Pro-Choice? Animal Testing? I needa debate.

[FromThe13thFloor]

I dunno. I am Pro-Choice, but I HATE animal testing. So, I wanna debate.

[Pub Lover]

You think animals should be free to choose whether we subject them to tests? :confused

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Somebody needs to say "scrambled eggs are the result of an abortion."

[FromThe13thFloor]

Hehehe. No, I want to stop animal testing.

[The One and Only...]

I approve of both abortions and animal testing.

[Perndog]

I support testing on criminals anything that would normally be tested on animals, and in lieu of that I oppose animal testing of anything outside of medicine (as in cosmetics). But if a particular research project means I will be safer and healthier, they can sacrifice all the baboons they want for it.

And I oppose abortion in favor of adoption for all children born to unfit parents and sterilization for anyone who has a child accidentally (aside from rape cases, of course).

[Pub Lover]

I agree with animal testing, as it's always well needed research, but I disagree with abortion as I favour a Soylent Green style resource management policy.

[The One and Only...]

You see, the trick is in making the state the only entity with the legal authority to offer abortions. After forming this monopoly, state-run abortion clinics can be run with huge profit margins, allowing for more economically-stimulating tax cuts.






j/k.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I agree with animal testing, as it's always well needed research,

You're right. I'd never know whether or not my shampoo is going to burn my eyes if they didn't initially stick it directly into a rabbit's.

[Immortal Goat]

...but I disagree with abortion as I favour a Soylent Green style resource management policy.

IT'S PEOPLE!!!http://www.emotioneric.com/soylentgreen.jpg

[Rez]

theres a difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice >:

i'm all for animal testing... love em or dont, animals have no rights.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I am opposed to cosmetic animal testing, as well as any animal testing that already has sufficient computer simulated programs that can replace them.

I am opposed to abortion on a personal level, but feel that democracy must prevail, whether it be right or wrong. I support the preservation of the standing law of the land set out in Roe v. Wade.

I also think this thread is utterly retarded.

[Pub Lover]

Hey Kevin, no one else said the truth, why should you?

[punkgrrrlie10]

I dunno. I am Pro-Choice, but I HATE animal testing. So, I wanna debate.

I am confused as to how the two relate.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Hey Kevin, no one else said the truth, why should you?

Because I'm a special snowflake.

[ziggytrix]

Kevin's such a thoughtful boy.

[MEATMAN]

What's Soylent Green?

[Brandon]

What's Soylent Green?

http://lady_deathtouch.tripod.com/fakedad/08-kowalski.jpg

MEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAT!

[teh_mastar!]

Somebody needs to say "scrambled eggs are the result of an abortion."

Only if you're eating fertilized eggs. Otherwise, it's a chicken period.

[Perndog]

Hey, I was being honest, too. >:

[phnompehn]

What's Soylent Green?

People. I'm telling you, it's made from people. http://www.dvddrive-in.com/images/n-s/soylentgreen6.jpg

[The_Rorschach]

I don't support abortion, neither do I support animal testing. Animal testing, as I see it, allows a scienist to circumvent the Scientific Process by testing a poorly thought out hypothesis and shift through conclusions to gain insight into a problem.

The Scientific Process was not, as you will recall, so much a means by which answers were to be found as it was a tool to teach one's mind to think critically and analytically.

[Perndog]

Picture this. X scientist at Y research facility has a medical hypothesis (a drug or a surgical procedure, you name it), but requires a living creature to test it and not just a petri dish.

If relevant aspects of an animal's physiology are similar enough to a human's, the scientist with an analytically trained mind will realize that he can perform a test on the animal and expect similar results on a human, thus eliminating the need for a human test subject, which would either be impossible of prohibitively expensive to acquire. Without the animal test subject, the experiment could never be performed at all, and any potential scientific gain from the experiment would be unattainable.

So explain how using an animal in an experiment automatically makes the hypothesis "poorly thought out," and tell me what "shifting through conclusions to gain insight into a problem" means. You may have meant "sift," but that still doesn't tell me much.

[Dole]

FUCK pro lifers. I never met one who wasnt a complete fucking shitbag.

[The_Rorschach]

Pern, it allows the possibility of poorly thought out hypothesis' to be tested because of the ease and lack of consequences involved in applying bio and/or chemical composites becomes negligable. For instance, take shuttle tests. In our last orbital mission, I believe they were testing to see how various insects would be affected a by significantly lessened gravitational environment. That is not a hypothesis, but it is reflective of how the scientific process is undertaken in todays world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/21/tech/main537344.shtml

[Perndog]

I fail to see how science is hindered by reducing the negative consequences of experiments.

And you haven't addressed my scenario.

[Protoclown]

I support kidnapping human babies and testing things on them.

EVERYBODY WINS! :rave

[The_Rorschach]

This is silliness. If you truly want an answer to this question, I suggest you read up on Einstein and his views on Science, and the Scientists that serve it. He had a rather intriguing little parable about priests in a temple that I believe would fit aptly here and answer your questions.

The problem with your scenerio is inherently flawed by a fatal assumption; Namely that a hypothesis is already formed. Much of what is done within the Scientific community of late is more a recording of observations than a testing of hypothesis'. For a properly formed hypothesis to be established, it has to be composed of previously confirmed data directed at reaching a specific aim not simply an idle supposition which begins nowhere and ends in the air.

Idle suppositions, or poorly thought out hypothesis' will simply result in data, not additional progress towards a specific aim. You rarely find what you're not looking for.

In any case, animal testing makes it more convenient for such wasteful psuedo-scientific pursuits to occour. If they were utilized more like the finite resources they truly are, maybe then I would be open to negotiation on this subject, but as it is the 'Sacredness of Life' wins out

[kellychaos]

i'm all for animal testing... love em or dont, animals have no rights.

Deduct two karma points, go back to start and lose your next turn.

[Perndog]

Okay, you say a good hypothesis must be "composed of previously confirmed data," and proceed toward a specific aim while "poorly thought out hypothesis' will simply result in data" with no specific aim.

Then where do you get the "previously confirmed data" needed for a proper hypothesis?

Anyway, using this as an argument against animal testing in general doesn't work. The fact remains that even with a specific goal and an excellent idea, there will be experiments that require living creatures. To say we must never perform these experiments and we must either remain where we are or proceed very slowly in certain areas of knowledge (at the possible cost of human health and life) simply because you think that a rabbit's life is sacred is unacceptable.

You can make a case for "sacred" with a lot of people, but lives, even human lives, are in no way finite resources. All creatures reproduce.

As for "you rarely find out what you're not looking for," I was under the impression that unexpected results were the basis for several major discoveries. Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus and the development of penicillin come to mind. This does not support the wanton sacrifice of animals, but it is a case for open-ended experimentation rather than narrow and specific scientific goals.

[Helm]

I am beginning to feel like it's a good idea to skip all perndog posts.

[The_Rorschach]

I would agree Helm. Lord knows I have moments of sheer pettiness, but I think he is arguing for arguments sake at this point. :(

[Perndog]

The thread topic is "I need a debate." I thought argument for its own sake was the whole point.

[The_Rorschach]

Argument does not necessarily need to be combative, it can also be conciliatory. The aim of argument is, ultimately, to arrive at a truth -acceptable or absolute is for those involved to decide.

I'm neither debasing nor proving anything. Simply tossing a few pennies into the Arena.

[Big Papa Goat]

:bacos

[kellychaos]

There is a quote of which, at this time, I know neither the author or the exact quote but, paraphrasing, says that you have no real knowledge of what it means to be a pilot until you experience it in real time under real conditions. I think the same point can be made for animal testing. You can hypothesis all you want about how an experiment should go according to what is currently known about physics, biology, chemistry, ect. That does not mean that the expected results will happen or even happen a large percentage of the time. That's why a theory has to be repeated several times under strict control and by different people and even revisited from different viewpoints. Even a hypothesis that is proven so many times that it has essentially become a theory is not an ultimate truth, it just has a high probability of being the truth with the potential to be disproven at any time in the future ... or at least altered to meet a new perspective or new knowledge.

[Big Papa Goat]

Ror, are you suggesting that hypothesis' should be so good that they don't have to be tested?

[The_Rorschach]

I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it. A lawyer never asks a question they do not already know the answer to, a scientist should do no less. Such perfection is, of course, impossible. There are simply too many variables, both known and unknown, to consider for one to properly cover all the bases. It is the attempt which is important.

[ziggytrix]

They are called "experiments" not "verifications".

And frankly, I support animal testing in general, while recognizing frivalous tests (something akin to injecting cosmetics into animals eyeballs) should not occur.

That is a very fine line to attempt to regulate and I'd rather cosmetic testing occur, than medical testing not occur.

[Protoclown]

BUNNIES LIKE HAVING LIPSTICK PUT ON THEM

PLAYING "DRESS-UP" :)

[The_Rorschach]

The experiments because the outcome is uncertain Ziggy, no matter how much thought, planning and engineering goes into a hypothesis the outcome is still uncertain - if it is carried out consistant with the Scientific Process.

[ziggytrix]

I think you're confusing theory and hypothesis, in terms of the scientific method.

[The_Rorschach]

Nope. :)

[Emu]

BUNNIES LIKE HAVING LIPSTICK PUT ON THEM

PLAYING "DRESS-UP" :)

http://www.cscollectables.co.uk/bugsbunnylarge.jpg

[Perndog]

Yes. A hypothesis is nothing more than an assumption or a speculation, albeit one that must have reasonable grounds. Once it is supported by a good amount of data (as you say any good hypothesis must) it is then a theory and no longer a hypothesis.

As I said before you started getting whiny, if you only test things that are already supported by a lot of experimental data (theories), you aren't going to get anywhere.

Hypotheses should NOT be so good that they don't have to be tested. That's the entire purpose of experimentation, to enter an experiment with several hypotheses about possible outcomes and then toss out the ones that don't work. Extensive engineering does not go into a hypothesis, engineering goes into a working theory.

[The_Rorschach]

A theory cannot be observed, quanitatively tested or otherwise proven. Such as the theory of Evolution.

Come on people, this is elementary here.

[The One and Only...]

If we already know the outcome, what is the point of experimentation?

Ror sounds like he's promoting a priori physical sciences - kinda like what Mises was promoting in economics.

Only, a priori physical sciences, and, for that matter, purely a priori economics, can never work.

[Perndog]

Ror, what the fuck are you talking about? Newton's Theory of Motion cannot be observed or quantitatively tested? F=ma isn't quantitative and you can't watch something fall at 32.2 ft/s2 or watch pool balls bounce off each other? Evolution hasn't been well-observed in bacteria and other lower life forms?

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Source (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html)

a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones Source (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html#SECTION02122000000000000000)

A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. Source (http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm)

A theory in science is an idea that has been tested thoroughly, and despite extensive testing, cannot be rejected. Source (http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plants_Human/scimeth.html)

And I think this quote pretty accurately describes what Ror was trying to tell us earlier:

For example, one professor, when asked why he continued to do experiments designed to test a theory that was obviously wrong -- which he was sure was wrong -- answered "Without a theory to test, we wouldn't be able to do experiments at all!" Source (http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm)

[ziggytrix]

in fairness to Ror, the words theory and hypothesis have several definitions outside the context of the scientific method.

but a quick refresh of what is considered elementary physical science -


I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

It is only after step four has been repeated, recursing back through the method as new observations are made, and often tested by unaffiliated researchers that the scientific community forms a theorem.

Fuck, now I'm gonna have thermodynamics on the brain for on hour... better go browse loveline. :P

[The_Rorschach]

Pern, there is a difference between a Theorem and a Theory. A Theorem has been demonstrated to be true, a Theory has not. Newton's Theory of Motion is a Theorem, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not. Just because laymen don't appreciate the difference doesn't mean all should likewise ignore it.

And Ziggy you're quite correct.

In context of the topic, animal experimentation, I think more effort ought to go into the formation of hypothesis and the conclusion speculated before testing is done. I feel the Scientific community has become entirely too relaxed, going by the current vein of projects.

For instance, take the above example. Newton's Theory of Motion, the amount of effort and observation which into the initial hypothesis is vastly different than say, 'how will insects be effected by a change in gravity.' A hypothesis should be like a mission statement not some vague curiousity.

[Perndog]

So is it elementary or is it scientific jargon? You just said it was elementary, so I went by the elementary definition of scientific theory. You're right, I didn't know the difference between theory and theorem, and I wasn't even aware that theorem had standard usage outside of mathematics.

And your quote:

I think more effort ought to go into the formation of hypothesis and the conclusion speculated before testing is done. I feel the Scientific community has become entirely too relaxed, going by the current vein of projects.

You should have said that in the first place, rather than claiming that any testing of a more speculative hypothesis "circumvents the scientific process." That's where the argument started.

[ziggytrix]

It's Elementary Scientific Jargon! Hooray for compromise!

[Big Papa Goat]

Newtons gravity thing is a law not a theory I believe. A law is more certain than a theory, and as far as I know, there are no scientific laws outside of physics and chemistry.

[Big McLargehuge]

Newton was wrong jerk.

[ziggytrix]

A law is more basic than a theory. A theory is a modifyable, descriptive model of complex phenomena. A law is a descriptive model of something basic and irrefutable such as a mathematic equation. The law of gravity is F(g) = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2. All scientific laws can be stated as mathematical formulae, if I'm not mistaken.

[The_Rorschach]

You're not. Mathematics is the language of nature :)

[kellychaos]

So much so that guys, like Pythagoras, made a religion (or at least a cult) out of it.

[Guderian]

From the 13th Floor:
I am Pro-Choice
Wait until you see this then:
http://abortionismurder.org/notconvinced.shtml
And for the record, I'm pro-choice. I just wanted to post this.