Phi for All

Since the Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the "beginning of the universe", referring to it in this context isn't appropriate. It's like saying, "I have issues with the theory of evolution because I believe trying to predict when the sun will set is a contradiction in terms". It helps if you can understand the work you're criticizing.

Cue the music, get ready for the close-up, switch on the CG light bulb. Welcome to science.

The idea has always been that if someone supports a speculation well enough that none here can refute it, we'll move it into the appropriate mainstream section and continue discussion there. I've never seen anyone come close. Mostly, they just toss out guesses with little evidence to support the ideas, then ignore everyone who refutes their arguments. Or they ask the same questions over and over, like they either don't like the answers or they can't hold more than two things in their head at a time. This type of person typically bulldozes his way through thoughtful, intelligent replies like a rhino through lace, cherry-picking what they like and ignoring all else. It's still all unsupported guesswork, and we wouldn't mind talking about it so much if we thought there was a chance this person might actually listen to replies.

! Moderator Note I think that's the best advice for anyone following this thread: study up and come back armed with science knowledge! Thread closed.

I think it's clear what happens when the media that's supposed to keep us informed is focused more on money than on information. They feel required to do anything to keep you viewing to promote their numbers, and sensational terrorism like Trump means they don't have to do anything but point and record. The public is glued, screwed, and tattooed. And ultimately, it's auto-accident journalism. The public is at fault for not demanding better from the regulatory system governing the media, and from the media itself, but they can't look away. It's almost impossible to ignore it and take the high road. But why doesn't someone in the media realize the voice they're giving to terrorism, which would wither without global media coverage? When do they become responsible, when can they be held accountable for skewing elections, breeding more jihadists, creating gridlock by equating all sides of an argument?

You're delusional. That doesn't help.

To be fair, our brains lie to us a lot. I've come to think that science speculations like this happens because this is what the general public think scientists do, they guess and then check it out. It's what the general public does with lots of things. The average person who snoozed through science classes, only to later learn how important it was going to be, has no idea how much learning the way science works eliminates most of this type of speculation. As a working physicist, you probably have LOTS of ideas you're able to easily dismiss five minutes after you had them, because you can work out so much of it in your head, and recognize through finely honed critical thinking skills that "this idea will never work". I think some people without training and education in science spend years chasing down these rabbit holes, while you calmly run some calculations and easily see things are off by several orders of magnitude. I think people without this training and education would like to pretend it really doesn't matter, because they just KNOW they're right.

Here is what you're doing. You've done some research, but only very topically. You've grasped some concepts, and ignored others that didn't make sense to you, but are critical for understanding. But since you're only skimming, and not digging deep into the knowledge you're criticizing, you have patches of clarity in your explanation (the one only you can see in your head) but no continuous thread of evidence maintained rigorously that supports you. So you do what humans do better than anything, your brain stitches together those patches of clarity to make a pattern, and you end up filling in the blanks with guesswork, to make it seem "logical" to your brain. And the filled-in blanks make you think you've got a Eureka! moment on the horizon. You can't seem to grasp the right words for it, but you convince yourself you are right! The real problem is you don't know what you don't know, because you lack formal study. You probably also think it's too late for you to go back to school, or it would be too much work, or you have another excuse. You should combat your own ignorance, not compound it with this pointless guesswork. You should be asking questions, not telling everyone how things really work.

Questioning is great. What you do, the thing that removes you from the ranks of true skeptics, is your unwillingness to listen to informed rebuttal of your arguments. You tend to create a soapbox derby, where you make assertions, replies show where you're wrong or have no support, but you ignore them and just keep preaching. That's not what a skeptic does. You're no skeptic. Skeptics question, then they find out the best supported explanation, then they don't need to question that bit until there's conflicting evidence, and they move on with a bit more knowledge. Remaining an eternal skeptic is so counterproductive to science as to be a crime, imo. A crime against the learning process.

Without being too simplistic, we're seeing what happens when the extreme fundamentalists of a religion are given a world stage, which gives them money and influence to increase their efforts. Normally, their own societies would take care of such extremism, but these sects become armed, dangerous, and very difficult to deal with by normal, societal measures. Imagine the Westboro Baptist Church suddenly getting a big boost of money and weapons. And guidance from experts on waging shadow wars. They would probably also suddenly gain a bunch of new members who aren't as interested in killing LGBT folks as much as just killing in general. Causes like that always attract people for many reasons. They could easily go underground, split up into cells to make it harder for the FBI to identify them. Bob's your uncle, religious extremists become terrorists. Or they would say they're doing the Lord's work, which makes them Christian Soldiers.

But for a while, you had the better machine. While it was supported, the tapes were smaller, you had four heads vs VHS two heads, the quality was better, and you had justified bragging rights. By the time I could afford a VCR, VHS had won. But I have a buddy just like you, and he always argued that buying state-of-the-art was expensive, but you had technology nobody else would get for at least a year. You got to enjoy it while everyone else was waiting for the price to come down. He loved that, and I can see the appeal. Bringing this back to medicine, we need pioneering research and products. I look at this sort of like immigration. It's necessary if you want your population to grow. Holding on to the old because it would cost jobs isn't very progressive. Look at how long we've held on to fossil fuels for many of the same reasons. Electric cars won't kill oil, but maybe it will promote more responsible use of it. Similarly, medicine will benefit from cures, and since something else always seems to crop up, it will make room for more research to end the new maladies.

They say every time a bell is rung, it means a LDS has slipped on the way over.

! Moderator Note Hey! Deep breaths, please. Let's focus on the arguments and avoid making things personal. And report this if you want to respond to it, but don't bring it up in the thread.

I don't think that's EVER the way to look at it. Dyson forced giants like Hoover to abandon most of their product lines when he popularized the bagless vacuum cleaner. Iirc, selling people disposable bags was a US$3B industry, turned on its head practically overnight. Sure, some jobs shifted, but Hoover is still around, Dyson has moved on to electric cars I'm told, and the world is a better place for all that, at least when it comes to extra bags in the landfills. As far as the business of medicine, it's really a poor industry to apply business models to. We want care and maintenance to grow, but not diseases and pharmaceuticals. It really bothers me to think some of these folks have money as the priority, rather than helping people treat or avoid disease in a high-density society.

Showing where your ideas lack support isn't ridiculing you. Nobody needs martyrs in science.

That would only be true if there was no gravitational field. Weight measures the pull of gravity.

I don't think there's anything inherent about technological progress that erodes moral fortitude. I think modern marketing wants as wide-open a path to your money as it can get, so they always push the boundaries of what's allowed. Our entertainment used to be more heavily regulated. Some of the shows we watch today would have brought shocked reaction if they aired 20 years ago. Producers would have been crucified. It is interesting to note the attitude towards foul language. It used to be more heavily enforced, but now the perspective seems to be, "These kids hear worse in school all day". Well, of course they have, that's not the point. Do they need to hear it all evening, too?

! Moderator Note Waiting for the "theory". No more wasting people's time for you. Thread closed.

If you knew the theory better, and still had a problem with it, we'd all expect you to ask questions, to help you find out if the problem belongs to you or the theory. When you admit you don't understand the math involved, and show us that you have many misconceptions about the theory (all of which are being patiently pointed out to you, as part of a rigorous methodology), then it becomes a matter of misunderstanding, rather than "going against 'accepted' principles". Does that make sense?

I like that one. That's the way it always seems to me, that the person who wants to overturn modern science based on yootoob vids and Discovery Channel documentalmasturbations is like someone who walks in on a bunch of pro footballers and declares, "I have a way you can win without using your feet at all! And the money you'll save on shoes...."

I don't think you provide enough benefit to justify all the time you suck from reasonable, qualified scientists on this site. You force crackpot ideas in where they don't belong, you can't seem to keep information given to you in your head for more than a couple of posts so you keep asking for it over and over, and you pick on things like our moderation of thread-hijacking, like you don't understand why anyone would actually want you to stay on topic. Some of the very people you're criticizing now with this stupid, stupid, incessant badgering just don't deserve it. Your signal to noise ratio requires sifting through your posts to find any relevance. I just can't believe you get kicked out of so many discussion sites for this kind of behavior, yet you never change, you never seem to equate the two. "What trouble have I caused?" Clues = 0. As you can tell, I've lost all patience with you. I'm amazed (and saddened) that you still get such excellent replies, though you mostly ignore them.

You're just wrong. The passion for science is learning it the right way, not by cobbling together an approximation from sources that are only interested in sensational things they hope will keep you watching, for profit. Once you understand why science is SO SUCCESSFUL, you'll understand that removing emotion from your research, taking a more dispassionate attitude, will help you remove the kind of subjectivity that fuels your emotional attachment. Passion is your enemy once you start using the scientific method. And that's not to say you shouldn't have passion for your work. It's just that you should have that passion because you studied science the right way, not from TV. TV representations are crude and don't give a deep enough explanation, and almost never include tie-ins with other disciplines. Science knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle cut from the skins of an onion the size of our planet. They intertwine and support and form deep connections. Popsci representations just can't be as detailed as the average viewer can handle, but needs to understand the subject. Remember, science isn't about proving anything, and it's certainly not about proving your idea is right. All we can do is correct mistakes, refute what doesn't match reality, and compile evidence to support our ideas. You've put so much emotional attachment into this idea, that now even though you keep seeing assertions you've made shot down, you're still convinced you're right. That's not science.

Tolerance means a dialogue can happen. After that, many things are possible, most good, some bad. Brussels has nothing to do with tolerance, imo. It's more a question of vigilance, but I think Brussels shows that it's possible to be tolerant, vigilant, and still be vulnerable to extremists.

Holy crap, why don't you just grow up, and accept that you made a mistake, and OWN IT? You're the one who can't resist commenting like a juvenile on legitimate criticism. What, does nobody question your behavior where you live?

Abuse isn't tolerated much when it's all volunteers giving of their time. You are far more trouble than you're worth, even as a negative example.