Phi for All

Isn't it ironic that this argument is about as nuanced as you'd expect from Iron Age minds? While I don't disagree with your assessment of the death penalty, your presentation makes me want to push back against your many generalizations, assumptions, and insulting manner.

But those things can be explained without resorting to supernatural circumstances. People hear things and swear later they actually saw them as well, but it turns out their brains just filled in a sensory gap. All natural, no need to resort to magic. I watch videos for entertainment. For learning, I find too much bad information can slip past me when it comes in a video format. I'm too used to suspending my disbelief when watching videos. Reading is MUCH more trustworthy for me, and gives me a greater power to question.

The taser is a non-lethal weapon, though some underlying medical conditions can make it deadly in certain cases. This sounds like something from a Hollywood movie, where the good guy tases the bad guy from five stories up because he was touching the metal handrail.

Being your own judge is VERY convenient, but highly subjective and can't be counted as evidential support. So what? It's one thing to recount experiences, but something else completely to claim some of those are more valid than others based on nothing but how believable you think their doctors are. Tell me how you or this doctor is assigning importance to the experiences, and I can tell you more about how subjective you're being. How does it give meaning to life if it's a subjective hallucination, except randomly? I think your "fear of change" argument is garbage. Change is required for improvement, but jumping at NDEs without more objective reasoning has NOTHING to do with being afraid. It's about reason, and critical thinking, not fear.

That's a strawman, because Prometheus didn't say anything about belief. The question is, why is YOUR version/Moody's version of NDEs more valid than the versions where people saw elves?

! Moderator Note Moved from Astronomy and Cosmology to Engineering.

Have you noticed any benefits?

60% of Republicans don't believe in evolution, and call it a liberal conspiracy. Republican leadership mocks the scientific approach to evidence (they regularly call her "Professor" Warren in a sneering tone), and it's easy to see why, since they so often get called out by proper evidence. Belief in an inerrant Bible has also caused many on the right to view all liberal actions as assaults on their entire lifestyles. But mostly I think the majority of GOP leadership is interested in shutting down science because it restricts profit from activities that are harming the planet. It's corporate self-interest trying to keep from paying out for mistakes and dragging their feet against change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-movement-is-escalating-going-global-and-killing-thousands/ They're down to just a few members that trust intellectual experts.

It's difficult to be tactful around "believers" in general these days. Try to make a point about a single, specific aspect and it's perceived as an attack on their whole belief system. I think they realize on a gut level that a house of cards only falls all the way down. Explanations you trust, even though you had to dig to get them, don't suffer from that all-or-nothing perspective. By digging further, if you find better a more refined explanation, it's not a problem changing your mind about that aspect alone. Trust is a better tool than faith when it comes to analyzing what you believe is true.

"Hey Titian, could you paint me some figures from mythology, but make them naked? If they become masterpieces, remember it was my idea!" It's also the way horoscopes work. Except for the technical details, I know what's going to happen to each and every one of you this week.

Are you asking why we don't have a History/Military History subsection? Here's a thread where you can ask that. Did you want to talk about a specific bit of history? Please open a thread in either the Lounge, Politics, or Other Sciences, depending on the angle you'd prefer to talk about. Be as specific as you can and you'll get specific responses. Also, "except" is the wrong preposition to use in this instance, since I assume you're including yourself with the set of history/military enthusiasts. "Except me" EXCLUDES you. If you're including yourself, you use "besides". "Any history/military enthusiasts out there, besides me?" You could also use the more clumsy "apart from" if you prefer. Note that I'm also assuming you're a grammar/language enthusiast as well.

People who are "pretty new to the actual workings" of science often eschew rigorous study in favor of the less intense intuition and imagination path. Until you understand the actual workings a bit better, it can seem intuitive that science should be intuitive. Rigor is often misunderstood as being hidebound.

I would imagine the influences are myriad. How does it help to determine where someone is on the novelty detection spectrum? Aren't we more influenced by how positively or negatively we associate with various stimuli? If your experience with meeting new people has been overall positive, you're more likely to experience less anxiety about such novelty, but if your experience has been mostly negative, meeting new people is not a pleasant prospect and is often actively avoided.

You're begging the question with this. How do you know someone's preference for travel is based on novelty alone? Some folks like to go to the same place every year for vacation. They get to know the locals, they like the comfort of knowing their way around, and they feel more a part of where they're staying, and less like a tourist. Others prefer a different venue each time they travel. Being a tourist is a fantastic thing for them, with everyone waiting to help you enjoy what their locale has to offer. It's not as much about the novelty as it is the sheer number of places on Earth to visit with the limited resources (including time) we have. There are MANY perspectives on travel alone that have nothing to do with novelty.

Give that lateral epicondylitis a chance to heal.

Too much noise and not enough signal, even for the Politics section. You should start a different thread, in Speculations, if you want to pursue this non-mainstream idea (and support it with evidence, of course). It's off-topic in a thread about coronavirus distancing. Airborne virus, right? Distancing also prevents contact, but the hand-washing and attention to sanitary measures are supposed to cover most of that. Masks and distancing minimize breathing in aerosol droplets that may contain the virus. Why do you think we're supposed to be staying far apart?

AlexandrKushnirtshuk has been banned for repeated soapboxing. Frequency doesn't improve error.

You're suggesting that breathing too close to someone else in public (which is the reason for distancing) be considered an assault that justifies physical self-defense? That sounds fairly one-dimensional for a law, even a temporary one, and I would prefer a solution aimed at keeping more people safe. Something that didn't take the possibility of hospitalization and turn it into a certainty. ... and because the exertion and yelling makes everyone breathe harder. ... and because others may intervene, turning an individual into a crowd. ... and because you're inviting retaliatory self-defensive behavior that might scale beyond your control.

A true Scotsman doesn't buy it, he makes his own.

Can you elaborate on the meaning of this term?

https://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/nnano.2015.250__1_.pdf Thanks for putting the name to the hypothesis! It's not one I would expect to win any converts over with, especially those who believe you're here because you were put here.

This may account for the attempts to personally demean those arguing against the OP. It's difficult to defend bad science without resorting to bad arguments, so lashing out with ridicule is often the go-to position.

Also one of the definitions of delusion. What steps have you taken to rule out personal cognitive biases?

I remember reading an article on dissipation-driven adaptation, and it seemed an excellent argument for abiogenesis.