Area54

Well, that's an improvement on your OP. However, as @zapatos has pointed out it is still much to vague to do anything with. That is why the contribution from @MigL was valuable. It highlighted, if you had been willing to pay attention, that your OP had all the appearance of garbled nonsense. I've confirmed that view and zapatos has reiniforced it. Time for you to ante up something of value that is perceived as such by others, not just by yourself.

I presume you are trying to initiate a mind experiment. What is the goal of this experiment? If we knew that it might make the question look less nonsensical. (By the way if you were the member who gave a -1 to @MigL that was both undeserved and unhelpful. I've countered it, on your behalf.)

I would agree that some aspects of thinking are linear. Certainly, when explaining a concept to others we are obliged to move from point to point. However, this certainly not the way I approach all situations/topics. You spoke of the landscape viewed by the eagle and I should say that is a good analogy for how I think about more complex problems, especially in the early stages. The elements in the landscape represent data, or concepts and "seeing" them in this bird's-eye view allows one to better understand the relationship between them and adjust where necessary. I've not discussed this with others, but I would be surprised if this approach were unique. Indeed, the fact that you conceived the eagle example suggests you also think in this way, though you may not have recognised it.

The South Atlantic Anomaly is not a pole reversal. It is a distortion/reduction of the geomagnetic field that might be a step towards a pole reversal, but probably is not . Domingos et al note that "One of the striking characteristics of the present geomagnetic field is denoted the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) where the total field intensity is unusually low and the flux of charged particles, trapped in the inner Van Allen radiation belts, is maximum." However the ozone hole has nothing to do with the van Allen Belts or the SAA. Its causes are discussed in this wikipedia article. The presence of the holes at the poles is related to extended sunlight hours in hemisphere summers, wind patterns, low temperatures, etc. The ozone hole arose largely because of CFCs. The ban on these is allowing the ozone levels return towards normal. It will take till near the end of the century before these levels recover to those present before CFC use.

Perhaps if we send them videos of Trump they will change their minds and quarantine us instead.

Talking to myself is the best way of ensuring intelligent conversation.

Masks remove a huge source of information that complements and can even supercede the verbal message. I find it almost as bad as communicating by telephone, a process I have always found limiting because of the exclusion of body language. I can relate to that. On Skype/Messenger calls, pre-Covid, I nearly always engaged my video, even if my correspondent remained invisible. I found I could speak more fluently having someone to look at, even if it was just myself.

I did not wish to imply that the lack of further guidance within the forum rules and guidelines was a failing on the part of the forum. Rather I was directing my criticism towards members who lack the self control, or experience, or good sense, or courtesy, or enlightened self interest to post only thoughtful, constrained, well constructed, logical posts. Acquiring the self control, experience, good sense etc. can be a painful experience, but it seems to me it is one where the responsibility lies primarily with the individual member paying heed to the rules, which we were all required to read before joining, and paying heed to such guidance as is offered by staff and ordinary members thereafter. If I had a potentially important hypothesis, regardless of how excited I was about sharing it, my first step would be to explore the various ways it might be shared and to determine what the strengths and weaknesses of each might be. I wouldn't jump on an internet forum and start spouting incoherently. But maybe that's just me.:)

I view this as a powerful incentive, to those who need it, to think carefully before posting, thus avoiding posts they might later regret. Based upon the content of some posts in some threads, however, it is not a sufficiently powerful incentive.

It's less true today, but fifty years ago one could identify which part of the city an individual came from by their accent. The accent thought of as Glaswegian is largely the working class accent from south of the Clyde. It was all a bit Henry Higgins across the whole country.

Surely any thorough comparison of success and failure would include discussion of responsibility. It would certainly be a valid topic of discussion.

There are several examples from the 19th century and earlier. My interest in geology prompts me think of Mary Anning, of whom Wikipedia says "[she] was an English fossil collector, dealer, and palaeontologist who became known around the world for finds she made in Jurassic marine fossil beds in the cliffs along the English Channel at Lyme Regis in the county of Dorset in Southwest England. Anning's findings contributed to changes in scientific thinking about prehistoric life and the history of the Earth." (Those interested in her story can find out more in The Dinosaur Hunters, by Deborah Cadbury. )

Taking a very self-centred view I would say, Old Age.

Spinning your wheels?

This site. Scroll down about 1/3 of the page to find the diagram.

My response to the OP was about as general as they come. I suggest, if it failed to meet your expectation, that you restate your question, bringing some clarity to it - assuming you actually want an answer.

I'm not sure that "believe" is the best word to describe how scientists think of their findings. Rather, they develop understandings of the topics they investigate. These understandings are not absolutes, but are provisional. They are descriptions of what, based on the available evidence, seem to be the best explanation for all the related observations and tests and analyses. As more information becomes available then the understandings may change, be completely abandoned, or become the established view - but a view that can always be changed in future, with new data, or a new perspective on the old.

Credit where credit is due: they did it as a recording, not a YouTube video. Such an Old School approach is redolent with gravitas. On the other hand, recognising - seemingly - only nine sensory systems suggests their science education ended rather too soon.

That's what I've always told myself.

You are very kind, but keep in mind that self deprecation is the hallmark of both the humble and of the elitist egotist.

What leads you to think so? Would you give one or two good examples, clearly describing how those examples demonstrate your point.

While I don't rule it out, it runs counter to our present understanding of language and of animal communication. The power of language is its ability to combine various elements to communicate complex concepts. A corollary of that is the ready opportunity to create completely unique messages that are nevertheless understood directly by those familiar with the language. For example, I doubt if the following sentence has ever been written or spoken before: The elderly spinster from Copenhagen had never expected the train journey by express through the Low Countries would lead, during a meal at the station buffet in Brussels, to an introduction to the former chancellor of Edinburgh University and his adopted daughter, a violinist en route from Prague. You are unlikely to have had any difficulty in understanding the sentence. No animal is known to able to do anything akin to this. (I accept that the jury is still out in regard to cetaceans and that is an area worthy of further research. ) I suspect at least that level of sophistication is necessary for any advanced civilisation, but that may just be ignorance on my part. Certainly I can well imagine a species that complemented its full blooded language with a variety of more primitive and simple signals. After all we humans do it with body language and non-verbal noises, so I am not arguing against having a sound understanding of all communicaiton systems. Surely a picture of Donald Trump should be sufficient.

Since the only creatures on Earth that definitley* have language, as opposed to a small array of signals, is homo sapiens, the objective has already been met. *This applies even although some of them cannot type definitely correctly.

You could consider the plaques added to the Pioneer spacecraft, both destined for interstellar space, where they might get intercepted by aliens. They are described in the Wikipedia article. The logic used for them seems a good starting point. In a sense the object is not to develop a language as such, but rather to find the most convenient way of conveying information. Of course, we need to account for the possibility that the aliens we hope to "talk" to are deaf, or blind, and communicate via odours, or body movement, or . . . .

Interesting. You felt an urge to dislike my post, but you could not do so until you had understood it. That shows promise. However, you haven't disproved my diagnosis. By the way if you disproved a false diagnosis you would, logically, be proving the diagnosis. No? I think religiion can alter the mood of its adherents (and probably, at times, its observers and opponents), but that is not its primary function. What is yours? I am an elderly, well educated, financially comfortable, white male with delusions of adequacy. No. It most definitely would not be such a group of people. You seem to have an expectation that everyone who questions you has the characteristic views of a sub-set of American citizens. Such narrow mindedness on your part is limiting your ability to understand any social, cultural or religious phenomenon. That way lies disaster and the realisation of Margaret Atwood's fiction. I begin to suspect you are a wrong person to know.