Phi for All

I wouldn't use "logical" either. Science doesn't use logic. Perhaps "reasoned belief"?

With so much emotion involved, it's easy to forget that controversy doesn't equal interesting. In so many cases online, it's a matter of one group wanting short, impactive, that-makes-good-sense explanations, while the other group is more interested in accuracy wrt to the definitions used and the information that's imparted, no matter how long it takes. Group 2 thinks Group 1's explanations lack the depth needed for full understanding, while Group 1 thinks Group 2's explanations are overly pedantic and controlling, and possibly deceptive. Group 1 thinks Group 2 has it easy, while Group 2 thinks Group 1 wants to give everybody a hard time. Group 2 can't believe Group 1 supports the very things that are bad for us, while Group 1 can't believe Group 2 doesn't support the things that are good for us. Each group's reactions to the other fuels these unending arguments. I think there is a LOT of manipulation by those who're in a position to profit from misinformation, but I do think much of this reaction is simple partisanship. The emotions some people place on their political stance is a little frightening to me. I started out in life as an Eisenhower Republican, and I'd still vote that way today if such a platform were available to me, whatever you call it. I think the current Republican party is morally and economically corrupt, but the Democratic party in general simply serves a less extreme set of billionaires. But, you're right, the truly tragic part is that these tactics erode our trust in knowledge, and take away the power of facts as a resource. One of the big facts we seem to have completely misplaced is where government is supposed to be for the benefit of The People, not just the wealthy, because lots of money is sort of its own reward. It all reminds me of how the early Christian church kept folks illiterate so they could control how their religion was interpreted. Make sure there are lots of lies out there so you can claim authority to put a capital T on Truth.

Unfortunately, the "passionate stance" is a staple in entertainment. This perspective tells us it's not only OK to be emotional about what you believe in, it's the preferred state. Similar to how entertainment gives us the "ruthless businessman" perspective where it's a huge benefit to be cold, calculating, and utterly evil in your pursuit of money. People need to learn to use their brains to make decisions first, then get passionate about THAT.

We need a reliable system for disseminating accurate knowledge that goes beyond education. Unfortunately, our media is about entertainment, not information. Only those with bad intent want a poorly informed citizenry, and the media today seems intent on constant controversy and conflict. So much of it isn't real. In the US at least, anti-intellectualism seems to have grown from wealth and educational disparity. Older workers with decades of experience find themselves working for young college graduates making twice as much money while keeping their hands clean. Private schooling vs public schooling drives the rifts even wider. And when you add in our natural proclivity to confirm our own biases, it makes it difficult to persuade someone with an average to below average education that reason should override their emotional reactions. Strong emotions need equally strong emotions to change them, and using reason in those instances is like trying to blow out a forest fire with a big fan.

Pssh! If you make profit your focus, you'll be able to afford private healthcare when the new NHS fails. Same thing works for the public education system, and if you do them both at the same time, people become too ignorant to care about their health. They'd probably never notice your scalpel wasn't right. I have an Uncle Stu who'd make a great wide body airliner. Altitude and hobby glue. Sounds a lot like Uncle Stu.

You'll be set when the US convinces the NHS to privatize!

There is a third sort of "side" to this, actually. Besides the beliefs that gods exist and that gods don't exist, there is also weak atheism. It basically states that you don't need either belief since neither has anything to support it. You can just say, "I'll wait for some actual evidence to help me decide". Claiming there are no gods is just as difficult as claiming any exist, so a good default position is act like there are no gods, but be willing to be persuaded by a preponderance of evidence.

The best strategy for anyone with very little science knowledge is to ask questions rather than assume a perceived flaw makes a theory invalid. "Am I right in thinking this is flawed?" is going to be more appropriate than "This theory is FLAWED!" Science knowledge is so layered that it's easy to make bad assumptions based on all the things you don't know. For discussion purposes, the conversations are always more meaningful when questions are being answered as opposed to assertions being debunked.

There have been topics that touched on these, but I don't think we have one specifically focused on them. I remember referencing a great article about how post-WWII American soldiers who didn't take advantage of the education opportunities offered through the GI Bill eventually became disillusioned when young college graduates ended up being their bosses. It started a whole chain reaction of anti-intellectualism and a poor perspectives on higher education in general. Very sad, and probably avoidable.

I've always felt bias in the news was fairly easy to spot, and wasn't as much a factor as the entertainment format we've had since 1996. Journalists used to point out bad reasoning and unsupported allegations. Now everything is portrayed as a contest between two roughly equal sides. Short, emotion-laden buzzwords are used instead of informative language. Everyone has a different definition for almost every word the newscasters use. Nobody understands anyone else meaningfully because the media keeps insisting we're all liberals, or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, as if ANY of those definitions actually fit more than about 20% of the population. The media loves these broad stereotype labels. They don't have to actually inform the public when they can create an illusion that there are only two sides to each issue. Our media is for entertainment now, not for information. Two sides battling, classic storylines, let the audience pick who's the antagonist and the protagonist, it doesn't matter as long as you don't change the channel. News is about profit now, and poorly-informed citizens spend more money it seems.

! Moderator Note Apology accepted. We can help you get over those entrenched stances you have and take a more objective, reasoned approach to almost any subject. ! Moderator Note You came to the right place. We try to make the distinction between fact and opinion, and approach every subject with as much rigor as possible, using scientific methodology where applicable. And we don't get personal, since civility is our #1 rule. VERY different from other sites.

! Moderator Note Please learn the difference between "proof" and supportive evidence. Science isn't interested in "proving" anything.

! Moderator Note It's not just a talking point here at SFN, it's recognized officially as a requirement for meaningful discussion in the sciences and all our topics.

Your reasoning is flawed here. You assume that "social difficulties" equates to non-reproduction. You assume that social difficulties means not being able to interact with one person at a time. You assume the entire spectrum has the same states and conditions, and it sounds like you're assuming they're all negative. And like others here, I don't think you understand evolution if you think it has some goal or aim. Evolution is simply changes in allele frequency in a population over time. You should immediately stop using the word "theoretically", btw. It's a tip-off that the person using it doesn't understand what "theory" means in science. "Theoretically" doesn't mean "it makes sense to me that this would happen". I especially wouldn't use it wrt a theory like evolution, where support is so overwhelming that it's become our actual experience. Evolution isn't theoretical, it's a fact. And the theory we have to explain it is so strong, it IS the practice. When a theory has the predictive power we see with ToE, or in Cosmology with Big Bang Theory, I don't think it's accurate to say our practical experiences are greater for not being "theoretical".

Sebasfort has been banned after his first 5 posts here. We normally have more patience trying to get people to take their fingers out of their ears and actually DISCUSS a subject, but nobody here deserves to be abused from a soapbox like that. All rant, no reason gets old FAST.

! Moderator Note The purpose of this forum is to encourage civil discussions about science, in an environment that facilitates the distribution of knowledge and the reduction of ignorance and bias. Unfortunately, your posts are inconsistent with that purpose. We wish you well elsewhere this holiday season.

Joseph Lazar has been banned for breaking our rules against sockpuppetry and abusive posts (among others), and for his tireless efforts to raise awareness about how unsupported his ideas are.

Please stop making sockpuppets to peddle your ignorance. Learn some science, somewhere else.

To avoid EXACTLY what you're doing, scientists strive to remove their own biases when attempting to explain a phenomenon. They look for supportive evidence for their ideas first. Otherwise, you fall into the trap of making things up to fill the gaps in your knowledge. This is dangerous since it always makes PERFECT sense to you (and only you). How could it not? You made it up using exactly what you know and no more, so of course it seems perfect. This is why you're being asked to support your ideas with more than just your wavy hands and your certainty. We need something to suggest your idea has merit. Also, your style of "debate" is lacking. People have shown you exactly where your mistakes are, and you either ignore them or you simply continue to insist you're right. That's not debate. You need to actually read the replies, and if you don't understand something, ask questions instead of taking a stance or making another assertion. Throw away the whole martyr routine while you're at it. It only works on people who don't understand scientific methodology.

! Moderator Note Kartazion, please let me know by private message when you have some supportive evidence to discuss, and I'll re-open the thread.

! Moderator Note You're going to need more to move your idea forward. Several posts have mentioned major problems with the concept, points where the ideas you're asserting don't agree with what we already observe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and your lack of support means you're simply soapboxing now, and that's against our rules. If you can't come up with a model, or some supportive evidence that might suggest some predictive power, I'm going to close this thread. More rigor, please!

Staph Infections Defeat the Iron Throne!

Not sure about the wonky timestamps. It looks like swansont was the last to quote you, but nothing was hidden (we don't delete), and nothing was split to either its own thread or the Trash. I think the editing time is currently 30 minutes.

"Sadly, this" refers to Strange's learning about the album only because the writer died. He wasn't talking about "that", so your argument is an obvious bananaman.

! Moderator Note Discussion is different from blog posting. These aren't comments, they're replies to the opening post. You need to be ready to defend any claims you make rigorously, or at least acknowledge the feedback you're getting from the replies. It's not a discussion when you post along the lines of "This idea may be true, but I can't really support it beyond my suspicions, so I'm just throwing it out there." It's too frustrating for the membership, who only want to help good ideas evolve. When you're ready to discuss this, send me a PM and I'll open it again, but I want to close it for now.