Doctor Google

[IQ popping]

Maybe you can put your Google medical degree right along side your Tafe economics diploma?

They'll both be worth the same

[mantra]

But is it actually help, or just making things worse? Nature is more than just a dozen or so charismatic macrovertebrates. Feeding predators is about the worst thing you could possibly do to the natural balance, and most wild animals that people feed are at least partly predatorial - eg possums, magpies, kookaburras, stray cats etc. Even the humble birdfeeder is discouraged by most genuine bird enthusiasts because of the problems it causes.

I possibly have made things worse - but I know that magpies can protect themselves against many other predators because of their aggressiveness, intelligence and size. Once they've had some human interaction, they are less likely to attack people who venture near their nests. They also chase away the imported Indian Minor birds and are predominantly ground feeders and live on seeds, berries and insects. The little bit of meat I feed them I like to think means one less live meal consisting of a small bird.

Cruel as it sounds - there should be a national law that all stray cats are to be caught and euthanised as so many are abandoned and dumped - but this is not the case unfortunately. It is very difficult to keep them away particularly when a garden offers so much protection and live feed. It seems better to feed a starving animal than have it catch another living one, but I have finally found some people who will help me catch and euthanise abandoned cats so hopefully a more natural balance will eventually be created. Antisocial and/or feral cats aren't easy to either trap or handle. Even vets are reluctant to touch them.

Back to the original topic - google has several advantages over your GP. One is motivation. You will be a lot more motivated than your GP to track down all the information. One is time - you will spend a lot more than the 15 minutes your GP or specialist allots to you, if it is serious enough. This allows you to take advantage of all the extra information available, which can come in particularly useful in diagnosing rare or recently described conditions. There are now many online communities dedicated to every disease there is. Online video diagnosis has several advantages over a textbook diagnosis (which most doctors still use) - at least for 'external' symptoms. That is, where you look at video examples of certain disorders in other people. A text description will never fully capture the subtleties of some behavioural disorders or mild physical changes. Even photos can fail to capture aspects that become instantly clear in a video. But if you spend enough time online you will eventually come across videos that negate the need to understand any of the medical jargon used to describe and identify the outwardly visible symptoms. In this context the medical establishment can actually become a barrier to a diagnosis.

That's exactly right. GP's do not have the time nor the inclination to go hunting around for remedies and if they're baffled or ignorant often waste your time and money by sending you for unnecessary tests and then off to a specialist.

Of course online diagnosing can steer you in the wrong direction - but then so can doctors, but you can become more clear about some health issues with a little research.

[freediver]

The little bit of meat I feed them I like to think means one less live meal consisting of a small bird.

Not true. There are a few assumptions you are incorrectly making. One is that the particular birds only eat the snacks you feed them. In reality, once they see humans as a source of food, they will seek out more. There could be a dozen neighbours in your area all feeding the same few birds that go from house to house.

Another assumption is that you will not increase the bird population. You will. These animals will always breed to the carrying capacity of their environment, then start going hungry. Unfortunately for the lizards, grubs and whatever else they eat, they will be living in an area overpopulated with reltaively intelligent predators that cosntantly hunt them down, and whose population does not crash just because the prey population crashes.

Cruel as it sounds - there should be a national law that all stray cats are to be caught and euthanised as so many are abandoned and dumped

Why is feeding stray cats any worse than kookaburras? They are both effective predators.

It seems better to feed a starving animal than have it catch another living one, but I have finally found some people who will help me catch and euthanise abandoned cats so hopefully a more natural balance will eventually be created.

It is actually pretty easy with an upside down box trap like you see on cartoons.

[mantra]

Not true. There are a few assumptions you are incorrectly making. One is that the particular birds only eat the snacks you feed them. In reality, once they see humans as a source of food, they will seek out more. There could be a dozen neighbours in your area all feeding the same few birds that go from house to house.

If my snacks are better - maybe I'm the only home they visit. They protect my garden to an extent - at least from seahawks circling for too long. They warn other birds in the location to duck for cover or flee, although not always successfully.

Another assumption is that you will not increase the bird population. You will. These animals will always breed to the carrying capacity of their environment, then start going hungry. Unfortunately for the lizards, grubs and whatever else they eat, they will be living in an area overpopulated with reltaively intelligent predators that cosntantly hunt them down, and whose population does not crash just because the prey population crashes.

We can't protect the lizards and grubs no matter how dedicated we are to preserving wildlife. The only partial solution is to encourage strength because no matter what sort of creature you are there is always a stronger one nearby.

No doubt the smaller weaker animals will have trouble surviving and there will come a time when many food sources are cut off.

Why is feeding stray cats any worse than kookaburras? They are both effective predators.

It is actually pretty easy with an upside down box trap like you see on cartoons.

Feeding stray cats is the wrong thing to do when logic over-rules emotion. Kookaburras and cats are both excellent rat catchers - but the cat detracts more from the environment. They are probably the most mistreated animal in our society. People generally don't like cats and most organisations have turned their back on them, including the local council who won't take them anymore. No-one will and even if you can persuade a vet to come out and put them down - you still have to catch the cats and cage them not box them. It's a cruel process.

[Mattus]

The problem with Dr Google is that it does not differentiate between credible and non credible sources. Google in general is a poor research tool because it is designed to find things, regardless of how obscure, and it does this very well. Search for anything on google and you will find it. No matter how absurd it is.

Take for example, perform a google search for "viruses don't exist". If you were to arm yourself with only the results of that google search, and not with any actual grounding in biology, you could easily come to some very absurd and dangerous conclusions about the transmission of HIV.

Google anything, no matter how absurd, and you will find someone who agreed with it. The internet is full of Melbarts.

[freediver]

The problem with Dr Google is that it does not differentiate between credible and non credible sources. Google in general is a poor research tool because it is designed to find things, regardless of how obscure, and it does this very well.

It does distinguish between popular and unpopular. Just google "allow whaling" to see what I mean. Ultimately, credibility equates to popularity.

Take for example, perform a google search for "viruses don't exist". If you were to arm yourself with only the results of that google search, and not with any actual grounding in biology, you could easily come to some very absurd and dangerous conclusions about the transmission of HIV.

Did you actually google that before posting? The very first result is dedicated to debunking the myth.

We can't protect the lizards and grubs no matter how dedicated we are to preserving wildlife. The only partial solution is to encourage strength because no matter what sort of creature you are there is always a stronger one nearby.

Mantra, is is not about protecting individual animals. It is a good thing if kookaburras live of local grubs and lizards. It is about preserving the balance of nature. You can still achieve some kind of balance in an urban environment, but not if you artificially inflate predator numbers.

Feeding stray cats is the wrong thing to do when logic over-rules emotion. Kookaburras and cats are both excellent rat catchers - but the cat detracts more from the environment.

So because feeding cats is an even worse idea that somehow makes feeding rpedatory birds a good idea?

[Mattus]

It does distinguish between popular and unpopular. Just google "allow whaling" to see what I mean. Ultimately, credibility equates to popularity.

Rubbish. Myths are by nature extremely popular, and it ranks by popularity only after it has ranked by matching the search term. So if your search term is an opinion such as "allow whaling" or "viruses don't exist" you will invariably find a page that agrees with the term, no matter how ridiculous and unpopular it is. By providing a search term which returns your own personal uninformed rant which happens to agree with the search term only supports my argument.

Take for example, perform a google search for "viruses don't exist". If you were to arm yourself with only the results of that google search, and not with any actual grounding in biology, you could easily come to some very absurd and dangerous conclusions about the transmission of HIV.

Did you actually google that before posting? The very first result is dedicated to debunking the myth.

I got http://virusmyth.tripod.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; what did you get?

[IQ popping]

Ultimately, credibility equates to popularity.

Congrats. You just managed to combine arumentum ad populum and argumentum ad absurdium in 5 words

[freediver]

Consensus building is an integral part of the modern scientific method.

[mantra]

Consensus building is an integral part of the modern scientific method.

Unfortunately you are right - but this doesn't prove that the science is right. Science doesn't always equate to logic and is often just a well promoted theory. Popular consensus can also be read as an indication of how thoughtless our society has become in believing propaganda when it becomes repetitive.