mooeypoo

You know, I loved his music too, and I am sad he's dead. He's probably an American legend, sure, but.. hero? no.

This is getting tedious. bombus, there is a reason why we keep insisting on avoiding logical fallacies. It's not just our anal attempt to be "strict and logical", it's a way of making sure the argument remains consistent: That we argue on the same subject, the same point, and answer one another with valid answers. If we don't do these, the entire argument is moot. bombus, you really should start paying attention to the way you relate to people's comments. It might serve you well to read a bit about what logical fallacies are, and why they are important to recognize. I don't really care if you can recognize them by name, but you should be fair enough with us (and your own argument, quite frankly) to try and argue valid points, rather than argue just for the sake of remaining correct and hope people missed the flimsy logic that was used. Look here, for instance: You are very wrong there. However, if you do know, maybe you should write a scientific paper on it. I'm sure the science world would love to know that you know exactly all there is to know about brain function. Mokele was refering to the physical level of our understanding, in which case he is far from being wrong. By changing the meaning of "deepest level" from physical level to metaphorical level, you presented him as wrong. That's called a straw man. It's a logical fallacy because it makes the comment absolutely moot. Mokele did not say what you claim he said. Your point only seems true because you misrepresent Mokele's counterpoint. If you would have answered what he actually said, rather than what you want to argue, it would have been a valid point to make. Try again. Using sentient slaves might be seen as a flaw! That might be, bombus, but that wasn't the purpose of this argument. insane_alien MENTIONED the point you made, when he said "of course this over looks the many practical problems". It was also a semi-non-related cynical addition, because the subject wasn't (yet) the morality or practicality of actually getting robots to work on something as sentient being, the point is that robots are able to. What you did in this point is shift the point of the argument and introduce a red herring. Those are two logical fallacies, and they don't make you right. No, its just that quantum computers can do many more calculations simultaneously - even solving problems without fully running programs! This was a shifty little bump on your part, bombus. Here's insane_alien's FULL quote on the matter of quantum computers: you should never be closing your mind either way. i think you are assuming the word quantum means any number of wacky things can occur. it is not equivalent to magic So, when you look at the full answer in context, you see that what insane_alien answered was your point about brains being quantum systems. I am not sure who said that exactly (that seems to be another strawman, though a subtle one), but regardless, insane_alien's response was directly related to your comment. Your answer doesn't stand against insane_alien's answer. His point was that "quantum" doesn't mean magic, and so it's not all that insane to compare a brain to it. Your quote: .. brings an exception - a "weird thing that happened once" - with quantum computers, presents it as a usual occurance with quantum computrs (is it? I don't think so) and it seems you use this to show that quantum computers are, therefore, not like the brain. Your conclusion doesn't follow that logic: For one, you need to demonstrate what EXACTLY it means by "the computer didn't run". Was there electricity through it, but just not any software? Well, if that's the case, isn't that *exactly* how our brain works? You don't have any software, you have electrical signals going back and forth between the neurons -- which is what has been told in the thread. So essentially, you've presented a case that doesn't necessarily come against the claims put forth to you, but presented it as if the obvious conclusion is that the other claims are wrong. The logic doesn't not follow the conclusion, bombus. So, to summarize - everyone will benefit greatly if we all avoid logical fallacies. Not just for the rules of the forum (which state, quite clearly, against their use) but for us to have a *VALID* discussion, one we can all mutually learn and understand from. ~moo

Thread has been moved the Pseudoscience / Speculations forum. This is a speculative theory that has not (yet?) been accepted by mainstream science, and as such, this forum is the place for it. jsaldea12, please read the Speculation Policy - you have a few steps to complete before we can consider your theory as valid. Also, the email address in this post was removed, also in accordance to our rules. ~moo

So we can go to space, for one. Humans aren't eating-breathing-drinking(-youforgotonemorethinghere) machines, they are curious beings aspiring to figure how things work and why, as well as better themselves. We want to do more than eat, breath and drink (and whatever else). We want to be more. More than, say, machines. That's why we need those things. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to go live in a secluded cave in the middle of a deserted island, hunt your own food with your bare hands and drink the stream water. Will you be satisfied with that, though? That's ridiculous. Man created medicine so we can cure disease and be healthier. Man created clothing so we can be warm. Man created mass food production so hunger is (theoretically, hopefully) reduced. Man created ethics, so we cooperate in a society. Man has created a lot, and only *some* of that lot caused problems. That doesn't mean that men created problems. Be serious. ~moo

Post #116 should have a citation along with it, as it is taken from this site: http://www.cavemanchemistry.com/oldcave/projects/acid/ Even "fair use" clause insists you *CITE* your sources. Please avoid plagiarism, people.

This isn't a courtroom, it's science forum. We don't go by charismatic twisty logic, we go by evidence and math. You are more than welcome to present some that would hold true to reality. Only after the evidence and math hold true to reality can we check if these go against any existing theories. Instead of whining what you think we are or are not, I recommend you present your evidence forward so we can turn this into a scientific debate rather than a "what are logical fallacies" inspection. ~moo

The entire text is taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detergent I remind everyone, specially the poster, that plagiarism is against hte rules of the forum, as well as illegal in general. Also, I removed the link to the website. Either ask a question or don't post at all. I suggest you read the rules.

A quick search in google turned these answers: http://stanford.wellsphere.com/wellguide.s?articleId=2449&searchString=Symptoms+Of+Tapeworm and: http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec17/ch196/ch196p.html Google is your friend. Also, please take into account this is a forum, not a chat room. Serious discussions are rarely answered with a time limit, as people post when they post and not 24/7. And finally, I want to remind everyone that a quoted answer without citation is plagiarism. Please cite your sources. Also, it's the HELPFUL thing to do, as the person reading your answer can continue his/her research on their own. ~moo

The entire post wasn't English, it was gibberishian word salad. This is a scienceforum, not a boobaloobablalbapoop forum. Yeah. Try again, this time in English and in sentences that actually make sense. ~moo

bombus, I wish I could help here, but I don't want to give you half-assed answers, and geology isn't my field. I know there are a few interested parties in this debates, but please take into account we are on summer-time, and it may sound lame, but it is reality: a lot of people are on vacation.. It's a slower forumtime. Please try to be patient. In any case, the heated debate that was on the other thread wasn't so much about the failings of Plate Tectonics, but about some logical fallacies done by both sides. In other words: Don't rush to conclusions just yet. ~moo

Yes, and I have to say that one of the things I keep reffering to even today (when my math is relatively high-level as a physics junior), is the basic table of multiplication. The fact I was forced to memorize it (up to 10) helps me today a LOT, from figuring out simple stuff like 7*8, to simplifying complicated mathematical computations. You should go over addition and subtraction and practice practice practice. Multiplication is basically multiple additions (so 2+2+2+2+2 will be 2*5) Division is an extension of multiplication (so if 10*5=50, 50/5=10 and 50/10=5) The magic word, as you can see, is practice. Start *strong* - with addition and subtraction, feel comfortable with them as much as you can, and go on to multiplication and subtraction. When you're done with these, you'll see how things like fractions are going to be very easy to get into. Even functions, which are a "higher level" mathematical concepts, will be MUCH MUCH easier to understand if your mathematical basis is strong. Also, it is a lot about confidence. Once you have the basics, you'll feel more confident in your abilities, and less mathophobic Share if you have any questions or clarifications or examples you want us to help you with, btw. It might be a bit hard for us to give you a gazillion drills to practice (PRACTICE is the key word!! but if you have questions or if you want to bounce off terminology and its definition, etc, please feel free to share with us. ~moo

You know, you might be able to find lessons online - either paid video lessons or from a school. Worth a try.. and it might be a lot simpler and more comfortable for you to work at this with a tutor that goes by your level rather than buying lots of books and do it yourself.

Yes, fractions and division/multiplication are an extension, of sorts, of addition. So they should come later. You seem to have a good basis for addition and subtraction, though. I'd get some practice on addition/subtraction and move on to multiplication and division.

Okay, this gives us a place to start Great! So "simple" adition seems to be easy. Okay, so division is a problem. We have a starting point [The answer, btw, is 50. The idea is to "divide" 100 to 2 equal parts = 50. 50+50=100, which means 50*2=100.] I see that this and the fourth one -- both dealing with fractions -- are problematic. That's another point we can work on. Great! that's the way to do it It's also a fairly easy way to do it in your head, it just requires a lot of practice. Your method is "left-to-right" (which means you are calculating the hundreds first, then continuing on towards the right side) which is easier to do in your head. Keep practicing on that one Right, fractions. Okay, so division and fractions (which are very close to one another) are a problem. Let me try and narrow the playing field a bit more.. if I asked you what 0.2 + 0.3 is equal to, is this difficult for you? Let me try and look up some basic tutorials for you, and think about where to start. I wouldn't be discouraged if I were you. For one, you're not 1st grade elementary school (you can add 3-digit numbers).

Let me ask you a practical question, and please don't take offense. I want to see what your level is, and - to be honest - I don't care about knowing the names of things. I come from a different country and didn't know the name of most math definitions either, that's the "easy" part to learn (you just read about them, basically). I want to know where you are in terms of actual math level, as opposed to where you migth think you are.. does that make sense? I want to write out a few relatively basic mathematical drills. Could you tell me (a) if you can do each? (b) how hard do you feel it is to do each? © how long, approximately, does it take you? And, yes, don't use a calculator You don't have to give me an answer to any of them, just tell me how hard you find each of them.. I'll have a better idea of where you are in your math skill.. 2 + 12 100 / 2 [math]\frac{2}{3} + \frac{4}{3}[/math] 124 + 102 [math]\frac{1}{3} * \frac{4}{2}[/math] I'll start with these, and might ask you further depending on your difficulty level. Please try to indicate how hard each of these questions are and if you think you can solve them. Don't be shy and don't take this personally -- we will just ahve a better understanding of where we need to start helping out when we know where you think your trouble is

You know, I saw you wrote that you are not interested in the "Tricks", but I think you should consider this book regardless: "Secrets of Mental Math" by Arthur Benjamin, Michael Shermer and a forward by Bill Nye (the science guy!) (http://www.flipkart.com/secrets-mental-math-arthur-benjamin/0307338401-htw3fsmkne) I am a physics student, and as one I need to know math quite well and it's very helpful to do some calculations in your mind. Though this book is called "tricks" in math, it's *explaining* those tricks, and giving you actual methods on how to practice on mental calculations (without a calculator, and when you're getting better at it, with practice, without a paper too). It's not cheating, it's learning methods of calculations that are making the process a bit easier. For example, one of the "tricks" is to calculate a double-digit number times 11. The "trick" is that the answer is a three-digit number that has the two digits around the sum of those digits. Like: 22x11=242 (2+2=4) 36x11=396 (3+6=9) 13x11=143 (1+3=4) And so on (gets a bit different when the sum is larger than 9 but I'll leave that for the book to explain In any case, my point is that the above "trick" is only a trick if you don't understand *WHY* this works. At the end of the book, the author(s) work out the method to explain why this happens, which makes you also understand how the process works. The byproduct is that you understand the process *AND* you can do it faster. If you are starting out with these things, you might as well start out with methods that will help you calculate the basics quicker for the next steps. The book is mainly dealing with basic math (pretty good methods about how to add and subtract large numbers or how to multiply 2-3 digit numbers). It's *pretty* basic but if you practice, you can learn the math while impressing people around you. Check this book out. Other than that, it's really about where to start.. there are many levels to maths, and for us to help you we will need a bit more information on what you are currently comfortable with. Good luck ~moo

ORIFIEL, welcome back. You have a few unanswered questions to answer before you can start on a new topic.

You really need to stop expecting us to guess teh relationship of the logic you're using, cperkinson, and start showing us that relationship. That said, I am INFORMING YOU, cperkinson, that your insistance that you're right is wrong, and that the subject you're leading this thread into is off-topic. I am thereby telling you to open your own thread about whatever you want to argue about the wrong speed of light of the wrong waves, and not hijack this thread, as it is against the rules. Please go over our rules. Let's return back on topic on this question, please. ~moo

But a theory requires a mathematical formulation and SOME SORT of evidence, cperkinson (and falsifiability, etc). You don't have any just yet, and your idea is not quite a theory. This isn't meant to "offend" you, it's a matter of definition. You will need to come up with a theoretical way to check and test these ideas, otherwise we can't go on. Can you think, theoretically, what would test them?

If all I"ve asked you was a bit of respect, and the answer you give me is to remove you from the forum, then perhaps you need to follow your own advice and get out to never return. Please refer to our rules of conduct, the rules you have agreed to follow when you registered to the forum. We started with a decent argument, which you degraded, and you alone. I am not going to entertain you when you give this forum and its members not an ounce of respect. Consider your next posts and your attitude carefully, please. This will go in one of two possible ways: the argument will be resumed nicely, or you will be banned for your attitude. Your ideas were tested, you have no case to claim we're "closed minded". Take your pick - either be respectful, or get out. ~moo

You know, google is your friend. If only for the sake of clarity, please try to avoid "whats-his-face" as a name of a scientist, and take the minute or two it takes to figure out who that "whats his face" of whom your theory you want to crush (or use). A bit of respect for the scientist who initiated the theory, and a bit of respect to us, the people who read your posts and try to help out. About your theory, I will have to get back to you after a night's sleep. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That's not astrology. Astrology isn't science. Please do not use it, unless you want a detailed explanation of why this isn't science (at the expense of considering your actual post). Seriously, cperkinson, we give you respect, we expect a bit of it back. Astrology is astrology. Astronomy is Astronomy. Cosmology is Cosmology. If you feel you're not up to typing it all the time, we'll accept it when you write "astronomy" and actually mean "cosmology" or the other way around. Otherwise, since in computers we deal, you could also use the (very useful) "Copy/Paste" method. Calling astronomy and cosmlology astrology is unacceptable. It's like calling a "12 year old human child" cheeta because you don't want to write '12 year old human child' all the time. Only "AStrology" is worse, because to astronomers, quite frankly, it's derogatory. Astrology is crap. Astronomy is science. Don't mix the two. Please be serious. If you want us to take you seriously, try to take our fields of study seriously too. Please. ~moo

That's fine, but take into account that what we *think* is logical isn't always so. If a current theory has strong mathematical constructs, they help us predict new events. For example, the theory of relativity does not merely explain the relationship of time in different frames, it also *accurately* predicts what would happen when/if we change frames of reference. That increases the credibility of the theory, it makes it *helpful*. Useful. If a theory is merely theoretical, it fits the realm of philosophy rather than physics. Those can be interesting discussions,but they don't quite 'crush' our current theories, or any theories, without showing that they're more useful in fitting to reality (and predicting it). ~moo

You shall have to review your physics, then, and disagree in your existing threads in the Pseudoscience/Speculations forum. Nothing *WITH MASS* travels as fast as the speed of light, cperkinson. Visible light is an electromagnetic wave with a certain frequency. Increase that frequency, and you get radio waves. Increase the frequency further, and you get all kinds of radiation. All of these are travelling at the speed of light. See these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum And, please, if you have further questions about this, please continue this in your thread in P&S, seeing as this is starting to move away from conventional physics, which is what the Physics/Relativity threads are supposed to stick to. At the very least open a new thread asking about the speed of electromagnetic waves, so we can continue this thread on topic and in accordance to the rules of the forum. ~moo

That's an excellent point, cameron. You know, there's a concept in science we are all mostly familiar with called "Peer Review". The point of peer review is to prove a theory is *wrong*. This is just like playing "Devil's advocate" and the point of this is to make sure that only the BEST and most accurate theories pass into the acceptance of science. When we analyze a theory, it's not personal against the inventor of the theory. It's our obligation, as scientists, to test and see if the theory has any merit to it, and if it will hold the test of reality before we decide to accept it. If your theory failed peer review, it means you should either examine the problems and fix them (if possible) or pick the GOOD parts (if there are any) and try to think of a theory that better suits the evidence or s better defined or stands the trial of reality better. This method often leads to *BETTER* theories. Which is, I'm sure, the goal of all of us, just like it's the ultimate goal of scientists in general. ~moo

Don't forget, though, that in physics, concepts are not really valid until they have some mathematical construct to them. "Sleep on it" is a great advice, but you should also work on some mathematical and observational constructs if your intention is to prove your theory or convince anyone that it has any merit.