Phi for All

People with poor critical thinking skills rely much more on their emotions to tell them how the world works. They pose a question to themselves, figure out something that "feels right", and consider that question answered. No amount of reason is going to change their minds on the subject, and might actually make them believe their own gut feeling even more. You need to learn how to deal with folks like this via emotion. Reasoning does little. If she's convinced Breatharianism is real, tell her you heard that Breatharianism was started by a Big Pharma company with a treatment for skin cancer, as a way to get people to stay out in the sun too long. When she presses you for details, tell her that's all you know about it. Don't give her data; let her emotions work on the information. As for the chakras and yoga, do you consider this an obsession? You don't say how old your mother is. I can tell you that as you get older, you need some extra stretching and movement to keep your body limber. On the other hand, if she's not eating right, she's going to be feeling wrong no matter what. If she's not getting the right nutrients, the extra sunlight doesn't have the right materials to work with. Figure out how to make this an emotional appeal that dovetails with the idea of light being sustenance. You can make this work, but you need to modify her behavior by first modifying your own. Try a different approach.

We see this phenomena here too often, where someone objects because they perceive a lack or a wrongness in certain theories, but are unable to say exactly what is lacking or wrong. It usually ends up being a lack of knowledge about the theory, or a misunderstanding of its fundamentals. Is this some kind of popsci backwash we're experiencing, where people think nothing has been written if they haven't read it? This smells a lot like no research has been done to confirm that no research has been done.

Why don't you come up with a term for your "something different entirely", and leave the definition of intelligence as it is? It's not a presupposition, it's something that's been studied quite intently.

While I agree that one can't simply claim humans are the smartest animals, our high intelligence is unmistakable and was paid for in stark evolutionary terms. We gave up a lot to get it, and when it's combined with our cooperative nature, our communication skills, and our tool-making ability (to name a few of the most important traits), it paves the way for the kind of advanced societies we have today. I don't think it takes away from any other animal's amazing abilities to say that about humans. I don't think you need to invent a "true intellect of the universe" just because humans can be arrogant about their intelligence. Especially instinct. Instinct is amazing, but it can be pretty blind for a "true intellect of the universe". I'm thinking now of a documentary I saw where a big fish is munching on a medium fish. While his tail half is being eaten, the medium fish is still being driven by instinct to munch on a tiny fish that wanders too close to his mouth. Is this an example of the instinct to eat overriding the instinct to flee? I'm human. I'll take cognitive reasoning for the win.

It's important to realize how important high intelligence is, but we should also be intelligent enough to understand that any single aspect of our abilities means nothing by itself. In some situations and contexts, humans are the most successful species known. Humans are the only species capable of leaving the planet. But put us naked in the middle of the ocean, without access to tools or tool-making, and we'd be less successful than a herring. We also need to realize how we're supposed to fit with the rest of life on the planet. The herring provides the basis for an enormous and intricate food chain responsible for billions of other creatures. Our intelligence requires us to use it reasonably, imo.

! Moderator Note Please provide a direction for discussion. This is not a blog or a wiki. It's a science discussion forum.

I don't see any evidence for god(s), but I also don't see that those definitions of energy are all that different. The second one gives a source for the energy, and the first one seems more about attitude, but both describe how it's used for work. If a god is using chemistry and physics for energy, how do we tell the difference between its work and what goes on normally in the universe?

! Moderator Note This thread is in Biology. If you wish to discuss religion, we have a separate section for that. Please don't take this thread off topic.

Very unscientific. Your position should be supported by evidence. If you're having trouble with science, look no further for the culprit. You're right to call this process ass-backwards. iNow's position is supported. Have you ever seen some of the studies on chimps and visual memorization? Chimps can beat humans in certain games that require you to match numbers and placement, and they can do it with astonishing speed. In some aspects of intelligence, chimps are smarter, and so your conclusions were inaccurate. As iNow pointed out, in a non-hostile, attack-the-idea sort of way.

Usually, this question presupposes you can't tell. Which makes it fairly meaningless. I don't mind that a question doesn't have an answer, but it bunches my undies when it CAN'T have one.

If we're supposed to stop looking when we think we've found the answer, then the world is flat and everything revolves around it. Stars are just holes in the black fabric masking us from Heaven. We ARE the smartest species overall on the planet. Other species might be smarter in different aspects of intelligence. Chimps have better visual memorization than we do, for instance. But overall, we have advanced cognitive abilities across the board that gives us superior intelligence. I don't think that's arrogance talking.

Come on, you're assigning a very specific meaning to the quote, and then berating zapatos for not adhering to that meaning. It can easily be argued that living a day as a lion simply means living free, being your own boss, afraid of nobody even if it's just one day, as opposed to living like everyone else who is afraid and needs someone else to protect them for their whole lives. It doesn't have to be about killing, or magic, or eating, and I think that's what zapatos has been trying to say. Your interpretation isn't the only one. We should move on.

Custom answers $50 / 20 minutes

! Moderator Note lhcisphysicist, you need to show evidence in support of your assertions. There have also been some posts refuting specific parts of your science. You need to address those by either altering your ideas, or showing where the refutations are wrong. If you make an assertion that is trivially falsifiable (like the laws of physics change the further we move away from our sun), you have to provide evidence. We have a LOT of evidence that they don't change, so you would need a LOT MORE evidence to convince anyone you may be right. If you could provide any evidence at all that supports your ideas, now is the time to do it. If you're just guessing, say so. If you continue to make assertions, then support them with evidence. Don't respond to this note, respond to the other member's questions.

Have you ever seen an air cannon blow a smoke ring? Study the physics of a toroidal vortex to "see" how oxygen and nitrogen react as a fluid.

Our minds look at all the evidence and find the preponderance of it refutes what you believe. Reality simply doesn't support you. Your mind is convinced what you believe is right despite a complete lack of evidence. Your faith means you think you know things you can't possibly know. I'm sorry, whose mind is closed?

! Moderator Note The topic is Atheism and Spirituality. Please stay on topic.

I tried to edit someone else's post that got messed up in quotes, and I think part of the problem was that the person he was quoting was using different fonts, sizes, and emphases that may have confused the software. It placed three /quote tags at the end that were quite persistent.

...or aren't being informed by their choice of media. I've noticed that since the GOP nomination was secured, FOX News has seriously curtailed their negativity about T. Besides NPR and BBC News, I read HuffPost and Fox for the extreme views, and FOX hardly mentioned the "2nd Amendment citizens" gaffe, and this morning had zilch on the campaign's alleged funding from the Russians. They had 3 stories about Clinton's email, though.

He's a box-seats kind of guy. He believes exclusivity and privilege trump knowledge and tolerance. He doesn't think outside the box-seats; he doesn't see them as boundaries, but rather that they define and highlight him.

Biochemical reactions are hardly random, but I also wouldn't call them "planned" or "intelligent". They're definitely guided by the laws of physics and reality, though. If you studied these from a science source instead of a religious source, the emphasis would be on evidence instead of belief. If you knew every component of a reaction, you could guide it to react in the specifically efficient way nature does, without taking such large amounts of time to stumble upon it through trial and error. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution explains the development of life on this planet.

One more thought. People aren't the labels we give them, or they shouldn't be. Just like in a good discussion, we should attack ideas, not people. Your in-laws aren't racists, they've just done and said racist things. The things people do and say can change. Give it more time for you to rub off on them (sorry, non-native English speakers, weird idiom). You're leading by example here by being the people you are, and hopefully your influence will positively affect your children's grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, if you allow them that benefit. What you're considering sounds a lot like punishing your in-laws by banishing you and your wife. I think I heard this analogy first from iNow in another thread, but that's like drinking poison and expecting it to kill someone else.

Oooh, definitely c), my man. As iNow says, the woman you want to share your life with needs to be happy, and that usually means juggling that in-law hornet's nest rather than punting it downfield the way you'd like. You're looking at this the wrong way. Why would bigots/racists/pigs want to pay attention to anything cool your awesome fiance does? I would expect people like that to flap their arms and fly first. Also, why would you want her family to pay more attention to her? This seems like one of those "be careful what you ask for" situations. They have no idea what they're missing, and that means you share her less with them. I'm betting, if you analyze the family visits over the years, your fiance spends just enough time with her family to remind her why she prefers to spend time with you. And I'm also betting that one of the things she loves best about you is your ability to keep the peace with her crazy relatives and not blow up at them, despite what you say about them as you're driving home. Or post on science forums.

I'm afraid it's worse than that. He's willing to IMAGINE evidence that scientists "are very close-minded people who don't like to admit that their cherished theories could be wrong" in order to believe a human could implausibly live to 250 years with zero evidence. Cognitive bias 1, Reason 0.

I think the lion is the perfect symbol for Trump. He owes much to the women in his life but ignores the fact. He's loud and gets all the attention while others take care of business. His mane is part of his identity. He cares for others only as long as they support his pride. And of course, the homonym for lion is....