Phi for All

I sure would like to see some science being discussed. This hand-waving just doesn't cut it.

An even better idea is for Obama to nominate himself. That way a lot of extremist conservatives die from head explosions, and the gridlock ends.

! Moderator Note Once again, this isn't the Wishful Thinking section, or the Let's Make a Guess section. We don't have areas like that. We prefer to discuss science. Thread closed for lack of minimum rigor for Speculations.

There are an inordinate amount of Solar Global Warming denialists from Scotland.

What I don't get is why they think the Donald is going to suddenly be a champion of the working class. If he can make more money replacing you with foreign labor or a robot, do you think he'd hesitate to call you into his office and tell you, "You're FIRED!" He'll sell a LOT OF BOMBS for his friends in the industry, but do you think he's going to demand that the workers get paid commensurate with their productivity? What about the Donald would lead anyone to think that?! Why does anyone listen to the lies that come out of his head?

In the past, what we gave illegal immigrants was a completely mixed message. We needed the labor, those laborers bought local goods and paid into local economies, business owners were happy. Until someone bitches about losing the jobs they were doing. Then they round them up and ship them back over the borders. Now that the jobs are available, the bitchers don't take them, and so the illegals need to sneak back. The "laws" are enforced with discrimination and inconsistency. The laws allow those who want cheap labor to get it, while at the same time holding a threat over them to keep quiet and stay away from the authorities. Isn't it better to find a way to make these people legal, these folks who want to live here so badly they'll play ball with such a weird system?

! Moderator Note OK, we're up to four pages now, and I still don't see much rigor. Lots of denial and hand-waving, lots of basic misunderstandings (I could list them, but a re-read is probably a good idea), lots of sound explanations rejected over incredulity. Very bad form for scientific inquiries. Last warning. This thread is in danger of being closed. Please answer all the questions put to you (a great way to learn), and don't just cherry-pick the ones you like. This seems to lead you to rejecting everyone's explanations. More rigor, please. No response to this note is necessary.

That isn't discussion. That's blogging, or preaching, or soapboxing. That's not what this forum is about.

What's the best way to convert this heat to electricity?

This is how it seems for someone looking at your posts. I have seen multiple people offer you valid, sound advice on overcoming some of the hurdles and obstacles you've chosen to share. I have not seen you take ANY of it on board, not once. You argue when someone tries to offer their perspective, and so it seems like it's rather pointless talking to you. You'll never change, that's what this attitude of yours says to me. Why discuss anything with a person whose mind is made up? It's very much like you're disgusted by the knowledge others are trying to pass on. What's up with that, anyway (cue defensive denials)?

Because porn makes you forget to use protection?! That would make me itchy too.

They aren't keen on paying for infrastructure, because they know it's so necessary that eventually the middle and lower classes will have to pay for it just to maintain its poor condition. Who wouldn't like a deal where you get to use the roads and airports and marine ports, while someone else (who doesn't use them nearly as much as you) pays to maintain them? But road maintenance seems to be different. Since it's mostly privatized, using state and federal contracts, they've figured out how to grow maintaining roads in the US into an enormous business. If you drive on asphalt the day you put it down, that road will need maintenance as early as next year, and that's REALLY GOOD FOR BUSINESS, but not for the city, county, state, or country. Is anyone surprised to hear that the US government gets gouged on private infrastructure contracts? At least compared to their first-world European counterparts.

I suppose, if the Republican Party gets to continue on their present course, Americans will eventually cost less to employ than their foreign counterparts, so the businesses will get to move back tax-free, using all the infrastructure for free while their workers pay for it. I think this is their Job-Creator strategy. We're welcome.

! Moderator Note This lacks all rigor. You're just claiming this with nothing to support your idea except "It doesn't seem likely to me". This is known as the Argument from Incredulity, it's a logical fallacy, and a poor method of learning. If their are videos out there that claim the physical laws are wrong, please DO NOT post them here, but rather, as Mordred asks, summarize the conclusions you think they present that show where physics isn't being followed. Please, please, support your claims with evidence, not fallacious logic.

The organic molecules were formed starting with inorganic precursors, as the link mentions. How is that not abiogenesis? This experiment is normally considered the hallmark piece for a purely chemical origin of life. I don't know if panspermia has this much evidence to support it, but it's also another theory that describes mechanisms that might account for our origins. The point is, I was objecting when you claimed "We can't explain abiogenesis". We have some great explanations. It's up to you to decide which version has the preponderance of evidence on it's side. That's how science works. Excellent. I was also objecting when you claimed "There is always an argument for those who believe". I don't consider the supernatural to be an argument either, so now I'm curious why you think this.

There is one flaw in your argument, MigL. What makes tar capable of deciding if welfare benefits are adequate or not? It sounds like he's not accessing that program yet, so how on Earth could he, or you, or I, know? He can only tell us what he thinks he's willing to give up to offset the privilege he's heir to. That's always going to vary from person to person, which is exactly what we want to avoid. Fortunately, those kinds of parameters are usually taken out of the hands of those who don't have the training or experience, and acceptable levels should be determined, not by tar or you or I, but by those who can assess the various and variable situations in context. Just like it's kind of STUPID to allow an insurance company to have first say in your healthcare, rather than you or your doctor, it's kind of STUPID to allow tar or any of us to determine what form welfare should take. Shouldn't the families it's designed to help be the focus, concentrating on ways to help them be what they want to be, a productive part of the economy, and the society? This is what leaves most Republican politicians inadequate in my eyes. To my mind, you decide to level the field, or you don't. Either give people a chance to overcome circumstances of birth as an investment in the potential they represent, or tell them to fend for themselves, too bad about that. This bullshit where we pretend to be generous while keeping one foot on the necks of welfare recipients has got to stop. But the Republican politicians keep pandering to the "judgement" crowd, those who imagine welfare as non-stop parties for the lazy, so they can whine about lowering taxes and cutting social programs, because they're so unfair to the well-to-do.

Are you familiar with the Miller - Urey experiment? What about my second question? Why argue for a supernatural explanation when science has done so well with the natural ones?

What specifically can't we explain scientifically? And why argue for a supernatural explanation when science has done so well with the natural ones?

That's not how we define speculation here. This is guessing. Anyone, anywhere can guess and talk to people about his/her guesses. But that doesn't make it interesting to people who like science. Science has a methodology for removing guesswork, for making our explanations more trustworthy. This is what people come here to discuss. Without support from reality, it's not science. Sorry, but that's why we're here, that's why most people come here, to discuss science.

That's not supportive evidence for the weird, extraordinary claims you're making. And it's clear you don't really understand evolution. It's also a bit disingenuous to claim reptiles were prominent for a longer time than primates. They we're, but we're not done yet. That's like saying the Roman Empire was better than the United States for the same reasons. Why would you ever think reptiles "advanced to similar levels to our current levels in the past"? Why didn't they leave cities or artifacts then? That would be the kind of evidence we're looking for, something that supports your idea better than just hand-waiving insistence.

Guesswork, or do you have any evidence? Because without any evidence, your requisite that "they hide themselves" is the sort of magic that takes this inquiry out of the realm of science. Then you claim they aren't aliens. How do you know? Without evidence? As for evolution, there's no goal, no peak, no ultimate creature, no hierarchy of improvements. It's a process, ongoing and inevitable. Nothing had a "head start" on us, as far as evolution goes (all we vertebrates started as a small fish). We may not have lots of the traits other creatures have, but contrary to your title, we are so very smart that we can overcome just about every disadvantage.

The continual calls for clarity, meaning, and evidence seem more important to Petrushka than learning anything about his questions. He repeats this pattern continually, and so it must give him what he really wants. His threads are like 25% content, 75% respondants asking what he's talking about. Petrushka seems to love all the confusion his usage of terminology, generalized assumptions, and lack of rigor create. A couple of years of this behavior leads me to this conclusion.

Reason? Closed to reason?!

But what's our pace now, taking two steps forward, then two back?

I agree that the attempts to procure illicit favors and exemptions is inevitable; the nature of business is built on seizing opportunities in any way they can get away with. It's the "get away with" process I'd name as one of our biggest problems. It's not a purely Republican Party-caused situation. There are conservative Democrats also guilty of greasing the skids on the way down for many, while accepting favors and funding from the few who can afford to pillage legally. We need to close the loopholes and the engineered thuggery that allow our processes to be compromised. I agree that this is a problem of our government, and not the mega-corps. But if we don't take a hard look at what the mega-corps are doing, and getting away with, our government can't shore up it's regulations and bring these bandits, who seem to have little allegiance to the country that gives them charter to do business in the first place, to heel. This seems to be a separate problem we have. One administration does something they feel is positive (Jimmy Carter and the White House solar project), and another administration tears it down (Ronald Reagan ripping out Carter's working solar panels for no reason). In many cases, acts likes this are completely politically motivated, which translates to mega-corporation motivated. FEMA, same thing. During Republican administrations, programs like these get dumped to the side, underfunded and headed by a lame appointee who's owed favors. And so the program underperforms, and they point to how ineffective it is. Under administrations that care about the programs, they flourish and perform brilliantly, just like they were designed to. Just like they were designed to. It would be in the country's best interest, imo, to enact some safeguards for such programs, so their funding can't be tampered with, can't be manipulated into crippling stagnation, can't be used to make special favors happen for special companies. If we ever got single-payer universal healthcare (Medicare!), or open education in human knowledge through community college, I'd like to see some language in the bills that keeps any future administrations from bleeding them to make them look sick, or hogtie its officials to reduce their capabilities and make them look bad. We'd need to make sure we can dismantle them or fix them when circumstances warrant, of course, but I'd like to see some discussion about ways to prevent what happens when a conservative administration starts undoing all the social work a previous administration enacted. Perhaps this could be avoided by simply changing from a winner-takes-all voting system.