swansont

Then it’s not an indictment of science in general, as you had suggested, but about one slice of science. As I said, your beef seems to be much more focused, but you are not presenting your arguments that way. Physics, in particular, incorporates concepts that are readily admitted to not be real. Reality is not the goal; the outcomes are real, but the models are not necessarily based on any reality, since it doesn’t matter to the outcome. Newtonian gravity tells us that an object accelerates according to a = GM/r^2. It doesn’t explain the reality of why or how. Just the result. Physics is lots of fun. I got paid to teach it, which I enjoyed, and later play with expensive toys which was even more so. But electric fields, and phonons, etc are not real They are calculational tools. QM describes things as a continuous field of operators on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Is that the reality of what you are? Science assumes there is an objective reality that can be measured, but you have to accept the measurement part of that if you’re discussing science. If you can’t measure it, it’s not science. If you can, then measure it and compete with the existing paradigm and see what gives the best result.

It’s because F= GMm/r^2 Physicists quantify things, which is usually required to solve problems, so they typically use math as a basis for understanding. Not “visualizations”

Why should it be? If you can’t justify the effort, complaining that it’s not done isn’t a good-faith argument But also way too general. As I mentioned above, you need to justify the reason some other approach should be used, especially at the expense of the one with an excellent track record. You needto bring something to the party. Reality? We’re talking about science.

Which is it? That we haven’t considered all the evidence, or that there needs to be a broader look at the evidence? If it’s the former, what evidence hasn’t been considered? If it’s the latter, what is it about the conclusion that suggests a broader look is needed? You seem to have a beef with one narrow area of science but are extrapolating this beef onto the whole endeavor, and I haven’t been able to eliminate the scenario where you are blaming bias for people not being credulous about your approach to the topic.

This would be reinventing the wheel. How does a paper on holism help me align a laser into an optical fiber? What bias has been introduced?

Science doesn’t declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Science declares that these are limitations of what it can study. It does not impose this worldview - you are free to reject it. But the findings of science shown to be true will continue to be true regardless. Science has been a great success in explaining how nature behaves, and that’s why it gets the benefit of doubt when one encounters some new phenomenon. If you want some other approach to be considered, you have to show it’s going to be worth the effort. But without a track record, it just not a practical use of anyone’s time. We’re biased toward what works. What’s wrong with that?

The Florida clemency board mentioned decides on restoration of voting rights of felons in that state. DeSantis is the chair. It has nothing to do with granting clemency for the conviction, just Florida voting rights. Not a jurisdiction issue.

Depends on the state. Some allow it, some restore the right after release, some don’t. “Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to felons in 2018 but the Republican-controlled Legislature undercut the measure with a complex set of requirements that convicted felons first pay all fines, fees and court costs.” Plus, DeSantis has declared that the state’s clemency board will make sure his voting rights are restored. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/31/desantis-says-trump-can-still-vote-in-florida-despite-felony-conviction-00161128

The funding that supported the research often pays for conference travel.

Much like rights in certain states, I’m assuming the restrictions will be set aside by some of the heads of state or legislatures, and simply ignored by some others. But not all.

No. There’s no evidence that actually supports it, and depending on the version, there’s evidence that actively contradicts it. Of one is going to use “design” as a description, then there’s a lot of unintelligent design in nature.

I assume that means the bulb is fine in another receptacle. This suggests it could be a low current issue from insufficient load, as you surmised (even if not from a dimmer) https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/48886/low-voltage-lights-turn-on-then-start-to-flash “It is a complex stability problem from insufficient load on the Triac dimmer. Adding one small normal bulb would fix that.”

It occurred to me this could be a diagnostic indicator (similar to how LED turn signals flash faster, the same way incandescent ones do, to tell you one has failed, but it’s not because of a drop in resistance, it’s part of a circuit test) https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/26183/what-does-that-mean-if-my-led-light-bulb-starts-blinking-when-i-turned-it-on ”I called Philips about this issue. They said that it indicates that the bulb is broken and needs to be replaced. Some LED bulbs have enough electronics in them that they are able to have diagnostic circuits and to report errors in this manner.”

You claimed in the OP that “those patterns came first and are the basis of how we design things intelligently.” and the point is that we rarely just duplicate the designs we find in nature. “informed by” is a subtle shift in this argument; of course our designs are “informed by” nature, since at the very least we have to follow the laws of nature in whatever we do. But that’s refuting an intelligently designed strawman. The fact remains that we rarely blindly copy design from nature. We want the function of things we see, but there are almost always differences in the design since we can start with a clean slate rather than repeatedly modifying existing apparatus, as nature is constrained to do.

I’m not familiar with these examples requiring the theory of evolution be discarded or modified. Why wouldn’t they be harder to come by? We’ve gathered the low-hanging fruit. The rest is harder to collect. When I say “reference” I mean a scientific paper, with title and page number, preferably with a link to it. Not a passing mention of a video or blog post. So, which reference is advancing this position? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the idea runs counter to mainstream science, one must ask if there is the necessary evidence to support it. Only then can you consider that the idea has been ignored. “I saw bigfoot” can be dismissed if you don’t have the evidence we see for other new species that routinely get described in biology. So give us an example that has such support that has been treated this way..

The shape of an airfoil is not dependent on the nature of humans. Yes, but the issue is whether the design is found in nature. You don’t find ergonomic spatulas in the wild, that are the basis for the design of what you find in the store.

We were looking for a design that provides lift. That’s function, not form, which is what Genady was pointing out.

You should be very aware that you haven’t cited any evidence. Five people or twenty believing in bigfoot doesn’t make it real. What acquired evidence? You’re long on claims but short on support. That only matters if the idea is correct. The first step one should take is to try and falsify an idea, and if it’s wrong, it doesn’t merit further scrutiny. You’re saying what you think will happen, but you don’t know this. What I’m asking is for examples where it did happen. You would have to show that e.g. causality is false. I also think you overestimate how much philosophy scientists consider when doing research. What does this mean?

That only matters if the assertion was that nothing we imagine is based on our experience, but that wasn’t it. It was that some things aren’t.

One possibility is that something is heating up. There could be an intermittent connection that works better once things expand upon heating. (I had some vanity lights that had wonky behavior because some wiring had come loose and made contact with the metal chassis, which gave a path to ground. The wires lengthened somewhat as they heated, changing the connection.)

They have to share features if you look at things coarsely enough. Wings provide lift, and have to follow the laws of aerodynamics. That often constrains the form that provides the function. IOW, everything is made of atoms, so pointing to that commonality would be meaningless.

Possible futures can be fueled by imagination, and not limited by what we’ve observed. Lasers were not something found in nature. The first nuclear reactor was not, even though we later found examples of that happening.

<sigh> Your evidence? Is there any way to document and/or quantify this? I suspect that if you reviewed the appropriate literature you would see new ideas popping up, all over the place. What you won’t see is this happening on a large scale, but if current paradigms are correct, that’s exactly what you’d expect. But at a lower level, you would, in areas that were not accessible in years past. When I started grad school, laser cooling and trapping was a pretty new subfield of atomic physics, made possible by advances in laser technology. As more was learned it blossomed into a huge area of research, and branched out as people thought of new applications. So I reject the notion because I spent my career experiencing it. If current paradigms are not correct, you’d expect more and more examples where the science fails. If your premise is correct, nobody would be stepping up to come up with models to explain what’s going on. Finding examples of this should be easy - there should be a whole bunch of unexplained phenomena, with nobody studying those issues. Things that science is based on are assumed to be true, since you’re not going to reinvent the wheel every time you start a new project. Science isn’t seeking any objective truth. We seek models to predict how nature behaves. There’s a bunch of stuff in physics that we know aren’t real (i.e. we make them up) — they are useful tools for such predictions.

Do we have wings that are shaped like a bird’s? Or submersibles shaped like a fish? They might be out there, but airplane wings are not like a bird’s and submarines are not shaped like a fish. That’s terminology, not design. I’ve never heard anyone describe it as swimming. Certainly not like a fish. And again, that’s terminology. Not like brains. You seem to be appealing to analogues, which (again) is terminology. It’s not duplication of design

The situation on the left won’t work, since the water is going higher - you need to do work. It could work if there was sufficient flow, and you converted KE into PE. They mention this early on; it’s what happens in a ram pump. The situation on the right is a siphon, with a reservoir in the middle. Water ends up at a lower PE, so there’s no need for work to be done.