Phi for All

Iirc, any practical uses that were proposed got stopped by storage problems. It quickly explodes if you try to compress it.

Or... or, it could be that we use functions like View New Content (and Quote, Multiquote), that show recent threads we haven't read. That I couldn't possibly have come across your recent posts without some sort of agenda is an argument from incredulity, and it's trivially false. I follow a limited number of threads, and I update myself when a new post is added. I read the discussions and follow along as best I can, and when someone breaks the rules, I can point that out if I'm not involved. If I'm part of the discussion, I use the Report function instead. As far as impossible demands, I don't know where that's coming from. You may be asked to support something unsupportable, but is that the fault of the staff, or science, or is it your fault for guessing without building a case and asserting it as true?

Lol. Delusional, too. On his deathbed, but would love it if Drumpf could shake his hand before turning off the respirator.

Is it just me, or is "Hypocrisy" starting to sound like a pretty good title for this thread? From where I stand, it looks like someone is setting himself up to be an unquestioned authority about those who would set themselves up as unquestioned authorities. Seven pages of axe-grinding, which has enjoyed complete freedom since it has conformed to the rules the staff is supposed to enforce, and yet there is still no clear argument about the hypocrisy we've been perpetrating. But now proximity1 is starting to bring this subject up in other threads, which IS breaking the rules about off-topic chatter. When we enforce the rules, I hope nobody will be such a hypocrite that they object on the grounds of censorship.

Black holes aren't infinitely dense. Their volume has been infinitely compressed, which just means that mathematically we don't know what's going on in there when so much mass is so dense. That's the way I understand it.

! Moderator Note Discussions can't be based on links alone. Please give an overview of what you wish to discuss. Topics must be discussable without leaving the site.

As a species, we've benefited proportionally as we gain intelligence from figuring out accurate ways to predict what will happen. Modern free societies require more levels of information than ever, in order to form appropriate responses that don't waste resources. I find this recent move to equate how people feel about crime with actual statistics on crime appalling. How we feel should be shaped by the facts, not by how well the media can push on our emotions.

! Moderator Note Ignoring everything I said isn't a good strategy. This is a science discussion forum, and we need some science. You can bring this subject up again in Speculations, but don't bother if you're not prepared to offer evidence, or make sense. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note adham128, as a new member, you won't be able to post links for a while (we have spammer problems). In any case, members need to be able to discuss your topic without clicking links or leaving the site. Please post what you can here, and provide supportive evidence. You need to do more than wave your hands and declare you have a "theory". Science is about the explanations that carry the preponderance of evidence to support them. We don't discuss guesswork here. If you can't provide evidence for your idea, there's no point in keeping the thread open, so please gather what you have and make your case. If your idea contradicts mainstream Relativity, I'll move it to our Speculations section. I would suggest that perhaps you ask more questions and use some punctuation to better communicate your concepts.

In philosophy? I think you'd have to strip it down to knowledge in general. There are lots of folks who think knowledge is power and they withhold it to gain an edge. I think the best way to have a meaningful, cooperative, globally linked human society is if the knowledge we've gained as a species is made available to all. That includes accurate news coverage meant to inform rather than persuade. Intelligence is our forte, but only if we're accurately informed.

I'm disappointed you chose not to answer the questions, and instead pursue trying to change the rules on dispensing medical advice. We're not going to change. I completely disagree with your contention that self-remedies are something to be encouraged. I'm going to recommend to staff that this be closed now.

Don't forget that for most legislation aimed at meeting target numbers for things like healthcare and education, someone affiliated with the legislation will have a relative who just happens to offer courses in how to meet those numbers... for a price. It sure worked for Neil Bush after his brother passed No Child Left Behind.

In the title is "can't diagnose your condition". Without clarification, it's hard to decide if that means they are unable to figure out the cause of an existing condition, or if they can't find anything wrong that matches the symptoms claimed by the OP. How does the NHS deal with the latter? How many times can you go to the doctor with your complaint and have them find nothing wrong with you? On the other hand, any respectable physician who can observe that there is a problem but has no idea how to treat it would probably refer you. Absolutely. Stress like that makes everything harder.

All those people were necessary to give you an enlightened perspective. Negative examples can teach, and sometimes we understand those lessons better having come to them from a different angle. Be careful of truth, capital T or not. It's not what science is after. The only truth I see here is that everybody seems to be necessary at some point or other. If you want to be a Humanist, I think you need to look at humanity, not humans.

It's much more likely that an emotional appeal will be effective against an emotional argument. The only rational argument I haven't tried against this kind of cognitive bias is high intelligence. I think this type of thinking is, at its core, an attempt to understand a pattern using bad (or too little good) information. We tend to get information "pre-packaged" these days, as opposed to getting more or less raw data and informing ourselves. Our incredibly smart brains fill in gaps so they "make sense" rather than reflect reality. We can often trick ourselves that an explanation "feels right", and let that override reason. It could work, I suppose, but most people aren't reasonable about being unreasonable.

As far as locking threads offering medical advice, a HUGE part of medical diagnosis is being able to physically examine the patient. Just writing down what YOU think is wrong is pointless, since you're not a medical professional. Getting advice from other non-professionals over the internet could be very dangerous. If you started asking for medical advice, I'd want to shut down the thread for your sake. As long as nobody is prescribing any kind of treatment for you, we can discuss your OP. I'd like to know if your many doctors have told you either 1) there is definitely something wrong with you but they don't know what it is, or 2) they can't find anything physiologically wrong with you. If the answer is 1, you should be able to get referrals to more specialized medicine (although I don't know anything about your healthcare system). If the answer is 2, then you could be exhibiting signs of hypochondria (something also made worse by internet diagnoses). Whether that's true or not, it may be what the doctors think if they can't find anything wrong. In either case, documentation of the evidence can't hurt, and may show the next doctor that you need further testing.

Isn't that true of most things, though, that we need the skills to be adept? I don't think being inclined towards science denies you access to the skillset of an artist, or the other way around. We have a tendency to group things into understandable patterns, but in reality most skills are blended, and it's hard to say where the rational ends and the imaginative begins. If there is a synthesis, it's in the ways our intelligence compounds itself through our skills, I think.

Crude? Hmmm, I don't think so. Unadorned? Utilitarian? But definitely NOT unsophisticated.

You've been given many workarounds, so your attempts to insult our technology are very ironic. Especially when it's you who seems limited, and therefore antiquated.

Or is it homework?

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.