Phi for All

I think the more one relies on faith or hope in their beliefs, the more difficult it would be to make such a decision. Faith fuels belief with emotion, and emotional stances are often impervious to reason.

An overused concept. "Logic" shouldn't be conflated with "this makes a lot of sense to me". Logic is a math tool. The word you're looking for is "reasoning". Critical thinking depends on reason. It might help to look at how you believe in things. I break belief down to Faith, Hope, and Trust. Faith is strong belief with little or nothing to support it. Hope is more wishful thinking, not as strong as faith. Trust is how I believe in things I'm able to verify myself, and it's how I think of explanations derived using the scientific method. There's no evidence that one or any of the tens of thousands of religions might be correct. So at the very least we can easily adopt a neutral attitude towards religion. We can't test for god(s), so we say we don't know, which is perfectly acceptable. The claims some religions make, that's a different story. People claim their god cured Aunty's cancer, but can't explain why no god ever, ever grew a leg back for a devout amputee. As we gain knowledge, it forces god(s) out of the gaps of ignorance. There are fewer places for religion to claim higher knowledge, and that territory has been diminishing steadily ever since we came out of the Dark Ages and started replacing fear of the supernatural with natural knowledge.

Please, calm down. Moderator notes are supposed to be a one-way interjection to remind folks of the rules. We don't encourage commenting on them because it derails the discussion. Nothing more. If you feel the modnote was wrong, Report it, we have a process for dealing with that. Right now you're in the phase where you've given us an overview of your idea, and we're helping you with some foundational science. This isn't picking lint off a mostly clean suit, you're talking about overturning heavily evidenced scientific theory but you've obviously misunderstood some of the basics. Why come to a science board like this to present your idea if you didn't expect some sort of review? This could be a good opportunity for you, but you can't take criticism of your idea personally. We attack ideas here, not people, because that's what science does. It huffs and puffs and tries to blow your theoretical house down. If it can, great, you don't need to waste your time. If it can't, great, let's see if this explanation is better than what we've been working with. The help folks are trying to give you is all "inside-the-box" stuff. We use the box because it's filled with all the stuff that actually works. Not everyone understands it, and some of those folks even conclude that it's wrong without understanding it, but mainstream knowledge is the way we measure any explanation of a natural phenomena.

Even if you believe in clean coal, iirc this technology would only work on newly designed plants, so it would do nothing for all the existing ones. It's not about excluding coal altogether, unless that makes the most sense.

You take one narrow perspective about labeling ideas, a perspective that really doesn't make sense when you look at it hard, and dismiss the intelligence of the participants in the discussion. I'd rather someone try to compile a list of liberal political moves that support mild insanity. Compare it with the list in the other thread.

But that's where the label should go, imo, rather than on the person who has them. It's trivially evident that ideas can be any of those things individually, or a combination thereof. But people aren't just one idea, or philosophy, not in multiple contexts and perspectives.

I don't think it would have been a very long thread anyway.

No. I think most conservatism is rooted in fear. Knowledge and reason help put fear into perspective. To me, liberalism is all about using as much of our knowledge and reason as possible to make decisions in all our best interest. Humanism tells us we're worth it.

I'll never complain about my commute again.

I wish religious folks would leave science to the people who know science, FFS.

This makes it very difficult. Any link, like this one on how the heart really works, is going to be even more difficult to understand for you. Let me simplify what I was saying about the doctor and her statements. She claims, "We have shown, that the heart usually sends signals to the brain first, and the brain responds." This is true, but only when the heart is asking for the cardiovascular system to respond to need, like you're running now and need more oxygen. The doctor makes it sound like the heart tells the brain what to do, but that is false. She also mentions that the electromagnetic field of the heart is bigger than the brain, but so what? She makes it sound like the bigger EM field means the heart is the boss, but that's a very shaky conclusion. I don't know how to tell you any more, really. If you can't understand the real anatomy involved, I don't have much hope of showing you why these claims are false.

Isn't this what Strange is trying to do? Asking basic questions on terminology use will help strengthen the foundation of your idea so you don't try to build on shaky data.

This seems like another argument not fully thought through. Why on Earth would you expect a fund like this to pay a worker benefits for a woman who isn't his wife anymore, and also happens to be dead? I think you've been using this argument with people who never question you, or don't really listen to you so they don't catch it when you say something irrational like this.

Space isn't empty by scientific standards. It may be thought of as empty by people who are only counting planets and stars as "non-emptiness". It depends on the context in which you're speaking. I suppose it depends on what you think is important. If you're trying to land your space ship to make repairs, space will seem incredibly empty. If you're trying to beef up the shielding on your ship, you're going to find out that it's full of stuff that's trying to penetrate your hull. It depends on your perspective, like so much else. Also from a scientific perspective, opinion plays a tiny part. Empirical observation, noting what actually happens in reality, that's the difference between objective science and subjective opinion. Your last question needs some clarification. Are you asking whether there are elements we know about but have no way to detect, or are you talking about elements we haven't discovered yet? The idea that there is a whole bunch of answers we're completely oblivious to is a popular one. I think it gives the hope of some wiggle-room for folks who have some wild hypotheses.

A lot of it made by people who only pretend to like fish, but really just sell tartar sauce.

I like this image. I think reinforcements like this are important. Equate nicotine with something bad trying to get you, not a way to relax with a drink after work. You might slip and stop in at a bar if that's the way you think about it, but you'll never go back if it's synonymous with a kidnapper, or loan sharks, or the IRS.

It's not an argument, it's a request for clarification. You're using some terms in a non-standard way. It's confusing, we're asking what you mean by certain words. You're also mixing infinity, which is more of an abstract concept, with real numbers, and throwing dimensions in on top of it, and then drawing conclusions from all that. I hope you can see why so many people are asking you questions about your idea. Rather than telling us what we believe, or comparing us to flat-Earthers, I think it would really help if you were to answer the questions that have been posed. We always assume people come to a science discussion site to get some pro and semi-pro input on their ideas. We want to help, we want to show you where you're right and where you're wrong. We want to make sure we understand what you're talking about first, though. Doesn't that make sense?

This is very misleading. It's true, but not in most circumstances. The heart regulates its own rhythm and rate, but it gets signals from the brain (and other parts of the body) that make the heart beat faster or slower, depending on the need for oxygen. So this doctor gets to say things that are true if you look at them individually, but when you put them all together into a marketing campaign, it's very misleading. It sounds like she's supporting this crazy idea, but she's really just propping up bad claims with good ones and hoping her audience is too trusting to research it themselves. So, no. Don't trust these claims, they are false.

I find it depressing that anyone involved in this conversation could have the perspective that math is NEVER applicable to the real world. It's so trivially wrong that it must have been said strictly to get a reaction. I really don't get the position that, if I don't understand something, or can't make it work, it must be wrong or broken. How do people learn ANYTHING with this outlook?

There's a big difference between disparaging something because you don't agree with it, and pointing out mistakes, misinformation, and ignorance about it. Creationism doesn't need to be beaten down with a stick, it's demonstrably wrong about the science it pretends to know.

What country are you in? How is your school set up for STEM subjects? Do you have a counselor you can ask about proper courses of study for the subjects you're interested in? By self-study, are you talking about some areas you'd like to concentrate on in your spare time, or are you talking about self-study as opposed to mainstream academics?

I tried this argument at Barnes & Noble. "What do you mean I can't put my self-published book on your shelves? What if years from now it's a bestseller?" Farging bastidges. What does Barnes & Noble know about books anyway?

Here's the part I've never understood. In another thread, you admit that you've never studied physics, nor taken any higher math courses. Yet you claim that some mainstream physics theories and higher maths are flawed. How could you know? Don't you have to know something fairly well in order to tell if it's not right? Do you do this with other aspects of learning? If you knew nothing about assembly line manufacturing, would you walk into Ford Motors and start telling them what they're doing wrong? When you admit you've never done what they're doing, would you expect them to be be as patient as we've been? When you start out by making several mistakes, which really make looking at the rest of your ideas pointless, are they supposed to encourage you? Or would it be better for you if the folks at Ford asked you to learn what they're really about before trying to "cleanse" them?

What if we left them in mainstream science and a student failed his test because they thought your idea was mainstream? You aren't the only member, nobody is limiting your speech (outside the rules you agreed to when you joined), and I don't know why you're upset that we have a special section just for people who like to speculate.

You know what I thought?! Nice. Actually, what I did was give you a valid criticism of the methodology you seem to be using to arrive at the conclusion that math is wrong. And once again, using the preponderance of evidence, I have, on the one hand, all the wealth of information and discovery that math has brought to our species, and on the other hand I have you projecting arrogance and ignorance against the human mind because you don't understand some bit of science. If I'm weighing the evidence in both hands, one side is very light. Do you see the thought I put into this? It's funny, really. You say, "I call human minds imperfect for the reason of our ignorance and arrogant nature directed towards nature of our minds", and then proceed to claim that physics, based in the language of math, is wrong. Everybody but you missed this huge, glaring error, yet somehow managed to get things like GPS satellite systems and computers based on that math to work, and work well. You seem to be saying that, because things change, our knowledge might be flawed, so we can't trust the things we think we know. I've seen this argument, and variations of it, for the last 10 years here. Theory provides us with the best possible explanations of various phenomena, and we know they can be improved upon, but the likelihood of any major theory being completely wrong is exceedingly small. Mainstream science and the explanations it provides us with are the most trustworthy answers we have. If you don't understand part of it, you should ask someone who does, rather than assume it's all wrong. I'd like to know where you think the math is flawed. But before that, I'd like to know how much math you've formally studied. If you're self-taught, or didn't bother with calculus, then I know exactly where the problem is.