Phi for All

It sometimes gets the teachers stressed out when the system is set up so that a minimal amount of effort results in a passing grade, yet students continue to get Fs. If you turn in the homework, attend the classes, participate in class projects, do the online work the teacher assigns, and still flunk all the quizzes, tests, and finals, you won't get an F. Sooooo, your argument is a strawman. You argue the teacher expects perfection (which is easy to argue against), when in reality the teacher wants you to do at least the minimum to pass (which is much harder to defend - why aren't you doing the minimal work?).

That is such a broken chain of reasoning! You link to a jobsite for jobs in economics, and claim SOME teachers of economics make a living teaching, and you think that, plus Trump's income means he's smarter than the teachers. Your argument tries fallaciously to equate the achievements of "some" with "all", and your extreme reach to this conclusion is invalid. I've been far more successful in terms of money than many of the teachers in my life, but I would NEVER claim to be smarter than they are/were. What an absurd idea! And why would you come to a science discussion site and disrespect people who read?! Book worms are using their time more wisely than you, sir!

Since 1996, the media has elevated controversial viewpoints that should never have gained more than the marginal few glimpses they got before when they had an actual obligation to inform the public. Fringe stupidity suddenly became a draw that gave a boost to ratings and thus advertising revenue. Extremists used to get a small, proportional part of our attention, and now they get it all because that's how the media makes money. I think this is the part Trump knows well. I hope you're right about the office ultimately being bad for him. He wasn't supposed to profit from service to his country while in office, so I really hope he gains nothing from it after he's out. Without clout, I think the wealthy will abandoned him for the crass boor he's shown himself to be, and his base doesn't buy enough steak and wine to keep him afloat.

What I've found is this. People of faith find it almost impossible to change their beliefs no matter how much the evidence shows they should. Religious beliefs are NOT required to be reasoned. People of science find it trivially easy to change what they choose to trust when better evidence provides a better, more trustworthy explanation. Science requires a great deal of critical thinking. I don't like thinking of science as a religion. They're different words and different concepts for good reasons. I distrust arguments trying to conflate them, since there are so many people out there trying to give science a bad name, for their own agendas.

I disagree. I think it takes both, I think Trump has both, and I think it's a talent/smarts that's been cultivated and honed to a frightening degree. It's been working so far because he's doing things other hucksters also want. Any of the leadership could claim the emperor is naked, but praising his wardrobe is more profitable (for the moment). Trump's real base would stick with him if he ate a baby on FOX News. They represent the ignorant extremists, who are perfectly willing to go along with the better educated capitalist extremists, hoping trickle-down will work this time, and inevitably settling for the change found in cast-off sofas just like always.

The point isn't really what you know. The point is that religion uses faith, a strong belief that doesn't need anything but a strong belief. Science uses evidence to ensure that our explanations for natural phenomena are the best currently available, and always subject to change when new evidence is uncovered. Scientific explanations can be trusted, and I think that's a stronger form of belief than faith or wishful thinking.

Fair points. I still think it's unnecessarily inaccurate to lump science in with religion just because it's what you "believe". You know me, there's more than one type of belief. Which is the reason science deals in theory instead of proof. Best current explanations are more trustworthy than answers.

! Moderator Note There is no "theoretical physics community". If you make an assertion, cite some evidence in support and link to it to make it easy for another member to check it. Extraordinary claims need to be backed up by evidence.

A good friend's father is being ripped off by a roofing contractor. Mr B is a very sharp guy, but this contractor has conned him out of thousands of dollars, and hasn't done a bit of work on the leaking roof. Mr B knows this guy is dishonest, he knows the man should not get more of his money, but yesterday he gave the man another check. This contractor is aggressive with elderly people, and extremely good at making idiocy sound reasonable. I think that's the smarts Trump has. He's a Yankee carpetbagger. He's a con man on the national stage, and whether he's using or being used, he's aggressive and good at making idiocy sound reasonable.

The difference is that with science, you could support your beliefs by learning what the evidence suggests. You don't have to use faith alone, you also have something to trust. Religions have no evidence to support what they claim.

If there are parts from the beginning that are wrong, shouldn't they be corrected before going any deeper? Sometimes rejection lets you do better. If someone criticizes a specific part of your idea, perhaps that's what they're rejecting, but to you it seems like they're rejecting the whole thing.

The easiest is by actor. I haven't seen a bad Simon Pegg movie yet. Frances McDormand. Benedict Cumberbatch. Cate Blanchett. Studios with great production values, Pixar, DreamWorks. Franchises are often a no-brainer. I've seen all the other Pirates of the Caribbean movies, why wouldn't I see the next? I don't need to see the trailers to know Bruckheimer's formula. And directors, of course. I'd pay to see JJ Abrams direct traffic.

This is a big reason, once I've made up my mind to see a movie, I don't watch trailers. For me, once the movie gets to one of the clips from a trailer, my mind looks for the trailer's pattern for the next clip, I jump ahead and now I'm out of the movie experience.

All the bullet points from his campaign have an emotional tie with his working class base, but each seems to be designed to achieve what the uber-wealthy extremist capitalists want. One result of trade wars can be an overall increase in prices while a few goods become cheaper. This seems just like his railing against Amazon, seemingly to protect the USPS from an unfair deal, but in reality to force them to raise their rates so UPS and FedEx can do the same. The wolf is saying he's going to eat us, and half the sheep are praising the way he tells it like it is.

This is me as well. One of my best entertainment experiences was when I told a friend of mine the only things I knew about 24 was it starred Kiefer Sutherland and each episode took place in real time, so a season was one whole day. He handed me the first season set of DVDs and I had no preconceptions, there were no clips I remembered from trailers, absolutely nothing to take me out of the experience. It's like being in the first car on the roller coaster, in the fog. You can't see very far ahead and you just have to hold on. Fabulous!

Since the only answer to the title question is "everything", is there a way to ask so it has some meaning to it? You make some assumptions that may not be true, like immortality and omniscience. Are they necessary? What about omnipresence and omnipotence? How are you using the term "metaphysical values", since it's a requirement?

WRT logical fallacies, that's the way we want it to work, that you call them out in thread as weak (non)arguments and explain why, forcing the person who used it to either admit it's not good or move to a better argument. Much of the time this ends in a more tacit defeat but the point is made. If someone continues to use the fallacious logic after it's been called out, we have rule 2.4 to enforce the practice, so please Report those who keep it up. We assume people don't set out to form a bad argument, but once a fallacy is pointed out in a thread, only an unreasonable person would persist in its use.

! Moderator Note OlegGorokhov, you've been given three pages to explain why all the claims you're making are valid. The members have been extremely civil in the face of your constant repetition, and your ignoring of their simple questions to help you test your idea. You are NOT doing science by behaving this way. And the above shows that you have some non-science agenda to grandstand your idea. This is a science DISCUSSION site, we don't allow soapboxers who don't listen, we don't allow preachers who ignore questions. This thread is closed, and you are NOT allowed to open this subject again until you can answer ANY of the questions you've been asked. ! Moderator Note I also want to say I'm pleased that the rest of the membership didn't sink to attacking the intellectual integrity of another poster the way Oleg is doing here. Thread closed.

Perhaps this should be the focus then. Can we arrange the structure of an agency so it supports its own mission to the best of its ability and minimizes the political fluctuations, or can we emulate the structures other countries use? For example, a science agency could fulfill its mission based on the work of scientists as opposed to a political appointee who studied business instead. I wonder how unique we are in thinking to elect businesspeople to high political office, or put wealthy neurosurgeons in charge of anti-poverty agencies, or allow someone who denies climate science to be in charge of the environment. Has this historically worked out for anyone?

! Moderator Note We attack ideas here, not people. No more of this, please.

How cool is THAT?! Congratulations, DanEdition, and best of luck on the staff position (although it sounds like you have something better than luck).

I think this is the focal point for my enquiry. In the US, the far right wants to shrink the role of the federal government since they believe regulations interfere with commerce unfairly, YET they also want to use this business model you speak of, where voters are customers, millions are spent on media persuading them with promises, and THE GOAL IS TO GROW their own businesses using public agencies. The extremist Republicans want to shrink the regulatory side of government while growing its ability to fund their businesses. These agencies/ministries are empowered by the democracy, and the citizen's need for their services doesn't change depending on who gets elected, yet in the US these leaders spend much of their time undoing work done in the last administration. And we're seeing now that no agency is exempt from this kind of treatment. We may be looking at an attempt to privatize the FBI in the future by discrediting its public service, its heroes, and its policies.

! Moderator Note The discussion and any feedback must stay here. Advertising is not allowed, so your FB link was removed. We discuss science, so if promotion is your goal, you need to find another site.

I want to know if other countries suffer the way the US does when a political party gains power and doesn't support the functions of certain government departments. Right now, many of the agencies that protect US citizens from consumer fraud, environmental hazards, workplace dangers, veterans affairs, and emergency disaster management are being stripped of their effectiveness, and it seems wrong to me on many levels. It's wrong to have FEMA in the first place if you aren't going to take it seriously. It's wrong to have agencies we pay for no matter what, and then have all their clout and effectiveness removed. And let me just say it outright. In my lifetime, I've seen Democrats spend less on the military or border security, but they never ignored it the way the Republicans ignore the EPA, FEMA, OSHA, Veterans Affairs, and other agencies. Can anyone point to a Democrat appointee who was unfit for the job at one of these agencies? There's a whole list of people the Republicans have put in charge that had no experience whatsoever, and underperformed as expected. And after seeing the chaos that was "capitalized upon" in the aftermath of the Puerto Rico devastation, it seems obvious that managing emergencies cost-effectively is not in Republican interests because it takes money away from small businesses, like that highly-connected two-man firm in Montana that got the $300M contract to fix the power. So do your country's agencies suffer much depending who is in power? Does your universal healthcare coverage dip when conservatives are in power, or does even the right-wing agree it's great to be alive? It's probably normal to have certain regulations relaxed or strengthened, but I'm talking about putting someone in charge of a department or agency that is quite obviously there to yank its teeth or dismantle it or just simply make it look bad. We seem to always be taking three steps forward, two steps back as a societal strategy.

Pease porridge takes nine, I've heard since I was a kid. Also, you use less water to steam rice by itself, and you don't remove the lid. More water and stirring the open pot with porridge. The cooking style is different, thus the timing is different.