Phi for All

Confirmation bias. You know a few Germans who did something, and now you're wondering why all the Jews haven't done the same thing? That sounds bizarre, doesn't it, expecting all one group to do what a few from another group did? Right?

It also makes sense to me that imagination is refined by knowledge. The more you know, the less time you have to spend using your imagination on concepts that aren't viable. You don't have to waste years of your life imagining that we're part of the matrix, or that the Earth is flat, or that you've developed the Theory of Everything without using maths.

I think far too many people use imagination, which is as easy as storytelling, guessing, or lying, as a substitute for systematically eliminating their ignorance, which is hard but rewarding work. I also think those who know the inside of "the box" are the best qualified to think outside it. I think imagination can't be more important than knowledge, so I disagree with Einstein. Imagination by itself is guesswork at it's worst. Knowledge alone would do much better, but when you have great knowledge your imagination is expanded, richer, and more nuanced. How can it not be?

Without making any kind of judgement on your particular worldview's relevance, I can say that you're making a mistake equating your incredulity (the "I can't believe this could be true" parts) with "It's only what I know". You DO NOT "know" these things with any decent amount of certainty. You should hold "what [you] know" to a higher standard than those things that just don't seem right to you. It's possible you haven't really studied them fully, or because they're complex and non-intuitive.

! Moderator Note Science discussion forum. SCIENCE. Evidence is a requirement. Wild assertions aren't appreciated at all here.

! Moderator Note If you're going to make assertive statements, you need to back them up with evidence. This reads like mostly guesswork with no foundation. Not good enough for this section. Feel free to try again, but if you're going to buck the mainstream so much perhaps you should post in Speculations. Alternatively, if you don't know something you should ask questions instead of just making believe what you think is correct really is. This is not an OP worthy of discussion. More rigor, please.

Nobody appreciates guesswork here, since you can waste your time virtually anywhere else on the web with that. We prefer evidential support for our explanations. If you can provide that, it means we might learn something by discussing it with you. It's really pretty simple, and I really don't understand all the pushback. Why are you HERE, on THIS science discussion forum, if not for a more rigorous approach to science?

"To some extent"? I hardly think that explains or justifies what we're seeing here. This man has consistently shown he thought the job would be a piece of cake, and yet has met with failure after failure when he tries to do things under his typical MO. He continues to double down on ignorance and vapidity despite so many experts telling him he's wrong. He makes things up that he later claims are true just because he said them. He lacks a very basic editor/filter that tells "we all" that we might be in over our heads, and that it might be time for a little education, or at least not so much adamancy about the subject. I don't see how it helps to think that we all do this a little, when we're obviously talking about extreme behavior. We all suffer from wanting to chastise the guy who butts ahead of us in line, but that shouldn't be used to justify somebody beating him to death. Or more appropriately, we all lie on occasion, but that shouldn't excuse the extreme magnitude of lies from the White House.

Oh, I sincerely hope not. I hope this choice chokes those who made it, and it forces everyone to re-evaluate what kind of people we want to be. Right now we look like ignorant, greedy, heartless leeches who want to make the world really, really difficult for our children to get along in. Real issues are ignored while the rich and corporate are buying legislation at the White House garage sale. It's not The Apprentice any more, it's Wheel of the Fortunate.

I disagree with everything after the first six words. The rest is an excuse for the alt-right to use violence, and they've been using these same words a LOT.

I think it's worse than that. I think he has the Dunning-Kruger effect. I think he has a highly exaggerated assessment of his own intelligence and abilities, a superiority that's all in his head. The more you point out his deficiencies, the more convinced he is that he's a genius that can't be understood by lesser beings. He is NOT a self-aware person, and has no mechanism for evaluating his own competence.

! Moderator Note We thought you were making a scientific inquiry. As humor, it's offensive and fails as a discussion topic on a science forum.

Not with just my regular bag, I'm not. I have no lighters, pots, pans, salt, blades longer than 2", or paper towels. What do Canadians use, pine cones?

I've only heard arguments about consciousness living on after the body dies, finally being free of the limitations put upon it by an earthly body. The argument assumes consciousness is separate from the mind and is capable of changing from the use of electrochemical energy to some other energy not requiring a body. I suppose the Christian afterlife is close to what you're talking about, since they seem to be able to walk the streets of gold and play harps and wear crowns and all, in addition to leaving their old bodies down here in the ground. You'd need a couple vials of omnipotence to do the whole exact molecular match maneuver, unless you don't think that matters much. I think it would. Who you are now is based on everything that's happened before. Get that wrong and you'd have a different person, right? If a couple has two kids (Amy & Matt) within a year of each other, they aren't the same kids. If the same couple waits a year to have their first child, will it be Amy or Matt (or someone completely different)? I think each person would be different, and I think you'd be different too if your "consciousness" was living without a body. So would it be YOUR life after death? The big question is why, if you get another identical body after death, hasn't anyone come back to tell us all about it?

Smartphones help so much with carrying less these days, but I rarely put mine in my bag. That's tempting fate too much, and reminds me of losing Daytimers back in the day. I wonder if there are some universal items we all tend to carry in our bags besides pens? I like having a flashlight when I'm out for the day (because dark happens a lot during daylight), and I usually have some kind of small multi-tool in my bag (blade/plier/clipper/stripper/screwdrivers). 12' tape measure. Always a legal pad. A couple of carabiners, rubber bands, clips, twist ties (I'm fastenated). Breath mints. The rest of the bag varies depending if I'm in the city (laptop) or the country (usually lunch). I do carry bandaids, but in my wallet (old dad habit). Funny because it's true.

If it comes down to any action (the GOP is finding some gems among the filth, so this is doubtful), I'm betting he goes with the "I'm in real estate, I didn't know it was illegal" argument. He's set the bar so low he could probably make a case by claiming we all should've known he'd screw this up. This is all OUR fault. Who knew being POTUS isn't like running a family business?

I do it this way too, with a Vizeri mini in a holster clipped to a pocket. I'm a feel & grab guy myself, with lots of pockets inside, and very little rolling around loose. But it sounded like folks wanted a lit-up bag and didn't have a flashlight (gasp!) as part of their walk-around gear. I suspect such folks don't have a tape measure or bandaids on them at all times either.

Under any trees?

I think what you said was perfectly on topic. I'm just saying, in an argument, I don't let religious people get away with some sloppy definition of their belief system. They usually want everything to be taken on faith, including science (usually because they don't understand it either), and I try to impose some precision to the language. Faith, trust, and hope are all types of belief, and I think the differences between them are extremely important. They tell me how confident I can be in what I believe.

Retrofit DIY idea for any bag: a small LED puck light (battery operated, push the center to turn it on), slipped inside a clear packing list envelope to hold it in place, stuck to the interior of your deep bag. Run your hand around the edges to find it, then push to light it up.

Even lack of sleep could be called a stimulant, due to chemical changes. Not sure what you're looking for. Laughter is a response to various stimuli. Anything that "brings on laughter" would be a stimulus, correct?

I don't accept that definition from religious people. We have words like confidence and trust to define such an acceptance concept. When people use "faith", I assume they mean the kind of religious trust in their deity that isn't based on reasoning and critical thinking. There isn't any evidence of their god(s), so they must take explanations about them on faith. Trust is more of a reasoned, accumulated, thoughtful form of belief. Experience and observation let us come to trust certain explanations. It's the strongest form of belief because it requires lots of evidence to support it. Faith claims to be the strongest form of belief, capable of great miracles, but it's worse than hope as far as being based in reality. Hope is more like wishing, but faith asks us to believe without question, especially about things we've evolved to be smart enough to question.

FTFY.

I don't know the specifics of the device. It wouldn't be the first time the US allowed the sale of something that was illegal to actually operate (fireworks are one example).

Thank you SO much for this, it's going to be a wonderful day. Priceless!