mooeypoo

Thread moved to Pseudoscience/Speculations, as the discussion shifted to discuss a hypothesis that is in need of evidence. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged ... that's precisely what phrenology is. Phrenology (from Greek: φρήν, phrēn, "mind"; and λόγος, logos, "knowledge") is a theory stating that the personality traits of a person can be derived from the shape of the skull. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology The main difference seems to be that you refer to the "front of the face" - brow/nose - and phrenology is about the back of the skull. That would make the "observed" vs. not-observed distinction. The back of the skull is hidden behind hair; obviously, it's not as "observed" as nose and brow. Which is probably why the correlation was phrased as "trumped up" phrenology. Not the exact thing, but quite the same idea. Since the general idea that facial and cranial features affect behavior was discarded, you will need to show evidence why this might have any sort of credence before anyone would support research on the matter (give you a grant). If you don't mind about anyone's support, then go ahead and design a proper double-blind test for this, see if you can corroborate your hypothesis. ~moo

Fair enough. This is a science forum, though, not a philosophy forum. For the purpose of this forum, unfalsifiable claims have no value. artnat,this is a scientific forum, not a philosophical sound stage. You came to us, and now you're surprised we're scientific "rottweilers"? If being a science rottweiler means I demand scientific evidence for a scientific subject, then I admit being one. I'm supposed to be one, because this is a science forum. I didn't move any goal posts; you just seem to forget where you are. You might do well going over our rules and the speculation policies. We're not here to debate unsubstantiated philosophical circular logic, we're here to discuss science. In that particular framework, you are the one moving the goal post. It's not about condecendence, it's about trying to get you to cooperate on a scientific matter. If you don't intend on doing it, you might aswell go to another forum. Perhaps a philosophy one, where people will be more cooperative with unfalsifiables and cricular logic and claims without evidence. This isn't your blog and it's not your livingroom. We're not here to bow down to every word you utter; we're here to discuss science and dissect claims, because that's how science operates. We're here to criticize claims and see if they hold the test of (at least a 'mini) peer review. You are not cooperating in any of this, which is not only unfair to the members that debate the thread, it's also against forum policy. I suggest you look at the rules of conduct, at our policy, missions statement and "speculation rules of engagement" and see if you might want to switch tactics, or perhaps switch a forum. Finally, here's a general rule: Before you decide to lecture an official forum moderator about the forum's purpose and "hubris", I would recommend you actually verify you know what the forum is about and what the rules say. It's just a thought. ~moo

kleinwolf,I don't understand what you're asking. This isn't the political forum or the medical forum, so I don't know what they have to do with anything. This is not intended to hurt your feelings, but if you can't manage to find a way to properly communicate with us in English, this is going to be a problem.

Hey tar, It's rather late here and I am about to go sleep, but I am going to have to think of how to demonstrate what you're talking about. I think I understand the problem, it's not an easy one, but it will take me a bit more than the five minutes of half-sleepy not-quite-coherent thought I'm operating on at the moment. For now, though, i found this article that seems to give the basics about the difference between Inductive and Deductive reasoning: http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm One more thing, though - I'm not too sure the problem are with those. Those two "sets" of reasonings both have their pros and cons and they're both dependent on what type of conclusion you're using. It's more about noting what type of logic you use and KNOWING its limitations than which type of logic to use. Sometimes making conclusions from generalizations is appropriate, sometimes it's not. Sometimes making generalizations from conclusions is appropriate, sometimes it's not. The important thing is to *remember* which of them you're doing so you can note the weak parts of the reasoning. I'm going to think up examples and try to give them when I'm a bit more awake. ~moo

No, no no, they don't. Reality is reality. The pieces of evidence are just that - pieces of evidence. If they don't "fit together" it's because the theory isn't good enough in explaining them, not because one of the pieces is faulty. The theory should fit the evidence, tar, not the other way around. If we would go around trying to find evidence that fit a theory, we'd have an incomplete, biased view of reality rather than an understanding of how reality actually works. That's called confirmation bias. That bridge depends on our explanation; the facts exist and the facts need to be explained. The bridge doesn't verify the facts or "finding its place in the total picture", the bridge serves to explain the facts, and it is totally DEPENDENT on the facts. Not the other way around.

I think that was a joke, dr.syntax

Of course they did, they predicted everything. Everything! Even things that didn't happen!

What do you mean decomposed..? I think the problem is the word decomposed, kleinwolf, not velocity or object. Do you mean the object slows down? The velocity decreases?

Stop looking at what others do, and start making sure YOU are following our rules, dr syntax. I have no patience to argue with you about how to enforce the rules. If and when I see something inappropriate, the moderators respond. You have a button on top of each post with a red triangle you can click and REPORT A POST. That brings it to the moderators' attention, and we deal with it. This isn't YOUR forum, and these arent YOUR rules. I will not argue with you abotu how to enforce OUR rules. Everyone is being very patient so far with your continuous insistance to avoid giving evidence to your claims. Instead of arguing science, you resort to calling everyone else bullies, when all they do is call you out on the FACT that you have no evidence. This is the bottom line: You have no evidence, and yet you argue as if you do. People call you out on it, because that how scientific arguments are done. Instead of coming back with a scientific argument, you're whining about your treatment. If you cannot handle criticism, don't post in a forum. Any forum, for that matter, not just ours, because you're going to get criticism everywhere. We're not here to cuddle you, we're here to debate, and you're not making our lives any easier by avoiding answers. No one cursed, no one bullied, no one called you names. People stated - justly so - that your evidence are nonexistent. Grow up. Start debating like an adult, follow our rules, and stop being so defensive. Not everyone who criticizes your post is out to get you. We have better things to do. Seriously. ~moo

The 'something' and the 'actual science' were part of a single sentence, meaning that you need to supply something that is scientifically valid. Something that has no value is meaningless, don't you agree? And yet, that's what you supply. I didn't ignore it, I grouped it along with the "nothing contains actually valid data" bit. I can also take a valid peer review paper and derive an invalid argument from it. The argument will remain invalid until I validate it, no matter how valid the peer-reviewed article I based my NEW argument was. We're not judging people, we're judging claims. Your claims have no merit and you seem to have no scientifically valid data, either. If you do, please share them. If you think I missed them, then please point them out directly for us. I gave math as one of the requirements; if you supply other scientifically valid evidence for your hypothesis, math isn't encessarily needed, though at some point you might need it to provide some source of prediction. Since you're trying to make consciousness (an 'unphysical' term) into a phenomena (physical term) then it will, at some point, be needed to describe it physically, and math should have a place in that description. I can't give you an example because that doesn't exist. Since you're the one with the hypothesis, you should have a general idea of how to go about obtaining such mathematical modeling, but that can still wait until the hypothesis has a bit more scientific "meat" to it. Also, take into account that a scientific paper is judged by its contents, not by theperson writing it. For that matter, no matter how many scientifically reviewed a writer has, if the SPECIFIC paper we're talking about did not pass the review, it's not quite good enough as evidence by itself. If you have any other evidence you want to share -- like, for instance, what mechanism you would have to analyze and detect such phenomenon -- then please share them with us. You should take a look at this post (and the whole thread, while you're at it) for some actual scientific experiments done that explain why "theology" is such a prevailing phenomena in our world. Science *can* explain some things, yaknow... ~moo

Narrator: There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy FTW.

Dr Syntax, if you intend to stay in this forum, you have to stop being so defensive. You asked a question and people are trying to help you. Pointing out where your logic may be flawed is PART of answering you. If you intend on being defensive and claiming everyone's out to get you, maybe you shouldn't post here at all. Maybe you shouldn't deal with science at all, either, seeing as this community is nice and cuddly compared to a true peer review process. ~moo

That's a good point, Tar, but we do have a method of making sure that we only rely on objective "stories". That's what the scientific method is all about. Most notably, if a "story" allows you to accurately predict future phenomena, then the "story" is pretty objective. zcavPAFiG14

Moved to HW help. Please remember, we aren't here to SOLVE homework problems, we're here to help members get the answers themselves and understand them.

Enough, folks. There was an off-topic debate in this thread that was found to be big enough to stand on its own. The posts were not deleted, they were moved to their own thread, to allow for the civil and logical continuance of both topics. These arguments about whether or not things are off topic or shouldn't be off topic or will be off topic are not moving the thread forward. Knock it off, and continue with the actual topic at hand, please. If you think a specific post is unwarranted, not civil, unfair or is not following the rules of conduct or the rules of civility, then please report it and let the staff deal with it, so you can go on to have a debate on the actual topic at hand. Move along, please. ~moo

"That's the way it is"? Really? YOu seem to either ignore rules or insist on not reading them, so here's another try: You came to us, to convince us of your theory. So far, you're doing a horrible job putting evidence forward. If your theory is so true, this would not have been a problem. We are not supposed to disprove your fantasy, you're supposed to prove it. This is not your personal blog, or personal sound stage, you do not get to stand and lecture us about how right you are just because you think yo're right. You might be able to do that in a kindergarten, but not in a science forum. Stop lecturing, start listening to our rules, and start talking actual science. And if it's not clear, here it is again: We're not asking you to follow the rules, we're requiring you to follow the rules. ~moo

Dr Syntax, you are not a moderator, I am a moderator. I have done things publically and non-publically, and I am notifying you that this is the last I will hear of it. Seeing as the thread deteriorated to a whining match, it is hereby closed. ~moo

NO ONE is allowed, did you read what I wrote? I asked everyone to be civil. Now, please, stop with the petty "he said she said" and let's go into science. Show us some ACTUAL science, or this thread will be closed. I will not participate in a whining party. So, to make things clear: TO ALL PARTICIPANTS OF THE THREAD: Be civil. Every one of you. Move along, please. ~moo

Dr Syntax, the post was deleted for a reason. Keep it deleted. Everyone should keep their temper in check (that goes for EVERYONE participating, not just dr.syntax). BE NICE and CIVIL. Dr Syntax, the burden of proof is on *YOU* and not anyone else. Stop shifting it to other people - either put up the science or stop complaining that everyone calls you up on your theory being unproven crap. It shall remain unproven until *YOU* bring forth something to PROVE IT. ~moo

Dr Syntax, our request for actual science is not really up for negotiation. Stop talking out of thin air; either start supporting your statements with actual science or admit your theory is unsupported myth. Your appeals to emotion are not helping your case. Did you go over the links I put up about the rules of Speculation and the "Rules of Engagement"? You should. They're part of our rules, and as such, they're also non negotiable. ~moo

What is 'object decomposes in a plane'?

Thread moved to Pseudoscience/Speculations. Dr. Syntax, you're making a claim here,the burden of proof is on you. It means you need to supply evidence, not just empty claims or logical fallacies. Please refer to the Speculation policy and, more improtantly, to our "rules of engagement" for more information on what is required of you to support your own theory. ~moo

A "that is physically impossible" is also an answer. According to what we know about physics, this is impossible. If you disagree, you will need to show a completely different set of theories that explain reality *AND* allow this to happen; those theories need to be substantiated and shown to be better than the current theories. That might be possible, and we might, some day, discover a whole new theory to replace our current one, but it won't be a quickie forum-explanation and it will require quite a LOT of evidence.

Also, how far along into your education are you? It's very common that in the first segment of a degree you learn the very very basics, very simplified material, and go into the more complex less-simplified subjects a bit later.

There's no math in there, there are no experimentational data or evidence and none of the links are peer reviewed articles. I can google "Bigfoot" and find better evidence than you're providing. ~moo