Phi for All

A yes or no philosophy question? Somebody's gonna rupture something. Even with a decent definition of "created", we have no way of verifying either answer, so "don't know" has to be the default. The unknown is interesting, the unknowable is a waste of time, imo.

I'll admit to some frustration over this type of scenario. Someone questions a well-established explanation or theory (which is great), but then isn't satisfied with the replies, most likely because they didn't understand the concept fully in the first place. Several pages of replies attempting to correct the information displayed doesn't help because the original questioner arrived at his/her conclusions emotionally, rather than rationally. They used "intuition" or "common sense", and science often doesn't agree with such subjective criteria. I stopped trying to correct creationists in lengthy posts slathered in reason and evidence refuting all those tired old claims, but ultimately they aren't listening to me. They prove that by moving from site to site, repeating the same old lies and misinformation, even after I showed them exactly where they went wrong. Now, I just send them over to TalkOrigins.org, where everything I could say about the subject of evolution vs creationism has been written down. The same thing with relativity deniers, flat-Earthers, geocentrists, and people who divide by zero. I try to send them to where they can learn, rather than a discussion board where all they do is argue from a misinformed perspective. It's not the facts that are missing for these people. They aren't going to learn until they study what we know, the way we know it, and look at it rationally instead of emotionally. Until they decide to take that step, most of what I can do is pointless. It's good that the warning bells went off for the opening poster. That's what rational thinking should be doing, helping us spot inconsistencies in the explanation of various phenomena.

You owe me a new irony meter.

It seems you're the only person who thought it deserved that much time. ACG52's link was sufficient.

You still don't seem to understand that the choice you've made, to place your own special meaning on words that nobody else will know until you explain it to them (while they explain their special definitions to you), isn't as good as the choice most people have made, to use standardized definitions so everybody is talking about the same thing. Order is usually better than chaos when it comes to communication and cooperation. That is NOT what that averages.

Except the ones they wouldn't really know, or care about. Wait, are you a scientist, or a philosopher?

And even if he went off-script on a prepared speech, he's now missed his chance to use that as an excuse. He's not saying, "You're taking this the wrong way...". He's defending the words that came out of his mouth, and I think it's shameful that so many reporters are willing to provide a softened interpretation, and one not offered by the candidate himself.

I think Jon Stewart nailed it. If Trump had done his own backpedaling, one could chalk this up to being misunderstood, or using the wrong phrase. Since Trump decided to double-down and defend his choice of words, it's inappropriate for reporters to backpedal for him now. He said what he said, you heard him right, now it's time for the "journalists" to stop trying to explain what he "really" meant.

Nobody understands the point better than you, my friend.

! Moderator Note Right you arrr, Captain!

Ugh. You're shamelessly proud of presenting your ideas in a scatterbrained, sloppily organized way to me and others?! I'm unmotivated to read them. Your presentation tells me you're either more interested in sounding a certain way than you are at supporting your explanation, or you're used to wishful thinking as opposed to rational thinking. You come to a science site for science discussion, but instead of precision, you flit from one bit to another like a pinball and hope we're following along. We like evidence with our assertions, and we like our ideas to be as focused as possible. If we were playing darts, I'd ask you to throw them one at a time instead of ten at once. Since you put this in the Lounge instead of Speculations, are you hoping for a more casual approach? We just don't do that with scientific questions. You can't make a statement about "the inexplicable aura felt by all living things" without citing the study that offers evidence such an aura exists, even in the Lounge. And most of the sources you do cite are hardly credible (I love Morgan too, but his producers are selling sensationalism, like most pop-sci panderers). Can you try again, lose the buzzwords, lose the tangents, and try to treat this like a case you're presenting to a jury in a court? We're not asking you to prove anything (proof is for maths), just that when you make an assertion that goes against mainstream science, you provide some evidence that leads you to believe so. Assertion -> Evidence, stick to that pattern with each concept before introducing something new.

My dog was a rescue, a puppy that didn't spend much time with other dogs before we brought him home. He didn't learn anything from his parents, yet when he poops, he does that scratching with his hind legs that looks like he's trying to cover it up. I've heard various reasons for this. It seems unlikely that a dog would want to hide itself, and a little dirt isn't going to fool many animals who rely on scent. He spends just as much time scratching in grass as he does dirt, though the grass is much less likely to cover anything. It's more likely that the dog is giving a visual cue by scratching, as if to draw an arrow to the fact that he's claiming this area. But my dog wasn't taught this behavior, not unless he's figured it out himself from our daily walks. I think aggressively marking territory is a trait that has been selected for over generations, and the individual dog finds ways to apply it effectively, with olfactory and visual cues. It may look "instinctual", but it's really just behavior that works for an animal that's smart enough to use what it can. Dogs have all the evolutionary tools for aggressively marking their territory, and it works well for them, so they naturally use it to their advantage. But we favor our own intelligence, so we attribute it to "instincts" in animals.

That's pretty annoying. You post a video you know isn't representative, StringJunky shows you one that is, you then claim there are no videos, and when we remind you of StringJunky's video (again), then (again) you post the same video you started with. I think you're trolling now. And I think you're a flat-earther.

Hey, you don't get to say that, one was linked to in post #12, you even said it was a good video! There's no reason for you to willfully forget that, unless... ah, there is no friend, is there?

Have you noticed that, if people have studied something and know quite a lot about it, they don't have notions like this? Only people who don't know what they're talking about, and have to decide what to believe based on emotional incredulity, get into silly arguments against reality like this.

It would also account for the seeming pressure released (as the extinguisher is jostled by the current, it could squeeze the right trigger), and the tiny initial stream that spreads out more fully before disappearing. And I've read where Japan is the leader in that region when it comes to fire safety regulations, mostly because of the nature of the majority of their smaller structures, so there are bound to be lots of fire suppression devices that would give off a cloud. I think it has to be that. Or plasma beings. Hard to tell when the photos aren't very grainy.

Some people believe their willful ignorance is the most interesting thing about them, so they hold on to it tightly.

Any number of reasons. Sea is too choppy, wind too heavy or light, or from the wrong direction, so they're running on engines. I'm going to bet your friend mentions sailing masts that retract like old automobile antennae. Any answers on the sun's beam angle?

So does your friend also claim the sun can be specifically focused on a particular part of the flat Earth, like a torch? Is the sun flat too, or does it just have a tight beam angle? When I'm lighting a retail store, I can use a spotlight with a 25 degree beam angle to give the effect you describe. How does the sun do this? Does your friend also believe the sun and moon are the same size?

Wow. Seriously?! I really don't know what else to say, if you can say this with a straight face on the sixth page of your discussion.

It really appears gaseous. The ruptured container idea has merit. It would have to be a gas that appears cloudy and dissipates clearly. Perhaps the colder temperature of the water makes it cloudy, but it clears as it warms? This may be off the wall, but Japan eats a lot of fish, would they happen to have lots of dry ice laying around? Trapped pockets where dry ice met water, and was eventually released when the flood moved enough debris to free the gas? I think it's just a trick of the light and circumstances that makes it look like its jumping and changing direction.

Since visual proof is being questioned, how about this? If the Earth was flat, the sun would be shining on everyone at the same time, or we'd all be in darkness if facing away. Simply call or text a friend in a different part of the world and ask them if it's night or day. If it's daytime for you, and nighttime for them, that refutes flat Earth.

Just enough and no more.

I wasn't confusing the two, but money buying things seems to be the deciding factor here. It's OK not to be content with your lot in life, it's OK not to be content with staying where you were born, but it's not OK to want wealth. Wealth defined as money you don't need to survive. And money is something we can't be content with if we can't be content without it. What makes money different? It seems like when the money is earmarked for something we can justify, like music or travel, it's OK to want it. If I want to amass great wealth so I can give it all away to people who need it, is that OK? Can I spend my money on visiting every country in the world, even though it's not necessary for my basic needs? I don't believe the meek will inherit the Earth. I think the assertive told them that to keep them meek. And I'm just being contrary here, especially with all the aphorisms being thrown around. I feel ornery about this, for some reason.

I think you're forgetting that for scientists, a challenge like this isn't viewed as a mountain of work, it's seen as an exciting opportunity to learn more than you knew before. They would need bibs for all the drool. Think kid in a candy store, not clerk with an "In" box piled to the ceiling.