Why does God have a weakness for the Middle East and why only so recently? Why did God shun other parts of the planet and other races? Why did God not show up a million years ago in Norway or New Zealand? Why does God love the Jews? It is all very silly. We need religion and God when we are helpless and facing our immortality. Dubya needs religion and God to get into the White House. Regardless of religion, I think any scientist worth his or her salt has to be awe struck by the universe. When and how much was that purchase by Mr.
Not sure why this is such a big deal, really. In other letters he disavowed belief in the immortality of the soul, of the power of prayer to affect reality, and of any objective foundation for ethics. Nothing Einstein ever wrote about religion can be of much solace to the traditional theist who believes in an anthropomorphic God who interferes in the affairs of men, or who even cares about them, who judges us for our misdeeds and who rewards his followers in an immaterial afterlife.
There are always numerous reasons for the ideas expressed in a single letter; frustration, anger, disillusionment, pandering to the beliefs of the person to whom the letter is sent. Look at the entire history of a persons behavior and you will have a more accurate picture of their views. Stop jumping to conclusions. There is considerable neurophysiologic evidence music penetrates to the limbic lobe, the more primitive emotional part of the brain. This is the same part of the brain that experiences spirituality and religion. See Michael R.
Press, As a sailor, feeling of the boat responding to the wind, waves, and helm seems to penetrate to a deep level also, although I do not think the neurophysiology has been studied. It is possible that, when he was observant as a child, he was experiencing spirituality only as religion; and that as a mature adult, he saw the details of religion a deity who follows individuals lives, diets, and activities on certain days of the week as childish and unsupported by any objective data, but still felt spirituality.
As the editors noted, Einstein was a complicated man. The letter in question definitely shows he had an atheist side. Whether or not this represented the totality of his thinking on the matter, at that time, is questionable. Getting upset that Einstein apparently held some atheist views, to some extent or another, is irrational and even a little immature.
Denying that Einstein said what he said, or getting angry that it was revealed, is even more irrational and definitely immature. I am an experimental scientist, and as a group we have to hope that experiments are meaningful. Otherwise, why bother? If there is a personal God that is willing to alter events here on earth, it calls into question the meaning of and sense in doing experiments — unless God is very consistent in His decisions.
He trusted Jesus Christ completely for his salvation , but it took Paul, a former Pharisee , longer to understand that his weakness was a good thing. It forced him—as it forces us—to depend totally on God.airtec.gr/images/localizar-numero/1983-como-ver.php
Thanks for revealing our weaknesses: An editorial | DavisW's Blog
We hate being dependent on anyone or anything. In our culture, weakness is seen as a defect and dependence is for children. Ironically, that is exactly what we are—children of God, our heavenly Father. God wants us to come to him when we have a need, and as our Father, he fulfills it for us. That is the meaning of love. What most people never get is that nothing can meet their deep-down needs except God. Nothing on earth. They chase after money and fame, power and possessions , only to come up empty. Just when they think they "have it all," they realize that in fact, they have nothing.
Then they turn to drugs or alcohol , still not seeing they were made for God and that only he can satisfy the longing he created in them. But it does not have to be that way.
What are your Strengths and Weakness? How to Deal with them?
Everyone can avoid the life of wrong purpose. I remember 20 years ago I was looking carefully for CD44 splice variants CD44v in glioblastomas — and found them with any method, i. Although I presented the results in lab meetings a member of the group who turned out to collaborate with another group then published the lack of CD44v in glioblastomas Cancer Res.
Variant CD44 adhesion molecules are expressed in human brain metastases but not in glioblastomas. Of course, both groups did not investigate the same material, but it appeared to be unlikely to see just the opposite outcome. Of course the difference in detection capabilities could explain the outcome — and in my results the level of CD44v was usually very low, but not absent.
That is science. I can only add that I found the major conclusion of a Nat Genetics paper wrong on the basis of the published data, and the author acknowledged that in a conversation with me.
- How to Write a Book in (A Step-by-Step Guide for New Writers).
- How to Write a Book in 12222: A Definitive Guide for Writers?
- Paleo Diet Recipes;
- Alistair MacLean Sea Thrillers 4-Book Collection: San Andreas, The Golden Rendezvous, Seawitch, Santorini?
- Verse of the Day - Day 15;
- Two Sirs, with Love [McQueen Was My Valley 4] (Siren Publishing Menage Everlasting );
- Recommended for you;
Nat Genetics however refused to print a retraction. I had a similar experience with a Commentary in Nature. I think this must be a fairly frequent occurrence. Nature seems to believe it either cannot afford too many retractions or simply refuses to accept its own fallibilty. It has been my personal experience that the editors of Nature Medicine play favorites. They allow certain big names to influence the review process of others in a very unfair manner.
At some point in time, we will all need to stop citing all nature journals out of pure protest. The only way to bring fairness back to the system is by the scientific community standing together and hitting them where it hurts the most, their impact factor, because that is all they care about. Imagine how science would be if papers were published according to the quality of their scientific content, rather than who the authors are or where they come from.
The adoption of double-blind clinical trials was one of the greatest advances in medical research, and no-one today would think of abandoning it. In 50 years time hopefully less , when double-blind peer review is universal, we will look back and wonder why we put up with the current system, with its cliques, back-scratching, back-stabbing, xenophobia, and corruption, for so long.
Double-blind peer review is not perfect, but at least it will increase the likelihood that editors and reviewers actually read submitted manuscripts before they make their decisions. As far as I know, the double-blind review does not apply to the editors? It would be great if it did, though! Thanks for a really interesting post and to all for insightful comments. These highlight the scale of the problem. So here we are the solution, because we lazily reach for Ifs as a proxy to actually reading a bunch of papers. We ignore the fact that IFs are the result of a highly skewed distribution and using these as a Gaussian is laughable at our peril.
We really do have a major issue, because, as many have noted, it is very difficult to figure out that a paper has a problem. In the days of electronic papers, this is very easy, but does not happen. This is again a symptom of publishers protecting a perceived brand quality to keep ahead of the market. For those in need of a dose of irony, there is a recent editorial in Nature on enhancing data quality in the papers they publish.
Read this and then re-read the above post. Reblogged this on Honest Abe's Blog.
Readers, I applaud the efforts of Dr David Vaux to clean up the scientific record by retracting his own mistaken published commentary and, in the process, highlighting the weaknesses of editorial processes at scientific journals, including the prestigious journal Nature. Readers, if you assess my evidence of research misconduct in the link above to be valid and disturbing, please write to the University of Sydney — vc. Alternatively, if you think my critique is flawed and I am way out of line, please be very critical of me in comments below and anywhere else you find me in the public domain.
Nature is a scam. Many years ago, I sent a manuscript for the business section of Nature. It was about the power of collective wisdom. The editor at that time expressed interest and after months, an editorial staff of Nature published it under his name. When I contacted the editor of the business ection, he told me that they were working on this in parallel.
If this was the case, they could have informed me when I submitted. Dont expect high standards from the editors! As a scientist with a deep interest in bioethics, I was deeply concerned to find what look like serious anomalies in a number of manuscripts by David Vaux. This is an individual that has clear ties with the industry creating severe conflicts of interests. As a self-proclaimed science police who attacks scientific publications as a vigilante, he is not in a position to author papers with figure manipulations.
A picture is worth a thousand words, have a look at these 3 examples. There is more to come.
Writing from Weakness
Note that John Silke and David Vaux are common authors on these 3 papers. A square in upper right corner appears when image is color-inverted and contrasted. A western blot image does NOT naturally contains a distinct square with different contrast and pixel pattern.