Phi for All

! Moderator Note Science discussion forum. We don't do conspiracy, prophecy, or numerology. Evidence is the key.

We see this a LOT. Science is several difficult, complex, and overlapping fields of study, and often those who don't grasp it or invest themselves in its study come up with "alternatives" they've made up that make more sense to them. They often get a certain amount of glee pretending this kind of thinking is "disturbing" to mainstream scientists. It's another version of the "I'm not burdened with all your book-learning" argument. It assumes there's a special providence in ignorance, a magical quality in starting with a clean slate. I can see the attraction, if you think of it in terms of the tortoise & the hare in fable. Mainstream science seems plodding and obvious sometimes, and jumping to conclusions is far more fun. And then I remember that it's not about fun, and I become reasonable again.

This is my guess. You post like you want to disrupt what everyone else is doing so they can pay attention to you. LOTS of hijacks and off-topic posts. It's a shame, you seem very intelligent. One of the hallmarks of the scientific mind is that it's NEVER bored. There's always something interesting, but you have to be willing to be amazed. If you start out bored and ignorant, you'll remain that way. Oh, sweetie, no....

I missed where anyone said this at all, and I certainly didn't mention it, so I don't know why you quoted me as if it's a response to what I said. Part of discussion is responding to what's actually been said, otherwise everybody but you is superfluous. This actually isn't as important here as you think. Civility is what we want when it comes to personal behavior, but ideas should stand on their own merit (attack ideas, not people). I don't have to "respect" any idea, I just have to analyze it to see if it explains what it's supposed to. If it's a good idea, that becomes apparent when discussing it. If you hadn't made the decision long ago that science is wrong, the questions you ask would be different, and might help you solve your dilemma. You may have unintentionally blocked the path to learning by filtering out the explanations you didn't immediately understand. By way of analogy, it's like you're trying to drive to a certain city but you're convinced the GPS is lying to you, so you keep taking all kinds of shortcuts, going every way EXCEPT the way the navigation software advises. "Years of study" later, you're still nowhere near the city, and cursing the GPS device.

I've always maintained that our biggest problems economically are caused by mixing the goals of public and private ownership. Public works need to be as free from profiteering as possible, but we go out of our way to include private interests, and it almost always ruins the efforts. Every American can send a letter to any other American for the same low cost because the system wasn't designed for profit, but that's being derided as socialism instead of using the right tool for the right job. IOW, both major parties serve a different set of billionaires. The People need to reassert their ownership or we're going to end up with a king who owns everything again.

When I snip out the middle part of your OP, I think the answer to your title becomes more apparent. You've spent "years of study", but you've always rejected mainstream explanations. Now you're YEARS down the line, sounding pretty bitter, arguing with people who make this stuff work every day, YET you somehow believe you're a "better thinker" thinking up "better mouse traps", and blame it all on jealousy and hate?! Does that sound reasonable? You have to know what's inside the box very well before you have the capacity to realize you need to think outside it. Maybe the confidence of having their explanations actually work makes it seem like scientists "think they know everything". Explanations that work, that give us the power to predict what will happen next, this is what's important.

! Moderator Note What an ugly thing to say in a discussion about science. Nothing meaningful left here. Thread closed.

I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean you don't want to hear anything against epigenetics? I employed none, I assure you. In your vernacular, I was dead serious. My point was a scientific one. Many studies have been done. They don't support the person you were quoting. Sarcasm used = 0. Did you somehow think my response was aimed at you personally, rather than at the source of your epigenetic arguments? I attack ideas, not people.

Fuck THAT. Easy to say when you have publicly-funded healthcare during a pandemic. Compromise hasn't worked in the US since neo-conservatism took root.

I remember many people telling me not to let go of something once I had it. Protect what's yours, they told me. Don't let them take it away! But according to your article, Solomon had trouble recognizing things and people he'd seen before if there was anything different about them. If true, it sounds like he had an automatic way to cope with change. Anything different was simply a new thing.

Not sure it would be worth it for some extra salt. However, being a convert to the joys of a good confectionary matchup, I would recommend you find something uber sweet (dried cantaloupe or papaya leaps to the tongue) to counter your licorice. Licorice can be an acquired taste, but it has its own sweet notes to be admired. I think the point of that Dutch licorice is to let the flavors change and mix as you chew it, to get that right flavor tang. That said, there are also many varieties of salted licorice, and I doubt even aficionados love them all.

When I rewrite my memories, I usually give them an upgrade. Fish are a little bigger, hills are steeper, it was hotter or colder, the wait was longer, and it was more expensive or a lot cheaper. I also lose weight and get prettier.

Dead serious about holistic medicine? How appropriate. Your Mr Lipton is a quack of major proportions. Please use your reasoning skills, and think it through. If any of these cures showed ANY promise whatsoever, It would be EXTREMELY EASY TO TRACK. We look at cases over time where large groups of people are exposed to various treatments, and when one shows real promise, we focus on it. NONE of these quack treatments have every proven effective on a study level. All you have are bullshit anecdotes quacks like Bruce Lipton claim represent advancement in medicine. The focus on these "easy" cures is killing people. Stop being dead serious.

At least you can observe your fanged snake god among the tubes in the device. There's evidence your sacrifices are being acknowledged, right? My Humanism is being tested currently. When people reject their intelligence in favor of more primitive animal behavior, then what makes us different?

! Moderator Note Science discussion forum. You'll have to define your terms in a meaningful way next time.

! Moderator Note In Speculations, you have to support your arguments better than you have. You haven't been carefully taking critique and adjusting your ideas, you've just hopped from one dubious and unsupported explanation to another to another. IOW, the areas that you've outlined won't work as you've detailed them. The purpose and execution are poor and you haven't changed that a bit. This is page 2, so you need to find better support for your speculative concept.

Transporting a single person using a jet engine, at a time when jet travel is being singled out as a component of global warming? Pick a different purpose.

Make sure those wings can stand the stress you'll place on them when you inevitably decide your flying race car should be submersible as well.

Sort of a one-off flight, right, with no way to turn or land? The spoilers on a dragster are angled to avoid just such an emergency. It's ugly when the wheels that steer come off the ground going that fast.

Really? There may be Adam's apples under those scarves.

More support for the theory that shellac was to blame. Looks like Jesus could have used those ladies as battering rams.

It may seem linear, but when you think you're drawing from relevant sources you've been accumulating since birth. You choose the knowledge you need to apply to a situation from a large range of information you've previously put together from selected data. It's like your box of tools to deal with a particular problem. If you need to fix yourself something to eat, you're going to think of just those things you need to make it happen, and select the ones that will successfully turn your thoughts into action. As you gain more experience, your knowledge is broader and deeper, so the information you're able to draw from is richer as well. It's pretty amazing, really. The moment you feel hungry, your mind starts grabbing all the knowledge available to you, including your current preferences and available resources. You fill your tool box with what you need (no money but stuff in the fridge to make an omelet, grab a pan and a bowl and a spoon, turn on the stove, get the bacon, etc), and don't bother with anything else (you didn't grab the cat brush, or start your car, or check to see if you have any blue paint). Change the parameters of the situation, and your thinking is going to change as well (hungry roommates need food too, or the eggs went bad, or you find a bunch of money). It's a lot more than going from a to b to c to d.

! Moderator Note That's not how discussion works. It sounds like you're just "winging it" each time, and spouting out whatever pops into your mind. It's a style much more suited to blogging (or not writing at all, but instead focusing on reading). It's against the rules in a discussion here. I'm sorry, but our Speculations section requires you to support your arguments with mainstream evidence and observations. It doesn't look like you're prepared to do that, and doesn't everyone have better things to do? Thread closed. Please don't post WAG explanations like that here anymore.

I have some friends who took league play to extremes when they were younger. Flag football, bowling, baseball, basketball, these guys got to be pretty good for weekend warriors, and they trained seriously. I would define their dedication as that of an athlete, even though a trophy was the most they ever got in compensation.

! Moderator Note I'm going to suspend you for a bit, so you can talk to your therapist about some of these misconceptions you have. This type of discussion is quite obviously making things worse.