Leaderboard

I have significant experience working in research that is adjacent to clinical trials. I think the big thing preventing many folk/herbal/alternative therapies from being prescriptible medical products is that one of the first steps in evaluating a potential therapeutic agent is determining HOW and WHY it works. So if you have Grandma's bubbleberry bush tea that helps with her asthma, we can use that as a starting point. But we're going to stick it through a GCMS to determine exactly what molecules are in it. We are then going to determine which components of the tea are those that are active, and isolate them. We then test in vitro to see how they alleviate asthma. We may then bring in the biochemistry people, and they may determine that by adding an acetyl group to the enzyme we isolated from the tea makes it 5 times more effective. Then you synthesize it, and take it to clinical trial. By the time it's in a pharmacy, it's called Dilexapropha, its side effects include diarrhea and gastrointestinal upset (which you'd get if you drank 7 pots of bubbleberry bush tea as well), and shouldn't be taken by breastfeeding mothers. And the same people who only take herbal remedies who wanted bubbleberry tea to be a legit medicine won't touch it.

! Moderator Note I'm going to call for more civility here, or I must assume this long thread has run its course. There's been little discussion of late, so I'd like to remind you all that belittling someone else's stance doesn't count as support for your own. You're at a table, not on opposite sides of a fence.

I don't know how deep it is, but I doubt that I'm overthinking this. I just follow the Weinberg's derivation of the H-theorem, which in turn follows the Gibbs' one, which in turn is a generalization of the Boltzmann's one. The first part of this theorem is that dH/dt ≤ 0. That is, H is time-dependent, which means P(α) is time-dependent. I thing that in order for H to correspond to a thermodynamic entropy, P(α) has to correspond to a well-defined thermodynamic state. However, in other states it actually is "some kind of weird thing −∫P(α,t)lnP(α,t)." This is how I think it's done, for example. Let's consider an isolated box of volume 2V with a partition in the middle. The left half, of volume V has one mole of an ideal gas inside with a total energy E. The right half is empty. Now let's imagine that we have infinitely-many of these boxes. At some moment, let's remove the partitions in all of them at once and then let's take snapshots of the states of gas in all the boxes at a fixed time t. We'll get a distribution of states of gas in the process of filling the boxes, and this distribution depends on t. This distribution gives us the P(α,t) . The H-theorem says that, as these distributions change in time the corresponding H decreases until it settles at a minimum value when a distribution corresponds to a well-defined thermodynamic state. At that state it is the same as -kS.

I think the question is a little open ended, you know for certain all has failed when the victims lose their lives. So in answer I will engage with you as follows: When all else that is knowingly at your disposal within the time frame remaining. The bomb is ticking and time is nearly up, you have the choice to cut a wire or not. Don't cut the wire and you are guaranteed death, choose and cut a wire and you have a chance of either living or dying. Given that at this stage you have no idea which wire will be the correct one you have the option to try, or accept the inevitable. I choose to cut a wire.

Aha, so it's seawater equivalent , i.e. in ionic strength, not real seawater. Regarding the burst earthworms - and your expanding ragworms - If you have a more concentrated solution and a weaker one, either side of a membrane that allows water molecules to pass through, but not the ions, what tends to happen?

I dunno, I find that most dialogues tend to end up as either an exercise in colliding philosophies or actual colliding people following different philosophies, whether the people in them would call themselves philosophers or not. I call it the war of the words sometimes. Simply out of a lack of anything better to call it really. For those of us here, self-interested philosophy permitting indulgence in our worst selves is the true enemy. The thing that unites us all, is that the prospect of having to authorize or carry out torture would give each of us extreme pause. Which I feel is good. Far better than the sinister types who use words as a weapon to do whatever they please, at the expense of others. The types of people who would jump at the chance for the very idea of legally being allowed to torture someone or to have them tortured. There is one last argument I would like to make in regards to why I think torture is wrong in any situation. As a torturer or someone with the power to command others to torture, you have absolute power over someone. Power is always intoxicating. Whether it comes from money, influence or control. Today we justify the torture of a terrorist in an extreme situation, tomorrow we justify torture for another terrorist who isn't an active threat. Where could it end? Torturing a starving man for stealing bread? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The thing that frightens me, as a human, is that I don't know the answer to these following questions; if I engaged in torturing someone, if all 7billion+ people on this planet begged me to do it and I did... would there be some part of me, small or large, that enjoys it? Would it change me? Would it make it easier for me to do things that the me of today would abhore? The whole colliding philosophies thing is aggravating for sure. This is why I am a pragmatic contextualist. I try to find the value of every philosophical view, whether it is from right reasons or right emotional sentiment. Within strict pragmatic definitions of knowledge. It's not perfect, no philosophy ever will be, but I do find that so far, contextualism is the most scientifically minded philosophy, in that it seeks to account for and explain why philosophical differences and debates occur in the first place and finding out where they fit in the grand scheme of things. The goal is to have some kind of framework that does for philosophy what the standard model of physics, does for physics. Probably not completely correct in the long run, but helps us reach feasible explanations we can use to our benefit now. By observing just what the fuck is actually out there.

To the contrary, and as I have shown in real life cases, yes you can be sure of a 100% guilt at best, and guilt beyond reasonable doubt at worst. Either is sufficient to proceed with torture, the last resort on rare extraordinary occasions. This claim in realty (that we cannot be sure we have tried every way) is an example of philsophical pedant. We have had numerous suggestions here, including a nice cup of tea and biscuits....hours upon hours of questioning without sleep...and/or whatever else the assembled authorities can dream up. Revenge??🤣 Try self defence. And obviously it worked. Whatever other methods were on the cards is neither here nor there. He, (my Son) under advice from me, defended himself and consequently probably saved another 4 year old (Andrew) from growing up to be an out and out bully. Well said, particularly the highlighted parts by me. Again, couldn't agree anymore with the above wise statement. If I may add to it, and as I have said earlier, these types of threads simply develop into philsophical arguments, with one philosopher, calling the other a jackass. Reminds me again of one of my favourite quotes, "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". Henry Louis Mencken. Now heaven forbid, I am not referring to anyone in particular, but just the whole damn exersise that has been going on now over 24 pages. As a wise individual noted on the first two or three pages, its going down the same road as the justice/punishment thread...in other words, an exersise in colliding philsophies. 😏 😉 As was argued simarilly in the justice/punishment thread, ideally, it would be nice and heart warming if we could genuinly rehabilitate all criminals and wrong-doers, and eliminate all jails...ideally that is!! But what reasonable individual amongst us believe that such a utopia can ever exist. In essence it is nothing but a philsophical dream. The facts are we are all human...we are all emotional beings...while science does do its best to leave emotions aside, in the soft sciences, as per psychology, sociology, anthropology, and even political science, (the sciences that interpret human behavior) that is damn well near impossible. Unlike the hard sciences, (physics, chemistry cosmology etc) we are unable to establish any real, strict measurable criteria in those soft sciences. For the nth time, my moral ethics tell me that the first and main priority in any rare circumstances being discussed, are with the potential victims, and everything humanly possible should and must be done to protect those innocents. My life experiences have confirmed that to me many times.

That's the only common factor between a scripted scenario and real life. In real life situations, this is the only thing you know for sure at the time the decision must be made. You cannot be 100% sure you have the right captive; you can't be sure of his guilt, of whether he knows what you need to find out, what interrogation method will elicit the information he does have, whether and for how long the information you get will be useful, whether all less bad options have been exhausted, which kind of torture - if any - will produce results most quickly, what repercussions, consequences and long-term effects will result - for the the victim(s), the suspect, yourself, your agency, the justice system and society. You cannot know. You have to rely on your own judgment and instinct. If the rules are strict and your training is sound, more mature judgment than primal instinct. If not, more hunch and gut reaction. In our safe and comfortable chairs, secure in the belief that we will never participate, either as agent or as suspect, it's an easy decision. And that's wrong. It should never be easy.

Right now there is more freedom of speech in Russia concerning the Ukraine than has ever existed about most things here in the U.S. For just about everything you think you "know" about anything, just the opposite is probably the case. In this regard, the U.S. is worse than North Korea. But don't take my word for it on the North Korea topic. Take the word of an expert on the matter. www.foxnews.com › us › north-korean-defector-ivyNorth Korean defector says 'even North Korea was not this ... It would appear that I'm not allowed to say anything about the Ukrainian war around here without getting the troll treatment. So I figure, what the hell. I may as well tell you the truth on the matter and go out with a bang. The Ukrainian people have suffered a long and bloody relationship with Russia. That is why the person I will show you a picture of is widely admired there. Because contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe, he wasn't an invader to the Ukrainians. He was a saviour! To the brainwashed As I said, the Ukrainian people have suffered greatly in the past at the hands of the Russians. Because of what you have been brainwashed to believe, some of that blood is on your hands. You claim to support the Ukrainian people? What a laugh!!! You are enslaved by and support those at who's hands they have suffered. Here is a meme that tells the real history and the reason for it. It is interesting that the current president of the Ukraine is also Jewish. As far as I know, contrary to this meme, Lenin was only part jewish. But the Bolshevik's were indeed mostly if not completely made up of jews. I have a picture of some of them. One of them was a jew named Genrikh Yagoda. He was the head of the NKVD and is said to have personally orchestrated the untimely deaths of at least 10 million people. I will show you a meme of him and what he said. I looked it up myself. He actually did say that. Here is something else to desuds your brainwashed minds. It is a statement by a Nobel Laureate named Alexandyr Solzhenitsyn. Now sometimes winning the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a popularity contest. But Alexandyr Solzhenitsyn was an actual intellectual. He was a Russian Historian and novelist. Still having trouble believing your own eyes? That Stockholm Syndrome thing sure is a bitch, isn't it. You would probably flip out if I was allowed to prove to you that the holocaust was a hoax. The Russians were indeed the actual bad guys. And this person knew it. So if you have any doubt in your mind as to why the Ukrainians are so fiercely opposing the better equipped Russian forces, you now have your answer. I support them. You should to. The first step is in understanding them. And understanding their history is a big part of that.

It was shown to me use h3 and o3 to create he3 using a spining method to seperate h3 and o3 to create he3 and the shape matters of the disk for seperation hope this helps and use a high quality alunimum for the chamber. Also this will create a weightless enviornment and using the left over o will create perpulsion.

Great! we disagree. But my facts and common sense decency, and concern for innocent lives, (as opposed to some airy fairy philsophical stance) still stand, despite your unsupported rhetoric to the contrary, and always will. Might actually start a thread on why philsophers are so offended by any critique of their postion! 😆

Wow! the colour content is quite impresssive, but yeah, I also believe this has run its course, and having made many valid points and many morally correct arguments and assumptions, I will now gladly drop out and concentrate on the hard sciences.

I respectfully suggest you read the OP with regards to relevant points. We are having open discussion. But it appears to me we have a couple of participants that are embracing a "holier then thou" persona, simply because they have done presumably some course in philosophy. Then that old familiar quote becomes evident, ( about philsophers arguing that all others are jackasses)particularly when a non philsopher argues against that philosophy. In actual fact, in the first instance, I am arguing from a ethically morally correct position, in that innocent lives far, far outweight any consideration for the perpetrators of evil. In the second instance, I am arguing that while I support laws and edicts against torture, just as I do against killing another human, that on very rare occasions, we may need to disregard those laws and edicts. In the third instance, I am arguing that such rare occurences when we may need to use such means, makes them morally correct, whether or not we are successful in saving the innocent lives at peril. In the forth instance, I am also saying that guilt can be 100% certain, or at least beyond any reasonable doubt. In the fifth instance I am arguing that is the rare circumstances when situations arise as being discussed, and as per the previous points, then the normal judicial system maybe put aside, and certainly would be in those circumstances. In the sixth instance, I am pretty sure that in a normal westernised democratic society, where some low life puts at risk the lives of thousands of innocents, then that society would support the decisions made, whether successful or not.