Phi for All

Being closed to proven methodology is in contradiction with the fact that science is successful. That's really why the models attract reasoned thinkers, because they work. And because we had to sift through so many bad ideas to get to them.

Perhaps a lot of people look at this type of informal peer review as some kind of judgement, rather than an attempt to help the person with the idea hold to a certain amount of rigor. They hear, "You're wrong about the whole thing" when we say "How did you arrive at this conclusion?", or "What did you do to rule out that it's a man in a suit?"

It's like watching a train wreck sometimes. An idea is brought forth (usually asserted rather than posed as a question), some criticism on basic facts or the methodology behind gathered data is the reply, and the person who brought the idea forth completely ignores the reply and immediately jumps to "You're persecuting me because my idea challenges your preconceptions!" It's not about what we think we already know, it's about methodology. You don't allow evidence to support your idea until you're sure the method of its collection was valid. Especially when the idea's conclusions are extraordinary.

We say, "You need to do a better job showing those blurry anomalies aren't something much more mundane", and he hears "We don't like groundbreaking ideas". Confirmation bias runs deep when you base the strength of your idea on emotion rather than reason. This thread is just the stuffing for a great big strawman.

So does anyone think that tool use is unnatural, and that we're losing our "humanity" as our tools become more sophisticated?

It just seems to make what's written in the Youtube comments section all the more tragic.

The top three bastions of ignorance in the world today. Greed, lack of education, and textspeak could keep us from getting offplanet. I'm curious, in rereading the OP, it seems our "humanity has fallen by the wayside". What exactly is humanity, and why does it decrease as our technology increases? Could tools ever make us less human?

There's no problems with Kim's ass, so go out and find something that meets your definition of a problem, and solve it. But when you do, make sure to stop kicking yourself for only looking for entertainment. Also, if you choose to, your entertainment can be more fulfilling. I do Netflix so I don't have to watch commercials or sitcoms. I go to live theater, and local comedy shops. If your entertainment is just killing time, you need to change. Of course. Most all the complaints you hear about society come from every generation. Ours had a better work ethic, ours was more focused, ours had better morals. If this were really true, that would mean if you go back far enough, you'd find a generation that had the best work ethic, was the most focused, and had the best morals. That's just not what we've experienced. It's hard to trust thoughts about work ethics. We always think we work harder, longer, better than anyone who hasn't been at it as long. I do think the latest generations have more to focus on, so it might make them often seem unfocused. It didn't take me as long to flip through the four TV channels I had growing up as it does for kids today. My music collection took up more space when I was growing up, but held only a fraction of the titles available now. I never dreamed, growing up, that I would ever be able to have discussions like this with people around the world. I never dreamed I'd have access to so much entertainment and perspectives. I never dreamed I would one day sit in my living room and move a simulated rover across the surface of frikkin' Mars. I don't think we're unfocused now as much as overwhelmed by choices. And are we really less focused these days when we can accomplish so much more in a day than we used to be able to? I think life simply gets more complicated the older you are, and fortunately your wisdom and ability to cope increase as well.

With all due respect, I would suggest you stop "doing research" and take a formal class on the theory of evolution (please please please don't take offense, I think it's fantastic that you're interested). When a person does "research" without having a good science education, all they do is cherry-pick the things that make sense to them, and try to piece those together also in ways that make sense. The problem is, science is often not very intuitive. You need to learn science formally, including the scientific method of making sense of the information you pick up, what constitutes a scientific theory, and how reason can replace what you've come to think of as "logic". Humans live in multiple environments, and the environments and conditions themselves change. Evolution still measures success through reproduction. I think the word "perfect" is misapplied wrt evolution. Just like science is looking for the best explanation rather than proof, evolution isn't looking for perfection. And higher intelligence isn't necessarily an improvement for all creatures. We give up a lot to have it, just like birds give up a lot to have flight. Fortunately for us, high intelligence, advanced tool use, complex cooperation, and superior communication just happens to let us do a lot of what other creatures give up a lot to do. And evolution really can't stop as long as life is reproducing. It's always passing on successful traits the way it's supposed to, even when a population is well-suited to the environment. In fact, succeeding generations wouldn't be as successful as past generations if evolution wasn't passing along the same genes that helped them be successful in the first place. Sharks are extremely well-suited to their environments, but evolution hasn't stopped passing along the genes that make them so successful.

I think your perspective is bizarre. We're evolution's grand experiment with higher intelligence. We had opposable thumbs, we got pretty good with tools, and our extra intelligence showed us the benefits of communication and cooperation. We have lots of other bits that increase the value of the whole package, and overall we're the most amazing thing on a planet FULL of amazing things. I think this gloomy perspective on humans is an offshoot of the whole "man is not part of nature" argument that I particularly hate. We coined the term "natural" and made sure it didn't include us, which is pretty twisted. For some reason, the epitome of life on Earth seems to be some kind of boring harmony with every other creature, and we all live off each other until our sun goes red giant and it's all burned up. I'm not sure what your problem with humanity is. You hint at short-sightedness, and obviously are claiming everybody is that way, or a at least a big enough majority to ensure our own demise. But there are a great many people with long-range goals, and even though it often seems like small wars pop up all the time, it used to be worse. That's what I keep coming back to when I hear your ugly word "devolve"; it used to be worse, but now it's better. We used to keep slaves, now we don't. There used to be a LOT more poverty, but now there's less. There used to be a lot more air and water pollution, but now there's less. There used to be a lot more ignorant people, now there are fewer. We're certainly not perfect, but I think we're a lot better off than you think.

"Some people have a way with words, and others... not have way." -- Steve Martin

! Moderator Note BR-549, please don't introduce speculative ideas in mainstream sections of the site. Students and professionals look here for mainstream answers. We have a section for speculations, please use that instead. And please don't go further off-topic by responding to this modnote. Report it if you have a problem with it.

jlindgaard, please look at the format of fuzzwood's rebuttal. He doesn't just say you're wrong, he shows you exactly where and why. He gives you evidence you can check to support what he's saying. Now look at what you respond with: You claim he's wrong but don't show how or why. You're waving your hands for emphasis when we're looking for supportive evidence. How many different ways can we say the same thing? Seriously, based on your responses, you have a very heavy emotional filter in between what we're saying and what you perceive we're saying. We show you how something you've said is wrong, and you claim we're calling you retarded. You need to stop being so emotional about this and use your reason. You should be able to rationally figure out that when so many people are asking you the same thing, maybe you should respond to that before you do anything else.

When you write sentences that start with, "I think...", "I believe...", or any preface to asking a question, then we can clearly see you're offering us your opinion. But you haven't been doing that, you've been telling everyone how it is, how we're all wrong, you've been making assertions as if they're fact. This is mostly why you're getting the kinds of criticism you're getting. Of course, the other bad part is where you make an assertion, someone shows you, with supportive evidence, that you're wrong, and you ignore it. That tends to piss people off a LOT here. We know what we know, and can support it. It's rude when knowledge is shared but ignored. Ignorance is the enemy of science. These are all examples of a type of fallacious (bad) logic known as the Argument from Incredulity. Without precise examples and evidence to support your claims, phrases like this are just hand-waving (trying to make something sound more important by filling it with empty gestures rather than something of substance). We're asking for specific reasons to support your stances against the science that seems to work just fine, even without your incredulity and disbelief.

! Moderator Note I'm not going to allow a thread titled with another member's name. It makes it look like we're discussing Dr Swanson. I'd retitle it, but as studiot mentions, there is no question or proposition to help me out. So I'm closing it. jlindgaard, if you figure out a way to propose your idea with an opening post designed to initiate a discussion, please do so.

[repeated from earlier post] In the very beginning, questions were raised about your idea, basic physics and chemistry questions that would have shown us your reasoning. Asking questions is how we learn, no? But you don't give answers to the questions, you just keep proposing more things that raise more questions.

Appropriateness. I'm always fascinated by the curse of Muphry's Law. It seems to strike whenever we start talking about being careful with language. Sorry, I just find it really fucking funny.

It may look like this from your perspective. What we see is someone who is trying to teach rather than learn. And what you're teaching is confusing, but when we ask questions, you get angry and think it's rude. A simple person may have wanted to learn, but a very complicated teacher showed up instead, and used terminology he made up when the rest of us already know the terminology taught to us in school. He wanted to be wiser but he didn't listen to what was being asked. I'm sorry you don't know what you don't know, and I'm sorry you haven't been able to see things from our perspective. Whatever.

I didn't say it was the same. When Endy0816 said paralysis was the "Only sleep oddity left on my bucket list", I asked him if he'd had EHS. Here is a definition of bucket list. Sorry to hear about your EHS.

Once again, a simple word search of the thread reveals that I've never pointed out that your experiment is worthless. Not once, let alone "keeps pointing out". All my comments have been about the process you're NOT using to propose an idea and have it taken seriously in a serious science discussion. In the very beginning, questions were raised about your idea, basic physics and chemistry questions that would have shown us your reasoning. Asking questions is how we learn, no? But you don't give answers to the questions, you just keep proposing more things that raise more questions. Think of it like building a bridge to understanding your idea. Our questions, and your answers (if you'd give them), help us trust that the next part of the bridge will hold, that it was built right. We question the basics of your idea, because if those are faulty, it's like using rotten wood on the bridge, and we can't trust that part until we fix it. Does that make sense? If you read up on the scientific method, I think you'll see that nobody is asking you for anything more extraordinary than the claims you're making. You may even find that there is something basic you don't understand that makes it seem all wrong, which is much more likely than everybody but you being wrong, no?

Catch-22. The only way to improve is to be content with things as they are. Perhaps it's the money that skews things. We're told to work hard to improve our lot and help make the economy strong, but if we point out inequality, we get the "money can't buy happiness" speech. I like that. "I want more!" rather than "You have more!"

Why should I listen when it's clear you don't? You haven't addressed one goddam talking point that's been put to you. I asked you to show this thread to a friend to see if your accusations were correct, and you ignored it. Others have asked you point blank to explain yourself, and you respond that you haven't been given the chance. You claim two people called your idea lame assed, and when I showed you that wasn't true, your response is to "give me a few things to think about"?! How about acknowledging you were wrong? You have fallen into a trap many have fallen into before. You're so convinced that everybody else has their fingers in their ears that you can't hear them asking you, begging you, to take your fingers out of your ears.

The point is, nuclear weapons deployment has a single purpose. That's not the case with a satellite that's supposed to be giving weather data but also reports on troop movement and other military goals. My goal was to show that space policy is difficult to agree on due to the many different natures of the countries and technologies involved.

This is what I mean when I say you have misinterpreted what's been said to you. You claim "2 different people call it lame assed", you even claim "one is a moderator", but a quick word search shows us that you're the only person who used the words "lame" and "assed" in this whole thread. It's like you're arguing against things that haven't been said, and ignoring what has been said. Very frustrating, talking with you.

I think it's a great idea. I also think if the consequences exceed your ability to cope with them (e.g., you would be homeless if you had to break lease), then you shouldn't do it. Some people don't work out together, and some develop a great cohabitation process fairly quickly. It's hard to know ahead of time. I've known people who were very nice, but had very few skills when it came to sharing their living space.