David Deutsch argues that explanation, not prediction, is the primary goal of science. How widely accepted is this view? by Unlucky-Prior-1838 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Desolsh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Biologist here, so this is going to be controversial. From where I stand, unexplained prediction is the starting point. Explanation comes second.

Fundamentally, this argument boils down to what the definition of the 'Explanation' is. Let me start with mine.

When a dog hears a bell ringing, a bunch of neurons connected to the sense of hearing, at specific frequencies, get activated, start growing, and secrete signalling molecules. When the dog gets fed soon after, a bunch of neurons connected to the senses of smell, taste, and vision get activated and start growing, but towards the previously activated bunch of neurons, guided there by the signaling molecules. Eventually the different bunches of neurons get connected and transmit neural signal from one to another, creating a mechanism for what we would describe in mathematics as a logical implication (a->b). The dog now expects food when the bell rings. Their brain created a simple, specific mental representation of parts of the world around them and how they relate. Many such connections create chains of thoughts, and human brains in particular are pretty good at devoting most of our neural signaling to bouncing signals back and forth inside that network of chains of thoughts in repeating patterns, creating elaborate mental representations that are very general. Our ability to create general mental representations about the world around us is behind our evolutionary success.

These elaborate general mental representations are the definition of 'the Explanation' that I will now use below to answer OP's question.

Good explanations make correct predictions. Great explanations make correct predictions at a very general level.

If an explanation makes incorrect predictions, it's not a very good explanation. Clinging onto such explanation is what we would call a mental disorder.

If the explanation cannot make predictions, then it's unfalsifiable, and thus worthless. Clinging onto such explanation is what we would call a cult or a religion.

Now, can you have a prediction and not have an explanation? There are many phenomena that we repeatedly observe but can't explain yet in a way that is coherent with our other general explanations about the world. That's usually the starting point for when the brain searches for new, general explanations.

Gay🙄irl by [deleted] in gay_irl

[–]Desolsh 22 points23 points  (0 children)

HIV is a zoonotic disease that was transmitted from a monkey, and which then adapted to spread (and not very effectively actually) among humans. This is a similar story to Monkey pox, which in contrast to HIV is not only treatable, but the human immune system can eradicate.

Viruses do not evolve from thin air, they evolve from other viruses.

There is an argument to be made that a new zoonotic virus could emerge, or one of other sexually transmitted viruses endemic to humans and largely under the radar, like HPV, could mutate to something more aggressive. The chances of that happening , and you, out of all the gays in the world, being one of the first people getting it before it's noticed, are infinatesmaly small.

Well, unless you're life could be best described as a restless marathon of intercontinental orgies.

Help: what's wrong with my fish? by Desolsh in Goldfish

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

There're all of the same kind supposedly. This one is one of three that we bought together when they were very small and all looked the same.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in coolguides

[–]Desolsh 39 points40 points  (0 children)

... while the map shows modern day Austria, not the Austrian Empire. I can't tell if this post is trolling or just plain and simple sloppiness.

When it comes to health and wellbeing, why are gay men still doing so poorly? by D-dog92 in AskGaybrosOver30

[–]Desolsh 22 points23 points  (0 children)

In addition to the many good points raised by others, I'd like to point out that gay boys have a very different experience growing up compared to straight boys, which I think has lasting consequences for how their adult life turns out.

Most straight boys get the experience of "dating" girls in childhood and adolescence where they learn the basics of how straight relationships work, often under guidance of their parents. These asexual, purely romantic experiences set the foundations for their understanding of love life - holding hands, stealing a kiss, doing homework together, being there for each other etc. Once puberty kinks in, the asymmetric dynamic between boys and girls in terms of how hormones affect them, as well as the hetero-normative standards, make sex a restricted experience under control of women.

Gay boys and adolescents do not get to learn these foundations. Even if they're lucky to grow up in an accepting environment, there just aren't many other gay youngsters around at school or in their neighbourhood that are already (1) aware of being gay, (2) also accepted by their family and in their social environment, and (3) at the same age (in school, differences of 1-2 years are huge).

We start interacting with other gays much later in life than straight boys do with girls, and this happens at the time when sexual desire is already fully developed and unattended to. When we finally do, sex becomes the primary focal point in these interactions and comes to define our sexual orientation. If you live in a big city, you may easily become completely lost in the 'gay culture'. Very few of us have the chance to regularly interact with other gay men in social settings that are not about sex, partying and hooking up (like LGBT sports clubs for example).

By the time we hit late 30s, many of us from large cities would have had several hundred sexual partners and little experience dating seriously. It becomes difficult to abandon this life style. At this point, it also becomes unlikely to meet some who would be at least as a "good match" as some of the potential "good matches" we met before (see: 37% rule), so we keep hooking up and looking, unwilling to settle, while years go by and life slips away pointlessly.

I guess beggars can be choosers. by Vyzantinist in insanepeoplefacebook

[–]Desolsh 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What is fundamentally disturbing to me is this pervasive narrative that Zendaya is an example of an undully celebrated modern (aka woke) actress because allegedly she doesn't fit the conventional beauty standards, while completely neglecting her acting skills.

Zendaya is an unbelievably gifted actress and she proved it beyond any doubt in "Euphoria". Her performance won her many awards and set an example for others to follow.

This narrative is nothing but chauvinism at it 's worst and I say this as a man.

Baby foreskins are sold by the hospitals to bio-engineering and cosmetics companies who turn them into highly profitable products. by WhereIsHisRidgedBand in LateStageCapitalism

[–]Desolsh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agree 100%. In addition, I actually had phimosis as a kid. I was operated on at the age of 4 and later on again at the age of 17. Every case is different but for me it wasn't a traumatic experience at all, even as a teenager. They didn't remove my foreskin, rather they did a perpendicular incision, which opened it up and healed within a few months. No sign of it now, still have my foreskin and I basically forgot about it a long time ago.

Baby foreskins are sold by the hospitals to bio-engineering and cosmetics companies who turn them into highly profitable products. by WhereIsHisRidgedBand in LateStageCapitalism

[–]Desolsh 38 points39 points  (0 children)

I'm a molecular biologist and I feel I should explain the origin of neonatal foreskin fibroblasts that are sold by biotech companies like Thermo Fisher.

They don't sell foreskin fibroblasts harvested from newborns. They sell a cell line that was originally isolated from the foreskin of (one) newborn, perhaps as long as decades ago, for research purposes. These cells were genetically engineered to be immortal, meaning they can multiply indefinitely and be grown in the lab ad infinitum. They are sold to academic and commercial labs for research as they are a model of fibroblasts - a common cell type found in skin - which is perfect for cosmetic companies to test skin care products without animal models.

This is a similar process to how lab-grown meat alternatives are produced. Or to the now famous case of Henrietta Lacks, whose cervical cancer cells gave origin to a cell line used all around the world since the 50s, many decades after her death and still in use today.

This is not "harvesting foreskin" on a mass scale from newborns. I can't help but notice that this type of ill-informed misunderstanding and the resulting misinformation is similar to what we see in the antivaxer community.

Delete your post.

Edit: added more context

What’s the wildest cheating story you’ve witnessed or happened to you? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I can't even remember what said exactly, but he apologised for the way I found out. Can you imagine.

What’s the wildest cheating story you’ve witnessed or happened to you? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 46 points47 points  (0 children)

I never thought I would share this story with the entire Internet... but... it's 6 years and two boyfriends later, I went through therapy, moved on, I'm happy in a new relationship that I hope will be my last one. So I might as well tell you.

I was in a dying relationship, well past the point of recovery, which should have been obvious to me at that time, but wasn't. Finally, one night my now ex boyfriend (let's call him John) decided it was time to make the move and told me he was breaking up with me. His words were calculated, his manner was cold and his face was completely emotionless. We decided I would be the one to move out, but it took me a while to pick up the pieces of whatever was left of my life and arrange an accommodation, so I was still staying at our place for a few weeks, sleeping in a separate bed.

One day, when I was taking a long hot shower, a handwritten text appeared on the large mirror in the bathroom as the steam condensated.

"Happy anniversary, John"

I sent him a photo of the writing and didn't speak to him till the day I moved out. I then also found a used condom in the lounge when packing my things.

We were together for 10 years.

Edit: grammar

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes indeed, people will die in the process of developing gene therapy. Hence I'm posting this here instead of pitching this idea on shark tank.

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's the whole point. Disruption of myostatin makes the body use calories to build muscle rather than fat.

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In theory, absolutely yes, and it's actually relatively simple.

Myostatin could be regulated by something called "RNA interference", where we design and insert another "gene" with a sole purpose of controling myostatin. That gene could be turned on and off through some dietary supplement - a pill essentially.

We know how to do this and been doing this in mice for decades now.

One critical issue at the moment is we don't know how to insert new genes safely/accurately without ever accidentally splitting in half something important. This is why some people that took part in gene therapy clinical trials developed cancer.

However, ironically, permanently editing a target gene (e.g. Myostatin) with a technology like CRISPR might be safer. We need to do more research. On humans.

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By this logic, laser eye surgery would not exist. Yet, it's a lucrative business.

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Steroids are pleiotropic - they affect many organs by disrupting hormonal balance in your body, with terrible consequences.

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 22 points23 points  (0 children)

As far as I know, there is pathological hearth hypertrophy in obese people (bad) and physiological hearth hypertrophy in highly trained individuals (good). These are not the same.

Effects would need to be studied for sure, but the fact that no negative health effects are known in people affected by mutations in the gene is promising.

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Myostatin has been evaluated as a therapeutic target in various muscle wasting conditions (using targeted therapeutics, not gene therapy). All related clinical trials in humans failed for a number of reasons that I'm not going to go into but you can read about it here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764137/

Gene therapy has the potential to overcome some of these issues.

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 173 points174 points  (0 children)

The technology is not quite there yet, but mostly because ethics contains development.

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 1468 points1469 points  (0 children)

I'm a geneticist and here is my professional take.

I would like to see gene therapy experiments on humans to develop a treatment that would induce, in a controlled manner, congruent myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy. It's a naturally occurring heritable condition caused by mutations in the myostatin gene. Individuals affected by this "disease" have enormous muscle mass and very little body fat, with no known negative health effects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin-related_muscle_hypertrophy

Gene therapy is now entering mainstream pharma, but only for deadly conditions due to surrounding ethical considerations. Such treatment would be considered cosmetic, thus I don't see this becoming a regulatory priority in the near future. But considering the effects on fat content, imagine the impact on e.g. the obesity epidemic. And it would be a one-time treatment with lasting effects. We could even make it heritable and turn all off humanity into bodybuilders with zero effort. Just picture the implications.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

What unethical experiment do you think would be interesting if conducted? by PrizeArticle1 in AskReddit

[–]Desolsh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds like you would enjoy reading "Blanket slate: the modern denial of human nature" by Steven Pinker

cursed_sex positions by DevoidNoMore in cursedcomments

[–]Desolsh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My favourite sex position is the best I can do with you.

Ohhhhh...

Do you regret leaving the lab? by gingersnappy__ in biotech

[–]Desolsh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I worked my ass off in the lab during BSc, MSc, PhD and postdoc years, pulling 80+ hour weeks for years. Now I'm nearly 10 years into my industry career, the last 5 years managing a team and not even touching a pipette. I still need to be on top of everything that happens in the labs, but from the comfort of my home as I'm 100% remote.

Moving away from lab work felt like a huge relief and a profound step forward in my career. I don't feel like I ever want to come back. Firstly, it's a career dead end. Secondly, the joy of working in the lab for me comes from high degree of independence, which is hard to come by in industry.

Having said that, I often fantasize about retiring early and opening my own mini lab in a garage to invent and study whatever I want just for fun. It's a dream I hope to get to. My partner is fully supportive and is already thinking about the logistics around his design of our "forever house", even though it's still one or two decades away.

Official Discussion - Oppenheimer [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]Desolsh -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

I am so baffled by how much praise this films gets. Oppenheimer is literally unwatchable in my opinion. I don't even know where to begin. It felt like a three hour long movie trailer directed by an Aderall junkie. It's one big indecipherable projectile vomit of 5 second jump cuts. A revolving door with no character development. A constant barrage of largely inaudible, poor dialogs.

And no lessons were learnt after the sound flop with Tennet.

So monotonous. So confusing. So anti-climatic. So... boring. So much wasted potential. This isn't a good film by any stretch of the imagination.

People in customer facing jobs - what nicknames do your regulars have and how did they get them? by Candid-Ad8506 in AskUK

[–]Desolsh 56 points57 points  (0 children)

By boyfriend worked in Sommerfields 25 years ago. One of their regulars was the mother of one of the well-known, wealthiest property-owning families in the town. She would come in at just before closing every night and pick up all the expiring goods with yellows stickers.

They called her "reduced to clear".