I'm interested in what other effects taking minocycline has. Often the same biological systems regulate or affect diverse phenomena. Case in point, I believe sickle cell trait offers resistance against Malaria, but also (under other circumstances) causes sickle cell anemia.

Does taking minocycline only improve rational decision making? If it does, does that increase fitness? I see three options which are worthy of some reflection.

• Our trust mechanism are not optimal, minocycline improves our decision making and increases fitness.
• Our existing trust mechanism offers good fitness. Perhaps trusting attractive females tends to pay off genetically, on average, and minocycline actually reduces genetic fitness (and perhaps increases things we consider more worthy).
• There's some other third factor, yet unidentified, which increased rational decision making trades off against.

Anyone care to weigh in on this?

I'll side with Dawkins and Krauss here. It seems to me inescapable that scientific progress and an ever better understanding of the natural causes of our world will ever tend to push out fables not based on evidence. As long as science will continue coming up with better answers, and as long as these answers (slowly) become known to more people, religions will continue withdrawing their claims from ever more areas, and with that their influence and authority will lessen.

In the last decades we've seen religious authorities the world over (including many Jewish and Muslim authorities) withdraw their claims against evolution, as part of a long cat and mouse game in which religion first lays down divine claims which may not be doubted, and then quietly withdraws those claims in the face of insurmountable evidence.

Historically this also seems to be supported, and not only in the west. While Eastern Europeans continue to give Christianity much respect, there's no denying that the influence of religion and the church has drastically dropped there compared to say, 100 years ago.

Even Eastern Europeans or Russians who go to Church every Sunday increasingly accept naturalistic causes and increasingly consult non religious authorities for their decision making. Where once the priest was the ultimate authority over every aspect of life, for an increasing number of people the priest has authority over matters of church, and many a church going Eastern European or Russian would not seriously consider heeding a priest's advice on which career path they should take, whether they should get a divorce, or who they should vote for.

I've made a moderately bold decision that I haven't started to regret yet: I'm going to read an undergrad textbook on every subject I claim to be interested in. My main hope for this is mapping out my own ignorance. It's extremely annoying when armchair-experts talk erroneously about subjects from a position of imaginary authority, and I don't wish to be one of those people. It should produce a useful line of demarcation: if I haven't read an undergrad textbook in a subject, I'm definitely unqualified to say what that subject does and does not contain.

If nothing else, it will at least teach me what I'm genuinely interested in, and what I only claim to be interested in.

(Also, yes, I've seen Luke's best-textbooks-on-every-subject post from two years ago.)