Top products from r/EverythingScience

The book itself came out in April 19, 2016 https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691169446

However, the Vox interview was last month. So, the readers of /r/EverythingScience would be better off either reading the book or at least the synopsis/reviews? Sociologists/political scientists are scientists. This book won the

>Winner of the 2017 PROSE Award in Government & Politics, Association of American Publishers

>One of Bloomberg's Best Books of 2016

>One of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles for 2016

Whatever that means.

Individual members of society working together create political will.

Look at the IPCC report to find the government policies that are well supported by data and evidence and see what's important to you. Organize your friends to lobby congress. Or join a movement already underfoot. I'd recommend https://citizensclimatelobby.org/writing-letters-to-editors-and-congress/. We've already written over 1,000 letters to congress just in the last month.

EDIT: Also, you can choose not to buy a car.

I have read her book The Descent of Women. She makes an interesting case.

If early humans' habitats were the medium to shallow areas of large bodies of water, it would explain a lot and Elaine Morgan had some very interesting perspectives. These are not all of her theories.

Our noses seem to be designed to prevent water from entering it when swimming or diving. Chimps and other primates noses are NOT designed for this.
The hair on our bodies seems to grow in patterns that offer the least amount of drag when swimming.

We have a subcutaneous layer of fat, somewhat similar to other water dwelling mammals.

Women have distinctive breasts while other primates do not. Supposedly this makes it easier for human infants to nurse while in the water with their mother.

Women rarely go bald. Long hair floating around the mother makes it easier for the young to cling to her. Men, not generally the primary caretakers of infants, do not need long hair to support their aquatic children, so they are more likely to go bald than women.

Our exquisite sense of touch in our fingertips enabled early humans to feel the bottom, distinguishing shellfish from rocks by texture.

The skin on our hands and feet are adapted to a partially aquatic lifestyle.

We evolved an upright stance because when chased by predators, we could run into deep water, stand up and wait out the predators on shore.

*Women are generally more highly evolved than men, particularly when it comes to sex. She explains her theories about our placement of our reproductive areas and organs and has theories on why we orgasm the way we do.

It has given me much to think about over the years. [I am a woman]

There's a whole book on this topic: Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference

Awesome.

A great book I read recently on the elements is Periodic Tales

Communicating science can be just as important, and much more difficult than the science itself. You have to capture your audience's attention, avoid jargon as much as possible, and tell a compelling story. There are some great books out there about the subject. Connection is my personal favourite, but Escape from the Ivory Tower, Don't be such a Scientist, and Am I Making Myself Clear are all good reads as well.

I'd recommend The Geek Manifesto to anyone who hasn't read it.

It's pretty short and an easy read. As a scientist I did feel like Henderson was preaching to the choir, but in that sense I agree with the majority of the sentiment conveyed.

The white guy at the end is John Gurche. He is the artist who made the figures seen in the video. This video was created as a promo for his book, Shaping Humanity about how art is used to help us understand human origins. The original video seen here was put out by Yale University Press. Someone then took it, removed the book promos and reposted it.

> My focus in the podcast was on ethnic diversity. The ethnic diversity results within that meta-analysis

It seems reasonable to me that there might be differences of this sort around - am open to further input in that regard.

Did actually purchase your book a few months back, although I haven't gotten to reading it yet - its still in the to-read pile (also had the podcast downloaded but not yet listened to). Not quite sure how well you focused on the topic of this thread in your book.

Also in case anyone is really interested here's a link to Piot's book, No Time to Lose about his role in the Ebola discovery as well as the AIDS epidemic.
[book] (http://www.amazon.com/No-Time-Lose-Pursuit-Viruses/dp/039306316X)

I would highly recommend Patient HM about the effects of the surgery on one man.

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/dp/0521592712

The book the movie was based on is Awakenings. I indicated the other book in the comments, but I'll link it again for you, it's called Asleep.

My daughter bought me that book. Normally I don't read non-fiction but that book really blew me away.

http://www.amazon.com/Family-That-Couldnt-Sleep-Medical/dp/081297252X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453292314&sr=1-1&keywords=the+family+that+couldn%27t+sleep

He was working on his new book that came out recently.

Thing Explainer

Certainly. You aren't racist ... but.. black lives matter dont understand black people are racist too. You aren't one of those crazy anti science global warming denialists... but ... celebrities and nazi pedophiles, right? And denialists shouldn't be picked on because because they are pointing out some science is dodgy. And while you can split hairs by carefully saying " I didn't say" this or that, it was carefully implied which allowed you to imediately deny that was your intention when you are called on it. Please read the book, follow it with https://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062 and https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman-ebook/dp/B004R1Q2EG

This sounds depressingly similar to the plot of one of Michael Crichton's early novels, The Terminal Man.

Right down to the closed-loop system, detecting disapproved brain states and stimulating to disrupt them.

For those of you who haven't read it, the implant system uses brain pleasure terminals to disrupt seizures. What the brain learns from this is that it gets pleasurable stimulation whenever it seizes, so a positive feedback loop starts up.

In the book the subject's seizures include sexual assault and murder.

Should you read every book that presents a new idea just to judge for yourself if that is an idea worth undertaking or whatever?

There's been a lot of religions in human history (most which have long since died off). Should you necessarily read every religion's works to understand the religion and its followers, and to determine if it's the right one in your mind (etc)? The bible is certainly the basis for the largest religion (and a partial basis for the second largest, although the Quran is much more influential to them). But let's not neglect the Hindus and Buddhists (I don't even know what their religious books are, or how many their are).

Are we even constraining ourselves to modern religions? Maybe the ancient Greeks or Romans had it right, but you won't know because you didn't study them yourself (sure, they died off, but that's just because other people decided that they were the "wrong" religions -- by your logic, you should be deciding this for yourself). What about the Norse? Or that ancient Egyptian religion?

The reality of the world is that you can't really read and research everything for yourself. There's nothing wrong with falling back on other people's shorter, more digestible summaries, provided that you take care to find quality ones and a diversity of opinions. And reading their holy books won't tell you that much about their modern religions. It doesn't really matter what the Bible or Quran says, for example, if the followers do something entirely different. Not to mention that reading and researching for yourself does not require reading the holy book. There's plenty of more modern texts, for example, that have a much less biased explanation of modern religions, their belief sets, and how they have evolved -- this goes far beyond what the Bible alone could tell you about these religions.

Reading the bible to figure out if it's right is like reading Mein Kampf to figure out if Hitler's ideas were good ones. It's far too biased, missing in objective knowledge, and omits crucial things. If you want to actually study a religion, you need more than that. You need someone who can point out when "facts" stated differ from historical accounts. You need someone to remind you when a passage conflicts with an earlier one. You need someone to detail when details are actually carry-overs from older religions. A proper religion studies textbook would do a lot more to critically analyze a religion than reading their holy book. An example of such a book is A History of God by Karen Armstrong.

As an aside,

>If you know Tyson, you'll know he's not an atheist, he's agnostic.

That's bullshit. Agnostic isn't a view point alone. The actual divide is "agnostic atheist", "gnostic atheist", "agnostic theist", and "gnostic theist" (most people are either agnostic atheists or gnostic theists). Typically among intelligent people, the default for when you don't know is to assume it doesn't exist. And that's the case for almost everything, really. I can't be entirely sure that unicorns don't exist. I don't have proof for it. Yet I don't think they exist. Tyson is an agnostic atheist who avoids the term "atheist" because it has strong negative connotations in the US (a huge number of people say that they wouldn't vote for an atheist, for example).

Stephenie Seneff is an unqualified hack. I'm going to just copy/paste from one of my previous times criticizing one of her papers. This was specifically a paper she published connecting autism to roundup.

>So, just a few of the red flags in it. First, the author seriously cites Andrew Wakefield for some of her evidence. Andrew Wakefield, for those who don't know, is the man who published deliberately fraudulent papers to link autism and vaccines, and started the vaccines=autism scare. Seriously citing his papers in anything other than a study about bad science and vaccine denialists is about as big of a red flag as it gets.

>Second, she cites Giles Eric Seralini, who is another "scientist" who publishes incredibly flawed papers pushing his viewpoint on GMOs. While having an agenda isn't necessarily enough to get a paper discounted, the agenda plus the enormous methodological, statistical, and analytic flaws in his papers is enough.

>Seneff herself is a computer scientist from MIT, and has a previous paper in the same journal blaming autism on both aluminum and acetaminophen.


>In short, you should probably avoid citing Seneff, because a fairly cursory inspection of what was published reveals that it is utter crap.

>A couple red flags from the journal it was published in. Entropy is a pay to publish journal. Thats not always bad, but it is something that should be looked at with some suspicion. Additionally, it has some motivation to accept any article because the money is only due if it is published.

>More damning however, is that they have a rotating set of "guest editors" who approve their articles. The man who approved this one is Prof. Dr. John W. Oller, who has written a book on Autism that was so bad, Andrew Wakefield wrote the forward to it.

She has a long track record in pushing bad science in pay to publish or fringe quack journal. When the article says that she is "Dr. Seneff is a respected scientist", they forget to mention that she is respected among the same set of people who respect Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy. Anything she says should be taking with several dump trucks of salt.

As I pointed out earlier in the tread the "editing" of climate science has for a long time been apart of the Republican way of addressing climate change.
Philip Cooney chaired the Council on Environmental Quality in the Bush administration. Before that he had been lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. He doctored various government climate reports to downplay scientific consensus and had to resign in 2005. He was then hired by ExxonMobil.

Here is Andrew Revkin's account of the affair: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/politics/editor-of-climate-reports-resigns.html

Instead of arguing about the solutions from an ideological view point, we argue about the science. Chris Mooney, at the Washington Post, wrote an interesting book about the subject that came out in 2005, The Republican War on Science. It is well worth reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/0465046762

And this even goes further back as you can see if you listen to Erik Conway's lecture on the "Merchants of Doubt: How Climate Science Became a Victim of the Cold War":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV6A4CZkOXg&t=186s