Leaderboard

Anarcho-syndicalism...a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and thus control influence in broader society. The end goal of syndicalism is to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery. Anarcho-syndicalist theory generally focuses on the labour movement. Reflecting the anarchist philosophy from which it draws its primary inspiration, anarcho-syndicalism is centred on the idea that power corrupts and that any hierarchy that cannot be ethically justified must be dismantled. The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are solidarity, direct action (action undertaken without the intervention of third parties such as politicians, bureaucrats and arbitrators) and direct democracy, or workers' self-management. ...creating an alternative cooperative economic system with democratic values and production centred on meeting human needs. Anarcho-syndicalists perceive the primary purpose of the state as the defence of private property in the forms of capital goods and thereby of economic, social and political privilege.... (from picky weedia) A Rolling Stone says, "hey you, get off of my cloud!" while a Scotsman says, "Hey McLeod, get off of my ewe!"

Probably not because we can get creative about the way we express them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth's_up-arrow_notation

It's an English figure of speech. If I had known English was not your first language, I would not have used it.

You're paraphrasing the core message of Malcolm Gladwin's 'Outliers: The Story of Success'. Gladwin's background is in journalism. His work heavily borrows from and grossly distorts the work of K. Anders Ericsson, a Swedish Professor of Psychology, particularly his research on deliberate practice as presented in such books as 'Towards a General Theory of Expertise' (1991). This quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method) highlights a major discrepancy in Gladwin's 'motivational' interpretation: And by 'deliberate practice', the implication is total engagement a highly structured programme of skills development with regular feedback from an expert tutor. Clearly reading a book on the subject would not count as deliberate practice for example.

Well, this is a discussion site, so if you don't want to talk about it, it might be best not to bring up that particular topic.

Sure, I understand. If you clearly explain your position, can provide reason or evidence to support your position, and respond directly to the questions of others, you will get along great here even if others disagree with you. You also have the right to expect the same from others. If you don't know, simply say "I don't know". If you are shown to be in error, admit to it and move on. No one cares if someone makes a mistake; we all do it. If you mean "almost never", don't say "never". People will respond to the words you use, not the words you "meant" to use. This is a science site. Logic, reason and evidence are important, no matter the topic.

But you said, and

I did not. I did not beg, I don't pay for it now, and will not pay in any "other means." I enjoy it. A lot.

Do you have a recollection of begging for life before coming here?

Institutions, that teach or place, scientists, can , and often do, have biases. The science itself, can not.

Except that 'Present Reptiles' are not descended from dinosaurs. The lineages that were to become lizards & snakes, turtles & tortoises, the tuatara and the crocodilians had all split off from the sauria/archosaur line before dinosaurs were a thing..

Er, well, mastodons, sabre-toothed tigers, etc. appeared about 40m or more years later, from the Miocene onwards. The mammals that existed at the end of the Cretaceous were indeed small and shrew-like.

I'll try a logical explanation with more detail without referring to math of specific laws of physics this time: Let's say two hypothetical devices are working perpetually* as a unit without external energy source. Perpetual motion device A feeds energy (1) into device B and then device B feeds energy (2) to device A. Since no external energy is added and operation is perpetual there is no internal energy wasted; efficiency is 100%. Device A runs from the energy provided by B and B runs from the energy provided by A. Hence, over time, A must supply B with the same amount of energy that A would require to operate in isolation. And B must provide A with the same amount of energy B would require to run in isolation. So the result is that the only way the device A and B could work as a 100% efficiency perpetual motion device together is if they could do so in isolation. A and B are perpetual devices on their own or the device (A+B) is not a perpetual device. In other words you can not build a perpetual motion device unless you have a set of perpetual motion devices. This does of course not alter the fact that perpetual motion machines is not possible. It is just a way of showing how OPs setup is not working in a general case. (I answered from phone earlier and was unable to use an image. This is pretty much same as @Janus but I had started drawing already so posting probably does not harm.) *) Not possible! Only used to setup the explanation.

You have identified the major problem with the "Does God Exist ?" debates -- there are at least as many unstated concepts of God as there are debaters. I strongly doubt that any consensus on a definition could be reached. Ergo, the debate is pointless. When you address the question on a personal level you are free to formulate your own definition of God. It is on that definition that the outcome of your personal decision process hinges. If you define God as some sort of entity that not only can but with some regularity does intercede in natural physical processes, then there is a great deal of objective evidence that no such God exists. In fact, the existence of anything that regularly upsets what we have come to expect as the orderly processes of nature is antithetical to science, which seeks to uncover and explain that natural order in terms of predictive models. Without that order there can be no science. Science seems to work rather well. So any concept of God or any religious tenets that directly contradict science as buttressed by experimental evidence is clearly indistinguishable from superstition. Superstition is, essentially by definition, wrong. If you define God as some sort of entity that exists outside of the natural universe and does not regularly disrupt the operation of that universe according to the principles discovered by science, then science and religion are disconnected, and neither has anything to say about the other. In this situation neither science nor logic can be brought to bear on the question of the existence of God. The order of the universe could be mere happenstance or it could be the result of God. The question is logically undecidable. You are free to reach your own conclusion, or forego a final conclusion. But do not deceive yourself that whatever conclusion you reach is based on rigorous logic, unless you formulate a sufficiently narrow definition of God to be able to apply empirical data. In any case you should recognize that, despite the marvelous progress of science, there is a lot that we don't know. If we knew everything the satisfaction and outright fun of scientific discovery would be lost.

It is not 'speculation' and I proved it. I even followed the rules despite you and everyone else breaking them. The fact that you deleted my posts just goes to show how dishonest and quite frankly how cowardly you are. What a stain on the Scientific Community you turned out to be. You really are an 'Evil Liar' like your motto says. I noticed you never go after those that violate the Forum Rules as long as the violations and insults are directed towards myself. That makes you are Hypocrite as well. You should step down as Moderator or just close this subforum as it is obviously a Trigger to your Safe Space. Lol. and used only to unfairly attack anyone that would dare use the Scientific Method as I have to win the debate. All the rest of you that support this behavior should be ashamed of yourselves. You are just as Evil as @swansont claims to be. No doubt you are all very Prideful of this fact, so enjoy it while it lasts. Although you folks do not realize it yet, all of this will come back to you in a very bad way. It always does. I won the debate. You lost. Go ahead and ban me like the sore loser you are. How pathetic. Delete this post too if you are too Chicken to keep it. You big Cry Baby... lol what joke you are. By the way, the rest of you post as if your I.Q. is below 83. I now have confirmation that it is as said. Not a single one of you could offer anything near a counterargument. Unbelievably unimpressive. I would suggest you 'men' out there have your mom buy you some more Tucking Underwear as you have no use for that part of your body anyhow. 🤣 Base12 Out.

Adam always be suspect of what someone tells you about evolution unless they were present sixty million years ago to note the changes in person and relay them to you from direct experience Scientists who try to infer big picture clues from tiny snippets get it wrong sometimes, they update those findings new in updated studies every new decade I just spent fourteen years in one thread in the biology forum here, coral growth vessels thread, convincing scientists that micro reef systems weren't fake They threw all manner of angry denial, scholar links and proofs to the contrary (exactly like evolution debates go) at me since 2009, only to relent finally yesterday Your intuition shouldn't be discounted: the evolutionary link between extant animals and dinosaurs isn't hard to fathom given today's genetic lineage tracing abilities The link between humans and dinosaurs is a massive chasm of guessing no form of authoritative writing or chart posting will ever seal Scientists will fill in the gaps for the portions they don't know, haven't experienced, that's the human portion of the matter. We don't get to know the answer you seek We get to guess at it, and present it to you yet again as indisputable fact that's the inseparable human condition in the matter If you were told that scientists aren't quite sure yet how that leap was completed, and that modes presented as fact today will just change/ evolve in fifty years as science progresses but we can't say definitively how it works now, that'd be fact. Plausible potential options have been presented to you here but not sealed fact I just undid fourteen years of sealed fact by linking YouTube videos, sometimes a little persistence works to undo the going rules of a given decade.

Non-scientific (for lack of adequate scientific definition already mentioned) is supernatural ? Panpsychism, dualism, illusionism, even plato's cave ideas are all scientific schools of thought trying to clear some mystery worse than "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" of Churchill in describing soviet political mindset