StringJunky

I think that's an unfortunate and incidental, collateral effect rather than a primary desire to control a woman's sexuality. It's a very difficult conundrum.

The ontology of all natural phenomena, aka 'reality', is unknown and shall likely remain so for a very, very long time. Until that time, science will always be 'wrong' in the absolute sense, as evidenced by the changes or abandonment of prevailing models. The important thing is that the models are useful for describing what they know at any given time and they can use them to advance what they know and can do. Scientists don't use the word 'truth' because it implies that there is no possibility for something being wrong at some point in the future. This is why the highest accolade that science can give to an idea is to call it a 'theory'. There is no such thing as 'just a theory' in science because such an idea has much evidential weight and scientific consensus behind it. It's the dog's gonads. The notion of truth is absolute and belongs to religion because that is based on belief, which requires an arbitrary commitment to such a notion.

You mean the presented agendas are just distractions from the true agendas? I'm not familiar with the 'straw dog'.

it helps remove the idea of a medium, doesn't it? It'll be a lot easier for us neophytes when QG is sorted, with virtual particle exchange as the process rather than warping geometry. Will spacetime still be a feature in a quantum gravity model?

Exactly. They pursue their agendas ignoring the evidence and hope, vainly, that they'll get what they want and, somehow, the problems caused by their choices will go away.

Interpret that as wilfull ignorance in order to pursue a conflicting agenda.

It's the phenomena that's occuring between things that creates the patterns.

The arrogance of ignorance can be just as harmful as malice.

Ultimately, most novel things, I would guess, derive from academic research into fundamental phenomena which are then exploited by commercial entities. People, like Trump, are killing the roots that supply higher up the innovation food chain.

It is not the job of science to discuss ontology; it describes behaviour. Ontology is a philosophical subject.

You could just pin Notepad to your taskbar in Windows then copy/paste your post in for future posts. Comes up instantly and saveable; no waiting to load.

A theory has the highest level of scientific rigor there is. Speculations is not intended to be "Let's see what I can pull out of my backside to day after a skinful and spliff and put it on SFN". They should be hypotheses that aspire to being theories and therefore subject to a similar sort of rigor, although, in reality, they are given alot more leeway. I see it as a place for people to get a little taste of the peer review process and what it entails to put forward a hypothesis before your peers.

Initial, purely academic, research funded by public money can end up being used by drug companies to produce ground breaking drugs. A US scientist, using public funds, eventually sold his discovery of a treatment for hepatitis c for $11B. A billion or two more had to spent by the drug company getting it through refinements, trials and approval but the years of initial research was done on government coin.

This reminds me of: "When you open your mouth your brains are on parade."

The science I trust the most is government science because there's no commercial motive and nothing to hide for commercial reasons.

It's an in limbo period for the appeals process to take place and to make sure all the evidence has been presented and assessed.

I think there are degrees of murder and not all deserve the death penalty. Ruth Ellis didn't but the death penalty was mandatory then. I don't agree with it being mandatory or that all murders are equally heinous.

Did somebody shout me?

As long as the message has been autosaved you can wander off to different pages and go back to your message by clicking in the message box and using the restore option. As soon as you write another message in it, it will be lost. For reference, if you have an outage or technical cock up of some sort, you can try getting it back by refreshing the page and clicking back in the box and it may give the option to restore in the bottom-left of the message box. I think it uses a couple of minutes intervals to autosave your message at that time.

i know what momentum is but not the latter two, in terms of this subject matter. Are they straightforward to understand or are they purely mathematical?

i respect your opinion, but at the end of the day that's all we can do: express opinions. As our knowledge increases about human nature, from a neuroscientific standpoint, and aspects of that nature can be practically addressed by some sort of medical intervention, the philosophical landscape will no doubt change on this subject but atm we are stuck with what we have. We are our people of our time and, as such, base our thoughts on present resources and knowledge. Future generations will, no doubt, have a different outlook with being better informed objectively, about the biological elements behind human behaviour and what can potentially be done about preventing/curing such behaviour.

I don't really but one day I'll tackle it when I can appreciate the maths.

He's being sarcastic.

The legal system, judges and jury is the one to determine that and I am comfortable with that. The question posed is.: Do I believe, in principle, the death penalty is unethical? I believe, no, it is not unethical. The question is a philosophical one -and dragging in the flaws of any particular country is not relevant and extraneous to the philosophical discussion of it, especially one that specifically asks for ones belief. Note that 'ethics' is a branch of philosophy. The determination is dodgy in Saudi but not in the USA which has plenty of oversight but, again, it's not pertinent.

It's a method of disposal. Some people deserve to be disposed of. It's not a case of punishing like with like.