Phi for All

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.

If I spin the cake, I only need to cover the radius.

Well, I see two cups of coffee, whatever is to the right of baby bear (is he still into porridge? I thought it was orange juice), and what you said was a transparent bottle (which I now know is empty since you don't count it as a drink).

And there's the bottom of that barrel, folks.

Because we're using science. For your explanations, that's like using a fishnet to catch air.

4 drinks, 3 pieces of cake. A red herring? You imply, with the bending of the knife, that a "slice" is a single downward "chop" of the knife, even though there would be no movement of the knife in a "slicing" motion. It would be more like a pair of angled cleavers than a slicing knife. You also imply that "slices" are straight cuts with no turning on the point. I could slice three equal pieces based on the marks at the edge without picking up the tip if I can change the direction of the slice outside the cake. Also, the knife is single-edged and tapers at the point, so I don't think it would work to bend it and chop out a 1/3 wedge of cake. One bit of the perimeter wouldn't be cut completely through because of the taper.

So well put. To allow extremism like the OP, everyone has to think alike. Then they can choose either ultimate order or anarchic chaos to make themselves happy. Force everyone to be one way or the other, or else you're stuck with a very intricate, semi-predictable, deeply layered societal system that may not please everyone all the time, and spends resources trying to help diverse perspectives co-exist.

There are 3 beverages (looks like 2 coffees in coffee cups and a glass of milk or juice), but a fourth object (bottom right corner) that looks like a donut on an oval plate. Is there significance to this object? It seems out of place, but could belong to Goldilocks, I guess (although she isn't cutting herself a piece of cake, so I don't know why she'd have a beverage).

I mean this false dilemma you're arguing for, this "only way a society can be truly happy is if nothing goes or anything goes", it reduces complex systems down to meaninglessness, and insists there's only two options. It's a naive stance, and I hope you'll be able to understand this, and look for something with the kind of depth you're going to need now that you're asking more complex questions of yourself. You can see there is a difference but want to know how? We're animals, animals eat food. The examples you used for hurting people were all negative: hurting or offending someone for fun, doing it out of spite, or out of hate. There are no good moral choices there, whereas hunting to feed yourself isn't immoral. You said anything goes, or nothing goes. If you can't hunt animals, should you be killing plants?