Kyrisch

You'll most likely find that resistance is affected mostly by valence electrons, only slightly by other electrons, and not at all by atomic mass. This is because the only parts of the atom involved in conducting electricity is the valence shell. As such you'll probably find a periodic trend by block.

What does filibuster-proof actually mean?

It does not take anything else but the comprehension of the concept of quantity to understand the definition of a circle. (Well, besides what a 'point' is, but that's the core geometric concept, and this thread is rather more about numbers in general, and the relationship between numbers and operations). A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried') from wikipedia. The example it gives is a tautology, that bachelors are defined as unmarried. I think the two concepts are intimately related. Well no, but I am talking about mathematical knowledge as a body outside of the human experience that we are "discovering". And I never said that "four" has no meaning, but rather that it has ALL of the meaning contained therein.

Actually, you are mistaked here. The centripetal force is actually towards the center of the loop. The force of gravity and the centripetal force are acting the same direction. The only force opposing is the normal force. Thus, [math]F_N = F_C + F_g[/math], but with the constraint that the normal force is zero, it simplifies to what you have written up there, that the two are equal (but opposite). Further, because you don't have any figures for velocity at all, you should try to use the equations you have to substitute velocity out of the equation you wish to solve. The point is just that you now have another constraint in your system.

And he does not claim that science will be able to point to the 'best' morality, but rather that it can help inform us in the objective general, which is a better system than what is in place. For what it's worth, I do think that smoking is irresponsible, especially if you have children, for the sake of second-hand smoke and also dependency issues in the case of death, and is in fact immoral. In fact, you may be hard pressed to find someone who is basing their morality in empiricism that will say otherwise.

I'm curious as to which theorems/statements/lemmas you had in mind when you said this?

Nope. Because how would you determine whether or not the teenager left in foster care suffers true psychological damage? Carefully constructed observational studies. "Points of view" become hypotheses and science becomes the tool to demonstrate the validity of said hypotheses.

But Peano's Axioms themselves come solely as a natural consequence of the idea of quantity. Such properties as reflexive equality, transitive equality, and symmetric equality are necessary and logical consequences required to maintain coherency in mathematical language. As such, these fall into the broad heading of everything that has been built upon the concept of quantity and not, essentially, assumptions. They are more definitions denoted by mathematicians than core assumptions taken as truth. Then of what would you say the infrastructure of mathematics consists? Not sure how this relates, but it is the curve containing all points equidistant from a single point in two-space. I'm rather arguing that even the core axioms and definitions are themselves naturally and logically consequential and are merely tautologies of the concept of quantity. You misunderstood me again. I am not saying that we simply 'named' the sum of 2 and 2 "four" or even denoted this quantity with the symbol "four", but rather that the very idea of the quantity FOUR includes all of those things in its abstract conception. For instance, if we have four blocks, it's abstractly equivalent to having two blocks and two more, five blocks and one anti-block, three blocks and one more. A person conceptualizing four is like viewing four blocks -- all of these things are obviously represented just by the mere conceptualization of the quantity. This bit is actually in line with my introduction in the OP. I hold the philosophy that there is no such thing as proof of anything, and that we cannot actually know that we know what we think we know. I admit I'm working under the assumption that logic works, but you must remember that it is an assumption (that goes along with the assumption that observation can inform us about reality) on the list of those assumptions without which we cannot live in sanity.

Haha. Busted

The words you use are a bit ambiguous, but 'something that decides' implies that it has awareness, or intellect, or at least some decision-making engine, something for which we have no evidence nor which our theories require to maintain consistency.

I'm not sure any one of you is on topic anymore. The data referenced by wikipedia and in the (rather ambiguous) pdf file I linked, there were alleged controlled trials that provided statistically significant results. I'm not sure how they conducted said trials without there being actual risk of infection with the virus, which is what makes the study so shady, but it seems to be claiming that it is not merely correlation, but causation with unknown mechanism. Is the implication simple intellectual dishonesty? Do you think the only studies that were done were the "observational" studies referenced in the first page of the pdf?

Often I speak about how it is impossible ever to know anything as a true and unassailable fact, that assumptions are required in all things (even the scientific method, which attempts to be as objective as possible, operates on the unknowable assumption that observations of the material world can inform of its workings). Invariably, I am rejoined with: "But we know 2+2=4! That is irrefutable and unassailable, and requires no assumptions." This disturbed me, because it seemed to violate my previously stated ideology, so I thought deeply on it, and I came to the conclusion that mathematical statements like that are actually tautologies -- that four is defined as the sum of two and two, and that the idea of four -- the actual, abstract idea, consists in and of itself of a sum of two and two. Further, in another thread (one about perpetual motion), a cracked pot declared that "anything is possible if you believe that it is", to which (I believe it was iNow) replied "Unfortunately, there is no way to find a rational square root of two, no matter if you believe contrariwise". Extending the conceptual basis I just introduced, this additional mathematical "truth" can just as well be reduced to tautology, however complex, in that the square root of two is just the number which, multiplied by itself results in two, which hearkens back to the statement 2+2=4. But that the square root of two squared equals two is not being questioned here, rather its identity as rational. However, rationality is again defined to be the quality of ability of representation by the quotient of two integers. In conclusion, it seems to me that the whole body of math does not include any actual knowledge, just an infrastructure of definition based entirely on the abstract idea of quantity.

It doesn't have to even be that. Any such confounding variable could easily result in such a strong correlation that has nothing to do with decreasing risk, and more to do with simple statistical correlation.

No, because it is not hurting anyone else. If there are 'increased health risks', then they only affect those engaging in the act to begin with. It is rather like smoking. Laws have been passed (at least here) to keep people from smoking around those who wish not to suffer from the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke, but no law needs to be passed to restrict an individual's right to perform higher-risk behaviours. This is a weak example as well, because social darwinism of the type to which you are referring is actually a gross misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. That equation is the basis for utilitarianism. What can maximise the happiness and comfort of the most amount of people is the best action to take. Bottom line: Utilitarianism, you must agree, is the best way to determine objectively what is right and wrong. All the speaker is proposing is that we accept that scientific processes should inform our decisions about what constitutes the maximisation of happiness as opposed to throwing up our arms and surrendering to the notion that morality is completely subjective.

So what was the proposed mechanism? And it's very suspicious when you make such a lengthy, seemingly informative post as your first post but sans references. It usually leads someone to believe that your post itself would be affected by what's known as volunteer bias in the world of statistics. So, references would be nice.

Only to a presumptive ear. It is still a belief because while we don't know it to be absolutely true, it has held up in all experiments as true as the sun rising every day; and because of this, we live and act as though it is fact. What makes it different than dogma is that we would just as quickly abandon it if a substantial case was built against it. In context, such a case would perhaps be that cold fusion was shown to near-definitely be occurring by other observation but that there were still missing neutrons.

I'm pretty sure you have to factor in centripetal force when the normal force is zero (i.e. when the cars are just barely touching the tracks). [math] F_c = m\frac{v^2}{ R }[/math]

...Which he suggests should be determined scientifically. It's a truly utilitarian concept.

Recent studies have shown that circumcision is correlated with a lower incidence of HIV infection. In addition, follow-up experiments were done in the years 2007 and 2008 which showed that circumcision "reduced the risk of infection of HIV" by 51-60%. However, in all of my research (which I confess is nominal, at best), I cannot find a proposed mechanism. Many circumcision advocates have cited these recent studies as evidence that the health benefits of the surgery outweigh the risks. However, it occurred to me that this might be a case of correlation, not causation, especially if no direct mechanistic cause can be identified. Perhaps those cultures which have a higher incidence of circumcisions also have a greater genetic resistance to infection? The confounding variables can be many. Thus, my question is, do studies like this have the right to phrase it as "reduced risk"? It implies that circumcision itself reduced the risk, not that circumcised individuals were at a reduced risk. In addition, is there any proposed mechanism that I missed in my research?

The main problem with cold fusion is that it goes against many previously established (with the same scientific rigour) ideas and beliefs. As such, it's similar to a proof that yields one equals two or some ridiculous result like that. One is more inclined to question the content of the proof (design and execution of the experiment) and the fallibility of the people involved before they put any stock in the validity of the data itself. EDIT: I just realised I basically restated Sherlock's post. Oh well, I hope the analogy helps.

Except that neither you nor Severian have made any sort of attempt to explain exactly why the ideas expounded in the video are 'bollocks', which doesn't reflect very well on your opinion.

Could it be that moral ideas are a lot like memes, and those social conforms (aka morals) that lead to more cohesive or more effective society stay around due to natural selection? If this is the case, than science can definitely define which morals are "the best" in showing which morals stayed around the longest and why.

xDDD I remember that post...

I don't think so, because they move in a linear path through time, just backwards?

Yeah, and it's probably something you should talk to a doctor about, especially if its preventing you from leading a "normal" life, if that's something that you want.