Phi for All

Until his arrest in 2008, so was Bernie Madoff. I'm not comparing anyone you're talking about to Bernie, I'm just trying to show that this is an Appeal to Authority argument, and it's fallacious to assume something they've said is true just because they're F.O.G.O.I.R. By the same token, we don't assume that a person claiming to have discovered a new molecule is wrong just because they're ten years old. In both cases, it's the evidence we look at. It always comes back to the quality of evidence. That's one generalization I don't mind making.

I think the answer is partially... wisdom. Teenagers often run around like crazy people, ignorant of duplication of effort, constantly on the move just to be moving. When you reach your forties, you have a much better grasp of how to be more efficient with your energy. You don't run up and down the stairs ten times to transfer individual items, you put the items on the step and take it all up in one trip. You arrange your kitchen so when you make coffee, for instance, you don't have to move all over the kitchen to put the whole thing together. Of course, this means you move less. You're actively looking for ways to move less by being wiser and more efficient. If you can adjust your eating habits accordingly, you'll probably be able to keep your shape for the most part. If you're forty and still eat like a teenager, well then, probably not.

"As we want" seems to be the operative phrase here. Our wants are pretty variable. We have some interesting challenges as a species. Our intelligence allows for the imagination to create tools that reduce the amount of work we have to do, which takes away some of our best opportunities for physical exercise. And somehow that same intelligence has a hard time getting through when the subject is chocolate cake.

I'm pretty sure the software can only count the rep that's actually been given by a member. There are no "automatic" points, and no way to give someone an extra +100 because we feel they deserve it (believe me, if it was possible, I'd give our Resident Experts a huge bump). But if mods could do that, I wouldn't want the system since it would have no meaning.

I see a little doh emoticon slapping his forehead, and a message in spoiler tags that reads, "Please add me to your friends list ! Thank you !" Is this what you wanted? Why do you mention it here?

I've never seen these words together like this before. Do you have any evidence, besides anecdotes, this is even possible?

You do realize that the staff are all unpaid volunteers? This sounds like a LOT of work for questionable results. This system isn't supposed to be that big a deal. It's one aspect of your account, and a minor one at that.

Perhaps it's partly frustration with a tiny minority perspective that somehow seems to be stalling significant greenhouse gas reduction efforts that desperately need to start as soon as possible. To me, it seems like we're not seriously trying to put out the fire because we're too busy arguing over whether it was set by a human or just happened naturally.

I think this is the key. You can come up with some really healthy casseroles, stews, and soups with fresh ingredients that will be nutritionally superior for you. How those meals affects your glycemic index/glycemic load seems to play a big factor. You can have some fats and sugars if your meals are really small and you eat half a dozen times a day.

Perhaps I took the "can't be proven or disproven" caveat too seriously. There is that aspect of scientific knowledge that takes a Witten to glance at and know it's more than just a wild guess. I only get to know what that feels like when the statements are obviously wrong. We had someone post yesterday something along the lines of "How do you expect to travel at the speed of light squared if you don't understand simple physics?!" I've gotten to where I can spot an Argument from WTF a mile away.

To us, this means, "Let me show how this evidence supports my explanation of phenomenon X". To convince someone scientifically, all you need to show is that your explanation is better than an alternative through a preponderance of evidence. But to you, this means, "Let me yell at you about all the things I find coincidental and remarkable in my holy book". You're trying to convince us to overthrow mainstream science by invoking a supernatural being for whom there is no evidence. Seriously, you shouldn't feel the need to turn your faith into proper science. It's obvious you feel strongly about it. If you feel science is important as well, perhaps you should study science by itself, without mixing your religion into it. You'll learn a lot, I guarantee it.

Unfalsifiable. In order to work within the scientific method, an explanation has to be capable of being shown false. An example would be the existence of god(s). If, by their very nature, nobody can observe them directly or get them to react to stimuli in a predictable manner, there's no way to test to see if they're real or not. Not capable of being falsified, unfalsifiable. Not science. What definition of phenomenal are you using: remarkable, or perceptible through the senses or immediate experience? And with either definition, how does it relate to the limitations of science? And you might as well let us know how you think science is limited. Science relies on theory to keep it always in hot pursuit of the best explanations for various phenomena. Theories are the best it gets in science, tried and tested rigorously in as many environments as possible. But a theory is never considered proof, because we can't test everything everywhere. We always look for ways to refute any theory, but mostly we find more supportive evidence, and that gives us confidence that our explanations are trustworthy. And we know our theories aren't wrong; they're definitely the best explanations we have in the portions of our universe where they're being tested.

By the standards we use for everyone in determining if you've been unfairly targeted for negative or positive reputation, we've determined that you have NOT been unfairly treated. I completely agree that the negative points you garnered over a single issue don't represent your contributions to our discussions. The ONLY thing to be done is to pay more attention to what you're posting from now on, make sure you aren't doing any of the things the other members know are detrimental to our conversations. When I think of these threads as tables where people have taken a seat to discuss a certain topic meaningfully, it helps me understand that it's my responsibility to communicate efficiently with everyone. I realize that we're all here trying to talk about some intensely interesting subjects, and that we want those talks to be based on science's best explanations. Nobody wants to hear blanket assertions backed up by nothing, because frankly, anybody could do that. We want to talk about what the preponderance of evidence suggests to a rational mind, and we have little patience when someone brings a bad attitude to the table. Hey, Ant Sinclair, I have a suggestion, for what it's worth. In going over rep points to see if either you or Commander were being targeted, I noticed a habit you have when you're making a rebuttal. You ask a question, or make an exclamation, and then you put four question marks, or four exclamation marks after it. It looks really condescending and amateurish, sorry, just sayin'. If you're using them for emphasis, then doing it so often lessens the impact. In writing, it just looks like you're either yelling or talking down to us. I also noticed a few times where you asked a strawman question, changing the argument your opponent made into something more easily refuted, and you punctuated it with the four question marks. That's the kind of behavior that comes off as rude, but not breaking-the-rules incivility, so someone gives you a negative point instead of staff giving you a warning.

You don't need to invoke a paradigm economic shift to see that those with established infrastructure investments don't want to make the changes necessary to mitigate the problem. It's only political because the corporations involved have made it so. The science should have a louder voice than the oil companies and their congresscritters.

! Moderator Note Welcome to the informal peer review known as the SFN Speculations section. This is where we put untested, non-mainstream hypotheses. We huff and we puff and we try to blow your house down by asking questions and finding mistakes, assumptions, and things that are just plain wrong. We ask you to provide evidence to support your hypothesis, and we look at that too. If it supports your idea, great. If it refutes your idea, great. Were not interested in truth, especially not Truth. We want the best supported explanation for any phenomena. We're here to help make your idea stronger, or to refute it outright. It's not about you, it's about your idea. Questions at this stage are much better than assertions. Everyone is going to ask for evidence EVERY TIME you assert something is "true", but if you ask questions, they'll give you something much better.

! Moderator Note You're wrong, and I really want you to understand why. It's not ego that rules here. That's why we're not going to let YOUR ego dictate what good ideas are. Evidence rules here. Show why your idea will work, not just that it could be a good idea. And I agree, you need to stop insulting people. No more warnings, enough is enough.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, and we'd prefer topics we don't have to leave the site to discuss, so I disabled your link. Is there a particular topic you'd like to talk about? So far, this looks more like a blog rather than an attempt at conversation.

A hybrid idea, combining the best of manual driving and automated. Even then, I can see the need to control when you can take control. I don't want to be in perfectly automated highway traffic but get stalled by someone who wants to keep it on manual for the joy of driving. I think the part we'd notice most is inertia. Driving becomes a lot about the feel of the car, the accelerations and decelerations, and if you don't know exactly when the car is going to speed up or hit the brakes, it would probably feel very weird. I learned to drive in a simulator they put in the back of a semi-trailer, hauling it around to all the high schools in the area. You had all the controls of a normal car, but you never felt the push and pull the way you do in a real car. It was unnerving.

And this is why I think it won't be as much of a problem. These are vehicles we put our kids into, and I can only imagine the ton of bricks that would fall on anyone who hacked a system that put children in immediate danger like that. IIRC, I think there's already a lot of pressure to ensure safe systems in cars, since they're increasingly being hooked up to cellular networks. Technically, I think someone could probably plant a virus right now in your car from the music you downloaded to your phone. That's part of my problem as well. If they're going to make this work, maybe the steering wheel has to retract out of the way. And now we're back to personal train cars.

I don't know what to tell you. There may be a language problem. You misinterpret me just enough to miss out on what I'm saying. For instance, I didn't say you post constantly, I said when you post, you constantly make assertions rather than ask questions. Do you see the difference between what I said and what you're arguing about? I'm not feeling indignant. I'm frustrated that you have objections based on incomplete or misinformed knowledge. Not much I can do if this is the way you choose to interpret my words.

I hear you. If I were to put the kind of mileage I do around the Denver metro area somewhere in Europe, I could be dealing with at least 2-3 different countries. In the western US, we built out instead of up because we could, there was lots of land. On the other hand, I usually have too much stuff to carry to make effective use of mass transit. Personal transportation makes sense for me. I don't like objections that rely on "if you build it, they will hack". We can't stop innovation because someone may exploit it, we just need to protect the system better, or punish those who try to monkey with it as if they were endangering hundreds of lives instead of lifting passwords. I understand the safety concerns, and I agree with them. I'm sure some kind of override will be available, but in most circumstances there wouldn't be enough time to deploy it. And I think it's those times when we could really use an automatic driving system. I still say we should invest in a series of public service announcements pointing out the benefits of NOT tailgaiting, using your brakes less, and allowing others to merge. This just seems like a logical first step before adding so much more cost to our cars.

I just want to be clear about this. You think our rep system is authoritarian and unfair, and you'd like to replace it with a more complicated version that YOU designed, and named after yourself? I look at this, and at the title of the thread, and I'm thinking you're not MY commander, yet you consistently post as if your word is law, constantly making assertions rather than asking questions. Mods can't change rep points. We get the same one click per post as everyone else. The system does have some checks and balances. It was last week.

I see what you're trying to do here, trying to sneak "consistent testimonials" in under the wire. Remember when we were discussing the resistance to polygraph tests? The only thing consistent about those testimonials is that none of them have any more than the word of the person it allegedly happened to to back them up. Did you really create another account to talk about this because BlueSpike was never able to convince anyone that SHC is real?

That's my kneejerk reaction as well, but they're also what causes most of the traffic problems, especially the brake. I've rebelled against the drive by wire systems in principle, because I see them eventually becoming just like riding a bus or train, so why don't we just invest in buses and trains? I keep picturing eventually they'll sell us on the idea that you can drive your car away from the house, meet up with other cars going to the same destinations, and hook together to make the automatic commute. But maybe that's the middle step between private and public transportation. The convenience of being able to hop in your own car with the benefits of mass transit.

Sorry, but that just sounds like a bad design. If it's dark enough to trigger the headlights, why would the car think you didn't need the tail lights? Most cars I've seen can't have just one or the other on. Is this some sort of passive/aggressive option package? "Hey, I turned your headlights on for you! But it was too much trouble to turn the taillights on too!"