Phi for All

If that's just a patch of skin that's extremely dry, you'd expect it to come back between exfoliations. There are sebaceous glands near the eyes that make it difficult to keep the skin moisturized. You might want to try a moisturizing gel rather than the Cetaphil. Gels won't have the heavier oils the lotions tend to have. What temporal units are you using for the phrase "it comes right back"?

If you stick your head up your ass and deny it exists, the facts don't matter. It just looks funnier when you're waving your arms.

I'm not sure it's necessary to have the exact name for that spot (I'd call it the skin covering the nasium where it meets the eyes, not very technical). Procedures for addressing dry skin around the eyes in general should be adequate for you. Avoid oils around the eyes, these can lead to clogged pores and styes, and ocular problems as well. The skin is very thin around the eyes. Exfoliating can help with dryness, removing corneocytes that can build up when the skin is very thin. Drink lots of water, it's good for all your skin.

! Moderator Note WARNING! YOU HAVE INCORRECTLY QUOTED A FELLOW MEMBER, PURPOSELY CHANGING WHAT THEY SAID. THIS VIOLATION WILL BE MET WITH SWIFT ACTION. COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE TEAM WE'VE DISPATCHED AND YOUR PUNISHMENT WILL BE MERCIFUL. MAYBE.

But one with great consequences. Our early ability to imagine predators in the shadows may have aided our survival and kept us able to evolve, but it also led to imagining many other things we couldn't see. Most are wishful thinking, a few help us plan for the future. Just like lying; mostly a bad thing, but it also demonstrates that we're focused on a better future. But the cost is very high. When others can just make up stuff and label it "Omnipotence from God", and you believe it's True, you give up any power and critical thought you might have had. You're at the mercy of an untrustworthy explanation, one that the people who made it up want you to take on faith, because rationally it makes no sense. Science is trustworthy. Scientists will stone you with evidence instead of rocks, and won't let anyone get away with guesswork when empirical observation and the scientific method produce measurably more productive results.

Depending on the chemo drugs used and other factors, reducing protein and caloric intake could jeopardize the patient's health, hampering the recovery process. Those drugs take their toll on healthy cells too, and it's important to eat right during an infusion procedure. If the patient wasn't already on chemo, the fasting might make more sense (although I haven't seen much in support of alternative medicines in this area, mostly anecdotal stories about success, but all within statistical averages). If it were me, I wouldn't fast while also on chemo. You need to keep your immune system strong.

! Moderator Note We have a Religion section where you can discuss belief. This is not a section where you can mix it with science. You came to a science discussion forum with the intent to share your idea. It's a bit irrational that you spend so much of your time disagreeing with the basic science concepts our experts are trying to help you with. It would be much more productive to listen to what they have to say, since we assume that's why you came here. We need you to do more than wave your hands and disagree. These aren't opinions, most of this is available from formal educational processes (of which web-based, simplified, popular science doesn't qualify). Evidence is needed to support any idea. Your ideas are in verbal form rather than using a mathematical model. You feel this gives it power, but what it does is leave your idea open to too many interpretations, especially since you've chosen to redefine words that already have specific meanings in science. I've said this so many times before to so many smart people like yourself. The start of an idea needs to be sound. If someone told you they were building their dream home on a foundation of concrete mixed with Jello, you'd immediately question if that's a good idea. You'd be skeptical, hopefully, and that's what our expert are being. Please spend more time in support of your idea, and less griping about the help that's being offered. Everyone assumes you want to be rigorous about this, otherwise your hard work is wasted. If we can't move away from the current trajectory of this thread, we'll have to close it until you can provide better evidential support. Please don't respond to this note here in the thread. If you object to it, Report it and another staff member will deal with it. Thanks for your understanding.

"Fittest" is unfortunately one of those terms that's vague enough to satisfy a media sound byte. It allows for too much interpretation that has nothing to do with evolution. I once heard a guy loudly proclaim "Survival of the fittest!" after he chugged his large beer at a bar. He was so blotto I doubt he was able to pass his genes along that night.

! Moderator Note OK, we've had enough speculative hijacks in the mainstream sections from you. From now on, your posts need to be approved by staff before they show up in mainstream sections, to make sure you aren't trying to introduce some unsupported and trivially wrong pet theory.

You know, I told you in post #5 that it's not about being offended, and in post #6 you ask why scientists get so offended. It's clear you're not hear to discuss, otherwise you might actually be reading responses and not ignoring them. We need to cut back on the ludicrousness that's showing up on our front page. It reads like a middle school diatribe about how hard homework is. This thread was just one big soapbox. It's done now.

! Moderator Note Please give us a synopsis of "what he is saying" that you find hard to refute. One of our rules states that discussions must be accessible without leaving the site. This helps us cut down on people who are promoting their yootoob channels, or crackpots masquerading as their own detractors. Nobody is going to invest half an hour to hear creationist misrepresentations of evolution. Thanks, we'd all appreciate it. No need to respond to this modnote, but you can report it if you feel it's unfair. Report Post is at the bottom of every post.

A task made more difficult by the claims (admittedly from other threads) that one should detach from what others say, and explore the Truth available in Your Mind Only.

This is what preaching leads to, the assumption you know the "answers [i'm] looking for". And that you can know the future. From my experience, your way of thinking leads to ignoring opportunities to learn more about the real world. How you think you can derive any meaning from what you think are simple answers that don't take real observation into account is beyond me. It seems destined to promote irrational fears and irrational solutions to those fears. On the other hand, knowledge banishes fear, and it's quite understandable that a person raised in a heavily religious environment, with all the judgement, fear of death, and irrational acceptance of an unovservable higher power, might not understand that mechanism as well as someone who has seen the benefits of an education that promotes critical thinking.

It's baffling to me how people hear over and over that science is focused on evidence, but then bitch when a counter-claim is dismissed for lack of it. Why is this such a hard hurdle to jump? I keep picturing these people jumping up and down, flapping arms and waiving hands, screaming "It's real, it's REAL!" while the scientist sits calmly asking for evidence in support. They just keep jumping, and the scientist just keeps asking. And nobody learns anything.

I agree with Ophiolite. You have it backwards. Intelligence has merit, in any organized group of humans. It's the cornerstone trait that we paid a lot to have in the evolutionary sense. Some of our other best traits, like communication, cooperation, and tool use are greatly enhanced by intelligence, and we easily see this in most people. So it's natural that a group of humans would tend to give authority to those who show the most merit, which is often being smarter than average. The intelligence makes the authority probable, not the other way around. And since we observe a LOT more global progress and good deeds come from cooperation, communication, intelligence, and tool use than we do from individuals who've chosen to cut themselves off from ways to overcome ignorance, who choose to "detach from the world" and pretend they've found enlightenment in their own minds, I'd say you've got a lot more backwards than you know. Btw, if you want to change the world by detaching yourself from it mentally, you should start by not using the web. It's a bit hypocritical for you to use this pulpit for that message, isn't it?

I think popular media has rewritten the definition of a lot of scientific concepts to dumb them down for the non-scientist reader. Theory and logic are the two most misused. They've redefined "theory" to mean "an untested guess that may have merit", when real theories are the culmination of thousands of scientists working to build meticulous models that accurately describe specific phenomena. There's no guesswork involved at all by the time science starts calling an hypothesis an actual theory. Theories are the most trustworthy explanations we currently have. Logic is mathematical reasoning that follows a rigorous course to derive meaning. It's not just something that "makes sense to me". Logic is not subjective or individual; it would be worthless as a tool if it were. So we're not assuming that scientific logic and reason only belong to scientific thinkers. We're observing the evidence that you're talking about a popular version of "logic" (this-makes-sense-to-me), and then claiming to be persecuted when you get replies, from a science discussion site, that use the scientific definition. I hope you read all of this, and will not simply be responding emotionally to one of the first few things I said.

I read your posts and it's patently obvious that you just talk to talk. You aren't taking ANYTHING anyone is saying on board, you don't acknowledging good points without necessarily agreeing or changing your mind. This tells us you have an agenda that won't be affected by us at all. I'm done with your willful ignorance. The members of this community are trying to help you with your ignorance of science, and I commend them for their hopeful tenacity. But I can see the hate and narrow-mindedness in your religious outlook, while you accuse others of the same, and frankly it irks me, makes me sick to my stomach. I have things to do with much more potential for success. Goodbye. Good luck.

OK, wow. Inferiority complex all over. As for you thinking science is simple, I have more evidence against that than you could possibly deal with. Btw, this is the first thing you've said that I think is insulting. But then I describe science as a jigsaw puzzle cut from the layers of an onion a hundred meters tall. Simple it's not.

It's hard to overcome that Confirmation Bias. When you look at all similar posts, you see the OP constantly misinterpreting the responses from other posters. Conclusions arrived at irrationally can't be undone with reason and critical thinking. It forces the OP to be more and more irrational in order to continue the argument.

Yes, I'm OK with it. Oddly, when you realize there isn't anything real or tangible that supports the existence of god(s) or an afterlife , and that what we do observe is an eventual decay of the remaining body and not much else, it's very comforting to know that you don't have to jump through some unknowable celestial hoops dreamed up by people who dreamed up omnipotence. I would LOVE to have robotic enhancements! Just not for immortality, since that's not really viable until we leave the planet (if nobody dies and we still have children, that might be a problem, no?) But give me better eyes, because your Intelligent Designer decided to put my retina in backwards, pointing away from light sources. It's like having a television with a plug in the middle of the screen! Lots of folks think their god cures illnesses, but the god never bothers to grow back an amputated leg, not once in all of recorded history. But even though we have some very promising work being done with regenerating tissue that might let us grow an arm or leg back after losing it, I don't think that's trying to be a god. Remember, your god can't do it, but science is close to figuring it out. It takes time because being sure is more important than being a god.

Thank you for saying that. We see people overcome a lack of basic science education in many ways. My own lack fortunately didn't cause me to feel others were superior, just better educated. And between PhysicsForums and SFN, I learned how to fix my ignorance, or at least part of it. I'm so grateful for everyone who had a hand in shaping my critical thinking skills. That goes double for you, my friend. And if I've grown as a rational human half as much as you have over the years here, I couldn't be happier. You provide clarity often just as it's needed.

So basically, you've come to a science forum with this perspective to troll us. You don't understand science, but feel qualified to preach against it. Stand on a soapbox and shout over any dissenters. You mistakenly think that because we don't know everything, we know nothing. This is a really immature stance. You aren't listening. Every response shows more and more that you'll just keep injecting uninformed, ignorant bile against something you refuse to learn before you reject. We'll spend so much wasted time patiently explaining how the scientific method REALLY works, not the crap you've picked up and strung together from browsing, but you'll continue to keep your fingers in your ears. Why did you choose SFN to troll? How quickly did the other forums kick you off? Why should we talk to someone who won't listen?

You haven't studied science, so you don't realize that ideas in science are tested from the start. If something is wrong, known to be wrong, then it shouldn't be a part of an idea that can form an hypothesis you might spend years working on. You wouldn't build the foundation of a house with poorly mixed concrete, would you? In science, it's all about making sure the steps you take are trustworthy, and to do that we use empirical observation to form models we can test against reality, and make predictions that can add further evidence to support your idea. Virtually everything you've brought up here is either fundamentally flawed (but when folks try to show you that, you claim they hate new ideas - they don't, they hate flawed ideas), or it's breaking the rules you skipped reading even though you agreed to be bound by them when you joined. But again, you misconstrue that to mean you're being censored. You aren't taking responsibility for the things you're asserting, and the rules you're breaking. This is NOT an opinion. This has been empirically observed by multiple members who are using the Report Post function on your posts. It's a fact that you don't seem to understand how science works. You are criticizing things you don't know about, and ignoring rules, and pushing it all onto anybody but you.

So, in order to make this idea work, you assume we all want to become gods. I don't, I don't know anyone who wants that. So the answer to the title question is NO. I don't think you understand what a discussion forum is all about. You should instead write a blog, and turn off the comments if you don't want anyone to talk against your ideas.

! Moderator Note No need to respond to this note, but you can Report it if you object. If you make another post with the sole intent of questioning the modnote instead of Reporting it, I'll delete that one too. You should be talking (perhaps listening as well) to the members who are taking their time to work with you to clear up some ignorance issues with regards to mainstream science. No need to respond to this note, but you can Report Post if you object.