Area54

I am not comparing upward mobility in the US with anything in the past. I am comparing it with upward mobility in China. I seem to have touched some sort of raw nerve. I was making a very simple point. (If it helps, please think of it as a simplistic point.) Upward mobility, a central part of the American Dream, is now a prominent feature of the Chinese culture and economy. You were happy enough to point out that many were excluded from realising the American Dream fifty years ago, yet now make a point that, in China, women "are still second class citizens in many ways". I just don't feel you are making a coherent point, but are just offended in some way that I've called into question the viability of the American Dream and will throw up minor debating points in order to defend this. So, on the main point, do you or do you not agree that China is now pursuing a version of the American Dream?

That has no bearing on the single point I made. I repeat it: "The American Dream is alive and well and living in China." Please also note I did not state that there was more upward mobility in China than in the USA. I stated that upward mobility is compromised in the US compared with China. Upward moves do not occur overnight. My phrasing is intended to indicate that the opportunities for moving up are now superior in China compared with the USA. If no further change occurs this will result in more upward moves in China in the future. That said, I suspect if you consider the growth of the Chinese middle and upper classes over the last decade you would accept that the Chinese are outperforming the USA. Perhaps, your argument is that expansion of the middle class is not the same as upward mobility. That would, however, be a strange definition.

You are projecting your feelings onto the goldfish and quite misinterpreting how they view you. You then project the same quality of feelings onto the imagined superior being. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Surely the strength of this kind of research is that it throws up unexpected results, or uses simplifications, that inspire the next team of researchers to dig more deeply. Eventually we arrive at a satisfactory concensus.

I missed your tongue in cheek and it seems you missed my reciprocation. However, your absolute statement was there: How on Earth can you be confident about something for which there is no evidence whatsoever? (I was being completely direct, however, in regard to the reply I shall work on.)

Mike, you possibly know the expression "He sleeps with the fishes". It relates to an incident in Mario Puzio's Godfather novel where one of the characters has his body disposed of in the sea. If this were to happen to you and the fishes consumed your remains, I think that rather screws up the hierarchy you are trying to assemble. As I have argued from the outset, you have failed, thus far, to justify elevating this particular hierarchy over the many other exist. In those other hierarchies the fish are typically level with, or even above us.

The use of an absolute statement where arguably, and ironically, you cannot be sure one applies, is an insult to the use of logical argument. The implication that I am a Christian was deeply offensive to all Christians. (I've already received extensive hate mail, claiming I put you up to it.) I'll respond, in detail, to your argument after I complete the appropriate research. [It may take six months. I intend it to be definitive.]

I'll be happy to provide a response when you drop the insults and aggressive posturing.

Exactly so. At university I took extensive notes, always being careful to rephrase the concepts in my own words. I rarely ever reread these; it was the act if listening, understanding, then capturing the essence in writing that enabled efficient recollection of the information.

I cannot find any fault with this argument. There isn't even a hint of ambiguity. I shall be interested to see which grammatical textbook Ted cites to justify his position (and that of the comma).

I doubt that can be attributed to the Greeks. They appear to be the oldest civilisation that we know of who practised these arts, but I am confident the courtiers in Ur used the same rhetorical skills as the Athenians and precocious hunters amused their fellows around the campfire with playlets several millenia before that. The most we could credit the Greeks with is formalising and refining the practices.

It was never overtly stated, but a case can be made that the American Dream was only meant for white Americans. (Which is why the American Dream and upward mobility are not necessarily the same thing.) Secondly, at no time did I state that upward mobility in the US was compromised comared with previous times in the US. I stated that it was comprised in comparison with China. Do you disagree with that statement?

No, my apologies. I think I failed to notice the second page of posts. At any rate I completely missed your penultimate post. It was clear that you recognised you may have been misunderstanding the niceties of DrP's position. Edit: subtleties would probably be a better word than nicities.

That certainly appears to be true, but surely there are some who would now choose to vote for him who previously abstained or voted for another. Examples: Those who believe we need to tear down the current edifice and rebuild. Anarchists The criminally insane Sleeper agents More seriously, at each stage of Trump's odyssey I argued he could not move to the next stage. I have been wrong every time. The smart gambler knows when to quit. Very little in this sorry affair could now surprise me.

Perhaps we have only a few revolutions left in the fundamental fields of physics and cosmology, but I suspect that in those fields addressing emergent properties there are many revolutions to come. Two examples that spring to mind: Our understanding of the formation and evolution of planetary systems is primitive A soft science such as sociology is still at the observational - stamp collecting - stage

This is a discussion forum, not a blog. More to the point, it is a science discussion forum. What is your evidence for any of these statements?

@Zapatos. While I do not generally agree with Dr.P's position I feel you are misrepresenting that position and in the process appear to be seeking to demonise him. If I understand his argument correctly it runs like this: Services such as the Air Ambulance, which are thought to be essential, should be funded by the government (local or national) through tax revenues. Supporting the current apparent disinterest of the government by making a voluntary contribution provides tacit approval of the government position, compromises efforts to persuade the government to change that position and delays, or even prevents, effecting that change. (A side effect of some of the well meaning efforts of volunteer collectors is undue pressure placed on people who can ill afford any contribution.) This is a moral position, though it is not one I would follow. [I would prefer to press government to take responsibility for such services, while making contributions to such charities as seemed appropriate to me.] It seems to me that you are both in agreement in the central point - the Air Ambulance is a valuable, perhaps essential service that requires funding from somewhere. Your disagreement is over mechanism. It is counterproductive for either of you to become incensed over mechanism - and both of you seem to be heading in that direction. Just saying.

Less so if you invest all your winnings in buying more tickets.

@T.McGrath, I really do hope you are not one of those posters who seem to jump ship when asked to justify an assertion when they realise it is indefensible. I am looking forward to your response. You clearly have an interest in and knowledge of science, so it would be a pity if you left the forum over this. I'm hoping it's because you really only have time available on forums at the weekend. See you Saturday.

Make notes. Put things in your own words. Re-read the things you really want to remember just before going to sleep. In the case of New Scientist articles follow up any references they provide. (If, for example, we only remember 10% of what we read, then read ten times as much. :)) I doubt if your dyslexia has too much to do with the problem, but even if it does these techniques will still work.

I thought it was Trump's integrity. I've always come down on the side of "invented". As to the OP, with a nod to Strange's second line, we certainly use Euclidean geometry every day. Also, the Archimedes screw. I'm sure there are many more.

Paradoxically the best way to increase your general knowledge may be to enhance your specific knowledge. First, if you are serious about achieving an improvement you have to commit to working hard beyond the point where you have lost interest. If you cannot do that then, to be blunt, you don't deserve to succeed. With that commitment made choose a topic that interests you. Let me use as an example World War II. Imagine you were intrested in WWII and wish to enhance your knowledge. Select a portion of the war that captures your attention - let's say it's the Italian theatre. Now go into more detail. Tha Anzio landings. Locate books and articles on the Anzio landings. Read them. Make notes. Write a summary in your own words, with your own perspective. Persist even when all interest has evaporated. (It will almost certianly return.) You will now find that not only do you know a great deal about the Anzio landings, but about WWII in general. The trick, if you wish to consider it one, is that despite the intense focus you still pick up many facts with your "peripheral vision". Try it. You won't be disappointed.

Yes, that's broadly what I thought you were aiming for. This attempt is clearer. Like you my (very limited) grasp of quantum theory is based largely on pop science, with a scattering of the real thing from 1st year undergraduate physics and chemistry.

As Itoreo has said, possibly carried on the wind. Alternatively caught on the feathers of birds, or dispersed in their droppings. Branches, or even complete trees, bearing seeds carried on ocean currents and blown by winds are another possibility. If you think about it, even the smallest of islands always has at least one tree.

In the real world we often do not know exactly what data will be necessary to solve a problem. It makes problems more realistic if the examiner includes non-essential information. And it teaches an important lesson, preparing the student for that "real world".