John Cuthber

My degree was 4 years, but that's unusual here in the UK, most are 3 I was 22 when I finished it.

OK, to start with the last of those things, Please learn that the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy. That I label some groups as insane, does not mean that I will label all groups as insane, does it? Have you got that now? I have pointed it out twice. next point. It is not "generalizing" to say that the Right wing have Right wing beliefs. It's pretty much tautology. OK, it's fair to say that there must be some characteristic, or group of characteristics that define someone as being "Right wing". Those characteristics include a set of beliefs. One of those beliefs is that the Right wing's economic policies are the right thing to do. (Otherwise, they would vote for someone else). However it is well documented that those beliefs have all the credibility of some sad soul who says he's Napoleon. It doesn't matter if we are talking about dragons or "trickle-down economics". So, if, for example, black people were to think that we are all going to be eaten by sea eagles, I'd say they were all mad. However, there is nothing that you can label as "a belief that all black people have which is different from what white people believe, and which is plainly factually wrong" So, (just in case you missed it the first two times) There is no reason to say that black people are insane.

In some circumstances it's possible to have fire without oxygen. Some things will burn in chlorine; most things will burn in fluorine.

"So I ask you, why is it OK to label a certain demographic, and consider them insane, for their beliefs." Good question. If an individual believes that they are Napoleon, is it reasonably to say they are insane? I think most people would say yes to that. They believe in something that's clearly not true and they continue to believe it, even after the evidence has been pointed out to them What if a group of people each think they are Napoleon (again, even after it's been pointed out that they are not, because he's dead)? Is it reasonable to label the group as insane? Strictly speaking, no. The group isn't insane, it is composed of individuals who are insane. But I think most people would still describe the group as insane. It's a distinction that hardly matters if it's a political party. If they are insane as a group, or individually, then we really shouldn't permit them any political power.

Nope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope In the real world, society really does deal with people who have lost the plot. They really do split the world into sane and insane on the basis of what people believe (what other criteria did you think they would use?) It's still not a matter of attacking people because they hold an idea. it's labelling people because they continue to cling to an idea that they should discard because it's at odds with the evidence. Now, could you please stop with the straw man about calling people insane because they disagree with me. For the umpteenth time, the people who disagree with reality get called insane.

I guess it's because most religions are more or less misogynistic.

"calling anyone you disagree with "insane" is dehuminization." Just as well that nobody did it then, isn't it. I'm calling people insane if the continue to believe things (like the existence of dragons) even after they have seen the evidence that they are wrong. It is not off- topic to point out those things where someone beleives fervently in them, and yet the veidence shows those things to be false. Would you like, rather than repeating yourself, to actually show either that the Right are not opposed to free immigration or that immigration is not good for the country? I remind you that I picked the example because other had raised it, and I showed evidence for my point of view. All you have done so far is say I'm dehumanising them by ascribing a uniquely human trait to them and said that I'm calling them insane because they don't share my views- even though I have pointed out repeatedly that that isn't the case.

"I'm saying that if you want to label half a nation insane, then you need to back it up with HARD scientific data and not based on the facts that you disagree with their positions." I'm not I'm calling them insane because they ignore evidence (and that is science, and I did cite it). Incidentally, you keep ignoring this fact and saying it's just my belief. Pointing out that the one thing it can not possibly be is "dehumanising" isn't dehumanising or propaganda. Saying it twice, even though I explained that it's wrong, without explaining how attributing a clearly human trait to someone is dehumanising, is a case in point. You ignored the evidence. Why? So, if, for example a group of people are documented as saying that they oppose teaching thinking and if the population in general believe that teaching kids to think is a good thing then, by the general rough definition of "insane" that group are insane. That's still true even if they are correct in their belief- unless thy can show overwhelming evidence for it. Insanity is a decision made, in effect, by society.

Do you understand that insanity was a perfectly well recognised concept before anyone invented psychology? For what it is worth, the correct field of expertise for deciding if someone is actually insane or not is psychiatry, rather than psychology. It hardly matters. We are not looking at some subtle trait here. What we are looking at is a wilful ignorance of the data. Are you seriously saying that you need to be a psychologist to tell if someone who believes in dragons has "bats in the belfry"? Incidentally, only humans can be sane or insane, so it's hardly "dehumanising" to call someone insane.

Well, actually, I am , in some small way, qualified to make that "diagnosis". It's a while ago, but I studied pharmacology. That field includes psychopharmacology. To do that you need to be able to distinguish those who need treatment from those who do not. There's a fairly broad set of conditions that "tick the box". In essence there are a collection of conditions all referred to as psychoses. Their distinguishing feature is that the subject believes something which normal people wouldn't. believe. So, for example if you believe that you are the queen, then most people would accept that you were not rational because all the evidence says that you are not. . If you think that another beer won't do any harm, even when it's plan that it will, then that's a psychosis too. It's not a subtle test, but it often doesn't need to be. If someone continues to proclaim that immigration is bad, even when the evidence makes it clear that it isn't, then they are in the same position as someone who thinks that they are the queen. They are insane. It's not a matter of a position I disagree with, it's a matter of a position which the evidence (stuff like that report and the fact that (in the other thread I cited, nobody was able to find Left wing Looneys") disagrees with. Who is sane or not is largely defined by the opinion of society. Society has already cast its vote on people who believe in dragons; they are nuts. And the right seems to have rather more than its fair share (or prove me wrong).

I have seen this exchange repeated a few times here "REPUBLICAN: "I think it would be wise for the US to control the flow of immigrants into our country, so that our welfare services can cope, and our industries can make the best use of their talents" LIBERAL: "Why do you hate immigrants?"" The right answer for a well informed liberal is "Why do you think there's a need to control it? It is known to be good for the economy, and it's not clear that the problems with welfare services spring from immigration rather than from cutbacks in spending- here's a report on it. http://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf Since the facts show that immigration is a net benefit to the economy, are you sure that you are not just using economic impact as an excuse for xenophobia?" But even that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that, even though they know of those reports, and they know that immigration is a net benefit to the country, the Right wing still oppose it. That's insanity.

The Right is running out of excuses http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm

One way to look at it is that the turbine is driven by the fact that water expands nearly 2000 fold on boiling.

It's important to note that inorganic mercury salts like the nitrate will have a different distribution in the body from the vapour. The mercury vapour will (IIRC) penetrate into the brain much more effectively.

http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19382700038.html;jsessionid=218BA297826809A62A8D155192E39785

OK, so do the experiment suggested in this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind%C2%A0 have a look at people who are active politicians who either are in, or stand a reasonable prospect of being elected to, power then find the crazies among them. Since it's your choice of crazy, you, as a centrist, should be able to make a reasonably fair choice.then see if the majority of political loonies are Left of Right of centre. however, as pointed out several times in that thread, it seems nobody could actually find a recognised left wing loony (though there's no problem finding their counterparts.)

You missed a bit. " hatter Houghton Mifflin Crazy; mentally deranged. hatter n.noun One whose occupation is the manufacture, selling, or repair of hats.

The whole issue has little to do with science. You seem to have missed something. I didn't say "it's pretty clear that..." I said "That's a pretty clear..." Now, if what I said wasn't true you ought to have pointed it out, but if what I said about how people should vote if they wish to maximise their income is correct then it is a pretty clear distinction between the two sides. Sure, they both lie. In particular, they lie about each-other. But only one of them absolutely has to because it needs a majority, but only benefits a minority. Either show it's not true, or show it's not an incentive for them to lie. I don't know if you read, or were involved in this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind and this one http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity but have a look and see if you can gainsay the major thrust of what it developed into: the Right wing is the one with the real fruitcakes. They have to say stuff they know isn't true in order to "justify" their policies.

erm... no nutter ˈnʌtə/ noun BRITISHinformal a mad or eccentric person.

Just in case anyone needed evidence for that http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/12/09/senate-report-released-us-detained-and-tortured-innocent-people which includes this According to Feinstein, the four key findings of the report include: 1. The CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not effective... "

That's probably fair comment but, in any event, it's not helpful to blame "ignorant mums" when there's a whole political industry based on ensuring they stay ignorant. However there is a fundamental difference between the Right and the Left in this issue. Most people can't afford to pay for their own (and their families') healthcare, education and retirement. So it's clearly in their interests to ensure that state provision for those things is generous.(Only those who are rich enough would end up paying more in that case). And yet, the Right wing regularly manage to get a majority in elections- even though enlightened self interest would make most people vote against them. That's a pretty clear incentive for the Right, but not the Left to ensure that people vote on the basis of just about anything but the actual facts. If the benefits you get from the state in terms of education, road building, retirement provision and such exceed your tax bills (and they usually will) then you shouldn't vote for a party that cuts taxes to reduce spending. Telling people otherwise requires ensuring they don't understand the facts.

Erm.., the thing you can tell about a hatter is that he makes hats. That's why he's called a hatter. hatter ˈhatə/ noun a person who makes and sells hats. Anyway, the single biggest risk from putting your hand in mercury is probably inhalation f the vapour while you are messing about with it. If you put your hand in a bucket of water, you don't normally notice the pressure. if, you wear a rubber glove you can feel the effect of the water . My guess is that's what mercury would feel like.

You could make a start by banning political parties that seek to maintain ignorance because it suits them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

At that temperature aluminium oxide will dissolve in cryolite. If you pass an electric current through the solution you will get aluminium metal and oxygen (which will probably attack the electrode).

Did you consider reading the paper I cited? That tells you the answer: "We conducted three torsion-balance experiments to test the gravitational inverse-square law at separations between 9.53 mm and 55µm,"