Phi for All

Many people labor under the delusion that all opinions are equally valid, that all have merit. It's just not true. Not knowing all sides of your particular argument at another site (which we're really not interested in hearing about; we'd much rather you start a thread here to talk about your idea), it wouldn't really be ethical to talk about the ethics of it. It's a one-sided equation for us. Civility should win the day, always. How we behave affects the actions of others. Here, we don't shy from attacking ideas, but we try not to attack the person who has the idea. Calling your idea crap doesn't violate any of our rules, as long as one can further support why they think so. The other side of that bargain is that you don't invest too much of yourself in your idea so the two are inextricable in your mind. We need to be able to criticize your explanation without you feeling personally criticized. Disagreeing with you should not be seen as discourteous. You understand that, right?

If they understood the current paradigm, why can't they explain where they think it fails, or where their new idea is better? It's almost always the same, they cling to ideas they can't support, while hollering about how right they know they are, despite a lack of any supportive evidence. We provide a section where you can challenge mainstream science if you can show why your idea might have any merit. It's separate from the mainstream so as not to get students in trouble with teachers. You're supposed to show some rigor and provide some predictions your idea makes that can be tested against reality, but most people just post guesswork with no substance. This is a discussion site for science, we like our talks to be grounded in reality, and we prefer our speculations to at least be tethered somewhere in the vicinity, so they don't float away from us and get stuck in the crazy.

I don't understand your position at all. How did you expect to succeed (either of the times you've joined) by coming in with an agenda that's mutually incompatible with our purpose? Why not go to the sites that allow a much less rigorous approach to scientific speculation? Why storm in to a site most people come to FOR the rigorous approach, and object to the way its run? Try telling your university that it should adopt the standards your middle school had. Do it loudly, call a meeting, invite everyone.

! Moderator Note puppypower, you've made claims that others have refuted with supportive evidence, without supplying any of your own. To continue repeating the claims without such support is preaching/soapboxing, and is against the rules you agreed to when you joined. Please take the time to address counterclaims, and provide links supporting your own claims. Just making them doesn't make them true. Anecdotes ≠ evidence. If you object to this modnote, report it but don't talk off-topic about it here.

You've chosen to redefine "charity" to mean "feel free to guess as wildly as you want". It's no wonder you want us to remove the section, since that's not its purpose, but you've failed to give any good reason why guessing is better than using the scientific method, especially on a science discussion forum.

I agree with Studiot and Acme, Moon. 2x4 braces on a broader plywood base, up against the joists will support that floor in a crawlspace. I did that under one level in my house where the flooring had some give to it.

This is obviously spoken from a perspective that has no actual experience with rational methods as applied by science. There isn't any peer pressure in peer review, it's carefully engineered to remove that kind of subjectivity in order to understand and predict reality using the most reasonable explanatory models we can. Consensus ≠ jumping on the bandwagon. When a science-minded, rational person looks at the available data, he/she is able to more clearly evaluate evidence that supports or refutes, in order to decide which explanations are the most trustworthy. Distinctions are made between weak and strong atheism that aren't semantics only, and my point was that strong atheism can seem just as close-minded as fervent belief. Are you saying you get to have it both ways, claiming god(s) don't exist AND that you're maintaining scientific skepticism? As a non-stamp collecting, non-religious, non-unicorn riding Elvis enthusiast, I just want to be a non-participant in those activities, as opposed to taking an anti-stamp collecting, anti-god(s), anti-unicorn riding Elvis stance. I think it's unlikely Elvis would ever appear on a steed guaranteed to upstage him, but I can't say that with 100% certainty. I just don't know(care).

I think if one expresses a strong atheism, "There is no god(s)", one isn't really doing science. Without anything empirical to support the claim of god(s), science's answer needs to be "We don't know". By saying god(s) don't exist, isn't one, by default, ignoring the fact that evidence could be found someday? And if one thought it couldn't be found, isn't that the same as saying it never will? Personally, I think the very nature of god(s) would have to change before science could ever be used to adapt an explanation for it(them). Not being predictably observable makes them inconsistent with the methodologies of science.

Hold on, here. You can't be saying that you're tossing out modern biology in favor of some supernatural designer who has it out for you for some unfathomable reason. You're not explaining ANYTHING with this stance. What's worse is you're creating a whole order of magnitude more questions by introducing the supernatural, questions that science can't help with. I know you're smarter than this. But if you want to keep wasting your mind on wishes and guesses, I'm going to ask that this thread be moved out of mainstream science.

Strong atheism may have a tendency towards close-mindedness. If you're claiming god(s) doesn't exist, you've accepted that no evidence exists and never will, so that stance seems to be as rigid as the religious ones.

Zen engineering. What is the sound of one hand folding a road map back up? The map has everything a scientist needs to make measurements, but the engineer argues that he wouldn't have it with him if it didn't fold up so compactly. Two perspectives I thought marked a difference between scientists and engineers.

I guess anything that would have been able to highlight the gaps in our knowledge with unsatisfying, unreasonable answers would have worked. It was only necessary to have answers we can check against reality, and then we were able to start filling in those knowledge gaps. Wrong scientific theories teach us how NOT to do it, in much the same way religion does, or Archie Bunker.

In my case, that's putting the cart ahead of the horse. When I started trusting only those explanations that were based in reality and were supported by evidence, religion filtered itself out, and so merits none of my attention. Why waste my free imagination on poor quality information? I'm a non-philatelist as well, and spend an equal amount of time on my anti-stamp collecting pursuits. Close-minded? I've found that the people who don't want to hear something are usually ignorant about it, and are using primarily their emotions to make their decisions about it. These are the "100% sure" people. They convince themselves of their surety rather than letting the evidence do it. If you're a scientist, you rarely make such generalizations. When you replace your ignorance with knowledge, you understand that life is nuanced at all levels. You learn to close your mind to the trivially false and focus on those explanations that are better supported. Unfortunately, to a believer, that makes you look close-minded. Who's at fault?

Ask yourself which is more important, the road map, or it's ability to be folded for storage in a glove box?

One wonders how well the "I'm on my way to a costume party" excuse works in such situations. Wow, it seems you can't even wear part of a US military uniform if you've never served. In fact, the governing code even calls out uniforms that are "similar" to a military uniform, or emulate distinctive parts of a uniform. I wonder how the paramilitary camo pants manufacturers got around that one?

It sounds like you want Mary to forgive you for what you think is a small indiscretion, but Mary isn't having any. In fact, she got downright fuzzy about it.

It will take you longer than the time you've already spent wandering in the wilderness, trying to intuit your way through. But studying mainstream knowledge is like coming out of the woods to find the Autobahn in front of you, with a sports car ready and waiting for you. But you have to be willing to learn, and the rewards are the absolute best explanations we have for various phenomena. Thank you, Mordred, I was hoping you would see an outstanding teaching opportunity (our Resident Experts are always happy to see someone with a passion and a great attitude).

I don't understand what you mean, and I think it's because you have a certain definition of "take oneself for granted" that you've personalized but aren't explaining well. I think there's a difference between taking someone for granted, and taking advantage of that person. Intent seems to be the key there. Taking advantage is an active, intentional, purposeful event, where taking for granted is more like passive, unintentional neglect. I also think "TRUE LOVE" is a subjective notion, something you can't throw a blanket over and claim it's the same for everyone.

Wow, I didn't see that coming. How refreshing! Here's what's going on. You're a very smart person, but you probably didn't focus on STEM subjects when you had the opportunity for formal training. Now you read popular science articles, and your very smart brain cherry-picks the parts it understands, identifies what it doesn't know, and fills in the blanks with plausible conjecture. Part of the problem though, is that science isn't very linear, and not necessarily intuitive either. The brain wants patterns that may not exist. Reality doesn't have to make sense, whereas your brain thinks that's the most important thing there is. If you don't have that transitional knowledge, and understand rationally how to put the pieces together, you end up with lots of leaps and guesses that force you to build on shaky foundations. If you can, I highly recommend you pick a place to start and learn mainstream science. There are so many great resources, and the only reason I'm mentioning them to you is because you sound smart enough to actually listen. You have a realistic estimation of your current knowledge, you probably underestimate your math capabilities, and you recognize where your limitations need shoring up. I like human, human is good.

That's not really what we do here. If you can't support the model with math or some evidence that shows you may have something meaningful, it's just guesswork. Anyone can do it. Is there any way to test this idea?

I think you're brush is too wide. It looks more like it's illegal to make people think you're a nurse, but I don't think the uniform alone is illegal (is there illegal clothing in a democracy?). If you were dressing up as a nurse and dispensing medical advice, or trying to get into a secure area, or using the uniform in a way that violates privacy or security, this seems like what the law covers. If I were wearing a nurse's uniform, or a surgeon's scrubs, or a scientist's lab coat, or even a police/security uniform, just to appear as a member of that profession to anyone looking, that's not illegal. It's not illegal to appear to be someone else until you use that appearance to gain privilege or access you aren't entitled to. Also, it seems like most of these types of uniforms also have identifying insignia attached, and that may tip the scales. If you weren't a nurse but were wearing a nurse's uniform from a specific hospital, and had the accompanying badges and insignia attached that would grant you access, it seems like the police could arrest you for that no matter where you were or what you were doing.

Are you talking about the Big Bang? It wasn't nothing, it was EVERYTHING, all in a very hot and dense state, that rapidly expanded (not exploded), causing the cosmological development we observe today.

OK, but at least it washes off. You still look like a raccoon from that Sharpie ink. Just sayin'. I was going to say gardening. You learn twice as much if you combine these two hobbies.

The most successful government theoretically is a benevolent dictatorship. When I take absolute control of the planet, everyone will be fed, clothed, educated, and sheltered. You'll have meaningful employment (including a really nice mobile phone) to give you a sense of purpose, others to procreate with, and I promise to throw lots of parties with all the money I save not having wars and such.

Bush II had the resources to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, but he made sure he had public opinion on his side before invading, and in hindsight we can see why. Historically, it's not hard to peddle aggression as defense. Done right, you can even defend against enemies and WMDs that never actually show up. We can gain inspiration using outer space peacefully. Look at the inspiration and technologies our space agencies have already fostered. Don't you think we should continue on that kind of success, rather than risk an eventual Space Patriot Act?