confuses a lot of people. It often looks pointless, it studies things that look like they have no meaning, with no connection to the real world. But basic research is the way we learn about how things work, from celestial systems and fundamentals of physics to the biology of the human brain. The Wright brothers, Einstein, Edison and Alexander Bell did basic research, and the things they learned changed the world. Even more recently, DNA was discovered and the mechanisms of inheritance were illuminated. This happened relatively recently; 1953. Now DNA is the stuff of everyday conversation; at the time practical uses for the research weren't even o the horizon. Now we use DNA technology for making insulin, indentifying people, and making new agricultural products.

Science starts with a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis, and reaches a conclusion. That is why peer reviewed science is important. It makes sure that everything actually follows a certain order and hypotheses are actually tested. Remember the guy who linked autism to shots...completely debunked, due to rigorous peer review and retesting of his hypothesis.

Just because you don't think a particular study is important or has bearing on the real world; doesn't mean that it is really so.

The guy that linked autism....well, he is still at it and media does play a good part in rehashing it again and again. Then in ten years, another study will be done on another mental behavior and call or label it something else.​

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
Sorry you're in pain.

My understanding of the article is that they are studying the behavior of adult birds abusing unrelated chicks, and that they used the correlation to siblings fighting it out for survival as a possible source for the "abusive" behavior. That somehow this survival instinct of a chick gets activated in an adult and the adult tries to kill a neighboring chick. If the chick survives the attack, it will retain the instinct to attack nearby chicks when it is an adult.

 

[chickened]

There in lies the debate relating to human behavior, the animal cannot speak its' point of view which if taken seriously in a study makes the study flawed when compared to human subjects. Animals base thier needs on survival, humans base thier needs on desire after survival is met, hardly similar subjects.

 

[Royd]

Quote:
An opinion is perfectly fine, but to present an opinion as a validated study doesn't seem quite appropriate, in my opinion.

You stated that you believe there are contradictory studies, fine, I would like to see them. I'm not asking for your credentials, I'm asking to see what you're basing your statement on so that I can read them too, and draw my own conclusions. Maybe I would agree with you, or maybe not.

So, if I quote Sigmund Freud as my go to guy on phsycoanalysis, then I'm legit? Or is it the newest and latest, which I must believe?

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
They didn't compare it to humans, you guys did.

 

[chickened]

If the chick did retain the instinct it would be a learned trait not an instinct and thus be a choice.
Quote:
Sorry you're in pain.

My understanding of the article is that they are studying the behavior of adult birds abusing unrelated chicks, and that they used the correlation to siblings fighting it out for survival as a possible source for the "abusive" behavior. That somehow this survival instinct of a chick gets activated in an adult and the adult tries to kill a neighboring chick. If the chick survives the attack, it will retain the instinct to attack nearby chicks when it is an adult.