Phi for All

Drunk people seem even more irrational when you've been "smoking cigarettes".

Please show me the evidence they have for the supernatural. No claims of eternal consciousness have ever been able to stand up to a decent level of scientific rigor. I don't care if your experts disagree, they're free to present papers at any scientific review, and have their peers check the authenticity of their work. Why haven't they done so? I'm not going by anyone's teachings, nor am I voicing an opinion. There is no evidence of any kind of life after death. It's a fact. The chemical electrical processes in the brain cease, and no test has ever shown that anything "lives on".

Scientifically, there's no evidence for life after death. Like other supernatural claims, observation essential to scientific enquiry is impossible. No repeatable, testable communications is possible. Trying to test for some "other side" is like trying to observe god(s), it can't be done, almost by definition. The good news is you don't have to misrepresent yourself as a skeptic. A skeptic doubts a conclusion until he's tested it himself, and then decides one way or the other. You have nothing to test, so you can fall back on the best answer, "There's no way to know". It's supernatural, therefore not science.

The vegan version is made from sea salt and ocean plastic....

It's probably somewhat like the smugness we feel seeing you confirming your own mistaken biases all these years. You seem to have a limited understanding of science, but very few qualms about assuming it's entirely motivated by the biggest budgets and protecting mistaken concepts. I get it. You just saved yourself decades of study into what science really is, and all you had to do was ignore what really goes on, easy-peasy.

! Moderator Note This is an online discussion forum. It's not a face-to-face meeting. I'm dismayed that this needs to be said. No more comments about the participation of others. They are perfectly free to engage in discussion as long as they obey the rules. No comment about this note is necessary either, but you can report it if you don't agree.

! Moderator Note Unanswerable due to variations in text outlines. Thread locked.

When you put "businessmen" in the Oval Office to run the country like a business, you shouldn't be surprised if profit takes precedence over running the country like a country.* * "You" not being directed personally, of course.

Then you don't belong on a science discussion forum. What you're doing will never be science, ever. Why do you need it to be?

Do you think it's in any way like the glimpse-of-the-future, OMG-I'm-clairvoyant precognition that so far has no scientific basis or support?

It's a disagreement if it's about opinions, but with facts it's denial. When you claim there should be an unbroken chain of fossils showing the steps involved in speciation like a flipbook, it's an argument that seems to make sense until you know the fact that fossils are fairly rare, and we can't always dig where more might be. And when the fossils do show a clear connection, creationists claims it's an anomaly. When this argument is used, people who've studied archeology know the facts, they argue using these facts, and yet the creationist argument that the fossil record doesn't support "macro" evolution persists. That's denial.

But of course I was talking about Dave Moore's type of precognition, where it's some extraordinary ability to see into the actual future, not just a prediction using reasoned methodology and/or a special knowledge of a person or situation. If abilities like that were starting to manifest, it would show up as persistent and measurable, two things we need to build up evidence through experimentation.

This will always be true yet false.

Did this happen already?

As with all claims of telepathy and other extraordinary mental abilities, since there is no experimental evidence that humans can have such powers, I have to fall back on the evolution argument. If precognition were real, it would be such a heavy advantage that it would be selected for and strengthened with each generation. We don't see anything like that in reality, so it's not happening. Pretty simple.

And you will, once Studiot remembers to pay me the 50K.

That's how much you offered me to bump off Dr Science. I gave John Cuthber £50 to get rid of the body.

JohnLesser has been suspended for a week for his caustic combination of trolling while soapboxing. We need evidence if you're going to make anti-mainstream claims, it's in the rules. Without that, it's just your word against all those that have mountains of it.

Terry Pratchett had substitious, for people who believe in things that are true that most people don't believe (like "sometimes things just happen").

! Moderator Note No. It's clear you don't understand relativity. There are people who make a living using this science, and they're trying to tell you you are WRONG. You are a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and you overrate your knowledge and abilities in science to such an extent that you've resorted to insisting you're right but can't show anyone else. You clearly aren't trying to remedy this ignorance, and you're ignoring any attempts to help you. Worse, you seem convinced everyone who understands relativity is in a conspiracy against you, and your bias is so strong that you become further convinced you're being tricked. You reached your conclusions emotionally, so any rational attempt to reason with you fails. You won't be fit to discuss anything with until you solve this personal problem. You can't keep posting here if all you're going to do is guess while insisting you're right. I can't continue to put the rest of the membership through the kind of denial hell you inflict on discussions. You're suspended pending staff review, and I'm going to recommend that, because you can't follow the rules we have, we ban you so you can find a place that appreciates your remolding of science.

Ignorant is the precise word to use, not stupid. We prefer nobody calls any person stupid here. Calling someone ignorant implies a temporary and limited situation. Calling a person stupid implies a kind of global idiocy that is inaccurate and insulting. Ideas can be stupid, you can call them that. Oh boy, can they be stupid.

! Moderator Note Moved from Suggestions, Comments, and Support to Ethics, since this seems to be more than a comment about the site. ! Moderator Note If you want to make assertions like this here, you need evidence to back your idea up. How many times do we need to tell you (rhetorical, please)? We have different standards than other sites, different rules to uphold. This shouldn't be so hard to grasp. Please support assertions like this with evidence, no matter what section you're posting in, otherwise the thread will be closed. We're not here to provide you with a platform for unchallenged, ranting, wild-ass guesswork.

Science has important, shared definitions for certain words that you can't tamper with without removing the meaningfulness they have. You can't redefine those words on a whim so they fit the ideas in your head. The shared definitions are important in removing the very subjectivity you're trying to force into your ideas by using non-standard definitions. The fact that you don't understand this, coupled with your insistent assertions that you're "right" despite all the people showing where you aren't, led to at least three non-staff members reporting your latest post that ignores science (after many patient pages of your hand-waving). I suggest you remove whatever blinders are making you think you know things you don't, and go back and read the thread (not just your posts, but the others as well), and realize you're guessing yet insisting you're right, and you aren't giving anyone any reasons to trust your word over mainstream science. Also, please keep in mind that we'd like to see you succeed here, but that will require following our rules and presenting a bit more rigor. Asking more questions and making fewer assertions would be an added bonus.

! Moderator Note JohnLesser, you've chosen to ignore mainstream science and the question you started with, in favor of your own interpretations. I would move this to Speculations, but it's clear you don't understand relativity enough to support your ideas to the necessary degree. Seriously, this kind of willful ignorance has no place here. If you aren't listening at all, you're just preaching. Don't ever pull a bait and switch like this again, asking a question and then ignoring the answers so you can make things up, guess a lot, and claim it's true. That's not science. I apologize for letting this go on so long. I got 3 separate but practically simultaneous reports about how tedious this thread has become, which tells me waiting was a bad thing.