Phi for All

notpittsburghjoe has been banned as a sockpuppet of pittsburghjoe, who should be using his vacation time more wisely.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. If you wish to discuss a single topic, this is the place for you. If you're trying to post excerpts from your book, or you're blogging without expecting a response, please post on some other site. If you do decide to pick a single point to discuss, please read the rules and support any assertions with evidence. I'm closing this thread. Trying to discuss all the claims at once would be madness.

We need rich people to acknowledge that working the jobs is just as important to society as creating them. It's really the only way a modern society can be both fair and productive. This should be an agreement that cements us all as a society. Then welfare becomes an investment instead of a handout. Education can flourish instead of withering. The wealthy will need to find something else to blame besides the stupid poor. But we may get fifty years of progress instead of eight years forward, eight years back.

I disagree that it's a "myth". Like much of science, it's helped a great deal, but our understandings of its limitations are growing. Typically, this means we need to dig deeper and find even better explanations. It doesn't mean it's a myth or a dead-end, it just means we need a broader, more comprehensive understanding than we can achieve by simply thinking of the brain as a chemical soup.

My distaste of the "cage" is offset by my appreciation of heightened awareness. I'm convinced more support goes to endangered animals people can see in real life rather than in pictures. Instilling a love of wildlife and varied environments in children is a valuable investment. Abnormal captivity vs dangers of the wild seems fairly evenly offset as well. I use the term abnormal because nothing we do is really unnatural, since we're part of nature too. We know the benefits of domestication. How we deal with wild animals is an ongoing problem for us though.

! Moderator Note Let's all remember this thread is in Relativity, not Philosophy. If you have philosophical aspects to discuss, they would be best explored in a different thread.

! Moderator Note No more conspiracy theories. I've hidden one, and if any more questionable sources are used to spread misinformation, those responsible will face the consequences. Let's keep this thread rational and reasonable.

! Moderator Note For this reason, we need to avoid any kind of internet diagnosis. We value our members enough to want them to get a professional opinion based on physical examination. No virtual treatment advice from anyone, please. We encourage the OP to seek professional help. That said, it's perfectly possible to discuss these subjects without playing doctor. Let's keep the discussion focused on that path.

No. Just no.

I still think, as more cars become capable of driving independently, that cars going to similar areas will start hooking up somehow to save fuel, and we'll end up with a light rail system that costs a couple of orders of magnitude more than if we'd stop fighting light rail now.

! Moderator Note Now that's a HORRIBLE use of the word "ignorant". Why would you respond this way to someone asking you a question? Let me make this VERY CLEAR. When you make scientific claims on this site, the rules say you need to support that with evidence. When members ask you questions about your idea, you answer them as best you can, using evidence to support your arguments. You are demanding that people accept what you say, and this is a science site full of skeptics. You don't get away with such lazy, sloppy, rigor-free arguments. You need to either start asking questions instead of declaring things to be true, or you need to start providing supportive evidence for your claims. If you don't, your threads will be closed, and you can get suspended or banned. These are our rules, you aren't going to change them, it's the way the site administrator wants it to be. Get used to it, please. Next infraction buys you a two-week suspension. I encourage you to assess whether or not our level of rigor is right for your level of willingness to understand. I'm leaving this thread open. If your next response is to this note, or doesn't have any supportive evidence in it, the thread will be closed. I'm trying to give you every opportunity to share your ideas in a meaningful, rational way.

Let's pull back on the stick a bit. Asking "What is stopping you?" is not the same as saying "You should do it!"

Because you offend with this statement. It's like telling a professional athlete how he should compete and then asking why he's so offended since it's just a game. Theory isn't guesswork. Theory is the highest form of scientific explanation. You don't understand what theory means in science if you can say, "This just theory".

That's more insulting than being called a hypocrite. You don't know me very well, but I don't make such leaps. That's one of the most irrational arguments you've made so far, and it's completely unsupported. Please show where it was EVER implied by ANYONE that you're the only person who's ever thought this way. Wow! I see it's my mistake. You apparently don't mind wasting your time at all. I've hopefully provided some signal, but it's way too noisy for me now. I'm OK with being this type of hypocrite.

I think I see the problem here. You obviously think we're trying to protect "science" with our rules. We're not. We're trying to NOT waste member's time with WAGs and unsupported hand-waving. You're making the same mistake many anti-environmentalists make. It's not the world we're trying to save, it's our own environment. The world will be just fine, and science will endure. The mods are here to help ensure there's more signal than noise in your science discussion experience.

! Moderator Note If you post another thread like this, you'll face suspension. Making things up is not appreciated here. If you have serious assertions, we need more than just your wavy hands and leafy wordy make-believe. Please research what "evidence" means. Thread closed.

You're really the only person arguing that the Lounge is unfairly misleading. I don't find your arguments compelling enough to change it based on this instance, since the intent of the Lounge isn't that often misinterpreted. We will ABSOLUTELY NOT "take a very much greater attitude of leniency" towards any discussion. Even in the non-science areas like Politics, Religion, and the Lounge, we want critical thinking throughout. We want a higher standard. Honestly, this site has more value to science-minded people if we maintain MORE rigor rather than less. I think you need to ask yourself about what you value in science. If it's the wild-ass guesswork you're defending, then there are places on the web that will make you very happy. If you don't enjoy discussions that require reasoned, rational arguments, that don't allow people to make assertions they can't support, then we'll never make you happy. We'd like you to stay but we aren't going to start letting people do whatever they want in the Lounge. Most members understand that.

There's a lot of real estate between scientific peer review and Wild West guesswork. We've chosen a nice plot of land between the most popular (and most strict) science discussion forum, and the forums where just about anything goes. Our firm belief has always been that people who want to discuss serious science should be willing to put up with more rigorous requirements, within reason. We prefer our science to be mainstream, and our speculations to be backed up with at least an attempt at evidence. Unfortunately, there are a great many folks out there who's assessment of their own knowledge and abilities is overblown. They're like people who suddenly think they're great skiers, so instead of taking lessons or starting on the bunny slopes, they show up on the black runs, ready to take on people who've been skiing practically since birth.

The former are not very good at reading intention then, or have been battered into hypersensitivity elsewhere. The latter don't get away with it very long without some substance to their observations. Honestly, I fight with my own ignorance on a daily basis. One of the reasons I spend time here is the above average occurrence of humans trying to understand things as best they can, using tried and tested methods.

Pointing out a knowledge deficiency is hardly an insult. Ignorant ≠ stupid. By definition, a person can't be simply ignorant, they must be ignorant about something. I think it's different in spirit as well. Most comments that get called "stupid" are just uninformed or misinformed (lot of THAT going around these days). Calling them ignorant is accurate, and more objective.

! Moderator Note The rules are at the bottom of just about every page. Be civil. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.There's no need for this behavior. Fix it, please. This isn't up for argument, so there's no need to respond to this modnote in this thread. If you object, Report it.

! Moderator Note pittsburghjoe, you've failed to support your speculation in accordance with the rules of this section. Further, your continued attempts to redefine familiar terms like "dimension" lead you down the same untenable paths. You have no special intuition that allows you to skip studying science basics. I'm not sure where you got the idea that was possible, other than wishful thinking. Thread closed.

Your particular gripe is more about standards than rules. We want more rigorous science discussions than most sites do. Even in the Lounge the kind of guesswork you're defending is a waste of time, and not something we want to be connected with. We're a science discussion site, so I think it's implied that the Lounge is for discussing things other than science. While it's true that guesswork isn't science, it's always hoped that even Lounge discussions have meaningful foundations.

! Moderator Note Suddenly, everyone focused a bit more on the topic, and the thread was saved!

I don't think this is a good strategy for a discussion. It's like inviting people to a serious talk and then telling them the serious part isn't ready yet. This isn't like a movie trailer where you're whetting our appetite with some of the best scenes you've got. It's more like you're showing the outtakes.