Phi for All

So you've robbed both faith and trust of their individual meanings, in order to be able to say you have faith in science. You steal from your own intellect. Pay attention, please.

! Moderator Note Conjurer, I'll repeat what I said in the soapboxing warning I just gave you. You have a poor grasp of the subject matter you're arguing about, and you make it worse by refusing to support yourself or engage with those trying to help through discussion. Please be more rigorous in your arguments here. This stinker is closed.

In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience There is no significant disagreement regarding global warming, and not only is there consensus among climatologists, there is consilience among many other disciplines; geologists, biologists, chemists, and others all agree. You REALLY need to know this.

Diverse skills, personalities, needs, preferences, and abilities amongst a population help keep it vibrant, so you're right, it's fantastic that everyone is different. In fact, I'd argue that trying to set ideals on any aspect of human societies is going to limit us. Why should everyone like the same things? Why should being a banker be better than being a baker or biologist? I'd say the differences you're pointing out stem from the intentions involved. It's not good to make someone feel like crap, but there's a difference between trying to humble someone who has too much pride, and trying to humiliate that same person (the dictionary may disagree). Is the intention to help or harm? Or perhaps humility is a personal perception, the same as pride, and something you need to be straight with yourself on, rather than worrying about what others think. Pride is a motivator and a deadly sin at the same time, like wrath, envy, sloth, greed, lust, and gluttony. Abuse them at your peril.

! Moderator Note Please engage in discussion with the replies you already have before posting more excerpts.

People care for healthy hair, the industry cares for growth. It's the same model used for lawns; make it healthy so it grows and you can cut it more often I was talking about professional experiments. Don't you think, if results showed that stimulation of the scalp made hair grow faster, those results would be easily obtained, confirmed multiple times by other scientists reproducing the results, and shouted to the rooftops as a surefire way to improve growth? Why are so many manufacturers ignoring this if it's true? .

Don't you think, based on how easy it would be to test, that this is probably a myth perpetuated by people who charge to massage scalps? If it were supported by any evidence whatsoever, wouldn't there be head massage stations EVERYWHERE?

I'm always reminded of those who live in somewhat dangerous environments, where taking the wrong turn or trusting the wrong currents can be harmful or even fatal, and how those folks learn early to ask those who've gone before for advice on the best ways to survive the challenges. People who don't study science before trying to make sense of science are like the fools who would cross the mountains without first asking where the best paths are. Successful pioneers still need to know a great deal about pioneering before they go exploring.

Do you have a psychology background? You mention "ideas about", and use the phrase "I treat thinking...", which makes it seem like this is stuff you made up without knowing how mainstream science explains the same thing. If that's the case, you won't really get our "thoughts" on the matter, you'll get critique on where your ideas don't match up with what we observe using mainstream scientific methodology. Science knows a great deal about how the mind and brain works, even if we still have a lot to learn. If you're still up for running the gauntlet though, please post an excerpt here.

Citation needed. Do you have any peer reviewed studies confirming this? It would seem to be a great question for experimentation.

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help.

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help.

It's not like leaving your headlight on, or the refrigerator door open. I think the worst that could happen is your digital wellbeing scores will tell you you think about science too much. Like that could ever happen.

Irrelevant? I'm betting the links had information you needed, and he knew it. And you know he knows it, because you reached out to him, held him up as an authority because he's a working professional. Other working professionals have been trying to get you to see that you need some formal learning, and that your intuitive, untrained perspective is NOT the benefit you think it is. STOP!!! You're seriously misinterpreting what's been said in this thread. You're trying to paint us like we're looking down our noses at you for your ignorance in physics. One of the rules here at SFN is that we don't attack people, we attack ideas. Run them through the gauntlet of experience and knowledge the membership possesses, and try to poke holes in the idea to show it's false. If we can't do that, we acknowledge that. You've been given very specific reasons why specific things you said were wrong based on mainstream science. Everyone here would love to see you apply yourself to study. They've mentioned it several times, but only after they showed you where your claims were wrong. At no time did anyone dismiss you for your lack of physics knowledge. They simply corrected you where you were wrong, assuming that's why you came to a science discussion forum. If you don't want to stay here, I understand. But please don't leave because you think everyone here is treating you like a "bumpkin". It has NOTHING to do with YOU, and everything to do with your ideas. That's what we're tying to help with.

Not falsifying. Falsifiability. It's the concept that an hypothesis needs a way to be shown false. If I claim aliens make it rain but can't be observed doing so due to advanced technology, no evidence can be produced to show I'm wrong. It would be an unfalsifiable claim. Also, you weren't criticized for using "big words", you were criticized for using made-up terms like "solar threshold" and "UV connection". They make sense only to you, because you made them up. One of the big reasons why science uses shared terminology is that experimental results must be consistent between scientists. You need to be able to share with your peers.

I don't know how someone who is supposed to be so good at maths doesn't understand how your equation lacks proper units. Isn't that one of the first things you do when analyzing an equation? I'm not a maths person like you, so maybe I have it wrong. You've misinterpreted the science, you've misinterpreted the replies you've been given, and now you misinterpret our concerns. I'm guessing if we'd ignored you, you'd be bitching about that. Did you just want us to agree with your guesswork? Sorry, there be skeptics here. If you can't show evidence to support this, you aren't doing science. It's the kind of claim that a skeptic can never deal with, since "what we think it is" is the only metric we have for the natural world, since it's based on observations. We use these observations because they're more trustworthy than your unevidenced, unspecific claim that we have it all wrong.

This IS ridiculous. You've been given very specific examples of where your physics are just plain wrong. Nobody is saying you're wrong because you didn't study physics. They're saying you're wrong because your physics is wrong. It's probably the EXACT same thing you'd say if one of us got something anthropological wrong. Or another subject where you have a lot of knowledge and expertise. If I tried to simply tell you that 12 is a prime number, and that I'm convinced your hidebound approach to mathematics is wrong, how would you react? Would you tell me my intuition is valid?

And because of confirmation bias, Bez is probably even more firmly convinced he's right, and we're just part of hidebound Academia that's trying to suppress his intuitive insights. And he doesn't have to study formally, which many folks dislike. I think I might be onto something with the alien tool example. If you really think about it, the ONLY thing that would help you figure out unfamiliar tools (besides trial and error) is your prior knowledge of other tools, and experience in situations where you might need them. It works similarly with science. You build your knowledge in layers, and having more layers actually helps you with new layers of knowledge. And of course, mainstream science has the benefits of all that constant testing (which is the opposite of hidebound) to make sure it's providing the best current explanations. When you have gaps in something where a void can be a weakness, you fill them in, hopefully with high quality material that will make the object stronger for a longer time. It's the same with knowledge. We need to make sure we fill the gaps in our knowledge with good information, not guesswork or made-up explanations. Well this is what we've been trying to tell you. Science is the best way to analyze the natural world and determine the best explanations based on what we actually observe. Are you claiming you guessed correctly, and reality isn't what we've been observing?

What if they're just misinformed? Ignorant guesses aren't lies, they're just lacking information. I don't see the benefits of your superpower in this situation.

It feels that way, doesn't it? But imagine trying to use a box of tools you'd never seen before. Your ignorance wouldn't give you any special insights into their uses, so why do you think it's different with something as complex as science knowledge?

Que sera, sera.

Do you collect stamps?

Please don't misunderstand. It's no bother, it's just frustrating. We're saying you need some formal physics study, and you're saying you can calculate the height of a geostationary orbit using a screwdriver, two poems, and a gallon of root beer.

You don't sound open to the possibility that the form (which we don't know) might be non-existent.

I'll respond to the title rather than the rather ranty OP. I think the scientific approach to explaining our world is the most trustworthy. If I'm skeptical about something, I can learn about it and decide based on what's known and observed, and then I'm not skeptical about that any more. I can look at the society I live in and see value in what people do, besides being good at making money. People who are good at making furniture, or good at cleaning homes, or good at teaching, are just as important to society as people who're good at making money. Perhaps it's not the money that's wrong. Perhaps we allow people who have a lot of it to make it more important than it should be. Money shouldn't buy some things, like academic admissions, or political votes, or integrity. Scientific reasoning and rational thought applied to everyday situations is fun for me. I think we need more focus on intellectual pursuits, and we need to remove the stigma that has developed regarding smart, well-educated people. We need diverse skills to help guide us in the future. I think too much emphasis is being placed on emotions via social media these days, and very little on thinking it through. Science should be able to help with that.