swansont

Yes. They are criticisms of a caricature of the theory rather than the theory itself I assume this refers to “survival of the fittest” which is a glib description of Darwinism, rather than the actual idea. One must also recognize that evolution encompasses more than Darwin’s ideas. He e.g. didn’t know details of genetics Mendel was able to make peas change by cross-breeding strains, so I’m at a loss to understand the criticism. I suspect it’s a commentary on Mendel’s ignorance of the existence of mutation. Quotes without context is a poor way to make a scientific argument.

There is no causality, and because of this causality doesn’t exist. What you’re missing is evidence. i.e. the science part of all of this. What you have so far is science fiction, of the sort often proposed while in a chemically-altered state. “Dude, what if movement affected memory and changed things you wrote down?” ”Whoah!”

Probably because your example is atrocious Causal relations refer to two events What prevents them from sending this signal? What causes this “distortion”? How are charge and rest mass no longer invariant quantities? What is the transform that governs this? What other aspects of relativity are you trashing? Ah, circular logic. The foundation of great science.

Your previous objection, as I read it, was that it was how the combination was connected - “and” vs “or” - and that’s not the issue. It’s the dubious veracity of a premise, like in the example “all toasters are made of gold” * More than one premise could be false, but that’s irrelevant. You can’t assert the conclusion is true until the dubious premise is confirmed. The link calls the toasters example a a valid argument but not a sound argument. My wording was that the conclusion was invalid, i.e. the truth value is still in question. *all toasters contain 6 oz of gold 6 oz of gold is worth at least $10,000 Therefore, all toasters are worth at least $10,000 One premise is of dubious veracity. There is no connection confusion. The conclusion can’t be offered as being true.

What’s the problem with using that terminology? Most language is nonscientific, especially outside of journal articles. Who is using the language? Your thread is about atheists, not scientists. Is it a reasonable expectation for non-scientists to use science jargon?

The problem with passing the buck like this is that you didn’t give any citations for where the material came from. I’m not willing to take your word that you are merely repeating others’ misunderstanding. You haven’t earned the benefit of doubt. Chaos theory is a relatively recent development, and appropriated the chaos name from the existing lexicon. So “chaotic” in lay use can’t really have anything to do with chais theory, since the word came about before the scientific principle existed. It’s hard to tell if this is trolling, since I can’t tell if the obtuseness is deliberate or not.

That’s another invariance issue; in mainstream physics particles do not change charge just because there is relative motion. Neither does rest mass.

You don’t need to move to another frame; you can have a second observer. So: A observes one event and then accelerates into another frame and now observes a different event instead, what does observer B see, who has been in that second frame all along, and never changes frames? Causality still holds for B, since they don’t switch frames. And time still runs forward. There’s no way to have an event repeat itself. You require time travel, in addition to particle identity being frame-dependent Why? You said they observe photons. It’s a principle in relativity that an event occurs in all frames; the laws of physics are the same. The order of events can be different. Not the event itself. I’m saying that yes, it is, if you wish to discuss this here. It’s a requirement of the speculations section. You are not limiting yourself to one frame in your description, so I’m not sure why you would think this is sufficient. As above, the laws if physics don’t change from one frame to another, per relativity.

In the 70s it was the big oil folks; as you point out, retail margins are small. And actual competition exists in most places. But when OPEC drove up prices, US oil produces had huge margins, which is why there was a windfall profits tax. A US oil producer had no incentive to sell below the worldwide market price, so if oil was at $30 bbl, but your cost were at $10 bbl, you’d still sell at $30. (The tax just incentivized domestic cutbacks in production, though) Or (and I think this happens today) you export at the higher price and create a supply constriction in the US to drive up the domestic price.

That’s not what you described. A collision of two photons does not change an observer’s reference frame, and there’s no way to change into another frame and then observe an event that has already happened, much less have it be different. Your proposal would mean that one observer sees photons, while someone on a train sees muons. You’re left with the task of finding evidence that lepton number will differ between reference frames, as well as a mechanism for having this happen. IOW, you’ve done the trivial part, but nothing that counts as actual science.

How could this happen? What principle lets you change the number of leptons when you switch frames? Or makes an interaction not happen?

That's going to be a continuous value unless there's a sharp change in the solid surface underneath (a waterfall, for example) and you can get a continuous contour line in a 2-D surface. But a coastline is not a 2-D surface, so there's not going to be a contour of constant value unless you have the trivial case where it's constant everywhere.

The subsequent steps could be flawless, but not the premise if it's false. i.e. the failure is thinking the conclusion is valid. It's an informal fallacy; the conclusion is invalid if the premise is false, and the burden of proof is on the presenter. They own the obligation to ensure the premise is true, so if there is a question, their argument is incomplete. I don't think it's necessarily an issue of good faith or not. I just wanted to know what to call it when it comes up. No need to debunk such an argument until the premise has been verified.

Maybe it is, but that’s not the point of contention here. The issue is that it’s unsupported. Nothing offered to show that it’s true.

But the difference is not nearly as great as you suggested, and the gas we sell now is actually more expensive to make. As I recall, lead additives boosted the octane levels. Car engines started requiring higher octane levels. The EPA also started requiring “summer blend” gas in the summer in the 90s, which also costs a little more. So gas has become more expensive independent of the oil price for unleaded gas, from environmental requirements And as fuel gets more expensive, transporting it becomes more expensive.

It’s true that there are these issues, and also conditionals cause problems with some, but the examples I’m thinking of look to be simple false/unwarranted assumptions. But the wonderful world of search engines employing AI kept pointing me to begging the question, which isn’t it.

Thank you

A premise is offered, and then an argument follows without establishing the veracity of the premise. If the premise is false the conclusion is invalid, but the poster is proceeding as if it were true. Such as an argument based on the moon being made of cheese, and concluding the moon landings were faked because they would have noticed the cheese if they’d landed there. (the conclusion is not being used to support the premise, so it’s not begging the question/circular logic) Seems like this happens a fair amount, and it’s a failure of logic, but is there a recognized name for it?

Some necessity is physiological. Some is social. Some issues are not generally applicable to both men and women. To pretend otherwise is, at best, just parading one’s ignorance

Dunning-Kruger is alive and well

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. In this case, inflation-adjusted prices and nominal prices. When crude hit $150 (Dec ‘79) that’s in adjusted dollars; the nominal price was $38 https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices/historical-oil-prices-chart/ The inflation adjusted price of gas then was north of $3.50. I’m guessing you’re citing the nominal price https://zfacts.com/gas-price-history-graph Leaded gas was sold back then, and was cheaper than unleaded.

There is wording in many of them about a declared emergency, so timing is part of it. But I suspect that shipping and wholesale cost would be easy to document, and show that you were just maintaining your profit margin if all you were doing was adjusting to those changes. And I think these are state sanctions, so the state would be prosecuting and the business pays the fine and have to pay their lawyers.

The existence of secular rules doesn’t mean that the religious rules don’t exist. So it should be easy to find a few examples.

Thrust upon society? There isn’t any sort of hypothesis police that forces people to accept such models. Your view of how science works doesn’t match reality.

A lot of US laws quantify it. Often a 10%-15% rise in price compared to the past 30 days, above any rise in costs.