Strega

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20702883/

Two students ultimately outperformed the chimp on the brief-display condition. The authors conclude there’s no evidence for a fundamentally superior spatial memory system in chimps; intensive training plus strategy can explain Ayumu-level performance.

@jakelafort – yes, Jane Goodall totally opened up the field of primatology, changing a great ape from a “what” to a “who”.

TheEncogitationer wrote:
Only a small difference in DNA, but what a difference a DNA makes.

Apparently, it’s all because of our “harsh and risky foraging niche”.  The great apes live in forests where food is easy to come by.  Humans were forced to share and cooperate as soon as their forests died back and they were forced onto the savannah.  Gr…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
Oh and i should adduce cuz what the deuce that Goodall herself was a theist.

Some new science on gene editing…..

Summary from AI;

Most rare diseases aren’t “rare” in aggregate — 400 million people worldwide have one.
But each specific mutation is rare, so big pharma won’t touch them because the economics are hopeless.

Liu’s new approach (PERT) is a mutation-agnostic gene-editing engine for diseases caused by prematur…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Scientists can and do cling to pet theories.

Admitting error is the ideal but defending one’s career is the reality. The embarrassment cost is tiny, but the career costs can be enormous.

There have been scientists who continue to push false and even harmful theories even after they’ve been completely discredited, s…[Read more]

Personally, I disagree somewhat with the heading that “Groupthink in science isn’t a problem; it’s a myth.”

In principle, yes. In practice, Groupthink happens whenever careers, funding, prestige, or consensus incentives push people to ‘not rock the boat’. Science has mechanisms to counter this, but those mechanisms are imperfect.…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Groupthink in science isn’t a problem; it’s a myth.

From my experience, if you want to convince a scientist of new ideas, they are often willing to listen, as long as you come with a convincing argument.  I find this is very different from politics or religion.

The enemy is where someone doesn’t like to admit they…[Read more]

This is going to be a hugely successful album. Millions of plays already on Spotify. Not my usual scene but the musicianship is top class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux_(Rosal%C3%ADa_album)

There’s no evidence that a cartel vs government conflict is directly causing measles vaccine supply problems in Mexico. But cartel control of territory does indirectly make healthcare delivery harder in some regions. So the relationship is indirect and structural, not the main driver. Public-health workers sometimes avoid cartel-dominated areas. T…[Read more]

Did I not answer your questions? Oh, I didn’t! I would call them secondary to the main questions about R nought, the anti-vax movement, and flaws or laziness in human cognition.

@PopeBeanie – Yes, you are correct with the basics of ‘R Nought (12-18). But it does not explain why Canada lost elimination status before the US. But elimination statu…[Read more]

TheEncogitationer wrote:
This story prompts more questions than answers.

I would start with the primary causes and facts, first.

The “R nought” factor for measles is estimated to be between 12 and 18, meaning on average in a fully susceptible population, an infected person will infect 12 to 18 other people. This leads to an estimate that a…[Read more]

..or at least a non sequitur….as most people who use the Galileo Gambit aren’t making a formal logical argument….it appeals not to reason but to ego, making it less an argument and more a psychological defense mechanism.

Yes, I guess it is more of a cognitive bias than a logical fallacy.

Cheers Strega! Hope all is good with you!

I am still thinking about what the ideas of the Enlightenment……..

The Lillian Hellman Fallacy and the Galileo Gambit.

There’s a predictable pattern in modern argument, especially online, where someone with a weak or poorly supported claim begins by presenting themselves as a courageous dissenter—someone who “refuses to cut their consc…[Read more]

Have a great week!