Leaderboard

The upsetting thing is that you are making claims without substantiating them. Such as “Why this prevalent homogeneity of views in science?” and “why has entire fields of scientific investigation been relinquished to the fringes of science?” Both questions assume an underlying premise that you have not shown to be true.

I suppose what @MigL means is that differential geometry is no longer applicable. There is no point closer, and closer, and closer still to a given point. There might be "quantifiable relationships between distinct objects" but not of a geometric nature. Or there might be no distinction of objects. Or... I suppose when you say "objects" you mean points? Maybe the quantifiable relationships are something like entanglement, but that's not really geometry.

MiG is currently a division of United Aircraft Corporation, also including Sukhoi, Tupolev, Yakovlev, Ilyushin and others. It was originally known as the Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau after the engineers who founded it during the first stages of WW2, Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich. Both have been deceased for over 50 years, and design duties passed on to be succeeded by R Belyakov ( I believe ). Over the years they have produced iconic interceptor/fighter jets which have sold in great numbers because of low cost and 'simplicity' of operation, including MiG-15 ( Korean war ), MiG-19-21 ( Vietnam war), and MiG-25 ( Iraq, and V Belenko's famous defection in 1976, with vacuum tubes in the radar ). As with your other thread, I can't take this one seriously either.

I disagree with this premise. I think what you do not quite appreciate is that there are things that are well-established and things that are still under investigation. Among the former, the key elements have been investigated so thoroughly that most reasonable folks with knowledge simply have no objections to the assumption. To a lay person it might seem like homogeneity, but it is really just because hundreds or thousands of scientists worked on that view and that it all the alternative explanations have been effective discarded because of the accumulated evidence. The laws of thermodynamics are such an example, in hundred of years no one really managed to challenge them meaningfully, so it makes a lot of sense to start with them as a given. Similarly, you probably would not want to consider flat Earth as a reasonable starting point. no This does not make sense. If you have a model it has to allow for predictions under the situation covered by your model. Data measured under those conditions either fall in line with the prediction or they don't. In the latter case you have to revise your model. This does not make sense. Either the field is fringe, which basically just means that not a lot of folks are interested in it (could be for a lot reason, personal interest, difficulty or insufficiently developed to do proper science). Or it is a field in which case by definition it is not fringe. I don't know either. But there are quite a few papers on near death experiences. Probably just not discussing it in a way that you find attractive. Natural science deals with the material world. It would be weird to criticize something, which is the basis for your work. It is likely trying build a religion but decide that humans have no place in it and only squirrels are allowed to follow it. I have worked with hundreds of scientists who are not famous (and I am certainly not myself). You should define mainstream here. If you mean with areas that are obscure, you are likely wrong. I know specialists in very weird and specific fields that do not make much sense to me, but they still follow scientific approaches. If you mean that they are doing non-mainstream approaches then I refer you to my above comment regarding rigor. If you cannot show that your approach is scientifically sound, folks will not consider it much more than unscientific guessing. When I develop a new method, I have to compare it with existing best practices. I cannot just make something up. This seems like a random statement without context. There are many scientists working on various aspects of consciousness. Probably someone should tell them that it is somehow bas for their careers. You are missing the point that some things are well established and some other parts (which are usually the key elements of the paper) are novel. But to understand the novelty you have to understand the field. If you have only a cursory understanding (if at all) it may not look like a difference to you. What I am sensing is that you have an assumption regarding science that confuses you, and it is clear that you would need more understanding of a given field (rather than superficial in multiple) to get a sense what is really going on.

Surely, there are even some male only-child homosexuals or bisexuals. There is a gay young man on some chat room claiming to have two older sisters and no brothers. The gene thing might just be part of the equation. The protein thing might be another part. Children are also a product of their environment. Sons abused by mothers in childhood may feel uncomfortable around women. Life experiences may play some part. Sometimes a same-sex partner is just a matter of what is available or handy at the time. I think humans, not inhibited by any social taboos, are largely naturally attracted to whatever looks good to their own eyes or sounds good to their own ears like, for instance, a nice face, sexy hair, pretty white teeth, tan skin, puppy-dog eyes, a smooth, soft voice and a slender body. Most humans, male, female, straight, bi or gay, are averse to the sight of obese or old people.