swansont

You keep saying bias, but there is no explanation of what the alleged bias is.

! Moderator Note 1. You haven’t established that they do, and 2. If all you want to do is bash them, do it elsewhere

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no) I have highlighted the relevant parts. IOW post your idea here, and not by uploading a word doc

Experiment matches theory. Repeatedly. How is there an “interpretation of results” issue? Where is it? Where’s the debate if you can’t present evidence? This is just repeatedly throwing “bias” against the wall and hoping something sticks. I don’t see why it would be. Not-random stuff shows a pattern? The whole basis of science analysis is discerning patterns in things that aren’t random

Even more evidence that we aren’t so different from our close cousins. But, as The Vat is implying, coming to a conclusion is a reach.

That’s the fallacy of personal incredulity. A form of bias. Zipf applies to more than physics laws and language. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law Guess what? Patterns exist! Back to brains, eh? To show bias, you have to show where the result is wrong. You haven’t done that. You’re using bias as a bogeyman. It has no meaning in these discussions anymore. Again, you say that something should not happen but have no support for it. Not being the way you want it to be - isn’t that a form of bias? Bogeyman.

Since other animals exhibit altruism, this is trivially falsified. We are classified as apes because the evidence is that we are descended from a common ancestor with other apes. There is nothing biologically distinctive that would put us in another family, only in a different genus. But if it’s not the case, then there is even less reason to claim that we are in a separate category.

And yet you reposted the statement without correction.

We’ve run this experiment, and did not arrive at that result.

Nope. The states are undetermined. You can’t say one affects the other, because it’s not in a definite state. It does not, e.g. flip a particle from spin up to spin down. There is no interaction. It simply makes the state known, which is what you expect from a measurement. What you can say is that, because the correlation is already known, measuring the state of one particle tells you the state of both. All the information about both is in that one measurement.

“You might expect that this [distribution] would differ quite significantly between the three different sets of equations because they come from different places” … but you would be wrong to expect this. (it’s not “you expect” which is predictive. “you might expect” is cautionary) It’s what one could call a naive expectation. There are a limited number of mathematical forms, and relationships between variables are not random. Kinetic energy, for example, depends on speed squared. It’s not random. They’re related. Without knowing exactly what they looked at it’s impossible to know what the context is, but physics is interconnected in some interesting ways, so things that might seem random are not. And it’s ironic that you’re suggesting some deep meaning to this when you are arguing by quote mining, which is quite superficial and avoids deeper investigation. And “we don’t know” does not imply either some deep meaning, nor does it imply that something should not happen. You still have not shown that this shouldn’t happen, as you claimed.

Military desires have long driven technological advances. Jet engines, radar, GPS are just recent examples. So, basically, nothing has stopped it.

Where is that quote from? I don’t understand the context. Not knowing why something shows up is very different from saying it should not. You’re just deflecting. Can you back up your claim?

Should not be occurring? How do you figure that? What principle does it violate?

! Moderator Note Do you have any evidence to support your conjecture, or any mainstream scientific basis for it? ! Moderator Note It doesn’t matter what you believe. Posting that is just soapboxing. What matters is what you can show, based on actual occurrences or mainstream psychology/sociology/anthropology.

What are you doing - searching for “bias” in articles so you can post your “findings”? Which are based on linguistic choices of journalists, rather than any actual analysis. 1. Zipf’s law shows up in more than physics; it was originally applied to language. 2. No mention of methodology. I can write V=IR and also I=V/R. Does that count as a multiply and a divide? 3. Physics doesn’t aim to explain reality, it describes how nature behaves. It also works. V=IR is what you actually measure in a resistive circuit. How is that a biased interpretation of facts?

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 (emphasis added) Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it We also expect some science content in discussions. Cheerleading for AI is not that

Vanity is not a valid scientific reason for a special classification. The differences you point out are few compared to the similarities, and tied into humans having bigger brains, but it’s still brains, not some unique gland.

No, it doesn’t; it’s why we’re a separate species. What your claim ignores is the existence of ancestors to humans, and how they are related to other species. Humans and other apes have a common ancestor, and hominids have a common ancestor with other families. When you go back far enough in the fossil record, there are no homo sapiens.

Given the number of denominations of Christianity, I don’t think you can lay more than a tiny fraction of blame on atheists for having an interpretation. Get your own houses (all 45k+) in order.

To me, it means that the alleged niceness/morality is a facade - you’re not being nice because you’re a nice person - and your actions are driven by the fear. Which is actually moral: not harming someone because you’ll get in trouble, or not harming someone because you feel it’s wrong? What’s the context? Why do a whole lot of people decide that some of those behaviors are wrong?

She’s omniscient, so it’s not like it would be a surprise. And giving beings a sex drive and not telling them how babies are made seems like intent.

There’s no guarantee that it’s the religion, though, and if one group had a dramatically lower risk for some other reason (so there’s a correlation without causality), it skews the results, especially if it’s in one of the over-represented groups in the study. There’s also the note about suicide attempts being under-reported in the religious, owing to the stigma, which can also skew the results.

I’m glad I moved away from light pollution. I have a much better view to the N and NW but was clouded out of several events of the last 6 months (eclipse, both times the northern lights were super active, one meteor shower peak) The iphone takes surprisingly good sky pictures; that was 2 or 3 seconds. I wonder if it’s stacking short exposures to compensate for camera movement.

“Among the subjects who reported a religious affiliation (N=305), the specific denominations endorsed were Catholicism (41.0%, N=125), Protestantism (28.5%, N=87), Judaism (17.4%, N=53), and other (13.1%, N=40).” N=371, so 66 were atheist/agnostic, or 17.8% But “When Americans are asked to check a box indicating their religious affiliation, 28% now check 'none.' A new study from Pew Research finds that the religiously unaffiliated – a group comprised of atheists, agnostic and those who say their religion is "nothing in particular" – is now the largest cohort in the U.S. They're more prevalent among American adults than Catholics (23%) or evangelical Protestants (24%).” https://www.npr.org/2024/01/24/1226371734/religious-nones-are-now-the-largest-single-group-in-the-u-s So if this sampling was random, it seems like atheists are less likely to be depressed, and Catholics and Jews (2.4% of the population) are much more likely to be depressed. If it’s not random then the study is horribly skewed