joigus

I recognize no truth, but degrees of certainty.

My opinion is that you cannot seriously believe in god if you've studied science in any length. Specially biology. But many scientists believe in believing in god. That is, they decide that it's a good social deal to keep saying they believe in god and, if pressed, talk about an abstract god, as in "god is the order in the cosmos" or something like that. Just to escape hostility from believers. Scientists discuss science even when the gathering has finished and the discussions keep going while they go back home, or to their respective hotel rooms. But I've never seen anybody discuss theology when they go back home from the church, the synagogue or the mosque. Religious people will leave you alone if you just say you're a believer. For all they care your "god" could be a telepathic giant cat living in another planet and handling the universe from there. As long as you say "I believe."

Aaaah. That rings a bell. I think we should have a thread dedicated to impersonate other users (nicely, of course). I would be very happy to have an impersonation of myself. We did that years ago in some language-learning forums. We had some fun. Edit. I think it's a great idea. If more people think it's fun and the mods don't mind, we could do that.

Thanks a lot, @Dord. The Andromeda looks sooo 3D... Here's some beetles of the genus Chrysolina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysolina They eat leaves. Some species have been used for weed control. Why do they look so metallic?

Studiot: You may be interested in this: https://www.amazon.com/Chicken-Book-Page-Smith/dp/082032213X Got it. LOL

Swansont: Did the chicken cross the road? Any references?

As usual, Ed Witten drew far-reaching conclusions, but missed the chicken completely.

I've just found this and then noticed @CPG had already linked to it. No wonder. Very interesting. +1 https://www.brainfacts.org/ Main sections: Thinking, Sensing and Behaving Diseases & Disorders Brain Anatomy and Function Neuroscience in Society In the Lab ------------------- It also features a 3D brain to play with: https://www.brainfacts.org/3d-brain#intro=true

Everett: Which chicken and which road are you talking about, guys? Brilliant!

Feynman: The chicken tried everything it could. It only looks like one chicken doing one thing because he fell down a stationary-phase path.

Pascal must have been under a lot of pressure when he said that. I see no way in which this could be false.

I generally agree. This is a very hype-sensitive topic.

Thanks @Area54 and @MigL. Do you know of any geological/atmospheric process that could replenish PH3? Apparently the authors have tried some of that and ruled it out. Also, does anybody know the answer to, ?

Question for the chemistry experts: Suppose that were phosphine they're measuring in Venus' atmosphere, and never mind where it comes from. Would it be possible for this chemical to last in those conditions for, say, billions of years after it was produced, whether biologically or otherwise? OK. I'm no expert in chemistry, but I'm kind of an expert in explanations. And that is not one.

Hey, just to let you know I had the Russian Covid-19 vaccination yesterday and can tell you there are absolutely no negative sideffski efectovski secundariosvki Кто может это прочитать, это уродливый парень .Привет друг Антонио !!

There still is a need for the BB. Extrapolation backwards of receding galaxies makes inevitable some kind of bang. The cosmic background radiation, the remnant of the explosion, is the best evidence. It has exactly the frequency spectrum of light filling all of space and continually cooling off (at different rates following known phases of cooling) for 13.7 billion years give or take. So yes, there must have been a big bang.

Just to add to the geologist/geophysics POV, that's been suggested, explained/given references for by other members: Cross checks make for a very robust understanding. Formation of Pangaea is related to the biggest extinction event on record besides snow-ball Earth: The Permian extinction. Intuitively, it's not hard to understand that the formation of a supercontinent the size of Pangaea would have resulted in, at least: 1) Most of the inland extension being desert (little or no rain) 2) High-intensity long-term vulcanism (the so-called Siberian traps) 3) Water circulation in the oceans reduced to a very-little-local-variation, very-slow pattern Very, very dramatic change in global climate for sure. That could and would have done it. This becomes the more compelling as you realise how much present and recent-past biodiversity depends on water circulation patterns in the oceans. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/permian/ https://phys.org/news/2013-11-biggest-mass-extinction-pangea.html https://www.science20.com/news_articles/pangaea_formation_linked_permian_mass_extinction-123693

Anyone in mind? Though I think we need much more than that to deal with Qanon. Ideological/mythological detox is the hardest.

I would have chosen "understanding," "empathy" => "sympathy," etc. Looking at the world with the other person's glasses, if only for a moment of consideration. I totally agree that "love" is a good stand-for in the thinking. My problem with "love" is that it's been such an overused word, and it's just too easy a substitute for many different human emotions. Most people are really full of it, but try and do the experiment of telling them to be more concrete, to really put their actions where their mouth is: help, empathy, forgiveness, understanding, etc. Those are so much harder to master, because they require you to go from the abstract to the concrete. Remember Oliver Cromwell? "Love the sheep, love the Sun, blah, blah" In the meantime he was sending soldiers and police to keep people's thoughts and actions under control. "Love" is a very suspect word for me. Absolutely, and back on topic. I'm sure the Spanish Inquisition was full of the word love too!

I had to. I must deal with both delinquents and academics. Humour has helped me with both. For Qanon believers, I don't know what kind of humour would do the trick.

Mathologer (maths)

None of those is very usual in my neighbourhood. Where I grew up, I would've been beaten to within an inch of my life just for saying "I don't care for your schadenfreude." "Don't be so epicaricacious" wouldn't have fared much better, TBH. The problem with humour that tries to be too "gentle", "inclusive", "non-discriminatory", politically correct, etc.; is that it's not very funny; nor is it very convincing, IMO. Maybe that's why humour is an art, perhaps. I do believe in its power to convince, though, if done right.

The last thing you want is for them to be able to concentrate. Distraction camps would be better.