Phi for All

Probably when we have no more actual books? I think the reduction of the crippling effects of the Abrahamic religions would be a boon for mankind. Without the vertical paternal moral hierarchy they force upon the world, I think men and women could cooperate like intelligent humans instead of competing like animals for their god's favor. Better education can help so many of the problems we face. Humans evolved for intelligence, and that takes educators. We've allowed a few people to accumulate inordinate wealth, more than they can use EVER. Those few have been using this wealth to promote themselves to our own detriment. If we allow it to continue, then we probably deserve what happens to us.

I've experienced a few of these. My father preached that we shouldn't stick our noses in other people's business, which sounds reasonable and wise, but can also lead to ignoring the circumstances of others. It seems like an emotion all its own when you go against something your parents took pains to teach you, almost a guilty righteousness with a touch of anger. Torn between Don't waste food and Don't be a pig. And you could be in for an upset stomach just because you feel guilty about not cleaning your plate. Disgusted angry guilt? There's probably German words for these emotions. They love mashing a bunch of concepts together in a single word.

Seems to me there are three factors here that need defining. Do all atheists/agnostics believe similarly? Do scientists all study the same things? And are there cultural aspects based on the religion(s) in an area that might define "general population" differently? I'm not sure you can get a meaningful answer to this question. Throughout history, scientists have had to bow to the will of the governing authorities. Many attend church just to fit in and not anger the establishment. They were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be successful unless they accepted the church's teachings. Personally, I wouldn't count someone as religious who was just going to church so they wouldn't be persecuted. It might not just be the church. Sigmund Freud was apparently persecuted for early papers on marginalized people where he detailed that many women and children labeled with mental disorders were simply traumatized by the men in their lives. He suggested that's where the fault lies, and apparently was told in no uncertain terms not to pursue that line of research if he wanted to prosper in science. His later works show him steering clear of suggesting that men were the leading cause of trauma.

! Moderator Note This topic is in a mainstream section. Can you offer some support for this statement? It seems trivially false.

For reference: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04257-w

To which the first retorts, "Easy for you to say, when your wife makes such good soup!"

"There is no cannibalism in the British navy, absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount." -- Graham Chapman It's amazing that studying physics can make one an expert in biology and climate science too! Mainly, I dislike the casual way he makes claims, like in 100 years we'll be able to harness all the energy output of the planet. Real scientists don't need to be vividly misleading.

This is another strawman argument, masquerading as a tantrum. Nobody said you were entirely wrong. Nobody said there is no bias in science. It's just not the major problem you made it seem to be, and we're adapting to new worldviews just fine, thanks.

Classical physics was NOT replaced by anything, that's not the way to think about it. As you say, it's not wrong, it still works where it's applicable (which isn't the subatomic world). It's not though. It's often exaggerated or implies things the actual scientists never implied. It's inherently biased regarding a methodology that strives to remove bias. Popular science articles are meant to interest the reader who isn't jazzed enough by the nuts and bolts of science. What YOU are forgetting is we have methodology that includes peer discussion and review designed to strip away that baggage and explain a phenomenon objectively. YOU might forget out of habit, YOU might still carry baggage when you interpret new knowledge, but the scientific community does NOT. There are too many of them and the methods they use are strong. I think you're projecting your own ignorance onto the situation, which is easy to do when you you're not involved on a daily basis. I'm not a working scientist myself, but many members here are, and they're fantastic resources for filling in the gaps I have in my knowledge. Also, nobody is "affirming that science is pure". You made that up.

I thought it was clear. "What do you wish to discuss?" is pretty clear. Are you trying to sell your robotic arm to us, or are you interested in the processes you've encountered, or do you want to talk about new behaviors in interfaces? Your OP was anything but clear about what you wish to discuss.

Without downloading anything, I'm struck by the obvious, that you think a thesis and a theory are the same thing. You do NOT have a theory, not unless your paper has a lot of supportive evidence, or a mathematical model, or details on all the experiments you've run on various phenomena to test your explanations. Do we want "fresh insights into the fabric of reality", or is that particular pop-sci phraseology inherently stale? I've seen an awful lot of people thrown off by the whole "fabric" argument when it comes to space or reality. The whole tone seems very popular-science oriented. Did you study mainstream physics before you came up with this? Most of the folks who come here wanting to overturn Relativity or whatever haven't really studied the theories, and it becomes really obvious by the way they talk about information, time dilation, and entanglement. I'd suggest you paste the first part of your paper here so we can check it out and move on to the next if it looks good.

You call them "cultural" aspects, but other animals do have them. Is there much difference between lipstick and some of the stuff crabs and birds and insects decorate themselves with? I also disagree that gender roles have become "confused". I think they've changed and adapted the way animals are supposed to. Our society needs to move past the horrible Abrahamic patriarchy that continues to stifle so many intellectual and creative pursuits. I think the answer has always been to cooperate more with each other in every role, and compete less amongst ourselves overall. That should go double for how men and women work together. Having both masculine and feminine perspectives to draw from seems like brainy, human behavior.

! Moderator Note This isn't philosophy. If you think you can support your idea scientifically, I can move this to Speculations, but your premise is already over-generalized (brain = electronic device) and easy to poke holes in (chemical synapses have gaps that electric wiring doesn't).

! Moderator Note This isn't a section for "notions". This is a mainstream science section. If you have evidence to support this notion, or a way to test your hypothesis, I can move this to Speculations, otherwise it's just a wild guess.

https://uinterview.com/news/trumps-fundraising-agreement-with-rnc-allows-donations-to-cover-his-legal-bills-despite-concern-hes-using-party-as-a-piggy-bank/ Looks like Republicans all down the line will be cash starved due to TFG's legal bills. The argument that the money will be used to fight "the illegal witch hunts" continues to work. The RNC is now funding TFG first, then the Save America PAC, and finally the RNC and the rest of the Republicans running for office. When the campaign installed its own people, including daughter-in-law Lara TFG, they fired a lot of folks and invited the rest to reapply, and many didn't. The RNC is supposedly dangerously understaffed going into a presidential election. And, of course, if TFG is convicted of any of the many charges against him, he may not even be able to vote for himself.

#5 -- Einstein developed a theory about space. It was about time, too!

You slippery types know the drill and rig the system so it pans out well for you. It's a viscous cycle!

It's disturbing that scientists have been accumulating human knowledge for quite some time now, but you refuse to take advantage of that, and prefer filling the gaps in your own knowledge with guesswork and jumped-to conclusions.

I'm so sorry for your loss. Just a couple of years of formal, mainstream study and you wouldn't have to make things up to fit the gaps in your knowledge. We can help if you're willing to listen. Not sure what to do with the "Creator" issue, but I would ask that you leave it out of this discussion if possible. Much like infinities, all-powerful entities tend to remove our ability to measure accurately.

! Moderator Note Our rules require discussion stays here, and you can't require people click links or go offsite in order to participate. We don't allow commercial advertising here.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations.

Why do you think this means we aren't good at poking holes in established theories? And if we aren't coming up with fundamentally new principles in molecular biology, can you show evidence that it's because we aren't good at poking holes in established theories? Maybe science is just not good at jumping to conclusions as fast as some would like.

This is completely wrong. Established models are tested EVERY DAY in the course of their use. It's not that we're bad at poking holes in established models, it's that the established models are established because we can't falsify them. No place to poke, which means it's our best current explanation until someone using it finds a flaw. Your argument is assuming that once a model is "established", we never test it again. That's absurd.

Liquid hydrogen made from coal tars or gasoline? Are they using fuel cells to power the buses? They tried that here under Bush II, with cells that used petroleum for the hydrogen. It was about as efficient as our burning ethanol from corn to fuel our cars. Have they come up with a way to make H fuels not so dirty? Iirc, it used more gasoline than just burning gasoline.

It seemed to me that what Sensei "was getting at" is that swansont and Musk both work for the government and are "self-made men". If you want that definition to stand, you're welcome to it. It seems worthless to me as an argument about billionaires, almost as worthless as continuing to nitpick about it. Thanks for the input though.