Phi for All

I think religion has negatively influenced your ability to think critically.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to bring up scientific studies and then assign your own definitions with regard to what they were measuring. Those studies weren't analyzing your slanted views of "high quality" at all. You would seem to have an agenda you're cherry-picking data for. Bad science.

You keep asking the question I answered in post #12. When you first inhale to sneeze, sometimes you dislodge the irritant and the signal goes away. Aborted sneeze.

"Wait for evidence" isn't the same thing as "write off". What about the "current state of cosmology" gives you the impression we have a gap in our knowledge that needs to be filled by a supernatural explanation? It sounds more like the problem lies with your misunderstanding of "the current state of cosmology".

"Best explanation" implies there are others that aren't as good, that aren't as well supported by evidence. There's nothing hidebound about this. How can someone well educated in science NOT use intuition when it comes to advancing what we know? I think what's being argued is uneducated intuition is valuable as well, and that I don't agree with. Someone who has been shown what science is about through popular journalism has NOT learned science. The intuition of someone who hasn't learned science is as valuable as any guess.

Why would science be interested in a conversation about an unnecessary creator?

Intuition can only be trusted from knowledgeable people. In general, would you trust the intuition of a six year old? Would you trust the intuition of someone who has only read pop-sci (instead of learning science) over someone who'd been educated heavily? The method doesn't allow scientists to think in terms of "truth". Truth is subjective, so the method stresses the reasoned following of evidence to its conclusions. Your "truth" means nothing to anyone but you, whereas the method at least assures more trustworthiness by working with the best current explanations.

It's an assumption, isn't it? Whatever your POV, the people "on the other side" of the argument (from your POV) are going to be dead set against it. I think it's partly semantics. The way an issue is spun plays a big part. When the word "welfare" pops up, one side thinks about the widowed mothers it will help and the other side thinks of the lazy loafers it will enable. Both assume their POVs are opposite, but in reality, both want to help the widowed mothers and neither want to enable the lazy loafers. But they won't learn this about each other because, with issues like these, too many people have stopped learning.

And now you've stopped learning anything else about him because you can sum him up in a six word description. This isn't a good way to look at anybody. He may not be any of those things. It may be as simple as him having worked for the fossil fuel industry all his life, or maybe he was persecuted for his religion/lack thereof, or had to work for a college kid half his age. He may have voted for Jerry Brown, and hopes bellbottom jeans come back, you just don't know.

! Moderator Note Your title promised a question.

Perhaps a fear of being lumped together with the undesirable parts of a similar ideology? I have a lot of Republican friends who are happy I don't assume they share all the fake president's traits and sentiments.

Without limit? How vividly misleading, and patently untrue. Do you understand what "without limit" means with regard to money? Are you lying or just exaggerating? If the tax structure for the rich was similar to what is was during the Eisenhower administration, is that "without limit"? Do you think we could afford more science research with the added revenue?

I think one of the most willfully ignorance stances we see today are people who want to lump whole groups of people they don't like into categories, like "the Left", so they can dismiss them wholesale. Most of it is stupid assumptions about what "conservative" and "liberal" really mean. When I can easily argue that listening to experts about climate change is a good, conservative tactic, does that make me conservative? I can also point to massive studies that show our approach to crime creates more criminals, so why is my stance considered liberal? These labels are emotionally charged. If you're interested in a more dispassionate, reasoned point of view that can be trusted, I would suggest you give them up.

Huff Post put together some tweets and speeches from last year about the time Don Jr set his meeting with the Russians, and it sure looks like senior knew.

It's not really a symptom so much as a measurement that gives us data on blood flow, status of the arterial walls, and the rate of heartbeat, for instance. Iirc, different medications are prescribed if blood pressure is affected by thickened artery walls than if affected by irregular heartbeats.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. Please provide some evidence for your non-mainstream claims next time you post a thread like this. There's no science to discuss here. Also, we have a section for non-mainstream speculations which we call Speculations. It's not a place for wild guesses, but again, if you have some actual evidence to discuss, you can make a case for it there. You might want to tone down the rant as well. You aren't going to get good science if you're just here to flame on folks. This thread is no good. Please do better on your next try. And thanks for understanding and playing by our rules.

What seems like condescension is simply years of trying to help people with their scientific methodology misconceptions. Your mistake about "opinion" is a good example. When a jury makes a decision based on provided evidence in a court case, do you think they're expressing their "opinion", or are they being asked for conclusions based solely where the evidence and arguments lead? Do they tell the judge they "think" the plaintiff is guilty, or do they say they "find" him guilty? Climate scientists "found" their explanations, they didn't make them up so they could believe in them. If there are 3% who deny climate change, hopefully it's because the evidence led them to different conclusions. I'm not sure why they matter. For non-experts like you and me, doesn't it make sense to stick with the 97% mainstream? Your arguments sound canned and worn out, like you've repeated them, had them refuted, ignored the refutation, and then continued to repeat them to a different audience, because you're emotionally tied to the arguments. You really don't want to change or be thought responsible for messing up your grandchildren's world, so you grab weird, emotional appeals instead of simply following the evidence to reasoned conclusions. You drag all this extraneous sharia/denier garbage into a conversation where we just want to discuss the evidence, and the science, and the methodology involved. It's not necessary.

To answer the title question, it's possible of course, but no, not the way simulated universes are usually presented. You've set the scenario up so there's no way to tell the difference between real and simulated. That's no different than proposing there's a god(s), but you can't observe them because they're all powerful. There's no meaning to arguments like these because you've rigged it from the start.

Otoconia breaking off could be responsible, and would account for extreme vertigo.

! Moderator Note We invite you to open your own thread about atheism, rather than take this one off-topic with that tangent. The subject here is a particular study that was done on religious fundamentalism, if you didn't read the whole thread.

It's been well established that you have no idea how science really works. Your basic mistake is you don't understand the basics of evidence. Climate science isn't about opinion.

Why do you think her popularity was the problem when she won the popular vote? Do you really think anyone supporting the Pussygrabber would have voted for Hillary if she would have smiled more seriously? The election wasn't close at all, it was a technical decision by the electoral college. This stooge embodies all the WORST TRAITS we've had in presidents. He's the biggest liar, lecher, thief, and bully, and he's the most ignorant about the job. He has none of the good qualities we've had in presidents, none whatsoever. Clinton just rubbed you the wrong way, and you really need to learn why this wasn't her fault, but rather yours.

What if the people behind the rip-off also control your ability to hear about a better representative? Is it still your fault? There may be better choices the magic bean men are hiding from you. I don't think it's your fault entirely. But the ones who could effect change aren't being allowed. Isn't this a lot like the "Get a job if you're poor" argument?

Let me start by saying that, if you know little science, honest feedback and studies may not mean much to you. You won't know the difference unless you've studied extensively. One thing a non-expert should know is what consensus really means in science. When you have consensus among experts in a particular branch of science (such as climate science), it means the vast majority have allowed a thorough review of the evidence to lead them to the same conclusions. That happened quite some time ago. What we have now is different. On the subject of anthropogenic climate change, there is a consilience. That's when other branches of science (meteorology, geology, biology, etc) independently converge on the same conclusions. There is no doubt among those with the essential knowledge. I understand where this sentiment comes from, but you're applying it badly. A scientist who is paid to come up with an opposing view is different from someone like Nye or Tyson, who express scientific consensus and are supported by sponsors or donations. If I write a position paper on climate science that meets with peer approval, there are people who will support my efforts to present this paper at conferences and paid engagements. Just because I'm paid for my arguments doesn't mean they're wrong or fallacious. Making sure the public is well-informed should be a priority. Experts get paid for their expertise, right? Why are science experts any different, right?

I think a big part of that is how strictly they held to the first few books. I'm usually a "book was better" guy, and HBO finally did the right thing. I can't choose between the series and the books. It's hard to blame the screenplay writers for deviations after book four, since GRRM hadn't finished the books before the series began. But after book four, you're so hooked that plot changes make you grumble instead of scream.