Is there such a thing as large and small bowel or are these just different words for large and small intestine? A brief googling seems to suggest the latter. The summary mentions a fermentation process in the large bowel that generates energy. My understanding is that the large intestine does little more than adjust the water content. Anyone know whats the truth here?

I'm super impressed with your magnanimity.

Poetic. Inspiring. Thanks.

Yes.

Post by me. Wasn't logged in. Screw being AC.

As Woody Allen said - memory is 90% attention. You're probably not experiencing any memory-loss issues at 58, it has more to do with how you're encoding new memories. On drugs and especially alchohol, the processes of laying down new memories is warped and possibly "shut down" at times (e.g. during a black out). Double checking for your keys is a habit. You probably didn't spend a lot of attention to the fact that you picked them up in the first place. Likewise with your documentaries, you're mostly just enjoying a pass-time and not caring about what it is or applying the content, so, the brain doesn't bother assigning it as much salience (i.e. importance, relevance) as it might to a conversation you had last week.

"...move the study of political theory from social science towards the quantitative analysis offered by Big Data analytics techniques" 1. This would still be "social science" regardless of the techniques used to study the SOCIAL realities of politics. 2. "Big Data" techniques are nothing new to social science. They've pretty much been shown to be dust bowl empiricism time-wasters except in narrow circumstances guided by well-conceived theory.

Troll or fool?

Not flawed. Just the way the world works.

For many (most?) people, the effect is true as generally understood. For the next largest chunk it's slightly true or true sometimes. For a smaller slice it's true, but in the opposite direction. On average, it looks like the pattern we know.

If the science shows a variation between people and that variation actually exists (which it does), then the science is correct. It's just the world is full of variance. The question is what portion of that variance is due to chance + non-relevant interactions and what is due to a systematic cause. This is what we look for, the systematic relationships that rise above the random noise. Similar to picking out your router's wi-fi signal in a busy city block

.

Yes, DK is true. There is little question about this. Be careful, however, this is an aggregate effect and may not apply to particular individuals.

Agreed. This is the job of proper research design, not statistics.

:). Well, it's definitely come up in DS9.

Brilliant post.

Ugh. You're being a fool.

Science isn't about WHAT you study. It's about HOW you study

.

Psychology IS a science when the process is properly applied (as it is being done so here by testing the results of initial findings). I'm willing to debate you on this point. Willing to go toe-to-toe? Fair warning, I am an Industrial-Organizational psychologist who teaches research methods and statistics

The physician must not have been very familiar with Psychology. Psychology is no medicine, nor is it like medicine 200 years ago. Further, psychology is far more than the study and treatment of mental illnesses. It is the study of behavior. Proper functioning is a far broader field than mal-functioning. Likewise, the body of psychological scientific literature extends far beyond mental disorders. He's totally right about chiropractors.