Phi for All

The controlled environment for gathering data on mice reminded me of The Pied Piper of Hamlin. Perhaps you could call them Hamlin Houses?

Lol. It's so you don't judge the book by its cover price.

We have three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. This isn't an assumption, it's what we observe. Are you perhaps referring to multiple universes, rather than dimensions?

But we didn't do nothing. We were motivated because previous generations didn't do enough either. Actually, the state-of-the-art Tetra Pak milk packaging that lets milk be stored without refrigeration is almost twice as eco-friendly as glass bottles. It takes me two minutes to walk out of my neighborhood to get to a major street that will lead me to the local shops, which are about a fifteen-minute walk after that. I drive because it takes me two minutes, and gives me 30 minutes to shop, in the time it takes to just walk there and back. If I didn't actually need anything, it would be a good way to save money. This one is twitchy. There are more factors than you'd think if you've never had kids, like disposable diapers actually keep babies drier, so they don't have to be changed as often as cloth. But changing less often may require you to buy more rash creams, which isn't necessarily bad for the environment, but certainly adds to the costs associated with diapers. This works for me, but not my relatives in Seattle. I completely agree with this one, and I'm a big fan of Goodwill. One TV, eight computers, two pads, three cell phones. No land line, no cable, no dish. I'm not a huge fan of a machine for every little purpose, but it's hard not to love a blender. I do a lot by hand, but I just recently replaced a (manual) salad-spinner, and it sure does make a better salad. And that's because we read newspapers back then, and had them lying around (because I never threw them away). Now I use plastic foam and bubble wrap because I have THAT lying around (because I don't throw that away either). When I bought my Honda lawnmower fifteen years ago, I looked at push mowers, and because of the lack of demand, they were almost as expensive as my Honda, and I would have had to drive quite a ways to get one. I do think that if I would have bought a push-mower, I'd either have much bigger calf muscles, or I would have torn my lawn out ages ago and xeriscaped the whole yard. Not everyone works a job that gives them exercise. But it still bothers me to see cars circling the lot in front of the gym looking for a closer parking space. This is one I long shook my head over, but people are drinking more water, staying hydrated more. I stopped buying them in favor of sport bottles that can be reused. And what a pain in the butt it was refilling ink! As for razor blades, I see little difference between throwing away a big old double blade razor and a throwing away a little bit of plastic holding five razors (using still less metal than the old razor blades). I never took the bus. I walked or rode my bike until I was old enough to drive, and then I did everything by car. Cities in the western US are usually sprawling, and not very conducive to short distance travels. This is a sign of our prosperity, as well as a trend. Although, I don't understand the need these days to spend so much on weddings. If you did that and never spoke to the neighbor, I think it would be bad. But I'm sure the neighbor would probably prefer this to being dragged over physically to see your new dish. We did plenty to be green back then, back when it wasn't as easy or trendy. I don't think I've ever thrown away a plastic container without reusing it at least once for something else, not in the last twenty years. My garage is full of them, and they're full of nuts, bolts, nails, washers, and everything else I've scavenged and reused.

If this were in Politics, I'd say we need more stable governments designed to give their citizens the most opportunity for prosperity. Since this is Philosophy, I'd reach deeper and say we'd need a major change in perspective to achieve world peace. There are still many people who think "others" aren't worthy because of economic status, education, nationality, religion, color of skin, work ethic, or <insert meaningless standards here>. I think we have an image that the world is over-populated by humans, and this gives rise to the thought that we can afford to lose quite a few and not miss them. Not OUR people, of course, just the foreign ones who were barely subsisting anyway. I think life in general is amazing, and human life in particular. Like fire or lighting, our lives aren't material "things", they're events that happen because all the right pieces are in place, and out of those bits of mundane chemicals and processes a human life emerges, something incredibly more than the parts that keep it going. I think many religions dismiss this worldly life in favor of an eternal afterlife where there's no problems. I think this often makes people very callous about the way they treat others. We see ourselves and others as merchandise, property, or lumps of flesh to be used for particular purposes. I had an idea a few years ago that, since reality TV seems here to stay, we should use it for good purposes and share the daily lives of people in other countries. It's easier to think disparagingly of a group of people you know little about. I may be alone in this, but I think "A Day in the Life" of people from many different cultures would be fascinating, and I think it would foster the kind of understanding and compassion that could lead to a peaceful Earth.

Ouch. That's very interesting though. An extrication unit in a major city would probably be able to tell us if gull-wing doors are more of a problem than conventional doors, or if it even matters by the time they're called in. Doors and door frames need to match up. I don't see the gull wing doors as any different from conventional car doors in that respect. All of them are going to be difficult to deal with in a rollover that deforms the door frames.

Judgement is pattern-recognition, and I don't think we could turn that off even if we wanted to. We watch for others to fit patterns we understand how to deal with. The OP seems to use a specific definition of judgement that carries a special weight. I don't see the problem using my judgement when approached by two strangers, one who smiles and offers his hand to shake, and the other who looks at me sullenly with a frown and won't come any closer than six feet. This type of judgement happens all the time. Acting as a judge is perhaps closer to the OP. Sitting in judgement over the actions of another and claiming the right to say whether the behavior is good or bad, harmful or helpful, right or wrong. Or is it OK to judge behavior like that, as long as you don't condemn the whole person? If I see someone cheat another person intentionally, is it OK for me to judge that person's actions as bad as long as I don't judge the whole person as bad?

I was wondering the same thing. I can see where a normal car would be more likely to end up on roof or tires than on either door in the event of a rollover, but what keeps the doors free just because it's not on its side? Or is jammed doors a low-percentage event that we only think we hear happening a lot?

In my experience, with speech anyway, most people who communicate poorly aren't listening to what's being said to them. They're thinking about their response to what's already been said. They're usually a bit paranoid about not having the proper thing to say when it's their "turn" in the conversation. They listen with half their attention and formulate the next part of what they're going to say with the other half. Of course, often the person talking to them has moved on from what was being said previously, so by the time the poor communicator gets his chance to speak, he's way behind the flow of conversation. This adds to the poor communication, as well as the paranoia. Trust yourself to be able to respond properly in the moment, without preparing your replies a few seconds in advance. It's better to have a few seconds pause between answers than to respond to the wrong thing. Listening should be more than half of all communication.

! Moderator Note cool, please don't spam the main science sections with the links you use in Science News. For discussion in the rest of the fora, members need to be able to discuss each topic without going offsite or watching videos. Thanks for understanding.

And medicine. We do seem to love creating problems to fix. Maybe that's our real creativity.

Imagination allows us to think ahead based on what we already know. This seems to be at the core of many of our actions, and one that isn't exhibited to such a degree by any other animal I know. We can envision outcomes over time, whether we're affecting them or not. We can look in the shadows and imagine possible dangers, and how we might overcome them if they ever become real. We can watch an avalanche happen, then imagine causing one on purpose to trap prey. Couple that with our tool-use and communication skills, and it's easy to see why imagination and creativity were prized and became a big part of our evolutionary behavior.

I would broaden language to include extraordinary communication skills. You're right, this plays a huge part in our creativity, especially when we're in groups. We even get creative with our communication, like in music and poetry.

When we left the trees and started to walk upright, we freed our hands for more more dexterous behavior. One of the big benefits of that (besides the obvious tool use) was discovering what fire does to food. Our gut was reduced after we started cooking, and that led to even more development of an upright gate. I think it was when we discovered that plants grew where we discarded the seeds from last year, and started the first farming efforts, that really gave us the spare time off from hunting and gathering to use our imaginations. There was never a time before this when humans weren't always looking for their next meal. Agriculture allowed humans the time to do other things, and because intelligence also feeds curiosity, creativity would seem to flow naturally from there. And it's easy to see how evolution helped us in this, because anyone creative enough to invent something that helped early humans to survive would be selected for. The human who first strung some animal teeth on a piece of sinew and wore it around their neck would have been very popular, no?

No, no. Young people tend to drink a lot, spend a lot of time on the computer, and ride bicycles.

I agree. "Things" don't have to be stuff, it could be good health and an active social life. And beyond keeping your weight down (because you rarely see a fat 80 year old), how you look at 60 shouldn't be an obsession. Do you think the phrase, "It's been in my family for generations" is becoming obsolete? Other than artwork, jewelry, firearms, and timepieces (maybe, maybe furniture), most stuff that people keep to pass along has more sentimental value than anything else. And sentiment doesn't last much past a couple of generations. Saving up to buy stuff used to be a bigger deal, and I think it made us more appreciative when we finally got it. I've gotten bad about saving up to get better quality than I can afford to buy NOW. Intellectually, I know I appreciate using a top-quality tool much more than a cheap version. I've thrown away more cheap ratchet screwdrivers than I care to talk about. Nowadays, it seems to be all about convenience of purchase, and I forget about how inconvenient it always is when the cheap piece of shit breaks right in the middle of putting together my cheap desk.

TBH, I wasn't even thinking of skeptics in the classical sense. So perhaps modern mainstream science stole the definition first? I'm tempted to link modern skepticism with a certain level of knowledge. If you have no intention of trying to verify a certain bit of data, or a study using methodology that might be in question, do you have the right to say you're skeptical about it in the scientific sense? It's been commented on before that, if you want to think outside the box, you should know the box really, really well. Shouldn't we hold anyone who claims to be a skeptic to the scientific definition, and insist that, if they're going to question mainstream science, they have to verify the information for themselves, or admit they have no valid arguments against what they're skeptical about?

I think too many people think they're immune to advertising, like they've seen it all before and there's no way a TV commercial is going to manipulate THEM! Then they find themselves at Bed, Bath, and Beyond buying a device that plucks the stems from strawberries because hey, they might buy some this summer. I'm grateful in that situation that I know how to de-stem strawberries with a paring knife. I actually can't begin to convey how grateful I am I didn't spend money to save a minute each time I have strawberries. Where am I taking these things? A friend of a friend passed away recently, and my friend was telling me about all the stuff this woman had saved for her kids, wanting them to have pieces of family history to pass down to their children. The kids kept the jewelry, but hired an auction house, didn't even look at any of rest of the stuff, and promptly sold it all for cash.

I've noticed that "skepticism" seems to be another scientific term that's been hijacked by a popular definition, like "logic" and "theory". A lot of folks come here to express skepticism about a particular concept, hypothesis, or theory, and when the membership links them to tons of supportive evidence and patiently explains why this information should be trusted, they continue to be "skeptical" ad infinitum, ad nauseam. I think healthy skepticism is about checking alleged facts, not taking people simply at their word, and wanting to get a peek at the methodology used to obtain the data to make sure the proper rigor was maintained. But the popular skeptic usually doesn't have the education or the skills to review theory, so they just stay skeptical about everything they're told, no matter what. And they think this is the way it's supposed to be, never giving in no matter how much evidence there is. "Oooooh, I don't know about THAT! I'm a skeptic!" It's an Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity basically, and I've seen a lot of discussions here end up in a circle just because someone was being popularly "skeptical" about all the mainstream evidence being cited to them. "I don't know about that" should be a declaration of ignorance, not skepticism. Healthy skepticism is more like, "I'm going to find out if that's true or not". I think the healthy skeptic clears up his own doubt about a specific explanation, and then moves on when the preponderance of evidence shows what's most likely, right or wrong. Is there any benefit to skepticism without verification? How do you best point this out to the popular skeptics?

... and repaired some broken knowledge. A good day's work, imo.

Except... you're leaving it up to an individual to decide whether information is good or bad about the subject they are, by definition, ignorant about. I don't know medicine, and I don't think I'd be very good at deciding which of five conflicting explanations was consistent with mainstream medical knowledge. Bad knowledge (aka "guesswork") shouldn't be passed along to people who want to know something. In science, it's about trusting the knowledge you get, and when you can't check it yourself, you go to a trusted professional. You don't want someone who is still studying to be worthy of trust. Not in medicine, not when harm might come of it.

This perspective is unfortunate. It's ignorant advice we want to avoid. We do hand out tools, and the best of those tools for medical questions is... go talk to your doc.

Three weeks worth?! My math tells me you're being greedy.

Is the objection that occasionally someone posts a bunch of threads at once, and is featured on the Recent Topics page exclusively for a while? Does this happen a lot? Also, "instead put an indicator" appears to be a big part of the solution, yet involves software mechanics I'm not sure we have much control over.

I'm counting on that, but that isn't what I asked about. I was asking how the Earth survives another 22 billion years when Sol is expected to go red giant way before then? We have plans to use resources from space to help us increase our presence off-world, but this is getting off-topic for this thread.