Phi for All

That's not the point of my example. The point is using the extremely deep predictive power of one of our best researched theories to show that, if an improved form of communication/sensory cognition was introduced into a population, the benefits it would confer on a species with an already impressive communicative capability (the best on the planet, one can argue) would be easily detectable. We've been testing for just such things, and even a small ability should be measurable by scientific standards. We still don't find anyone who seems the least bit consistent in manifesting this behavior. You don't need archeology. Evolution, the changes in genetic traits within a population over time, shows us that traits that give huge advantages for survival are more likely to be passed along to the next generation. I don't need to show how ESP got into our genes, I only need to look for its increasing influence from generation to generation. And I can't find it, nobody has been able to, and they've tried very hard. The way I've heard ESP defined, it would seem to confer some knowledge of what another person was thinking. Humans have evolved high intelligence through a variety of combined influences, and this has led to extremely sophisticated capabilities in cooperation, communication, and the use of tools. If genes that allowed a person an even higher level of ability were selected for for even a few generations, how could that NOT confer an enormous advantage? If ESP isn't going to give us an enormous advantage, why is everybody so excited about the prospects?

! Moderator Note Moved from Theoretical Physics to Speculations due to the non-mainstream content and the as-yet unsupported assertions. Please read the special rules for this section, and try to support your idea with actual evidence. Please respond to member requests for clarity, or the thread goes in the Trash.

Actually, that's not the most a scientist can say. The Theory of Evolution allows us to predict that ESP would be such an enormous advantage in modern humanity that it couldn't help leave evidence of its influence, increasing with each generation. Yet we still haven't found any.

Paranoiadolia: when you think the images you're imagining are out to get you.

Are you reading the replies? We're relying on knowledge here, not "ideas" we could make up about this problem. You don't seem to be taking this discussion very seriously. You can't force sperm from testicles that don't contain any.

Hypothetical doesn't mean "wishful thinking". Don't you want an accurate answer?

This question should end with, "... how long will the doctor spend in jail after I sue him/her for all he/she is worth?"

This is a science discussion site. You need to find someplace that will lie to you.

The way it was described to me, sperm is prevented from reaching the testicles in the procedure. It's not a matter of more force. There's nothing loaded to force.

Here's the problem with this. Anyone who has honestly delved into the scientific theory behind evolution would NOT be a "lifelong doubter". Also, the reasons those questions "keep nagging at" you is because you keep rejecting the best supported explanations for them, and for some reason refuse to honestly study the theory. You've come to prefer your imagined role as a skeptic, not realizing that true skeptics don't spend their whole lives on the fence.

When you don't know what you're talking about, even the best current explanations would be unclear, and those who insist on using them might seem dogmatic about it (if I was completely ignorant about chemistry, I would be unclear about the properties of short chain hydrocarbons, and the gas station attendant screaming at me about it while I light my cigar might seem dogmatic). Unfortunately, this sometimes makes a person resentful of other's knowledge, and they make up "answers" to take its place. Doubly unfortunate, because this kind of ignorance can only be cured by learning, and making up your own answers is the opposite of that.

I said I feel the same way you described, but I also feel you're misusing the word misleading in this instance. I think what you're describing is an artifact of your own right/left bias towards the subject. I sometimes feel this way towards stances I suspect have hidden agendas, and I have to fight it constantly in order to make sure I'm not manipulating myself with these biases. This seems more like the kind of ambiguity the press loves to use to cast a wide net to snare readers. If you want to see outright misleading media, look to the far right or far left. I've seen thumbnails on Sean Hannity's site and Politico that seemed detached from the actual article, an obvious attempt to mislead or manipulate, and really dangerous if folks don't actually read the article to see what's wrong.

I feel the same way about the NRA using the concerns of legitimate hunters to further their agenda of protecting the right to sell arms to anyone anywhere.

Lasse, please stop repeating the things EVERYONE else is telling you are wrong. They've explained why, but you just keep repeating the wrongness. The part you don't seem to understand is that the words we're using are very important. They have more rigid meanings than you give them, so we know precisely what is meant by them. History is NOT NOT NOT part of nature. It's a recording of human events. Humans were part of nature long before they invented (made up, created something that wasn't natural) oral and written history. Religions are also NOT NOT NOT part of nature, for much the same reasons. If you can't understand the power of universally defined concepts in scientific methodology, I don't think you'll be able to understand much science. What you're doing isn't confusion, it's insisting on your own private definitions for words and concepts, and forcing others to ask you to explain what you mean. That is NOT NOT NOT science.

So two upper case air quotes if you're speaking English, but what about when you're speaking the other language from your keyboard? If you invert the first quotation mark when you write it out in your language, it might make sense to invert the right hand when air quoting someone in that language. And if that's not a thing in your language, it would be hilarious for you to be the first to use inverted air quotes. Like, oh, those English speakers think they're all such „grammar experts"!

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marks I've been meaning to ask about your quotation marks. If they're set up that way for your native language, when you do "air quotes" with your hands, do you hold the right hand upside down?

You'll convince yourself. You'll realize you're blaming the cat for dying, but punishing your pleading wife and son for it. You'll remember you're a good guy, and you'll get another cat. You'll name it after me, probably.

I had to put my Corgi dog down recently. He had those big ears that made a whop-whop sound when he shook his head, and my brain keeps using that pattern on sounds at random places. Last week, I heard him at the grocery store. I turned and thought at least I was going to see someone else's dog. It was the produce guy putting on rubber gloves. He must have shook them out first or something, sounded just like my Max.

Is an "x ray gun" something they've used on you at the hospital or dentist? Do you mean the little buzzer that makes a sound like you got a question wrong on a game show? It's a pretty common sound these days, with many common pieces of tech that vibrate or make tones. All of our senses help the brain detect patterns we're familiar with in order to understand the information we receive from them. Sometimes unfamiliar sounds are interpreted by the brain as "close enough" to another sound, and we're convinced we heard something out of place. You hear an x-ray machine going off when it was just your cellphone (with your car keys on top of it) vibrating a simple prompt from an app. Still might be the phone/car keys. Turning your head changes blood flow, and that can cause various feelings around the body. And remember, as you turn you're thinking about x-ray guns, maybe being hit by one, so anything that supports that pattern is going to stand out. You feel something in your right eye, and your brain hands you the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle. With no warning and no real reasoning going on, you assumed something/someone from the next room zapped you with potentially dangerous radiation. If that were my kneejerk impression of the situation, I would be VERY angry. Inconclusive on its own. Is it still that way? This is something physiological at least, and if it concerns you it should be checked by a professional. You don't tell us if you investigated the sound. That would have been my next step. I'd see if there was anything from the next room that could have been aimed at my eye, then I'd check for anything capable of making that buzzing sound. Did it only buzz twice? If you stay quiet, will it buzz again?

If we describe all we observe as "nature", then god(s), beings who can't be seen/recorded/detected/interacted with in a meaningful way, are outside of that. A being that ignores natural laws is considered "super (above) natural". I don't support people making guesses about what form god(s) take and then claiming it's truth. I don't mind people practicing their faith, but I do wish they'd stop trying to make scientific-type claims of credibility. Faith is supposed to be about belief that doesn't need reason. The way you change definitions to suit your beliefs is pretty bad practice, but it's worse when you build your beliefs on bad assumptions like this one. Just because humans practice religion doesn't make it part of nature. It may seem "natural" to you because lots of people practice religion, but no other species does, and not all humans. And again, the focus of these religions, god(s), are unobservable by science, and therefore are unnatural, or supernatural. There is no evidence to support the existence of god(s). That's how science works, you look at the preponderance of evidence. And I don't know how many different ways to say it, but ALL GODS are unobservable. You can claim to observe something it's/they're responsible for, but every claim like that has a natural explanation that doesn't require god(s). Gods are supernatural, like unicorns, faeries, Santa Claus, and demons. They defy physics at will, they ignore natural limitations, and they've all chosen to be unobservable to science.

This is really unfortunate, and frustrating. Blinders will help you keep doubt from casting shadows, but they're not smart to wear often. My objections about Comey (thanks for the citation) had nothing to do with lying. At the time I questioned his timing on announcing further investigations so close to the election. It had an impact, and Comey admits he knew it would, but his alternative was risking worse blowback later. I think Comey interfered in the election, but not in the way Putin did. In no way did I mean to suggest then or now that there was a collaboration between them.

Now THAT is supportive evidence! You're probably a god.

I resent this attempt to blow off the whole discussion with hand-waiving, hyperbole, and whataboutism. I also don't think the subject is necessarily a partisan one. There are a great many people who don't appreciate Trump's grandstanding when it comes to serious matters best decided without a lot of emotional manipulation. It's not about his politics so much as his character, and whether or not he's trying to silence a detractor who could give him legitimate legal trouble. Interesting perspective though. The liberals I know are all hoping Comey is simply the opposite of Trump: honest, unconflicted, concerned with detail, loyal to country, dedicated to lawful pursuits, dutiful, courageous, literate, reasonable, and reasoned. Most of the conservatives I know also have those qualities, including hope that Trump will change.

Another claim that needs supportive evidence. Incredulousness doesn't count. God(s) have chosen NOT to be observable in a scientific sense, which makes them outside nature. How can anyone make claims about their form? Science is a tool for measuring nature. Mixing religion with science is like trying to figure out how wide your driveway is by reciting a poem.

! Moderator Note This is NOT a physics subject. Moved to Religion.