Good post. Just a small quibble about terminology: I understand a natural law to be an expression of empirical fact. I.e. it merely describes a relationship that anyone can verify to a stated level of precision by collecting their own data. A theory corresponds to a formal logical system that provides a predictive, explanatory model. As I understand it, there is no logical basis for a physical law. It does not arise from a theory that has a lot of empirical support. It precedes a theory.

Isn't religion (along with language) a prominent characteristic of ethnicity?

I think that perhaps you mistake the agnostic stance. A lot of people mistakenly think it is a position on the fence taken by those who can't decide. On the contrary, agnosticism simply refers to those who do not possess direct knowledge (i.e. gnosis). Being agnostic does not mean being open minded to drivel. It means that I do not possess direct knowledge of the item in question. According to logic, the onus is on the claimant to furnish an example of that which they claim exists.

People who claim non-existence are, by default, gnostics, since it is impossible to logically demonstrate non-existence. They must assert non-existence through some magical knowledge. If they do not claim such then they are agnostic by default. Agnosticism actually doesn't specify a position on the existence question, it is a qualifier for one's epistemological position. However, logic suggests that you start with an empty set and only add statements whose truth can be verified. So, barring evidence, I begin without any existence statements and only add agents to my model when they can be demonstrated.

Having a working hypothesis about Harvey the Rabbit just strikes me as silly. I can propose a never ending list of entities that cannot be detected by any test. Will you fill your models with non-existence clauses for each of this infinite set? Have I not exercised power over you in making you assign importance to a word of my choosing and? Have I not forced ideas into your model that do not help to explain anything that you observe? Thanks, but I prefer to keep my slate clean and deal with ideas that I find useful rather than go around arguing with people about words that appear meaningless.

I disagree. As a scientist, I should simply refrain from building models that contain an agent labeled "Harvey the Rabbit". The proposition is completely meaningless either as an assertion or a negation. You cannot negate existence of something by simply failing to have an example. It is illogical and untenable to insert statements negating the existence of "Harvey the Rabbit" into one's models. The model should simply not address any such agent or entity without a demonstrable benefit. In the same way, it is illogical and untenable to claim non-existence of any god based on the absence of supporting information. Thinking that you are talking nonsense also does not imply that the scientist imposes non-existence clauses in his or her models. I can observe that you are talking nonsense because you are using words (like "Harvey the Rabgit") that cannot be adequately and consistently defined and shown to label some thing that I can perceive for myself. (((By the way, I apologize for this wall of text. I have used white space, including separating ideas into paragraphs, but the preview always eats all white space and collapses the post into a wall-of-text. Anybody have any hints on how to avoid this?)))

I agree. Logically, agnosticism is the default position in the absence of evidence. I think this low rate is due to childhood indoctrination. This tends to lead to non-rational belief or rejection of the belief.

This shows the onset from the ballistic regime into the diffusive one. They can resolve the motions of the glass bead from single collisions all the way up to a statistical ensemble of them (on which scale Brownian motion is observed). I.e. this has more to do with classical statistical mechanics than quantum mechanics.

I think you mean homophones. ;)

I don't see any proof of that in the article. The article implies that it was lack of initiative by Salk Institute that allowed StemCells to secure a patent on the technique: "The dispute comes down to access to a technique that Schwartz helped develop at the Salk Institute but the institute failed to patent. StemCells did." Can you provide a citation that gives a detailed chronology? In any case, Weissman comes off as a huge hypocrite by freezing out a research group with no commercial interests --- i.e., on the one hand he'll advocate for freedom to carry out this research, while simultaneously stymieing basic, non-commercial research with the other. This is what really bothers me about patents: They can enable commercial interests to erect a fence and keep out any public research in a potentially large area of science. Commercial interests can often secure funds to pay for licensing the patents. This usually is not in the budget for publicly funded research groups. (My preview shows this appearing as a wall of text, even though I have included white space.)

How can StemCells be granted a patent for this technique? It would seem that Salk Institute can prove that it is prior art (i.e. that they utilized this technique prior to any patent claims by StemCells), invalidating the patent claim by StemCells.