John Cuthber

"And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology." Among other things, I interpreted it as not including music. So Music is an example of something which: is useful Is not science and is not astrology (or, indeed, philosophy) Did you think you had a point?

It may seem that way to you, but not to others. If you read a paper in the "journal of made up stuff" (Guaranteed 99.9% dross) would you really believe it? (especially when someone points out that it's a climate model that forgets the effects of the oceans) There is nothing unethical in pointing out that someone's argument is wrong on a discussion forum; that's the point of discussion. (There is something unethical about falsely accusing others of unethical behaviour)

If IQ mattered, then it would matter how well it correlates with things like skull size.

Dear me, I would have thought that anyone daring to enter this thread would have avoided obvious straw manning. " to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong." Just as well that nobody got even close to doing that . In general it's risky to declare anything useless, when someone asks, nobody can actually show that it has a use. Incidentally, is it just me or does this remind anyone else of a child, asked a question to which they don't know the answer, saying "I know- but I'm not telling you"?

Posting an abstract will almost always count as "fair use" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use be sure to include a reference so that any of us who wish to can follow it up- by buying access in necessary.

How much of a length do I have to go to in order to discredit something which, even the guy who cited it accepts that there's no more reason to believe it than, for example, some teenager's blog?

Well, I guess it's true that we would need to know what philosophical questions are. And it also seems that they are the only problems that philosophy can solve. And the whole tread;'s purpose is identifying such problems. And rather than doing so you seem to be running away. Another possibility isa that philosophy solves precisely zero problems of any note.

5. Is it safe for Ebola patients to use the bathroom? Yes. Sanitary sewers may be used for the safe disposal of patient waste.8 Additionally, sewage handling processes in the United States are designed to inactivate infectious agents. From http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/environmental-infection-control-in-hospitals.html

So, even though only 1 in 5 or so is right, you believe this one, in spite of having no direct evidence for that belief. I have a suggestion- avoid bookmakers.

"When a helium balloon rises up it gains potential energy." No it doesn't. If I have a big He balloon at ground level, I can tie a string to it and wrap that sting round the shaft of a generator. If I let go of the balloon I can get electricity from the generator. If I start with the balloon further up I can't get as much electricity before the lift from the balloon is too small to turn the shaft. So, as the balloon rises it looses potential energy. "How does the displacement theory explain where the energy comes from?" You tell me- it's not my theory. However the answer to the question 'Where does the energy come from to make the electricity' is simple. As the balloon rises an equal volume of air falls. In that regard, it's true to say that there is some downward flow of air that you can stretch a definition, and call a "downwash".

You have yet to address my point. It's possible that a finite set of axioms will be sufficient to address all the things that actually matter, even if it can not solve all the questions. You say "it will be very naive and simplistic to expect that the Universe/Reality that as a model is a lot more complex than the Natural Numbers will have a finite set of principles that describes it completely.". Perhaps, it's naive, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

All those people who studied science and have got doctorates in philosophy might not agree with your rather odd assertion that "They are different areas of study. This is why they have different names. . ". Whether I can tell a scientific problem from a philosophical one is beside the point. Why would I care what the solution to a philosophical problem might be? You seem to have split all the world's problems into two groups- the ones to which we actually need solutions, and the ones which philosophy can actually solve. What use is that?

Would you like to explain that to all the people with PhDs and D.Phils in science? Also you have claimed that philosophy can solve all questions- but you have not explained how. Perhaps you could illustrate it with a concrete example. The problem I face is that I don't know which pub to go to next Friday. How does philosophy solve that problem?

Well, I think you are right about this " air must descend in a downwash in order to produce lift." But the rest is mainly wrong. "

You seem to be citing the Fox network. Are you aware of this issue? http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/ Not to mention the disparity between the headline "Ebola can be transmitted in sneezes and coughs" and the expert opinion "It's important to remember that a sneeze or cough from someone who does not have symptoms of Ebola is not going to transmit the virus."

Why even talk about "perhaps it has 3 or 4 mistakes" when it well documented to have more than 400? http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/11/12/project-reason-lays-the-smack-down/ Are you just ignoring the truth because you want to believe in an old book?

" but if it's within a day after it should raise a red flag." Why? Don't those sort of things happen without the vaccine too? The science here is not difficult. You count the number of children who suffer from some problem just after vaccination and you compare it to the number how suffer the same problem just before vaccination. If the frequency of problems in the two groups is the same, then the vaccination isn't causing the problem. Those trials have been done on a very large sale, all over the world. There is very little difference between the two groups, so there is very little additional risk from vaccination. However there is a very much bigger risk from the illnesses like measles. The sensible thing to do is vaccinate your child.

But even you accept that there is no reason to think that the paper you told us to read is actually correct. Why on earth would we believe it?

I can't help wondering if the bloke is thinking "United:don't care: City"

I forget which scientist it was who once said something like "It is sobering to think of all the people who failed exams because they didn't remember something which we later found was wrong anyway"

Peter, You seem to have missed this. because your next post had nothing to do with answering the questions I asked. Would you like to try again?

If memory serves the most conductive nerves are theses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squid_giant_axon and, with the best will in the world, I don't think that squid are noted for their intellect. (Though their octopus cousins are very bright)

That's probably a fair summary. The reason for our not blindly accepting it is that you can't seem to supply any evidence. We point out that a paper on a vanity publishing website isn't much good; and your response isn't to provide better evidence, but to complain that we don't accept tripe. Welcome to science.

I don't care where the philosophy comes from and it's silly to assume I do. What I'm asking is what it actually achieves. What has would philosophy have done in the last 50 or 100 years which made my life better if I was somewhere other than the West? Or, if you prefer What has philosophy done in the last 50 or 100 years which made my Easterner's life better?