Phi for All

So your argument is that math is probably the only thing just about everyone could agree on, so we should be using that instead of ridiculous and imprecise verbal guesses? Hmmm, you make a really good point here.

I've often seen the numbers showing how much more Americans pay for healthcare than other major countries. Do we know where that extra money goes? Is that strictly private profit, is it lots of little overages that add up to a lot, is it due to lobbying efforts by mega-corporations? If we want Americans to be alarmed about the state of healthcare, we should point out exactly how they're being cheated. The whole misguided affection for the idea of the country being run like a business instead of a country needs to be slapped out of a lot of people. I prefer non-violent protest, so a virtual slap or something like a bucket of iced water over the head would be good. The purpose of business is profit, and when governments are run that way, the People are ignored. People are an operational expense and thus the least amount possible will be spent on them. We should be pointing out how much money has been wasted opposing our good health as a society. Billions in dollars and so many hundreds of thousands of work hours dedicated to NOT providing what our allies (and even our enemies) from WWII provide to their People. So much effort to avoid doing what a good government should do, and healthcare opponents would tell you it's to save money.

It's hard to get through to you, because you don't seem to read (which is internet forum for "You don't listen"). I still don't know if you understand how much time you wasted in that thread because you didn't understand that placebos are just sugar pills, and they have not changed, but the placebo effect perhaps has. You were the big problem in that thread because you redefined placebo in order to make your misunderstanding work.

Remember that anybody studying empathic ability is going to be looking for behavior that is way beyond what would be considered normal sensitivity to the feelings of others. If they can't document this extraordinary behavior, if it can't be measured repeatedly in a meaningful way, there's no article to write. When they do find evidence, even if it runs against mainstream science, it must be considered and explained. Here's a good example. People have long held that certain charms can affect the outcome of competitive activities (and lots of rational scientists insist luck is an illusion), so psychologists at the U of Cologne devised an experiment that tested this, and found there was an effect outside what would be considered normal. It's not luck really, but it seems that in situations where a lot of confidence can benefit, a lucky charm actually can increase your chances of success in a measurable way. Perhaps you could undertake your own study on empaths with this perspective. Perhaps people who believe they're superempathic are more confident and successful at using the standard share of empathy we all have.

! Moderator Note A string of less than civil and certainly off-topic posts have been split to Trash.

! Moderator Note It seems all the rational parts of this topic have been exhausted. Time for sleep.

Just open Medicare insurance to all, and work hard on improving payouts to private healthcare. It will be cheaper so people will want it, it will pay quicker so doctors will want it, and it will be focused on health instead of wealth so it will be effective as a risk pool for implementing healthcare.

With better (or even bare minimum decent) leadership and representation, the federal government's role as a protector is perhaps more apparent and appreciated. Right now, that role is being actively shunned in favor of its roles as defender and enforcer, and the negative effects are obvious.

The best thing would be to understand what empathy really is. People can be empathic for sure, and here's a test for that devised by the University of Cambridge. Empathy is just the ability to see things from another's perspective, and if you do it right, you can't help but feel a bit the same. But that's a far cry from the kind of supernatural sensitivity you mentioned the empath you know told you he could manifest. When that sort of thing is tested for, it's never repeatable, and any variations from statistical normal are explainable through natural means. Earlier, he might have heard loud voices downstairs, now there's silence, he imagines them brooding angrily, empathizes with it, then goes downstairs and sees his roommates scowling at one another. Let me ask you this, have you ever found what you're looking for, an article reviewing the tests, for something else supernatural, like telekinesis, or telepathy? Have you ever found a study saying "We tested x people and found that nobody could guess which card would come up next in a deck better than a certain range of normal capabilities"?

I get that part. But if there's no further evidence for religion (we're talking about a deity really, a creator) than there is right now, a billion years later, why would people turn that way? And unless you posit that we're able to comb the entire universe in a billion years, there would still be places left to look, which would lend encouragement for one of the last theories left to us, that something unique(?) from an unknown part of the universe interacted with Earth in a one-off event that resulted in life as we know it. Still no need for a creator.

! Moderator Note Last chance. Answer the questions in post #3, or the rules of this section say this gets shut down with no chance of bringing it up in the future. You increased the stakes by claiming a breakthrough, yet still haven't answered the first questions put to you. Do so now, please.

In order to know that Earth holds the only life, in that billion years we would have searched all over for it. And in the process, we would be seeding the galaxies system by system with life. In all that time, I can also assume there was nothing else that suggested religion might be more of an explanation than it is now. After a billion years of pretty much what we have now evidence-wise, why would religion seem like a better answer?

You need to understand that science doesn't attempt to *prove* anything. The only thing we can do is offer explanations, based on observation and testing, supported with evidence, to explain various phenomena. Empathic ability of the kind you mention has been tested and lacks any evidence to suggest there is more there than a normal statistical range of sensitivity. If evidence had been found, studies and experiments to suggest a hypothesis regarding empaths could be put forward. Without some kind of testable, repeatable evidence, you can't have any kind of hypothesis or theory. Science really has no stance on empaths. What you describe as an empath is supernatural, and outside what science is focused on.

Here's a good current study put out by the European Science Foundation. I believe Yellowstone is only mentioned twice, and all the popsci fearmongering is absent.

! Moderator Note Moved from Suggestions, Comments, and Support (which is for site related topics) to Earth Sciences. Here you can ask questions to see if your idea is viable.

It's the combo of Guiness and cheese maybe, or wine and cheese. Something about the savory and tart together perhaps overloads sensors activating saliva at a painful rate. I've always associated it with something tart after acclimating the palate to a different type of taste. I can't say for sure, but it does seem to happen more often when I'm sipping a drink together with a mouthful of food. Could it be an overdrive reaction because you're signalling that your mouth is too dry by sipping? I can see an evolutionary advantage if it prevents you from choking on a mouthful of dry food. As for the cheese and sweaty cheeks, Tyramine might be a suspect: It's in most cheeses except the softest, like cottage and cream cheeses. But still, that doesn't explain the chicken.* * My Staff Challenge this week was to successfully use the phrase, "But still, that doesn't explain the chicken" in a coherent post. I'd like to thank trickrick for this marvelous opportunity.

I'm pretty sure the pain you're feeling is your salivary glands suddenly increasing the flow in reaction to certain combos of foods. I've had this before and looked it up. I don't know if this is associated with the mild sweats from eating cheese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack-in-the-box I thought I remembered a name for the devil involving Jack, but I can't find the reference. I might be thinking of Old Scratch.

You can't prove they don't exist. You can only gather evidence to support an explanation that there's something more than normal heightened empathy going on. And there is none.

There have been enough studies to determine there is no "them".

The brain often interprets input based on "most likely", such as in the case of illusions where identical colored circles are surrounded by different sized black circles, making one of the colored circles appear bigger in comparison. Perhaps, in the case of someone with poor critical thinking skills and strong religious beliefs, the brain's interpretations are simply using what they know, and making it seem like goddidit is a "most likely" scenario. That critical filter one learns to use in science is almost like another sense. If you've ever spent time with someone with bad hearing, you know the wealth of information that person misses out on. They have to maneuver in an environment where they didn't hear many of the directions. They often don't get the input of others, and so most problems are theirs to solve alone. Perhaps this is one of the best arguments for good reasoning skills. It's like having extra sets of eyes and ears.

It behaves like an attempt to make sense of a pattern, connecting the dots, fitting the pieces of a puzzle together. Except you're missing pieces, so you extrapolate based on what you think makes sense (or you hear an explanation and force it to fit). Probably some sort of cognitive bias.

Given away in subsidies how? Or are you just objecting to assistance in the form of money to pay rent and buy groceries?

No problems. Perhaps it's not age, but just the refraction produced as you weep for the country.

No, Alexander Acosta is the nominee, Epstein is the pedophile Acosta helped get off the hook. Headline of the article: