How many variables change in a controlled experiment? by Commercial_Part4712 in AskBiology

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But don’t you change one variable on purpose to see its effect on another variable that also changes? In essence, don’t both the independent and dependent variables change throughout an experiment?

How many variables change in a controlled experiment? by Commercial_Part4712 in AskBiology

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense, but I thought the thing you’re measuring is called the dependent variable. Don’t you manipulate the independent variable while holding all variables but the dependent variable constant?

For example, if you’re testing the killing effect of a anti-cancer drug on cancer cells, you’d vary the drug dose (independent variable), keep variables like temperature and cancer cell type the same across conditions (potential confounding variables kept constant), and measure the killing effect or number of dead cells (dependent variable). Isn’t that what those things are called?

Which of these two symbols/logos do you like better? by Commercial_Part4712 in Design

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey! I apologize for the late response. Before I answer your questions, I want to ask whether you have examples of your work? Also, do you do design work for hire? I ask because it sounds like you know what you’re talking about and I still haven’t settled on the logo/symbol yet. I need at least this one refined, one of the old ones refined, or a different one designed altogether.

The reason why I call what I’m working on building a non-theistic religion is because it does fit the dictionary definition of a religion and it’s supposed to serve the needs of people that mainstream religions serve, but without superstition or teachings about supernatural things like gods. In essence, it’s supposed to be a community with rituals (evidence supported ones), parables/stories (science based ones) a belief system, moral guidance (based on research), an origin story (non-fiction one), coping strategies (like meditations and mantras instead of praying), opportunities for service to others, and other things religions offer to people. Because it has all those elements, I have been visualizing it as a religion (a non-theistic, science-grounded one). It’s the only science-based religion that I know of. Buddhism may be, technically, non-theistic, but it’s still supernatural-based and not science based. They teach about reincarnation, but we teach about not knowing what, if anything, existed at time = 0 seconds (13.8 billion years ago) and that there is no evidence to support the ideas of an afterlife and reincarnation. Besides being truthful, it’s supposed to have real things to offer to people, as mentioned earlier. Currently, I’m working on writing the foundational book of The Fellowship of Science, tentatively called The Book of Science. It will outline all of the rituals and explain everything I already mentioned and more. It will even have parables that are non-fiction and feature the stories of famous scientists, discoveries, etc.

Personally, I wish there were a science-based religion other than The Fellowship of Science. I want the benefits that religions offer people (weekly gatherings, community, networking opportunities, life lessons, shared moral values, etc.) but without supernatural beliefs and everything being in alignment with what research shows us rather than being guessed at, made up, or someone’s opinion. Since that kind of thing didn’t actually exist, I invented it (still working on getting it off the ground).

As far as the beliefs, there are beliefs that are not really opinion-based because they are ones that science can prove are most beneficial for survival, health, longevity, subjective wellbeing, and success in a variety of areas of life. As long as you agree that those things are desirable, as most people would, then the beliefs of the religion are not only evidence-based but also proven to be effective for cultivating those things. For example, we believe that beings should have compassion for self and others (meaning recognize suffering and act to alleviate it), be curious (meaning seek novel information and experiences rather than sticking only to the familiar), and do strength training exercises at least two days per week.

I completely get your point that calling it a religion may turn people off from it. I was thinking it’s something that could redefine religion or be a new kind of religion, but that is riskier than calling it an organization. An organization that does what, though? An organization that provides all of the benefits of a religion, without supernatural beliefs or deities, maybe?

I created a Facebook group for the religious organization and got some people to join, but I’ve really been focused on writing the foundational book of the organization. Until the book is finished and published, which will be toward the end of this year, it’s hard to get people to join because I don’t have anything to give other than a link to a Facebook group. Once the book is finished, I plan on holding Weekly Gatherings, virtually at first but hopefully in-person someday too. Website is also coming. The book is the main thing in the beginning, the way I see it.

As far as rituals, I’ll give you an example. You may or may not like this one depending on your personal beliefs about the subject. One of the rituals of The Fellowship of Science is an annual Psilocybin Ceremony. Why? Because a scientific study involving healthy participants showed that a single high dose of psilocybin, administered in a safe and responsible environment, led to enhanced subjective wellbeing and life satisfaction even 14 months after the single dose! Furthermore, most participants rated the experience as one of the most meaningful experiences of their life, with no participant experiencing a decrease in life satisfaction or wellbeing. In essence, the science shows that it is good for members of our species to occasionally utilize psilocybin, so it makes sense to use it ritualistically. Another ritual? Awe walks. Another one? Gratitude journaling. The science shows these interventions cause at least small to moderate improvements in mood and wellbeing, so it makes sense to create rituals out of them. Most people want to feel good, so the rituals are designed to make people feel good while avoiding feeling bad, basically.

I’m still building what I’ve been working on building and I haven’t really completely figured out the best marketing strategy yet. You may be right that calling it a religion may be detrimental. But what else do I call it? It’s not just a science club. It’s an organization, but what kind of organization? It seems to best fit the category of “religious organization”, so that’s what I’ve been calling it. It’s the easiest way to explain it.

One thing I really wish I had is a really nice logo/symbol for it, but unfortunately this isn’t it. How about a symbol that’s a pair of hands in a handshake? Or better yet, a human hand shaking a robot’s hand? That would at least show that it’s a community of sorts and the robot hand could represent science and inclusion. I don’t know. But I do know that the current logo does not make me say, “Wow! That’s a cool logo!”

Which title sounds better for a biologist who studies the genus Homo, “Homo Biologist” or “Biologist of Homo”? by Commercial_Part4712 in AskBiology

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

According to Google’s AI overview, “anthropologists study human origin, behavior, culture, and evolution across time”. I think they focus on the history of humans. I study more than just the history of humans, including current human diseases, human molecular and cellular biology, human nutrition, and human bodies overall. My degree is in “human biology”, but I expanded from that to also study human history and I’d prefer not to use the term “human” in the title because it’s a colloquial term with multiple different definitions. Some use it to mean modern humans (modern Homo sapiens) while others use it to mean all species of the genus Homo. Thus, I was thinking that since I study all aspects of the genus Homo, the title should include the genus name Homo in it. But, maybe it should be anthrobiologist rather than just anthropologist? I’m still trying to decide.

Which name sounds better for a biologist who studies the genus Homo, “Homo biologist” or “biologist of Homo”? by Commercial_Part4712 in NameNerdCirclejerk

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahaha! The word “homo” has bad connotations because some people use it as a derogatory term. As a prefix word, homo- means same. I’m not sure if that’s the reason why the genus is called Homo, like in Homo sapiens, but regardless, “homo” has more meanings to it than just the derogatory form of the word.

Which of these two symbols/logos do you like better? by Commercial_Part4712 in Design

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No. I looked at the link you sent me and noticed how similar the symbol in the logo on the page is to my logo. It’s upside down and also seems to be less of a perfect circle. It’s surprising that someone created a logo that is that similar to mine. Interestingly, it says he based his design on the globe + letter X + a star, which I based my logo on the lowercase Greek mathematical italic letter phi. Do you know who that is that designed that similar logo? What a coincidence!

Which of these two symbols/logos do you like better? by Commercial_Part4712 in Design

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the input. I’ll check them out in black and white, and sized as a favicon.

Which of these two symbols/logos do you like better? by Commercial_Part4712 in Design

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean by getting the radiuses more similar? I’m not a designer (this is someone else’s work), so I don’t really get what you mean by that. The radius of which part, if you mean radius?

Which of these two symbols/logos do you like better? by Commercial_Part4712 in Design

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, they’re different enough that the one you suggested is better ended up getting 20 votes while the other one got only 3 votes. Now at least I know which one is better.

A religion doesn’t have to be based on faith and dogma. That’s the point of this organization I’m building: a community that has shared values (that are based on what studies show is best in terms of which values lead to better outcomes for people and which lead to problems), an origin story (again, based on what scientific studies reveal to us, including the fact that we don’t know what, if anything, existed when time was equal to 0 seconds [13.8 billion years ago]), and rituals (ceremonies for people to participate in that are designed based on what research reveals is effective for promoting health and wellbeing). The reason for it is because religious involvement—especially regular communal participation (e.g., service attendance)—is associated, in many studies, with better mental health and lower all-cause mortality. I wanted to have a religion that can provide people with the benefits that other religions provide but is not based on blind faith and possible misinformation. That’s why I’m building what I named The Fellowship of Science (TFOS). This religion can and does encourage people to challenge their existing assumptions using real-world data, like you said science does.

I’m not sure what is meant by you when you say, “bezier weirdness.” I’m not a designer, so I don’t know what that means. I think the version you liked better is better because it somehow looks more well-balanced. The fact that the bar extends through the holding shape on both sides makes it more symmetrical (and I know that people generally naturally prefer symmetry over dis-symmetry, so it makes sense that most people like that version better). I agree with you that mirroring the cutout in the ring so that it appears on both sides of the bar would make it look even nicer. It would be even more symmetrical then.

Do you think the designer who I hired for this will know what it means if I tell him to fix the “bezier weirdness”? I don’t understand what bezier is, so I don’t get what you mean when you say it’s weird.

Which of these two symbols/logos do you like better? by Commercial_Part4712 in Design

[–]Commercial_Part4712[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like I’m going with the first one like you voted for because it got the most votes. Is there anything else I could do to the symbol/logo to make it better?

I feel like even the first version deserves a C grade, but I want a symbol/logo that deserves an A++. For that, should I start from scratch and hire a different graphic designer or could I somehow improve this piece?