Phi for All

Isn't that the truth. It reminds me of the "skeptic" stance, "I question everything, so I'm always right". It's self-perpetuated bias.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-mocked-rally-sharks-rant-las-vegas-boats-1910275 He wraps up the rant by saying, "We're gonna end it for boats!" ?????? It's going to be a long, hot summer of rallies, and I don't think he's going to make it without exposing his mental degradation even more.

You made up the baryon sweep?! I was counting on this being real to remove the baryons my starship accumulates during warp travel. As my comedian friend Bob Meddles says, I didn't get to be a starship captain by living in a fantasy world!

As long as you're not in a boat with a battery, because shark.

! Moderator Note Since you're just repeating yourself and soapboxing, and since this isn't science, I'm going to close this. Nothing about it can teach anybody anything meaningful about science. Consider another source of discussion.

There's nothing persuasive about making claims you can't possibly be sure about. You simply can't know most of the things you're claiming, like the universe being eternal. As far as matter, gravity, and motion being eternal, we have evidence of a time when they didn't exist as we know them. And your Mother Nature reference is childish and lacks nuance, or any understanding of science. Why again are you looking for a science discussion if you clearly don't want to learn any science?

jv1 has been suspended for a week for bringing up a topic they couldn't support before, again. You need to overcome objections when describing something that isn't mainstream.

! Moderator Note We're not doing this again. This speculation couldn't be supported before, and changing the diagrams doesn't change that fact. This is a waste of time and you've shown us this before, and your threads on it were closed, and you were asked not to do this again. Have a vacation, think about the rules you agreed to follow, and if you come back, we can discuss some science.

You asked earlier why this topic seems to keep circling back to the beginning. You give examples of bias in science, and each example shows how that bias was dealt with, or its implications in the respective field. These are indeed evidence of bias in science. But then you make the mistake of assuming such bias is rampant, that it goes undetected all the time. This is what you can't provide evidence for, but you keep making the claim. How can you find evidence of something you claim is being ignored? How can you detect what isn't being detected? THAT is why this topic goes around in circles, and why you keep making the assumption that this bias has run amok among the community. There is a difference between bias and systemic prejudgement.

! Moderator Note We prefer that you respond on your own, without using AI generated language. The above makes little sense as a scientific response to what's been written. "Inquiry explores the pressure on the universe"?! This is a discussion forum for people.

Please don't resort to strawman fallacies. It was your claims that the bias permeated all of science that were shot down by several posters. At times, you've admitted it's not a universal phenomenon, but then you keep going back to a subjective view, and point out where bias has happened. This is why we keep going around in circles about this. Bias in science exists, but it's not automatic, it's not widespread, and it's not bias to accept explanations that work well for us.

It's because of the way you've set up the premise. There should be a way to define the type of bias you're describing so it can be assessed, but you haven't pinned it down for us. It's always present, you claim, but then you can't point to a trend. It affects all of science, you claim, but you can't support that, yet you claim it anyway. Your claims of widespread bias get shot down by evidence, yet you persist in claiming the bias exists. Someone said it many pages ago. Claiming widespread bias in science after all the posts asking for evidence shows that you're biased towards this argument. You can't believe bias isn't affecting science in a way that calls its conclusions into question, and you can't admit it's not the problem you've claimed.

The number of people who misunderstand "theory" and "truth" are absolutely astounding.

None of this crap is fact. There's no evidence for anything you've asserted. Nobody wants to hear you preach or soapbox. This is a discussion forum, not your blog. Please go away if you can't follow the rules.

I'd like to point out that you've made some version of this claim every time someone brings up ways to avoid bias. Individually, these points may be insufficient, but the way your argument works, the whole is never taken into consideration. And I think you're also making the mistake of thinking that we need to "totally arrest" anything bad about a system or it's no good to us at all.

Your objection seems less about bias and more about too much rigor, that the gatekeepers are holding those trying to get through to standards they can't meet. I've seen this argument a LOT in the last 20 years here, always from people whose ideas can't be supported by evidence. They usually want us to look past the mistakes we see and embrace the core concept, to give it a chance, to not be so hidebound and biased. As others have said, science isn't immune to bias, but not all rejection is biased. Individuals make mistakes, and we hope that peer review and the rest of the process can weed those out. Even mistakes in objectivity.

I'm sure you have examples you can cite, but your statement infers that this happens frequently. Are you assuming that "the science process" does this automatically and with no real parameters or reasons? If this starting gate selection process requires that all ideas presented must be falsifiable, is this a bad thing?

I'm hoping someone in the media can do a better job of pointing out that this case was a complete slam dunk, and similar cases almost always end the same way. This was no witch hunt, it was pretty boiler plate legal methodology. The fact that the Republicans are making more claims about unfairness needs to be offset by the reality of the court system. The evidence made this a foregone conclusion, and the jury was unanimous about that. I have a feeling they're making this stink because eventually TFG is going to be sentenced without facing jail time, which is also typical with these types of first-time crimes, but they want it to seem like the judge waved prison because it's so unfair. I think many in the GOP will look at big fines as no big deal.

The assumption is that ideas are discarded without really looking into them, correct? Then how did they know the ideas didn't meet with the prevailing line of thinking (also known as theory)? You have to look into an idea in order to falsify any part of it. And your assumption doesn't take into account that many people (here at least) have ideas with real stumbling blocks that are unphysical or violate well-known observations. We bring them to their attention, and guess what? They don't amend their ideas at all, but instead claim we didn't really look into it because it doesn't meet with the prevailing line of thinking. There's a big difference between hidebound denial and favoring our current best explanations.

That's exactly what I thought when I read that Luc's contention is "biasness taking on the form of selective 'rational-reasoning' in scientific enquiry". Isn't he basically saying that it's biased to reject a new idea using mainstream knowledge and reasoning?

We were hoping for a yes or no reply to a question about whether you're in an office today or not. My feeling, at least, is that you shouldn't use your own phone or Skype accounts at all if you want to remain anonymous. If you aren't at work, can you go to a hotel? The bigger ones have phones in the lobby.

! Moderator Note Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited here. I'm inviting you to change your tone when posting here or leave with the utmost haste. Frankly, you sound like you're using AI to post in the most racist, offensive manner possible for a forum such as this. You're a caricature of modern male toxicity and prejudice, and none of your recent posts seem crafted in good faith.

I thought we were attacking straw men instead of addressing the real issue here. You claimed we're OK with an infinite population. Also, I'm pretty sure if your perspective gains traction, it will be called a "cleansing" or a "reduction" rather than "the murder of innocent persons". How else do we get where you want to be within your lifetime? Not making so many babies is a generational strategy.

I'm opposed to your plan to exterminate any groups of humans you don't like.

My apologies to all Canadians!