Phi for All

As I see it, present national systems allow great wealth to manipulate the fate of those without it to an extreme degree. Aggressive, money-addicted private agendas dominate the lives of the vast majority and use part of that wealth to maintain this unfairness. The systems need to acknowledge that the vast majority need a greater investment in basic aid for housing, nutrition, education, health, and training. The systems need to remove the wealthy foot from our throats, and allow the other 99% of humanity to breathe and thrive. So I understand and agree with the need for basic universal aid, but I'm not convinced giving people more money is the way to get it done. I've been leaning more towards a self-sufficient public system with as few ties to private investment as possible. There have always been those who manipulate public funds for their personal enrichment, and lobby political "leaders" to skew outcomes in their favor, so as long as these folks keep paying for looser regulations, any BUI system starts with parasites attached.

Which is why I pointed out that you were wrong to say so. Are we clear on this now? Do you understand that religion may have been used as you say, but that it wasn't NECESSARY to form and lead groups? Because, after all:

It's a simple concept. Some groups didn't need religion to form or lead them, so your statement about religion being necessary for that was false.

Demonstrably false. Groups were formed and led without reliance on the supernatural. It's not "necessary".

Not sure, we'll need to see all your documentation before we can draw conclusions. It's certainly a cause for celebration. If you see any fireworks tonight or tomorrow, you can thank me for arranging it.

Before becoming an interstellar species, one must survive the discovery of nuclear fission. For a competitive species, it represents an enormous increase in destructive/constructive power. How many species before us in the galaxy have wiped themselves out, just on the brink of being able to move offworld? Btw, for Fox to air this, it probably means extremist conservatives in the US want to defund some part of the space program, most likely to create a private investment opportunity.

In the post right before yours, I gave three examples of beliefs. The first I call trust, the second hope/wishful thinking, and the third is an example of faith.

Wikipedia: It's all about the likelihood of something being true. The way you believe is also expressing the way you accept those things. I can believe that meeting certain criteria (O2, fuel, heat) will result in a fire event, and trust that belief with an almost 100% certainty. I can believe that focusing my will on a specific spot on a piece of wood will result in a fire event, and hope that belief has a measurable possibility of being true. Or I can believe that God will make the wood burst into flames if it's His will, and believe with absolutely 100% certainty using faith.

Scotty99 has been banned permanently. His "intuitive" beliefs are always going to clash with rigorous explanations, since they bond emotionally with what he wants to be true, and that makes discussing science with him like listening to a sermon. We wish him luck in his search for intellectual equals.

! Moderator Note Yes, it is. You have failed to adequately support your arguments in this speculative thread, and have ignored repeated requests for clarity and answers to simple questions. You've had 3 pages to persuade the membership about the validity of your idea, and now seem to just be preaching and not listening. That's not a discussion, that's a blog. This thread is closed. Do NOT bring this topic up again.

! Moderator Note They've all been trying, and you haven't been listening. Please re-read all the replies (skip your posts). If you think you can supply the maths to actually support this argument, you can open a thread in Speculations. Please do a better job of scientific persuasion in your next explanation, or it, too, will end up in the Trash.

I disagree with this completely, since I can show that some beliefs have more basis in the natural world than others, that some beliefs can be trusted more than others. The fact that you, yourself, don't bother to distinguish between the bases for various forms of belief doesn't mean they don't exist. I disagree with this also. Rational reasoning, using critical thought and the scientific method, has nothing to do with state of mind, or any other subjective measure (hopefully). I also think you're assuming nothing would fill the vacuum in a person's life if religion suddenly left it.

Hopefully Trump will forever kill the concept that ruthless wealthy white male businessmen are who this country needs to lead it. Let this be the consequence to the GOP for not standing up. I'm still shocked the concept persists. I would've thought more people had been ripped off by businessmen like him. Everyone I know seems to have several stories of heartlessness and deception in the corporate/business world.

I'm torn between this and some kind of minimum subsistence option where nobody sleeps on the streets and all get access to food, clothing, and healthcare, as well as education and vocational training. If we're going to keep money, then I want abusive money addicts treated and regulated the same as those with other addictions. II think the best start for any Utopia is strong, broad foundations that cover common needs, and thereby equip us all to fine tune our personal version.

I still can't believe we trusted to the honor system on that one. We'll have to change that, when he's gone.

It will be a travesty when the money addicts buy enough politicians to privatize the USPS. Having their cake, and eating ours too.

This is a weak spot for us then, since many speculators claim to have special intuition and unconventional thought processes that allow them to bypass the maths normally required for a model on which to base their theory. They're proud of it, rather than frustrated at not being able to explain it. How to tell if they're really one of these people you're talking about?

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum. Please stay to discuss science, but don't advertise yourself or your services.

It's especially difficult with the Einstein-was-wrong posts where the objections are easily countered (mixing classic and quantum concepts, or misunderstanding "fabric" analogies), but for some reason that's not enough to invalidate the whole concept, and that's a bit weird, imo. OP: The way you built this Lego office complex is wrong! I've fixed it to make it better! Reply: It was designed to be "a home with a red roof and white walls", so it's not an office, you've used green on the sides, and don't have a roof at all. OP: Typical kneejerk rejection of my ideas....

Assuming you mean "severe", that's still a subjective term. It doesn't describe the behavior to anyone who doesn't know exactly what you mean. I would consider it severe physical abuse to hit someone too hard, or more than once, while someone else may say it's only severe if you use a closed hand or weapon (stick, belt, etc). If you mean "sever", that's extremely severe. Not sure anything positive comes from chopping off body parts. I'm unaware of any studies done on the positive effects of childhood abuse. Such research would have a hard time avoiding looking like a justification for harming children. What sort of benefits were you thinking you might you expect to see?

Only when they reject my ideas out-of-hand!

I always hope analogies can help. Let's pretend you're a plumber, and someone mentions an idea for building houses using iron pipes instead of wood 2x4s so the structure could also run water through them, for heating, bathing, and drinking purposes. They want you to analyze how much stronger iron is than copper, and how much more efficient the whole thing could be, but the first thing you mention is how iron pipes rust and and corrode in water. It seems like the most reasoned comment you could offer, but you're accused of out-of-hand rejection.

The gist of the article I read was saying most lice aren't carrying disease, but since they spread so rapidly through contact the SOP was to remove them. The removal methods are basically cleaning methods, so lice have the stigma of being unclean, even though they don't prefer dirty heads. The author wasn't trying to say we should court their presence, iirc, just that we needn't be so freaked out by them. Still, ugh.

When folks come to speculate, they often receive quick replies from members pointing out obvious flaws, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings. No foul there, this is a very informal peer review, and we should expect anyone coming here to want such critique. Unfortunately, picking at this low-hanging fruit almost always gives the impression that an idea is being rejected "out-of-hand", wildly or thoughtlessly or as a knee-jerk reaction. I wanted to create a thread here in Comments to discuss how to better deal with this problem in our conversations, and hopefully the next time someone brings it up, we can point them here instead of rehashing it every time. Just as a for instance, when someone bases their idea on energy being a physical thing, or that the universe MUST be expanding into something (very common mistakes), correcting it is not a knee-jerk reaction. So why is it so often treated as a thoughtless and out-of-hand rejection? It's frustrating when your help in pointing out misinterpretations is misinterpreted.

Evolution is an inevitable process for living populations. It can't NOT happen as long as there is reproduction, but it has no direction, other than change over time. I heard somewhere long ago that exposure to head lice helps strengthen the immune system, like much of the good bacteria we kill off with antibacterial soap. Hard to believe wrt lice. This isn't really a benefit to the process (since the process assumes an individual lives to reproduce), but I suppose it increases resiliency in a population and may have some impacts on their environment.