Phi for All

! Moderator Note OK, we've moved away from mainstream science, so this thread needs to move as well. Please support your speculative ideas with evidence and rigor, and respect calls for clarity.

Let's hear some recipes for microwave scrambled eggs. I'll perform an experiment tonight on some captive test subjects and report my results.

The "meaning"? Is that like the "reason"? There are multiple reasons for asking a question. Can you be more specific about what you want to know?

The answer eludes me.

I think it's mostly flash and entertainment. Heat rises, so it makes sense to put the heat beneath the food. I'm betting the chefs simply use the blowtorch instead of flipping the food, searing the top with the heavier flame to finish off the cook more quickly. I don't see any real efficiency in this, and as you mention, there seems to be some real danger involved for the amateur chef.

Ignorance doesn't pop, it doesn't move, it doesn't try to do ANYTHING. Ignorance is simply a gap in your knowledge, a hole waiting to be filled with the correct thing, like pieces of a puzzle. Treat it this way and it's much easier to deal with. You aren't trying to overcome ignorance, you're trying to diminish it. Congratulations on the epiphany! The pursuit of knowledge is indeed a beautiful thing. And being able to trust the process from which your knowledge is derived is a huge barrier you've overcome. Good job, ALine!

Bread is one of the foods that change texture in the microwave. If I microwave bread to the temperature my toaster makes it, the bread will be chewy and tough. It's a bad idea. A good steak should be seared (not browned) on the outside, to seal in the juices and keep it tender. Steak cooked for a few hours is going to be uniformly overdone. If you're going to use this technique, sear first on high heat, then cook regularly on a lower temp. Steak should never be on the grill longer than about 10 minutes total, unless you like your coal well-done.

It can change the texture of some foods, which is disappointing. I use mine to warm things, but I don't like cooking with it. Most recipes I use have some element of browning about them, or another visual cue that lets me know the food is getting hot enough that microwaves don't give. They use less energy unless you have a natural gas stove. I love my microwave, but not for cooking. It reheats my coffee to prime drinking temp after I put the milk in, it brings an already prepared plate of food back up to temperature, and it's great for quick baked potatoes. Often with cooking, however, time is part of the ingredients. Saving time sometimes isn't the point when you're cooking something tasty.

The new business paradigm says their profit is more important than the home you paid to have built. This is rampant in the US. Businesses aren't about pleasing customers anymore. I think free social media has made folks blind to the things they actually pay for. In the US, the private road builders dictate the cost of maintaining roads, and they insist on letting us drive on fresh asphalt the day it's put down. Two years later they get paid again when the potholes become unnavigable. The customer is no longer king, hasn't been for some time, and the businesses are tailoring themselves to take advantage. In construction here, you have to bend over and take it from your contractor or else he'll go work on a bigger project. The client is at their mercy, and it only took a single generation to change. My family was in the home-building business, and the customer was treated MUCH better. It wasn't all about the profit, and there was pride in the work.

Misogyny is a horrible poison. I'm sorry your life is filled with such pettiness and hatred. It shouldn't happen to anyone, and affects so many around you, but it's worse when it's self-inflicted. I don't mean to get too personal, but I've always thought negative behavior was a magnet for negative thoughts. I hope you aren't attracting the bad to yourself with your attitude. I hope you can find some forgiveness in your religion. I feel really sorry for you, and I wish you well even though you were invited in to our home and decided to be THAT kind of guest. Merry Christmas.

Really? I was very insulted by your comment about hypervalent_iodine's mental status, insisting she was lashing out at you because someone kicked sand at her as a child. That's a horrible thing for anyone to say, much less someone who purports to be a good Christian. Do you demean everyone psychologically who doesn't agree with you? It's clear you want everyone to be flawed. That said, the real reason it's been hyper dealing out the punishment is because the rest of the staff is always busy being involved in your threads. The amount of Reported Posts, misinformation that needs to be corrected, and frustration with poor reasoning associated with your threads is very large. Hyper is often the only staff member who can officially respond, since our policy is to avoid moderating threads we're involved in. Your paranoia is truly breathtaking. You've become a caricature of a blindfolded crusader with cotton in his ears who insists there's monsters everywhere.

So it's a good thing to have a word like evidence mean what it means, and another word proof mean something different, right? It's important that proof means 100% surety (proven), and evidence is support for an explanation. Precision in defining terms is a hallmark of science. Clarity is part of each step in the scientific method, especially when communicating results of experiments testing an hypothesis.

So are you suggesting this is a good thing and should continue? Your whole argument seems to be something like "Others have used these words synonymously, so they mean the same thing to me". You claim you "don't think that in any way", yet you've been arguing along these same lines. If you don't think it's a good idea to equate the two words, then why did you start this thread?

We prefer "commander". He is NOT a leader. While we, the People, are always willing to come to the aid of a valued ally, it's our commander in chief who would make that decision. I think he would help Canada (after twisting your arm about milk or something else you "owe" us for), but I don't think he would ever cross Putin to do the same for Ukraine. Whether he would try to stop Congress from doing so is a good question.

! Moderator Note You need to knock this off. We don't allow religion in the mainstream science sections. Here, evidence supports theory. Faith is believing in things you can't know, and has no place here. Further posts breaking this rule will be Trashed.

You've never once given me a decent reason why you think it's a good thing to have proof and evidence mean the same thing. I've asked you several times, and I get nothing but waffle. Again, for the umpteenth time, why do you think it's better if evidence and proof mean the same thing? Can you offer any support for your stance? I've explained why I think it's better that they don't. To be clear, I'm not asking for instances where you think they might mean the same thing. I want to know why you feel we need to take two different concepts and make them one.

Try to follow me on this one. It has nothing to do with narrow mindedness. It's just a desire to have meaningful definitions. It's like I have a party where I'm serving two kinds of punch, one with no alcohol, and you keep insisting the non-alcoholic punch needs some vodka, because sometimes people who don't drink alcohol want some alcohol. I want to have two separate punchbowls so the the guests have a clear choice, but you want both to be exactly the same. I think you're wrong about the difference between evidence and proof for the same reason. You're changing one different thing to be just like something else, and you're ruining the reason why they should be different and separate.

! Moderator Note Religion is off-topic in the mainstream science sections. Any further discussion along these lines will be removed.

! Moderator Note Moved from Science Education to Ecology and the Environment.

I hope the ones with bad intentions are striking out left and right.

You can believe an accusation without judging guilt one way or another until you've heard the evidence, right (judges do it every day)? In Tyson's case, it's like when someone proposes a new hypothesis. A good scientist listens to the abstract (the presenter believes they have the beginning of a new theory), then asks for the evidence that backs the hypothesis up. Even here we allow people to present their case in Speculations, and as long as they have supportive evidence, they're at least listened to. The aim is not to dismiss the claim out of hand, or demean it with tricks and spin. I agree with Ten oz, Tyson leapt to his own defense before acknowledging that a woman believes she was assaulted. If Tyson is being 100% honest (including intellectually), then he should feel more confident about refuting any evidence produced. In any case, it's dialogue that will solve this problem fairly, not kicking dirt over it to hide it.

! Moderator Note Both of you need to stop the bickering and veiled personal attacks, as well as bringing up arguments from other forums. This isn't allowed here, as it drags perfectly good discussions into the dirt, and requires members to go elsewhere in order to know what you're on about. If you can't argue the science without making it personal, you don't belong here. The sniping stops NOW.

My butt was tired from sitting at a TED talk, so I bought a $6 bottle of water on a break, and decided to check out the Learning Something Without Learning thread you started. What I learned is, you don't know your ass from $6.

! Moderator Note Our rules against advertising include plugging your own threads and posts. Knock it off.

! Moderator Note It's been questioned through the Report feature whether the ethics of genetic manipulation are a hijack of the thread. Staff feels it's fair ground and not off-topic. That said, since this is a science site, some evidence would go a long way in supporting what has been up to now a very emotional argument from incredulity. It would be best to offer arguments against this genetic practice in particular, and not just a generalized animals-in-cages-is-wrong rant. I think that case has been expressed well enough, and now needs some support rather than further repetition.