<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_11_1155220</id>
	<title>Study Highlights Gap Between Views of Scientists and the Public</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247318220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:gormac05@yahoEINSTEINo.comminusphysicist" rel="nofollow">ZeroSerenity</a> was one of many to write with news of a survey from the Pew Research Center which sought to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090710/sc\_nm/us\_science\_survey\_1">find out how Americans feel about science</a> and contrast that with the opinions of actual scientists. The study showed that "nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection, but <a href="http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550">just a third of the public does</a>. And while 84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that." 27\% of the respondents said that the advances of the US in science are its greatest achievement, down from 44\% ten years ago. The study is lengthy, and it contains many more interesting tidbits. For example: scientists <a href="http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1547">decry the level of media coverage</a> given to science, and they also think <a href="http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1548">research funding has too much influence</a> on study results. 32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while <a href="http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549">55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ZeroSerenity was one of many to write with news of a survey from the Pew Research Center which sought to find out how Americans feel about science and contrast that with the opinions of actual scientists .
The study showed that " nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection , but just a third of the public does .
And while 84 \ % of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity , less than half of the public agrees with that .
" 27 \ % of the respondents said that the advances of the US in science are its greatest achievement , down from 44 \ % ten years ago .
The study is lengthy , and it contains many more interesting tidbits .
For example : scientists decry the level of media coverage given to science , and they also think research funding has too much influence on study results .
32 \ % of scientists identify themselves as Independent , while 55 \ % say they 're Democrats and 6 \ % say they 're Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZeroSerenity was one of many to write with news of a survey from the Pew Research Center which sought to find out how Americans feel about science and contrast that with the opinions of actual scientists.
The study showed that "nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection, but just a third of the public does.
And while 84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that.
" 27\% of the respondents said that the advances of the US in science are its greatest achievement, down from 44\% ten years ago.
The study is lengthy, and it contains many more interesting tidbits.
For example: scientists decry the level of media coverage given to science, and they also think research funding has too much influence on study results.
32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663339</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>BoogieChile</author>
	<datestamp>1247307840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll tell you what I'm opposed to - I'm opposed to shit like this.<br>
<br>
&gt; <i>Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs</i> <br>
<br>
And it's got nothing to do with religion.<br>
<br>
At least, it's got nothing to do with the ones that believe telling porkies is wrong...<br>
<br>
Or don't they do that anymore? <br>
<br>
I mean, it's not even a little one like you get forgiven for* it's a whole "How many lights", bucket of bullshit, apart from the bit that the victims don't even know it's being done to them, which just makes the sin (I think they call it) all the more egregious.

I don't care your race creed or colour but that shit is just...wrong...<br>
<br>
*See "does my butt look big in this?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll tell you what I 'm opposed to - I 'm opposed to shit like this .
&gt; Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs And it 's got nothing to do with religion .
At least , it 's got nothing to do with the ones that believe telling porkies is wrong.. . Or do n't they do that anymore ?
I mean , it 's not even a little one like you get forgiven for * it 's a whole " How many lights " , bucket of bullshit , apart from the bit that the victims do n't even know it 's being done to them , which just makes the sin ( I think they call it ) all the more egregious .
I do n't care your race creed or colour but that shit is just...wrong.. . * See " does my butt look big in this ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll tell you what I'm opposed to - I'm opposed to shit like this.
&gt; Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs 

And it's got nothing to do with religion.
At least, it's got nothing to do with the ones that believe telling porkies is wrong...

Or don't they do that anymore?
I mean, it's not even a little one like you get forgiven for* it's a whole "How many lights", bucket of bullshit, apart from the bit that the victims don't even know it's being done to them, which just makes the sin (I think they call it) all the more egregious.
I don't care your race creed or colour but that shit is just...wrong...

*See "does my butt look big in this?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660053</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247327760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Latex is not 100\% impermeable and in that way it is correct that bacteria, viruses and prions can go through Latex. However, the chance of that happening is remote to very remote (surgical gloves with good QC) and combined with the chance of being exposed to dangerous elements for a long enough period to form a risk make it so unlikely that latex can be considered impermeable. For high risk environments glove manufacturers still recommend to wear two pairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Latex is not 100 \ % impermeable and in that way it is correct that bacteria , viruses and prions can go through Latex .
However , the chance of that happening is remote to very remote ( surgical gloves with good QC ) and combined with the chance of being exposed to dangerous elements for a long enough period to form a risk make it so unlikely that latex can be considered impermeable .
For high risk environments glove manufacturers still recommend to wear two pairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Latex is not 100\% impermeable and in that way it is correct that bacteria, viruses and prions can go through Latex.
However, the chance of that happening is remote to very remote (surgical gloves with good QC) and combined with the chance of being exposed to dangerous elements for a long enough period to form a risk make it so unlikely that latex can be considered impermeable.
For high risk environments glove manufacturers still recommend to wear two pairs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665931</id>
	<title>Re:I fail to see ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247431320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but in a lot of states you have to register as a member of a political party to get a vote in their primary. So a large number of those scientists are probably not saying "My beliefs are aligned with the party propaganda" so much as they're saying "I want to vote in the Democratic (or Republican) primary."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but in a lot of states you have to register as a member of a political party to get a vote in their primary .
So a large number of those scientists are probably not saying " My beliefs are aligned with the party propaganda " so much as they 're saying " I want to vote in the Democratic ( or Republican ) primary .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but in a lot of states you have to register as a member of a political party to get a vote in their primary.
So a large number of those scientists are probably not saying "My beliefs are aligned with the party propaganda" so much as they're saying "I want to vote in the Democratic (or Republican) primary.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662841</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247304120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;One bishop (who has since passed)</p><p>I guess all that study paid off then...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; One bishop ( who has since passed ) I guess all that study paid off then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;One bishop (who has since passed)I guess all that study paid off then...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357</id>
	<title>55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55\% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?</p><p>And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?</p><p>I'm not a global climate change denier. There is definitely something going on. Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter. Let's focus on making this place a nice place to live. Clean air, clean water, clean land. These are things no one is going to argue with. Let's start making this a better world for you and for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation , but if that is so , what does the " 55 \ % of scientists are Democrats " statistic mean ? And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye , can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation ? I 'm not a global climate change denier .
There is definitely something going on .
Whether it is caused by humans or not , it does n't really seem to matter .
Let 's focus on making this place a nice place to live .
Clean air , clean water , clean land .
These are things no one is going to argue with .
Let 's start making this a better world for you and for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55\% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?I'm not a global climate change denier.
There is definitely something going on.
Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter.
Let's focus on making this place a nice place to live.
Clean air, clean water, clean land.
These are things no one is going to argue with.
Let's start making this a better world for you and for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660379</id>
	<title>Yep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work at a university and so work with PhDs all the time. There are a good many of them who think they know everything, but in reality have extremely limited knowledge outside of their narrow field. They'll be happy to tell you how you should of all sorts of thing, but if you investigate, you discover they know fuck all about what they are talking about. That they have a PhD means they are highly educated in a very specific field. It doesn't mean they are masters of everything. Some understand that, others do not.</p><p>As an example we have a massive amount of wireless APs on our campus, hundreds per building. The idea is to provide total coverage. This necessitates they be placed all over, and not just in wiring closets and such. There are some in offices. We have a few professors that demanded the APs be moved, or who placed shields over them to "protect" themselves from the radiation. These are engineering professors, by the way, not art professors. So while this is even in their general domain, they still don't know about it and are as subjected to the same pseudo-science BS as the general public.</p><p>While it might be a comforting idea to think scientists are all very smart, reasonable people, that just isn't the case. They are human like the rest of us, and there are plenty of them who don't know what they are talking about save for a small area, and even some who don't know what they are talking about in their area. Science works not because scientists are superhuman, but because the process of strong inference allows us to test and refine our knowledge. The process of science is what is amazing, not necessarily the people who work in it.</p><p>Feynman's biography has some great commentary on this and the dangers of "averaging" opinions with people. That just because you ask a lot of people, doesn't mean that you got the right answer.</p><p>As an example, suppose around the 1950s you asked 100 scientists about an atomic theory and 90\% thought it was right, 10\% thought it was wrong. Must be right huh? Now what if I told you the 10 that thought it was wrong were Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, Teller, Oppenheimer, Bethe, and so on. Maybe then you aren't so sure. Just because 90 random scientists think something, doesn't mean they are right and the people who actually developed the technology are wrong.</p><p>Science is not a democracy, you don't vote on what the right answer is.</p><p>So I'm with you, I really hate these stories of "Well X\% of profession Y believe this!" That is marketing bullshit. "4 out of 5 dentists agree this is the toothpaste for you!" Ok well so what? Maybe 4 out of 5 dentists are just mediocre and the top 20\% know that it is bunk. Any time I hear something telling me what percentage of peopel like something or believe something, I feel like I'm being sold something, not being informed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work at a university and so work with PhDs all the time .
There are a good many of them who think they know everything , but in reality have extremely limited knowledge outside of their narrow field .
They 'll be happy to tell you how you should of all sorts of thing , but if you investigate , you discover they know fuck all about what they are talking about .
That they have a PhD means they are highly educated in a very specific field .
It does n't mean they are masters of everything .
Some understand that , others do not.As an example we have a massive amount of wireless APs on our campus , hundreds per building .
The idea is to provide total coverage .
This necessitates they be placed all over , and not just in wiring closets and such .
There are some in offices .
We have a few professors that demanded the APs be moved , or who placed shields over them to " protect " themselves from the radiation .
These are engineering professors , by the way , not art professors .
So while this is even in their general domain , they still do n't know about it and are as subjected to the same pseudo-science BS as the general public.While it might be a comforting idea to think scientists are all very smart , reasonable people , that just is n't the case .
They are human like the rest of us , and there are plenty of them who do n't know what they are talking about save for a small area , and even some who do n't know what they are talking about in their area .
Science works not because scientists are superhuman , but because the process of strong inference allows us to test and refine our knowledge .
The process of science is what is amazing , not necessarily the people who work in it.Feynman 's biography has some great commentary on this and the dangers of " averaging " opinions with people .
That just because you ask a lot of people , does n't mean that you got the right answer.As an example , suppose around the 1950s you asked 100 scientists about an atomic theory and 90 \ % thought it was right , 10 \ % thought it was wrong .
Must be right huh ?
Now what if I told you the 10 that thought it was wrong were Bohr , Einstein , Feynman , Teller , Oppenheimer , Bethe , and so on .
Maybe then you are n't so sure .
Just because 90 random scientists think something , does n't mean they are right and the people who actually developed the technology are wrong.Science is not a democracy , you do n't vote on what the right answer is.So I 'm with you , I really hate these stories of " Well X \ % of profession Y believe this !
" That is marketing bullshit .
" 4 out of 5 dentists agree this is the toothpaste for you !
" Ok well so what ?
Maybe 4 out of 5 dentists are just mediocre and the top 20 \ % know that it is bunk .
Any time I hear something telling me what percentage of peopel like something or believe something , I feel like I 'm being sold something , not being informed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work at a university and so work with PhDs all the time.
There are a good many of them who think they know everything, but in reality have extremely limited knowledge outside of their narrow field.
They'll be happy to tell you how you should of all sorts of thing, but if you investigate, you discover they know fuck all about what they are talking about.
That they have a PhD means they are highly educated in a very specific field.
It doesn't mean they are masters of everything.
Some understand that, others do not.As an example we have a massive amount of wireless APs on our campus, hundreds per building.
The idea is to provide total coverage.
This necessitates they be placed all over, and not just in wiring closets and such.
There are some in offices.
We have a few professors that demanded the APs be moved, or who placed shields over them to "protect" themselves from the radiation.
These are engineering professors, by the way, not art professors.
So while this is even in their general domain, they still don't know about it and are as subjected to the same pseudo-science BS as the general public.While it might be a comforting idea to think scientists are all very smart, reasonable people, that just isn't the case.
They are human like the rest of us, and there are plenty of them who don't know what they are talking about save for a small area, and even some who don't know what they are talking about in their area.
Science works not because scientists are superhuman, but because the process of strong inference allows us to test and refine our knowledge.
The process of science is what is amazing, not necessarily the people who work in it.Feynman's biography has some great commentary on this and the dangers of "averaging" opinions with people.
That just because you ask a lot of people, doesn't mean that you got the right answer.As an example, suppose around the 1950s you asked 100 scientists about an atomic theory and 90\% thought it was right, 10\% thought it was wrong.
Must be right huh?
Now what if I told you the 10 that thought it was wrong were Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, Teller, Oppenheimer, Bethe, and so on.
Maybe then you aren't so sure.
Just because 90 random scientists think something, doesn't mean they are right and the people who actually developed the technology are wrong.Science is not a democracy, you don't vote on what the right answer is.So I'm with you, I really hate these stories of "Well X\% of profession Y believe this!
" That is marketing bullshit.
"4 out of 5 dentists agree this is the toothpaste for you!
" Ok well so what?
Maybe 4 out of 5 dentists are just mediocre and the top 20\% know that it is bunk.
Any time I hear something telling me what percentage of peopel like something or believe something, I feel like I'm being sold something, not being informed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665773</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1247340840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 in 10 scientists had apoplexy while trying to answer the question vehemently enough in the face of popular ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 in 10 scientists had apoplexy while trying to answer the question vehemently enough in the face of popular ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 in 10 scientists had apoplexy while trying to answer the question vehemently enough in the face of popular ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664153</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247314920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think money alone shows support and respect for science?  Wrong!  The Republican regard for science is very backhanded.  They don't hesitate to cook evidence to fit the conclusions they think they want, and, you know, that costs money.  Remember Iraq?  No WMDs!  Remember that lying idiot who dared to censor Hansen's research to take out anything that might show there is global warming, and while he was at it, also censored it of all suggestions that Evolution was accepted science?  There are dozens of skewed studies that supposedly show there is no global warming, tobacco isn't addictive, our food isn't unhealthy, pollution isn't causing cancer or birth defects or other health problems, or anything else some industry thinks they want.  The religious wackos have embraced these techniques wholeheartedly, to push their own agendas such as the "controversy" over Evolution vs Creationism.  It's an entirely manufactured controversy.  And they do this without seeming to understand that what they're really doing is lying.  The Republican party has become an unholy alliance between liars for industry and liars for God.  As has been said, they make facts based on decisions, not decisions based on facts.

</p><p>Republicans at least see the respect people have for science, or they wouldn't bother faking it.  What they don't get is that faked science is worthless.  They really seem to have a hard time understanding that crucial point.  It's really amazing how they can puke out some rubbish anecdotes and think that's on par with evidence collected in a professional, disinterested manner.  They also don't hesitate to try a snow job, that is, "doubt is our product".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think money alone shows support and respect for science ?
Wrong ! The Republican regard for science is very backhanded .
They do n't hesitate to cook evidence to fit the conclusions they think they want , and , you know , that costs money .
Remember Iraq ?
No WMDs !
Remember that lying idiot who dared to censor Hansen 's research to take out anything that might show there is global warming , and while he was at it , also censored it of all suggestions that Evolution was accepted science ?
There are dozens of skewed studies that supposedly show there is no global warming , tobacco is n't addictive , our food is n't unhealthy , pollution is n't causing cancer or birth defects or other health problems , or anything else some industry thinks they want .
The religious wackos have embraced these techniques wholeheartedly , to push their own agendas such as the " controversy " over Evolution vs Creationism .
It 's an entirely manufactured controversy .
And they do this without seeming to understand that what they 're really doing is lying .
The Republican party has become an unholy alliance between liars for industry and liars for God .
As has been said , they make facts based on decisions , not decisions based on facts .
Republicans at least see the respect people have for science , or they would n't bother faking it .
What they do n't get is that faked science is worthless .
They really seem to have a hard time understanding that crucial point .
It 's really amazing how they can puke out some rubbish anecdotes and think that 's on par with evidence collected in a professional , disinterested manner .
They also do n't hesitate to try a snow job , that is , " doubt is our product " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think money alone shows support and respect for science?
Wrong!  The Republican regard for science is very backhanded.
They don't hesitate to cook evidence to fit the conclusions they think they want, and, you know, that costs money.
Remember Iraq?
No WMDs!
Remember that lying idiot who dared to censor Hansen's research to take out anything that might show there is global warming, and while he was at it, also censored it of all suggestions that Evolution was accepted science?
There are dozens of skewed studies that supposedly show there is no global warming, tobacco isn't addictive, our food isn't unhealthy, pollution isn't causing cancer or birth defects or other health problems, or anything else some industry thinks they want.
The religious wackos have embraced these techniques wholeheartedly, to push their own agendas such as the "controversy" over Evolution vs Creationism.
It's an entirely manufactured controversy.
And they do this without seeming to understand that what they're really doing is lying.
The Republican party has become an unholy alliance between liars for industry and liars for God.
As has been said, they make facts based on decisions, not decisions based on facts.
Republicans at least see the respect people have for science, or they wouldn't bother faking it.
What they don't get is that faked science is worthless.
They really seem to have a hard time understanding that crucial point.
It's really amazing how they can puke out some rubbish anecdotes and think that's on par with evidence collected in a professional, disinterested manner.
They also don't hesitate to try a snow job, that is, "doubt is our product".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660921</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247333340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)</i></p><p>Why does one necessarily cross out the other? Nobody said that just because you're religious, you don't believe evolution by natural selection happens. Was there a cross section?</p><p>As far as political views goes, I don't see how this could possibly be accurate. First of all, science is not the only education you can get. Do they consider some guy on wall street with a masters in some kind of business a scientist? I doubt it. Yet, he or she will know far more about the economy and how it works than any microbiologist, chemist, astrophysicist, etc.</p><p>I suggest a more direct study be done. This one seems to want to imply a LOT of unproven information. Instead, let's ask what people's political views are on several issues based on a) level of education, b) current profession, c) geographic location, d) income, and e) religious views (not whether or not you go to church). The political issues could involve the classic debates: economy and how it should work, state sovereignty vs. federal control, abortion (in several contexts), war, foreign relations, spending, taxes, etc.</p><p>I've also found just because people declare themselves one party over another, it doesn't mean they hold all those views at all. I've found many more to be leaning more in the middle than anything. They just happen to feel more strongly about one issue over another, and thus, relate themselves to that party for whatever reason.</p><p>Lastly, while many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s seem to despise religion, let's stop with the conspiracy theories. Do we forget so easily what a lot of these organizations have to offer society? I see a LOT of religious groups getting involved with helping those less fortunate... overseas, nationally, and locally. How much of that have YOU done? Have you given consistently to some charity every month? And more than just a few bucks if you have the cash? Maybe you should think about some of that before you're so ready to sacrifice a very important part of our society to the wolves.</p><p>Long story short: this study is largely oversimplified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories ?
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is , the more liberal ( generally speaking ) their political views tend to be ?
So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in , the layman who does n't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of " experts " , or take faith in the " word of God , as brought to you by $ Preacher .
) Why does one necessarily cross out the other ?
Nobody said that just because you 're religious , you do n't believe evolution by natural selection happens .
Was there a cross section ? As far as political views goes , I do n't see how this could possibly be accurate .
First of all , science is not the only education you can get .
Do they consider some guy on wall street with a masters in some kind of business a scientist ?
I doubt it .
Yet , he or she will know far more about the economy and how it works than any microbiologist , chemist , astrophysicist , etc.I suggest a more direct study be done .
This one seems to want to imply a LOT of unproven information .
Instead , let 's ask what people 's political views are on several issues based on a ) level of education , b ) current profession , c ) geographic location , d ) income , and e ) religious views ( not whether or not you go to church ) .
The political issues could involve the classic debates : economy and how it should work , state sovereignty vs. federal control , abortion ( in several contexts ) , war , foreign relations , spending , taxes , etc.I 've also found just because people declare themselves one party over another , it does n't mean they hold all those views at all .
I 've found many more to be leaning more in the middle than anything .
They just happen to feel more strongly about one issue over another , and thus , relate themselves to that party for whatever reason.Lastly , while many / .
's seem to despise religion , let 's stop with the conspiracy theories .
Do we forget so easily what a lot of these organizations have to offer society ?
I see a LOT of religious groups getting involved with helping those less fortunate... overseas , nationally , and locally .
How much of that have YOU done ?
Have you given consistently to some charity every month ?
And more than just a few bucks if you have the cash ?
Maybe you should think about some of that before you 're so ready to sacrifice a very important part of our society to the wolves.Long story short : this study is largely oversimplified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories?
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?
So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.
)Why does one necessarily cross out the other?
Nobody said that just because you're religious, you don't believe evolution by natural selection happens.
Was there a cross section?As far as political views goes, I don't see how this could possibly be accurate.
First of all, science is not the only education you can get.
Do they consider some guy on wall street with a masters in some kind of business a scientist?
I doubt it.
Yet, he or she will know far more about the economy and how it works than any microbiologist, chemist, astrophysicist, etc.I suggest a more direct study be done.
This one seems to want to imply a LOT of unproven information.
Instead, let's ask what people's political views are on several issues based on a) level of education, b) current profession, c) geographic location, d) income, and e) religious views (not whether or not you go to church).
The political issues could involve the classic debates: economy and how it should work, state sovereignty vs. federal control, abortion (in several contexts), war, foreign relations, spending, taxes, etc.I've also found just because people declare themselves one party over another, it doesn't mean they hold all those views at all.
I've found many more to be leaning more in the middle than anything.
They just happen to feel more strongly about one issue over another, and thus, relate themselves to that party for whatever reason.Lastly, while many /.
's seem to despise religion, let's stop with the conspiracy theories.
Do we forget so easily what a lot of these organizations have to offer society?
I see a LOT of religious groups getting involved with helping those less fortunate... overseas, nationally, and locally.
How much of that have YOU done?
Have you given consistently to some charity every month?
And more than just a few bucks if you have the cash?
Maybe you should think about some of that before you're so ready to sacrifice a very important part of our society to the wolves.Long story short: this study is largely oversimplified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660867</id>
	<title>Science is Relevant Across Disciplines</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1247332860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists "outside their field" may not do direct experimentation or modeling that occurs in another scientific discipline.  However, they can take such assumptions and and such conclusions test them in the context of their own expertise using the scientific method.  Biologists do not routinely take temperature measurements and evaluate systems of linear and non-linear differential equations as do climate modelers, but they can for example, observe the changes in the distributions of many organisms and conclude that such changes are consistent with a model of global warming and inconsistent with either stable or cooling temperatures.  Indeed, if you look at the composition of fish species taken at oil rigs off the north-central  Gulf of Mexico coast, you will observe that there has been a significant increase in the number of species that were formerly only know to occur in Central America and that species requiring cooler waters, such as stripped bass are largely disappearing, despite heroic restocking efforts.   Likewise, those who study ice cores and the dissolved gasses within them can also convincingly generate a detailed record of temperatures over the past 10,000 - 20,000 years and like-wise conclude that global warming is a fact.  The wonderful thing about science is that it is interdisciplinary.  You don't have to be a scientist in one particular field to address issues central to the scientific debate concerning global warming.  Phenomena, such as global warming can be studied from a variety of perspectives by many different kinds of scientists.</p><p>The reason there are so many scientists on one side of this debate and few on the other, is that data drive their conclusions.  The scientific community has now moved well past the question of whether global warming is occurring, this is a largely settled issue scientifically.  They are now focusing on how fast it is occurring and what the consequences the warming will be.  Actually, this has become far more worrisome and with much broader implications than simply recognizing that we will have to begin to live with increasingly higher temperatures.</p><p>That the "opinions" of these scientists are either consistent or inconsistent with a variety of kinds of data and expectations regarding such data and that such "opinions" have a "special weight" afforded them, stems from the predictiveness of these "opinions", not the fact that scientists have them.</p><p>Your false choice between scientists making "their own opinions" or "simply believing in what they are taught in school" underscores a misconception in your mind as to what science is.  Science is not sophism.  Science is not about what you know.  It is about how you know.  It is not the conclusions that matter, it is how those conclusions are reached and the implications of these conclusions have to "likely outcomes" that make what scientists have to say important.</p><p>If you were a betting man, this might tell you something worth listening to.  If you are not, or simply like to bet only on the long odds, you can ignore scientist's "opinions" with respect to global warming and instead accept those of any preacher, witchdoctor, republican politician, or random number generator you please.  However, as a caution, should you prefer the latter approach, you might want to consider hedging your bet, just in case those pesky scientists turn out to be right.  Don't say you weren't warned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists " outside their field " may not do direct experimentation or modeling that occurs in another scientific discipline .
However , they can take such assumptions and and such conclusions test them in the context of their own expertise using the scientific method .
Biologists do not routinely take temperature measurements and evaluate systems of linear and non-linear differential equations as do climate modelers , but they can for example , observe the changes in the distributions of many organisms and conclude that such changes are consistent with a model of global warming and inconsistent with either stable or cooling temperatures .
Indeed , if you look at the composition of fish species taken at oil rigs off the north-central Gulf of Mexico coast , you will observe that there has been a significant increase in the number of species that were formerly only know to occur in Central America and that species requiring cooler waters , such as stripped bass are largely disappearing , despite heroic restocking efforts .
Likewise , those who study ice cores and the dissolved gasses within them can also convincingly generate a detailed record of temperatures over the past 10,000 - 20,000 years and like-wise conclude that global warming is a fact .
The wonderful thing about science is that it is interdisciplinary .
You do n't have to be a scientist in one particular field to address issues central to the scientific debate concerning global warming .
Phenomena , such as global warming can be studied from a variety of perspectives by many different kinds of scientists.The reason there are so many scientists on one side of this debate and few on the other , is that data drive their conclusions .
The scientific community has now moved well past the question of whether global warming is occurring , this is a largely settled issue scientifically .
They are now focusing on how fast it is occurring and what the consequences the warming will be .
Actually , this has become far more worrisome and with much broader implications than simply recognizing that we will have to begin to live with increasingly higher temperatures.That the " opinions " of these scientists are either consistent or inconsistent with a variety of kinds of data and expectations regarding such data and that such " opinions " have a " special weight " afforded them , stems from the predictiveness of these " opinions " , not the fact that scientists have them.Your false choice between scientists making " their own opinions " or " simply believing in what they are taught in school " underscores a misconception in your mind as to what science is .
Science is not sophism .
Science is not about what you know .
It is about how you know .
It is not the conclusions that matter , it is how those conclusions are reached and the implications of these conclusions have to " likely outcomes " that make what scientists have to say important.If you were a betting man , this might tell you something worth listening to .
If you are not , or simply like to bet only on the long odds , you can ignore scientist 's " opinions " with respect to global warming and instead accept those of any preacher , witchdoctor , republican politician , or random number generator you please .
However , as a caution , should you prefer the latter approach , you might want to consider hedging your bet , just in case those pesky scientists turn out to be right .
Do n't say you were n't warned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists "outside their field" may not do direct experimentation or modeling that occurs in another scientific discipline.
However, they can take such assumptions and and such conclusions test them in the context of their own expertise using the scientific method.
Biologists do not routinely take temperature measurements and evaluate systems of linear and non-linear differential equations as do climate modelers, but they can for example, observe the changes in the distributions of many organisms and conclude that such changes are consistent with a model of global warming and inconsistent with either stable or cooling temperatures.
Indeed, if you look at the composition of fish species taken at oil rigs off the north-central  Gulf of Mexico coast, you will observe that there has been a significant increase in the number of species that were formerly only know to occur in Central America and that species requiring cooler waters, such as stripped bass are largely disappearing, despite heroic restocking efforts.
Likewise, those who study ice cores and the dissolved gasses within them can also convincingly generate a detailed record of temperatures over the past 10,000 - 20,000 years and like-wise conclude that global warming is a fact.
The wonderful thing about science is that it is interdisciplinary.
You don't have to be a scientist in one particular field to address issues central to the scientific debate concerning global warming.
Phenomena, such as global warming can be studied from a variety of perspectives by many different kinds of scientists.The reason there are so many scientists on one side of this debate and few on the other, is that data drive their conclusions.
The scientific community has now moved well past the question of whether global warming is occurring, this is a largely settled issue scientifically.
They are now focusing on how fast it is occurring and what the consequences the warming will be.
Actually, this has become far more worrisome and with much broader implications than simply recognizing that we will have to begin to live with increasingly higher temperatures.That the "opinions" of these scientists are either consistent or inconsistent with a variety of kinds of data and expectations regarding such data and that such "opinions" have a "special weight" afforded them, stems from the predictiveness of these "opinions", not the fact that scientists have them.Your false choice between scientists making "their own opinions" or "simply believing in what they are taught in school" underscores a misconception in your mind as to what science is.
Science is not sophism.
Science is not about what you know.
It is about how you know.
It is not the conclusions that matter, it is how those conclusions are reached and the implications of these conclusions have to "likely outcomes" that make what scientists have to say important.If you were a betting man, this might tell you something worth listening to.
If you are not, or simply like to bet only on the long odds, you can ignore scientist's "opinions" with respect to global warming and instead accept those of any preacher, witchdoctor, republican politician, or random number generator you please.
However, as a caution, should you prefer the latter approach, you might want to consider hedging your bet, just in case those pesky scientists turn out to be right.
Don't say you weren't warned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663789</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247311380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Compared with ancient Greek philosophy, let alone modern philosophy, religion is already just ignorant, unsophisticated, incongruent, biased, politicized, dishonest babble.</p></div><p>Greek philosophy is in a lot of ways a precursor to Christianity (which I'm going to assume is the subject of conversation when people here start indiscriminately religion bashing due to the things done by fundamentalists in the US).  One of the most significant concepts of Greek philosophy are 'practices of the self' which are discussed at length by Socrates in Plato's earlier and middle works (Plato's Alcibiades and Symposium come to mind immediately).  These practices of the self are meant to be ways of living your life in 'the good' way in order to attain happiness.  Socrates even went around talking to everyone he could find about how they should 'tend to their soul' (rough translation from <i>psukh&#196;"s epimel&#196;"teon</i>) and ended up getting sentenced to death for it.  If you're starting to see parallels here to the Christ story and to the idea that you should live your life in a good Christian way in order to get into heaven (i.e. achieve happiness) that's because this Socratic philosophy led into stoic and cynic philosophy which were the ideological precursors to Christianity and the philosophies that immediately preceded the era of Christ's teachings.  In light of this one might even argue that you <i>can't</i> understand western philosophy fully since you can't grasp it's historical context or evolution without understanding Christianity.  If you want to learn more about this check out <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">Michel Foucault's</a> [stanford.edu] Hermeneutics of the Subject, which are a series of lectures he gave at the College of France in the early 80's and eventually produced the History of Sexuality Vol 2 and 3 which are two of the more significant works of contemporary philosophy.</p><p>As for modern philosophy, it has it's own problems (what follows is simply one branch of modern philosophy, but it will demonstrate what I mean, and it's a very influential and widely successful branch, so it should be relevant to modern philosophy as a whole).  After Descarte the idea of the need for practices of the self to attain access to truth was discarded in favor of simple knowledge of the self (modern science can be seen as an offshoot of this, as long as you ask the right questions and run the proper experiments to provide you with the knowledge you need, scientific truth can be attained, how you lead your life is irrelevant).  That's when spiritual practices became irrelevant for philosophy.  And that all was fine while people like Kant and Locke were trying to justify particular systems of ethics within the new Cartesian framework, but then Nietzsche came around and overturned all of the philosophy which proceeded him by arguing for a new set of values defined by each individual for himself or herself (such an individual would be an ubermench in his rhetoric), thereby spawning existentialism. </p><p>The existentialists left behind Nietzsche's proposed set of values for the ubermench (and the values lay audiences often find so repulsive) the will to power, but held on to the idea that the individual needed to freely chose his or her own values (Sartre) or freely choose how to interpret what is valuable (Kierkegaard).  Either way this relies on the freedom of the individual.  The problem is that Foucault came around and developed his notion of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">biopower</a> [wikipedia.org] in the 1970s that makes it doubtful that the individual is ever in an environment in which he or she can make 'free' decisions.  The influences of modern society and it's apparatuses on our system of values, ethics and how we lead our lives results in a breakdown of the freely choosing subject of the existentialists.  Other major contemporary thinkers such as <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">Gilles Deleuze</a> [stanford.edu] have even gone so far as to claim the individual is gone and all we're left with now are the "<i>dividuals</i>" of almost a hive like society (he never uses the word 'hive' but what he describes very much resembles one).  This (among other things) has resulted in contemporary philosophy lacking any coherent ethos, any true philosophy to speak of, it says very little about how we should lead our lives (which is what philosophy was always about until the postmodern era) and in attempting to explore this problem Foucault went back to the Greek (and Christian) practices of the self and concluded that perhaps a new practices of the self are necessary.</p><p>Put within a historical context statements such as "Compared with ancient Greek philosophy, let alone modern philosophy, religion is already just ignorant, unsophisticated, incongruent, biased, politicized, dishonest babble." come off as bigoted, especially considering it's philosophical value for people who don't have the resources to study philosophy rigorously (although I'll concede it's politicized, but that has nothing to do with religion itself, that's just politics bastardizing everything it touches).  And for the record, I'm a scientist (neuroscience) and not religious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared with ancient Greek philosophy , let alone modern philosophy , religion is already just ignorant , unsophisticated , incongruent , biased , politicized , dishonest babble.Greek philosophy is in a lot of ways a precursor to Christianity ( which I 'm going to assume is the subject of conversation when people here start indiscriminately religion bashing due to the things done by fundamentalists in the US ) .
One of the most significant concepts of Greek philosophy are 'practices of the self ' which are discussed at length by Socrates in Plato 's earlier and middle works ( Plato 's Alcibiades and Symposium come to mind immediately ) .
These practices of the self are meant to be ways of living your life in 'the good ' way in order to attain happiness .
Socrates even went around talking to everyone he could find about how they should 'tend to their soul ' ( rough translation from psukh   " s epimel   " teon ) and ended up getting sentenced to death for it .
If you 're starting to see parallels here to the Christ story and to the idea that you should live your life in a good Christian way in order to get into heaven ( i.e .
achieve happiness ) that 's because this Socratic philosophy led into stoic and cynic philosophy which were the ideological precursors to Christianity and the philosophies that immediately preceded the era of Christ 's teachings .
In light of this one might even argue that you ca n't understand western philosophy fully since you ca n't grasp it 's historical context or evolution without understanding Christianity .
If you want to learn more about this check out Michel Foucault 's [ stanford.edu ] Hermeneutics of the Subject , which are a series of lectures he gave at the College of France in the early 80 's and eventually produced the History of Sexuality Vol 2 and 3 which are two of the more significant works of contemporary philosophy.As for modern philosophy , it has it 's own problems ( what follows is simply one branch of modern philosophy , but it will demonstrate what I mean , and it 's a very influential and widely successful branch , so it should be relevant to modern philosophy as a whole ) .
After Descarte the idea of the need for practices of the self to attain access to truth was discarded in favor of simple knowledge of the self ( modern science can be seen as an offshoot of this , as long as you ask the right questions and run the proper experiments to provide you with the knowledge you need , scientific truth can be attained , how you lead your life is irrelevant ) .
That 's when spiritual practices became irrelevant for philosophy .
And that all was fine while people like Kant and Locke were trying to justify particular systems of ethics within the new Cartesian framework , but then Nietzsche came around and overturned all of the philosophy which proceeded him by arguing for a new set of values defined by each individual for himself or herself ( such an individual would be an ubermench in his rhetoric ) , thereby spawning existentialism .
The existentialists left behind Nietzsche 's proposed set of values for the ubermench ( and the values lay audiences often find so repulsive ) the will to power , but held on to the idea that the individual needed to freely chose his or her own values ( Sartre ) or freely choose how to interpret what is valuable ( Kierkegaard ) .
Either way this relies on the freedom of the individual .
The problem is that Foucault came around and developed his notion of biopower [ wikipedia.org ] in the 1970s that makes it doubtful that the individual is ever in an environment in which he or she can make 'free ' decisions .
The influences of modern society and it 's apparatuses on our system of values , ethics and how we lead our lives results in a breakdown of the freely choosing subject of the existentialists .
Other major contemporary thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze [ stanford.edu ] have even gone so far as to claim the individual is gone and all we 're left with now are the " dividuals " of almost a hive like society ( he never uses the word 'hive ' but what he describes very much resembles one ) .
This ( among other things ) has resulted in contemporary philosophy lacking any coherent ethos , any true philosophy to speak of , it says very little about how we should lead our lives ( which is what philosophy was always about until the postmodern era ) and in attempting to explore this problem Foucault went back to the Greek ( and Christian ) practices of the self and concluded that perhaps a new practices of the self are necessary.Put within a historical context statements such as " Compared with ancient Greek philosophy , let alone modern philosophy , religion is already just ignorant , unsophisticated , incongruent , biased , politicized , dishonest babble .
" come off as bigoted , especially considering it 's philosophical value for people who do n't have the resources to study philosophy rigorously ( although I 'll concede it 's politicized , but that has nothing to do with religion itself , that 's just politics bastardizing everything it touches ) .
And for the record , I 'm a scientist ( neuroscience ) and not religious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared with ancient Greek philosophy, let alone modern philosophy, religion is already just ignorant, unsophisticated, incongruent, biased, politicized, dishonest babble.Greek philosophy is in a lot of ways a precursor to Christianity (which I'm going to assume is the subject of conversation when people here start indiscriminately religion bashing due to the things done by fundamentalists in the US).
One of the most significant concepts of Greek philosophy are 'practices of the self' which are discussed at length by Socrates in Plato's earlier and middle works (Plato's Alcibiades and Symposium come to mind immediately).
These practices of the self are meant to be ways of living your life in 'the good' way in order to attain happiness.
Socrates even went around talking to everyone he could find about how they should 'tend to their soul' (rough translation from psukhÄ"s epimelÄ"teon) and ended up getting sentenced to death for it.
If you're starting to see parallels here to the Christ story and to the idea that you should live your life in a good Christian way in order to get into heaven (i.e.
achieve happiness) that's because this Socratic philosophy led into stoic and cynic philosophy which were the ideological precursors to Christianity and the philosophies that immediately preceded the era of Christ's teachings.
In light of this one might even argue that you can't understand western philosophy fully since you can't grasp it's historical context or evolution without understanding Christianity.
If you want to learn more about this check out Michel Foucault's [stanford.edu] Hermeneutics of the Subject, which are a series of lectures he gave at the College of France in the early 80's and eventually produced the History of Sexuality Vol 2 and 3 which are two of the more significant works of contemporary philosophy.As for modern philosophy, it has it's own problems (what follows is simply one branch of modern philosophy, but it will demonstrate what I mean, and it's a very influential and widely successful branch, so it should be relevant to modern philosophy as a whole).
After Descarte the idea of the need for practices of the self to attain access to truth was discarded in favor of simple knowledge of the self (modern science can be seen as an offshoot of this, as long as you ask the right questions and run the proper experiments to provide you with the knowledge you need, scientific truth can be attained, how you lead your life is irrelevant).
That's when spiritual practices became irrelevant for philosophy.
And that all was fine while people like Kant and Locke were trying to justify particular systems of ethics within the new Cartesian framework, but then Nietzsche came around and overturned all of the philosophy which proceeded him by arguing for a new set of values defined by each individual for himself or herself (such an individual would be an ubermench in his rhetoric), thereby spawning existentialism.
The existentialists left behind Nietzsche's proposed set of values for the ubermench (and the values lay audiences often find so repulsive) the will to power, but held on to the idea that the individual needed to freely chose his or her own values (Sartre) or freely choose how to interpret what is valuable (Kierkegaard).
Either way this relies on the freedom of the individual.
The problem is that Foucault came around and developed his notion of biopower [wikipedia.org] in the 1970s that makes it doubtful that the individual is ever in an environment in which he or she can make 'free' decisions.
The influences of modern society and it's apparatuses on our system of values, ethics and how we lead our lives results in a breakdown of the freely choosing subject of the existentialists.
Other major contemporary thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze [stanford.edu] have even gone so far as to claim the individual is gone and all we're left with now are the "dividuals" of almost a hive like society (he never uses the word 'hive' but what he describes very much resembles one).
This (among other things) has resulted in contemporary philosophy lacking any coherent ethos, any true philosophy to speak of, it says very little about how we should lead our lives (which is what philosophy was always about until the postmodern era) and in attempting to explore this problem Foucault went back to the Greek (and Christian) practices of the self and concluded that perhaps a new practices of the self are necessary.Put within a historical context statements such as "Compared with ancient Greek philosophy, let alone modern philosophy, religion is already just ignorant, unsophisticated, incongruent, biased, politicized, dishonest babble.
" come off as bigoted, especially considering it's philosophical value for people who don't have the resources to study philosophy rigorously (although I'll concede it's politicized, but that has nothing to do with religion itself, that's just politics bastardizing everything it touches).
And for the record, I'm a scientist (neuroscience) and not religious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28694669</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>bhiestand</author>
	<datestamp>1247601720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><div><p> <tt>AAAS Mission<br>AAAS seeks to...:</tt></p><p><tt>
&nbsp; &nbsp; * Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; * Provide a voice for science on societal issues;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; * Promote the responsible use of science in public policy;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; * Foster education in science and technology for everyone;<br></tt> </p></div><p>That doesn't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint, unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.</p></div><p>How can you call this group non-partisan?  I doubt there are too many Republicans in their ranks!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AAAS MissionAAAS seeks to... :     * Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use ;     * Provide a voice for science on societal issues ;     * Promote the responsible use of science in public policy ;     * Foster education in science and technology for everyone ; That does n't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint , unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.How can you call this group non-partisan ?
I doubt there are too many Republicans in their ranks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> AAAS MissionAAAS seeks to...:
    * Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use;
    * Provide a voice for science on societal issues;
    * Promote the responsible use of science in public policy;
    * Foster education in science and technology for everyone; That doesn't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint, unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.How can you call this group non-partisan?
I doubt there are too many Republicans in their ranks!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661555</id>
	<title>Re:9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1247337660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hmm... how many "scientists" did state that the sun revolves around the earth?</p></div><p>To be fair, at the time, using the scientific method, all evidence pointed to such a conclusion. Then, as new evidence was discovered, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun took hold. I am of course simplifying here, but this is what occurred, and this process is how we know that science works. You see, if we removed all religion and all science from humanity, and allowed them to come back, science would eventually reach the same conclusions that we have historically (ie we would eventually come up with evolution once again), but religion is a crapshoot.</p><p>The important part of your post has been left out - why one who accepts creationism is not a scientist. Of course, it is because that person's findings are not supported by evidence, are not repeatable, and thus, those findings would not be accepted by the scientific community and that scientist would not be respected by his peers.</p><p>If anything in the study should bother you, its that 84\% of "scientists" believe that the earth is warming because of human activity. The scientific community believes that the earth is warming, as it has over the past century (1 degree C), it is seen as likely that over the next century the earth could warm as much as 2 or 3 degrees C. This is not, however, attributed to human activity, but rather to the natural fluctuations of the earths temperature. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that the last ice age was caused by dinosaurs not burning enough fossil fuels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... how many " scientists " did state that the sun revolves around the earth ? To be fair , at the time , using the scientific method , all evidence pointed to such a conclusion .
Then , as new evidence was discovered , the idea that the earth revolves around the sun took hold .
I am of course simplifying here , but this is what occurred , and this process is how we know that science works .
You see , if we removed all religion and all science from humanity , and allowed them to come back , science would eventually reach the same conclusions that we have historically ( ie we would eventually come up with evolution once again ) , but religion is a crapshoot.The important part of your post has been left out - why one who accepts creationism is not a scientist .
Of course , it is because that person 's findings are not supported by evidence , are not repeatable , and thus , those findings would not be accepted by the scientific community and that scientist would not be respected by his peers.If anything in the study should bother you , its that 84 \ % of " scientists " believe that the earth is warming because of human activity .
The scientific community believes that the earth is warming , as it has over the past century ( 1 degree C ) , it is seen as likely that over the next century the earth could warm as much as 2 or 3 degrees C. This is not , however , attributed to human activity , but rather to the natural fluctuations of the earths temperature .
Otherwise , we would have to conclude that the last ice age was caused by dinosaurs not burning enough fossil fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... how many "scientists" did state that the sun revolves around the earth?To be fair, at the time, using the scientific method, all evidence pointed to such a conclusion.
Then, as new evidence was discovered, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun took hold.
I am of course simplifying here, but this is what occurred, and this process is how we know that science works.
You see, if we removed all religion and all science from humanity, and allowed them to come back, science would eventually reach the same conclusions that we have historically (ie we would eventually come up with evolution once again), but religion is a crapshoot.The important part of your post has been left out - why one who accepts creationism is not a scientist.
Of course, it is because that person's findings are not supported by evidence, are not repeatable, and thus, those findings would not be accepted by the scientific community and that scientist would not be respected by his peers.If anything in the study should bother you, its that 84\% of "scientists" believe that the earth is warming because of human activity.
The scientific community believes that the earth is warming, as it has over the past century (1 degree C), it is seen as likely that over the next century the earth could warm as much as 2 or 3 degrees C. This is not, however, attributed to human activity, but rather to the natural fluctuations of the earths temperature.
Otherwise, we would have to conclude that the last ice age was caused by dinosaurs not burning enough fossil fuels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662049</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1247341680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flat, and at the center of the universe. The Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, and Indians knew better, evidently well before Galileo.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Someone better tell that to Eratosthenes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flat , and at the center of the universe .
The Mayans , Incas , Egyptians , and Indians knew better , evidently well before Galileo .
Someone better tell that to Eratosthenes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flat, and at the center of the universe.
The Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, and Indians knew better, evidently well before Galileo.
Someone better tell that to Eratosthenes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661867</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247340360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the "scientific" thing to do is to vote for the candidate whose election you deem most likely to advance the interests you care about. In the American system, that generally means that Party trumps Politics. Any person elected will in most cases be forced to adhere to the party line in order to do anything at all. Thus you should vote for the least objectionable party regardless of the personal qualifications of the candidate.</p><p>In evaluating a person's credentials as a "scientist", you need to know more than his simple party affiliation. A legitimate scientist may support the Democrats because he personally has relatively narrow interests focused on his research and he perceives the Democrats as more likely to fund that research. On the other hand, a person who supports the Democrats because he truly believes in their emotion-based propaganda immediately casts doubt on any claim as a working scientist. The same holds true of the Republicans or any other party. You might be a good scientist despite your behavior outside of your field, but I am always leery of someone who claims to make only rational choices in one area while admitting to deliberately making non-rational choices in others.</p><p>Surveys such as the one in question are somewhat misleading in that they purport to compare the views of scientists and non-scientists, when in fact they only compare the views of people who labelled as scientists with those of people not so labelled. There is no verification on either side of the person's actual qualifications as a scientific thinker. It would be more accurate to present the survey as a comparison between people who happen to work in scientific fields versus those who don't. As such, the survey is perhaps interesting, but pretty much worthless for drawing useful conclusions beyond "these two groups of people have differing subjective views".</p><p>A truly useful survey would pick a topic, identify a group of intelligent people with a track record of unbiased research in the field, and present their opinions. The tricky part, of course, is the qualification process. Your survey has little value until you can assign weight to the opinions expressed. Lacking that, you might as well flip coins and announce your results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the " scientific " thing to do is to vote for the candidate whose election you deem most likely to advance the interests you care about .
In the American system , that generally means that Party trumps Politics .
Any person elected will in most cases be forced to adhere to the party line in order to do anything at all .
Thus you should vote for the least objectionable party regardless of the personal qualifications of the candidate.In evaluating a person 's credentials as a " scientist " , you need to know more than his simple party affiliation .
A legitimate scientist may support the Democrats because he personally has relatively narrow interests focused on his research and he perceives the Democrats as more likely to fund that research .
On the other hand , a person who supports the Democrats because he truly believes in their emotion-based propaganda immediately casts doubt on any claim as a working scientist .
The same holds true of the Republicans or any other party .
You might be a good scientist despite your behavior outside of your field , but I am always leery of someone who claims to make only rational choices in one area while admitting to deliberately making non-rational choices in others.Surveys such as the one in question are somewhat misleading in that they purport to compare the views of scientists and non-scientists , when in fact they only compare the views of people who labelled as scientists with those of people not so labelled .
There is no verification on either side of the person 's actual qualifications as a scientific thinker .
It would be more accurate to present the survey as a comparison between people who happen to work in scientific fields versus those who do n't .
As such , the survey is perhaps interesting , but pretty much worthless for drawing useful conclusions beyond " these two groups of people have differing subjective views " .A truly useful survey would pick a topic , identify a group of intelligent people with a track record of unbiased research in the field , and present their opinions .
The tricky part , of course , is the qualification process .
Your survey has little value until you can assign weight to the opinions expressed .
Lacking that , you might as well flip coins and announce your results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the "scientific" thing to do is to vote for the candidate whose election you deem most likely to advance the interests you care about.
In the American system, that generally means that Party trumps Politics.
Any person elected will in most cases be forced to adhere to the party line in order to do anything at all.
Thus you should vote for the least objectionable party regardless of the personal qualifications of the candidate.In evaluating a person's credentials as a "scientist", you need to know more than his simple party affiliation.
A legitimate scientist may support the Democrats because he personally has relatively narrow interests focused on his research and he perceives the Democrats as more likely to fund that research.
On the other hand, a person who supports the Democrats because he truly believes in their emotion-based propaganda immediately casts doubt on any claim as a working scientist.
The same holds true of the Republicans or any other party.
You might be a good scientist despite your behavior outside of your field, but I am always leery of someone who claims to make only rational choices in one area while admitting to deliberately making non-rational choices in others.Surveys such as the one in question are somewhat misleading in that they purport to compare the views of scientists and non-scientists, when in fact they only compare the views of people who labelled as scientists with those of people not so labelled.
There is no verification on either side of the person's actual qualifications as a scientific thinker.
It would be more accurate to present the survey as a comparison between people who happen to work in scientific fields versus those who don't.
As such, the survey is perhaps interesting, but pretty much worthless for drawing useful conclusions beyond "these two groups of people have differing subjective views".A truly useful survey would pick a topic, identify a group of intelligent people with a track record of unbiased research in the field, and present their opinions.
The tricky part, of course, is the qualification process.
Your survey has little value until you can assign weight to the opinions expressed.
Lacking that, you might as well flip coins and announce your results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664927</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>bkpark</author>
	<datestamp>1247325720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OK, I hadn't considered that being more liberal might lead one to a career in science, but why not. I was hypothesizing the converse, that being a "scientist" made them likely to be more liberal than the average citizen. Perhaps due to education level, exposure to a particular subculture, something like that.</p></div><p>No, that's too broad a statement. The statement that I may agree to, as a grad student who agrees mostly with libertarian philosophy, is "being more liberal might lead one to a career in academia" (i.e. scientists in universities and national labs).</p><p>Since WWII, scientific research in universities has been heavily dominated by federal government funding (i.e. all those NSF grants), so it's natural that people who stay to do scientific research in universities wouldn't have problem accepting this government funding (which, as a libertarian, I would categorize as money stolen from people as "tax") and wouldn't have problem advocating for increasing the sources of these funding, i.e. tax.</p><p>People who would advocate smaller role of the government in <em>everything</em>, as it must be for a federal government bound by our Constitution, and people who would have the logical mind necessary for science, well, these people would see the contradiction in having their livelihood dependent on the government funding <em>and</em> advocating for smaller government and do one of two things eventually: i) get out of the career that imposes this contradiction on them; or ii) become a Democrat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I had n't considered that being more liberal might lead one to a career in science , but why not .
I was hypothesizing the converse , that being a " scientist " made them likely to be more liberal than the average citizen .
Perhaps due to education level , exposure to a particular subculture , something like that.No , that 's too broad a statement .
The statement that I may agree to , as a grad student who agrees mostly with libertarian philosophy , is " being more liberal might lead one to a career in academia " ( i.e .
scientists in universities and national labs ) .Since WWII , scientific research in universities has been heavily dominated by federal government funding ( i.e .
all those NSF grants ) , so it 's natural that people who stay to do scientific research in universities would n't have problem accepting this government funding ( which , as a libertarian , I would categorize as money stolen from people as " tax " ) and would n't have problem advocating for increasing the sources of these funding , i.e .
tax.People who would advocate smaller role of the government in everything , as it must be for a federal government bound by our Constitution , and people who would have the logical mind necessary for science , well , these people would see the contradiction in having their livelihood dependent on the government funding and advocating for smaller government and do one of two things eventually : i ) get out of the career that imposes this contradiction on them ; or ii ) become a Democrat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I hadn't considered that being more liberal might lead one to a career in science, but why not.
I was hypothesizing the converse, that being a "scientist" made them likely to be more liberal than the average citizen.
Perhaps due to education level, exposure to a particular subculture, something like that.No, that's too broad a statement.
The statement that I may agree to, as a grad student who agrees mostly with libertarian philosophy, is "being more liberal might lead one to a career in academia" (i.e.
scientists in universities and national labs).Since WWII, scientific research in universities has been heavily dominated by federal government funding (i.e.
all those NSF grants), so it's natural that people who stay to do scientific research in universities wouldn't have problem accepting this government funding (which, as a libertarian, I would categorize as money stolen from people as "tax") and wouldn't have problem advocating for increasing the sources of these funding, i.e.
tax.People who would advocate smaller role of the government in everything, as it must be for a federal government bound by our Constitution, and people who would have the logical mind necessary for science, well, these people would see the contradiction in having their livelihood dependent on the government funding and advocating for smaller government and do one of two things eventually: i) get out of the career that imposes this contradiction on them; or ii) become a Democrat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660729</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1247332080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me.</p></div><p>It's not as unscientific as you might expect.  Whatever the needs of your district are, a Congressmen is also obligated to the party.  Parties are where people vote against their interests on some issues to gain allies for votes on interests that are more important to them.</p><p>Many votes thus go along the party line.  Even those who break the party line do so most often when the conclusion is foregone: if the vote were close, the party has leverage to apply, from committee assignments to support during the next campaign.</p><p>Before the recent Democratic sweeps, the split was often rather close, and your vote could determine who got to elect the Speaker or Majority Leader, and thus set the agenda.  A vote for a superior candidate of a party you generally opposed gave a lot of power to the most extreme members of that party, even though you had no direct say in their states.</p><p>So in some ways you really are voting for the party no matter whose name is on the ballot.  Perhaps the rules could be altered, such as by getting Congress to vote by secret ballot.  That would remove accountability to the constituents, but then, they don't often seem to have it anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me.It 's not as unscientific as you might expect .
Whatever the needs of your district are , a Congressmen is also obligated to the party .
Parties are where people vote against their interests on some issues to gain allies for votes on interests that are more important to them.Many votes thus go along the party line .
Even those who break the party line do so most often when the conclusion is foregone : if the vote were close , the party has leverage to apply , from committee assignments to support during the next campaign.Before the recent Democratic sweeps , the split was often rather close , and your vote could determine who got to elect the Speaker or Majority Leader , and thus set the agenda .
A vote for a superior candidate of a party you generally opposed gave a lot of power to the most extreme members of that party , even though you had no direct say in their states.So in some ways you really are voting for the party no matter whose name is on the ballot .
Perhaps the rules could be altered , such as by getting Congress to vote by secret ballot .
That would remove accountability to the constituents , but then , they do n't often seem to have it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me.It's not as unscientific as you might expect.
Whatever the needs of your district are, a Congressmen is also obligated to the party.
Parties are where people vote against their interests on some issues to gain allies for votes on interests that are more important to them.Many votes thus go along the party line.
Even those who break the party line do so most often when the conclusion is foregone: if the vote were close, the party has leverage to apply, from committee assignments to support during the next campaign.Before the recent Democratic sweeps, the split was often rather close, and your vote could determine who got to elect the Speaker or Majority Leader, and thus set the agenda.
A vote for a superior candidate of a party you generally opposed gave a lot of power to the most extreme members of that party, even though you had no direct say in their states.So in some ways you really are voting for the party no matter whose name is on the ballot.
Perhaps the rules could be altered, such as by getting Congress to vote by secret ballot.
That would remove accountability to the constituents, but then, they don't often seem to have it anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664055</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymice</author>
	<datestamp>1247313900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites.  How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being.  The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'.</p></div><p>You're fudging definitions here, but if you believe the process is guided by a supreme being, then [i]that's[/i] your answer. Your dispute is over the method &amp; period of time the creation story happened, but you still argue it happened.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen.  Sort of a 15+ billion year bank shot.  To me, that is \_much\_ more impressive than "Wham, here's everything".</p></div><p>Likewise. I find it impressive &amp; think myself tremndously lucky that our existence &amp; the world around us even came to be, given the odds. But this is an inevitable conundrum.</p><p>Picture a man tied to a chair in a room, with a gun pointed to his head. Out of a hundred rounds, one is blank.<br>
After numerous men have been shot &amp; replaced, one of them gets the blank. Now with him knowing the odds &amp; yet still being alive, he will undoubtedly question whether [i]any[/i] of the rounds were live.</p><p>It's logical to be astounded &amp; question the tiny odds we came to existence, but I don't think attributing it to some infallible entity answers any questions.</p><p>Using God as the answer to "how was the universe created?" &amp; then exempting him from the same requirement to be created doesn't quite follow through, does it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They forced you to choose between 'natural process ' and 'guided by a supreme being ' as exclusive opposites .
How about if you believe ( as most religious people do ) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being .
The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option , when they probably are thinking 'both'.You 're fudging definitions here , but if you believe the process is guided by a supreme being , then [ i ] that 's [ /i ] your answer .
Your dispute is over the method &amp; period of time the creation story happened , but you still argue it happened.God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen .
Sort of a 15 + billion year bank shot .
To me , that is \ _much \ _ more impressive than " Wham , here 's everything " .Likewise .
I find it impressive &amp; think myself tremndously lucky that our existence &amp; the world around us even came to be , given the odds .
But this is an inevitable conundrum.Picture a man tied to a chair in a room , with a gun pointed to his head .
Out of a hundred rounds , one is blank .
After numerous men have been shot &amp; replaced , one of them gets the blank .
Now with him knowing the odds &amp; yet still being alive , he will undoubtedly question whether [ i ] any [ /i ] of the rounds were live.It 's logical to be astounded &amp; question the tiny odds we came to existence , but I do n't think attributing it to some infallible entity answers any questions.Using God as the answer to " how was the universe created ?
" &amp; then exempting him from the same requirement to be created does n't quite follow through , does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites.
How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being.
The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'.You're fudging definitions here, but if you believe the process is guided by a supreme being, then [i]that's[/i] your answer.
Your dispute is over the method &amp; period of time the creation story happened, but you still argue it happened.God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen.
Sort of a 15+ billion year bank shot.
To me, that is \_much\_ more impressive than "Wham, here's everything".Likewise.
I find it impressive &amp; think myself tremndously lucky that our existence &amp; the world around us even came to be, given the odds.
But this is an inevitable conundrum.Picture a man tied to a chair in a room, with a gun pointed to his head.
Out of a hundred rounds, one is blank.
After numerous men have been shot &amp; replaced, one of them gets the blank.
Now with him knowing the odds &amp; yet still being alive, he will undoubtedly question whether [i]any[/i] of the rounds were live.It's logical to be astounded &amp; question the tiny odds we came to existence, but I don't think attributing it to some infallible entity answers any questions.Using God as the answer to "how was the universe created?
" &amp; then exempting him from the same requirement to be created doesn't quite follow through, does it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665195</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So either ONE of these new weird "chromosome-fused" creatures actually DID mate with a chimp ancestor OR this magical transformation that supposedly is so rare, happened twice, exactly the same, in 2 different chimp ancestors, WITHIN say 20-30 years...and as the opposite sex of the first, allowing the new breed of creature to have a mating partner...</p><p>now consider that even if this were the case, even animals dont just happily mate with any other of the opposite sex.  There had to be an approval.</p><p>My completely unscientific theory is a little bit more radical....it goes something like this.  That humans actually have no idea about how DNA works or any of that stuff.  They speak like they understand it all, but until they can duplicate the work of God, instead of just observing it, then I'll stick with the theory that holds to logic.  How can there be any design to DNA without a designer?  How can things follow an exact pre-defined pattern, if no intelligent being first created that pattern?  Even the evolutionists seem to believe that evolution follows rules?  How is that so?  How can you have rules and blind chance, all at the same time?</p><p>I dont understand how any of that can be, but I do understand how the created can become so puffed up that they can deny or question the existence of the creator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So either ONE of these new weird " chromosome-fused " creatures actually DID mate with a chimp ancestor OR this magical transformation that supposedly is so rare , happened twice , exactly the same , in 2 different chimp ancestors , WITHIN say 20-30 years...and as the opposite sex of the first , allowing the new breed of creature to have a mating partner...now consider that even if this were the case , even animals dont just happily mate with any other of the opposite sex .
There had to be an approval.My completely unscientific theory is a little bit more radical....it goes something like this .
That humans actually have no idea about how DNA works or any of that stuff .
They speak like they understand it all , but until they can duplicate the work of God , instead of just observing it , then I 'll stick with the theory that holds to logic .
How can there be any design to DNA without a designer ?
How can things follow an exact pre-defined pattern , if no intelligent being first created that pattern ?
Even the evolutionists seem to believe that evolution follows rules ?
How is that so ?
How can you have rules and blind chance , all at the same time ? I dont understand how any of that can be , but I do understand how the created can become so puffed up that they can deny or question the existence of the creator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So either ONE of these new weird "chromosome-fused" creatures actually DID mate with a chimp ancestor OR this magical transformation that supposedly is so rare, happened twice, exactly the same, in 2 different chimp ancestors, WITHIN say 20-30 years...and as the opposite sex of the first, allowing the new breed of creature to have a mating partner...now consider that even if this were the case, even animals dont just happily mate with any other of the opposite sex.
There had to be an approval.My completely unscientific theory is a little bit more radical....it goes something like this.
That humans actually have no idea about how DNA works or any of that stuff.
They speak like they understand it all, but until they can duplicate the work of God, instead of just observing it, then I'll stick with the theory that holds to logic.
How can there be any design to DNA without a designer?
How can things follow an exact pre-defined pattern, if no intelligent being first created that pattern?
Even the evolutionists seem to believe that evolution follows rules?
How is that so?
How can you have rules and blind chance, all at the same time?I dont understand how any of that can be, but I do understand how the created can become so puffed up that they can deny or question the existence of the creator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662399</id>
	<title>Serious questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>[scientists] also think research funding has too much influence on study results</p></div><ol><li>Where is the control experiment for something as complex as the global climate?</li><li>Where is the repeatable experiment that allows me to know what the correct temperature should be?  If you cannot tell me what the right temp. is, how can we know when/if we have stopped global warming?</li><li>Given all the variables involved in the Earth's climate, and that science requires isolating variables, about the only fact regarding climate models that we can safely draw is "Every GW and climate model fails to take all factors into account."</li><li>Why is C02 considered a pollutant?</li><li>Why are we focusing solely on CO2 when water vapor contributes more to the greenhouse effect?  Scientific experiments and real world observation demonstrate this fact.</li><li>Why are there numerous graphs that correlate the planet's temperatures to the Sun's activity, but graphs of CO2 to temperatures show not correlation?</li><li>Why are all the solutions to GW political?  If you asked most people, would you rather your children live in a world that is 1 or 2 degrees hotter or your children live in a world where the day they are bore they are taxed heavily, regulated on everything and their share of the US national debate is $70,000 and growing.</li><li>Why are all the solutions to GW political?  There is talk of a $175 tax per cow because cow farts lead to more CO2.  Why are we not taxing vegans, those guys and gals fart more then meat eaters?  Exactly PC gone crazy, either the animal you eat produces the bulk of C02 or you do.  Are we going to tax breathing at some point?</li><li>Why aren't more people talking about how the current models failed to predict the cool temps in 2006, 2007, and 2008?</li><li>Why aren't people talking about how that theory that the oceans were absorbing all the heat, does not fight observable temperature readings of the oceans?  I mean GW advocates are ignoring the science that doesn't fit their arguement.</li><li>Why aren't we asking what is more important to the general public 1).  Creating jobs and energy independence by drilling for OIL off US coast or 2).  Estimated 1 or 2 degree temp. increase in model projections that does not line up with real world data.</li><li>Why are all these GW and Climate Change people ignoring one key historical fact that the world climate has never been static ever and yet animals, plants and bacteria somehow manage to evolve/adapt and survive.</li><li>Why is it that people who supposedly agree with evolution and nature selection are attempting to create an unnatural situation on a dynamic planet by forcing a static climate.</li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>84 \ % of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity [ scientists ] also think research funding has too much influence on study resultsWhere is the control experiment for something as complex as the global climate ? Where is the repeatable experiment that allows me to know what the correct temperature should be ?
If you can not tell me what the right temp .
is , how can we know when/if we have stopped global warming ? Given all the variables involved in the Earth 's climate , and that science requires isolating variables , about the only fact regarding climate models that we can safely draw is " Every GW and climate model fails to take all factors into account .
" Why is C02 considered a pollutant ? Why are we focusing solely on CO2 when water vapor contributes more to the greenhouse effect ?
Scientific experiments and real world observation demonstrate this fact.Why are there numerous graphs that correlate the planet 's temperatures to the Sun 's activity , but graphs of CO2 to temperatures show not correlation ? Why are all the solutions to GW political ?
If you asked most people , would you rather your children live in a world that is 1 or 2 degrees hotter or your children live in a world where the day they are bore they are taxed heavily , regulated on everything and their share of the US national debate is $ 70,000 and growing.Why are all the solutions to GW political ?
There is talk of a $ 175 tax per cow because cow farts lead to more CO2 .
Why are we not taxing vegans , those guys and gals fart more then meat eaters ?
Exactly PC gone crazy , either the animal you eat produces the bulk of C02 or you do .
Are we going to tax breathing at some point ? Why are n't more people talking about how the current models failed to predict the cool temps in 2006 , 2007 , and 2008 ? Why are n't people talking about how that theory that the oceans were absorbing all the heat , does not fight observable temperature readings of the oceans ?
I mean GW advocates are ignoring the science that does n't fit their arguement.Why are n't we asking what is more important to the general public 1 ) .
Creating jobs and energy independence by drilling for OIL off US coast or 2 ) .
Estimated 1 or 2 degree temp .
increase in model projections that does not line up with real world data.Why are all these GW and Climate Change people ignoring one key historical fact that the world climate has never been static ever and yet animals , plants and bacteria somehow manage to evolve/adapt and survive.Why is it that people who supposedly agree with evolution and nature selection are attempting to create an unnatural situation on a dynamic planet by forcing a static climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity[scientists] also think research funding has too much influence on study resultsWhere is the control experiment for something as complex as the global climate?Where is the repeatable experiment that allows me to know what the correct temperature should be?
If you cannot tell me what the right temp.
is, how can we know when/if we have stopped global warming?Given all the variables involved in the Earth's climate, and that science requires isolating variables, about the only fact regarding climate models that we can safely draw is "Every GW and climate model fails to take all factors into account.
"Why is C02 considered a pollutant?Why are we focusing solely on CO2 when water vapor contributes more to the greenhouse effect?
Scientific experiments and real world observation demonstrate this fact.Why are there numerous graphs that correlate the planet's temperatures to the Sun's activity, but graphs of CO2 to temperatures show not correlation?Why are all the solutions to GW political?
If you asked most people, would you rather your children live in a world that is 1 or 2 degrees hotter or your children live in a world where the day they are bore they are taxed heavily, regulated on everything and their share of the US national debate is $70,000 and growing.Why are all the solutions to GW political?
There is talk of a $175 tax per cow because cow farts lead to more CO2.
Why are we not taxing vegans, those guys and gals fart more then meat eaters?
Exactly PC gone crazy, either the animal you eat produces the bulk of C02 or you do.
Are we going to tax breathing at some point?Why aren't more people talking about how the current models failed to predict the cool temps in 2006, 2007, and 2008?Why aren't people talking about how that theory that the oceans were absorbing all the heat, does not fight observable temperature readings of the oceans?
I mean GW advocates are ignoring the science that doesn't fit their arguement.Why aren't we asking what is more important to the general public 1).
Creating jobs and energy independence by drilling for OIL off US coast or 2).
Estimated 1 or 2 degree temp.
increase in model projections that does not line up with real world data.Why are all these GW and Climate Change people ignoring one key historical fact that the world climate has never been static ever and yet animals, plants and bacteria somehow manage to evolve/adapt and survive.Why is it that people who supposedly agree with evolution and nature selection are attempting to create an unnatural situation on a dynamic planet by forcing a static climate.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28671205</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247405700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So right there, even if you take the worst-case scenario for CO2 (26\%), it's still far, far less of an effect than the best case for water vapor (36\%). Shouldn't we be trying to reduce water vapor instead of CO2? Note that's a rhetorical question. I'm just trying to point out where your argument -- and insistence -- on CO2 fails to account for what may be the largest driver in climate change.</p></div><p>You do realize that the warmer the air is, the more water vapor it can hold at saturation point, right?  And thus, if we increase the temperature with other means, then the air is capable of holding more water vapor.  I'm not saying I believe that there is a positive feedback loop between carbon and water vapor at our current mixes, but denying any possible connection would be choosing to ignore datasets that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So right there , even if you take the worst-case scenario for CO2 ( 26 \ % ) , it 's still far , far less of an effect than the best case for water vapor ( 36 \ % ) .
Should n't we be trying to reduce water vapor instead of CO2 ?
Note that 's a rhetorical question .
I 'm just trying to point out where your argument -- and insistence -- on CO2 fails to account for what may be the largest driver in climate change.You do realize that the warmer the air is , the more water vapor it can hold at saturation point , right ?
And thus , if we increase the temperature with other means , then the air is capable of holding more water vapor .
I 'm not saying I believe that there is a positive feedback loop between carbon and water vapor at our current mixes , but denying any possible connection would be choosing to ignore datasets that does n't agree with your viewpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So right there, even if you take the worst-case scenario for CO2 (26\%), it's still far, far less of an effect than the best case for water vapor (36\%).
Shouldn't we be trying to reduce water vapor instead of CO2?
Note that's a rhetorical question.
I'm just trying to point out where your argument -- and insistence -- on CO2 fails to account for what may be the largest driver in climate change.You do realize that the warmer the air is, the more water vapor it can hold at saturation point, right?
And thus, if we increase the temperature with other means, then the air is capable of holding more water vapor.
I'm not saying I believe that there is a positive feedback loop between carbon and water vapor at our current mixes, but denying any possible connection would be choosing to ignore datasets that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661695</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>metrix007</author>
	<datestamp>1247338920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You can probably guess where I come down on the issue. I do believe in God. I can't prove it, but I accept it as a tautology. I also believe in evolution as a natural process. I believe that the creation of the universe was a more subtle process than most Biblical literalists do. God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen. Sort of a 15+ billion year bank shot. To me, that is \_much\_ more impressive than "Wham, here's everything".</p></div></blockquote><p>Believing in God guide natural processes is absolutely fine. Unless your god is Abrahamic, in which case you are not just wrong, but a hypocrite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can probably guess where I come down on the issue .
I do believe in God .
I ca n't prove it , but I accept it as a tautology .
I also believe in evolution as a natural process .
I believe that the creation of the universe was a more subtle process than most Biblical literalists do .
God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen .
Sort of a 15 + billion year bank shot .
To me , that is \ _much \ _ more impressive than " Wham , here 's everything " .Believing in God guide natural processes is absolutely fine .
Unless your god is Abrahamic , in which case you are not just wrong , but a hypocrite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can probably guess where I come down on the issue.
I do believe in God.
I can't prove it, but I accept it as a tautology.
I also believe in evolution as a natural process.
I believe that the creation of the universe was a more subtle process than most Biblical literalists do.
God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen.
Sort of a 15+ billion year bank shot.
To me, that is \_much\_ more impressive than "Wham, here's everything".Believing in God guide natural processes is absolutely fine.
Unless your god is Abrahamic, in which case you are not just wrong, but a hypocrite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664937</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>the-matt-mobile</author>
	<datestamp>1247325960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And with a planet billions of years old, how exactly is it that merely 100 years worth of temperature measurements is statistically enough to definitively say that the earth is unnaturally warming?  Seriously?  And how long have we been monitoring the moon and Mars to ensure that what scientists think they're observing isn't actually a solar event.
<br> <br>
Look - pollution is bad.  We should take steps to reduce pollution in every form we can.  But, I don't blame the public for being skeptical about the Chicken Little arguments about the sky falling, and I don't blame people for taking the position that we could do more harm than good by trying to over-solve a problem we don't really know if we have.  And, with <a href="http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998\_no\_longer\_the\_hottest\_yea.html" title="norcalblogs.com">disproven</a> [norcalblogs.com] stats like 1998 being the hottest year on record, it's hard to know what to trust and who's just pushing their own agenda.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And with a planet billions of years old , how exactly is it that merely 100 years worth of temperature measurements is statistically enough to definitively say that the earth is unnaturally warming ?
Seriously ? And how long have we been monitoring the moon and Mars to ensure that what scientists think they 're observing is n't actually a solar event .
Look - pollution is bad .
We should take steps to reduce pollution in every form we can .
But , I do n't blame the public for being skeptical about the Chicken Little arguments about the sky falling , and I do n't blame people for taking the position that we could do more harm than good by trying to over-solve a problem we do n't really know if we have .
And , with disproven [ norcalblogs.com ] stats like 1998 being the hottest year on record , it 's hard to know what to trust and who 's just pushing their own agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And with a planet billions of years old, how exactly is it that merely 100 years worth of temperature measurements is statistically enough to definitively say that the earth is unnaturally warming?
Seriously?  And how long have we been monitoring the moon and Mars to ensure that what scientists think they're observing isn't actually a solar event.
Look - pollution is bad.
We should take steps to reduce pollution in every form we can.
But, I don't blame the public for being skeptical about the Chicken Little arguments about the sky falling, and I don't blame people for taking the position that we could do more harm than good by trying to over-solve a problem we don't really know if we have.
And, with disproven [norcalblogs.com] stats like 1998 being the hottest year on record, it's hard to know what to trust and who's just pushing their own agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662897</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Ricomyer</author>
	<datestamp>1247304600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If roughly 50\% of the public is Republican there seems to be a sampling problem here. I seriously doubt only 6\% are Repubs. I can understand if 80\% of the media are Demsc...but these numbers are way beyond that.

That would also explain the \% that believe global warming and evolution because those are political beliefs of the Liberal Religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If roughly 50 \ % of the public is Republican there seems to be a sampling problem here .
I seriously doubt only 6 \ % are Repubs .
I can understand if 80 \ % of the media are Demsc...but these numbers are way beyond that .
That would also explain the \ % that believe global warming and evolution because those are political beliefs of the Liberal Religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If roughly 50\% of the public is Republican there seems to be a sampling problem here.
I seriously doubt only 6\% are Repubs.
I can understand if 80\% of the media are Demsc...but these numbers are way beyond that.
That would also explain the \% that believe global warming and evolution because those are political beliefs of the Liberal Religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</id>
	<title>Education Gap</title>
	<author>Myji Humoz</author>
	<datestamp>1247322720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher. These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study. A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.</p><p>Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher .
These views ( acceptance of evolution , belief in human caused global warming , etc ) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief ( whatever the Bible implies ) with a belief in a complicated theory that often does n't make sense without serious study .
A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being , which leaves serious doubts about the validity of " scientific theories " in the minds of individuals with high school education.Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories ?
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is , the more liberal ( generally speaking ) their political views tend to be ?
So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in , the layman who does n't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of " experts " , or take faith in the " word of God , as brought to you by $ Preacher .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher.
These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study.
A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories?
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?
So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660245</id>
	<title>Re:These stories are stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science is transferable because fundementally it is the same methodology.  A scientist specialising in one field is still a person who can think scientifically and apply the same reasoning to one that is not his speciality.  Providing experts in the other fields make their findings known and have been carefully reviewed by similar experts, the scientist in the initial field can safely assume the findings of other scientists are likely true, even if is outside of his expertise.  Why?  Because he's following the documented evidence.</p><p>A detective doesn't need to understand everything about pathology to find a murderer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is transferable because fundementally it is the same methodology .
A scientist specialising in one field is still a person who can think scientifically and apply the same reasoning to one that is not his speciality .
Providing experts in the other fields make their findings known and have been carefully reviewed by similar experts , the scientist in the initial field can safely assume the findings of other scientists are likely true , even if is outside of his expertise .
Why ? Because he 's following the documented evidence.A detective does n't need to understand everything about pathology to find a murderer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is transferable because fundementally it is the same methodology.
A scientist specialising in one field is still a person who can think scientifically and apply the same reasoning to one that is not his speciality.
Providing experts in the other fields make their findings known and have been carefully reviewed by similar experts, the scientist in the initial field can safely assume the findings of other scientists are likely true, even if is outside of his expertise.
Why?  Because he's following the documented evidence.A detective doesn't need to understand everything about pathology to find a murderer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659643</id>
	<title>Re:"scientists" are from liberal think tank</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1247324580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll.  Anyone that wants to fork over $99 can join the AACS, including kindergarten teachers.  Would you call the opinion of a kindergarten teacher the opinion of a scientist?  The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization, so it's no surprise that 55\% say they are Democrats.</p><p>Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days.</p></div><p>Everyone is biased.  You need to look behind the headlines to find out anything.  I just wish CNN and Fox had a [citation needed] tag.<br> <br>And thanks for that bit of information.  It does give a little perspective.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of " scientists " to poll .
Anyone that wants to fork over $ 99 can join the AACS , including kindergarten teachers .
Would you call the opinion of a kindergarten teacher the opinion of a scientist ?
The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization , so it 's no surprise that 55 \ % say they are Democrats.Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days.Everyone is biased .
You need to look behind the headlines to find out anything .
I just wish CNN and Fox had a [ citation needed ] tag .
And thanks for that bit of information .
It does give a little perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll.
Anyone that wants to fork over $99 can join the AACS, including kindergarten teachers.
Would you call the opinion of a kindergarten teacher the opinion of a scientist?
The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization, so it's no surprise that 55\% say they are Democrats.Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days.Everyone is biased.
You need to look behind the headlines to find out anything.
I just wish CNN and Fox had a [citation needed] tag.
And thanks for that bit of information.
It does give a little perspective.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667291</id>
	<title>Minutia  vs. the "big" picture</title>
	<author>Half Tide Rock</author>
	<datestamp>1247413800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when did scientists &#226;oevote&#226; on science?  One scientist can move ahead the understanding in the back of an envelope.
Politics has hijacked science many times . Please examine the cited graph and explain the cyclivity demonstrated over the past 450,000 years in terms of human anthropogenic causes.
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok\_420ky\_4curves\_insolation.jpg" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok\_420ky\_4curves\_insolation.jpg</a> [wikimedia.org]
If you are able to take the leap that what we are looking at is a cycle then the hysterics are amusing. Too bad we are shooting ourselves in the foot over this new religion. Not unlike predicting Noah&#226;(TM)s flood based upon each day&#226;(TM)s rising tide.
For those who fear that this one time, in spite of all evidence it should be comforting to know that if the same hysterical predictions came to pass  in the last three cycles we would not be examining 450,000 year old ice in Antarctica, 750,000 year old perma- frost in the arctic and possibly Permian aged ice in the  Beacon Valley in Antarctica.
I think that there is a large strategy to feed disinformation to the public.A disinformed public is allowed to vote and unfortunately fantasy decsions have real world consequences. Also not unlike the concept of the earth being the center of the universe. Poor GALELEO!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when did scientists   oevote   on science ?
One scientist can move ahead the understanding in the back of an envelope .
Politics has hijacked science many times .
Please examine the cited graph and explain the cyclivity demonstrated over the past 450,000 years in terms of human anthropogenic causes .
http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok \ _420ky \ _4curves \ _insolation.jpg [ wikimedia.org ] If you are able to take the leap that what we are looking at is a cycle then the hysterics are amusing .
Too bad we are shooting ourselves in the foot over this new religion .
Not unlike predicting Noah   ( TM ) s flood based upon each day   ( TM ) s rising tide .
For those who fear that this one time , in spite of all evidence it should be comforting to know that if the same hysterical predictions came to pass in the last three cycles we would not be examining 450,000 year old ice in Antarctica , 750,000 year old perma- frost in the arctic and possibly Permian aged ice in the Beacon Valley in Antarctica .
I think that there is a large strategy to feed disinformation to the public.A disinformed public is allowed to vote and unfortunately fantasy decsions have real world consequences .
Also not unlike the concept of the earth being the center of the universe .
Poor GALELEO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when did scientists âoevoteâ on science?
One scientist can move ahead the understanding in the back of an envelope.
Politics has hijacked science many times .
Please examine the cited graph and explain the cyclivity demonstrated over the past 450,000 years in terms of human anthropogenic causes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok\_420ky\_4curves\_insolation.jpg [wikimedia.org]
If you are able to take the leap that what we are looking at is a cycle then the hysterics are amusing.
Too bad we are shooting ourselves in the foot over this new religion.
Not unlike predicting Noahâ(TM)s flood based upon each dayâ(TM)s rising tide.
For those who fear that this one time, in spite of all evidence it should be comforting to know that if the same hysterical predictions came to pass  in the last three cycles we would not be examining 450,000 year old ice in Antarctica, 750,000 year old perma- frost in the arctic and possibly Permian aged ice in the  Beacon Valley in Antarctica.
I think that there is a large strategy to feed disinformation to the public.A disinformed public is allowed to vote and unfortunately fantasy decsions have real world consequences.
Also not unlike the concept of the earth being the center of the universe.
Poor GALELEO!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660269</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Gadzeus</author>
	<datestamp>1247329260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>President Lula of Brazil last week signed an act of Parliament that will give legal title to squatters in the Amazon to an area roughly the size of France.

Brazilian law (Uso Campeao) gives property ownership to squatters in just 5 years.  All they have to do is show they have used the area.  The way they do that is burn the trees down and put cows on it.  A single cow gives you control of a hectare.

Should you try to buy the land to replant trees you will find that your neighbours' annual habit of uncontrolled burning to 'clean' their pasture of saplings puts paid to your investment.

Burning rainforest produces more CO2 than all transport combined.

Brazil has shown no serious intent to put an end to this burning.  Brazil's 5 biggest land owners all stole their land through land registration fraud.  None of them have been investigated.  The two largest land fraudsters stole over 12 million hectares each... so each now 'owns' an area the size of Germany.

Pressure needs to be brought to bear on governments that do not take this problem seriously.

Prince Charles has started a petition:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEDMVNAPk4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEDMVNAPk4</a> [youtube.com]

Sign here:
<a href="http://www.rainforestsos.org/" title="rainforestsos.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.rainforestsos.org/</a> [rainforestsos.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>President Lula of Brazil last week signed an act of Parliament that will give legal title to squatters in the Amazon to an area roughly the size of France .
Brazilian law ( Uso Campeao ) gives property ownership to squatters in just 5 years .
All they have to do is show they have used the area .
The way they do that is burn the trees down and put cows on it .
A single cow gives you control of a hectare .
Should you try to buy the land to replant trees you will find that your neighbours ' annual habit of uncontrolled burning to 'clean ' their pasture of saplings puts paid to your investment .
Burning rainforest produces more CO2 than all transport combined .
Brazil has shown no serious intent to put an end to this burning .
Brazil 's 5 biggest land owners all stole their land through land registration fraud .
None of them have been investigated .
The two largest land fraudsters stole over 12 million hectares each... so each now 'owns ' an area the size of Germany .
Pressure needs to be brought to bear on governments that do not take this problem seriously .
Prince Charles has started a petition : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = boEDMVNAPk4 [ youtube.com ] Sign here : http : //www.rainforestsos.org/ [ rainforestsos.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>President Lula of Brazil last week signed an act of Parliament that will give legal title to squatters in the Amazon to an area roughly the size of France.
Brazilian law (Uso Campeao) gives property ownership to squatters in just 5 years.
All they have to do is show they have used the area.
The way they do that is burn the trees down and put cows on it.
A single cow gives you control of a hectare.
Should you try to buy the land to replant trees you will find that your neighbours' annual habit of uncontrolled burning to 'clean' their pasture of saplings puts paid to your investment.
Burning rainforest produces more CO2 than all transport combined.
Brazil has shown no serious intent to put an end to this burning.
Brazil's 5 biggest land owners all stole their land through land registration fraud.
None of them have been investigated.
The two largest land fraudsters stole over 12 million hectares each... so each now 'owns' an area the size of Germany.
Pressure needs to be brought to bear on governments that do not take this problem seriously.
Prince Charles has started a petition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEDMVNAPk4 [youtube.com]

Sign here:
http://www.rainforestsos.org/ [rainforestsos.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28673191</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1247428620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But as someone who has degrees in both philosophy and mathematics, I've got to say this: belief in fictional, mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area."</p><p>That would be a sensible and rational conclusion if spirits and the realm they inhabit *were* fictional and mythological and all scientific evidence pointed toward a purely material universe.</p><p>However, that's not the case, as investigations into extra-sensory perception, remote viewing, anomalous cognition, and other paranormal phenomena have revealed. And in the last few years, a number of researchers have started documenting this evidence for a new generation.</p><p>The modern age of Spiritualism - since the Fox sisters in 1848 - launched the Society for Psychical Research, which gathered an immense amount of extraordinary data. Since then, there have been a number of independent scientific programs evaluating the 'spiritual', and the data is very interesting.</p><p>Ignorance of this field among the scientifically-educated who are not parapsychologists is understandable - given the hostility of gatekeeper publications like Scientific American and anti-psi advocacy groups like CSICOP/CSI - but, well, it's now 2009, we have the Internet, and if you really do have an open mind and would like to look at the data yourself rather than having your mind made up for you by others, now is a wonderful time to dive in and explore.</p><p>The mother of all textbooks on the subject is Kelly &amp; Kelly et al's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-hard-find-contemporary/dp/0742547922/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247468038&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">Irreducible Mind</a> [amazon.com] with a wall of footnotes, aimed at a college-level audience - if you want a more approachable entree to the subject, I highly recommend the late Elizabeth Mayer's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable/dp/0553382233/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247468107&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">Extraordinary Knowing</a> [amazon.com], Chris Carter's (not the X-files guy, someone else) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Parapsychology-Skeptics-Scientific-Argument-Existence/dp/1585011088/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247468144&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">Parapsychology and the Skeptics</a> [amazon.com], or Dean Radin's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Minds-Extrasensory-Experiences-Quantum/dp/1416516778/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247468171&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">.</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>Don't limit yourself by irrationally saying 'well this stuff is impossible therefore I won't even look at the data'. Instead, try looking at the data and then ask 'if this stuff really occurs, then what does this imply about the nature of the universe?'  If you open that door, and investigate the material, you'll find there's an extraordinary reality inside. But be warned that it will change you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But as someone who has degrees in both philosophy and mathematics , I 've got to say this : belief in fictional , mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area .
" That would be a sensible and rational conclusion if spirits and the realm they inhabit * were * fictional and mythological and all scientific evidence pointed toward a purely material universe.However , that 's not the case , as investigations into extra-sensory perception , remote viewing , anomalous cognition , and other paranormal phenomena have revealed .
And in the last few years , a number of researchers have started documenting this evidence for a new generation.The modern age of Spiritualism - since the Fox sisters in 1848 - launched the Society for Psychical Research , which gathered an immense amount of extraordinary data .
Since then , there have been a number of independent scientific programs evaluating the 'spiritual ' , and the data is very interesting.Ignorance of this field among the scientifically-educated who are not parapsychologists is understandable - given the hostility of gatekeeper publications like Scientific American and anti-psi advocacy groups like CSICOP/CSI - but , well , it 's now 2009 , we have the Internet , and if you really do have an open mind and would like to look at the data yourself rather than having your mind made up for you by others , now is a wonderful time to dive in and explore.The mother of all textbooks on the subject is Kelly &amp; Kelly et al 's Irreducible Mind [ amazon.com ] with a wall of footnotes , aimed at a college-level audience - if you want a more approachable entree to the subject , I highly recommend the late Elizabeth Mayer 's Extraordinary Knowing [ amazon.com ] , Chris Carter 's ( not the X-files guy , someone else ) Parapsychology and the Skeptics [ amazon.com ] , or Dean Radin 's .
[ amazon.com ] Do n't limit yourself by irrationally saying 'well this stuff is impossible therefore I wo n't even look at the data' .
Instead , try looking at the data and then ask 'if this stuff really occurs , then what does this imply about the nature of the universe ?
' If you open that door , and investigate the material , you 'll find there 's an extraordinary reality inside .
But be warned that it will change you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But as someone who has degrees in both philosophy and mathematics, I've got to say this: belief in fictional, mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area.
"That would be a sensible and rational conclusion if spirits and the realm they inhabit *were* fictional and mythological and all scientific evidence pointed toward a purely material universe.However, that's not the case, as investigations into extra-sensory perception, remote viewing, anomalous cognition, and other paranormal phenomena have revealed.
And in the last few years, a number of researchers have started documenting this evidence for a new generation.The modern age of Spiritualism - since the Fox sisters in 1848 - launched the Society for Psychical Research, which gathered an immense amount of extraordinary data.
Since then, there have been a number of independent scientific programs evaluating the 'spiritual', and the data is very interesting.Ignorance of this field among the scientifically-educated who are not parapsychologists is understandable - given the hostility of gatekeeper publications like Scientific American and anti-psi advocacy groups like CSICOP/CSI - but, well, it's now 2009, we have the Internet, and if you really do have an open mind and would like to look at the data yourself rather than having your mind made up for you by others, now is a wonderful time to dive in and explore.The mother of all textbooks on the subject is Kelly &amp; Kelly et al's Irreducible Mind [amazon.com] with a wall of footnotes, aimed at a college-level audience - if you want a more approachable entree to the subject, I highly recommend the late Elizabeth Mayer's Extraordinary Knowing [amazon.com], Chris Carter's (not the X-files guy, someone else) Parapsychology and the Skeptics [amazon.com], or Dean Radin's .
[amazon.com]Don't limit yourself by irrationally saying 'well this stuff is impossible therefore I won't even look at the data'.
Instead, try looking at the data and then ask 'if this stuff really occurs, then what does this imply about the nature of the universe?
'  If you open that door, and investigate the material, you'll find there's an extraordinary reality inside.
But be warned that it will change you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664273</id>
	<title>Re:Depressing...</title>
	<author>Anonymice</author>
	<datestamp>1247316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is literally impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's\_teapot" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Russell's Teapot</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div><p>Yeahbut, Russell never claimed his teapot created the universe, had affairs with virgins &amp; cast devastating floods upon the Earth.</p><p>Indeed, an idle God who doesn't tamper with the physical universe is infallible, but a redundant God is not the one theists ascribe to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is literally impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God .
See Russell 's Teapot [ wikipedia.org ] Yeahbut , Russell never claimed his teapot created the universe , had affairs with virgins &amp; cast devastating floods upon the Earth.Indeed , an idle God who does n't tamper with the physical universe is infallible , but a redundant God is not the one theists ascribe to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is literally impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.
See Russell's Teapot [wikipedia.org] Yeahbut, Russell never claimed his teapot created the universe, had affairs with virgins &amp; cast devastating floods upon the Earth.Indeed, an idle God who doesn't tamper with the physical universe is infallible, but a redundant God is not the one theists ascribe to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664181</id>
	<title>very, Very, VERY GOOD... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247315220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, 110\%!</p><p>I am stating agreement, but, NOT to "knock scientists", or PHD's period (which I know MAKE MISTAKES, even the field's they are SUPPOSEDLY "expert" in (Hi Mark Russinovich of Microsoft (if he sees this, he WILL know what I am speaking of, specifically (pagedefrag)))...</p><p>Still - they do their best, hopefully honestly (w/out "payola" being the TRUE &amp; ONLY motivation, but then again, there is that "Grant money" to be had &amp; sought after, lol!)... but, they only have "1 fatal flaw", like the rest of us: They're merely mortal men.</p><p>Fact is - We ALL make mistakes, &amp; nobody "knows it all"... period! You are "right as rain" on this account.</p><p>(I.E.-&gt; The world's TOO complex, &amp; most any scientific discipline alone is too wide/too varied - I know this from computer sciences alone &amp; the field of comp. sci. itself is tremendously huge with tons of facets... no one, knows everything about IT, let alone all other fields combined).</p><p>Plus - Statistics can be skewed or bent, as needed, simply by altering the sampleset used, to suit your "hidden agenda" &amp; goals (making SURE it's full of people that "go YOUR way" etc. et al)... I liked your "4/5 Dentists Chew Trident" analogy (or whatever it was you used that was close to it), because I have utilized that myself to illustrate THIS VERY POINT myself @ times.</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Sycraft-fu, IF I could do "mod points"? I'd mod you up, in a heartbeat, as INSIGHTFUL... but, I elect to post here as "A/C", so I forego that "luxury", &amp; can only tell you that you are a bright &amp; enlightened person, via actual exposure to merely mortal men, despite the letters after their names... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , 110 \ % ! I am stating agreement , but , NOT to " knock scientists " , or PHD 's period ( which I know MAKE MISTAKES , even the field 's they are SUPPOSEDLY " expert " in ( Hi Mark Russinovich of Microsoft ( if he sees this , he WILL know what I am speaking of , specifically ( pagedefrag ) ) ) ...Still - they do their best , hopefully honestly ( w/out " payola " being the TRUE &amp; ONLY motivation , but then again , there is that " Grant money " to be had &amp; sought after , lol ! ) .. .
but , they only have " 1 fatal flaw " , like the rest of us : They 're merely mortal men.Fact is - We ALL make mistakes , &amp; nobody " knows it all " ... period ! You are " right as rain " on this account .
( I.E.- &gt; The world 's TOO complex , &amp; most any scientific discipline alone is too wide/too varied - I know this from computer sciences alone &amp; the field of comp .
sci. itself is tremendously huge with tons of facets... no one , knows everything about IT , let alone all other fields combined ) .Plus - Statistics can be skewed or bent , as needed , simply by altering the sampleset used , to suit your " hidden agenda " &amp; goals ( making SURE it 's full of people that " go YOUR way " etc .
et al ) ... I liked your " 4/5 Dentists Chew Trident " analogy ( or whatever it was you used that was close to it ) , because I have utilized that myself to illustrate THIS VERY POINT myself @ times.APKP.S. = &gt; Sycraft-fu , IF I could do " mod points " ?
I 'd mod you up , in a heartbeat , as INSIGHTFUL... but , I elect to post here as " A/C " , so I forego that " luxury " , &amp; can only tell you that you are a bright &amp; enlightened person , via actual exposure to merely mortal men , despite the letters after their names... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, 110\%!I am stating agreement, but, NOT to "knock scientists", or PHD's period (which I know MAKE MISTAKES, even the field's they are SUPPOSEDLY "expert" in (Hi Mark Russinovich of Microsoft (if he sees this, he WILL know what I am speaking of, specifically (pagedefrag)))...Still - they do their best, hopefully honestly (w/out "payola" being the TRUE &amp; ONLY motivation, but then again, there is that "Grant money" to be had &amp; sought after, lol!)...
but, they only have "1 fatal flaw", like the rest of us: They're merely mortal men.Fact is - We ALL make mistakes, &amp; nobody "knows it all"... period! You are "right as rain" on this account.
(I.E.-&gt; The world's TOO complex, &amp; most any scientific discipline alone is too wide/too varied - I know this from computer sciences alone &amp; the field of comp.
sci. itself is tremendously huge with tons of facets... no one, knows everything about IT, let alone all other fields combined).Plus - Statistics can be skewed or bent, as needed, simply by altering the sampleset used, to suit your "hidden agenda" &amp; goals (making SURE it's full of people that "go YOUR way" etc.
et al)... I liked your "4/5 Dentists Chew Trident" analogy (or whatever it was you used that was close to it), because I have utilized that myself to illustrate THIS VERY POINT myself @ times.APKP.S.=&gt; Sycraft-fu, IF I could do "mod points"?
I'd mod you up, in a heartbeat, as INSIGHTFUL... but, I elect to post here as "A/C", so I forego that "luxury", &amp; can only tell you that you are a bright &amp; enlightened person, via actual exposure to merely mortal men, despite the letters after their names... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659687</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1247325060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I think its a more psychological effect, like those air fresheners that switch fragrances so you notice the effect more.  If you leave the same person, party or attitude in office long enough, you stop noticing what they're doing in any positive light so you switch it up.  After a while, the positive attributes of the new leader or party become cloudy and unnoticed and you do it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think its a more psychological effect , like those air fresheners that switch fragrances so you notice the effect more .
If you leave the same person , party or attitude in office long enough , you stop noticing what they 're doing in any positive light so you switch it up .
After a while , the positive attributes of the new leader or party become cloudy and unnoticed and you do it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think its a more psychological effect, like those air fresheners that switch fragrances so you notice the effect more.
If you leave the same person, party or attitude in office long enough, you stop noticing what they're doing in any positive light so you switch it up.
After a while, the positive attributes of the new leader or party become cloudy and unnoticed and you do it again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660347</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>arbitraryaardvark</author>
	<datestamp>1247329740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Pew Research Center has little to do with reality.<br>How they choose to define "scientist" is relevant. That is, the population being sampled is one of the factors in what the results are. I'm guessing they oversampled university employees and people who receive government grants, who tend to be democrats, and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work, such as farmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pew Research Center has little to do with reality.How they choose to define " scientist " is relevant .
That is , the population being sampled is one of the factors in what the results are .
I 'm guessing they oversampled university employees and people who receive government grants , who tend to be democrats , and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work , such as farmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pew Research Center has little to do with reality.How they choose to define "scientist" is relevant.
That is, the population being sampled is one of the factors in what the results are.
I'm guessing they oversampled university employees and people who receive government grants, who tend to be democrats, and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work, such as farmers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>isa-kuruption</author>
	<datestamp>1247325600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think your father-in-law's views have anything to do with his education level.</p><p>I have known several priests and bishops in various faiths over the years, and many of them hold multiple doctorates and/or masters degrees (they have nothing better to do than read, one would think).  One bishop (who has since passed) was psychologist for years before joining the priesthood.  A priest here in Maryland is an electrical engineer, another priest has a masters in Russian literature (again, before he joined the priesthood) which he obtained in the 1970s.  Another man I know of, who is now in his forties, had 4 doctorate degrees before he decided to join the priesthood.  I know at least 6 bishops offhand that have doctors in theology or psychology.</p><p>Anyone, no matter what education level, can fall into ruts where they are only willing to believe what they believe and that's it, this includes both theologians and scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think your father-in-law 's views have anything to do with his education level.I have known several priests and bishops in various faiths over the years , and many of them hold multiple doctorates and/or masters degrees ( they have nothing better to do than read , one would think ) .
One bishop ( who has since passed ) was psychologist for years before joining the priesthood .
A priest here in Maryland is an electrical engineer , another priest has a masters in Russian literature ( again , before he joined the priesthood ) which he obtained in the 1970s .
Another man I know of , who is now in his forties , had 4 doctorate degrees before he decided to join the priesthood .
I know at least 6 bishops offhand that have doctors in theology or psychology.Anyone , no matter what education level , can fall into ruts where they are only willing to believe what they believe and that 's it , this includes both theologians and scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think your father-in-law's views have anything to do with his education level.I have known several priests and bishops in various faiths over the years, and many of them hold multiple doctorates and/or masters degrees (they have nothing better to do than read, one would think).
One bishop (who has since passed) was psychologist for years before joining the priesthood.
A priest here in Maryland is an electrical engineer, another priest has a masters in Russian literature (again, before he joined the priesthood) which he obtained in the 1970s.
Another man I know of, who is now in his forties, had 4 doctorate degrees before he decided to join the priesthood.
I know at least 6 bishops offhand that have doctors in theology or psychology.Anyone, no matter what education level, can fall into ruts where they are only willing to believe what they believe and that's it, this includes both theologians and scientists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662847</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247304180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh yeah?? well its not just christians..its jews too. and we dont think any imaginary god did it. We think it was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who did it. you know not of which you speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh yeah ? ?
well its not just christians..its jews too .
and we dont think any imaginary god did it .
We think it was the God of Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob who did it .
you know not of which you speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh yeah??
well its not just christians..its jews too.
and we dont think any imaginary god did it.
We think it was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who did it.
you know not of which you speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659923</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1247326740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.</p></div><p>I beg your pardon but why should the teachings of religion have any value in philosophy? Compared with ancient Greek philosophy, let alone modern philosophy, religion is already just ignorant, unsophisticated, incongruent, biased, politicized, dishonest babble. Even the more philosophically inclined Asian religions are based not slightly in unfunded fantasies.</p><p>This is to be expected as these beliefs were created by men without any modern tools to gain insight into the nature of the world and the mind, without physics or psychology or even just reliable statistical surveys about the opinions of the population of their own countries, let alone data from international sources.</p><p>Religion is of no use today except for waging religious wars and even then it might not be absolutely necessary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not opposed to religion , but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context , and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t .
the physical/natural world.I beg your pardon but why should the teachings of religion have any value in philosophy ?
Compared with ancient Greek philosophy , let alone modern philosophy , religion is already just ignorant , unsophisticated , incongruent , biased , politicized , dishonest babble .
Even the more philosophically inclined Asian religions are based not slightly in unfunded fantasies.This is to be expected as these beliefs were created by men without any modern tools to gain insight into the nature of the world and the mind , without physics or psychology or even just reliable statistical surveys about the opinions of the population of their own countries , let alone data from international sources.Religion is of no use today except for waging religious wars and even then it might not be absolutely necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t.
the physical/natural world.I beg your pardon but why should the teachings of religion have any value in philosophy?
Compared with ancient Greek philosophy, let alone modern philosophy, religion is already just ignorant, unsophisticated, incongruent, biased, politicized, dishonest babble.
Even the more philosophically inclined Asian religions are based not slightly in unfunded fantasies.This is to be expected as these beliefs were created by men without any modern tools to gain insight into the nature of the world and the mind, without physics or psychology or even just reliable statistical surveys about the opinions of the population of their own countries, let alone data from international sources.Religion is of no use today except for waging religious wars and even then it might not be absolutely necessary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55\% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
</p><p>
And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?</p></div><p>
OK, I hadn't considered that being more liberal might lead one to a career in science, but why not.  I was hypothesizing the converse, that being a "scientist" made them likely to be more liberal than the average citizen.  Perhaps due to education level, exposure to a particular subculture, something like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation , but if that is so , what does the " 55 \ % of scientists are Democrats " statistic mean ?
And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye , can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation ?
OK , I had n't considered that being more liberal might lead one to a career in science , but why not .
I was hypothesizing the converse , that being a " scientist " made them likely to be more liberal than the average citizen .
Perhaps due to education level , exposure to a particular subculture , something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We always try to keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation, but if that is so, what does the "55\% of scientists are Democrats" statistic mean?
And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
OK, I hadn't considered that being more liberal might lead one to a career in science, but why not.
I was hypothesizing the converse, that being a "scientist" made them likely to be more liberal than the average citizen.
Perhaps due to education level, exposure to a particular subculture, something like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Oh, for fuck's sake.
</p><p>
1. We, humans, are pumping over 27 <b>billion tons</b> of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.<br>
2. A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.<br>
3. The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.
</p><p>
Which point, exactly, is in dispute?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye , can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation ?
Oh , for fuck 's sake .
1. We , humans , are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually .
2. A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed .
3. The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry .
Which point , exactly , is in dispute ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if we also look at global warming with the same critical eye, can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation?
Oh, for fuck's sake.
1. We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
2. A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.
3. The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.
Which point, exactly, is in dispute?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659777</id>
	<title>Re:Who are "scientists?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247325780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd like to know what economists think about politics</p></div></blockquote><p>Hmm why? Have you found a measure of success that politicians should maximize, and it happens to be measured in dollars?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to know what economists think about politicsHmm why ?
Have you found a measure of success that politicians should maximize , and it happens to be measured in dollars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to know what economists think about politicsHmm why?
Have you found a measure of success that politicians should maximize, and it happens to be measured in dollars?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659481</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>fractic</author>
	<datestamp>1247323200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just plain wrong. Even the ancient greeks knew that the earth was spherical. This has been the dominant scientific position for a long time. The wikipedia article on it is quite good <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat\_earth" title="wikipedia.org"> flat earth</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just plain wrong .
Even the ancient greeks knew that the earth was spherical .
This has been the dominant scientific position for a long time .
The wikipedia article on it is quite good flat earth [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just plain wrong.
Even the ancient greeks knew that the earth was spherical.
This has been the dominant scientific position for a long time.
The wikipedia article on it is quite good  flat earth [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659495</id>
	<title>Who the hell did they poll?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly I don't really know anyone that doesn't accept evolution by natural selection.  Who are they talking to?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly I do n't really know anyone that does n't accept evolution by natural selection .
Who are they talking to ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly I don't really know anyone that doesn't accept evolution by natural selection.
Who are they talking to?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661973</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247341200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That story is bunk. Europeans, back to the Greeks (and probably before), knew that the world was round.</p><p>The debate that Columbus had wasn't whether it was round, but whether it was *small enough* that a ship could sail westward to reach "the Orient" before running out of provisions, instead of taking the long and dangerous eastward route. It turns out the answer is: "no, it's not." So Columbus was wrong, but lucky.</p><p>And to dispell another commonly-held myth, North America had long been visited by Norse explorers. The evidence for this is extremely, extremely strong. (Even if you don't count their Greenland and Iceland colonies as being in North America.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That story is bunk .
Europeans , back to the Greeks ( and probably before ) , knew that the world was round.The debate that Columbus had was n't whether it was round , but whether it was * small enough * that a ship could sail westward to reach " the Orient " before running out of provisions , instead of taking the long and dangerous eastward route .
It turns out the answer is : " no , it 's not .
" So Columbus was wrong , but lucky.And to dispell another commonly-held myth , North America had long been visited by Norse explorers .
The evidence for this is extremely , extremely strong .
( Even if you do n't count their Greenland and Iceland colonies as being in North America .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That story is bunk.
Europeans, back to the Greeks (and probably before), knew that the world was round.The debate that Columbus had wasn't whether it was round, but whether it was *small enough* that a ship could sail westward to reach "the Orient" before running out of provisions, instead of taking the long and dangerous eastward route.
It turns out the answer is: "no, it's not.
" So Columbus was wrong, but lucky.And to dispell another commonly-held myth, North America had long been visited by Norse explorers.
The evidence for this is extremely, extremely strong.
(Even if you don't count their Greenland and Iceland colonies as being in North America.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667777</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247418180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>damn reality-distortion field must be fucking huge to cover all the western world except America! America is a country founded and run by religious fanatics, unfortunately its a damn powerful country, so the rest of us get pretty frustrated when you squander budgets the rest of us could only dream of!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>damn reality-distortion field must be fucking huge to cover all the western world except America !
America is a country founded and run by religious fanatics , unfortunately its a damn powerful country , so the rest of us get pretty frustrated when you squander budgets the rest of us could only dream of !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>damn reality-distortion field must be fucking huge to cover all the western world except America!
America is a country founded and run by religious fanatics, unfortunately its a damn powerful country, so the rest of us get pretty frustrated when you squander budgets the rest of us could only dream of!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28668087</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>graphius</author>
	<datestamp>1247420880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world..</p></div><p>amen</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not opposed to religion , but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context , and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t .
the physical/natural world..amen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t.
the physical/natural world..amen
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659573</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>bhima</author>
	<datestamp>1247323980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Which point, exactly, is in dispute?</i> </p></div><p>I'm thinking it's the part where people arrive at a conclusion regarding matters of science from a path dictated by politics and or religion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which point , exactly , is in dispute ?
I 'm thinking it 's the part where people arrive at a conclusion regarding matters of science from a path dictated by politics and or religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Which point, exactly, is in dispute?
I'm thinking it's the part where people arrive at a conclusion regarding matters of science from a path dictated by politics and or religion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666237</id>
	<title>Get it:)</title>
	<author>gekon</author>
	<datestamp>1247395620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"And while 84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity.."
and
"and they also think [4]research funding has too much influence on study results"
make perfect sense to me.

regards,
gekozoid
www.youtube.com//gekozoid</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And while 84 \ % of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity.. " and " and they also think [ 4 ] research funding has too much influence on study results " make perfect sense to me .
regards , gekozoid www.youtube.com//gekozoid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And while 84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity.."
and
"and they also think [4]research funding has too much influence on study results"
make perfect sense to me.
regards,
gekozoid
www.youtube.com//gekozoid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664383</id>
	<title>Re:These stories are stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247317320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what you call a scientist speaking outside their field?  A lay person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what you call a scientist speaking outside their field ?
A lay person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what you call a scientist speaking outside their field?
A lay person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662109</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>canadian\_right</author>
	<datestamp>1247342100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If your natural process is being guided by a Supreme Being then it isn't natural anymore. I would expect most educated people to choose 'natural process'.
</p><p>
Who made God? If he doesn't need a creator why does the universe need one?
</p><p>
Why doesn't God do anything about evil?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your natural process is being guided by a Supreme Being then it is n't natural anymore .
I would expect most educated people to choose 'natural process' .
Who made God ?
If he does n't need a creator why does the universe need one ?
Why does n't God do anything about evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If your natural process is being guided by a Supreme Being then it isn't natural anymore.
I would expect most educated people to choose 'natural process'.
Who made God?
If he doesn't need a creator why does the universe need one?
Why doesn't God do anything about evil?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663741</id>
	<title>Engineering separate from Scientists?</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1247310900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing that Engineering is basically the application of Pure &amp; Applied Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics, I find it odd that they don't clarify that a lot of Engineering Research is Pure Scientific Research, then phase II is designing practical application of such research. I'll cite the very recent Positron Research for Anti-Matter at WSU [Washington State University] where a Professor of Mechanical Engineering who is also a Professor of Particle Physics with his team are on the verge of making anti-matter a practical reality. That work covers my prior statement to a tee. The area between Scientist and Engineer is far more grayer than this black and white categorization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing that Engineering is basically the application of Pure &amp; Applied Physics , Chemistry , Biology and Mathematics , I find it odd that they do n't clarify that a lot of Engineering Research is Pure Scientific Research , then phase II is designing practical application of such research .
I 'll cite the very recent Positron Research for Anti-Matter at WSU [ Washington State University ] where a Professor of Mechanical Engineering who is also a Professor of Particle Physics with his team are on the verge of making anti-matter a practical reality .
That work covers my prior statement to a tee .
The area between Scientist and Engineer is far more grayer than this black and white categorization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing that Engineering is basically the application of Pure &amp; Applied Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics, I find it odd that they don't clarify that a lot of Engineering Research is Pure Scientific Research, then phase II is designing practical application of such research.
I'll cite the very recent Positron Research for Anti-Matter at WSU [Washington State University] where a Professor of Mechanical Engineering who is also a Professor of Particle Physics with his team are on the verge of making anti-matter a practical reality.
That work covers my prior statement to a tee.
The area between Scientist and Engineer is far more grayer than this black and white categorization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661307</id>
	<title>Re:"scientists" are from liberal think tank</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1247335680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days."</p><p>I hate to break it to you but Pew is about as unbiased (or open) as you can get from an organization that does polling.  How many groups that do polling allow you to download the data and do your own analysis rather than report selected information....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days .
" I hate to break it to you but Pew is about as unbiased ( or open ) as you can get from an organization that does polling .
How many groups that do polling allow you to download the data and do your own analysis rather than report selected information... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days.
"I hate to break it to you but Pew is about as unbiased (or open) as you can get from an organization that does polling.
How many groups that do polling allow you to download the data and do your own analysis rather than report selected information....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665349</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1247332800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Ahh, reality with it's damned liberal bias again...</p></div></blockquote><p>Indeed, I had wondered about that for a long time &mdash; how such smart people can be so dumb.  But the cause finally occurred to me &mdash; professors are idealists.  This allows them into the same comfortable reality-distortion field as Leftists.  Personally, I am a Centrist, which IS the reality zone on the political spectrum.</p></div><p>But they're not.  If anything, professors teaching subjects relevant to government (Economics, political science, government, and history) tend to be moderate-leaning conservatives.  (Any current students or recent grads are free to chime in and confirm/deny this)</p><p>Us physicists and chemists could generally care less about politics, except for when a certain political party goes around decrying science in general.  That tends to get on our nerves.</p><p>(It's not that we're particularly partisan either.  Ask any physicist about Bill Clinton's cancellation of the Superconducting Supercollider, and you'll likely hear a great deal of profanity.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , reality with it 's damned liberal bias again...Indeed , I had wondered about that for a long time    how such smart people can be so dumb .
But the cause finally occurred to me    professors are idealists .
This allows them into the same comfortable reality-distortion field as Leftists .
Personally , I am a Centrist , which IS the reality zone on the political spectrum.But they 're not .
If anything , professors teaching subjects relevant to government ( Economics , political science , government , and history ) tend to be moderate-leaning conservatives .
( Any current students or recent grads are free to chime in and confirm/deny this ) Us physicists and chemists could generally care less about politics , except for when a certain political party goes around decrying science in general .
That tends to get on our nerves .
( It 's not that we 're particularly partisan either .
Ask any physicist about Bill Clinton 's cancellation of the Superconducting Supercollider , and you 'll likely hear a great deal of profanity .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, reality with it's damned liberal bias again...Indeed, I had wondered about that for a long time — how such smart people can be so dumb.
But the cause finally occurred to me — professors are idealists.
This allows them into the same comfortable reality-distortion field as Leftists.
Personally, I am a Centrist, which IS the reality zone on the political spectrum.But they're not.
If anything, professors teaching subjects relevant to government (Economics, political science, government, and history) tend to be moderate-leaning conservatives.
(Any current students or recent grads are free to chime in and confirm/deny this)Us physicists and chemists could generally care less about politics, except for when a certain political party goes around decrying science in general.
That tends to get on our nerves.
(It's not that we're particularly partisan either.
Ask any physicist about Bill Clinton's cancellation of the Superconducting Supercollider, and you'll likely hear a great deal of profanity.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659863</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1247326440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. My parents and grandparents were manual workers leaving education about age 13, I never went to university and I support the evolution and scientific method, where my forebears didn't have much scientific understanding but still maintained 'religion is all a load of bullshit' or words to that effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
My parents and grandparents were manual workers leaving education about age 13 , I never went to university and I support the evolution and scientific method , where my forebears did n't have much scientific understanding but still maintained 'religion is all a load of bullshit ' or words to that effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
My parents and grandparents were manual workers leaving education about age 13, I never went to university and I support the evolution and scientific method, where my forebears didn't have much scientific understanding but still maintained 'religion is all a load of bullshit' or words to that effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28672997</id>
	<title>Re:Depressing...</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1247425680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I just don't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God. Can't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger's cat?</p></div></blockquote><p>
So we refrain from exploring the areas that are "explained" by the God hypothesis? No way. You are basically arguing that we should let superstition hold back scientific research!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God .
Ca n't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger 's cat ?
So we refrain from exploring the areas that are " explained " by the God hypothesis ?
No way .
You are basically arguing that we should let superstition hold back scientific research !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God.
Can't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger's cat?
So we refrain from exploring the areas that are "explained" by the God hypothesis?
No way.
You are basically arguing that we should let superstition hold back scientific research!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661363</id>
	<title>Re:I fail to see ...</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1247336160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about."</p><p>Why?  Politics is not science.  Science is not politics.  Science is only one of many inputs to public policy.</p><p>Hell, I was taught paleontology by a devout Mormon.  And he did an excellent job of it.  You can do excellent science no matter what party or religion you align yourself with.  The reverse is also true....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about. " Why ?
Politics is not science .
Science is not politics .
Science is only one of many inputs to public policy.Hell , I was taught paleontology by a devout Mormon .
And he did an excellent job of it .
You can do excellent science no matter what party or religion you align yourself with .
The reverse is also true... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about."Why?
Politics is not science.
Science is not politics.
Science is only one of many inputs to public policy.Hell, I was taught paleontology by a devout Mormon.
And he did an excellent job of it.
You can do excellent science no matter what party or religion you align yourself with.
The reverse is also true....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659601</id>
	<title>Re:Depressing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me, science is creating a hypothesis, creating experiments to challenge the validity of said hypothesis, then allowing others to reproduce it.<br> Granted I had an undergrad in chemistry and published in JACS and Science, so I have a bias against evolution being lumped into "science." Just as I do with economics.<br>
* Physics: is core and amazing (beyond me);<br>
* Math is beautifully simple, completely from the the ground up;<br>
* Chemistry definitely science, though I fall into Vonnegut's camp of mistrusting it;<br> and
* Microbiology is absolutely amazing, DNA, RNA, pathways etc. I've worked around this in industry for 5 years now and I'm aways impressed.<br>
I just don't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God. Can't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger's cat? <br>
<br>
--- <br>
From the Simpsons, "As for Science versus Religion, I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 500 yards from Science at all times."</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , science is creating a hypothesis , creating experiments to challenge the validity of said hypothesis , then allowing others to reproduce it .
Granted I had an undergrad in chemistry and published in JACS and Science , so I have a bias against evolution being lumped into " science .
" Just as I do with economics .
* Physics : is core and amazing ( beyond me ) ; * Math is beautifully simple , completely from the the ground up ; * Chemistry definitely science , though I fall into Vonnegut 's camp of mistrusting it ; and * Microbiology is absolutely amazing , DNA , RNA , pathways etc .
I 've worked around this in industry for 5 years now and I 'm aways impressed .
I just do n't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God .
Ca n't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger 's cat ?
--- From the Simpsons , " As for Science versus Religion , I 'm issuing a restraining order .
Religion must stay 500 yards from Science at all times .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, science is creating a hypothesis, creating experiments to challenge the validity of said hypothesis, then allowing others to reproduce it.
Granted I had an undergrad in chemistry and published in JACS and Science, so I have a bias against evolution being lumped into "science.
" Just as I do with economics.
* Physics: is core and amazing (beyond me);
* Math is beautifully simple, completely from the the ground up;
* Chemistry definitely science, though I fall into Vonnegut's camp of mistrusting it; and
* Microbiology is absolutely amazing, DNA, RNA, pathways etc.
I've worked around this in industry for 5 years now and I'm aways impressed.
I just don't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God.
Can't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger's cat?
--- 
From the Simpsons, "As for Science versus Religion, I'm issuing a restraining order.
Religion must stay 500 yards from Science at all times.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661755</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1247339400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans.</i> </p><p>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.</p></div><p>Maybe a lot of scientists did actually study the evidence and selected candidates based on their record, stated positions, etc.  These scientists then realized over time that the majority of the candidates they chose happened to be Democrats.  Thus, they would label themselves as Democrats.  Or another possibility is that these scientists, regardless of which candidate they choose for each post in each election, they generally support the Democrat's platform more then the Republican's platform, so once again, they would label themselves as Democrats.  While what you are saying may very well be true, we don't know, based on this information, how the scientists vote, or why.  All we know is how they label themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>32 \ % of scientists identify themselves as Independent , while 55 \ % say they 're Democrats and 6 \ % say they 're Republicans .
Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me .
I 've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life , but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record , stated positions , etc.Maybe a lot of scientists did actually study the evidence and selected candidates based on their record , stated positions , etc .
These scientists then realized over time that the majority of the candidates they chose happened to be Democrats .
Thus , they would label themselves as Democrats .
Or another possibility is that these scientists , regardless of which candidate they choose for each post in each election , they generally support the Democrat 's platform more then the Republican 's platform , so once again , they would label themselves as Democrats .
While what you are saying may very well be true , we do n't know , based on this information , how the scientists vote , or why .
All we know is how they label themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans.
Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me.
I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.Maybe a lot of scientists did actually study the evidence and selected candidates based on their record, stated positions, etc.
These scientists then realized over time that the majority of the candidates they chose happened to be Democrats.
Thus, they would label themselves as Democrats.
Or another possibility is that these scientists, regardless of which candidate they choose for each post in each election, they generally support the Democrat's platform more then the Republican's platform, so once again, they would label themselves as Democrats.
While what you are saying may very well be true, we don't know, based on this information, how the scientists vote, or why.
All we know is how they label themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660763</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They arrived at that number by rounding down.  (No kidding!) The study actually says it's 97 out of 100.  So instead of 1 in 10 not accepting evolution, it's less than 1 in 33.</p><p>Even <em>that</em> is a shockingly high number. How, in a survey of 2,533 scientists did they find 76 that didn't accept evolution? Even with the physicists and chemists in the mix?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They arrived at that number by rounding down .
( No kidding !
) The study actually says it 's 97 out of 100 .
So instead of 1 in 10 not accepting evolution , it 's less than 1 in 33.Even that is a shockingly high number .
How , in a survey of 2,533 scientists did they find 76 that did n't accept evolution ?
Even with the physicists and chemists in the mix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They arrived at that number by rounding down.
(No kidding!
) The study actually says it's 97 out of 100.
So instead of 1 in 10 not accepting evolution, it's less than 1 in 33.Even that is a shockingly high number.
How, in a survey of 2,533 scientists did they find 76 that didn't accept evolution?
Even with the physicists and chemists in the mix?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662161</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247342460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've noted this phenomenon as well.</p><p>I think it has something to do with the necessary talents to perform well in the two fields.</p><p>Engineering is application.  I don't really view it as a science per say.   The rules tend to be well known and documented and with sufficient practice and training an intelligent individual can learn to follow those rules and apply them.  An example would be a programmer (which I classify as an engineer) who doesn't usually need to make any discoveries they just need to apply existing discoveries well.  I view engineering like accounting in the regard that there is nothing in engineering which could possibly contradict anything outside of engineering.  There isn't going to be some big engineering discovery which throws everything we know into doubt.   You can be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Nazi, Communist or anything without it any way contradicting your education in engineering. It's also completely apolitical.</p><p>On the other hand with a pure science the mindset isn't one of application so much as discovery.  Most discoveries tend to be the ability to find relationships between data.  And the attention isn't on how to creatively assemble existing ideas and 'facts' about the world it's about researching reality it self.  A mathematician researches the nature of value and relationships.   The Biologists researches the nature of organic matter and ecosystems.   The Physicist researches the nature of particles and the forces through which they interact.</p><p>An engineer holds one of their highest respects for a system which performs well.<br>A scientist holds one of their highest respects for the discovery of a new system.</p><p>An engineer is conservative in nature because a well tested system is more likely to function reliably.<br>A scientist is more liberal in nature because they must question everything they know if they want to possibly find errors in the current system.</p><p>It's one annoyance I've always had with Computer Science vs Computer Engineering degrees.   The computer science degree is usually less about actual computer science and more about software engineering.  I've always felt CS is a misnomer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noted this phenomenon as well.I think it has something to do with the necessary talents to perform well in the two fields.Engineering is application .
I do n't really view it as a science per say .
The rules tend to be well known and documented and with sufficient practice and training an intelligent individual can learn to follow those rules and apply them .
An example would be a programmer ( which I classify as an engineer ) who does n't usually need to make any discoveries they just need to apply existing discoveries well .
I view engineering like accounting in the regard that there is nothing in engineering which could possibly contradict anything outside of engineering .
There is n't going to be some big engineering discovery which throws everything we know into doubt .
You can be a Christian , Muslim , Hindu , Nazi , Communist or anything without it any way contradicting your education in engineering .
It 's also completely apolitical.On the other hand with a pure science the mindset is n't one of application so much as discovery .
Most discoveries tend to be the ability to find relationships between data .
And the attention is n't on how to creatively assemble existing ideas and 'facts ' about the world it 's about researching reality it self .
A mathematician researches the nature of value and relationships .
The Biologists researches the nature of organic matter and ecosystems .
The Physicist researches the nature of particles and the forces through which they interact.An engineer holds one of their highest respects for a system which performs well.A scientist holds one of their highest respects for the discovery of a new system.An engineer is conservative in nature because a well tested system is more likely to function reliably.A scientist is more liberal in nature because they must question everything they know if they want to possibly find errors in the current system.It 's one annoyance I 've always had with Computer Science vs Computer Engineering degrees .
The computer science degree is usually less about actual computer science and more about software engineering .
I 've always felt CS is a misnomer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noted this phenomenon as well.I think it has something to do with the necessary talents to perform well in the two fields.Engineering is application.
I don't really view it as a science per say.
The rules tend to be well known and documented and with sufficient practice and training an intelligent individual can learn to follow those rules and apply them.
An example would be a programmer (which I classify as an engineer) who doesn't usually need to make any discoveries they just need to apply existing discoveries well.
I view engineering like accounting in the regard that there is nothing in engineering which could possibly contradict anything outside of engineering.
There isn't going to be some big engineering discovery which throws everything we know into doubt.
You can be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Nazi, Communist or anything without it any way contradicting your education in engineering.
It's also completely apolitical.On the other hand with a pure science the mindset isn't one of application so much as discovery.
Most discoveries tend to be the ability to find relationships between data.
And the attention isn't on how to creatively assemble existing ideas and 'facts' about the world it's about researching reality it self.
A mathematician researches the nature of value and relationships.
The Biologists researches the nature of organic matter and ecosystems.
The Physicist researches the nature of particles and the forces through which they interact.An engineer holds one of their highest respects for a system which performs well.A scientist holds one of their highest respects for the discovery of a new system.An engineer is conservative in nature because a well tested system is more likely to function reliably.A scientist is more liberal in nature because they must question everything they know if they want to possibly find errors in the current system.It's one annoyance I've always had with Computer Science vs Computer Engineering degrees.
The computer science degree is usually less about actual computer science and more about software engineering.
I've always felt CS is a misnomer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666555</id>
	<title>Re:The revealing statistic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This nearly 50/50 split in the public's view leads me to think: what is the primary source of science news for most of the public? The press. And most of the time, particularly on controversial issues, the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs. If you didn't know better from other sources you'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50.</p></div><p>From what I've seen, when the press reports something objectionable, the belief is that the press is "biased", we don't like to hear news we don't agree with.</p><p>As a result, news agencies package their material slanted toward a given audience, we have FOX (republican), MSNBC (democrat) CNN (republicans, libertarians and general grumps)</p><p>FOX even has the (questionable) slogan "fair and balanced" suggesting people perceive in terms of binary, therefore an "ideal" unbiased news source would report a "balance" rather than report the facts - this is an important distinction, information isn't "balanced", information is not good or bad, information is simply information.</p><p>The result of all this "balancing" is that we don't get the news, we get a theatrical performance targeted toward a desired advertisers demograph, presented as journalism. When a "fact" does manage to leak through, we say it's biased if we happen to find it conflicts with our belief system.</p><p>Other news sources such as the BBC, CBC or VOA aren't so much into "balance" as they are in just reporting the facts, if you want the news, you need to get it on the radio from a place that doesn't derive its revenue from a targeted demograph commercial audience. (and in the US, it's almost all commercial, even NPR to some extent has to appeal to those who would donate, including corporate sponsors)</p><p>With our commercial model, it's no wonder the population of the US thinks the way it does, we're spoon-fed "information" seasoned to our demographic taste.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This nearly 50/50 split in the public 's view leads me to think : what is the primary source of science news for most of the public ?
The press .
And most of the time , particularly on controversial issues , the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs .
If you did n't know better from other sources you 'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50.From what I 've seen , when the press reports something objectionable , the belief is that the press is " biased " , we do n't like to hear news we do n't agree with.As a result , news agencies package their material slanted toward a given audience , we have FOX ( republican ) , MSNBC ( democrat ) CNN ( republicans , libertarians and general grumps ) FOX even has the ( questionable ) slogan " fair and balanced " suggesting people perceive in terms of binary , therefore an " ideal " unbiased news source would report a " balance " rather than report the facts - this is an important distinction , information is n't " balanced " , information is not good or bad , information is simply information.The result of all this " balancing " is that we do n't get the news , we get a theatrical performance targeted toward a desired advertisers demograph , presented as journalism .
When a " fact " does manage to leak through , we say it 's biased if we happen to find it conflicts with our belief system.Other news sources such as the BBC , CBC or VOA are n't so much into " balance " as they are in just reporting the facts , if you want the news , you need to get it on the radio from a place that does n't derive its revenue from a targeted demograph commercial audience .
( and in the US , it 's almost all commercial , even NPR to some extent has to appeal to those who would donate , including corporate sponsors ) With our commercial model , it 's no wonder the population of the US thinks the way it does , we 're spoon-fed " information " seasoned to our demographic taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This nearly 50/50 split in the public's view leads me to think: what is the primary source of science news for most of the public?
The press.
And most of the time, particularly on controversial issues, the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs.
If you didn't know better from other sources you'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50.From what I've seen, when the press reports something objectionable, the belief is that the press is "biased", we don't like to hear news we don't agree with.As a result, news agencies package their material slanted toward a given audience, we have FOX (republican), MSNBC (democrat) CNN (republicans, libertarians and general grumps)FOX even has the (questionable) slogan "fair and balanced" suggesting people perceive in terms of binary, therefore an "ideal" unbiased news source would report a "balance" rather than report the facts - this is an important distinction, information isn't "balanced", information is not good or bad, information is simply information.The result of all this "balancing" is that we don't get the news, we get a theatrical performance targeted toward a desired advertisers demograph, presented as journalism.
When a "fact" does manage to leak through, we say it's biased if we happen to find it conflicts with our belief system.Other news sources such as the BBC, CBC or VOA aren't so much into "balance" as they are in just reporting the facts, if you want the news, you need to get it on the radio from a place that doesn't derive its revenue from a targeted demograph commercial audience.
(and in the US, it's almost all commercial, even NPR to some extent has to appeal to those who would donate, including corporate sponsors)With our commercial model, it's no wonder the population of the US thinks the way it does, we're spoon-fed "information" seasoned to our demographic taste.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661673</id>
	<title>obligatory xkcd comic</title>
	<author>fl!ptop</author>
	<datestamp>1247338740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/242/" title="xkcd.com">of course they're different</a> [xkcd.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of course they 're different [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> of course they're different [xkcd.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660633</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1247331420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The view you hold -- "God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen" -- is called deism, and it is emphatically <b>not</b> what people mean when they say "guided by a supreme being."  The latter is intelligent design, and it's been a depressingly successful stealth tactic for creationists.  Deism is perfectly compatible with a scientific study of life.  ID says basically, when you find a hard biological problem, throw up your hands and say "Goddidit."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The view you hold -- " God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen " -- is called deism , and it is emphatically not what people mean when they say " guided by a supreme being .
" The latter is intelligent design , and it 's been a depressingly successful stealth tactic for creationists .
Deism is perfectly compatible with a scientific study of life .
ID says basically , when you find a hard biological problem , throw up your hands and say " Goddidit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The view you hold -- "God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen" -- is called deism, and it is emphatically not what people mean when they say "guided by a supreme being.
"  The latter is intelligent design, and it's been a depressingly successful stealth tactic for creationists.
Deism is perfectly compatible with a scientific study of life.
ID says basically, when you find a hard biological problem, throw up your hands and say "Goddidit.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662181</id>
	<title>Re:Depressing...</title>
	<author>canadian\_right</author>
	<datestamp>1247342580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Religious dogma is not supposed to change EVER. Scientific knowledge IS supposed to change when better evidence is known. Yes, there are cases where it took a long time to change the scientific consensus, but change it did.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Religious dogma is not supposed to change EVER .
Scientific knowledge IS supposed to change when better evidence is known .
Yes , there are cases where it took a long time to change the scientific consensus , but change it did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Religious dogma is not supposed to change EVER.
Scientific knowledge IS supposed to change when better evidence is known.
Yes, there are cases where it took a long time to change the scientific consensus, but change it did.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666345</id>
	<title>Re:The revealing statistic</title>
	<author>twosat</author>
	<datestamp>1247397900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing that depresses me, and that I would have found unbelievable in the 1970's is that some people say that all those scientists are biased, while those politicians, you know, are not biased.  As if politicians had an unbiased reputation and always told the truth!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that depresses me , and that I would have found unbelievable in the 1970 's is that some people say that all those scientists are biased , while those politicians , you know , are not biased .
As if politicians had an unbiased reputation and always told the truth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that depresses me, and that I would have found unbelievable in the 1970's is that some people say that all those scientists are biased, while those politicians, you know, are not biased.
As if politicians had an unbiased reputation and always told the truth!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659801</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world."</p><p>You can't have both, I have people within my families church were hoping for christs return in 2000, and they all rose a stink about it and couldn't stop talking about it.  Religion defines the world for people, if someone truly believes and is willing to die for their beliefs you can't not be opposed to ignorance.</p><p>It's sick that we allow such ignorance to flourish in the first place, it's unfortunate that we are a minority and the fact that the majority of human beings have minds like lemons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm not opposed to religion , but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context , and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t .
the physical/natural world .
" You ca n't have both , I have people within my families church were hoping for christs return in 2000 , and they all rose a stink about it and could n't stop talking about it .
Religion defines the world for people , if someone truly believes and is willing to die for their beliefs you ca n't not be opposed to ignorance.It 's sick that we allow such ignorance to flourish in the first place , it 's unfortunate that we are a minority and the fact that the majority of human beings have minds like lemons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t.
the physical/natural world.
"You can't have both, I have people within my families church were hoping for christs return in 2000, and they all rose a stink about it and couldn't stop talking about it.
Religion defines the world for people, if someone truly believes and is willing to die for their beliefs you can't not be opposed to ignorance.It's sick that we allow such ignorance to flourish in the first place, it's unfortunate that we are a minority and the fact that the majority of human beings have minds like lemons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659453</id>
	<title>Education</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The disparity between the views of scientists and 'the public' is another illustration of the generally poor quality of education. This is evident here in the UK, and perhaps even more in the US, where the base quality of education is often questionable, and often the subject matter is 'taught' in a far from sensible way. Just look at the debate over how (or even if) evolution should be taught. The populace are never going to be able to participate in informed debate from a position of ignorance, but that is exactly what is currently happening. This whole mess is made even worse by those in power (politicians) putting their own agendas before fact and truth, and by putting short term (political) considerations above the long term good (see the 'debate' raging over global warming for a good example of this). The public will never catch up with the level of appreciation and understanding scientists have of these matters unless their underlying knowledge and education is adequate, and right now it clearly isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The disparity between the views of scientists and 'the public ' is another illustration of the generally poor quality of education .
This is evident here in the UK , and perhaps even more in the US , where the base quality of education is often questionable , and often the subject matter is 'taught ' in a far from sensible way .
Just look at the debate over how ( or even if ) evolution should be taught .
The populace are never going to be able to participate in informed debate from a position of ignorance , but that is exactly what is currently happening .
This whole mess is made even worse by those in power ( politicians ) putting their own agendas before fact and truth , and by putting short term ( political ) considerations above the long term good ( see the 'debate ' raging over global warming for a good example of this ) .
The public will never catch up with the level of appreciation and understanding scientists have of these matters unless their underlying knowledge and education is adequate , and right now it clearly is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The disparity between the views of scientists and 'the public' is another illustration of the generally poor quality of education.
This is evident here in the UK, and perhaps even more in the US, where the base quality of education is often questionable, and often the subject matter is 'taught' in a far from sensible way.
Just look at the debate over how (or even if) evolution should be taught.
The populace are never going to be able to participate in informed debate from a position of ignorance, but that is exactly what is currently happening.
This whole mess is made even worse by those in power (politicians) putting their own agendas before fact and truth, and by putting short term (political) considerations above the long term good (see the 'debate' raging over global warming for a good example of this).
The public will never catch up with the level of appreciation and understanding scientists have of these matters unless their underlying knowledge and education is adequate, and right now it clearly isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660223</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.</p></div><p>Then you <i>are</i> opposed to religion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not opposed to religion , but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context , and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t .
the physical/natural world.Then you are opposed to religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t.
the physical/natural world.Then you are opposed to religion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660097</id>
	<title>Market economy is to blame.</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1247328180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a totally unfounded theory:</p><p>Capitalism and marketing is at the root of this evil. Over the last few decades, marketing has grown to be more efficient and more ubiquitous.</p><p>Science isn't groovy, compared to other ways of life a marketer can conjure up images of with which to influence young minds to become good consumers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a totally unfounded theory : Capitalism and marketing is at the root of this evil .
Over the last few decades , marketing has grown to be more efficient and more ubiquitous.Science is n't groovy , compared to other ways of life a marketer can conjure up images of with which to influence young minds to become good consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a totally unfounded theory:Capitalism and marketing is at the root of this evil.
Over the last few decades, marketing has grown to be more efficient and more ubiquitous.Science isn't groovy, compared to other ways of life a marketer can conjure up images of with which to influence young minds to become good consumers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665549</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247336700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well obviously this is the fault of Christianity with its bias of faith over knowledge.  Natural selection should take of this oddity in its own time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well obviously this is the fault of Christianity with its bias of faith over knowledge .
Natural selection should take of this oddity in its own time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well obviously this is the fault of Christianity with its bias of faith over knowledge.
Natural selection should take of this oddity in its own time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666939</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247408940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong!  There is no AACS.  You're thinking of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (http://www.ucsusa.org/).  The post did actually refer to the AAAS, not the UCS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong !
There is no AACS .
You 're thinking of the Union of Concerned Scientists ( UCS ) ( http : //www.ucsusa.org/ ) .
The post did actually refer to the AAAS , not the UCS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong!
There is no AACS.
You're thinking of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (http://www.ucsusa.org/).
The post did actually refer to the AAAS, not the UCS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662059</id>
	<title>V: The Visitors</title>
	<author>DrugCheese</author>
	<datestamp>1247341740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole ordeal always reminds me of the tv show V back in the day. One of the first things the alien invaders did, while they were still friendly of course, was to round up all the scientists under the conspiracy of helping humanity.</p><p>Religious fanatics are dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole ordeal always reminds me of the tv show V back in the day .
One of the first things the alien invaders did , while they were still friendly of course , was to round up all the scientists under the conspiracy of helping humanity.Religious fanatics are dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole ordeal always reminds me of the tv show V back in the day.
One of the first things the alien invaders did, while they were still friendly of course, was to round up all the scientists under the conspiracy of helping humanity.Religious fanatics are dangerous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1247323860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)</p></div><p>My father-in-law is a pretty good example of this.  He didn't finish college at the traditional age and has gone on to be hyper-conservative, unquestioningly accepting religious teachings on non-religious subjects, including science and the physical world.  E.g.  I put on a pair of latex gloves before attempting to fix a poop-and-hair clog in the automatic litter box -- a reasonable precaution, I thought.  He told me: "you know, viruses and bacteria go right through latex."</p><p>I figured this finding would be rather important for the medical community to know so I checked it out.  It seems that Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs, so the only sure-fire way to avoid disease is total abstinence prior to lifelong marriage to another abstainer.</p><p>I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories ?
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is , the more liberal ( generally speaking ) their political views tend to be ?
So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in , the layman who does n't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of " experts " , or take faith in the " word of God , as brought to you by $ Preacher .
) My father-in-law is a pretty good example of this .
He did n't finish college at the traditional age and has gone on to be hyper-conservative , unquestioningly accepting religious teachings on non-religious subjects , including science and the physical world .
E.g. I put on a pair of latex gloves before attempting to fix a poop-and-hair clog in the automatic litter box -- a reasonable precaution , I thought .
He told me : " you know , viruses and bacteria go right through latex .
" I figured this finding would be rather important for the medical community to know so I checked it out .
It seems that Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs , so the only sure-fire way to avoid disease is total abstinence prior to lifelong marriage to another abstainer.I 'm not opposed to religion , but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context , and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t .
the physical/natural world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories?
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?
So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.
)My father-in-law is a pretty good example of this.
He didn't finish college at the traditional age and has gone on to be hyper-conservative, unquestioningly accepting religious teachings on non-religious subjects, including science and the physical world.
E.g.  I put on a pair of latex gloves before attempting to fix a poop-and-hair clog in the automatic litter box -- a reasonable precaution, I thought.
He told me: "you know, viruses and bacteria go right through latex.
"I figured this finding would be rather important for the medical community to know so I checked it out.
It seems that Christian fundamentalists teach that latex is germ-permeable so that they can say that condoms are useless to prevent STDs, so the only sure-fire way to avoid disease is total abstinence prior to lifelong marriage to another abstainer.I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t.
the physical/natural world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661945</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1247340960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The organization he's referring to is the American Association of Concerned Scientists -- which is not the organization used in TFA, but is an open-membership, left-leaning organization of scientists.</p></div><p>
I did not find them when searching for "aacs".  I did, however, find the <a href="http://ucsusa.org/" title="ucsusa.org">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> [ucsusa.org], who certainly have a very clear <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global\_warming/" title="ucsusa.org">opinion on global warming</a> [ucsusa.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The organization he 's referring to is the American Association of Concerned Scientists -- which is not the organization used in TFA , but is an open-membership , left-leaning organization of scientists .
I did not find them when searching for " aacs " .
I did , however , find the Union of Concerned Scientists [ ucsusa.org ] , who certainly have a very clear opinion on global warming [ ucsusa.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The organization he's referring to is the American Association of Concerned Scientists -- which is not the organization used in TFA, but is an open-membership, left-leaning organization of scientists.
I did not find them when searching for "aacs".
I did, however, find the Union of Concerned Scientists [ucsusa.org], who certainly have a very clear opinion on global warming [ucsusa.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660339</id>
	<title>9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247329680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this means that the other one does accept creationism, then he is by definition not a scientist.<br>So my guess it, that that number is trash all by itself.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Oh, and this shows how sad of a time it really is.</p><p>Hmm... how many "scientists" did state that the sun revolves around the earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this means that the other one does accept creationism , then he is by definition not a scientist.So my guess it , that that number is trash all by itself .
: ) Oh , and this shows how sad of a time it really is.Hmm... how many " scientists " did state that the sun revolves around the earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this means that the other one does accept creationism, then he is by definition not a scientist.So my guess it, that that number is trash all by itself.
:)Oh, and this shows how sad of a time it really is.Hmm... how many "scientists" did state that the sun revolves around the earth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405</id>
	<title>We hate our betters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i don't know if this is the case in other cultures, but in America, we seem to hate anyone who is better than us at anything. We are incapable of simply being happy for each other or grateful for what we have.  This seems especially true of intelligence/education.  We HATE smart people.  If you correct someone's grammar, spelling, punctuation or the like... instead of making a note to try to do it right... they'll call you pedantic or a grammar snob or elitist or something else. A semi-educated person will call you a prescriptivist.  Anything to avoid admitting ignorance or that you're right.  It's odd to me that a nation so obsessed with accomplishment, despises anyone who accomplishes.</p><p>Then there are the one uppers.  If you tell them your house is yellow, their house is yellower... or they've seen a house that was yellower. Can't you just nod and say, "oh, yellow house, nice"?  If you have a headache today, they have migraines everyday!</p><p>There was a study saying that most Americans would rather that all their coworkers make 50K and for them to make 100K, than for everyone at the company to make 200K.</p><p>We also hate anyone/thing that makes us question our beliefs.  We think that because we have the right to have any belief that our beliefs should be unquestioned.  That somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others, while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent.  Free of speech/religion seems to apply only to the privileged Christians.  The rest of us should just shut up and be grateful to be allowed to live.  After all, we'd be put to death in Iran, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't know if this is the case in other cultures , but in America , we seem to hate anyone who is better than us at anything .
We are incapable of simply being happy for each other or grateful for what we have .
This seems especially true of intelligence/education .
We HATE smart people .
If you correct someone 's grammar , spelling , punctuation or the like... instead of making a note to try to do it right... they 'll call you pedantic or a grammar snob or elitist or something else .
A semi-educated person will call you a prescriptivist .
Anything to avoid admitting ignorance or that you 're right .
It 's odd to me that a nation so obsessed with accomplishment , despises anyone who accomplishes.Then there are the one uppers .
If you tell them your house is yellow , their house is yellower... or they 've seen a house that was yellower .
Ca n't you just nod and say , " oh , yellow house , nice " ?
If you have a headache today , they have migraines everyday ! There was a study saying that most Americans would rather that all their coworkers make 50K and for them to make 100K , than for everyone at the company to make 200K.We also hate anyone/thing that makes us question our beliefs .
We think that because we have the right to have any belief that our beliefs should be unquestioned .
That somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others , while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent .
Free of speech/religion seems to apply only to the privileged Christians .
The rest of us should just shut up and be grateful to be allowed to live .
After all , we 'd be put to death in Iran , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't know if this is the case in other cultures, but in America, we seem to hate anyone who is better than us at anything.
We are incapable of simply being happy for each other or grateful for what we have.
This seems especially true of intelligence/education.
We HATE smart people.
If you correct someone's grammar, spelling, punctuation or the like... instead of making a note to try to do it right... they'll call you pedantic or a grammar snob or elitist or something else.
A semi-educated person will call you a prescriptivist.
Anything to avoid admitting ignorance or that you're right.
It's odd to me that a nation so obsessed with accomplishment, despises anyone who accomplishes.Then there are the one uppers.
If you tell them your house is yellow, their house is yellower... or they've seen a house that was yellower.
Can't you just nod and say, "oh, yellow house, nice"?
If you have a headache today, they have migraines everyday!There was a study saying that most Americans would rather that all their coworkers make 50K and for them to make 100K, than for everyone at the company to make 200K.We also hate anyone/thing that makes us question our beliefs.
We think that because we have the right to have any belief that our beliefs should be unquestioned.
That somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others, while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent.
Free of speech/religion seems to apply only to the privileged Christians.
The rest of us should just shut up and be grateful to be allowed to live.
After all, we'd be put to death in Iran, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659929</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1247326800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1..3...Which point, exactly, is in dispute?</p></div></blockquote><p>I believe it's this one:</p><p>4: The average human gives a crap about reality</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1..3...Which point , exactly , is in dispute ? I believe it 's this one : 4 : The average human gives a crap about reality</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1..3...Which point, exactly, is in dispute?I believe it's this one:4: The average human gives a crap about reality
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660803</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're sorry that we scientists are stealing money from you by way of taxes. I'm going to abandon my science activities and become an honest self made hard working trader that  will heroically save the economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're sorry that we scientists are stealing money from you by way of taxes .
I 'm going to abandon my science activities and become an honest self made hard working trader that will heroically save the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're sorry that we scientists are stealing money from you by way of taxes.
I'm going to abandon my science activities and become an honest self made hard working trader that  will heroically save the economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666595</id>
	<title>The American Public</title>
	<author>eyendall</author>
	<datestamp>1247402760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly startling news. To be a scientist one must be intelligent and prove it through academic success and subsequent research. To be a member of the American public.........'nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly startling news .
To be a scientist one must be intelligent and prove it through academic success and subsequent research .
To be a member of the American public.........'nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly startling news.
To be a scientist one must be intelligent and prove it through academic success and subsequent research.
To be a member of the American public.........'nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659487</id>
	<title>Depressing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is really depressing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(  But at least it's still scientists doing the science and not the 66\% of the population that does not even understand where we come from (evolution).</p><p>Valtor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really depressing .
: ( But at least it 's still scientists doing the science and not the 66 \ % of the population that does not even understand where we come from ( evolution ) .Valtor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really depressing.
:(  But at least it's still scientists doing the science and not the 66\% of the population that does not even understand where we come from (evolution).Valtor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660725</id>
	<title>Re:Depressing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry are underpinned by two things:  chemistry and evolution.  The idea of evolution not being science is laughable.   As far as science "needing" to "prove or disprove a God" it doesn't, it can't, and it won't.  Even a guy like Dawkins would agree.  He, and many others though would point out that science works with evidence, and g(G)od(s) are entirely unevidenced, so it is as illogical to believe in them as it is to believe in Russel's teapot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microbiology , genetics , and biochemistry are underpinned by two things : chemistry and evolution .
The idea of evolution not being science is laughable .
As far as science " needing " to " prove or disprove a God " it does n't , it ca n't , and it wo n't .
Even a guy like Dawkins would agree .
He , and many others though would point out that science works with evidence , and g ( G ) od ( s ) are entirely unevidenced , so it is as illogical to believe in them as it is to believe in Russel 's teapot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry are underpinned by two things:  chemistry and evolution.
The idea of evolution not being science is laughable.
As far as science "needing" to "prove or disprove a God" it doesn't, it can't, and it won't.
Even a guy like Dawkins would agree.
He, and many others though would point out that science works with evidence, and g(G)od(s) are entirely unevidenced, so it is as illogical to believe in them as it is to believe in Russel's teapot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660951</id>
	<title>Re:"scientists" are from liberal think tank</title>
	<author>htdrifter</author>
	<datestamp>1247333520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p>"The public and the scientists have very different views on many different issues, including the science of evolution and climate change," Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center said in a telephone briefing. The center conducted the wide-ranging telephone survey in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS.</p><p>The research included responses from 2,533 scientists in the AAAS, and 2,001 public respondents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " The public and the scientists have very different views on many different issues , including the science of evolution and climate change , " Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center said in a telephone briefing .
The center conducted the wide-ranging telephone survey in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science , or AAAS.The research included responses from 2,533 scientists in the AAAS , and 2,001 public respondents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:"The public and the scientists have very different views on many different issues, including the science of evolution and climate change," Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center said in a telephone briefing.
The center conducted the wide-ranging telephone survey in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS.The research included responses from 2,533 scientists in the AAAS, and 2,001 public respondents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659891</id>
	<title>Quirks and Quarks bores me to tears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mostly,it's a dreadful show. I usually don't find it the least bit interesting.  Maybe it's supposed to be some kind of science boosterism.  The show was started by David Suzuki many years ago and when he had it, I wouldn't miss an episode.  (Kind of like Ideas before and after Lister Sinclair)  I have news for CBC management;  If people aren't listening to your shows, those shows aren't succeeding in their intended purpose, no matter what that intended purpose is.</p><p>Currently, the shows that make me sit up and take notes are 'Innovations' and 'All in the Mind' on the Australian Broadcasting Corp.</p><p>Although I now teach (engineering), I spent the first six years of my career in a scientific environment.  If the CBC can't interest me in its science show, who can they interest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly,it 's a dreadful show .
I usually do n't find it the least bit interesting .
Maybe it 's supposed to be some kind of science boosterism .
The show was started by David Suzuki many years ago and when he had it , I would n't miss an episode .
( Kind of like Ideas before and after Lister Sinclair ) I have news for CBC management ; If people are n't listening to your shows , those shows are n't succeeding in their intended purpose , no matter what that intended purpose is.Currently , the shows that make me sit up and take notes are 'Innovations ' and 'All in the Mind ' on the Australian Broadcasting Corp.Although I now teach ( engineering ) , I spent the first six years of my career in a scientific environment .
If the CBC ca n't interest me in its science show , who can they interest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly,it's a dreadful show.
I usually don't find it the least bit interesting.
Maybe it's supposed to be some kind of science boosterism.
The show was started by David Suzuki many years ago and when he had it, I wouldn't miss an episode.
(Kind of like Ideas before and after Lister Sinclair)  I have news for CBC management;  If people aren't listening to your shows, those shows aren't succeeding in their intended purpose, no matter what that intended purpose is.Currently, the shows that make me sit up and take notes are 'Innovations' and 'All in the Mind' on the Australian Broadcasting Corp.Although I now teach (engineering), I spent the first six years of my career in a scientific environment.
If the CBC can't interest me in its science show, who can they interest?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661335</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little off topic?</p><p>FYI - Christianity doesn't claim to deliver by what exact process things happened. It does say, briefly in the first books, that it all ultimately came from one source. How it went from there is left out.</p><p>So, just asking.... to you, everything just is? I'm not talking about evolution by natural selection, I'm talking about before our universe, according to you, just magically exploded into existence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little off topic ? FYI - Christianity does n't claim to deliver by what exact process things happened .
It does say , briefly in the first books , that it all ultimately came from one source .
How it went from there is left out.So , just asking.... to you , everything just is ?
I 'm not talking about evolution by natural selection , I 'm talking about before our universe , according to you , just magically exploded into existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little off topic?FYI - Christianity doesn't claim to deliver by what exact process things happened.
It does say, briefly in the first books, that it all ultimately came from one source.
How it went from there is left out.So, just asking.... to you, everything just is?
I'm not talking about evolution by natural selection, I'm talking about before our universe, according to you, just magically exploded into existence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660429</id>
	<title>The earth is still flat</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1247330280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Working in computers, binary systems, it always amazes me how in three dimensional reality most thought processes are 2 dimensional.  Evolution vs. Creation, Republican vs. Democrat, Communism vs. Capitalism, and the 2 dimensional idiots always pick 1.<br> <br>
In my profession working with binary systems, choosing just one or the other, in other words programming with just 1's or programming with just 0's is ludicrous.  Both 1's AND 0's must be used to bee effective.<br> <br>
Relating that to the original article it seems that both the scientific and religious communities that have brainwashed the subjects of the poll fail in the same way.  One offers science, the 1's, as absolute, while the religion offers the 0's as absolute and they are both wrong.
<br> <br>
It took "scientists" 1,000 years to discover that the earth was not flat, it took religion equally as long to discover the error of their misguided faith.  Is their failure not equal?
<br>
It took "scientists" almost 2,000 years to figure out what we are made of, it took religion equally as long to discover just how mysterious the ways are in which the creator works.
<br> <br>
What is a few thousand years when you're working on a scale of infinity or eternity?<br>
Creation isn't some conjurer of cheap tricks, like poof now we have a human.  Religion would relegate their own God to some cheap magic show.<br>
For all the empirical evidence about evolution scientists have yet to explain or recreate original life<br>For all it's discoveries "science" still has more questions than answers<br>
<br> <br>
The earth is still flat my friends and both science and religion are to blame for their two-dimension myopia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Working in computers , binary systems , it always amazes me how in three dimensional reality most thought processes are 2 dimensional .
Evolution vs. Creation , Republican vs. Democrat , Communism vs. Capitalism , and the 2 dimensional idiots always pick 1 .
In my profession working with binary systems , choosing just one or the other , in other words programming with just 1 's or programming with just 0 's is ludicrous .
Both 1 's AND 0 's must be used to bee effective .
Relating that to the original article it seems that both the scientific and religious communities that have brainwashed the subjects of the poll fail in the same way .
One offers science , the 1 's , as absolute , while the religion offers the 0 's as absolute and they are both wrong .
It took " scientists " 1,000 years to discover that the earth was not flat , it took religion equally as long to discover the error of their misguided faith .
Is their failure not equal ?
It took " scientists " almost 2,000 years to figure out what we are made of , it took religion equally as long to discover just how mysterious the ways are in which the creator works .
What is a few thousand years when you 're working on a scale of infinity or eternity ?
Creation is n't some conjurer of cheap tricks , like poof now we have a human .
Religion would relegate their own God to some cheap magic show .
For all the empirical evidence about evolution scientists have yet to explain or recreate original lifeFor all it 's discoveries " science " still has more questions than answers The earth is still flat my friends and both science and religion are to blame for their two-dimension myopia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Working in computers, binary systems, it always amazes me how in three dimensional reality most thought processes are 2 dimensional.
Evolution vs. Creation, Republican vs. Democrat, Communism vs. Capitalism, and the 2 dimensional idiots always pick 1.
In my profession working with binary systems, choosing just one or the other, in other words programming with just 1's or programming with just 0's is ludicrous.
Both 1's AND 0's must be used to bee effective.
Relating that to the original article it seems that both the scientific and religious communities that have brainwashed the subjects of the poll fail in the same way.
One offers science, the 1's, as absolute, while the religion offers the 0's as absolute and they are both wrong.
It took "scientists" 1,000 years to discover that the earth was not flat, it took religion equally as long to discover the error of their misguided faith.
Is their failure not equal?
It took "scientists" almost 2,000 years to figure out what we are made of, it took religion equally as long to discover just how mysterious the ways are in which the creator works.
What is a few thousand years when you're working on a scale of infinity or eternity?
Creation isn't some conjurer of cheap tricks, like poof now we have a human.
Religion would relegate their own God to some cheap magic show.
For all the empirical evidence about evolution scientists have yet to explain or recreate original lifeFor all it's discoveries "science" still has more questions than answers
 
The earth is still flat my friends and both science and religion are to blame for their two-dimension myopia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660047</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1247327760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?</p></div><p>Not at all, although that doesn't necessarily mean they are thinking better.
<br> <br>
<i>The
 Communists have not invented the intervention of society in
 education; they do but seek to alter the character of that
 intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the
 ruling class.</i> The Communist Manifesto
 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
<br> <br>
Since the communists publicly declared their intention use education to transform society, it ought not surprise us that those longest exposed to the influence of formal education have been more thoroughly persuaded to follow left-wing politics. In addition, the rule of an intellectual elite is obviously going to be most palatable to those who will exercise that power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is , the more liberal ( generally speaking ) their political views tend to be ? Not at all , although that does n't necessarily mean they are thinking better .
The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education ; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention , and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class .
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Since the communists publicly declared their intention use education to transform society , it ought not surprise us that those longest exposed to the influence of formal education have been more thoroughly persuaded to follow left-wing politics .
In addition , the rule of an intellectual elite is obviously going to be most palatable to those who will exercise that power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?Not at all, although that doesn't necessarily mean they are thinking better.
The
 Communists have not invented the intervention of society in
 education; they do but seek to alter the character of that
 intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the
 ruling class.
The Communist Manifesto
 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
 
Since the communists publicly declared their intention use education to transform society, it ought not surprise us that those longest exposed to the influence of formal education have been more thoroughly persuaded to follow left-wing politics.
In addition, the rule of an intellectual elite is obviously going to be most palatable to those who will exercise that power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661321</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1247335740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently, some evolutionary scientists came before God and said to him, "We don't need you any more.  We can explain everything with natural processes and do anything you could do."</p><p>And so God challenged the scientists to a contest to create life.  Of course, they would have to do it the old way that God had done, and if they exceeded Him, He would go.</p><p>So, the lead scientist was gathering up some dirt when God noticed and said, "Woah, woah.. You make your <em>own</em> dirt."</p><p>--- Plagiarized from some of the many email forwards I recieve.</p><p>Anyway, the point is, did you get involved in research to learn more about the way things work, or so that you would have some kind of "i'm smarter than you" cudgel you could use to beat the dweebs with who have religious views?  Because really, it seems to me, that without the "we're trying to disprove God" mission you've attached to biological research, a lot more people would buy-in on the costs of performing that research, and we'd all learn a lot more.</p><p>But.. go ahead and "be smarter than everyone" if it makes you happy.  Just don't go around complaining if you don't get invited to the sorts of parties that Christians also don't get invited to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently , some evolutionary scientists came before God and said to him , " We do n't need you any more .
We can explain everything with natural processes and do anything you could do .
" And so God challenged the scientists to a contest to create life .
Of course , they would have to do it the old way that God had done , and if they exceeded Him , He would go.So , the lead scientist was gathering up some dirt when God noticed and said , " Woah , woah.. You make your own dirt .
" --- Plagiarized from some of the many email forwards I recieve.Anyway , the point is , did you get involved in research to learn more about the way things work , or so that you would have some kind of " i 'm smarter than you " cudgel you could use to beat the dweebs with who have religious views ?
Because really , it seems to me , that without the " we 're trying to disprove God " mission you 've attached to biological research , a lot more people would buy-in on the costs of performing that research , and we 'd all learn a lot more.But.. go ahead and " be smarter than everyone " if it makes you happy .
Just do n't go around complaining if you do n't get invited to the sorts of parties that Christians also do n't get invited to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently, some evolutionary scientists came before God and said to him, "We don't need you any more.
We can explain everything with natural processes and do anything you could do.
"And so God challenged the scientists to a contest to create life.
Of course, they would have to do it the old way that God had done, and if they exceeded Him, He would go.So, the lead scientist was gathering up some dirt when God noticed and said, "Woah, woah.. You make your own dirt.
"--- Plagiarized from some of the many email forwards I recieve.Anyway, the point is, did you get involved in research to learn more about the way things work, or so that you would have some kind of "i'm smarter than you" cudgel you could use to beat the dweebs with who have religious views?
Because really, it seems to me, that without the "we're trying to disprove God" mission you've attached to biological research, a lot more people would buy-in on the costs of performing that research, and we'd all learn a lot more.But.. go ahead and "be smarter than everyone" if it makes you happy.
Just don't go around complaining if you don't get invited to the sorts of parties that Christians also don't get invited to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664841</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1247324220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading further into the study, it seems that "87\%" said that life evolved *and* it was natural processes, a further 8\% said that life evolved but was guided by god, and only 2\% said life has existed since the begging of time in its present form.<br>
<br>
*That* I can accept.  More then 8\% of scientists believe in god, so it's not unreasonably for them to say that any given natural process is guided by god.  2\% pure creationists still seems a little on the high side, but I guess it isn't unreasonable for some valid definitions of "scientist" plus the typical "screw with the poll" people that you always end up with in any sort of poll.<br>
<br>
As for your deistic opinions... well, it's far more valid then creationism and you're in relatively good company historically, but I've got to wonder *why* you believe in god as a tautology.<br>
<br>
If I had to guess, it's "because I've always done so, and everyone else is doing it and I can concoct a scenario where it's not logically inconsistent".  But... I haven't heard an honest reason why one would choose to believe in the deistic god over no god at all that wasn't either pre-darwin or "we can't explain this yet, therefore goddidit."  I entertained a deistic view briefly, but then I thought "wait, why do I believe an intelligent being that itself isn't the result of evolution created the universe instead of a natural process?"  And when I had no answer, I decided that 'atheist' was a better description of my philosophical outlook then 'deist' or 'agnostic'.  I don't say "there is absolutely no way a deity created the universe" but I do say "I don't have any reason to prefer a deity over natural explanations, so lacking evidence I choose the simpler answer."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading further into the study , it seems that " 87 \ % " said that life evolved * and * it was natural processes , a further 8 \ % said that life evolved but was guided by god , and only 2 \ % said life has existed since the begging of time in its present form .
* That * I can accept .
More then 8 \ % of scientists believe in god , so it 's not unreasonably for them to say that any given natural process is guided by god .
2 \ % pure creationists still seems a little on the high side , but I guess it is n't unreasonable for some valid definitions of " scientist " plus the typical " screw with the poll " people that you always end up with in any sort of poll .
As for your deistic opinions... well , it 's far more valid then creationism and you 're in relatively good company historically , but I 've got to wonder * why * you believe in god as a tautology .
If I had to guess , it 's " because I 've always done so , and everyone else is doing it and I can concoct a scenario where it 's not logically inconsistent " .
But... I have n't heard an honest reason why one would choose to believe in the deistic god over no god at all that was n't either pre-darwin or " we ca n't explain this yet , therefore goddidit .
" I entertained a deistic view briefly , but then I thought " wait , why do I believe an intelligent being that itself is n't the result of evolution created the universe instead of a natural process ?
" And when I had no answer , I decided that 'atheist ' was a better description of my philosophical outlook then 'deist ' or 'agnostic' .
I do n't say " there is absolutely no way a deity created the universe " but I do say " I do n't have any reason to prefer a deity over natural explanations , so lacking evidence I choose the simpler answer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading further into the study, it seems that "87\%" said that life evolved *and* it was natural processes, a further 8\% said that life evolved but was guided by god, and only 2\% said life has existed since the begging of time in its present form.
*That* I can accept.
More then 8\% of scientists believe in god, so it's not unreasonably for them to say that any given natural process is guided by god.
2\% pure creationists still seems a little on the high side, but I guess it isn't unreasonable for some valid definitions of "scientist" plus the typical "screw with the poll" people that you always end up with in any sort of poll.
As for your deistic opinions... well, it's far more valid then creationism and you're in relatively good company historically, but I've got to wonder *why* you believe in god as a tautology.
If I had to guess, it's "because I've always done so, and everyone else is doing it and I can concoct a scenario where it's not logically inconsistent".
But... I haven't heard an honest reason why one would choose to believe in the deistic god over no god at all that wasn't either pre-darwin or "we can't explain this yet, therefore goddidit.
"  I entertained a deistic view briefly, but then I thought "wait, why do I believe an intelligent being that itself isn't the result of evolution created the universe instead of a natural process?
"  And when I had no answer, I decided that 'atheist' was a better description of my philosophical outlook then 'deist' or 'agnostic'.
I don't say "there is absolutely no way a deity created the universe" but I do say "I don't have any reason to prefer a deity over natural explanations, so lacking evidence I choose the simpler answer.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664765</id>
	<title>Apathy</title>
	<author>cmdahler</author>
	<datestamp>1247323020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing research into scientific subjects doesn't often take into account is that the average person on the street just doesn't care about evolution or global warming.  Evolutionary biologists and many others in the scientific community get all worked up about evolution like it's some fundamentally important idea that is so amazingly important that if only everyone believed in it, our lives would be so much better, and the fact that only a third of Americans do buy off on it is somehow devastatingly depressing.  The truth of the matter is that scientific research into evolution is meaningless to the average person because it's not going to put food on the table or change lives for the better in any way.  It's kind of like research into dinosaurs: fascinating subject, ultimately a useless waste of time from any practical standpoint.  Evolution, creationism, or being sneezed out of Douglas Adam's mind, it doesn't change the fact that we're here now, and food needs to be put on the table and the mortgage needs to be paid.  Scientists really live in their own weird little world wherein stuff like dinosaur poop research funding and evolution actually matter.  Back here on Planet Earth, however, the average person really doesn't much care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing research into scientific subjects does n't often take into account is that the average person on the street just does n't care about evolution or global warming .
Evolutionary biologists and many others in the scientific community get all worked up about evolution like it 's some fundamentally important idea that is so amazingly important that if only everyone believed in it , our lives would be so much better , and the fact that only a third of Americans do buy off on it is somehow devastatingly depressing .
The truth of the matter is that scientific research into evolution is meaningless to the average person because it 's not going to put food on the table or change lives for the better in any way .
It 's kind of like research into dinosaurs : fascinating subject , ultimately a useless waste of time from any practical standpoint .
Evolution , creationism , or being sneezed out of Douglas Adam 's mind , it does n't change the fact that we 're here now , and food needs to be put on the table and the mortgage needs to be paid .
Scientists really live in their own weird little world wherein stuff like dinosaur poop research funding and evolution actually matter .
Back here on Planet Earth , however , the average person really does n't much care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing research into scientific subjects doesn't often take into account is that the average person on the street just doesn't care about evolution or global warming.
Evolutionary biologists and many others in the scientific community get all worked up about evolution like it's some fundamentally important idea that is so amazingly important that if only everyone believed in it, our lives would be so much better, and the fact that only a third of Americans do buy off on it is somehow devastatingly depressing.
The truth of the matter is that scientific research into evolution is meaningless to the average person because it's not going to put food on the table or change lives for the better in any way.
It's kind of like research into dinosaurs: fascinating subject, ultimately a useless waste of time from any practical standpoint.
Evolution, creationism, or being sneezed out of Douglas Adam's mind, it doesn't change the fact that we're here now, and food needs to be put on the table and the mortgage needs to be paid.
Scientists really live in their own weird little world wherein stuff like dinosaur poop research funding and evolution actually matter.
Back here on Planet Earth, however, the average person really doesn't much care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28672969</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1247425380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So basically, you choose to willfully ignore facts just because you don't want to "be smarter than everyone"? You actually think being a dumb fucking moron is POSITIVE?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically , you choose to willfully ignore facts just because you do n't want to " be smarter than everyone " ?
You actually think being a dumb fucking moron is POSITIVE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically, you choose to willfully ignore facts just because you don't want to "be smarter than everyone"?
You actually think being a dumb fucking moron is POSITIVE?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662133</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>SvnLyrBrto</author>
	<datestamp>1247342280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple, Google, Cisco, Juniper, HP, and Sun come pretty much immediately to mind as major engineering players known for liberal cultures which vary from mildly to extremely.  Heck... even most of the Oracle and IBM types I've known, in recent years, seem to be fairly left-minded.  If you restrict your sample to power, mining, and defense; OF COURSE you're going to find lots of conservatives.  Those three industries are about the biggest recipients of republican government largesse there are.  And if you want to play the anecdotal "evidence" game; I know a guy who used to work at NASA Ames before starting his own company... also quite literally a rocket scientist... and he's one of the most *liberal* people I've ever known.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple , Google , Cisco , Juniper , HP , and Sun come pretty much immediately to mind as major engineering players known for liberal cultures which vary from mildly to extremely .
Heck... even most of the Oracle and IBM types I 've known , in recent years , seem to be fairly left-minded .
If you restrict your sample to power , mining , and defense ; OF COURSE you 're going to find lots of conservatives .
Those three industries are about the biggest recipients of republican government largesse there are .
And if you want to play the anecdotal " evidence " game ; I know a guy who used to work at NASA Ames before starting his own company... also quite literally a rocket scientist... and he 's one of the most * liberal * people I 've ever known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple, Google, Cisco, Juniper, HP, and Sun come pretty much immediately to mind as major engineering players known for liberal cultures which vary from mildly to extremely.
Heck... even most of the Oracle and IBM types I've known, in recent years, seem to be fairly left-minded.
If you restrict your sample to power, mining, and defense; OF COURSE you're going to find lots of conservatives.
Those three industries are about the biggest recipients of republican government largesse there are.
And if you want to play the anecdotal "evidence" game; I know a guy who used to work at NASA Ames before starting his own company... also quite literally a rocket scientist... and he's one of the most *liberal* people I've ever known.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659831</id>
	<title>Re:"scientists" are from liberal think tank</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you're saying this is similar to that global warming denier petition that went around a few years ago? The one where 22,000 "scientists" from non-geoscience-related fields got to voice their opinions about something that they admittedly know very little about? It's kind of like that, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying this is similar to that global warming denier petition that went around a few years ago ?
The one where 22,000 " scientists " from non-geoscience-related fields got to voice their opinions about something that they admittedly know very little about ?
It 's kind of like that , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying this is similar to that global warming denier petition that went around a few years ago?
The one where 22,000 "scientists" from non-geoscience-related fields got to voice their opinions about something that they admittedly know very little about?
It's kind of like that, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665293</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your post starts off with religion, but ends with Christians. Christianity is not the sole religion on this planet. Please get out of your parents' basement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post starts off with religion , but ends with Christians .
Christianity is not the sole religion on this planet .
Please get out of your parents ' basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post starts off with religion, but ends with Christians.
Christianity is not the sole religion on this planet.
Please get out of your parents' basement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667921</id>
	<title>Found a mistake in your grammar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247419620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others, while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent.</p></div><p>You used a sentence fragment here. One way of correcting this would be to say:

</p><p>"We think that because we have the right to have any belief that our beliefs should be unquestioned -- that somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others, while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent."</p><p>

Just thought you would want to know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others , while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent.You used a sentence fragment here .
One way of correcting this would be to say : " We think that because we have the right to have any belief that our beliefs should be unquestioned -- that somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others , while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent .
" Just thought you would want to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others, while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent.You used a sentence fragment here.
One way of correcting this would be to say:

"We think that because we have the right to have any belief that our beliefs should be unquestioned -- that somehow we have the right to spout our beliefs at others, while anyone disagreeing with us must be silent.
"

Just thought you would want to know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661747</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1247339340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party. Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence. Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.</p></div><p>But your approach seems to rely on the assumption that you and your enlightened friends will be the only ones doing so. If <i>everyone</i> voted this way, then the incumbent would always lose. It would be, in effect, like passing a law that limited all candidates to a single term. This would only encourage politicians to grab as much as they can, as quickly as they can, and all the assumptive benefits of the first term (candidates basing their decisions on deep, objective consideration) would get tossed out the window. As such, your attitude seems cynical at best, and at worst, completely self-defeating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , lately , it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party .
Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence .
Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep , objective consideration.But your approach seems to rely on the assumption that you and your enlightened friends will be the only ones doing so .
If everyone voted this way , then the incumbent would always lose .
It would be , in effect , like passing a law that limited all candidates to a single term .
This would only encourage politicians to grab as much as they can , as quickly as they can , and all the assumptive benefits of the first term ( candidates basing their decisions on deep , objective consideration ) would get tossed out the window .
As such , your attitude seems cynical at best , and at worst , completely self-defeating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party.
Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence.
Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.But your approach seems to rely on the assumption that you and your enlightened friends will be the only ones doing so.
If everyone voted this way, then the incumbent would always lose.
It would be, in effect, like passing a law that limited all candidates to a single term.
This would only encourage politicians to grab as much as they can, as quickly as they can, and all the assumptive benefits of the first term (candidates basing their decisions on deep, objective consideration) would get tossed out the window.
As such, your attitude seems cynical at best, and at worst, completely self-defeating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659709</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>anagama</author>
	<datestamp>1247325240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Advanced education (or advanced knowledge) in a specific subject, tends to be accompanied by an accurate sense of just how much one does not know.  People with a rudimentary understanding of something often have a much higher sense of certainty than people with deep knowledge.  The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
<br> <br>
With respect to the Republican/Democrat/Independent split, I find it interesting that a third identify as independents.  I think that for at least the last couple decades, the Republicans have taken on so much of an "America Fuck Yeah" religiousity, that people who understand that the world is not simple because they have discovered in their own area, how much others misunderstand the topic and the findings and how much more there is to learn,  are easily disillusioned by the Readers Digest platitudes that seem sufficient for the vast majority of people.  As a result, those who actually know how little they know, can see how they are underinformed outside their area of expertise and are much more likely to accept that they may be wrong in any of their beliefs.  Given the Republican party's penchant for unthinking dogmatism, it is easy to see why people who have become very expert in a specialized area would be hesitant to be associated with the Republican party.  By the same token, Democrats can be just as bad, but there is some logic in going with the lesser evil (although I personally have decided against that path), and because the Democrats on average aren't such thundering bible-bangers, it seems natural enough to go that route.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Advanced education ( or advanced knowledge ) in a specific subject , tends to be accompanied by an accurate sense of just how much one does not know .
People with a rudimentary understanding of something often have a much higher sense of certainty than people with deep knowledge .
The more you know , the more you know you do n't know .
With respect to the Republican/Democrat/Independent split , I find it interesting that a third identify as independents .
I think that for at least the last couple decades , the Republicans have taken on so much of an " America Fuck Yeah " religiousity , that people who understand that the world is not simple because they have discovered in their own area , how much others misunderstand the topic and the findings and how much more there is to learn , are easily disillusioned by the Readers Digest platitudes that seem sufficient for the vast majority of people .
As a result , those who actually know how little they know , can see how they are underinformed outside their area of expertise and are much more likely to accept that they may be wrong in any of their beliefs .
Given the Republican party 's penchant for unthinking dogmatism , it is easy to see why people who have become very expert in a specialized area would be hesitant to be associated with the Republican party .
By the same token , Democrats can be just as bad , but there is some logic in going with the lesser evil ( although I personally have decided against that path ) , and because the Democrats on average are n't such thundering bible-bangers , it seems natural enough to go that route .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advanced education (or advanced knowledge) in a specific subject, tends to be accompanied by an accurate sense of just how much one does not know.
People with a rudimentary understanding of something often have a much higher sense of certainty than people with deep knowledge.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
With respect to the Republican/Democrat/Independent split, I find it interesting that a third identify as independents.
I think that for at least the last couple decades, the Republicans have taken on so much of an "America Fuck Yeah" religiousity, that people who understand that the world is not simple because they have discovered in their own area, how much others misunderstand the topic and the findings and how much more there is to learn,  are easily disillusioned by the Readers Digest platitudes that seem sufficient for the vast majority of people.
As a result, those who actually know how little they know, can see how they are underinformed outside their area of expertise and are much more likely to accept that they may be wrong in any of their beliefs.
Given the Republican party's penchant for unthinking dogmatism, it is easy to see why people who have become very expert in a specialized area would be hesitant to be associated with the Republican party.
By the same token, Democrats can be just as bad, but there is some logic in going with the lesser evil (although I personally have decided against that path), and because the Democrats on average aren't such thundering bible-bangers, it seems natural enough to go that route.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661139</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...am glad that all the idiots seem to be coalescing in the US. Now if we could only keep them off<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...am glad that all the idiots seem to be coalescing in the US .
Now if we could only keep them off / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...am glad that all the idiots seem to be coalescing in the US.
Now if we could only keep them off /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659867</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1 out of 10 scientists don't accept evolution?

I didn't realise my alma mater, Bob Jones University of the KKK, produced so many graduate 'scientists'.

By the way, did anyone else who went there notice... no squirrels on campus?

Strange... do you think they evolved to recognise a semi-automatic or God just wised 'em up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 out of 10 scientists do n't accept evolution ?
I did n't realise my alma mater , Bob Jones University of the KKK , produced so many graduate 'scientists' .
By the way , did anyone else who went there notice... no squirrels on campus ?
Strange... do you think they evolved to recognise a semi-automatic or God just wised 'em up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 out of 10 scientists don't accept evolution?
I didn't realise my alma mater, Bob Jones University of the KKK, produced so many graduate 'scientists'.
By the way, did anyone else who went there notice... no squirrels on campus?
Strange... do you think they evolved to recognise a semi-automatic or God just wised 'em up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661469</id>
	<title>Well to be fair to Geocentrism/tychonic systems</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1247337000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While Galilleo was big on heliocentrism he really couldn't give a way to demonstrate it was true. (You know, a scientific way through actual evidence. He had this idea that the tides demonstrated it but his explaination would have only caused 1 tide per day which was a bit of a problem.) Actually Tycho gave a way to disprove his system by pointing out if the earth didn't move there should be no stellar parallax. He saw none so he took it as evidence the earth didn't move. (In reality there is parallax but it's smaller that Tycho could measure.) Of course if you know how big the various objects in the solar system are or had a foucault pendulum you'd pretty much know the earth moves. (Too bad Galilleo didn't know the sizes and the foucault pendulum wouldn't come around until the 1800's.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>While Galilleo was big on heliocentrism he really could n't give a way to demonstrate it was true .
( You know , a scientific way through actual evidence .
He had this idea that the tides demonstrated it but his explaination would have only caused 1 tide per day which was a bit of a problem .
) Actually Tycho gave a way to disprove his system by pointing out if the earth did n't move there should be no stellar parallax .
He saw none so he took it as evidence the earth did n't move .
( In reality there is parallax but it 's smaller that Tycho could measure .
) Of course if you know how big the various objects in the solar system are or had a foucault pendulum you 'd pretty much know the earth moves .
( Too bad Galilleo did n't know the sizes and the foucault pendulum would n't come around until the 1800 's .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Galilleo was big on heliocentrism he really couldn't give a way to demonstrate it was true.
(You know, a scientific way through actual evidence.
He had this idea that the tides demonstrated it but his explaination would have only caused 1 tide per day which was a bit of a problem.
) Actually Tycho gave a way to disprove his system by pointing out if the earth didn't move there should be no stellar parallax.
He saw none so he took it as evidence the earth didn't move.
(In reality there is parallax but it's smaller that Tycho could measure.
) Of course if you know how big the various objects in the solar system are or had a foucault pendulum you'd pretty much know the earth moves.
(Too bad Galilleo didn't know the sizes and the foucault pendulum wouldn't come around until the 1800's.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660859</id>
	<title>Where did you get that stupidity ?</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1247332860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>EVen the greek a few millenia ago KNEW that the earth was not flat. All scientist knew it was round, and I dare say all educated persons, and all sailor educated or not. <b>Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that with extraordinarily few exceptions "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.[1]</b>  wiki quote.

And again, it was known from 4 BC from greek.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>EVen the greek a few millenia ago KNEW that the earth was not flat .
All scientist knew it was round , and I dare say all educated persons , and all sailor educated or not .
Recent scholarship , particularly since the 1990s , [ 3 ] has shown that with extraordinarily few exceptions " no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C .
onward believed that the earth was flat " and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth .
[ 1 ] wiki quote .
And again , it was known from 4 BC from greek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EVen the greek a few millenia ago KNEW that the earth was not flat.
All scientist knew it was round, and I dare say all educated persons, and all sailor educated or not.
Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that with extraordinarily few exceptions "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C.
onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.
[1]  wiki quote.
And again, it was known from 4 BC from greek.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662511</id>
	<title>Re:A Republican Scientist Reporting</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1247344620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps the 4 year terms should be evaluated more closely, because society definitely moves more quickly than every 2 years.</p></div><p>That is exactly *why* our terms last longer than fads. If our terms were 6 months long, American Idol would be our presidential election.</p><p>Yes, world events change rapidly; however, the basic tenets of governance: Finance, diplomacy, law, ethics, etc- these change very slowly. In theory.</p><p>-b</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the 4 year terms should be evaluated more closely , because society definitely moves more quickly than every 2 years.That is exactly * why * our terms last longer than fads .
If our terms were 6 months long , American Idol would be our presidential election.Yes , world events change rapidly ; however , the basic tenets of governance : Finance , diplomacy , law , ethics , etc- these change very slowly .
In theory.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the 4 year terms should be evaluated more closely, because society definitely moves more quickly than every 2 years.That is exactly *why* our terms last longer than fads.
If our terms were 6 months long, American Idol would be our presidential election.Yes, world events change rapidly; however, the basic tenets of governance: Finance, diplomacy, law, ethics, etc- these change very slowly.
In theory.-b
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661287</id>
	<title>Re:Global Governance</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1247335500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers. "</p><p>What satellite data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers .
" What satellite data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers.
"What satellite data?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659605</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Q. Public gets his information from the over simplifying, dumbed down, and sensationalizing TV and radio. And when you have supposedly educated people, I'm thinking of one with a law degree, saying that magazines like Scientific American have a "Liberal Agenda" and cannot be trusted, it's no wonder that the American public is one of the most scientifically illiterate western culture on the planet and as a result, we, as a culture,  think and behave as a bunch of ignorant buffoons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John Q. Public gets his information from the over simplifying , dumbed down , and sensationalizing TV and radio .
And when you have supposedly educated people , I 'm thinking of one with a law degree , saying that magazines like Scientific American have a " Liberal Agenda " and can not be trusted , it 's no wonder that the American public is one of the most scientifically illiterate western culture on the planet and as a result , we , as a culture , think and behave as a bunch of ignorant buffoons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Q. Public gets his information from the over simplifying, dumbed down, and sensationalizing TV and radio.
And when you have supposedly educated people, I'm thinking of one with a law degree, saying that magazines like Scientific American have a "Liberal Agenda" and cannot be trusted, it's no wonder that the American public is one of the most scientifically illiterate western culture on the planet and as a result, we, as a culture,  think and behave as a bunch of ignorant buffoons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661849</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>Celc</author>
	<datestamp>1247340060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I much rather vote for an ideology than a person, people are fallable as we get reminded of time and again. We (Sweeds) get to vote for parties (optionally people in parties) though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I much rather vote for an ideology than a person , people are fallable as we get reminded of time and again .
We ( Sweeds ) get to vote for parties ( optionally people in parties ) though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I much rather vote for an ideology than a person, people are fallable as we get reminded of time and again.
We (Sweeds) get to vote for parties (optionally people in parties) though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659715</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247325240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flat</p></div><p>Not even that.  The greeks knew the Earth was round and had calculated its size pretty accurately.  Since then, there hasn't been serious disagreement among scientists or sailors or educated people generally.  There may have been some denial from the religious and the simply ignorant, but the story you hear about Columbus being the one who proved the world was round --or whatever the story is-- it's BS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flatNot even that .
The greeks knew the Earth was round and had calculated its size pretty accurately .
Since then , there has n't been serious disagreement among scientists or sailors or educated people generally .
There may have been some denial from the religious and the simply ignorant , but the story you hear about Columbus being the one who proved the world was round --or whatever the story is-- it 's BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flatNot even that.
The greeks knew the Earth was round and had calculated its size pretty accurately.
Since then, there hasn't been serious disagreement among scientists or sailors or educated people generally.
There may have been some denial from the religious and the simply ignorant, but the story you hear about Columbus being the one who proved the world was round --or whatever the story is-- it's BS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659773</id>
	<title>Scientists outside their field?</title>
	<author>kryptomaniac</author>
	<datestamp>1247325720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a scientist is evaluating subjects (often well) outside their sphere of study, how does that make their opinion any better than anyone elses?</p><p>"And while 84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that."</p><p>So "all" the non-climate related scientists evaluated the GW claims and read the papers and make their own opinions?</p><p>OR</p><p>Do they rather simply believe what they're taught in school?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a scientist is evaluating subjects ( often well ) outside their sphere of study , how does that make their opinion any better than anyone elses ?
" And while 84 \ % of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity , less than half of the public agrees with that .
" So " all " the non-climate related scientists evaluated the GW claims and read the papers and make their own opinions ? ORDo they rather simply believe what they 're taught in school ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a scientist is evaluating subjects (often well) outside their sphere of study, how does that make their opinion any better than anyone elses?
"And while 84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that.
"So "all" the non-climate related scientists evaluated the GW claims and read the papers and make their own opinions?ORDo they rather simply believe what they're taught in school?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659629</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder whether the scientists who identified as Independents are also registered as Independents.  I have never understood why anyone would register as an Independent rather than with a party since Independents cannot vote in primary elections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder whether the scientists who identified as Independents are also registered as Independents .
I have never understood why anyone would register as an Independent rather than with a party since Independents can not vote in primary elections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder whether the scientists who identified as Independents are also registered as Independents.
I have never understood why anyone would register as an Independent rather than with a party since Independents cannot vote in primary elections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667171</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1247412780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which point, exactly, is in dispute?</p></div><p>How much that will effect the long term climate.... <br> <br>
Its a much harder question to answer than many think. Change an assumption here or there and the prediction can be very different...Never mind that the "true" from of scientific method cannot really be done. That is, we have no control earth hence controls are models vers models which contain the same "assumption" biases.
<br> <br>
But thats ok. Quite a lot of science in fact uses less "scientific method" than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers think. Its still science... But its not quite as clear and as obvious as the media or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would have people believe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which point , exactly , is in dispute ? How much that will effect the long term climate... . Its a much harder question to answer than many think .
Change an assumption here or there and the prediction can be very different...Never mind that the " true " from of scientific method can not really be done .
That is , we have no control earth hence controls are models vers models which contain the same " assumption " biases .
But thats ok. Quite a lot of science in fact uses less " scientific method " than /.ers think .
Its still science... But its not quite as clear and as obvious as the media or / .
would have people believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which point, exactly, is in dispute?How much that will effect the long term climate....  
Its a much harder question to answer than many think.
Change an assumption here or there and the prediction can be very different...Never mind that the "true" from of scientific method cannot really be done.
That is, we have no control earth hence controls are models vers models which contain the same "assumption" biases.
But thats ok. Quite a lot of science in fact uses less "scientific method" than /.ers think.
Its still science... But its not quite as clear and as obvious as the media or /.
would have people believe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659445</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's your point?  If you want to keep your current worldview regardless of any new information, you're better off becoming a priest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's your point ?
If you want to keep your current worldview regardless of any new information , you 're better off becoming a priest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's your point?
If you want to keep your current worldview regardless of any new information, you're better off becoming a priest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663959</id>
	<title>How do other countries compare?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247312940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This survey obviously has a statistical bias wrt "scientists", but, probably gives a rough<br>idea of how things are.  So, how do other countries fare compared to the U.S.?  Are there<br>countries where average people are very tuned in to science?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This survey obviously has a statistical bias wrt " scientists " , but , probably gives a roughidea of how things are .
So , how do other countries fare compared to the U.S. ?
Are therecountries where average people are very tuned in to science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This survey obviously has a statistical bias wrt "scientists", but, probably gives a roughidea of how things are.
So, how do other countries fare compared to the U.S.?
Are therecountries where average people are very tuned in to science?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663027</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1247305560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Pew Research Center has little to do with reality.<br>
How they choose to define "scientist" is relevant. That is, the population being sampled is one of the factors in what the results are. I'm guessing they oversampled university employees and people who receive government grants, who tend to be democrats, and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work, such as farmers.</p></div><p>According to the linked study, they used a sample of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and excluded those who resided outside the USA or whose membership was based on being primary or secondary level educators. Roughly half were in biological or medical fields, with the remainder in physical or earth sciences.
<a href="http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1554" title="people-press.org">http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1554</a> [people-press.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pew Research Center has little to do with reality .
How they choose to define " scientist " is relevant .
That is , the population being sampled is one of the factors in what the results are .
I 'm guessing they oversampled university employees and people who receive government grants , who tend to be democrats , and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work , such as farmers.According to the linked study , they used a sample of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science ( AAAS ) , and excluded those who resided outside the USA or whose membership was based on being primary or secondary level educators .
Roughly half were in biological or medical fields , with the remainder in physical or earth sciences .
http : //people-press.org/report/ ? pageid = 1554 [ people-press.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pew Research Center has little to do with reality.
How they choose to define "scientist" is relevant.
That is, the population being sampled is one of the factors in what the results are.
I'm guessing they oversampled university employees and people who receive government grants, who tend to be democrats, and undersampled people who use scientific method in their work, such as farmers.According to the linked study, they used a sample of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and excluded those who resided outside the USA or whose membership was based on being primary or secondary level educators.
Roughly half were in biological or medical fields, with the remainder in physical or earth sciences.
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1554 [people-press.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661131</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><i>Oh, for fuck's sake. </i></p> </div><p>This is not a good way to start a debate when you're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.</p><div class="quote"><p><i>1. We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.<br>2. A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.<br>3. The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.</i></p><p><i>Which point, exactly, is in dispute?</i></p> </div><p>A number of things. For example, you choose to focus on CO2.  While CO2 is associated with warming, there are an almost limitless number of other factors that also can contribute to warming (or cooling, for that matter).  For example (taken from Wikipedia):</p><p>In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * water vapor<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * carbon dioxide<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * methane<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * nitrous oxide<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * ozone<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * CFCs</p><p>When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * water vapor, which contributes 36&#226;"72\%<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9&#226;"26\%<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * methane, which contributes 4&#226;"9\%<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * ozone, which contributes 3&#226;"7\%</p><p>So right there, even if you take the worst-case scenario for CO2 (26\%), it's still far, far less of an effect than the <b>best case</b> for water vapor (36\%).  Shouldn't we be trying to reduce water vapor instead of CO2? Note that's a rhetorical question.  I'm just trying to point out where your argument -- and insistence -- on CO2 fails to account for what may be the largest driver in climate change.  CO2 just seems to be a popular whipping boy these days because it appeals to environmentalists who've always been against fossil fuels, anti-capitalists who are against Big Oil, and anti-Westerners who would be happy to see the Western powers (i.e. the U.S.) come to economic harm while they can handily skirt any emissions controls on their own industry (see Kyoto protocols).</p><p>It also doesn't help that global warming proponents tend to be shrill absolutists who, instead of trying to convince people of their argument, are merely content to shout them down or denounce them as imbeciles.  You may recall my first comment on your post.  Your opener falls into such a category.  It's not a way to win people over to your side even if you were to have all the facts (which you don't).  Note this isn't a knock against you personally or the science of climatology; <b>nobody</b> has all the facts, because nobody fully understands all the variables (or even <b>most</b> of the variables) associated with our climate.  We have theories and models that require constant tweaking, modifying, and massaging, and even then they fail to accurately predict both past and present weather trends.  The disclosure that several high-profile warming proponents admitting to actually cooking their data (aka cherry picking) also doesn't help your cause, as it shows these people had political, economic, or ideological biases which drove them to commit scientific fraud.</p><p>If you care to respond to this, try to make it reasoned and tactful.  Have all your facts, and <b>admit</b> that the totality of our knowledge about what's going on with the climate is anything but 100\% sure.  Claiming you've got it all nailed down with unassailable data is the surest sign that you've turned into a zealot.  Nobody listens to zealots, even if they are sometimes right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , for fuck 's sake .
This is not a good way to start a debate when you 're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.1 .
We , humans , are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.2 .
A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.3 .
The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.Which point , exactly , is in dispute ?
A number of things .
For example , you choose to focus on CO2 .
While CO2 is associated with warming , there are an almost limitless number of other factors that also can contribute to warming ( or cooling , for that matter ) .
For example ( taken from Wikipedia ) : In order , Earth 's most abundant greenhouse gases are :         * water vapor         * carbon dioxide         * methane         * nitrous oxide         * ozone         * CFCsWhen these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect , the most important are :         * water vapor , which contributes 36   " 72 \ %         * carbon dioxide , which contributes 9   " 26 \ %         * methane , which contributes 4   " 9 \ %         * ozone , which contributes 3   " 7 \ % So right there , even if you take the worst-case scenario for CO2 ( 26 \ % ) , it 's still far , far less of an effect than the best case for water vapor ( 36 \ % ) .
Should n't we be trying to reduce water vapor instead of CO2 ?
Note that 's a rhetorical question .
I 'm just trying to point out where your argument -- and insistence -- on CO2 fails to account for what may be the largest driver in climate change .
CO2 just seems to be a popular whipping boy these days because it appeals to environmentalists who 've always been against fossil fuels , anti-capitalists who are against Big Oil , and anti-Westerners who would be happy to see the Western powers ( i.e .
the U.S. ) come to economic harm while they can handily skirt any emissions controls on their own industry ( see Kyoto protocols ) .It also does n't help that global warming proponents tend to be shrill absolutists who , instead of trying to convince people of their argument , are merely content to shout them down or denounce them as imbeciles .
You may recall my first comment on your post .
Your opener falls into such a category .
It 's not a way to win people over to your side even if you were to have all the facts ( which you do n't ) .
Note this is n't a knock against you personally or the science of climatology ; nobody has all the facts , because nobody fully understands all the variables ( or even most of the variables ) associated with our climate .
We have theories and models that require constant tweaking , modifying , and massaging , and even then they fail to accurately predict both past and present weather trends .
The disclosure that several high-profile warming proponents admitting to actually cooking their data ( aka cherry picking ) also does n't help your cause , as it shows these people had political , economic , or ideological biases which drove them to commit scientific fraud.If you care to respond to this , try to make it reasoned and tactful .
Have all your facts , and admit that the totality of our knowledge about what 's going on with the climate is anything but 100 \ % sure .
Claiming you 've got it all nailed down with unassailable data is the surest sign that you 've turned into a zealot .
Nobody listens to zealots , even if they are sometimes right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, for fuck's sake.
This is not a good way to start a debate when you're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.1.
We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.2.
A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.3.
The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.Which point, exactly, is in dispute?
A number of things.
For example, you choose to focus on CO2.
While CO2 is associated with warming, there are an almost limitless number of other factors that also can contribute to warming (or cooling, for that matter).
For example (taken from Wikipedia):In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
        * water vapor
        * carbon dioxide
        * methane
        * nitrous oxide
        * ozone
        * CFCsWhen these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
        * water vapor, which contributes 36â"72\%
        * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9â"26\%
        * methane, which contributes 4â"9\%
        * ozone, which contributes 3â"7\%So right there, even if you take the worst-case scenario for CO2 (26\%), it's still far, far less of an effect than the best case for water vapor (36\%).
Shouldn't we be trying to reduce water vapor instead of CO2?
Note that's a rhetorical question.
I'm just trying to point out where your argument -- and insistence -- on CO2 fails to account for what may be the largest driver in climate change.
CO2 just seems to be a popular whipping boy these days because it appeals to environmentalists who've always been against fossil fuels, anti-capitalists who are against Big Oil, and anti-Westerners who would be happy to see the Western powers (i.e.
the U.S.) come to economic harm while they can handily skirt any emissions controls on their own industry (see Kyoto protocols).It also doesn't help that global warming proponents tend to be shrill absolutists who, instead of trying to convince people of their argument, are merely content to shout them down or denounce them as imbeciles.
You may recall my first comment on your post.
Your opener falls into such a category.
It's not a way to win people over to your side even if you were to have all the facts (which you don't).
Note this isn't a knock against you personally or the science of climatology; nobody has all the facts, because nobody fully understands all the variables (or even most of the variables) associated with our climate.
We have theories and models that require constant tweaking, modifying, and massaging, and even then they fail to accurately predict both past and present weather trends.
The disclosure that several high-profile warming proponents admitting to actually cooking their data (aka cherry picking) also doesn't help your cause, as it shows these people had political, economic, or ideological biases which drove them to commit scientific fraud.If you care to respond to this, try to make it reasoned and tactful.
Have all your facts, and admit that the totality of our knowledge about what's going on with the climate is anything but 100\% sure.
Claiming you've got it all nailed down with unassailable data is the surest sign that you've turned into a zealot.
Nobody listens to zealots, even if they are sometimes right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663529</id>
	<title>I'm surprised they had anti-vaxers in that article</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1247309220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since one of the most famous anti-vax nutjobs is RFK jr. (A guy who was rumored that he was being considered by Obama for the position of the head of the EPA.) Before anybody says anything, yes I know there's quite a bit of anti-vax hysteria on both sides of the political spectrum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since one of the most famous anti-vax nutjobs is RFK jr. ( A guy who was rumored that he was being considered by Obama for the position of the head of the EPA .
) Before anybody says anything , yes I know there 's quite a bit of anti-vax hysteria on both sides of the political spectrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since one of the most famous anti-vax nutjobs is RFK jr. (A guy who was rumored that he was being considered by Obama for the position of the head of the EPA.
) Before anybody says anything, yes I know there's quite a bit of anti-vax hysteria on both sides of the political spectrum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660453</id>
	<title>Engineers as Scientists</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1247330400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Counting engineers as scientists may not be all that material as the vast majority of engineers are not citizens of the US and wouldn't be engaged in US electoral politics anyway..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Counting engineers as scientists may not be all that material as the vast majority of engineers are not citizens of the US and would n't be engaged in US electoral politics anyway. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Counting engineers as scientists may not be all that material as the vast majority of engineers are not citizens of the US and wouldn't be engaged in US electoral politics anyway..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28671163</id>
	<title>Ignorance of truth</title>
	<author>acesaXeX</author>
	<datestamp>1247405220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the reason behind why more scientists believe in natural selection and global warming caused by humans is because they actually know the truth. The public a lot of the times just plainly ignore the truth. They can't accept the fact nature lets the stronger of the species live or that the reason why the world might be a hard place to live for posterity is because of their own fault. This isn't true always though but it is very common.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the reason behind why more scientists believe in natural selection and global warming caused by humans is because they actually know the truth .
The public a lot of the times just plainly ignore the truth .
They ca n't accept the fact nature lets the stronger of the species live or that the reason why the world might be a hard place to live for posterity is because of their own fault .
This is n't true always though but it is very common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the reason behind why more scientists believe in natural selection and global warming caused by humans is because they actually know the truth.
The public a lot of the times just plainly ignore the truth.
They can't accept the fact nature lets the stronger of the species live or that the reason why the world might be a hard place to live for posterity is because of their own fault.
This isn't true always though but it is very common.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659611</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1247324340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth back then in 240 BCE, thats long before science as we know it today even existed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth back then in 240 BCE , thats long before science as we know it today even existed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth back then in 240 BCE, thats long before science as we know it today even existed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666079</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247392380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that religion is useless in a philosophical sense, but strongly strongly disagree that it is useless in the physical world. why do you think humans developed religion, why do you think that the human brain evolved a    capacity for religious feelings? it was not an freak inefficiency. religion has an incredibly powerful social role. all the religious people i know find it alot easier to find compatible mates and procreate. it ties communities together in an intoxicating sense of shared brotherhood. people dont really turn to religion out of altruism, they turn to religion because they are feeling isolated and lonely and subconsciously are aware that accepting religion will instantaneously give them a large number of friends / sexual mates. religious people get more pussy, its true...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that religion is useless in a philosophical sense , but strongly strongly disagree that it is useless in the physical world .
why do you think humans developed religion , why do you think that the human brain evolved a capacity for religious feelings ?
it was not an freak inefficiency .
religion has an incredibly powerful social role .
all the religious people i know find it alot easier to find compatible mates and procreate .
it ties communities together in an intoxicating sense of shared brotherhood .
people dont really turn to religion out of altruism , they turn to religion because they are feeling isolated and lonely and subconsciously are aware that accepting religion will instantaneously give them a large number of friends / sexual mates .
religious people get more pussy , its true.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that religion is useless in a philosophical sense, but strongly strongly disagree that it is useless in the physical world.
why do you think humans developed religion, why do you think that the human brain evolved a    capacity for religious feelings?
it was not an freak inefficiency.
religion has an incredibly powerful social role.
all the religious people i know find it alot easier to find compatible mates and procreate.
it ties communities together in an intoxicating sense of shared brotherhood.
people dont really turn to religion out of altruism, they turn to religion because they are feeling isolated and lonely and subconsciously are aware that accepting religion will instantaneously give them a large number of friends / sexual mates.
religious people get more pussy, its true...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661249</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to imagine that people moding the GP up are doing so for political reasons because they don't like what the poll said. The Republican/Libertarians don't like that they said that 55\% of scientists are Democrats. The religious slashdotters don't like that so many scientists don't believe in God.</p><p>Why should it matter to you what scientists believe? You usually ignore what they say when it doesn't fit into your ideology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to imagine that people moding the GP up are doing so for political reasons because they do n't like what the poll said .
The Republican/Libertarians do n't like that they said that 55 \ % of scientists are Democrats .
The religious slashdotters do n't like that so many scientists do n't believe in God.Why should it matter to you what scientists believe ?
You usually ignore what they say when it does n't fit into your ideology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to imagine that people moding the GP up are doing so for political reasons because they don't like what the poll said.
The Republican/Libertarians don't like that they said that 55\% of scientists are Democrats.
The religious slashdotters don't like that so many scientists don't believe in God.Why should it matter to you what scientists believe?
You usually ignore what they say when it doesn't fit into your ideology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661235</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>dfm3</author>
	<datestamp>1247335260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I only had some mod points... your post was spot-on exactly what I was going to say in response to the topic.
<br> <br>I am a Christian and a scientist (life sciences/mycology/forestry to be exact). Several of my closest colleges hold similar beliefs, though some are less "religious" than others (believe me, it makes for some very interesting conversations over our morning coffee!). Yet the prevailing cultural attitude we regularly face is that you are expected to either be a 7-day biblical literalist, or that you completely dismiss the Bible as an ancient myth. There seems to be no room for middle ground. Myself, I don't see why answering the question of our exact mechanism of creation is critical. <br> <br>I believe in a God who, if He wanted to, <i>could</i> have guided evolution with humankind as a result, or could have created the world in 7 days complete with "historic" fossil and genetic evidence of evolution, or could have even ordered the entire universe (including us with all of our memories) into existence less than a second ago. Does it matter? What matters to me is that we're here, now, and that we need to do what we can to make the most of every moment we have. As a scientist, this means using my skills and knowledge to strive to make the world better through improvements in our understanding of the physical universe around us, and as a Christian this means seeking out a spiritual framework of meaning and purpose for my life that goes beyond just a physical existence. Maybe it's a bit naive of me, but I see religion and science as addressing two fundamentally different questions. I do not expect science to answer questions which lie outside of the observable, empirical world, and I do not expect my religious beliefs to completely explain the minutiae of the workings of the universe.
<br> <br>This is why I have no qualms about studying or writing about evolutionary processes as a Christian. It's the currently held scientific theory, based on the consensus of overwhelming empirical evidence. Just because something can appear to happen in the absence of a higher power, doesn't mean that the higher power <i>cannot exist</i>. Whether evolutionary evidence is genuine or was planted in a 6,000 year old earth that was designed to "look" old, it's still there, and in science you can't discount data simply because it doesn't fall in line with what you personally want it to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I only had some mod points... your post was spot-on exactly what I was going to say in response to the topic .
I am a Christian and a scientist ( life sciences/mycology/forestry to be exact ) .
Several of my closest colleges hold similar beliefs , though some are less " religious " than others ( believe me , it makes for some very interesting conversations over our morning coffee ! ) .
Yet the prevailing cultural attitude we regularly face is that you are expected to either be a 7-day biblical literalist , or that you completely dismiss the Bible as an ancient myth .
There seems to be no room for middle ground .
Myself , I do n't see why answering the question of our exact mechanism of creation is critical .
I believe in a God who , if He wanted to , could have guided evolution with humankind as a result , or could have created the world in 7 days complete with " historic " fossil and genetic evidence of evolution , or could have even ordered the entire universe ( including us with all of our memories ) into existence less than a second ago .
Does it matter ?
What matters to me is that we 're here , now , and that we need to do what we can to make the most of every moment we have .
As a scientist , this means using my skills and knowledge to strive to make the world better through improvements in our understanding of the physical universe around us , and as a Christian this means seeking out a spiritual framework of meaning and purpose for my life that goes beyond just a physical existence .
Maybe it 's a bit naive of me , but I see religion and science as addressing two fundamentally different questions .
I do not expect science to answer questions which lie outside of the observable , empirical world , and I do not expect my religious beliefs to completely explain the minutiae of the workings of the universe .
This is why I have no qualms about studying or writing about evolutionary processes as a Christian .
It 's the currently held scientific theory , based on the consensus of overwhelming empirical evidence .
Just because something can appear to happen in the absence of a higher power , does n't mean that the higher power can not exist .
Whether evolutionary evidence is genuine or was planted in a 6,000 year old earth that was designed to " look " old , it 's still there , and in science you ca n't discount data simply because it does n't fall in line with what you personally want it to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I only had some mod points... your post was spot-on exactly what I was going to say in response to the topic.
I am a Christian and a scientist (life sciences/mycology/forestry to be exact).
Several of my closest colleges hold similar beliefs, though some are less "religious" than others (believe me, it makes for some very interesting conversations over our morning coffee!).
Yet the prevailing cultural attitude we regularly face is that you are expected to either be a 7-day biblical literalist, or that you completely dismiss the Bible as an ancient myth.
There seems to be no room for middle ground.
Myself, I don't see why answering the question of our exact mechanism of creation is critical.
I believe in a God who, if He wanted to, could have guided evolution with humankind as a result, or could have created the world in 7 days complete with "historic" fossil and genetic evidence of evolution, or could have even ordered the entire universe (including us with all of our memories) into existence less than a second ago.
Does it matter?
What matters to me is that we're here, now, and that we need to do what we can to make the most of every moment we have.
As a scientist, this means using my skills and knowledge to strive to make the world better through improvements in our understanding of the physical universe around us, and as a Christian this means seeking out a spiritual framework of meaning and purpose for my life that goes beyond just a physical existence.
Maybe it's a bit naive of me, but I see religion and science as addressing two fundamentally different questions.
I do not expect science to answer questions which lie outside of the observable, empirical world, and I do not expect my religious beliefs to completely explain the minutiae of the workings of the universe.
This is why I have no qualms about studying or writing about evolutionary processes as a Christian.
It's the currently held scientific theory, based on the consensus of overwhelming empirical evidence.
Just because something can appear to happen in the absence of a higher power, doesn't mean that the higher power cannot exist.
Whether evolutionary evidence is genuine or was planted in a 6,000 year old earth that was designed to "look" old, it's still there, and in science you can't discount data simply because it doesn't fall in line with what you personally want it to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659621</id>
	<title>The revealing statistic</title>
	<author>jgeada</author>
	<datestamp>1247324400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found it very revealing to see the statistics about what the public thought the scientific consensus is. Paraphrasing from the original article:<br>

- Public thinks 60\% of scientists agree that evolution occurred, but actually 97\% of scientists support evolution.<br>

- Public thinks 56\% of scientists agree that global warming is human caused, but actually 84\% of scientists support the theory that human activity has and is causing global warming.<br>
<br>
This nearly 50/50 split in the public's view leads me to think: what is the primary source of science news for most of the public? The press. And most of the time, particularly on controversial issues, the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs. If you didn't know better from other sources you'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found it very revealing to see the statistics about what the public thought the scientific consensus is .
Paraphrasing from the original article : - Public thinks 60 \ % of scientists agree that evolution occurred , but actually 97 \ % of scientists support evolution .
- Public thinks 56 \ % of scientists agree that global warming is human caused , but actually 84 \ % of scientists support the theory that human activity has and is causing global warming .
This nearly 50/50 split in the public 's view leads me to think : what is the primary source of science news for most of the public ?
The press .
And most of the time , particularly on controversial issues , the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs .
If you did n't know better from other sources you 'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found it very revealing to see the statistics about what the public thought the scientific consensus is.
Paraphrasing from the original article:

- Public thinks 60\% of scientists agree that evolution occurred, but actually 97\% of scientists support evolution.
- Public thinks 56\% of scientists agree that global warming is human caused, but actually 84\% of scientists support the theory that human activity has and is causing global warming.
This nearly 50/50 split in the public's view leads me to think: what is the primary source of science news for most of the public?
The press.
And most of the time, particularly on controversial issues, the press just presents two talking heads with opposing views as the current state of affairs.
If you didn't know better from other sources you'd have to assume that the scientific consensus was split 50/50.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661005</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>nuonguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247333880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, there is a direct correlation between ignorance and level of dedication to a religion.  The more pious and devout people are, the less room there is for critical thinking.</p><p>In that sense, being against religion is being against ignorance and bigotry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , there is a direct correlation between ignorance and level of dedication to a religion .
The more pious and devout people are , the less room there is for critical thinking.In that sense , being against religion is being against ignorance and bigotry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, there is a direct correlation between ignorance and level of dedication to a religion.
The more pious and devout people are, the less room there is for critical thinking.In that sense, being against religion is being against ignorance and bigotry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660385</id>
	<title>rigged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gotta love rigged polls, anyone who takes this or any obviously biased poll seriously is an idiot.</p><p>Likewise anyone that takes "research" funded by this or that organization seriously is also just as much of an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta love rigged polls , anyone who takes this or any obviously biased poll seriously is an idiot.Likewise anyone that takes " research " funded by this or that organization seriously is also just as much of an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta love rigged polls, anyone who takes this or any obviously biased poll seriously is an idiot.Likewise anyone that takes "research" funded by this or that organization seriously is also just as much of an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665469</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution and Creationism are belief systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution and Creationism are belief systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution and Creationism are belief systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660301</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1247329440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, but you <b>are</b> opposed to religion; don't be scared into saying otherwise.</p><p>Shaping the world of believers is ultimatelly what religion is about; philosphers toying also with theology are practically nonexistant way within the margin of error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , but you are opposed to religion ; do n't be scared into saying otherwise.Shaping the world of believers is ultimatelly what religion is about ; philosphers toying also with theology are practically nonexistant way within the margin of error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, but you are opposed to religion; don't be scared into saying otherwise.Shaping the world of believers is ultimatelly what religion is about; philosphers toying also with theology are practically nonexistant way within the margin of error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659839</id>
	<title>Re:Depressing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I just don't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God. Can't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger's cat?</p></div> </blockquote><p>It is literally impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's\_teapot" title="wikipedia.org">Russell's Teapot</a> [wikipedia.org] if you don't understand this.</p><p>What science attempts to do is provide explanations for the workings of the universe. Religion purports to have already answered these questions. The only problem is that religion provides only one answer: "Goddidit!" That sort of thinking discourages rational inquiry, and is ultimately harmful, because it impedes real progress. Religion (at least, the monotheistic versions I am familiar with) offers a "go along, get along" view of the world - if you follow our rules for your whole life, we'll all be happy, and our invisible friend will be really good to you after you die. Science, on the other hand, searches for truth without regard to how it makes you feel, and that is uncomfortable for many religious types. Science's explanations for natural phenomena leave less and less room for the "Goddidit" view of things, and that threatens a large group of people who make their living off "Goddidit".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God .
Ca n't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger 's cat ?
It is literally impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God .
See Russell 's Teapot [ wikipedia.org ] if you do n't understand this.What science attempts to do is provide explanations for the workings of the universe .
Religion purports to have already answered these questions .
The only problem is that religion provides only one answer : " Goddidit !
" That sort of thinking discourages rational inquiry , and is ultimately harmful , because it impedes real progress .
Religion ( at least , the monotheistic versions I am familiar with ) offers a " go along , get along " view of the world - if you follow our rules for your whole life , we 'll all be happy , and our invisible friend will be really good to you after you die .
Science , on the other hand , searches for truth without regard to how it makes you feel , and that is uncomfortable for many religious types .
Science 's explanations for natural phenomena leave less and less room for the " Goddidit " view of things , and that threatens a large group of people who make their living off " Goddidit " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God.
Can't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger's cat?
It is literally impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.
See Russell's Teapot [wikipedia.org] if you don't understand this.What science attempts to do is provide explanations for the workings of the universe.
Religion purports to have already answered these questions.
The only problem is that religion provides only one answer: "Goddidit!
" That sort of thinking discourages rational inquiry, and is ultimately harmful, because it impedes real progress.
Religion (at least, the monotheistic versions I am familiar with) offers a "go along, get along" view of the world - if you follow our rules for your whole life, we'll all be happy, and our invisible friend will be really good to you after you die.
Science, on the other hand, searches for truth without regard to how it makes you feel, and that is uncomfortable for many religious types.
Science's explanations for natural phenomena leave less and less room for the "Goddidit" view of things, and that threatens a large group of people who make their living off "Goddidit".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660395</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1247330100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I see where you're coming from but nonetheless it kind of does matter. If it's caused by us then we need to change our ways in order to make this place a nice place to live. How are you going to justify to people that they need to change if you cannot prove that they're doing something wrong?</p></div><p>The whole point of this argument is that regardless of whether global climate change is happening there is no doubt that human activity (eg. coal fired power plants) produce a lot of pollution.  And if there was a way (I mean, if we were willing) to reduce our pollution level not too many people would argue with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see where you 're coming from but nonetheless it kind of does matter .
If it 's caused by us then we need to change our ways in order to make this place a nice place to live .
How are you going to justify to people that they need to change if you can not prove that they 're doing something wrong ? The whole point of this argument is that regardless of whether global climate change is happening there is no doubt that human activity ( eg .
coal fired power plants ) produce a lot of pollution .
And if there was a way ( I mean , if we were willing ) to reduce our pollution level not too many people would argue with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see where you're coming from but nonetheless it kind of does matter.
If it's caused by us then we need to change our ways in order to make this place a nice place to live.
How are you going to justify to people that they need to change if you cannot prove that they're doing something wrong?The whole point of this argument is that regardless of whether global climate change is happening there is no doubt that human activity (eg.
coal fired power plants) produce a lot of pollution.
And if there was a way (I mean, if we were willing) to reduce our pollution level not too many people would argue with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662461</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well...since you bring up the faith argument and also the uneducated high argument coupled with some notion that a belief in God rather than some empty, full of holes, theory of evolution, is better in some way or explains anything of our origins or where were headed well sir I think you should instead look at your theory because I think your theory has more holes in it than the creationists opinion. And, like I need to say more, your theory has more problems than it solves and there is absolutely no proof for your theory other than some mismatched jumbled examples of freakish variances in species. go figure. (that means do some math) and just for the record i can clearly see even though u seem to try and put on a front of aloofness and unbiased casual thought you really dont so again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... go figure. in addition you probably have never even read the Bible of which you are talking....which is out your ass in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well...since you bring up the faith argument and also the uneducated high argument coupled with some notion that a belief in God rather than some empty , full of holes , theory of evolution , is better in some way or explains anything of our origins or where were headed well sir I think you should instead look at your theory because I think your theory has more holes in it than the creationists opinion .
And , like I need to say more , your theory has more problems than it solves and there is absolutely no proof for your theory other than some mismatched jumbled examples of freakish variances in species .
go figure .
( that means do some math ) and just for the record i can clearly see even though u seem to try and put on a front of aloofness and unbiased casual thought you really dont so again .... go figure .
in addition you probably have never even read the Bible of which you are talking....which is out your ass in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well...since you bring up the faith argument and also the uneducated high argument coupled with some notion that a belief in God rather than some empty, full of holes, theory of evolution, is better in some way or explains anything of our origins or where were headed well sir I think you should instead look at your theory because I think your theory has more holes in it than the creationists opinion.
And, like I need to say more, your theory has more problems than it solves and there is absolutely no proof for your theory other than some mismatched jumbled examples of freakish variances in species.
go figure.
(that means do some math) and just for the record i can clearly see even though u seem to try and put on a front of aloofness and unbiased casual thought you really dont so again .... go figure.
in addition you probably have never even read the Bible of which you are talking....which is out your ass in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659509</id>
	<title>Who are "scientists?"</title>
	<author>Bluesman</author>
	<datestamp>1247323500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The word "scientist" is ridiculously broad.  Who are these people to which the media constantly refers?  And who gives a shit what "scientists" think about politics?</p><p>I'd like to know what economists think about politics, including facts and historical data to back their opinions up.  But I guess that would take ACTUAL research, which is harder than calling 1000 people and asking them 10 questions each.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The word " scientist " is ridiculously broad .
Who are these people to which the media constantly refers ?
And who gives a shit what " scientists " think about politics ? I 'd like to know what economists think about politics , including facts and historical data to back their opinions up .
But I guess that would take ACTUAL research , which is harder than calling 1000 people and asking them 10 questions each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word "scientist" is ridiculously broad.
Who are these people to which the media constantly refers?
And who gives a shit what "scientists" think about politics?I'd like to know what economists think about politics, including facts and historical data to back their opinions up.
But I guess that would take ACTUAL research, which is harder than calling 1000 people and asking them 10 questions each.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661269</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes the number of scientists who accept evolution is far higher than 9 in 10. There might be some issue about how "scientist" is defined. One could argue that the undergraduate in a research lab is a scientist because he/she is performing experiments, testing hypotheses, etc. But most people would not consider that person a scientist.
<br> <br>
And there's probably a modest group of people that say that the way to tell if a person is a scientist is to see if they are wearing a white lab coat.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<br> <br>
Re something else you mention, I think the exclusive opposites come up due to how many people define God, especially the anti-science folks out there. Many of the anti-science people define God to be an all powerful, benevolent being that created everything 6000 years ago. If that is what "God" means, then it is very black and white because it's difficult to reconcile the two points of view (their religious "reality" and scientific "reality"). If you define God less precisely (say as "whatever gave birth to the big bang", not all powerful, not benevolent, not answering prayers, etc.), then the definition is very far away from what many people would think of when they think of God. (So much so that they would prefer a different word.) Anyhow, a lot of people who do research (myself included) are befuddled by the anti-science discussions and try to stay the hell away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes the number of scientists who accept evolution is far higher than 9 in 10 .
There might be some issue about how " scientist " is defined .
One could argue that the undergraduate in a research lab is a scientist because he/she is performing experiments , testing hypotheses , etc .
But most people would not consider that person a scientist .
And there 's probably a modest group of people that say that the way to tell if a person is a scientist is to see if they are wearing a white lab coat .
: ) Re something else you mention , I think the exclusive opposites come up due to how many people define God , especially the anti-science folks out there .
Many of the anti-science people define God to be an all powerful , benevolent being that created everything 6000 years ago .
If that is what " God " means , then it is very black and white because it 's difficult to reconcile the two points of view ( their religious " reality " and scientific " reality " ) .
If you define God less precisely ( say as " whatever gave birth to the big bang " , not all powerful , not benevolent , not answering prayers , etc .
) , then the definition is very far away from what many people would think of when they think of God .
( So much so that they would prefer a different word .
) Anyhow , a lot of people who do research ( myself included ) are befuddled by the anti-science discussions and try to stay the hell away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes the number of scientists who accept evolution is far higher than 9 in 10.
There might be some issue about how "scientist" is defined.
One could argue that the undergraduate in a research lab is a scientist because he/she is performing experiments, testing hypotheses, etc.
But most people would not consider that person a scientist.
And there's probably a modest group of people that say that the way to tell if a person is a scientist is to see if they are wearing a white lab coat.
:)
 
Re something else you mention, I think the exclusive opposites come up due to how many people define God, especially the anti-science folks out there.
Many of the anti-science people define God to be an all powerful, benevolent being that created everything 6000 years ago.
If that is what "God" means, then it is very black and white because it's difficult to reconcile the two points of view (their religious "reality" and scientific "reality").
If you define God less precisely (say as "whatever gave birth to the big bang", not all powerful, not benevolent, not answering prayers, etc.
), then the definition is very far away from what many people would think of when they think of God.
(So much so that they would prefer a different word.
) Anyhow, a lot of people who do research (myself included) are befuddled by the anti-science discussions and try to stay the hell away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662881</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1247304480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade. They're the party that tries to teach creationism. They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming. They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research. Why? Because they're for the status quo. There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I think there's a lot of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that.  The recent Bush administration increased federal spending on scientific R&amp;D <a href="http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm" title="aaas.org"> to its highest levels in 30+ years.</a> [aaas.org]  The President who decreased it to its lowest level was actually Clinton.  But most people (including I suspect most scientists) probably think the opposite because that's what they expect from the preconceived bias you just outlined.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade .
They 're the party that tries to teach creationism .
They 're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming .
They 're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research .
Why ? Because they 're for the status quo .
There 's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican .
I think there 's a lot of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that .
The recent Bush administration increased federal spending on scientific R&amp;D to its highest levels in 30 + years .
[ aaas.org ] The President who decreased it to its lowest level was actually Clinton .
But most people ( including I suspect most scientists ) probably think the opposite because that 's what they expect from the preconceived bias you just outlined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade.
They're the party that tries to teach creationism.
They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming.
They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research.
Why? Because they're for the status quo.
There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.
I think there's a lot of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that.
The recent Bush administration increased federal spending on scientific R&amp;D  to its highest levels in 30+ years.
[aaas.org]  The President who decreased it to its lowest level was actually Clinton.
But most people (including I suspect most scientists) probably think the opposite because that's what they expect from the preconceived bias you just outlined.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28677691</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1247504820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These points have been answered before:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html" title="newscientist.com">Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter</a> [newscientist.com]</li><li> <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html" title="newscientist.com">Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas</a> [newscientist.com]</li><li> <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641-climate-myths-chaotic-systems-are-not-predictable.html" title="newscientist.com"> Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable</a> [newscientist.com]</li><li> <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11649-climate-myths-we-cant-trust-computer-models.html" title="newscientist.com">Climate myths: We can't trust computer models </a> [newscientist.com]</li><li> <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html" title="newscientist.com">Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy </a> [newscientist.com]</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>These points have been answered before : Climate myths : Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter [ newscientist.com ] Climate myths : CO2 is n't the most important greenhouse gas [ newscientist.com ] Climate myths : Chaotic systems are not predictable [ newscientist.com ] Climate myths : We ca n't trust computer models [ newscientist.com ] Climate myths : It 's all a conspiracy [ newscientist.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These points have been answered before: Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter [newscientist.com] Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas [newscientist.com]  Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable [newscientist.com] Climate myths: We can't trust computer models  [newscientist.com] Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy  [newscientist.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666139</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>tiqui</author>
	<datestamp>1247393460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Switch-off the auto pilot and spew something other than liberal talking points</p><p> <i>the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade</i> </p><p>The GOP has NOT engaged in any anti-science crusade. Reagan, for instance pushed SDI claiming American Scientists who created "the bomb" were fully-capable of an equally challenging task of making it obsolete, while liberals claimed it was too hard. Republicans have been pro-nuclear, and many Democrats are terrified of it. Republicans tend to like the space program (Bush#2 told NASA to build new rockets capable of moon and mars missions and had a NASA administrator with multiple science and engineering degrees) while many Democrats see NASA as a department to be cut to get money for social programs (Obama promised to gut it, and put a PR hack in charge of reviewing it; she's now been nominated to an associate admin post). There was an active political movement on the left to make a political attack using that claim and to get certain scientists in more liberal fields to claim they were being muzzled. Notice how many times a certain lefty scientist at Goddard held press briefings to claim he was being muzzled? ( I seem to recall the count at over a hundred, which has got to be some sort of record for a person who is being muzzled) </p><p> <i>They're the party that tries to teach creationism</i> </p><p>No, the GOP never tries to teach creationism... what it DOES do, is assert the rights of parents in communities to have control over their schools (and that includes the rights of those people in those communities to have their schools not tell johnie and suzy that science has proven their religion false). The GOP ALWAYS favored local control of schools which the rare exception of when GW Bush went off-the-rails and teamed-up with Ted Kennedy on the big-government "no child left behind" malfunction. I, for one, have no problem with the schools teaching the theory of evolution as a theory just as I have no problem with the schools teaching various economic theories as theories, and I certainly do not want the school teaching some particular religion. I consider it totally unacceptable for some elementary school teacher to denigrate ANY kid in class, and certainly not MY kid, with some of the hostile God-is-dead and your-religion-is-an-emotional-crutch rhetoric that has been pushed in some classrooms in the country who then hides behind claims of academic freedom and claims critics are "anti-science". I am equally opposed to any teacher advancing communist economic theories as facts.</p><p> <i>They're the party that band[sic] the creation of useful stem cell lines for research.</i> </p><p>False. The federal government had not yet formulated policies on this before Bush, and Clinton/Gore had not been funding it. Bush did not ban ANY research. What Bush DID do, was say that the federal government would fund stem cell research (unlike previous presidents whom I presume you think were all "anti-science") but NOT FUND the creation of NEW lines using discarded embryos (an act that many taxpayers consider the taking of innocent life). Bush left it to states and private interests to spend THEIR money if they so chose on such research. THERE IS NO BAN ON THE RESEARCH, Bush was just not going to take money at gunpoint from taxpayers to fund research that those taxpayers consider murder.</p><p> <i>They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming.</i> </p><p>Sorry, but this over-simplification of a very complex issue is getting tiresome. The evidence is NOT so overwhelming; there are MANY scientists who do not buy into this and many others who do, but who think there are smarter ways to deal with it than the Al Gore way. When anybody who disagrees is called a "denier", is denied grants, is denied tenured teaching positions, is accused of being in the hip pocket of evil polluters, and is shouted-down, SCIENCE is not at work. I learned long ago, that the person with the weakest argument is usually the one who resorts to shouting and name c</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Switch-off the auto pilot and spew something other than liberal talking points the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade The GOP has NOT engaged in any anti-science crusade .
Reagan , for instance pushed SDI claiming American Scientists who created " the bomb " were fully-capable of an equally challenging task of making it obsolete , while liberals claimed it was too hard .
Republicans have been pro-nuclear , and many Democrats are terrified of it .
Republicans tend to like the space program ( Bush # 2 told NASA to build new rockets capable of moon and mars missions and had a NASA administrator with multiple science and engineering degrees ) while many Democrats see NASA as a department to be cut to get money for social programs ( Obama promised to gut it , and put a PR hack in charge of reviewing it ; she 's now been nominated to an associate admin post ) .
There was an active political movement on the left to make a political attack using that claim and to get certain scientists in more liberal fields to claim they were being muzzled .
Notice how many times a certain lefty scientist at Goddard held press briefings to claim he was being muzzled ?
( I seem to recall the count at over a hundred , which has got to be some sort of record for a person who is being muzzled ) They 're the party that tries to teach creationism No , the GOP never tries to teach creationism... what it DOES do , is assert the rights of parents in communities to have control over their schools ( and that includes the rights of those people in those communities to have their schools not tell johnie and suzy that science has proven their religion false ) .
The GOP ALWAYS favored local control of schools which the rare exception of when GW Bush went off-the-rails and teamed-up with Ted Kennedy on the big-government " no child left behind " malfunction .
I , for one , have no problem with the schools teaching the theory of evolution as a theory just as I have no problem with the schools teaching various economic theories as theories , and I certainly do not want the school teaching some particular religion .
I consider it totally unacceptable for some elementary school teacher to denigrate ANY kid in class , and certainly not MY kid , with some of the hostile God-is-dead and your-religion-is-an-emotional-crutch rhetoric that has been pushed in some classrooms in the country who then hides behind claims of academic freedom and claims critics are " anti-science " .
I am equally opposed to any teacher advancing communist economic theories as facts .
They 're the party that band [ sic ] the creation of useful stem cell lines for research .
False. The federal government had not yet formulated policies on this before Bush , and Clinton/Gore had not been funding it .
Bush did not ban ANY research .
What Bush DID do , was say that the federal government would fund stem cell research ( unlike previous presidents whom I presume you think were all " anti-science " ) but NOT FUND the creation of NEW lines using discarded embryos ( an act that many taxpayers consider the taking of innocent life ) .
Bush left it to states and private interests to spend THEIR money if they so chose on such research .
THERE IS NO BAN ON THE RESEARCH , Bush was just not going to take money at gunpoint from taxpayers to fund research that those taxpayers consider murder .
They 're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming .
Sorry , but this over-simplification of a very complex issue is getting tiresome .
The evidence is NOT so overwhelming ; there are MANY scientists who do not buy into this and many others who do , but who think there are smarter ways to deal with it than the Al Gore way .
When anybody who disagrees is called a " denier " , is denied grants , is denied tenured teaching positions , is accused of being in the hip pocket of evil polluters , and is shouted-down , SCIENCE is not at work .
I learned long ago , that the person with the weakest argument is usually the one who resorts to shouting and name c</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switch-off the auto pilot and spew something other than liberal talking points the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade The GOP has NOT engaged in any anti-science crusade.
Reagan, for instance pushed SDI claiming American Scientists who created "the bomb" were fully-capable of an equally challenging task of making it obsolete, while liberals claimed it was too hard.
Republicans have been pro-nuclear, and many Democrats are terrified of it.
Republicans tend to like the space program (Bush#2 told NASA to build new rockets capable of moon and mars missions and had a NASA administrator with multiple science and engineering degrees) while many Democrats see NASA as a department to be cut to get money for social programs (Obama promised to gut it, and put a PR hack in charge of reviewing it; she's now been nominated to an associate admin post).
There was an active political movement on the left to make a political attack using that claim and to get certain scientists in more liberal fields to claim they were being muzzled.
Notice how many times a certain lefty scientist at Goddard held press briefings to claim he was being muzzled?
( I seem to recall the count at over a hundred, which has got to be some sort of record for a person who is being muzzled)  They're the party that tries to teach creationism No, the GOP never tries to teach creationism... what it DOES do, is assert the rights of parents in communities to have control over their schools (and that includes the rights of those people in those communities to have their schools not tell johnie and suzy that science has proven their religion false).
The GOP ALWAYS favored local control of schools which the rare exception of when GW Bush went off-the-rails and teamed-up with Ted Kennedy on the big-government "no child left behind" malfunction.
I, for one, have no problem with the schools teaching the theory of evolution as a theory just as I have no problem with the schools teaching various economic theories as theories, and I certainly do not want the school teaching some particular religion.
I consider it totally unacceptable for some elementary school teacher to denigrate ANY kid in class, and certainly not MY kid, with some of the hostile God-is-dead and your-religion-is-an-emotional-crutch rhetoric that has been pushed in some classrooms in the country who then hides behind claims of academic freedom and claims critics are "anti-science".
I am equally opposed to any teacher advancing communist economic theories as facts.
They're the party that band[sic] the creation of useful stem cell lines for research.
False. The federal government had not yet formulated policies on this before Bush, and Clinton/Gore had not been funding it.
Bush did not ban ANY research.
What Bush DID do, was say that the federal government would fund stem cell research (unlike previous presidents whom I presume you think were all "anti-science") but NOT FUND the creation of NEW lines using discarded embryos (an act that many taxpayers consider the taking of innocent life).
Bush left it to states and private interests to spend THEIR money if they so chose on such research.
THERE IS NO BAN ON THE RESEARCH, Bush was just not going to take money at gunpoint from taxpayers to fund research that those taxpayers consider murder.
They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming.
Sorry, but this over-simplification of a very complex issue is getting tiresome.
The evidence is NOT so overwhelming; there are MANY scientists who do not buy into this and many others who do, but who think there are smarter ways to deal with it than the Al Gore way.
When anybody who disagrees is called a "denier", is denied grants, is denied tenured teaching positions, is accused of being in the hip pocket of evil polluters, and is shouted-down, SCIENCE is not at work.
I learned long ago, that the person with the weakest argument is usually the one who resorts to shouting and name c</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660111</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247328240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While studying biology, I got to know several religious people that had no problem with accepting both evolution and christian religion. Most of them believe in some kind of predistination, other people have found different solutions for that problem.<br>Ask the same question to germans. I bet even most german priests will tell you they believe in evolution and the bible at the same time. Fact is that the bible can't be taken literal, there are to many inconsistencys, both inside the bible itself and between bible and reality, to allow literal fundamentalism and that's where education and enlightenment come into play.<br>So, the real problem is, how christian religion gets tought in America, not christian religion nor any other religion itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While studying biology , I got to know several religious people that had no problem with accepting both evolution and christian religion .
Most of them believe in some kind of predistination , other people have found different solutions for that problem.Ask the same question to germans .
I bet even most german priests will tell you they believe in evolution and the bible at the same time .
Fact is that the bible ca n't be taken literal , there are to many inconsistencys , both inside the bible itself and between bible and reality , to allow literal fundamentalism and that 's where education and enlightenment come into play.So , the real problem is , how christian religion gets tought in America , not christian religion nor any other religion itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While studying biology, I got to know several religious people that had no problem with accepting both evolution and christian religion.
Most of them believe in some kind of predistination, other people have found different solutions for that problem.Ask the same question to germans.
I bet even most german priests will tell you they believe in evolution and the bible at the same time.
Fact is that the bible can't be taken literal, there are to many inconsistencys, both inside the bible itself and between bible and reality, to allow literal fundamentalism and that's where education and enlightenment come into play.So, the real problem is, how christian religion gets tought in America, not christian religion nor any other religion itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659859</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>SizzlinSaguaro</author>
	<datestamp>1247326380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Engineers have just as much education as scientists, but the vast majority of engineers I know are heavily tilted to the Republican side.  It may just be just the industries that I deal with, but I can't think of a single company that I deal with, whether it be in the power industry, mining or defense, where there isn't a clear conservative bent on the people that work there in general.  And some of these people are highly educated.  I have a friend who can truly be described as a "rocket scientist" (although he has a Masters in Mechanical Engineering and PhD in Electrical Engineering) and he is about the most religious and conservative person I know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Engineers have just as much education as scientists , but the vast majority of engineers I know are heavily tilted to the Republican side .
It may just be just the industries that I deal with , but I ca n't think of a single company that I deal with , whether it be in the power industry , mining or defense , where there is n't a clear conservative bent on the people that work there in general .
And some of these people are highly educated .
I have a friend who can truly be described as a " rocket scientist " ( although he has a Masters in Mechanical Engineering and PhD in Electrical Engineering ) and he is about the most religious and conservative person I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engineers have just as much education as scientists, but the vast majority of engineers I know are heavily tilted to the Republican side.
It may just be just the industries that I deal with, but I can't think of a single company that I deal with, whether it be in the power industry, mining or defense, where there isn't a clear conservative bent on the people that work there in general.
And some of these people are highly educated.
I have a friend who can truly be described as a "rocket scientist" (although he has a Masters in Mechanical Engineering and PhD in Electrical Engineering) and he is about the most religious and conservative person I know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665317</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subtract military R&amp;D from that, and you'll see that the Bush administration literally gutted the budgets of all of the major research labs across the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subtract military R&amp;D from that , and you 'll see that the Bush administration literally gutted the budgets of all of the major research labs across the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subtract military R&amp;D from that, and you'll see that the Bush administration literally gutted the budgets of all of the major research labs across the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659401</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1247322720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not a global climate change denier. There is definitely something going on. Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter. Let's focus on making this place a nice place to live. Clean air, clean water, clean land. These are things no one is going to argue with. Let's start making this a better world for you and for me.</p></div><p>I see where you're coming from but nonetheless it kind of does matter. If it's caused by us then we need to change our ways in order to make this place a nice place to live. How are you going to justify to people that they need to change if you cannot prove that they're doing something wrong?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a global climate change denier .
There is definitely something going on .
Whether it is caused by humans or not , it does n't really seem to matter .
Let 's focus on making this place a nice place to live .
Clean air , clean water , clean land .
These are things no one is going to argue with .
Let 's start making this a better world for you and for me.I see where you 're coming from but nonetheless it kind of does matter .
If it 's caused by us then we need to change our ways in order to make this place a nice place to live .
How are you going to justify to people that they need to change if you can not prove that they 're doing something wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a global climate change denier.
There is definitely something going on.
Whether it is caused by humans or not, it doesn't really seem to matter.
Let's focus on making this place a nice place to live.
Clean air, clean water, clean land.
These are things no one is going to argue with.
Let's start making this a better world for you and for me.I see where you're coming from but nonetheless it kind of does matter.
If it's caused by us then we need to change our ways in order to make this place a nice place to live.
How are you going to justify to people that they need to change if you cannot prove that they're doing something wrong?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659483</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>Tomfrh</author>
	<datestamp>1247323260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The majority of scientists used to agree that the earth was flat. </i></p><p>That's just a modern myth about olden days people. People have known the world was round for thousands of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of scientists used to agree that the earth was flat .
That 's just a modern myth about olden days people .
People have known the world was round for thousands of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of scientists used to agree that the earth was flat.
That's just a modern myth about olden days people.
People have known the world was round for thousands of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660915</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247333220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>perhaps these example people were educated at a school with a religious affiliation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>perhaps these example people were educated at a school with a religious affiliation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perhaps these example people were educated at a school with a religious affiliation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660435</id>
	<title>Natural selection in the workplace</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1247330340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science is a collaborative effort that relies on peer-review to separate the wheat and chaff. Individual viewpoints are fairly irrelevant. It is also quite competitive (limited funding, search for prestige, a better position); even scientists that agree on issues or share viewpoints don't cut each other any slack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is a collaborative effort that relies on peer-review to separate the wheat and chaff .
Individual viewpoints are fairly irrelevant .
It is also quite competitive ( limited funding , search for prestige , a better position ) ; even scientists that agree on issues or share viewpoints do n't cut each other any slack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is a collaborative effort that relies on peer-review to separate the wheat and chaff.
Individual viewpoints are fairly irrelevant.
It is also quite competitive (limited funding, search for prestige, a better position); even scientists that agree on issues or share viewpoints don't cut each other any slack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662267</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1247343060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ahh, reality with it's damned liberal bias again...</p></div></blockquote><p>Indeed, I had wondered about that for a long time &mdash; how such smart people can be so dumb.  But the cause finally occurred to me &mdash; professors are idealists.  This allows them into the same comfortable reality-distortion field as Leftists.  Personally, I am a Centrist, which IS the reality zone on the political spectrum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , reality with it 's damned liberal bias again...Indeed , I had wondered about that for a long time    how such smart people can be so dumb .
But the cause finally occurred to me    professors are idealists .
This allows them into the same comfortable reality-distortion field as Leftists .
Personally , I am a Centrist , which IS the reality zone on the political spectrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, reality with it's damned liberal bias again...Indeed, I had wondered about that for a long time — how such smart people can be so dumb.
But the cause finally occurred to me — professors are idealists.
This allows them into the same comfortable reality-distortion field as Leftists.
Personally, I am a Centrist, which IS the reality zone on the political spectrum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661999</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1247341380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just Horwitz crap.  If you look at political affiliations throughout university departments in the US, you'll find many more republicans in areas like business and economics.  The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade.  They're the party that tries to teach creationism.  They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming.  They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research.  Why?  Because they're for the status quo.  There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just Horwitz crap .
If you look at political affiliations throughout university departments in the US , you 'll find many more republicans in areas like business and economics .
The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade .
They 're the party that tries to teach creationism .
They 're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming .
They 're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research .
Why ? Because they 're for the status quo .
There 's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just Horwitz crap.
If you look at political affiliations throughout university departments in the US, you'll find many more republicans in areas like business and economics.
The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade.
They're the party that tries to teach creationism.
They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming.
They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research.
Why?  Because they're for the status quo.
There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659959</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists outside their field?</title>
	<author>uid7306m</author>
	<datestamp>1247327040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Scientists outside their field are not experts, of course.   But, neither are they to be entirely dismissed.  Even outside your field, you know how to think logically, you know about statistics, you know that science is a bit of a messy process sometimes, and you know how to evaluate what other scientists write.  And, there may be a bit of overlap from one field to another, too.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; So, for instance, I am a non-climate scientist.  I read the public stuff.   I've gone to google scholar and read some of the techical papers.   And, while I'd have to spend a decade to really get up to speed and do some of the work, I can understand generally what people are doing.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; When I read, I look for failures in logic.  I look for places where they make assumptions that are not supported.  I look for obvious violations of the physics I learned in school and the bits and pieces I've picked up from reading other papers.  I look for signs that people hold their opinions for political reasons rather than because of their data.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; And, by and large, it all looks OK.   So, I believe their conclusions.   That's how *I* do it.  No, I do not simply believe what I was taught in school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Scientists outside their field are not experts , of course .
But , neither are they to be entirely dismissed .
Even outside your field , you know how to think logically , you know about statistics , you know that science is a bit of a messy process sometimes , and you know how to evaluate what other scientists write .
And , there may be a bit of overlap from one field to another , too .
    So , for instance , I am a non-climate scientist .
I read the public stuff .
I 've gone to google scholar and read some of the techical papers .
And , while I 'd have to spend a decade to really get up to speed and do some of the work , I can understand generally what people are doing .
    When I read , I look for failures in logic .
I look for places where they make assumptions that are not supported .
I look for obvious violations of the physics I learned in school and the bits and pieces I 've picked up from reading other papers .
I look for signs that people hold their opinions for political reasons rather than because of their data .
    And , by and large , it all looks OK. So , I believe their conclusions .
That 's how * I * do it .
No , I do not simply believe what I was taught in school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Scientists outside their field are not experts, of course.
But, neither are they to be entirely dismissed.
Even outside your field, you know how to think logically, you know about statistics, you know that science is a bit of a messy process sometimes, and you know how to evaluate what other scientists write.
And, there may be a bit of overlap from one field to another, too.
    So, for instance, I am a non-climate scientist.
I read the public stuff.
I've gone to google scholar and read some of the techical papers.
And, while I'd have to spend a decade to really get up to speed and do some of the work, I can understand generally what people are doing.
    When I read, I look for failures in logic.
I look for places where they make assumptions that are not supported.
I look for obvious violations of the physics I learned in school and the bits and pieces I've picked up from reading other papers.
I look for signs that people hold their opinions for political reasons rather than because of their data.
    And, by and large, it all looks OK.   So, I believe their conclusions.
That's how *I* do it.
No, I do not simply believe what I was taught in school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664681</id>
	<title>Re:These stories are stupid</title>
	<author>darthwader</author>
	<datestamp>1247321640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your father (and you, probably) do know more than the average member of the public.  Your father understands the statistics behind the studies.  He understands that "happens 95\% of the time" does not mean "unpredictable".  He understands the process of conjecture -&gt; experiment -&gt; evidence -&gt; theory -&gt; new conjecture to refine theory -&gt; new experiments -&gt; etc.  He understands that "scientific fact" can and will change once new evidence is available, but as long as there is a very large body of evidence for the current theory, it should be accepted.<br><br>He even understands the difference between "fact", "theory" and "conjecture" which so confuses the general public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your father ( and you , probably ) do know more than the average member of the public .
Your father understands the statistics behind the studies .
He understands that " happens 95 \ % of the time " does not mean " unpredictable " .
He understands the process of conjecture - &gt; experiment - &gt; evidence - &gt; theory - &gt; new conjecture to refine theory - &gt; new experiments - &gt; etc .
He understands that " scientific fact " can and will change once new evidence is available , but as long as there is a very large body of evidence for the current theory , it should be accepted.He even understands the difference between " fact " , " theory " and " conjecture " which so confuses the general public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your father (and you, probably) do know more than the average member of the public.
Your father understands the statistics behind the studies.
He understands that "happens 95\% of the time" does not mean "unpredictable".
He understands the process of conjecture -&gt; experiment -&gt; evidence -&gt; theory -&gt; new conjecture to refine theory -&gt; new experiments -&gt; etc.
He understands that "scientific fact" can and will change once new evidence is available, but as long as there is a very large body of evidence for the current theory, it should be accepted.He even understands the difference between "fact", "theory" and "conjecture" which so confuses the general public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667187</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1247412900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher.</p></div><p>How can you be a scientist without a graduate level education?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher.How can you be a scientist without a graduate level education ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher.How can you be a scientist without a graduate level education?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660535</id>
	<title>The world is not just US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247330880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess the numbers would be others if they had survied a group of people representative of the global population, and not just the US. The topic is missleading... I must be new here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the numbers would be others if they had survied a group of people representative of the global population , and not just the US .
The topic is missleading... I must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the numbers would be others if they had survied a group of people representative of the global population, and not just the US.
The topic is missleading... I must be new here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661121</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how long before all the Libertarian slashdotters discover your comment and mod it flamebait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how long before all the Libertarian slashdotters discover your comment and mod it flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how long before all the Libertarian slashdotters discover your comment and mod it flamebait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659693</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>ancient\_kings</author>
	<datestamp>1247325060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullsh*t. The Greeks computed the size of the earth (within 5\%) some 3,000 years ago.
Get your facts right Neocon...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullsh * t. The Greeks computed the size of the earth ( within 5 \ % ) some 3,000 years ago .
Get your facts right Neocon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullsh*t. The Greeks computed the size of the earth (within 5\%) some 3,000 years ago.
Get your facts right Neocon...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659615</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's simply economics. Democrats are known for stealing money from people and giving it out to their certain blocks of special interests. Scientists come up with great justifications for fascism like "global warming." It's a symbiotic relationship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's simply economics .
Democrats are known for stealing money from people and giving it out to their certain blocks of special interests .
Scientists come up with great justifications for fascism like " global warming .
" It 's a symbiotic relationship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's simply economics.
Democrats are known for stealing money from people and giving it out to their certain blocks of special interests.
Scientists come up with great justifications for fascism like "global warming.
" It's a symbiotic relationship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662187</id>
	<title>Re:I fail to see ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While independence is a good thing, let's say there's multiple elections with multiple candidates from multiple parties, over multiple years.  Each election cycle, you hide the party affiliations of the candidates and so that you are not inclined to vote for the party and not the candidate.  After a few years you go back and reveal all the political affiliations of everyone you voted for.  75\% of time you voted for candidates from party A, and 20\% of the time from party B, and a combined 5\% from parties C though Z.</p><p>You're now asked to self identify as with a political affiliation.  What's your affiliation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While independence is a good thing , let 's say there 's multiple elections with multiple candidates from multiple parties , over multiple years .
Each election cycle , you hide the party affiliations of the candidates and so that you are not inclined to vote for the party and not the candidate .
After a few years you go back and reveal all the political affiliations of everyone you voted for .
75 \ % of time you voted for candidates from party A , and 20 \ % of the time from party B , and a combined 5 \ % from parties C though Z.You 're now asked to self identify as with a political affiliation .
What 's your affiliation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While independence is a good thing, let's say there's multiple elections with multiple candidates from multiple parties, over multiple years.
Each election cycle, you hide the party affiliations of the candidates and so that you are not inclined to vote for the party and not the candidate.
After a few years you go back and reveal all the political affiliations of everyone you voted for.
75\% of time you voted for candidates from party A, and 20\% of the time from party B, and a combined 5\% from parties C though Z.You're now asked to self identify as with a political affiliation.
What's your affiliation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662013</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1247341500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher. These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study. A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.</p><p>Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories? Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be? So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.)</p></div><p>Should we be surprised that the longer someone is in the Education Establishment the more indoctrinated in its beliefs they become? During the Vietnam War, there was a correlation between the level of one's education and one's support of the war effort: the greater the level of education the more likely a U.S. citizen was to support the U.S. military actions in Vietnam. The exception to this being those who had family members serving in the military, those individuals were more likely to support the war effort than others of their demographic.

The fact of the matter is the more formal education one has the more thoroughly indoctrinated into the ideas promoted by the Education Establishment one becomes and thus the less likely one is to think critically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher .
These views ( acceptance of evolution , belief in human caused global warming , etc ) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief ( whatever the Bible implies ) with a belief in a complicated theory that often does n't make sense without serious study .
A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being , which leaves serious doubts about the validity of " scientific theories " in the minds of individuals with high school education.Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories ?
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is , the more liberal ( generally speaking ) their political views tend to be ?
So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in , the layman who does n't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of " experts " , or take faith in the " word of God , as brought to you by $ Preacher .
) Should we be surprised that the longer someone is in the Education Establishment the more indoctrinated in its beliefs they become ?
During the Vietnam War , there was a correlation between the level of one 's education and one 's support of the war effort : the greater the level of education the more likely a U.S. citizen was to support the U.S. military actions in Vietnam .
The exception to this being those who had family members serving in the military , those individuals were more likely to support the war effort than others of their demographic .
The fact of the matter is the more formal education one has the more thoroughly indoctrinated into the ideas promoted by the Education Establishment one becomes and thus the less likely one is to think critically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a scientist is linked very closely to being educated at graduate level or higher.
These views (acceptance of evolution, belief in human caused global warming, etc) are linked to the replacement of a prior belief (whatever the Bible implies) with a belief in a complicated theory that often doesn't make sense without serious study.
A casual textbook explanation of evolution leads to questions of how complicated mechanisms such as sexual reproduction came into being, which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.Should we be surprised at all that increased levels of education help people critically analyze and accept/deny scientific theories?
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?
So long as the cutting edge of science involves far more math or heavy statistical theory than the average human is educated in, the layman who doesn't take time to research issues will have to either take faith in the word of "experts", or take faith in the "word of God, as brought to you by $Preacher.
)Should we be surprised that the longer someone is in the Education Establishment the more indoctrinated in its beliefs they become?
During the Vietnam War, there was a correlation between the level of one's education and one's support of the war effort: the greater the level of education the more likely a U.S. citizen was to support the U.S. military actions in Vietnam.
The exception to this being those who had family members serving in the military, those individuals were more likely to support the war effort than others of their demographic.
The fact of the matter is the more formal education one has the more thoroughly indoctrinated into the ideas promoted by the Education Establishment one becomes and thus the less likely one is to think critically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665771</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1247340780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a "preconceived" if there's evidence for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a " preconceived " if there 's evidence for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a "preconceived" if there's evidence for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659431</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No they didn't. Catholicism was the major driver behind geocentrism, and no-one with any sense ever believed the earth was flat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they did n't .
Catholicism was the major driver behind geocentrism , and no-one with any sense ever believed the earth was flat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they didn't.
Catholicism was the major driver behind geocentrism, and no-one with any sense ever believed the earth was flat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662183</id>
	<title>Re:We hate our betters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you correct someone's grammar, spelling, punctuation or the like... instead of making a note to try to do it right... they'll call you pedantic or a grammar snob or elitist or something else.</p></div><p>If you go around correcting other people's grammar, spelling, and punctuation, you're just a garden variety asshole.  You need to seek professional counseling and Get A Life.</p><p>Your broader point about envy is, of course, absolutely correct, except that it's an age old Human problem, not an American invention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you correct someone 's grammar , spelling , punctuation or the like... instead of making a note to try to do it right... they 'll call you pedantic or a grammar snob or elitist or something else.If you go around correcting other people 's grammar , spelling , and punctuation , you 're just a garden variety asshole .
You need to seek professional counseling and Get A Life.Your broader point about envy is , of course , absolutely correct , except that it 's an age old Human problem , not an American invention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you correct someone's grammar, spelling, punctuation or the like... instead of making a note to try to do it right... they'll call you pedantic or a grammar snob or elitist or something else.If you go around correcting other people's grammar, spelling, and punctuation, you're just a garden variety asshole.
You need to seek professional counseling and Get A Life.Your broader point about envy is, of course, absolutely correct, except that it's an age old Human problem, not an American invention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659639</id>
	<title>Re:"scientists" are from liberal think tank</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because the AAAS list was used as the original source, it doesn't mean that they didn't filter and select a subset of that list. If you know anything about conducting surveys or statistical analysis, you'd realize that the raw materials generally go through several rounds of refinement before progressing with the study.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the AAAS list was used as the original source , it does n't mean that they did n't filter and select a subset of that list .
If you know anything about conducting surveys or statistical analysis , you 'd realize that the raw materials generally go through several rounds of refinement before progressing with the study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the AAAS list was used as the original source, it doesn't mean that they didn't filter and select a subset of that list.
If you know anything about conducting surveys or statistical analysis, you'd realize that the raw materials generally go through several rounds of refinement before progressing with the study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662037</id>
	<title>Re:Serious problem with this Pew poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247341620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".</p></div><p>Conservatives would be insulted by your branding of diversity, human rights, sustainable development and gender equality as "liberal" values. Surely any rationally thinking conservative would be all for these things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as " Increase diversity in the scientific community , " " Use science to advance human rights " ( sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International ) , " Sustainable Development " and " Women 's Collaboration " .Conservatives would be insulted by your branding of diversity , human rights , sustainable development and gender equality as " liberal " values .
Surely any rationally thinking conservative would be all for these things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".Conservatives would be insulted by your branding of diversity, human rights, sustainable development and gender equality as "liberal" values.
Surely any rationally thinking conservative would be all for these things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662201</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neglected in the article, is the data on how many of those three groups, rely on government grants...</p><p>Good example, the teacher of Algore who was a NASA data manipulator, with a 'man made global warming agenda', responsible for 'copy pasting the Siberian summer (warm to hot) weather data, into the 'official' weather reports, to off-set the data of the particularly cold October, last year, to try to show it was the Hottest ever! (did so for August, September, October of 2008)</p><p>One can manipulate data in many ways. Once they do so, the cease to be scientists.</p><p>Wondering, on the survey, which scientists they used, when the data was done (time of day) and where? The figures would tend to indicate the data was done at colleges and universities, since the demographics are similar (the independents in those areas always teach liberalism, so they are Democrats in hiding)</p><p>Most important, who paid for the survey. Companies doing surveys frequently tailor the survey to the result desired, if possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neglected in the article , is the data on how many of those three groups , rely on government grants...Good example , the teacher of Algore who was a NASA data manipulator , with a 'man made global warming agenda ' , responsible for 'copy pasting the Siberian summer ( warm to hot ) weather data , into the 'official ' weather reports , to off-set the data of the particularly cold October , last year , to try to show it was the Hottest ever !
( did so for August , September , October of 2008 ) One can manipulate data in many ways .
Once they do so , the cease to be scientists.Wondering , on the survey , which scientists they used , when the data was done ( time of day ) and where ?
The figures would tend to indicate the data was done at colleges and universities , since the demographics are similar ( the independents in those areas always teach liberalism , so they are Democrats in hiding ) Most important , who paid for the survey .
Companies doing surveys frequently tailor the survey to the result desired , if possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neglected in the article, is the data on how many of those three groups, rely on government grants...Good example, the teacher of Algore who was a NASA data manipulator, with a 'man made global warming agenda', responsible for 'copy pasting the Siberian summer (warm to hot) weather data, into the 'official' weather reports, to off-set the data of the particularly cold October, last year, to try to show it was the Hottest ever!
(did so for August, September, October of 2008)One can manipulate data in many ways.
Once they do so, the cease to be scientists.Wondering, on the survey, which scientists they used, when the data was done (time of day) and where?
The figures would tend to indicate the data was done at colleges and universities, since the demographics are similar (the independents in those areas always teach liberalism, so they are Democrats in hiding)Most important, who paid for the survey.
Companies doing surveys frequently tailor the survey to the result desired, if possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455</id>
	<title>Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1247323020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hrm... I'd like to see exactly how they arrived at *that* number...<br>
<br>
They're not counting engineers as scientists, are they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hrm... I 'd like to see exactly how they arrived at * that * number.. . They 're not counting engineers as scientists , are they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hrm... I'd like to see exactly how they arrived at *that* number...

They're not counting engineers as scientists, are they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660317</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1247329620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"1. We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.<br>2. A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed."</p><p>(1) and (2) are meaningless.  You need to express that amount of CO2 released and the magnitude of the gain in terms that make it suitable for a statistical comparison.</p><p>Your conclusion is very likely correct, but your argument is as flawed as those of the deniers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 1 .
We , humans , are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.2 .
A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed .
" ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) are meaningless .
You need to express that amount of CO2 released and the magnitude of the gain in terms that make it suitable for a statistical comparison.Your conclusion is very likely correct , but your argument is as flawed as those of the deniers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"1.
We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.2.
A corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been observed.
"(1) and (2) are meaningless.
You need to express that amount of CO2 released and the magnitude of the gain in terms that make it suitable for a statistical comparison.Your conclusion is very likely correct, but your argument is as flawed as those of the deniers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660645</id>
	<title>Re:These stories are stupid</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1247331540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once you know the scientific method and maybe have some basic background knowledge in general science, math and stats, you should be able to reasonably assess any scientific argument.  If you can't, that argument is not clear enough.</p><p>You may not be able to (immediately) do useful work in a foreign field, but you should be capable of judging the strength of any given result.</p><p>So yes, your father, if he is a product safety scientist and not a technician, should know some stats and is probably quite knowledgeable about experimental design.  These things will make him much more able to assess a the strength of scientific global warming results than an average member of the general public.  Note that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a scientific argument.  There wasn't a single p-value in the whole thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you know the scientific method and maybe have some basic background knowledge in general science , math and stats , you should be able to reasonably assess any scientific argument .
If you ca n't , that argument is not clear enough.You may not be able to ( immediately ) do useful work in a foreign field , but you should be capable of judging the strength of any given result.So yes , your father , if he is a product safety scientist and not a technician , should know some stats and is probably quite knowledgeable about experimental design .
These things will make him much more able to assess a the strength of scientific global warming results than an average member of the general public .
Note that " An Inconvenient Truth " is not a scientific argument .
There was n't a single p-value in the whole thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you know the scientific method and maybe have some basic background knowledge in general science, math and stats, you should be able to reasonably assess any scientific argument.
If you can't, that argument is not clear enough.You may not be able to (immediately) do useful work in a foreign field, but you should be capable of judging the strength of any given result.So yes, your father, if he is a product safety scientist and not a technician, should know some stats and is probably quite knowledgeable about experimental design.
These things will make him much more able to assess a the strength of scientific global warming results than an average member of the general public.
Note that "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a scientific argument.
There wasn't a single p-value in the whole thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659723</id>
	<title>Science Czar vs public, then?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247325300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the general public is different from scientists, I hope they'll resist the new Sciece Czar.  He's a <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34157\_Zombie-\_Obamas\_Science\_Czar\_and\_Ecoscience" title="littlegreenfootballs.com" rel="nofollow">eugenist in favor of a planetary government</a> [littlegreenfootballs.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the general public is different from scientists , I hope they 'll resist the new Sciece Czar .
He 's a eugenist in favor of a planetary government [ littlegreenfootballs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the general public is different from scientists, I hope they'll resist the new Sciece Czar.
He's a eugenist in favor of a planetary government [littlegreenfootballs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659557</id>
	<title>Re: skimpy media coverage of science</title>
	<author>wexsessa</author>
	<datestamp>1247323920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I was living in Britain in the late 1970s, the BBC announced a new evening radio programme to cover the Arts &amp; Sciences in more depth. For a few weeks it looked promising, but the ratio or Arts to Science gradually tilted towards the Arts and the Science withered to a few occasional short items.

I assumed that this was due to the Beeb being inhabited primarily by Arts people, who love to talk about their work, whereas the Science people were busy elsewhere doing their science.

Here in Canada the CBC has an hour of science a week (Quirks &amp; Quarks, Saturday mid-day &amp; repeated one late evening), which is quite decent (at the interested lay people level). They cover three or four topics in some depth.

But the CBC's Arts programming greatly exceeds it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I was living in Britain in the late 1970s , the BBC announced a new evening radio programme to cover the Arts &amp; Sciences in more depth .
For a few weeks it looked promising , but the ratio or Arts to Science gradually tilted towards the Arts and the Science withered to a few occasional short items .
I assumed that this was due to the Beeb being inhabited primarily by Arts people , who love to talk about their work , whereas the Science people were busy elsewhere doing their science .
Here in Canada the CBC has an hour of science a week ( Quirks &amp; Quarks , Saturday mid-day &amp; repeated one late evening ) , which is quite decent ( at the interested lay people level ) .
They cover three or four topics in some depth .
But the CBC 's Arts programming greatly exceeds it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I was living in Britain in the late 1970s, the BBC announced a new evening radio programme to cover the Arts &amp; Sciences in more depth.
For a few weeks it looked promising, but the ratio or Arts to Science gradually tilted towards the Arts and the Science withered to a few occasional short items.
I assumed that this was due to the Beeb being inhabited primarily by Arts people, who love to talk about their work, whereas the Science people were busy elsewhere doing their science.
Here in Canada the CBC has an hour of science a week (Quirks &amp; Quarks, Saturday mid-day &amp; repeated one late evening), which is quite decent (at the interested lay people level).
They cover three or four topics in some depth.
But the CBC's Arts programming greatly exceeds it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659465</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1247323080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot has changed since then and even the term scientist as well. There are however still biased scientists today as there were back then, scientists whom receive their paychecks from tobacco companies to supply data that brings doubt to lung diseases caused by smoking tobacco. Still to gain the acceptance of the majority of scientists today should not be taken lightly, as it is not an easy task.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot has changed since then and even the term scientist as well .
There are however still biased scientists today as there were back then , scientists whom receive their paychecks from tobacco companies to supply data that brings doubt to lung diseases caused by smoking tobacco .
Still to gain the acceptance of the majority of scientists today should not be taken lightly , as it is not an easy task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot has changed since then and even the term scientist as well.
There are however still biased scientists today as there were back then, scientists whom receive their paychecks from tobacco companies to supply data that brings doubt to lung diseases caused by smoking tobacco.
Still to gain the acceptance of the majority of scientists today should not be taken lightly, as it is not an easy task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28673473</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Phist</author>
	<datestamp>1247475780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bush bashing - bash bash bash.</p><p>Riddle: Why did the U.S. Department of energy leave off water vapor as a significant greenhouse gas in its 2000 report on significant greenhouse gases?</p><p>Answer: To make human emission of carbon dioxide seem more significant than it really is.</p><p>However, scientists are not stupid and know there is money to be made solving for fictitious problems created from politics.</p><p><a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse\_data.html" title="geocraft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse\_data.html</a> [geocraft.com]</p><p>Back to your bush bashing republican hate speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bush bashing - bash bash bash.Riddle : Why did the U.S. Department of energy leave off water vapor as a significant greenhouse gas in its 2000 report on significant greenhouse gases ? Answer : To make human emission of carbon dioxide seem more significant than it really is.However , scientists are not stupid and know there is money to be made solving for fictitious problems created from politics.http : //www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse \ _data.html [ geocraft.com ] Back to your bush bashing republican hate speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bush bashing - bash bash bash.Riddle: Why did the U.S. Department of energy leave off water vapor as a significant greenhouse gas in its 2000 report on significant greenhouse gases?Answer: To make human emission of carbon dioxide seem more significant than it really is.However, scientists are not stupid and know there is money to be made solving for fictitious problems created from politics.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse\_data.html [geocraft.com]Back to your bush bashing republican hate speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662729</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247303040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nasarius, you dispute, "can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation" with...</p><p><i>3. The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.</i></p><p><i>Which point, exactly, is in dispute?</i> </p><p>Prove this from first principles and do so with ONLY with a high school non-AP chemistry text ("simple chemistry") and any texts prerequisite to the taking of an 11th or 12th year non-AP chemistry class (jr or sr high school year).  Do not leave out any steps where by you prove <b>conclusively</b> that the Earth will get warmer from this process, what the time scales are, what the extent of that warming is, the negative or positive effects (and the net effect) of this change, the sustainability of this change over time given claims to "peak oil" and what not, the relative magnitude of this affect to related variables like sunspots and surface albedo, the interaction of that CO2 with the oceans, atmosphere &amp; continents, include the affect and interaction of CO2 on concentrations of O2 &amp; N2 &amp; H2O &amp; particulates &amp; NOX &amp; O3 &amp; Ar<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) &amp; arbitrary CXHXOX &amp; CLOUDS, the ability of these changes to be affected <i>positively</i> by a national political process, and by a multi-national political process.  This shouldn't be difficult given your claim, "well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry".</p><p>I expect a comprehensive reply within a week or you will be forever branded: Nasarius (593729) - Talks out his/her ass.  You might want to reflect on why some people take complex issues and lie about them being "simple".</p><p>To simplify your assignment, you may augment your dataset with basic physical properties not found in a text but available in a suitable reference (anything <i>well established</i> from the CRC press references collection).  Further, you may assume CO2 concentrations increasing from 300 ppm to 400 ppm over a 100 year period with a sustained peak of 400 ppm for 100 more years followed by a drop from 400 ppm back to 300 ppm.  Run your "model" (you have one already? right!????) over the 100 years prior and after this change in CO2.  This is a simple 500 year experiment for you and your "simple chemistry".</p><p>BTW, I am not certain that the relative transparency of CO2 to visible light versus infrared light is covered in "simple chemistry".  Aside from the politically-favorable theory of global warming, I am not certain why it would be in a high school chemistry class.  From my recollection, we focused on atomic construction, orbitals, the periodic table of elements (how it arises from the previously studied orbitals), reactions and their relation to basic orbital mechanics, and lots of stoichiometry (stoichiometry!).  Also, I do not recall too much discussion about the relative amounts of radiation put off by the sun.  As a side project, you may want to look into whether or not a red dwarf (more IR than visible radiation) would experience a greenhouse affect similarly.  Of such a hypothetical planet in a suitable orbit, would extra CO2 cool the planet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nasarius , you dispute , " can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation " with...3 .
The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.Which point , exactly , is in dispute ?
Prove this from first principles and do so with ONLY with a high school non-AP chemistry text ( " simple chemistry " ) and any texts prerequisite to the taking of an 11th or 12th year non-AP chemistry class ( jr or sr high school year ) .
Do not leave out any steps where by you prove conclusively that the Earth will get warmer from this process , what the time scales are , what the extent of that warming is , the negative or positive effects ( and the net effect ) of this change , the sustainability of this change over time given claims to " peak oil " and what not , the relative magnitude of this affect to related variables like sunspots and surface albedo , the interaction of that CO2 with the oceans , atmosphere &amp; continents , include the affect and interaction of CO2 on concentrations of O2 &amp; N2 &amp; H2O &amp; particulates &amp; NOX &amp; O3 &amp; Ar : ) &amp; arbitrary CXHXOX &amp; CLOUDS , the ability of these changes to be affected positively by a national political process , and by a multi-national political process .
This should n't be difficult given your claim , " well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry " .I expect a comprehensive reply within a week or you will be forever branded : Nasarius ( 593729 ) - Talks out his/her ass .
You might want to reflect on why some people take complex issues and lie about them being " simple " .To simplify your assignment , you may augment your dataset with basic physical properties not found in a text but available in a suitable reference ( anything well established from the CRC press references collection ) .
Further , you may assume CO2 concentrations increasing from 300 ppm to 400 ppm over a 100 year period with a sustained peak of 400 ppm for 100 more years followed by a drop from 400 ppm back to 300 ppm .
Run your " model " ( you have one already ?
right ! ? ? ? ? ) over the 100 years prior and after this change in CO2 .
This is a simple 500 year experiment for you and your " simple chemistry " .BTW , I am not certain that the relative transparency of CO2 to visible light versus infrared light is covered in " simple chemistry " .
Aside from the politically-favorable theory of global warming , I am not certain why it would be in a high school chemistry class .
From my recollection , we focused on atomic construction , orbitals , the periodic table of elements ( how it arises from the previously studied orbitals ) , reactions and their relation to basic orbital mechanics , and lots of stoichiometry ( stoichiometry ! ) .
Also , I do not recall too much discussion about the relative amounts of radiation put off by the sun .
As a side project , you may want to look into whether or not a red dwarf ( more IR than visible radiation ) would experience a greenhouse affect similarly .
Of such a hypothetical planet in a suitable orbit , would extra CO2 cool the planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nasarius, you dispute, "can we really say that humans are responsible for global warming when all we can really show is a strong correlation" with...3.
The interaction of CO2 with IR radiation is well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry.Which point, exactly, is in dispute?
Prove this from first principles and do so with ONLY with a high school non-AP chemistry text ("simple chemistry") and any texts prerequisite to the taking of an 11th or 12th year non-AP chemistry class (jr or sr high school year).
Do not leave out any steps where by you prove conclusively that the Earth will get warmer from this process, what the time scales are, what the extent of that warming is, the negative or positive effects (and the net effect) of this change, the sustainability of this change over time given claims to "peak oil" and what not, the relative magnitude of this affect to related variables like sunspots and surface albedo, the interaction of that CO2 with the oceans, atmosphere &amp; continents, include the affect and interaction of CO2 on concentrations of O2 &amp; N2 &amp; H2O &amp; particulates &amp; NOX &amp; O3 &amp; Ar :) &amp; arbitrary CXHXOX &amp; CLOUDS, the ability of these changes to be affected positively by a national political process, and by a multi-national political process.
This shouldn't be difficult given your claim, "well-established and well-understood by anyone with an understanding of simple chemistry".I expect a comprehensive reply within a week or you will be forever branded: Nasarius (593729) - Talks out his/her ass.
You might want to reflect on why some people take complex issues and lie about them being "simple".To simplify your assignment, you may augment your dataset with basic physical properties not found in a text but available in a suitable reference (anything well established from the CRC press references collection).
Further, you may assume CO2 concentrations increasing from 300 ppm to 400 ppm over a 100 year period with a sustained peak of 400 ppm for 100 more years followed by a drop from 400 ppm back to 300 ppm.
Run your "model" (you have one already?
right!????) over the 100 years prior and after this change in CO2.
This is a simple 500 year experiment for you and your "simple chemistry".BTW, I am not certain that the relative transparency of CO2 to visible light versus infrared light is covered in "simple chemistry".
Aside from the politically-favorable theory of global warming, I am not certain why it would be in a high school chemistry class.
From my recollection, we focused on atomic construction, orbitals, the periodic table of elements (how it arises from the previously studied orbitals), reactions and their relation to basic orbital mechanics, and lots of stoichiometry (stoichiometry!).
Also, I do not recall too much discussion about the relative amounts of radiation put off by the sun.
As a side project, you may want to look into whether or not a red dwarf (more IR than visible radiation) would experience a greenhouse affect similarly.
Of such a hypothetical planet in a suitable orbit, would extra CO2 cool the planet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665363</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1247332860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dem politicos tend to favor more  funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities.</p> </div><p>Academica is unionized?  Did I somehow miss that memo?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dem politicos tend to favor more funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities .
Academica is unionized ?
Did I somehow miss that memo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dem politicos tend to favor more  funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities.
Academica is unionized?
Did I somehow miss that memo?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</id>
	<title>flat</title>
	<author>hammarlund</author>
	<datestamp>1247322420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The majority of scientists used to agree that the earth was flat. And at the center of the universe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of scientists used to agree that the earth was flat .
And at the center of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of scientists used to agree that the earth was flat.
And at the center of the universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661071</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should apply the scientific ethod to history. Hint: Magellan (well his crew) did his circumvulition decades before Galileo.</p><p>http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat\_earth\_myth.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should apply the scientific ethod to history .
Hint : Magellan ( well his crew ) did his circumvulition decades before Galileo.http : //www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat \ _earth \ _myth.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should apply the scientific ethod to history.
Hint: Magellan (well his crew) did his circumvulition decades before Galileo.http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat\_earth\_myth.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667223</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1247413260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think i would to join a group of "concerned" scientists. Its just doesn't sound that professional or, serious. What about serious scientists? And everybody is an Association these days, I think society works better. The American Society of Serious Scientists... (ASSS).<br> <br>
Unfortunately I am not an American so I would not be eligible...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think i would to join a group of " concerned " scientists .
Its just does n't sound that professional or , serious .
What about serious scientists ?
And everybody is an Association these days , I think society works better .
The American Society of Serious Scientists... ( ASSS ) . Unfortunately I am not an American so I would not be eligible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think i would to join a group of "concerned" scientists.
Its just doesn't sound that professional or, serious.
What about serious scientists?
And everybody is an Association these days, I think society works better.
The American Society of Serious Scientists... (ASSS). 
Unfortunately I am not an American so I would not be eligible...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659631</id>
	<title>Blame tv</title>
	<author>thetacron</author>
	<datestamp>1247324460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that whats constantly being passed on tv as science in US is eclipsing any real discovery. They need to realize that most real discoveries come in small parts ususally building on some one else's works. It's not woops we suddenly have warp drive. That and any real discoveries are being covered up by media hype of who died this week and who is dating who. A media discovery might get 2 minutes on CNN where as a funeral is playing on 16 channels for 2 weeks straight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that whats constantly being passed on tv as science in US is eclipsing any real discovery .
They need to realize that most real discoveries come in small parts ususally building on some one else 's works .
It 's not woops we suddenly have warp drive .
That and any real discoveries are being covered up by media hype of who died this week and who is dating who .
A media discovery might get 2 minutes on CNN where as a funeral is playing on 16 channels for 2 weeks straight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that whats constantly being passed on tv as science in US is eclipsing any real discovery.
They need to realize that most real discoveries come in small parts ususally building on some one else's works.
It's not woops we suddenly have warp drive.
That and any real discoveries are being covered up by media hype of who died this week and who is dating who.
A media discovery might get 2 minutes on CNN where as a funeral is playing on 16 channels for 2 weeks straight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661175</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>nuonguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247334840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This notion that religious views are not related to education level directly contradicts my experience.  From what I've seen, the more religious people are, the less critical thinking they do.  Getting a degree from a theological seminary might be technically be called 'education', but the right term for it is actually 'indoctrination'.  Would you call graduates of a madrasa 'educated'?</p><p>Would the people you cite as examples call themselves young earth creationists, if you asked them?  Would they say that global warming is hoax perpetuated by Al Gore?  Your post provides little to support the hypothesis that ignorance and education level are not proportional.</p><p>It looks to me like you are co-opting them for your argument.  If I found you members of clergy who were atheists or agnostics, would you accept that to support the position that religion and ignorance are directly related?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This notion that religious views are not related to education level directly contradicts my experience .
From what I 've seen , the more religious people are , the less critical thinking they do .
Getting a degree from a theological seminary might be technically be called 'education ' , but the right term for it is actually 'indoctrination' .
Would you call graduates of a madrasa 'educated ' ? Would the people you cite as examples call themselves young earth creationists , if you asked them ?
Would they say that global warming is hoax perpetuated by Al Gore ?
Your post provides little to support the hypothesis that ignorance and education level are not proportional.It looks to me like you are co-opting them for your argument .
If I found you members of clergy who were atheists or agnostics , would you accept that to support the position that religion and ignorance are directly related ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This notion that religious views are not related to education level directly contradicts my experience.
From what I've seen, the more religious people are, the less critical thinking they do.
Getting a degree from a theological seminary might be technically be called 'education', but the right term for it is actually 'indoctrination'.
Would you call graduates of a madrasa 'educated'?Would the people you cite as examples call themselves young earth creationists, if you asked them?
Would they say that global warming is hoax perpetuated by Al Gore?
Your post provides little to support the hypothesis that ignorance and education level are not proportional.It looks to me like you are co-opting them for your argument.
If I found you members of clergy who were atheists or agnostics, would you accept that to support the position that religion and ignorance are directly related?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662749</id>
	<title>Re:Global Governance</title>
	<author>Kligat</author>
	<datestamp>1247303280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined." Well, some have suggested the lack of an El Nino effect, so if they are correct, then global temperatures should begin to rise beyond 1999 levels soon; the ten following years were still the warmest decade on record.</p><p>If there were a big conspiracy to muck with global warming data, tell me why they would screw around with pre-1970s data to lower temperatures, but leave the purported "flatline" data alone? If we don't have the power to change the climate of the Earth yet, then do you think the hole in the ozone layer was a complete scam, too? I recommend modding parent as anything but "insightful" or "informative."</p><p><a href="http://www.livescience.com/environment/090701-shrinking-sea-ice.html" title="livescience.com">Also, dendrochronology is a bitch.</a> [livescience.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined .
" Well , some have suggested the lack of an El Nino effect , so if they are correct , then global temperatures should begin to rise beyond 1999 levels soon ; the ten following years were still the warmest decade on record.If there were a big conspiracy to muck with global warming data , tell me why they would screw around with pre-1970s data to lower temperatures , but leave the purported " flatline " data alone ?
If we do n't have the power to change the climate of the Earth yet , then do you think the hole in the ozone layer was a complete scam , too ?
I recommend modding parent as anything but " insightful " or " informative .
" Also , dendrochronology is a bitch .
[ livescience.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined.
" Well, some have suggested the lack of an El Nino effect, so if they are correct, then global temperatures should begin to rise beyond 1999 levels soon; the ten following years were still the warmest decade on record.If there were a big conspiracy to muck with global warming data, tell me why they would screw around with pre-1970s data to lower temperatures, but leave the purported "flatline" data alone?
If we don't have the power to change the climate of the Earth yet, then do you think the hole in the ozone layer was a complete scam, too?
I recommend modding parent as anything but "insightful" or "informative.
"Also, dendrochronology is a bitch.
[livescience.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</id>
	<title>reality is librul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247321940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans. </i> <br>
<br>
Ahh, reality with it's damned liberal bias again...</htmltext>
<tokenext>32 \ % of scientists identify themselves as Independent , while 55 \ % say they 're Democrats and 6 \ % say they 're Republicans .
Ahh , reality with it 's damned liberal bias again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans.
Ahh, reality with it's damned liberal bias again...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</id>
	<title>Unscientific?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans.</i></p><p>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.</p><p>Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party. Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence. Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>32 \ % of scientists identify themselves as Independent , while 55 \ % say they 're Democrats and 6 \ % say they 're Republicans.Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me .
I 've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life , but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record , stated positions , etc.Frankly , lately , it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party .
Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence .
Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep , objective consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans.Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me.
I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party.
Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence.
Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661647</id>
	<title>"nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea"</title>
	<author>Gonoff</author>
	<datestamp>1247338440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this means that more than 10\% of people identified ad scientists in the USA believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this means that more than 10 \ % of people identified ad scientists in the USA believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this means that more than 10\% of people identified ad scientists in the USA believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662503</id>
	<title>Scientists Could Run the Country</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1247344560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>98\% of scientists will agree that a freeze ray is impossible to build with our current understanding of science. 80-some-odd percent of the public will believe a scientist who tells them that thing he is pointing at them is a freeze ray.</htmltext>
<tokenext>98 \ % of scientists will agree that a freeze ray is impossible to build with our current understanding of science .
80-some-odd percent of the public will believe a scientist who tells them that thing he is pointing at them is a freeze ray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>98\% of scientists will agree that a freeze ray is impossible to build with our current understanding of science.
80-some-odd percent of the public will believe a scientist who tells them that thing he is pointing at them is a freeze ray.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660481</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1247330520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The organization he's referring to is the American Association of Concerned Scientists -- which is not the organization used in TFA, but is an open-membership, left-leaning organization of scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The organization he 's referring to is the American Association of Concerned Scientists -- which is not the organization used in TFA , but is an open-membership , left-leaning organization of scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The organization he's referring to is the American Association of Concerned Scientists -- which is not the organization used in TFA, but is an open-membership, left-leaning organization of scientists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664017</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247313420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've got to say this: belief in fictional, mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area.</p></div><p>I'm sure many religious people would agree.  Of course, they just wouldn't agree that their particular god(s) "fictional".
</p><p>I think anytime people begin a discussion with their beliefs already determined and a mind closed to thinking in different ways, where the intent is to force others to believe what you believe without any attempt to understand the others' viewpoints, it's going to be an unproductive discussion.
</p><p>That sort of thing can be caused by religion, but it can be caused by a lot of other things too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got to say this : belief in fictional , mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area.I 'm sure many religious people would agree .
Of course , they just would n't agree that their particular god ( s ) " fictional " .
I think anytime people begin a discussion with their beliefs already determined and a mind closed to thinking in different ways , where the intent is to force others to believe what you believe without any attempt to understand the others ' viewpoints , it 's going to be an unproductive discussion .
That sort of thing can be caused by religion , but it can be caused by a lot of other things too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got to say this: belief in fictional, mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area.I'm sure many religious people would agree.
Of course, they just wouldn't agree that their particular god(s) "fictional".
I think anytime people begin a discussion with their beliefs already determined and a mind closed to thinking in different ways, where the intent is to force others to believe what you believe without any attempt to understand the others' viewpoints, it's going to be an unproductive discussion.
That sort of thing can be caused by religion, but it can be caused by a lot of other things too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663475</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247308800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, religion is the Deus Ex Machina that kills every and any critical discussion regarding the world/nature/humans.</p><p>It's actually worse than a Godwin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , religion is the Deus Ex Machina that kills every and any critical discussion regarding the world/nature/humans.It 's actually worse than a Godwin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, religion is the Deus Ex Machina that kills every and any critical discussion regarding the world/nature/humans.It's actually worse than a Godwin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663405</id>
	<title>9 in 10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247308380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... In a related story 1 out of 10 scientists were found to not be actual scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection " .... In a related story 1 out of 10 scientists were found to not be actual scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection" .... In a related story 1 out of 10 scientists were found to not be actual scientists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665921</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1247431080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beautiful non sequitur at the end.</p><p>You seem to be unaware that large numbers of Christians - especially outside the US - do in fact accept evolution and have no fundamental problems with it.</p><p>The largest Christian organisation in the world (the Catholic Church) sees no contradiction between evolution and Christian faith.</p><p>I will show you an example of your reasoning: "It is quite clear to any reader that Frodo and Sam walked all by themselves from the edge of Mordor to Mount Doom. Therefore no imaginary author called Tolkien had anything to do with their journey." The process of evolution tells us about how the world works. It does not tell us why such a world even exists. If you want to know how Sam and Frodo got to Mount Doom, saying "Tolkien got them there" is both true and unhelpful - the question is really about the process within the story ("they walked") not about how the story as a whole even exists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beautiful non sequitur at the end.You seem to be unaware that large numbers of Christians - especially outside the US - do in fact accept evolution and have no fundamental problems with it.The largest Christian organisation in the world ( the Catholic Church ) sees no contradiction between evolution and Christian faith.I will show you an example of your reasoning : " It is quite clear to any reader that Frodo and Sam walked all by themselves from the edge of Mordor to Mount Doom .
Therefore no imaginary author called Tolkien had anything to do with their journey .
" The process of evolution tells us about how the world works .
It does not tell us why such a world even exists .
If you want to know how Sam and Frodo got to Mount Doom , saying " Tolkien got them there " is both true and unhelpful - the question is really about the process within the story ( " they walked " ) not about how the story as a whole even exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beautiful non sequitur at the end.You seem to be unaware that large numbers of Christians - especially outside the US - do in fact accept evolution and have no fundamental problems with it.The largest Christian organisation in the world (the Catholic Church) sees no contradiction between evolution and Christian faith.I will show you an example of your reasoning: "It is quite clear to any reader that Frodo and Sam walked all by themselves from the edge of Mordor to Mount Doom.
Therefore no imaginary author called Tolkien had anything to do with their journey.
" The process of evolution tells us about how the world works.
It does not tell us why such a world even exists.
If you want to know how Sam and Frodo got to Mount Doom, saying "Tolkien got them there" is both true and unhelpful - the question is really about the process within the story ("they walked") not about how the story as a whole even exists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661289</id>
	<title>Re:9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they're willing to tolerate the cognitive dissonance it is possible to be a scientist and a creationist.  I went to grad school and a lab mate was an actual young-earth creationist.  He was also a competent spectroscopist and passable biochemist.  It's just that whenever evolution slapped him upside the head in lab, he shoved his fingers in his ears and went "lalalaicanthearyou," then if prodded enough went on and followed the up the evolutionary insight with an experiment.  While largely competent, had he not had a bizarre religious hangup on evolution he'd have been a better scientist:  he would have sought out those evolutionary insights instead of having to do mental gymnastics to merely allow them, unacknowledged, to aid his work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're willing to tolerate the cognitive dissonance it is possible to be a scientist and a creationist .
I went to grad school and a lab mate was an actual young-earth creationist .
He was also a competent spectroscopist and passable biochemist .
It 's just that whenever evolution slapped him upside the head in lab , he shoved his fingers in his ears and went " lalalaicanthearyou , " then if prodded enough went on and followed the up the evolutionary insight with an experiment .
While largely competent , had he not had a bizarre religious hangup on evolution he 'd have been a better scientist : he would have sought out those evolutionary insights instead of having to do mental gymnastics to merely allow them , unacknowledged , to aid his work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're willing to tolerate the cognitive dissonance it is possible to be a scientist and a creationist.
I went to grad school and a lab mate was an actual young-earth creationist.
He was also a competent spectroscopist and passable biochemist.
It's just that whenever evolution slapped him upside the head in lab, he shoved his fingers in his ears and went "lalalaicanthearyou," then if prodded enough went on and followed the up the evolutionary insight with an experiment.
While largely competent, had he not had a bizarre religious hangup on evolution he'd have been a better scientist:  he would have sought out those evolutionary insights instead of having to do mental gymnastics to merely allow them, unacknowledged, to aid his work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660581</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1247331120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites. How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being. The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'."</p><p>If your goal is to assess the level of magical thinking in a population, that's not such a bad split.  The problem would arise if you got the natural-processes-guided-by-a-supreme-being crowd opting for "natural processes."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They forced you to choose between 'natural process ' and 'guided by a supreme being ' as exclusive opposites .
How about if you believe ( as most religious people do ) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being .
The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option , when they probably are thinking 'both' .
" If your goal is to assess the level of magical thinking in a population , that 's not such a bad split .
The problem would arise if you got the natural-processes-guided-by-a-supreme-being crowd opting for " natural processes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites.
How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being.
The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'.
"If your goal is to assess the level of magical thinking in a population, that's not such a bad split.
The problem would arise if you got the natural-processes-guided-by-a-supreme-being crowd opting for "natural processes.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659423</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope.  There was no scientific method, so there were no scientists.  At best the majority of *philosophers* agreed the earth was flat and the center of the universe.  On pain of death.<br>
<br>
Or did you forget what the church did to people who started claiming the earth orbited the sun?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
There was no scientific method , so there were no scientists .
At best the majority of * philosophers * agreed the earth was flat and the center of the universe .
On pain of death .
Or did you forget what the church did to people who started claiming the earth orbited the sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
There was no scientific method, so there were no scientists.
At best the majority of *philosophers* agreed the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
On pain of death.
Or did you forget what the church did to people who started claiming the earth orbited the sun?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28677873</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1247505360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me.</p></div><p>Why would voting for a party be more of a scientific endeavour? What would your hypothesis be? How would you run multiple experiments? Time travel? There are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional\_representation" title="wikipedia.org">electoral systems based on voting for a party rather than an individual</a> [wikipedia.org], used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Why would this form of voting be any less scientific than another? What is the difference between voting for a set of people with a manifesto, or an individual with a manifesto (apart from the set having some redundancy)? Shouldn't votes be based on proposals to plan and structure society - proposals that stand on their own merits, rather than the person or persons making them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me.Why would voting for a party be more of a scientific endeavour ?
What would your hypothesis be ?
How would you run multiple experiments ?
Time travel ?
There are electoral systems based on voting for a party rather than an individual [ wikipedia.org ] , used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide .
Why would this form of voting be any less scientific than another ?
What is the difference between voting for a set of people with a manifesto , or an individual with a manifesto ( apart from the set having some redundancy ) ?
Should n't votes be based on proposals to plan and structure society - proposals that stand on their own merits , rather than the person or persons making them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me.Why would voting for a party be more of a scientific endeavour?
What would your hypothesis be?
How would you run multiple experiments?
Time travel?
There are electoral systems based on voting for a party rather than an individual [wikipedia.org], used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
Why would this form of voting be any less scientific than another?
What is the difference between voting for a set of people with a manifesto, or an individual with a manifesto (apart from the set having some redundancy)?
Shouldn't votes be based on proposals to plan and structure society - proposals that stand on their own merits, rather than the person or persons making them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661971</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>oneirophrenos</author>
	<datestamp>1247341140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have 23 chromosome <i>pairs</i>. Before mitosis (cell division), the chromosomes duplicate, producing a diploid set of 46 chromosomes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have 23 chromosome pairs .
Before mitosis ( cell division ) , the chromosomes duplicate , producing a diploid set of 46 chromosomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have 23 chromosome pairs.
Before mitosis (cell division), the chromosomes duplicate, producing a diploid set of 46 chromosomes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661891</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247340600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell you why I think scientists aren't republican.</p><p>1) Scientists try to view all data as equal.  Scientists don't often assign spiritual significance to actions so things such as sex.  As such scientists don't see anything materialistically 'abhorrent' about things like homosexuality.</p><p>2) Scientists are disproportionately atheist.  And the higher their degree the more likely they are to be atheists.  The Republican party likes to assign religious significance to situations.  "God called us to fight the terrorists".   Following God instead of data makes them doubly uncomfortable as both atheists and scientists.</p><p>3) Scientists like to fix things.  When scientists can't fix things themselves or with personally raised funds they need to look outward.  For instance Climate Change isn't something scientists can fix without government assistance.  Scientists also believe that they can cure diseases, solve poverty and end crime.   While Scientists are rather egalitarian in their views of present reality they're also very ambitious and optimistic in general when it comes to our capabilities to enact change.</p><p>A liberal views the singularity and transhumanism as the most significant possible advancement since we evolved sentience.   A conservative views it as the most dangerous advancement in history since it will allow the fundamental altering of humans for the first time.  The conservative religious view it as blasphemy and tantamount to the tower of Babel.   Even the tower of babel is an interesting illustration of liberal and conservative outlooks.   The liberals built a giant tower (using science) to ensure they would never be exterminated by God again and so that they could 'reach heaven' by human means.   God destroys their little tower and discourages cooperation by scrambling their languages and development. The conservative lesson is "Don't rock the boat".   The liberal lesson is "God is a dick".</p><p>4. Scientists tend to try to assess risks based on statistics and not sensationalism.  A scientist sees little threat from Al Qaeda that warrants an enormous outpouring of resources.   Compared to drunk driving, smoking and medical mistakes terrorisms isn't statistically significant enough to warrant a great deal of attention.   To a Republican the fact that we're 'under attack' by a 'force of evil' escalates the danger.</p><p>5. Sarah Palin and her ilk.  The wholesale encouragement for what many perceive as 'anti-intellectualism' from the Republican Party is perceived as a direct attack on their work and contributions to society.</p><p>6.  Scientists probably disproportionately don't believe in free will. (If they're atheists).   Without souls an Atheist is more likely to conclude that all thinking happens in the brain. If all thinking happens in the brain and not a soul then it's bound by chemistry and the laws of nature.  That means everything is a deterministic reaction.  Deterministic reactions can be modified like any environment.  Secularists are more likely to view someone's poverty as the deterministic outcome of having been raised poor and the individual having received poor programming.  A religious conservative is more likely to view the individual as having chosen to be poor because they had a free-will soul which makes decisions independent of upbringing or genetics.</p><p>This informs a great number of liberal vs conservative splits.   If people are programmable then the government is the best way to enact a positive programming.   If people are slaves to deterministic forces then we should help free them from poverty and hunger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you why I think scientists are n't republican.1 ) Scientists try to view all data as equal .
Scientists do n't often assign spiritual significance to actions so things such as sex .
As such scientists do n't see anything materialistically 'abhorrent ' about things like homosexuality.2 ) Scientists are disproportionately atheist .
And the higher their degree the more likely they are to be atheists .
The Republican party likes to assign religious significance to situations .
" God called us to fight the terrorists " .
Following God instead of data makes them doubly uncomfortable as both atheists and scientists.3 ) Scientists like to fix things .
When scientists ca n't fix things themselves or with personally raised funds they need to look outward .
For instance Climate Change is n't something scientists can fix without government assistance .
Scientists also believe that they can cure diseases , solve poverty and end crime .
While Scientists are rather egalitarian in their views of present reality they 're also very ambitious and optimistic in general when it comes to our capabilities to enact change.A liberal views the singularity and transhumanism as the most significant possible advancement since we evolved sentience .
A conservative views it as the most dangerous advancement in history since it will allow the fundamental altering of humans for the first time .
The conservative religious view it as blasphemy and tantamount to the tower of Babel .
Even the tower of babel is an interesting illustration of liberal and conservative outlooks .
The liberals built a giant tower ( using science ) to ensure they would never be exterminated by God again and so that they could 'reach heaven ' by human means .
God destroys their little tower and discourages cooperation by scrambling their languages and development .
The conservative lesson is " Do n't rock the boat " .
The liberal lesson is " God is a dick " .4 .
Scientists tend to try to assess risks based on statistics and not sensationalism .
A scientist sees little threat from Al Qaeda that warrants an enormous outpouring of resources .
Compared to drunk driving , smoking and medical mistakes terrorisms is n't statistically significant enough to warrant a great deal of attention .
To a Republican the fact that we 're 'under attack ' by a 'force of evil ' escalates the danger.5 .
Sarah Palin and her ilk .
The wholesale encouragement for what many perceive as 'anti-intellectualism ' from the Republican Party is perceived as a direct attack on their work and contributions to society.6 .
Scientists probably disproportionately do n't believe in free will .
( If they 're atheists ) .
Without souls an Atheist is more likely to conclude that all thinking happens in the brain .
If all thinking happens in the brain and not a soul then it 's bound by chemistry and the laws of nature .
That means everything is a deterministic reaction .
Deterministic reactions can be modified like any environment .
Secularists are more likely to view someone 's poverty as the deterministic outcome of having been raised poor and the individual having received poor programming .
A religious conservative is more likely to view the individual as having chosen to be poor because they had a free-will soul which makes decisions independent of upbringing or genetics.This informs a great number of liberal vs conservative splits .
If people are programmable then the government is the best way to enact a positive programming .
If people are slaves to deterministic forces then we should help free them from poverty and hunger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you why I think scientists aren't republican.1) Scientists try to view all data as equal.
Scientists don't often assign spiritual significance to actions so things such as sex.
As such scientists don't see anything materialistically 'abhorrent' about things like homosexuality.2) Scientists are disproportionately atheist.
And the higher their degree the more likely they are to be atheists.
The Republican party likes to assign religious significance to situations.
"God called us to fight the terrorists".
Following God instead of data makes them doubly uncomfortable as both atheists and scientists.3) Scientists like to fix things.
When scientists can't fix things themselves or with personally raised funds they need to look outward.
For instance Climate Change isn't something scientists can fix without government assistance.
Scientists also believe that they can cure diseases, solve poverty and end crime.
While Scientists are rather egalitarian in their views of present reality they're also very ambitious and optimistic in general when it comes to our capabilities to enact change.A liberal views the singularity and transhumanism as the most significant possible advancement since we evolved sentience.
A conservative views it as the most dangerous advancement in history since it will allow the fundamental altering of humans for the first time.
The conservative religious view it as blasphemy and tantamount to the tower of Babel.
Even the tower of babel is an interesting illustration of liberal and conservative outlooks.
The liberals built a giant tower (using science) to ensure they would never be exterminated by God again and so that they could 'reach heaven' by human means.
God destroys their little tower and discourages cooperation by scrambling their languages and development.
The conservative lesson is "Don't rock the boat".
The liberal lesson is "God is a dick".4.
Scientists tend to try to assess risks based on statistics and not sensationalism.
A scientist sees little threat from Al Qaeda that warrants an enormous outpouring of resources.
Compared to drunk driving, smoking and medical mistakes terrorisms isn't statistically significant enough to warrant a great deal of attention.
To a Republican the fact that we're 'under attack' by a 'force of evil' escalates the danger.5.
Sarah Palin and her ilk.
The wholesale encouragement for what many perceive as 'anti-intellectualism' from the Republican Party is perceived as a direct attack on their work and contributions to society.6.
Scientists probably disproportionately don't believe in free will.
(If they're atheists).
Without souls an Atheist is more likely to conclude that all thinking happens in the brain.
If all thinking happens in the brain and not a soul then it's bound by chemistry and the laws of nature.
That means everything is a deterministic reaction.
Deterministic reactions can be modified like any environment.
Secularists are more likely to view someone's poverty as the deterministic outcome of having been raised poor and the individual having received poor programming.
A religious conservative is more likely to view the individual as having chosen to be poor because they had a free-will soul which makes decisions independent of upbringing or genetics.This informs a great number of liberal vs conservative splits.
If people are programmable then the government is the best way to enact a positive programming.
If people are slaves to deterministic forces then we should help free them from poverty and hunger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662661</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247345760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My father is a PhD theologian and Philosopher.   He used to be a pastor as well.   I would describe him as liberal.  Both theologically and politically.</p><p>I grew up around lots of PhD Theologians and I would say my dad was not an outliers.  There were some conservatives but by and large they tended to be more theologically liberal than their students.    The more you learn about religion often the less black and white it becomes.</p><p>Also I would say that bishops tend to be politically liberal.  Much more so than their congregations.  After all these are people who espouse socialism and welfare to the nth degree.   They've completely committed their lives to public service.    Even as an atheist I probably have more in common with the average political goals of the catholic church than the republican party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My father is a PhD theologian and Philosopher .
He used to be a pastor as well .
I would describe him as liberal .
Both theologically and politically.I grew up around lots of PhD Theologians and I would say my dad was not an outliers .
There were some conservatives but by and large they tended to be more theologically liberal than their students .
The more you learn about religion often the less black and white it becomes.Also I would say that bishops tend to be politically liberal .
Much more so than their congregations .
After all these are people who espouse socialism and welfare to the nth degree .
They 've completely committed their lives to public service .
Even as an atheist I probably have more in common with the average political goals of the catholic church than the republican party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father is a PhD theologian and Philosopher.
He used to be a pastor as well.
I would describe him as liberal.
Both theologically and politically.I grew up around lots of PhD Theologians and I would say my dad was not an outliers.
There were some conservatives but by and large they tended to be more theologically liberal than their students.
The more you learn about religion often the less black and white it becomes.Also I would say that bishops tend to be politically liberal.
Much more so than their congregations.
After all these are people who espouse socialism and welfare to the nth degree.
They've completely committed their lives to public service.
Even as an atheist I probably have more in common with the average political goals of the catholic church than the republican party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447</id>
	<title>"scientists" are from liberal think tank</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll.  Anyone that wants to fork over $99 can join the AACS, including kindergarten teachers.  Would you call the opinion of a kindergarten teacher the opinion of a scientist?  The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization, so it's no surprise that 55\% say they are Democrats.</p><p>Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of " scientists " to poll .
Anyone that wants to fork over $ 99 can join the AACS , including kindergarten teachers .
Would you call the opinion of a kindergarten teacher the opinion of a scientist ?
The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization , so it 's no surprise that 55 \ % say they are Democrats.Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll.
Anyone that wants to fork over $99 can join the AACS, including kindergarten teachers.
Would you call the opinion of a kindergarten teacher the opinion of a scientist?
The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization, so it's no surprise that 55\% say they are Democrats.Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660591</id>
	<title>Re:These stories are stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientist != "job title"</p><p>I think it's very reasonable to think that someone who claims to be a scientist would be educated about a wide variety of subjects.  A chemist might not know all the specific details pertaining to global warming, but they will have a better understanding of the mechanisms and processes involved than a "non-scientist."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientist ! = " job title " I think it 's very reasonable to think that someone who claims to be a scientist would be educated about a wide variety of subjects .
A chemist might not know all the specific details pertaining to global warming , but they will have a better understanding of the mechanisms and processes involved than a " non-scientist .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientist != "job title"I think it's very reasonable to think that someone who claims to be a scientist would be educated about a wide variety of subjects.
A chemist might not know all the specific details pertaining to global warming, but they will have a better understanding of the mechanisms and processes involved than a "non-scientist.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663753</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1247311080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think your father-in-law's views have anything to do with his education level.</p></div><p>Perhaps not his views per se, but his education level affects his credulity.  Particularly in his desire to have everything explained in a very authoritative way -- not necessarily in the most logical or rational way.</p><p>I certainly didn't mean to imply that only the uneducated would be drawn to a life of faith.  Rather that lack of education would predispose one to seeking a more fundamentalist religion.  One where "credulity" passes for "faith", and "certainty" -- not "humility"  or "curiosity" -- is considered a virtue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think your father-in-law 's views have anything to do with his education level.Perhaps not his views per se , but his education level affects his credulity .
Particularly in his desire to have everything explained in a very authoritative way -- not necessarily in the most logical or rational way.I certainly did n't mean to imply that only the uneducated would be drawn to a life of faith .
Rather that lack of education would predispose one to seeking a more fundamentalist religion .
One where " credulity " passes for " faith " , and " certainty " -- not " humility " or " curiosity " -- is considered a virtue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think your father-in-law's views have anything to do with his education level.Perhaps not his views per se, but his education level affects his credulity.
Particularly in his desire to have everything explained in a very authoritative way -- not necessarily in the most logical or rational way.I certainly didn't mean to imply that only the uneducated would be drawn to a life of faith.
Rather that lack of education would predispose one to seeking a more fundamentalist religion.
One where "credulity" passes for "faith", and "certainty" -- not "humility"  or "curiosity" -- is considered a virtue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28669273</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>slak variable</author>
	<datestamp>1247432160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The study was done relying on the AAAS... it is not a randomly selected set of scientists.
Given the survey was done about attitudes toward the Bush administration it's not non-partisan. It's also out of office for those who keep up with current events. Why drag out a dead horse to flog?? Lack of live horses?
The Pew is notorious for cooking up these little smear jobs. Frankly I think it's a smokescreen to cover the background of the new science 'czar'...a disciple of Margaret Sanger. Whatever the attitudes the public has toward science, a little more integrity on the behalf of scientists would go a long way...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The study was done relying on the AAAS... it is not a randomly selected set of scientists .
Given the survey was done about attitudes toward the Bush administration it 's not non-partisan .
It 's also out of office for those who keep up with current events .
Why drag out a dead horse to flog ? ?
Lack of live horses ?
The Pew is notorious for cooking up these little smear jobs .
Frankly I think it 's a smokescreen to cover the background of the new science 'czar'...a disciple of Margaret Sanger .
Whatever the attitudes the public has toward science , a little more integrity on the behalf of scientists would go a long way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study was done relying on the AAAS... it is not a randomly selected set of scientists.
Given the survey was done about attitudes toward the Bush administration it's not non-partisan.
It's also out of office for those who keep up with current events.
Why drag out a dead horse to flog??
Lack of live horses?
The Pew is notorious for cooking up these little smear jobs.
Frankly I think it's a smokescreen to cover the background of the new science 'czar'...a disciple of Margaret Sanger.
Whatever the attitudes the public has toward science, a little more integrity on the behalf of scientists would go a long way...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661545</id>
	<title>Cosmology informs eschatology</title>
	<author>rlseaman</author>
	<datestamp>1247337600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The poll says more about Democrats than about scientists.  Whether causally or casually, Democrats want to be perceived as being the "Smart Party".  On the other hand, the Republicans have been referred to as the "Stupid Party" (<a href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004449" title="harpers.org">http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004449</a> [harpers.org]).  One could argue that there is more evolutionary advantage for a party that appeals broadly to the uneducated than for a party that appeals narrowly to the educated.  And hence the lack of enthusiasm among the Republican elites for educating the masses.</p><p>Some subset of the religious far right in America have difficulty reconciling the overt word of God with the covert evidence of God's creation.  Again, this says more about human nature than it does about Nature's God.  An all powerful deity certainly could have planted pre-aged fossils underground - as well as layered the bedrock of the world with metamorphic, sedimentary and igneous strata that tell a coherent worldwide tale of deep time.  The innumerable celestial clocks of planets, stars and galaxies could have been set in vast logically interconnected ways stretching back billions of years before James Ussher assures us the Universe first drew breathe.  But again, doesn't this say more about the good Bishop than it does about He to whom the tetragrammaton refers?</p><p>We share the world with the few who share our individual ideas and ideals and with the many who will dispute us.  Every one of the faithful from every one of the world's great and small religions is an atheist - toward all the other religions.  Who now believes in Jupiter and Ra, Zeus and Odin?  A poll of what scientists believe is as pointless as a poll of spiritual beliefs.  The defining difference, rather, is that at the end of the day (or aeon) there is now and ever shall be one science, but many religions.</p><p>To deny religion is commonplace - at least the denial of specific religions belonging to others.  To deny specific facts uncovered through scientific methods is also commonplace - even more so from other scientists.  But the real world is ever ready to overcome all arguments.  Humans will most likely be long gone before the supervolcano under Yellowstone reasserts its own scientific world view.  But however long that Apocalypse is in coming, one can be confident that it will arrive before the Rapture (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture</a> [wikipedia.org]).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The poll says more about Democrats than about scientists .
Whether causally or casually , Democrats want to be perceived as being the " Smart Party " .
On the other hand , the Republicans have been referred to as the " Stupid Party " ( http : //www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004449 [ harpers.org ] ) .
One could argue that there is more evolutionary advantage for a party that appeals broadly to the uneducated than for a party that appeals narrowly to the educated .
And hence the lack of enthusiasm among the Republican elites for educating the masses.Some subset of the religious far right in America have difficulty reconciling the overt word of God with the covert evidence of God 's creation .
Again , this says more about human nature than it does about Nature 's God .
An all powerful deity certainly could have planted pre-aged fossils underground - as well as layered the bedrock of the world with metamorphic , sedimentary and igneous strata that tell a coherent worldwide tale of deep time .
The innumerable celestial clocks of planets , stars and galaxies could have been set in vast logically interconnected ways stretching back billions of years before James Ussher assures us the Universe first drew breathe .
But again , does n't this say more about the good Bishop than it does about He to whom the tetragrammaton refers ? We share the world with the few who share our individual ideas and ideals and with the many who will dispute us .
Every one of the faithful from every one of the world 's great and small religions is an atheist - toward all the other religions .
Who now believes in Jupiter and Ra , Zeus and Odin ?
A poll of what scientists believe is as pointless as a poll of spiritual beliefs .
The defining difference , rather , is that at the end of the day ( or aeon ) there is now and ever shall be one science , but many religions.To deny religion is commonplace - at least the denial of specific religions belonging to others .
To deny specific facts uncovered through scientific methods is also commonplace - even more so from other scientists .
But the real world is ever ready to overcome all arguments .
Humans will most likely be long gone before the supervolcano under Yellowstone reasserts its own scientific world view .
But however long that Apocalypse is in coming , one can be confident that it will arrive before the Rapture ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture [ wikipedia.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The poll says more about Democrats than about scientists.
Whether causally or casually, Democrats want to be perceived as being the "Smart Party".
On the other hand, the Republicans have been referred to as the "Stupid Party" (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004449 [harpers.org]).
One could argue that there is more evolutionary advantage for a party that appeals broadly to the uneducated than for a party that appeals narrowly to the educated.
And hence the lack of enthusiasm among the Republican elites for educating the masses.Some subset of the religious far right in America have difficulty reconciling the overt word of God with the covert evidence of God's creation.
Again, this says more about human nature than it does about Nature's God.
An all powerful deity certainly could have planted pre-aged fossils underground - as well as layered the bedrock of the world with metamorphic, sedimentary and igneous strata that tell a coherent worldwide tale of deep time.
The innumerable celestial clocks of planets, stars and galaxies could have been set in vast logically interconnected ways stretching back billions of years before James Ussher assures us the Universe first drew breathe.
But again, doesn't this say more about the good Bishop than it does about He to whom the tetragrammaton refers?We share the world with the few who share our individual ideas and ideals and with the many who will dispute us.
Every one of the faithful from every one of the world's great and small religions is an atheist - toward all the other religions.
Who now believes in Jupiter and Ra, Zeus and Odin?
A poll of what scientists believe is as pointless as a poll of spiritual beliefs.
The defining difference, rather, is that at the end of the day (or aeon) there is now and ever shall be one science, but many religions.To deny religion is commonplace - at least the denial of specific religions belonging to others.
To deny specific facts uncovered through scientific methods is also commonplace - even more so from other scientists.
But the real world is ever ready to overcome all arguments.
Humans will most likely be long gone before the supervolcano under Yellowstone reasserts its own scientific world view.
But however long that Apocalypse is in coming, one can be confident that it will arrive before the Rapture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture [wikipedia.org]).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28763675</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248093300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not a good way to start a debate when you're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.</p></div><p>Debate? On what basis should we even entertain the notion that a person such as yourself, voicing such self-serving, spoon-fed denials, could ever be convinced that global warming is (a) actual, (b) largely driven by human activity, and (c) disastrous?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>CO2 just seems to be a popular whipping boy these days because it appeals to environmentalists who've always been against fossil fuels, anti-capitalists who are against Big Oil, and anti-Westerners who would be happy to see the Western powers (i.e. the U.S.) come to economic harm while they can handily skirt any emissions controls on their own industry (see Kyoto protocols).</p></div><p>Not from where I'm standing. It seems to me that those who are fighting to get humanity to DO SOMETHING about global warming are the real whipping boys here. They're the ones with the uphill battle, who are having to amass a huge body of evidence just to pry the heads of pseudo-intellectual lemmings such as yourself out of Big Oil's arse. Denial of global warming is not reasonable skepticism, it's just a pathetic attempt to believe that people can dump on Mother Earth all they want and not face consequences. Don't pretend to be the voice of reason. You may as well persist in arguing that the Earth is flat. Or is that debate still open, too? Perhaps you still think cigarettes are good for you?</p><p>The arguments with which you have graced us have a very clear source: Propaganda from oil companies who want to keep selling oil, and from conservative politicians who will never agree to anything that might diminish American oligarchy, even if refusing threatens American (and human) survival.</p><p>And yes, I have stooped to a personal attack. I'm not above that, if the situation calls for it. However, let me address one point you made: Water vapor may be the most prominent greenhouse gas, but considering the vastness of the oceans, its contribution is relatively STABLE. The Law of Diminished Returns might make it unlikely that, say, ozone levels contribute significantly to global warming, but it does not rule out the SECOND most prominent contributor -- CO2. Of course, if you even understood your own arguments, you would have thought of that already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a good way to start a debate when you 're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.Debate ?
On what basis should we even entertain the notion that a person such as yourself , voicing such self-serving , spoon-fed denials , could ever be convinced that global warming is ( a ) actual , ( b ) largely driven by human activity , and ( c ) disastrous ? CO2 just seems to be a popular whipping boy these days because it appeals to environmentalists who 've always been against fossil fuels , anti-capitalists who are against Big Oil , and anti-Westerners who would be happy to see the Western powers ( i.e .
the U.S. ) come to economic harm while they can handily skirt any emissions controls on their own industry ( see Kyoto protocols ) .Not from where I 'm standing .
It seems to me that those who are fighting to get humanity to DO SOMETHING about global warming are the real whipping boys here .
They 're the ones with the uphill battle , who are having to amass a huge body of evidence just to pry the heads of pseudo-intellectual lemmings such as yourself out of Big Oil 's arse .
Denial of global warming is not reasonable skepticism , it 's just a pathetic attempt to believe that people can dump on Mother Earth all they want and not face consequences .
Do n't pretend to be the voice of reason .
You may as well persist in arguing that the Earth is flat .
Or is that debate still open , too ?
Perhaps you still think cigarettes are good for you ? The arguments with which you have graced us have a very clear source : Propaganda from oil companies who want to keep selling oil , and from conservative politicians who will never agree to anything that might diminish American oligarchy , even if refusing threatens American ( and human ) survival.And yes , I have stooped to a personal attack .
I 'm not above that , if the situation calls for it .
However , let me address one point you made : Water vapor may be the most prominent greenhouse gas , but considering the vastness of the oceans , its contribution is relatively STABLE .
The Law of Diminished Returns might make it unlikely that , say , ozone levels contribute significantly to global warming , but it does not rule out the SECOND most prominent contributor -- CO2 .
Of course , if you even understood your own arguments , you would have thought of that already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a good way to start a debate when you're trying to convince someone else of your point of view.Debate?
On what basis should we even entertain the notion that a person such as yourself, voicing such self-serving, spoon-fed denials, could ever be convinced that global warming is (a) actual, (b) largely driven by human activity, and (c) disastrous?CO2 just seems to be a popular whipping boy these days because it appeals to environmentalists who've always been against fossil fuels, anti-capitalists who are against Big Oil, and anti-Westerners who would be happy to see the Western powers (i.e.
the U.S.) come to economic harm while they can handily skirt any emissions controls on their own industry (see Kyoto protocols).Not from where I'm standing.
It seems to me that those who are fighting to get humanity to DO SOMETHING about global warming are the real whipping boys here.
They're the ones with the uphill battle, who are having to amass a huge body of evidence just to pry the heads of pseudo-intellectual lemmings such as yourself out of Big Oil's arse.
Denial of global warming is not reasonable skepticism, it's just a pathetic attempt to believe that people can dump on Mother Earth all they want and not face consequences.
Don't pretend to be the voice of reason.
You may as well persist in arguing that the Earth is flat.
Or is that debate still open, too?
Perhaps you still think cigarettes are good for you?The arguments with which you have graced us have a very clear source: Propaganda from oil companies who want to keep selling oil, and from conservative politicians who will never agree to anything that might diminish American oligarchy, even if refusing threatens American (and human) survival.And yes, I have stooped to a personal attack.
I'm not above that, if the situation calls for it.
However, let me address one point you made: Water vapor may be the most prominent greenhouse gas, but considering the vastness of the oceans, its contribution is relatively STABLE.
The Law of Diminished Returns might make it unlikely that, say, ozone levels contribute significantly to global warming, but it does not rule out the SECOND most prominent contributor -- CO2.
Of course, if you even understood your own arguments, you would have thought of that already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661901</id>
	<title>Re:Serious problem with this Pew poll</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1247340660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.</p></div><p>It's interesting that you take another blog as the gospel here. Could it be that you want this study to be flawed, so you're looking for any tenuous excuse to discredit the methodology? I've seen this same argument repeated here numerous time. Did none of you bother to actually look at the study methodology? It specifically excluded AAAS members that were primary and secondary level educators. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".</p></div><p>I challenge you to support your claims. You have several quoted items there, but I sure don't see those quotes on the AAAS Website, so where are they from? The closest thing I see is the 6th of their stated goals which is "Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;" which maybe you read as some sort of affirmative action or something, but which seems to be a practical goal, not a liberal agenda, to me. Diversity is a kind of strength, providing flexibility and range for organizations. Finally, although I don't see it listed as an AAAS goal, since when is advancing human rights a liberal agenda? I thought both liberal and conservative ends of the political spectrum were human rights advocates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization .
All you need to do is send them $ 146 .
School teachers are especially encouraged to join , and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.It 's interesting that you take another blog as the gospel here .
Could it be that you want this study to be flawed , so you 're looking for any tenuous excuse to discredit the methodology ?
I 've seen this same argument repeated here numerous time .
Did none of you bother to actually look at the study methodology ?
It specifically excluded AAAS members that were primary and secondary level educators .
The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as " Increase diversity in the scientific community , " " Use science to advance human rights " ( sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International ) , " Sustainable Development " and " Women 's Collaboration " .I challenge you to support your claims .
You have several quoted items there , but I sure do n't see those quotes on the AAAS Website , so where are they from ?
The closest thing I see is the 6th of their stated goals which is " Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce ; " which maybe you read as some sort of affirmative action or something , but which seems to be a practical goal , not a liberal agenda , to me .
Diversity is a kind of strength , providing flexibility and range for organizations .
Finally , although I do n't see it listed as an AAAS goal , since when is advancing human rights a liberal agenda ?
I thought both liberal and conservative ends of the political spectrum were human rights advocates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization.
All you need to do is send them $146.
School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.It's interesting that you take another blog as the gospel here.
Could it be that you want this study to be flawed, so you're looking for any tenuous excuse to discredit the methodology?
I've seen this same argument repeated here numerous time.
Did none of you bother to actually look at the study methodology?
It specifically excluded AAAS members that were primary and secondary level educators.
The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".I challenge you to support your claims.
You have several quoted items there, but I sure don't see those quotes on the AAAS Website, so where are they from?
The closest thing I see is the 6th of their stated goals which is "Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;" which maybe you read as some sort of affirmative action or something, but which seems to be a practical goal, not a liberal agenda, to me.
Diversity is a kind of strength, providing flexibility and range for organizations.
Finally, although I don't see it listed as an AAAS goal, since when is advancing human rights a liberal agenda?
I thought both liberal and conservative ends of the political spectrum were human rights advocates.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659875</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education."</p><p>Sorry but I went to Catholic School from 1-12 (for readers outside the US, HS is 9-12) and I understood Darwin and so did my fellow students. I also went to "progressive" Catholic Schools that did not feel the need to evangelize every second of the day. I kept the core beliefs, but am cool with the fact that we don't know all the details behind His works.</p><p>I was also an avid Trekker who was constantly evangelizing scientific exploration, biological research, technological development, and why the captain always gets the girls<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... which leaves serious doubts about the validity of " scientific theories " in the minds of individuals with high school education .
" Sorry but I went to Catholic School from 1-12 ( for readers outside the US , HS is 9-12 ) and I understood Darwin and so did my fellow students .
I also went to " progressive " Catholic Schools that did not feel the need to evangelize every second of the day .
I kept the core beliefs , but am cool with the fact that we do n't know all the details behind His works.I was also an avid Trekker who was constantly evangelizing scientific exploration , biological research , technological development , and why the captain always gets the girls .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... which leaves serious doubts about the validity of "scientific theories" in the minds of individuals with high school education.
"Sorry but I went to Catholic School from 1-12 (for readers outside the US, HS is 9-12) and I understood Darwin and so did my fellow students.
I also went to "progressive" Catholic Schools that did not feel the need to evangelize every second of the day.
I kept the core beliefs, but am cool with the fact that we don't know all the details behind His works.I was also an avid Trekker who was constantly evangelizing scientific exploration, biological research, technological development, and why the captain always gets the girls ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28669215</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1247431620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason. Especially since Republicans have been in power for how long? Shouldn't they have all become Republicans so as not to bite the currently feeding hand? Or are you saying they all changed political affiliations since November?</p><p>Perhaps it's because Republicans are generally more small "c" conservative. I.e. more resistant to change and new ideas. These are not particularly good traits for being a scientist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm sure that 's the reason .
Especially since Republicans have been in power for how long ?
Should n't they have all become Republicans so as not to bite the currently feeding hand ?
Or are you saying they all changed political affiliations since November ? Perhaps it 's because Republicans are generally more small " c " conservative .
I.e. more resistant to change and new ideas .
These are not particularly good traits for being a scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason.
Especially since Republicans have been in power for how long?
Shouldn't they have all become Republicans so as not to bite the currently feeding hand?
Or are you saying they all changed political affiliations since November?Perhaps it's because Republicans are generally more small "c" conservative.
I.e. more resistant to change and new ideas.
These are not particularly good traits for being a scientist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665267</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh yeah that makes perfect sense that does.</p><p>christians must be so stupid, believing just any old wacky theory...</p><p>tell me mate, if you're ever lucky enough to have a baby and be there from conception right through to birth and witness everything that takes place, then see your lovely wife breastfeeding your new baby, with milk that is agreed even by scientists to be the best possible liquid to feed and nurture the baby...and that milk arrives EXACTLY at the right time, out of the control of the mother....</p><p>ask yourself how evolution fits in?  Try to get your head around which had to come first...mutations are understood to be so rare that all of these things happening within 1 lifetime on the same being, seems a bit impossible dont you think?</p><p>Has it ever occurred to ANY evolutionist that the first living organism that ever existed ALSO had to be self-reproducing? and perfectly so.  not just some half-baked prototype.  EVERYTHING had to work 100\% right from the get-go, or the whole ordeal would've been a flop.  I could go on, but I think you can work out where I'm going with this.</p><p>Forget the scientific explanations for how we got here...none of it disproves the existence of an intelligent creator.  When Adam was created, how old was he?  His "measured" age would've been about say 20-30 at a guess, but his real age, only a few minutes.  Was the earth really millions of years old?  or was it created that way?  Does natural selection just happen? or is it guided along a set path?  Is there such a thing as random?</p><p>Science can only observe and hopefully work out explanations for.  But it cannot prove there is no God.  As for the Bible, most of it is actual history and has been confirmed as FACT (comparing to other works of history).  The rest of it is a matter of belief, but you cannot write off the whole book since a large part of it deals with the history of the nation of Israel.  The Bible cannot prove conclusively that there is a God, neither can anyone else.  All we can do is weigh up the evidence and form an educated opinion.  You can choose not to believe it, but that is no more correct than choosing to believe in it and vice versa.  In other words, if you believe there is a God, that requires faith, but if you believe there is NO God, that requires faith too.  Neither can be proved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh yeah that makes perfect sense that does.christians must be so stupid , believing just any old wacky theory...tell me mate , if you 're ever lucky enough to have a baby and be there from conception right through to birth and witness everything that takes place , then see your lovely wife breastfeeding your new baby , with milk that is agreed even by scientists to be the best possible liquid to feed and nurture the baby...and that milk arrives EXACTLY at the right time , out of the control of the mother....ask yourself how evolution fits in ?
Try to get your head around which had to come first...mutations are understood to be so rare that all of these things happening within 1 lifetime on the same being , seems a bit impossible dont you think ? Has it ever occurred to ANY evolutionist that the first living organism that ever existed ALSO had to be self-reproducing ?
and perfectly so .
not just some half-baked prototype .
EVERYTHING had to work 100 \ % right from the get-go , or the whole ordeal would 've been a flop .
I could go on , but I think you can work out where I 'm going with this.Forget the scientific explanations for how we got here...none of it disproves the existence of an intelligent creator .
When Adam was created , how old was he ?
His " measured " age would 've been about say 20-30 at a guess , but his real age , only a few minutes .
Was the earth really millions of years old ?
or was it created that way ?
Does natural selection just happen ?
or is it guided along a set path ?
Is there such a thing as random ? Science can only observe and hopefully work out explanations for .
But it can not prove there is no God .
As for the Bible , most of it is actual history and has been confirmed as FACT ( comparing to other works of history ) .
The rest of it is a matter of belief , but you can not write off the whole book since a large part of it deals with the history of the nation of Israel .
The Bible can not prove conclusively that there is a God , neither can anyone else .
All we can do is weigh up the evidence and form an educated opinion .
You can choose not to believe it , but that is no more correct than choosing to believe in it and vice versa .
In other words , if you believe there is a God , that requires faith , but if you believe there is NO God , that requires faith too .
Neither can be proved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh yeah that makes perfect sense that does.christians must be so stupid, believing just any old wacky theory...tell me mate, if you're ever lucky enough to have a baby and be there from conception right through to birth and witness everything that takes place, then see your lovely wife breastfeeding your new baby, with milk that is agreed even by scientists to be the best possible liquid to feed and nurture the baby...and that milk arrives EXACTLY at the right time, out of the control of the mother....ask yourself how evolution fits in?
Try to get your head around which had to come first...mutations are understood to be so rare that all of these things happening within 1 lifetime on the same being, seems a bit impossible dont you think?Has it ever occurred to ANY evolutionist that the first living organism that ever existed ALSO had to be self-reproducing?
and perfectly so.
not just some half-baked prototype.
EVERYTHING had to work 100\% right from the get-go, or the whole ordeal would've been a flop.
I could go on, but I think you can work out where I'm going with this.Forget the scientific explanations for how we got here...none of it disproves the existence of an intelligent creator.
When Adam was created, how old was he?
His "measured" age would've been about say 20-30 at a guess, but his real age, only a few minutes.
Was the earth really millions of years old?
or was it created that way?
Does natural selection just happen?
or is it guided along a set path?
Is there such a thing as random?Science can only observe and hopefully work out explanations for.
But it cannot prove there is no God.
As for the Bible, most of it is actual history and has been confirmed as FACT (comparing to other works of history).
The rest of it is a matter of belief, but you cannot write off the whole book since a large part of it deals with the history of the nation of Israel.
The Bible cannot prove conclusively that there is a God, neither can anyone else.
All we can do is weigh up the evidence and form an educated opinion.
You can choose not to believe it, but that is no more correct than choosing to believe in it and vice versa.
In other words, if you believe there is a God, that requires faith, but if you believe there is NO God, that requires faith too.
Neither can be proved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664839</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MOD PARENT UP! All 6 points hit the nail on the head.</p><p>To the guy talking about quantum physics: That's just semantics. The parent is using the 'determinism' in the non-absolute sense. Just because you can't compute *exactly* the state at time t+1 from the state at time t, doesn't mean that those states aren't (strongly) related. To reuse the parent's example, being poor is strongly correlated with being raised poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MOD PARENT UP !
All 6 points hit the nail on the head.To the guy talking about quantum physics : That 's just semantics .
The parent is using the 'determinism ' in the non-absolute sense .
Just because you ca n't compute * exactly * the state at time t + 1 from the state at time t , does n't mean that those states are n't ( strongly ) related .
To reuse the parent 's example , being poor is strongly correlated with being raised poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MOD PARENT UP!
All 6 points hit the nail on the head.To the guy talking about quantum physics: That's just semantics.
The parent is using the 'determinism' in the non-absolute sense.
Just because you can't compute *exactly* the state at time t+1 from the state at time t, doesn't mean that those states aren't (strongly) related.
To reuse the parent's example, being poor is strongly correlated with being raised poor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659861</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The theory that people used to believe the Earth was flat isn't all that true apparently. And modern science is far younger than all that.</p><p>Even moving the argument to something viable like "the earth is at the centre of the solar system", that was a religious viewpoint, not a scientific one - indeed science disproved that, and the religious overlords (supported by their uneducated followers) certainly saw to punish said scientist for that.</p><p>If you want to control people, you educate them poorly, and you create a nanny structure to manage them - religion, or a nanny state, or a media system designed to dull their minds. Science vs. The Masses is one particular part of that - scientists are well educated, and liberal, and a threat to the incumbent powers, so they make the masses anti-science via misinformation and poor education. Turning it into a them versus us thing usually kills off most people's critical analysis ability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory that people used to believe the Earth was flat is n't all that true apparently .
And modern science is far younger than all that.Even moving the argument to something viable like " the earth is at the centre of the solar system " , that was a religious viewpoint , not a scientific one - indeed science disproved that , and the religious overlords ( supported by their uneducated followers ) certainly saw to punish said scientist for that.If you want to control people , you educate them poorly , and you create a nanny structure to manage them - religion , or a nanny state , or a media system designed to dull their minds .
Science vs. The Masses is one particular part of that - scientists are well educated , and liberal , and a threat to the incumbent powers , so they make the masses anti-science via misinformation and poor education .
Turning it into a them versus us thing usually kills off most people 's critical analysis ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory that people used to believe the Earth was flat isn't all that true apparently.
And modern science is far younger than all that.Even moving the argument to something viable like "the earth is at the centre of the solar system", that was a religious viewpoint, not a scientific one - indeed science disproved that, and the religious overlords (supported by their uneducated followers) certainly saw to punish said scientist for that.If you want to control people, you educate them poorly, and you create a nanny structure to manage them - religion, or a nanny state, or a media system designed to dull their minds.
Science vs. The Masses is one particular part of that - scientists are well educated, and liberal, and a threat to the incumbent powers, so they make the masses anti-science via misinformation and poor education.
Turning it into a them versus us thing usually kills off most people's critical analysis ability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665161</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1247330100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when has religion only been about mythical spirits? Where is your reasoning or scientific evidence that such beliefs area always dangerous?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when has religion only been about mythical spirits ?
Where is your reasoning or scientific evidence that such beliefs area always dangerous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when has religion only been about mythical spirits?
Where is your reasoning or scientific evidence that such beliefs area always dangerous?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661753</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>Quothz</author>
	<datestamp>1247339340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Engineers have just as much education as scientists, but the vast majority of engineers I know are heavily tilted to the Republican side.</p></div><p>This is interesting, and as best as I can tell, sort-of correct. Remove the words "vast" and "heavily", and I think you're on base. The best survey I could get was from 1960, unfortunately - more modern attempts I found had poor methodology or were not cited. However, to varying degrees, there does seem to be a trend: The most liberal group by far is social scientists, followed by hard scientists who tend to be more moderate (but still liberal-leaning), followed by engineers, who tend (slightly) toward conservatism.

</p><p>It's worth noting that in all disciplines, from science to business to plumbing, folks who earn higher degrees tend to be more moderate. Statistics on political affiliation by education level are badly poisoned - even contemporaneous studies show wildly different results. Anyone can cherry-pick studies showing that higher education favors their party. However, everyone appears to agree that people with little education are the most polarized politically, and that education gradually mitigates this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Engineers have just as much education as scientists , but the vast majority of engineers I know are heavily tilted to the Republican side.This is interesting , and as best as I can tell , sort-of correct .
Remove the words " vast " and " heavily " , and I think you 're on base .
The best survey I could get was from 1960 , unfortunately - more modern attempts I found had poor methodology or were not cited .
However , to varying degrees , there does seem to be a trend : The most liberal group by far is social scientists , followed by hard scientists who tend to be more moderate ( but still liberal-leaning ) , followed by engineers , who tend ( slightly ) toward conservatism .
It 's worth noting that in all disciplines , from science to business to plumbing , folks who earn higher degrees tend to be more moderate .
Statistics on political affiliation by education level are badly poisoned - even contemporaneous studies show wildly different results .
Anyone can cherry-pick studies showing that higher education favors their party .
However , everyone appears to agree that people with little education are the most polarized politically , and that education gradually mitigates this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engineers have just as much education as scientists, but the vast majority of engineers I know are heavily tilted to the Republican side.This is interesting, and as best as I can tell, sort-of correct.
Remove the words "vast" and "heavily", and I think you're on base.
The best survey I could get was from 1960, unfortunately - more modern attempts I found had poor methodology or were not cited.
However, to varying degrees, there does seem to be a trend: The most liberal group by far is social scientists, followed by hard scientists who tend to be more moderate (but still liberal-leaning), followed by engineers, who tend (slightly) toward conservatism.
It's worth noting that in all disciplines, from science to business to plumbing, folks who earn higher degrees tend to be more moderate.
Statistics on political affiliation by education level are badly poisoned - even contemporaneous studies show wildly different results.
Anyone can cherry-pick studies showing that higher education favors their party.
However, everyone appears to agree that people with little education are the most polarized politically, and that education gradually mitigates this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1247332020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> "32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans."</p></div> </blockquote><p>


Dem politicos tend to favor more  funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities. The Repubs like to fund private outfits like think-tanks and independent contractors. The "scientists" are smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them. (Until they get tenure, that is.) And so that is the way they vote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 32 \ % of scientists identify themselves as Independent , while 55 \ % say they 're Democrats and 6 \ % say they 're Republicans .
" Dem politicos tend to favor more funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities .
The Repubs like to fund private outfits like think-tanks and independent contractors .
The " scientists " are smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them .
( Until they get tenure , that is .
) And so that is the way they vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans.
" 


Dem politicos tend to favor more  funding for the public employee unionized academic types at public colleges and universities.
The Repubs like to fund private outfits like think-tanks and independent contractors.
The "scientists" are smart enough to not bite the hand that feeds them.
(Until they get tenure, that is.
) And so that is the way they vote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665433</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659623</id>
	<title>Global Governance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's too bad the Global Warming debate is being hijacked by politicians.  Al Gore recently described the new climate bill out of the US Congress as <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance" title="climatedepot.com" rel="nofollow">'helping to bring about global governance'</a> [climatedepot.com]
<br> <br>
The problem with the folks not buying into this global warming crap isn't so much the science it's the new taxes and other restrictions of freedom it will impose combined with other countries smart enough not to get involved.
<br> <br>
I think there is building evidence that the scientists that believe it is happening are wrong.  No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined.  The models aren't working.  It seems some agencies are adjusting data to agree with their models, when in reality we aren't experiencing the warming we've been warned about.  <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard\_nasa\_thermometer/print.html" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Here is an article that illustrates this problem.</a> [theregister.co.uk]
<br> <br>
The debate isn't over and the folks understand that, especially considering the burden that will be imposed on them if they go along with it.
<br> <br>
You don't have to be computer scientist to use a computer.  Likewise, folks know they don't have to be scientists to understand that it is very unlikely that we have the power to affect the climate of the earth.  Additionally they are seeing the data and they are seeing that reality isn't agreeing with scientists models.
<br> <br>
Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers.  The (false) notion that this planet is warming <a href="http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam\_5.2" title="uah.edu" rel="nofollow">is starting to give way to reality </a> [uah.edu], and the regular folks understand that.
<br> <br>
Kevin</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too bad the Global Warming debate is being hijacked by politicians .
Al Gore recently described the new climate bill out of the US Congress as 'helping to bring about global governance ' [ climatedepot.com ] The problem with the folks not buying into this global warming crap is n't so much the science it 's the new taxes and other restrictions of freedom it will impose combined with other countries smart enough not to get involved .
I think there is building evidence that the scientists that believe it is happening are wrong .
No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined .
The models are n't working .
It seems some agencies are adjusting data to agree with their models , when in reality we are n't experiencing the warming we 've been warned about .
Here is an article that illustrates this problem .
[ theregister.co.uk ] The debate is n't over and the folks understand that , especially considering the burden that will be imposed on them if they go along with it .
You do n't have to be computer scientist to use a computer .
Likewise , folks know they do n't have to be scientists to understand that it is very unlikely that we have the power to affect the climate of the earth .
Additionally they are seeing the data and they are seeing that reality is n't agreeing with scientists models .
Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers .
The ( false ) notion that this planet is warming is starting to give way to reality [ uah.edu ] , and the regular folks understand that .
Kevin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too bad the Global Warming debate is being hijacked by politicians.
Al Gore recently described the new climate bill out of the US Congress as 'helping to bring about global governance' [climatedepot.com]
 
The problem with the folks not buying into this global warming crap isn't so much the science it's the new taxes and other restrictions of freedom it will impose combined with other countries smart enough not to get involved.
I think there is building evidence that the scientists that believe it is happening are wrong.
No one can explain why global temperatures have flat-lined.
The models aren't working.
It seems some agencies are adjusting data to agree with their models, when in reality we aren't experiencing the warming we've been warned about.
Here is an article that illustrates this problem.
[theregister.co.uk]
 
The debate isn't over and the folks understand that, especially considering the burden that will be imposed on them if they go along with it.
You don't have to be computer scientist to use a computer.
Likewise, folks know they don't have to be scientists to understand that it is very unlikely that we have the power to affect the climate of the earth.
Additionally they are seeing the data and they are seeing that reality isn't agreeing with scientists models.
Satellite data is starting to show a bunch of negative numbers.
The (false) notion that this planet is warming is starting to give way to reality  [uah.edu], and the regular folks understand that.
Kevin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28669405</id>
	<title>Scientists</title>
	<author>danielpauldavis</author>
	<datestamp>1247390220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution
by natural selection, but [2]just a third of the public does. And while
84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human
activity, less than half of the public agrees with that."
That's because, unlike 94\% of scientists, the public is both willing and able to read the other half of the story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution by natural selection , but [ 2 ] just a third of the public does .
And while 84 \ % of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity , less than half of the public agrees with that .
" That 's because , unlike 94 \ % of scientists , the public is both willing and able to read the other half of the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"nearly 9 in 10 scientists accept the idea of evolution
by natural selection, but [2]just a third of the public does.
And while
84\% of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human
activity, less than half of the public agrees with that.
"
That's because, unlike 94\% of scientists, the public is both willing and able to read the other half of the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659963</id>
	<title>Look at discovery channel</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1247327100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It used to have REAL documentaries about serious subjects. Nowadays I amazed between the endless blowing things up stuff to find a tiny morsel of information I already knew when I was 10.
</p><p>Take the slashdot population. Most are drooling over the mythbusters especially since they added tits for ratings. But the series has REALLY gone down. Gone is any sense of serious myths, or getting experts to explain the background. Now it is all about blowing things up to the point where a lot of the stuff they do becomes very bad science.
</p><p>The world is dumbing down because we allowed marketing to control what is on TV and marketing always seeks the easiest path to the largest audience. If a marketeer has 9 people: 3 get it, 3 barely get it, 3 will NEVER get it. Then the marketeer will aim for the bottom 3, thinking that the result will include the top 3. Nope, they will hangup in disgust.
</p><p>The BBC is experiencing this. It once had excellent programs but it has been a LONG time since a new BBC show was a guaranteed sale across the world. There is a reason we report a new season of Red Dwarf with such fervor. Because there has been NOTHING like it since. Reality programs... sure. They are a dime a dozen and if you really have no clue whatsoever about how a building is blown up, one might be intresting to watch. But after the 6th season, I think I know how a bike is build thank you very much. I know that all american bikers are openly gay (ever seen any of them with a woman?) and applaud them for their confidence in expressing their sexuality in the heartland of the US but can we PLEASE get some real information back on the Discovery Channel?
</p><p>And no, real information is NOT 3 sentences endlessly repeated time and time again in a serious voice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It used to have REAL documentaries about serious subjects .
Nowadays I amazed between the endless blowing things up stuff to find a tiny morsel of information I already knew when I was 10 .
Take the slashdot population .
Most are drooling over the mythbusters especially since they added tits for ratings .
But the series has REALLY gone down .
Gone is any sense of serious myths , or getting experts to explain the background .
Now it is all about blowing things up to the point where a lot of the stuff they do becomes very bad science .
The world is dumbing down because we allowed marketing to control what is on TV and marketing always seeks the easiest path to the largest audience .
If a marketeer has 9 people : 3 get it , 3 barely get it , 3 will NEVER get it .
Then the marketeer will aim for the bottom 3 , thinking that the result will include the top 3 .
Nope , they will hangup in disgust .
The BBC is experiencing this .
It once had excellent programs but it has been a LONG time since a new BBC show was a guaranteed sale across the world .
There is a reason we report a new season of Red Dwarf with such fervor .
Because there has been NOTHING like it since .
Reality programs... sure. They are a dime a dozen and if you really have no clue whatsoever about how a building is blown up , one might be intresting to watch .
But after the 6th season , I think I know how a bike is build thank you very much .
I know that all american bikers are openly gay ( ever seen any of them with a woman ?
) and applaud them for their confidence in expressing their sexuality in the heartland of the US but can we PLEASE get some real information back on the Discovery Channel ?
And no , real information is NOT 3 sentences endlessly repeated time and time again in a serious voice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used to have REAL documentaries about serious subjects.
Nowadays I amazed between the endless blowing things up stuff to find a tiny morsel of information I already knew when I was 10.
Take the slashdot population.
Most are drooling over the mythbusters especially since they added tits for ratings.
But the series has REALLY gone down.
Gone is any sense of serious myths, or getting experts to explain the background.
Now it is all about blowing things up to the point where a lot of the stuff they do becomes very bad science.
The world is dumbing down because we allowed marketing to control what is on TV and marketing always seeks the easiest path to the largest audience.
If a marketeer has 9 people: 3 get it, 3 barely get it, 3 will NEVER get it.
Then the marketeer will aim for the bottom 3, thinking that the result will include the top 3.
Nope, they will hangup in disgust.
The BBC is experiencing this.
It once had excellent programs but it has been a LONG time since a new BBC show was a guaranteed sale across the world.
There is a reason we report a new season of Red Dwarf with such fervor.
Because there has been NOTHING like it since.
Reality programs... sure. They are a dime a dozen and if you really have no clue whatsoever about how a building is blown up, one might be intresting to watch.
But after the 6th season, I think I know how a bike is build thank you very much.
I know that all american bikers are openly gay (ever seen any of them with a woman?
) and applaud them for their confidence in expressing their sexuality in the heartland of the US but can we PLEASE get some real information back on the Discovery Channel?
And no, real information is NOT 3 sentences endlessly repeated time and time again in a serious voice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664585</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1247319720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There may have been some denial from the religious [...]</p></div></blockquote><p>Even this is seriously misleading, in that it suggests that religious institutions were some sort of hotbed of flat-earthism.  In fact, spherical Earth has pretty much always been the dominant model within Christianity.  For example, Saint Augustine's argument that the southern hemisphere (a.k.a. "the Antipodes") must be uninhabited, because (a) all humans descend from Adam and Eve; (b) the equatorial regions of the Earth have a "torrid" climate that's inhospitable to human beings, and thus are unpassable; (c) Jesus would have had to come a second time to the Antipodes in order to save the Antipodeans, and that would contradict the Gospel.
</p><p>Sure, to us that sounds like a very silly argument, but the important thing to note is that <b>it takes for granted that the Earth is spherical</b>.  This was in the late 300's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There may have been some denial from the religious [ ... ] Even this is seriously misleading , in that it suggests that religious institutions were some sort of hotbed of flat-earthism .
In fact , spherical Earth has pretty much always been the dominant model within Christianity .
For example , Saint Augustine 's argument that the southern hemisphere ( a.k.a .
" the Antipodes " ) must be uninhabited , because ( a ) all humans descend from Adam and Eve ; ( b ) the equatorial regions of the Earth have a " torrid " climate that 's inhospitable to human beings , and thus are unpassable ; ( c ) Jesus would have had to come a second time to the Antipodes in order to save the Antipodeans , and that would contradict the Gospel .
Sure , to us that sounds like a very silly argument , but the important thing to note is that it takes for granted that the Earth is spherical .
This was in the late 300 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There may have been some denial from the religious [...]Even this is seriously misleading, in that it suggests that religious institutions were some sort of hotbed of flat-earthism.
In fact, spherical Earth has pretty much always been the dominant model within Christianity.
For example, Saint Augustine's argument that the southern hemisphere (a.k.a.
"the Antipodes") must be uninhabited, because (a) all humans descend from Adam and Eve; (b) the equatorial regions of the Earth have a "torrid" climate that's inhospitable to human beings, and thus are unpassable; (c) Jesus would have had to come a second time to the Antipodes in order to save the Antipodeans, and that would contradict the Gospel.
Sure, to us that sounds like a very silly argument, but the important thing to note is that it takes for granted that the Earth is spherical.
This was in the late 300's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659817</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1247326140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are against religion. In a purely philosophical context it would be called faith or believe system. Religion is the institution. Which religious people should all be put in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are against religion .
In a purely philosophical context it would be called faith or believe system .
Religion is the institution .
Which religious people should all be put in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are against religion.
In a purely philosophical context it would be called faith or believe system.
Religion is the institution.
Which religious people should all be put in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247328600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world.</i></p><p>Bone to pick: Religion is equally worthless in discussing philosophical subjects.</p><p>I know that it's a popular rhetorical device to try and "fence in" religion to a limited domain of non-scientific topics such as ethics (as published most widely by Stephen J. Gould). But as someone who has degrees in both philosophy and mathematics, I've got to say this: belief in fictional, mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about <i>any</i> subject area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not opposed to religion , but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context , and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t .
the physical/natural world.Bone to pick : Religion is equally worthless in discussing philosophical subjects.I know that it 's a popular rhetorical device to try and " fence in " religion to a limited domain of non-scientific topics such as ethics ( as published most widely by Stephen J. Gould ) . But as someone who has degrees in both philosophy and mathematics , I 've got to say this : belief in fictional , mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t.
the physical/natural world.Bone to pick: Religion is equally worthless in discussing philosophical subjects.I know that it's a popular rhetorical device to try and "fence in" religion to a limited domain of non-scientific topics such as ethics (as published most widely by Stephen J. Gould). But as someone who has degrees in both philosophy and mathematics, I've got to say this: belief in fictional, mythological spirits can only be damaging to serious discussions about any subject area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662873</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>telomerewhythere</author>
	<datestamp>1247304420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few questions.
<p>
1. How long is this telomere?
</p><p>
2. How many other telomeres have been found in the middle of other organisms' chromosome pairs?
</p><p>
3.How often has this happened in other organisms? "<i>Their format changed, but they didn't lose any information, so the mutation wasn't deadly.</i>"
</p><p>
4. Is there a mechanism that scientists have found that will allow for this telomere-telomere fusion to happen?
</p><p>
5. Is there evidence of these telomeres going somewhere else after fusion?  If so, Where?
</p><p>
6. What is the basic known function of telomeres?
</p><p>
7. Do you believe/are you convinced that there is no god because of this study, or was that conclusion reached by you at some earlier or later time? If not by this discovery, then by what evidence?
</p><p>
Thanks, I'd like to know.  As you can see from my sig, this science interests me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few questions .
1. How long is this telomere ?
2. How many other telomeres have been found in the middle of other organisms ' chromosome pairs ?
3.How often has this happened in other organisms ?
" Their format changed , but they did n't lose any information , so the mutation was n't deadly .
" 4 .
Is there a mechanism that scientists have found that will allow for this telomere-telomere fusion to happen ?
5. Is there evidence of these telomeres going somewhere else after fusion ?
If so , Where ?
6. What is the basic known function of telomeres ?
7. Do you believe/are you convinced that there is no god because of this study , or was that conclusion reached by you at some earlier or later time ?
If not by this discovery , then by what evidence ?
Thanks , I 'd like to know .
As you can see from my sig , this science interests me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few questions.
1. How long is this telomere?
2. How many other telomeres have been found in the middle of other organisms' chromosome pairs?
3.How often has this happened in other organisms?
"Their format changed, but they didn't lose any information, so the mutation wasn't deadly.
"

4.
Is there a mechanism that scientists have found that will allow for this telomere-telomere fusion to happen?
5. Is there evidence of these telomeres going somewhere else after fusion?
If so, Where?
6. What is the basic known function of telomeres?
7. Do you believe/are you convinced that there is no god because of this study, or was that conclusion reached by you at some earlier or later time?
If not by this discovery, then by what evidence?
Thanks, I'd like to know.
As you can see from my sig, this science interests me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660293</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1247329380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Demonstrably false.  First, no educated person in approximately 3,000 years has believed the earth to be flat--that's how long it's been since the Greeks calculated the circumference of the earth (to within 10\% of the actual number IIRC).  Second, while there were philosophers and theologians who believed the earth to be at the center of the universe, none of them could be called scientists.  Science is a coupling of an epistemology and a methodology derived from that epistemology.  The idea that the earth was at the center of the universe predates the science's existence, and the idea met its demise with the rise of science during the Enlightenment period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Demonstrably false .
First , no educated person in approximately 3,000 years has believed the earth to be flat--that 's how long it 's been since the Greeks calculated the circumference of the earth ( to within 10 \ % of the actual number IIRC ) .
Second , while there were philosophers and theologians who believed the earth to be at the center of the universe , none of them could be called scientists .
Science is a coupling of an epistemology and a methodology derived from that epistemology .
The idea that the earth was at the center of the universe predates the science 's existence , and the idea met its demise with the rise of science during the Enlightenment period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Demonstrably false.
First, no educated person in approximately 3,000 years has believed the earth to be flat--that's how long it's been since the Greeks calculated the circumference of the earth (to within 10\% of the actual number IIRC).
Second, while there were philosophers and theologians who believed the earth to be at the center of the universe, none of them could be called scientists.
Science is a coupling of an epistemology and a methodology derived from that epistemology.
The idea that the earth was at the center of the universe predates the science's existence, and the idea met its demise with the rise of science during the Enlightenment period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660221</id>
	<title>Serious problem with this Pew poll</title>
	<author>Anon E. Muss</author>
	<datestamp>1247329020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/shame-on-pew-worlds-most-biased-poll.html" title="halfsigma.com">Half Sigma</a> [halfsigma.com] blog points out a serious flaw in the design of this poll...</p><p>There is a Pew research study purporting to poll "scientists." The question I immediately want answered is, what's a "scientist?" The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/" title="aaas.org">American Association for the Advancement of Science</a> [aaas.org].</p><p>The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".</p><p>You don't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Half Sigma [ halfsigma.com ] blog points out a serious flaw in the design of this poll...There is a Pew research study purporting to poll " scientists .
" The question I immediately want answered is , what 's a " scientist ?
" The answer , as far as Pew is concerned , is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science [ aaas.org ] .The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as " Increase diversity in the scientific community , " " Use science to advance human rights " ( sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International ) , " Sustainable Development " and " Women 's Collaboration " .You do n't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization .
All you need to do is send them $ 146 .
School teachers are especially encouraged to join , and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Half Sigma [halfsigma.com] blog points out a serious flaw in the design of this poll...There is a Pew research study purporting to poll "scientists.
" The question I immediately want answered is, what's a "scientist?
" The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science [aaas.org].The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration".You don't in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization.
All you need to do is send them $146.
School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666353</id>
	<title>Re:reality is librul</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1247398020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>32\% Independent<p>
55\% Democrat</p><p>
 6\% Republican =</p><p>
93\%</p><p>

<b>?7\%? Zombie?</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>32 \ % Independent 55 \ % Democrat 6 \ % Republican = 93 \ % ? 7 \ % ?
Zombie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>32\% Independent
55\% Democrat
 6\% Republican =
93\%

?7\%?
Zombie?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663273</id>
	<title>Re:I fail to see ...</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1247307420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps some of those scientists are like myself, who has noticed an inordinate amount of fire coming towards them from the right flank.  This could also explain the smaller percentage of scientist who wear jewelry of a guy nailed to a tree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps some of those scientists are like myself , who has noticed an inordinate amount of fire coming towards them from the right flank .
This could also explain the smaller percentage of scientist who wear jewelry of a guy nailed to a tree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps some of those scientists are like myself, who has noticed an inordinate amount of fire coming towards them from the right flank.
This could also explain the smaller percentage of scientist who wear jewelry of a guy nailed to a tree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663443</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>johanatan</author>
	<datestamp>1247308620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question isn't what's more impressive but rather what's true.  If you pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe, then how can you be certain you've chosen the right parts?
<br> <br>
I find it more impressive that the universe appears much older (and/or bigger) than it is and that God has built into our minds a way to find Him (via reasoning and even the limitations thereof [as implied by Godel]).  Reality outruns knowledge (even materialists should accept that if they understand Godel).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is n't what 's more impressive but rather what 's true .
If you pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe , then how can you be certain you 've chosen the right parts ?
I find it more impressive that the universe appears much older ( and/or bigger ) than it is and that God has built into our minds a way to find Him ( via reasoning and even the limitations thereof [ as implied by Godel ] ) .
Reality outruns knowledge ( even materialists should accept that if they understand Godel ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question isn't what's more impressive but rather what's true.
If you pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe, then how can you be certain you've chosen the right parts?
I find it more impressive that the universe appears much older (and/or bigger) than it is and that God has built into our minds a way to find Him (via reasoning and even the limitations thereof [as implied by Godel]).
Reality outruns knowledge (even materialists should accept that if they understand Godel).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660977</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247333640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That or he read it in some "Popular Science" magazine or was watching the 5:00 news when some reporter rambled off some case study that said latex was useless under certain weird conditions, etc.</p><p>Misinformation abounds...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That or he read it in some " Popular Science " magazine or was watching the 5 : 00 news when some reporter rambled off some case study that said latex was useless under certain weird conditions , etc.Misinformation abounds.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That or he read it in some "Popular Science" magazine or was watching the 5:00 news when some reporter rambled off some case study that said latex was useless under certain weird conditions, etc.Misinformation abounds...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The majority of <i> <b>European</b></i> scientists used to agree that the earth was flat, and at the center of the universe. The Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, and Indians knew better, evidently well before Galileo. <br>
BTW, the general gist of TFA can correctly be summarized as "average modern human still a superstitious boob, status quo maintained".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flat , and at the center of the universe .
The Mayans , Incas , Egyptians , and Indians knew better , evidently well before Galileo .
BTW , the general gist of TFA can correctly be summarized as " average modern human still a superstitious boob , status quo maintained " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of  European scientists used to agree that the earth was flat, and at the center of the universe.
The Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, and Indians knew better, evidently well before Galileo.
BTW, the general gist of TFA can correctly be summarized as "average modern human still a superstitious boob, status quo maintained".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659499</id>
	<title>Re:flat</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247323380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When? Where?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When ?
Where ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When?
Where?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669</id>
	<title>I fail to see ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... how any *real* scientist could be anything but independent. Political parties subscribe to belief systems that are principally about self-preservation and perpetuation. Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about.

FWIW, I am registered unenrolled (a.k.a. independent) and typically vote anti-incumbent unless one or the other candidate truly inspires me (rare) or scares me (frequent).</htmltext>
<tokenext>... how any * real * scientist could be anything but independent .
Political parties subscribe to belief systems that are principally about self-preservation and perpetuation .
Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about .
FWIW , I am registered unenrolled ( a.k.a .
independent ) and typically vote anti-incumbent unless one or the other candidate truly inspires me ( rare ) or scares me ( frequent ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... how any *real* scientist could be anything but independent.
Political parties subscribe to belief systems that are principally about self-preservation and perpetuation.
Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about.
FWIW, I am registered unenrolled (a.k.a.
independent) and typically vote anti-incumbent unless one or the other candidate truly inspires me (rare) or scares me (frequent).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665305</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1247332260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care what your religion is (or lack there of), I just know the world as we know it has ended when men look toward other men as Gods. At least in America, we sort of do with respect to the Hollywood and political elite.</p><p>I would rather live in a world with piousness than one of delusional self grandeur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care what your religion is ( or lack there of ) , I just know the world as we know it has ended when men look toward other men as Gods .
At least in America , we sort of do with respect to the Hollywood and political elite.I would rather live in a world with piousness than one of delusional self grandeur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care what your religion is (or lack there of), I just know the world as we know it has ended when men look toward other men as Gods.
At least in America, we sort of do with respect to the Hollywood and political elite.I would rather live in a world with piousness than one of delusional self grandeur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660561</id>
	<title>Scientist should be frustrated.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The media is reporting their theories as fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The media is reporting their theories as fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media is reporting their theories as fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659383</id>
	<title>Good heavens Miss Takamoto!  You're beautiful!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She blinded me with science!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She blinded me with science !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She blinded me with science!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661527</id>
	<title>gaps are in education.  perpetuated in religion</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1247337480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first, if you doubt evolution by natural selection, you're delusional.  You should be barred from holding public office and affecting society in any way.</p><p>second, doubting evolution by natural selection is the same as doubting gravity or photosynthesis.  they're all theories.  Our proof of their validity comes from our observation of them.</p><p>still doubt evolution by natural selection?  iguanas taste like chickens.  proof positive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first , if you doubt evolution by natural selection , you 're delusional .
You should be barred from holding public office and affecting society in any way.second , doubting evolution by natural selection is the same as doubting gravity or photosynthesis .
they 're all theories .
Our proof of their validity comes from our observation of them.still doubt evolution by natural selection ?
iguanas taste like chickens .
proof positive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first, if you doubt evolution by natural selection, you're delusional.
You should be barred from holding public office and affecting society in any way.second, doubting evolution by natural selection is the same as doubting gravity or photosynthesis.
they're all theories.
Our proof of their validity comes from our observation of them.still doubt evolution by natural selection?
iguanas taste like chickens.
proof positive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28673045</id>
	<title>Re:55\% say they are Democrats</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1247426340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.</p></div></blockquote><p>
How much is that out of the total?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We , humans , are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually .
How much is that out of the total ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We, humans, are pumping over 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.
How much is that out of the total?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to poll</p></div><p>I looked to find this "aacs" you refer to.  I came up with several organizations:</p><ul> <li>American Association of Christian Schools</li><li>American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery</li><li>American Association of Cosmetology Schools</li><li>Advanced Access Content System</li><li>Annapolis Area Christian School</li><li>Ashtabula Area City Schools</li></ul><p>
None of those organizations seem particularly scientific to me.  Perhaps you meant the <a href="http://aaas/" title="aaas">AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Sciences</a> [aaas].  And if we look at their <a href="https://pubs.aaas.org/org\_membership/new\_member\_setup.asp" title="aaas.org">membership requirements for the US</a> [aaas.org] we'll see that only students can sign up for full membership at $99 per year.  A K-12 teacher would pay $146, the same as the professional rate, though they do have a low-frills option at $99.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization</p></div><p>
Not sure where you got their goals from, but we'll read their <a href="http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/" title="aaas.org">
website:</a> [aaas.org] </p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>The American Association for the Advancement of Science,<br>"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>
The same page continues on with some broad goals:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>AAAS Mission<br>AAAS seeks to "advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." To fulfill this mission, the AAAS Board has set these broad goals:<br> <br>  * Enhance communication among scientists, engineers, and the public;<br>  * Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use;<br>  * Strengthen support for the science and technology enterprise;<br>  * Provide a voice for science on societal issues;<br>  * Promote the responsible use of science in public policy;<br>  * Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;<br>  * Foster education in science and technology for everyone;<br>  * Increase public engagement with science and technology; and<br>  * Advance international cooperation in science.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>That doesn't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint, unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of " scientists " to pollI looked to find this " aacs " you refer to .
I came up with several organizations : American Association of Christian SchoolsAmerican Academy of Cosmetic SurgeryAmerican Association of Cosmetology SchoolsAdvanced Access Content SystemAnnapolis Area Christian SchoolAshtabula Area City Schools None of those organizations seem particularly scientific to me .
Perhaps you meant the AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Sciences [ aaas ] .
And if we look at their membership requirements for the US [ aaas.org ] we 'll see that only students can sign up for full membership at $ 99 per year .
A K-12 teacher would pay $ 146 , the same as the professional rate , though they do have a low-frills option at $ 99.The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization Not sure where you got their goals from , but we 'll read their website : [ aaas.org ] The American Association for the Advancement of Science , " Triple A-S " ( AAAS ) , is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator , leader , spokesperson and professional association .
In addition to organizing membership activities , AAAS publishes the journal Science , as well as many scientific newsletters , books and reports , and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide .
The same page continues on with some broad goals : AAAS MissionAAAS seeks to " advance science , engineering , and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people .
" To fulfill this mission , the AAAS Board has set these broad goals : * Enhance communication among scientists , engineers , and the public ; * Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use ; * Strengthen support for the science and technology enterprise ; * Provide a voice for science on societal issues ; * Promote the responsible use of science in public policy ; * Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce ; * Foster education in science and technology for everyone ; * Increase public engagement with science and technology ; and * Advance international cooperation in science .
That does n't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint , unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pew used the AACS membership list to generate their list of "scientists" to pollI looked to find this "aacs" you refer to.
I came up with several organizations: American Association of Christian SchoolsAmerican Academy of Cosmetic SurgeryAmerican Association of Cosmetology SchoolsAdvanced Access Content SystemAnnapolis Area Christian SchoolAshtabula Area City Schools
None of those organizations seem particularly scientific to me.
Perhaps you meant the AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Sciences [aaas].
And if we look at their membership requirements for the US [aaas.org] we'll see that only students can sign up for full membership at $99 per year.
A K-12 teacher would pay $146, the same as the professional rate, though they do have a low-frills option at $99.The stated goals of AACS essentially define it as a left-leaning organization
Not sure where you got their goals from, but we'll read their 
website: [aaas.org]  The American Association for the Advancement of Science,"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association.
In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.
The same page continues on with some broad goals: AAAS MissionAAAS seeks to "advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people.
" To fulfill this mission, the AAAS Board has set these broad goals:   * Enhance communication among scientists, engineers, and the public;  * Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use;  * Strengthen support for the science and technology enterprise;  * Provide a voice for science on societal issues;  * Promote the responsible use of science in public policy;  * Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;  * Foster education in science and technology for everyone;  * Increase public engagement with science and technology; and  * Advance international cooperation in science.
That doesn't really seem particularly liberal or conservative from a political standpoint, unless conservatives have a decidedly anti-science-education standpoint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661739</id>
	<title>aware and looking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247339220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> this is because most of americans are lower middle class or less that are to quote the bat<br>a  "superstitious and cowardly lot" of villainy and deceptive evildoers<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; most of america for whatever reason seem happy to be stuck in the stoneage with out any concept of the<br>practicality of what the future or science can or could do for them. basically they'd rather be cavemen than evolve<br>and use the tools around them or make their own. which for whatever reason is also tied to the religious<br>elements particularly around christianity which in its fundamental notes is that technology takes you away from christ or<br>where as more eastern religions dont have that issue as severely. ------------</p><p>okay a lot of that has variables but for whatever reason in american the decline of intelligence, manners , civility seem to have been<br>steadily dropping ever since but especially after 1950's and 60's when it really became stigma to be SMART or INVENTIVE depending<br>on your financial circle and honestly it does seem that unless something is practical for thieir use i.e a new cleaning agent<br>or tool to actively use like motorized jet ski , or lawn mower that it doesnt matter to them because they lack knowledge to understand<br>that science takes time its not an instant gratification system  nor does it lean to their way just cause they want it to not if its done right<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; you really gotta remember that for whatever reason  over half the u.s population especially in the mid center of the country decidingly  voted for<br>bush for a 2nd term even thought it was fairly obvious about his puppet status and dim bulb of a personal skills (that or he was toking up behind doors)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is because most of americans are lower middle class or less that are to quote the bata " superstitious and cowardly lot " of villainy and deceptive evildoers           most of america for whatever reason seem happy to be stuck in the stoneage with out any concept of thepracticality of what the future or science can or could do for them .
basically they 'd rather be cavemen than evolveand use the tools around them or make their own .
which for whatever reason is also tied to the religiouselements particularly around christianity which in its fundamental notes is that technology takes you away from christ orwhere as more eastern religions dont have that issue as severely .
------------okay a lot of that has variables but for whatever reason in american the decline of intelligence , manners , civility seem to have beensteadily dropping ever since but especially after 1950 's and 60 's when it really became stigma to be SMART or INVENTIVE dependingon your financial circle and honestly it does seem that unless something is practical for thieir use i.e a new cleaning agentor tool to actively use like motorized jet ski , or lawn mower that it doesnt matter to them because they lack knowledge to understandthat science takes time its not an instant gratification system nor does it lean to their way just cause they want it to not if its done right       you really got ta remember that for whatever reason over half the u.s population especially in the mid center of the country decidingly voted forbush for a 2nd term even thought it was fairly obvious about his puppet status and dim bulb of a personal skills ( that or he was toking up behind doors )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> this is because most of americans are lower middle class or less that are to quote the bata  "superstitious and cowardly lot" of villainy and deceptive evildoers
          most of america for whatever reason seem happy to be stuck in the stoneage with out any concept of thepracticality of what the future or science can or could do for them.
basically they'd rather be cavemen than evolveand use the tools around them or make their own.
which for whatever reason is also tied to the religiouselements particularly around christianity which in its fundamental notes is that technology takes you away from christ orwhere as more eastern religions dont have that issue as severely.
------------okay a lot of that has variables but for whatever reason in american the decline of intelligence, manners , civility seem to have beensteadily dropping ever since but especially after 1950's and 60's when it really became stigma to be SMART or INVENTIVE dependingon your financial circle and honestly it does seem that unless something is practical for thieir use i.e a new cleaning agentor tool to actively use like motorized jet ski , or lawn mower that it doesnt matter to them because they lack knowledge to understandthat science takes time its not an instant gratification system  nor does it lean to their way just cause they want it to not if its done right
      you really gotta remember that for whatever reason  over half the u.s population especially in the mid center of the country decidingly  voted forbush for a 2nd term even thought it was fairly obvious about his puppet status and dim bulb of a personal skills (that or he was toking up behind doors)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</id>
	<title>religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247328780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>shamelesly stolen from another website, i am not plagiarizing this, (i lay no claim to authoring it, but i love it)
<br> <br>
 So here's the thing: We have 46 chromosomes. Our nearest great ape relatives have 48. On the surface, it looks like we must have lost two. But that's actually a huge problem. Made up of organized packs of DNA and proteins, chromosomes don't just up and vanish. In fact, it's doubtful any primate could survive a mutation that simply deleted a pair of chromosomes. That's because chromosomes are to the human body what instruction sheets are to inexpensive, flat-pack furniture. If you're missing one screw, you can still put that bookcase together pretty easily. But if the how-to guide suddenly jumps from page 1 (take plywood panels out of box) to page 5 (enjoy bookcase!), you're likely to end up missing something pretty vital. All this left scientists with a thorny dilemma: How could we have a common ancestor with great apes, but fewer chromosomes?
<br> <br>
Turns out: The chromosomes aren't missing at all.
Genetic investigators caught the first whiff of the prodigal chromosomes' scent in 1982. That year, a paper published in the journal Science described a very funny phenomenon. Researchers knew all chromosomes had distinctive signatures; patterns of DNA sequences that can be reliably found in specific spots, including in the center and on the ends. These end-cap sequences are called telomeres. Telomeres are like the little plastic tips that keep your shoelaces from unravelling. They protect the ends of chromosomes and hold things together. Given that important function, you wouldn't expect to find telomeres hanging out on other parts of the chromosome. But that's exactly what the 1982 study reported. Looking at human chromosome 2, the scientists found telomeres snuggled up against the centromere (the central sequence). What's more, these out-of-place human telomeres were strikingly similar to telomeres that can be found, in their proper location, on two great ape chromosomes.
<br> <br>
This evidence laid the groundwork for a brilliant discovery. Rather than falling apart, the two missing chromosomes had fused together. Their format changed, but they didn't lose any information, so the mutation wasn't deadly. Instead, scientists now think, the fusion made it difficult for our ancestors to mate with the ancestors of chimpanzees, leading our two species to strike out alone. In the two decades since the original study, more evidence has surfaced backing this up, which leads us to 2005, when the chimpanzee genome was sequenced around the same time that the National Human Genome Research Institute published a detailed survey of human chromosome 2. We can now see extra centromeres in chromosome 2 and trace how its genes neatly line up with those on chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13. It's a great example of evidence supporting the common descent of man and ape. [EOF]
<br> <br>
So all you christians are wack thinking some imaginary god did it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>shamelesly stolen from another website , i am not plagiarizing this , ( i lay no claim to authoring it , but i love it ) So here 's the thing : We have 46 chromosomes .
Our nearest great ape relatives have 48 .
On the surface , it looks like we must have lost two .
But that 's actually a huge problem .
Made up of organized packs of DNA and proteins , chromosomes do n't just up and vanish .
In fact , it 's doubtful any primate could survive a mutation that simply deleted a pair of chromosomes .
That 's because chromosomes are to the human body what instruction sheets are to inexpensive , flat-pack furniture .
If you 're missing one screw , you can still put that bookcase together pretty easily .
But if the how-to guide suddenly jumps from page 1 ( take plywood panels out of box ) to page 5 ( enjoy bookcase !
) , you 're likely to end up missing something pretty vital .
All this left scientists with a thorny dilemma : How could we have a common ancestor with great apes , but fewer chromosomes ?
Turns out : The chromosomes are n't missing at all .
Genetic investigators caught the first whiff of the prodigal chromosomes ' scent in 1982 .
That year , a paper published in the journal Science described a very funny phenomenon .
Researchers knew all chromosomes had distinctive signatures ; patterns of DNA sequences that can be reliably found in specific spots , including in the center and on the ends .
These end-cap sequences are called telomeres .
Telomeres are like the little plastic tips that keep your shoelaces from unravelling .
They protect the ends of chromosomes and hold things together .
Given that important function , you would n't expect to find telomeres hanging out on other parts of the chromosome .
But that 's exactly what the 1982 study reported .
Looking at human chromosome 2 , the scientists found telomeres snuggled up against the centromere ( the central sequence ) .
What 's more , these out-of-place human telomeres were strikingly similar to telomeres that can be found , in their proper location , on two great ape chromosomes .
This evidence laid the groundwork for a brilliant discovery .
Rather than falling apart , the two missing chromosomes had fused together .
Their format changed , but they did n't lose any information , so the mutation was n't deadly .
Instead , scientists now think , the fusion made it difficult for our ancestors to mate with the ancestors of chimpanzees , leading our two species to strike out alone .
In the two decades since the original study , more evidence has surfaced backing this up , which leads us to 2005 , when the chimpanzee genome was sequenced around the same time that the National Human Genome Research Institute published a detailed survey of human chromosome 2 .
We can now see extra centromeres in chromosome 2 and trace how its genes neatly line up with those on chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 .
It 's a great example of evidence supporting the common descent of man and ape .
[ EOF ] So all you christians are wack thinking some imaginary god did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shamelesly stolen from another website, i am not plagiarizing this, (i lay no claim to authoring it, but i love it)
 
 So here's the thing: We have 46 chromosomes.
Our nearest great ape relatives have 48.
On the surface, it looks like we must have lost two.
But that's actually a huge problem.
Made up of organized packs of DNA and proteins, chromosomes don't just up and vanish.
In fact, it's doubtful any primate could survive a mutation that simply deleted a pair of chromosomes.
That's because chromosomes are to the human body what instruction sheets are to inexpensive, flat-pack furniture.
If you're missing one screw, you can still put that bookcase together pretty easily.
But if the how-to guide suddenly jumps from page 1 (take plywood panels out of box) to page 5 (enjoy bookcase!
), you're likely to end up missing something pretty vital.
All this left scientists with a thorny dilemma: How could we have a common ancestor with great apes, but fewer chromosomes?
Turns out: The chromosomes aren't missing at all.
Genetic investigators caught the first whiff of the prodigal chromosomes' scent in 1982.
That year, a paper published in the journal Science described a very funny phenomenon.
Researchers knew all chromosomes had distinctive signatures; patterns of DNA sequences that can be reliably found in specific spots, including in the center and on the ends.
These end-cap sequences are called telomeres.
Telomeres are like the little plastic tips that keep your shoelaces from unravelling.
They protect the ends of chromosomes and hold things together.
Given that important function, you wouldn't expect to find telomeres hanging out on other parts of the chromosome.
But that's exactly what the 1982 study reported.
Looking at human chromosome 2, the scientists found telomeres snuggled up against the centromere (the central sequence).
What's more, these out-of-place human telomeres were strikingly similar to telomeres that can be found, in their proper location, on two great ape chromosomes.
This evidence laid the groundwork for a brilliant discovery.
Rather than falling apart, the two missing chromosomes had fused together.
Their format changed, but they didn't lose any information, so the mutation wasn't deadly.
Instead, scientists now think, the fusion made it difficult for our ancestors to mate with the ancestors of chimpanzees, leading our two species to strike out alone.
In the two decades since the original study, more evidence has surfaced backing this up, which leads us to 2005, when the chimpanzee genome was sequenced around the same time that the National Human Genome Research Institute published a detailed survey of human chromosome 2.
We can now see extra centromeres in chromosome 2 and trace how its genes neatly line up with those on chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13.
It's a great example of evidence supporting the common descent of man and ape.
[EOF]
 
So all you christians are wack thinking some imaginary god did it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665675</id>
	<title>Re:reality is liberal</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1247339100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans. </i></p> </div><p>I think it is funny how that percentage doesn't add up to 100\% (even if you include the 4\% "Other/None" from TFA).  </p><p>And as a scientist who is frustrated with the current political party offerings in the US and doesn't really like any other county's situation any better, I think it would be pretty cool if someone would start a country for scientists, run by scientists.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>32 \ % of scientists identify themselves as Independent , while 55 \ % say they 're Democrats and 6 \ % say they 're Republicans .
I think it is funny how that percentage does n't add up to 100 \ % ( even if you include the 4 \ % " Other/None " from TFA ) .
And as a scientist who is frustrated with the current political party offerings in the US and does n't really like any other county 's situation any better , I think it would be pretty cool if someone would start a country for scientists , run by scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 32\% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55\% say they're Democrats and 6\% say they're Republicans.
I think it is funny how that percentage doesn't add up to 100\% (even if you include the 4\% "Other/None" from TFA).
And as a scientist who is frustrated with the current political party offerings in the US and doesn't really like any other county's situation any better, I think it would be pretty cool if someone would start a country for scientists, run by scientists.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667867</id>
	<title>Congratulations</title>
	<author>hasbeard</author>
	<datestamp>1247418900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have just described some of the effects of what Christians call "sin."</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have just described some of the effects of what Christians call " sin .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have just described some of the effects of what Christians call "sin.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662075</id>
	<title>Scientists understand the scientific method</title>
	<author>TofuDog</author>
	<datestamp>1247341800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason scientists are likely to have a better understanding of reality is that they understand what the scientific method is.   Atmospheric scientists,  geophysicists, climate modelers, etc. have had their work subjected to the rigors of peer-review.  A scientist understands that this level of scrutiny is what improves the quality of knowledge (and brought civilization into the Enlightenment).  While creationists like to tout Mike Behe and global warming deniers roll-out somebody with a Ph.D. as their "proof" that scientists disagree, most non-scientists have no clue how much critique goes into "scientific consensus."  We hear that evolution is "just a theory" -never mind that a theory is a hypothesis that has survived rigorous challenge before attaining that status.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason scientists are likely to have a better understanding of reality is that they understand what the scientific method is .
Atmospheric scientists , geophysicists , climate modelers , etc .
have had their work subjected to the rigors of peer-review .
A scientist understands that this level of scrutiny is what improves the quality of knowledge ( and brought civilization into the Enlightenment ) .
While creationists like to tout Mike Behe and global warming deniers roll-out somebody with a Ph.D. as their " proof " that scientists disagree , most non-scientists have no clue how much critique goes into " scientific consensus .
" We hear that evolution is " just a theory " -never mind that a theory is a hypothesis that has survived rigorous challenge before attaining that status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason scientists are likely to have a better understanding of reality is that they understand what the scientific method is.
Atmospheric scientists,  geophysicists, climate modelers, etc.
have had their work subjected to the rigors of peer-review.
A scientist understands that this level of scrutiny is what improves the quality of knowledge (and brought civilization into the Enlightenment).
While creationists like to tout Mike Behe and global warming deniers roll-out somebody with a Ph.D. as their "proof" that scientists disagree, most non-scientists have no clue how much critique goes into "scientific consensus.
"  We hear that evolution is "just a theory" -never mind that a theory is a hypothesis that has survived rigorous challenge before attaining that status.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28668243</id>
	<title>Hardly</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1247422560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The study does not, as stated in the summary, cover 'how Americans feel about science', and only briefly looks at how they value scientists or their work (per TFA).</p><p>For the most part it looks at whether (non-scientist, one assumes) Americans agree with (American?) scientists. More precisely, it illustrates what Americans believe, compared to what scientists understand or at least accept that science more-or-less 'accurately describes'.</p><p>Pew does some good work sometimes. Too bad they don't verbalate it gooder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The study does not , as stated in the summary , cover 'how Americans feel about science ' , and only briefly looks at how they value scientists or their work ( per TFA ) .For the most part it looks at whether ( non-scientist , one assumes ) Americans agree with ( American ?
) scientists .
More precisely , it illustrates what Americans believe , compared to what scientists understand or at least accept that science more-or-less 'accurately describes'.Pew does some good work sometimes .
Too bad they do n't verbalate it gooder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study does not, as stated in the summary, cover 'how Americans feel about science', and only briefly looks at how they value scientists or their work (per TFA).For the most part it looks at whether (non-scientist, one assumes) Americans agree with (American?
) scientists.
More precisely, it illustrates what Americans believe, compared to what scientists understand or at least accept that science more-or-less 'accurately describes'.Pew does some good work sometimes.
Too bad they don't verbalate it gooder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666133</id>
	<title>Re:Education Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247393220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean?  Mythological spirits are the product of our imagination.  Surely, any religion that tried to create a model for our imagination is philosophical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean ?
Mythological spirits are the product of our imagination .
Surely , any religion that tried to create a model for our imagination is philosophical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean?
Mythological spirits are the product of our imagination.
Surely, any religion that tried to create a model for our imagination is philosophical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660595</id>
	<title>Re:Unscientific?</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1247331180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.</p></div><p>A quote from a great patriot, Steven Colbert, comes to mind:  "Reality has a <em>well known</em> Liberal bias!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me .
I 've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life , but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record , stated positions , etc.A quote from a great patriot , Steven Colbert , comes to mind : " Reality has a well known Liberal bias !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me.
I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.A quote from a great patriot, Steven Colbert, comes to mind:  "Reality has a well known Liberal bias!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28668209</id>
	<title>I found some more mistakes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247422080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i don't know if this is the case in other cultures, but in America, we seem to hate anyone who is better than us at anything.</p></div><p>The word "I" should have been capitalized since it's the first letter of the first word of a sentence. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Free of speech/religion seems to apply only to the privileged Christians.</p> </div><p>I'm pretty sure you meant to say "freedom" here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't know if this is the case in other cultures , but in America , we seem to hate anyone who is better than us at anything.The word " I " should have been capitalized since it 's the first letter of the first word of a sentence .
Free of speech/religion seems to apply only to the privileged Christians .
I 'm pretty sure you meant to say " freedom " here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't know if this is the case in other cultures, but in America, we seem to hate anyone who is better than us at anything.The word "I" should have been capitalized since it's the first letter of the first word of a sentence.
Free of speech/religion seems to apply only to the privileged Christians.
I'm pretty sure you meant to say "freedom" here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661653</id>
	<title>Re:religion is not where the truth is</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1247338500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two chromasomes fusing would reduce the number by 1.  How is it that we have 2 fewer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two chromasomes fusing would reduce the number by 1 .
How is it that we have 2 fewer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two chromasomes fusing would reduce the number by 1.
How is it that we have 2 fewer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660687</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being.</p></div></blockquote><p>Huh? Natural processes obey the laws of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, conservation of momentum, etc... If the current state doesn't directly follow from the previous state (because a supreme being 'guided' it), then the process isn't natural. Sorry but it's really one or the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about if you believe ( as most religious people do ) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being.Huh ?
Natural processes obey the laws of electromagnetism , quantum mechanics , conservation of momentum , etc... If the current state does n't directly follow from the previous state ( because a supreme being 'guided ' it ) , then the process is n't natural .
Sorry but it 's really one or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being.Huh?
Natural processes obey the laws of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, conservation of momentum, etc... If the current state doesn't directly follow from the previous state (because a supreme being 'guided' it), then the process isn't natural.
Sorry but it's really one or the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660079</id>
	<title>A Republican Scientist Reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247327940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a student of neuroscience at the graduate level, find religion to be extremely valuable at a philosophical level and as an important tool to buttress a healthy society, and I understand that a drive toward equilibrium and low energy states is the driving force behind all interactions.  I have seen the evidence that the world is globally warming, and that one of the main causes of that is the introduction of greenhouse gases by human activity.<br> <br>

But I also find the idea of large government to be entrapping and without any verifiable benefit to society.  I prefer the self regulation of capitalism<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but also understand that there needs to be some laws to stifle monopolistic corporations, or innovation will be just as stifled as if it were a socialist system (because large corporation is practically the same as large government, just with a different location of power).  I also understand that capitalism and society do not work quickly enough at all times, but they are the ideal methods.  Perhaps the 4 year terms should be evaluated more closely, because society definitely moves more quickly than every 2 years.<br> <br>

And really, who can disagree with the idea of renewable resources, either from an environmental, social, or military perspective?  I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh as an entertainer only.  <br> <br>

I find that my political objectives are aligned with the "Democratic" party, but my prefered method is much more similar to the "Republican" party (I prefer the terms "socialist" and "privatist" as they more accurately reflect the ideas, but the party names are what they are unfortunately). So, philosophically or functionally I am a Republican, but my goals are socially liberal (not to be confused with the political Democratic Party). <br> <br>

Basically, I want my personal freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a student of neuroscience at the graduate level , find religion to be extremely valuable at a philosophical level and as an important tool to buttress a healthy society , and I understand that a drive toward equilibrium and low energy states is the driving force behind all interactions .
I have seen the evidence that the world is globally warming , and that one of the main causes of that is the introduction of greenhouse gases by human activity .
But I also find the idea of large government to be entrapping and without any verifiable benefit to society .
I prefer the self regulation of capitalism ... but also understand that there needs to be some laws to stifle monopolistic corporations , or innovation will be just as stifled as if it were a socialist system ( because large corporation is practically the same as large government , just with a different location of power ) .
I also understand that capitalism and society do not work quickly enough at all times , but they are the ideal methods .
Perhaps the 4 year terms should be evaluated more closely , because society definitely moves more quickly than every 2 years .
And really , who can disagree with the idea of renewable resources , either from an environmental , social , or military perspective ?
I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh as an entertainer only .
I find that my political objectives are aligned with the " Democratic " party , but my prefered method is much more similar to the " Republican " party ( I prefer the terms " socialist " and " privatist " as they more accurately reflect the ideas , but the party names are what they are unfortunately ) .
So , philosophically or functionally I am a Republican , but my goals are socially liberal ( not to be confused with the political Democratic Party ) .
Basically , I want my personal freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a student of neuroscience at the graduate level, find religion to be extremely valuable at a philosophical level and as an important tool to buttress a healthy society, and I understand that a drive toward equilibrium and low energy states is the driving force behind all interactions.
I have seen the evidence that the world is globally warming, and that one of the main causes of that is the introduction of greenhouse gases by human activity.
But I also find the idea of large government to be entrapping and without any verifiable benefit to society.
I prefer the self regulation of capitalism ... but also understand that there needs to be some laws to stifle monopolistic corporations, or innovation will be just as stifled as if it were a socialist system (because large corporation is practically the same as large government, just with a different location of power).
I also understand that capitalism and society do not work quickly enough at all times, but they are the ideal methods.
Perhaps the 4 year terms should be evaluated more closely, because society definitely moves more quickly than every 2 years.
And really, who can disagree with the idea of renewable resources, either from an environmental, social, or military perspective?
I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh as an entertainer only.
I find that my political objectives are aligned with the "Democratic" party, but my prefered method is much more similar to the "Republican" party (I prefer the terms "socialist" and "privatist" as they more accurately reflect the ideas, but the party names are what they are unfortunately).
So, philosophically or functionally I am a Republican, but my goals are socially liberal (not to be confused with the political Democratic Party).
Basically, I want my personal freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707</id>
	<title>Re:Only 9 in 10 accept evolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247325180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the poor quality of the questions in that poll, almost any results are possible.  They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites.  How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being.  The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'.</p><p>The other problem is that this particular issue has been latched onto and exploited by politicians and opinion-shapers.  It has become an 'our side vs. their side' thing.  People chose the anti-evolution option because that boosts their side.  If  you could decouple it from the fight, you might be able to convince more people.</p><p>You can probably guess where I come down on the issue.  I do believe in God.  I can't prove it, but I accept it as a tautology.  I also believe in evolution as a natural process.  I believe that the creation of the universe was a more subtle process than most Biblical literalists do.  God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen.  Sort of a 15+ billion year bank shot.  To me, that is \_much\_ more impressive than "Wham, here's everything".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the poor quality of the questions in that poll , almost any results are possible .
They forced you to choose between 'natural process ' and 'guided by a supreme being ' as exclusive opposites .
How about if you believe ( as most religious people do ) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being .
The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option , when they probably are thinking 'both'.The other problem is that this particular issue has been latched onto and exploited by politicians and opinion-shapers .
It has become an 'our side vs. their side ' thing .
People chose the anti-evolution option because that boosts their side .
If you could decouple it from the fight , you might be able to convince more people.You can probably guess where I come down on the issue .
I do believe in God .
I ca n't prove it , but I accept it as a tautology .
I also believe in evolution as a natural process .
I believe that the creation of the universe was a more subtle process than most Biblical literalists do .
God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen .
Sort of a 15 + billion year bank shot .
To me , that is \ _much \ _ more impressive than " Wham , here 's everything " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the poor quality of the questions in that poll, almost any results are possible.
They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites.
How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being.
The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'.The other problem is that this particular issue has been latched onto and exploited by politicians and opinion-shapers.
It has become an 'our side vs. their side' thing.
People chose the anti-evolution option because that boosts their side.
If  you could decouple it from the fight, you might be able to convince more people.You can probably guess where I come down on the issue.
I do believe in God.
I can't prove it, but I accept it as a tautology.
I also believe in evolution as a natural process.
I believe that the creation of the universe was a more subtle process than most Biblical literalists do.
God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen.
Sort of a 15+ billion year bank shot.
To me, that is \_much\_ more impressive than "Wham, here's everything".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661</id>
	<title>These stories are stupid</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1247324820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The research for these types of stories is horrible.</p><p>What do I care if 84\% of scientists believe the earth is getting warmer from human activity?  My father's a scientist who studies product safety.  His opinion on global warming is no more educated than the rest of the public's but he's a "scientist."  A marine biologist might observe changes in habitat and deserve an opinion, but a chemist at a drug research lab probably doesn't rank above my own knowledge of global warming.</p><p>Polling groups of people with a similar job title in totally different fields is misleading at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The research for these types of stories is horrible.What do I care if 84 \ % of scientists believe the earth is getting warmer from human activity ?
My father 's a scientist who studies product safety .
His opinion on global warming is no more educated than the rest of the public 's but he 's a " scientist .
" A marine biologist might observe changes in habitat and deserve an opinion , but a chemist at a drug research lab probably does n't rank above my own knowledge of global warming.Polling groups of people with a similar job title in totally different fields is misleading at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The research for these types of stories is horrible.What do I care if 84\% of scientists believe the earth is getting warmer from human activity?
My father's a scientist who studies product safety.
His opinion on global warming is no more educated than the rest of the public's but he's a "scientist.
"  A marine biologist might observe changes in habitat and deserve an opinion, but a chemist at a drug research lab probably doesn't rank above my own knowledge of global warming.Polling groups of people with a similar job title in totally different fields is misleading at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28763675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28673045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28677873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28673191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28668087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28669273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28677691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28668209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28672969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28669215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28672997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28671205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28694669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28673473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1155220_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28669273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661999
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666139
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662881
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665771
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664153
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28673473
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28669215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28673045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661131
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28671205
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28677691
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28763675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659859
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662133
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662161
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661891
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659923
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660161
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664017
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665305
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665161
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666133
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666079
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663475
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665433
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28673191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659767
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662841
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661175
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663753
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662661
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28668087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28672969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659715
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659839
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662181
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28672997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28694669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660481
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667223
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661945
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662109
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28663443
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28665773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28668209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28667867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28677873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28661527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28664383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28660561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28666345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28662059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1155220.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1155220.28659453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
