Phi for All

! Moderator Note Please understand that you're not the only one following this thread. I know it's your concept, but others can learn from a transparent discussion with the experts you're engaging. Others may not wish to ignore the offered reading material, so it will continue to be made available as links in this thread. No need to respond to this in thread. Report it if you object.

I like this. We should stop peeing in the pool.

The non-science sections, Religion, Politics, the Lounge, these were all supposed to be diversions so people could talk about other things, always within the parameters of reason and critical thinking. I honestly don't know why people come here with a religion-only agenda when there are many websites that would treat them with a whole lot more acceptance than we generally do. Part of me would like to believe they want to be convinced about science's legitimacy. This is the part that wants to keep the Religion sub-section. I mean, encouraging people who are on a productive learning path is fantastic, but don't we also need to discourage those who've chosen poorly?

The promotion of superstition and belief in the supernatural is a lot like what the Amish in the US do when they keep their kids out of school. When Amish kids get a secular education, they tend to leave the faith. When people think there are incomprehensible powers at work, they often give up control of their lives to people they assume know best, the authority figures in their lives; ministers, employers, politicians, etc. I think many of those in power in business and politics in the US understand that if something seems incomprehensible, people will look past all kinds of madness to get help with it. Our tax system seems purposely daunting, our medical insurance is labyrinthine at best, and the entire legal industry seems built on this concept of "this is way beyond you, you need help". I also see this as laziness. When a vase falls off the mantle by itself, scientists immediately start looking for vibrations, air movement, structural considerations, materials, anything reasonable and rational that will explain why the vase fell. That's a lot of effort, so the lazy people just look at the glass on the floor and say, "Ooooh, spooky!"

My biggest frustration is seeing someone with your potential throw it all away because of your insistence that nobody can teach you anything. You want to dive through the wall out of frustration, but you don't realize you're the one who built the wall. "No teachers will teach me anything useful anyway!" A little more mortar, another brick. Perhaps this "only lead, never follow" philosophy isn't really working out for you?

Well, BBT only goes back to a fraction of a second after the cosmic expansion. So if, IF, that's the moment the universe was created, BBT doesn't address that. BBT is about what happened after expansion started.

I've not been a fan, even though I started a page years ago, and I've used many justifications to stay away from it as much as possible. I realize I don't have to be like some of my family and friends who share every little victory and defeat during their day. I don't have to give out too much sensitive information. I also used the excuse that FB is no substitute for meeting face-to-face. But friends and family have less time these days to get together, and I'm no different. I should be able to use FB as a better-than-nothing alternative. I promise I'm going to try to get on FB more often this year. I don't have to play the silly games and I don't have to tell anyone about my toilet stopping up. Hopefully, FaceBook is like going to a wedding; if you quit bitching about the bad parts and just go, you end up having a better time than thought you would.

I think it's a partial explanation in this case, as well as wishful thinking on my part. I was wishing Mr Rayon might see his red, white, and blue punching bag in a different light, with a bit of mirror thrown in. And I do think there's an active effort to keep the US superstitious and fearful, and as far from critical thinking as possible.

Personally, I think it's because some Australians, like you, have tall poppy syndrome. The USA is an easy target with its lack of humility.

I understand that this is what it looks like from your perspective. But most theories aren't disproved, they're refined and made better. This is the exact opposite of closed-mindedness. That we use theories and evidence instead of looking for proof and Truth supports this closely. You seem to want science to be unattainable for you, you want it to fail to justify your feelings, but you don't seem to want to put the work into it to understand it better. You're in a situation where you really need to understand what you're criticizing, but you're so convinced it's wrong that you won't bother. Everyone here feels frustrated when we come across smart people who insist on hobbling themselves when it comes to learning.

That's why 50 was better than 30, it gave us time to check up and see if someone is simply padding the count or not. I think the incentivizing aspect diminishes somewhat when the requirement is higher, too. The Report function is better these days, too, and the membership has been very good about reporting spam and other rotten posts. I think we all could spot most of the newcomers who are trying to cut corners to reach 50.

I got your meaning. And my objection stands. Using the phrase "doesn't suffer fools gladly" automatically attempts to place one as an arbiter of what is and isn't foolish. I have no problem with telling someone who is ignorant of the facts that they are ignorant of the facts. I have a BIG problem with someone claiming, "I always call a spade a spade", because again, you're automatically claiming that when you call something a spade, it definitely, unequivocally, absolutely IS a spade, and also deserves to be called out in exactly the manner you just did. You never earned that right. Where else can you undeservedly gain that kind of credibility with a simple claim? If I told you I used an algorithm to accurately detect foolishness in someone's post, you'd probably be pretty skeptical. But if I just say, "I don't suffer fools gladly", it's very likely it will just be accepted and the judgment will stand. It's a wolf-phrase in sheep's-phrase clothing that means a LOT more than you think it does. We used to have a 50 post requirement for posting in Religion, then it was reduced to 30, then abandoned altogether, iirc. I would propose either putting the 50 post requirement back, or just lock all the sections you guys object to so strongly. I don't have a problem with not having a religion section. I don't like the idea that we'd close it because some people think it's foolish. I think politics is different. It may be more opinion-oriented than our normal topics, but at least it can be addressed scientifically, and it tends to have more of an impact on science.

Fixed.

Good for you! I can't remember how long it takes, but I think you're still being influenced by the nicotine and continine in your system. Just keep in mind that those chemicals are influencing your judgment. Don't let them win! Congratulations! Cigarettes just aren't an option for you anymore, move on, find something better.

There's a certain freedom in being above reproach with regard to substance abuse. Right now, your family trusts that you aren't going to start smoking again, that you won't give in and sneak one at a convenience store when you're alone. They would like to believe you can go about your life without smoking, and they can go about their lives not worrying about you falling off the wagon. You're meeting everyone's expectations, including your own. I'm proud of you, you've accomplished what some people only dream of, and everyone, everyone in your life is better off for this wonderful investment you've made in your health. These are the rewards you need to remind yourself of every time you avoid temptation like this. Bravo, tar.

That's the way it seems to me as well. I would expect aerodynamic heating to break up a meteor, but I think StringJunky may be right about the pocket of gas. It just seemed like more than weakened material coming off the meteor, there was some energy behind that ejection.

The meteor was traveling in a very predictable way. Why, oh why, didn't the cameraman stay with the ejecta, or zoom out? From our perspective, it looked like that piece had a great deal of energy behind it.

I think this statement is at the root of the problems you're having communicating your concept. You've somehow gotten the idea that dark matter was "created" only so some equations would work. You're also falling into the trap of thinking science tries to "prove" anything. Proof is for maths, science looks for supportive evidence of the best explanations. A lot of evidence can be gathered from what happens around a phenomenon. If I suspect I have cockroaches in my house but never see them (dark cockroaches?), I can spread some flour on the floor so I can see the tracks they leave. Clear evidence that I have cockroaches, but I've never "proven" it, nor have I seen a single roach.

Besides this one? I didn't think there were any other sites on the internet.

I think this is closer to reality. It's interesting that we put a lot of importance on skin color, hair, and facial markings, but we tend to ignore them when it's an animal covered in fur. If an animal makes sounds like humans do, this can also help to identify individuals. I have friends who look rather like a lot of folks do, but they have a distinctive laugh or tone of voice that makes them unique.

It's not its placement that's under fire, it's the fact that its threads show up on the front page and make it look, occasionally, like that's all we talk about. In these instances, it wouldn't matter if the percentage was 99% science, if the front page happens to show 10 religion topics out of 20 total, it looks like we're talking about God half the time.

The Big Bang was NOT an explosion, so that's one "misconception", and then you offer another misconception to explain your objection. The universe wasn't "nothing" just before the BB. Scientific irony.

I feel much the same way about it. I think we have something unique, a place where people can talk about virtually anything in a scientific context, with the caveat that if you make assertions rather than state your opinion, you need supportive evidence. I don't mind people talking about their faith. I've learned a lot about faith over the years, and I understand what it means to many people, For me, SFN religious discussions help keep the focus on what we can address using scientific methodology, rather than simply talking about what we believe. Once the misconceptions are pared away, once natural explanations have taken the place of superstition and wishful thinking, what's left seems much more interesting and meaningful. I'm not looking to dissuade somebody from a religion they've had all their lives, but I think the vast majority of people would want to know the facts so they can be informed. I don't think it really aids faith to believe that your god is the one who brings the rain and makes sure the harvest will be fruitful. Ultimately, everybody doesn't learn the same way. We need a variety of ways to teach what we know. What's compelling to one isn't to another, so we need multiple perspectives. This guy is a walking fallacy, he is. It's like when someone tells you they're "naturally skeptical". It could be an attempt to set themselves up as an authority of Truth. They're skeptical of everything, so when they say they believe something, it's supposed to carry extra weight because they normally don't. It's the same with this "doesn't suffer fools" nonsense. It automatically makes the non-sufferer into some kind of non-foolish authority who "just tells you like it is", or " calls a spade a spade". It's a tactic to make your position unassailable, and it grants authority to label fools, which is a personal attack as far as staff is concerned. It's too easy to dismiss what you think is foolishness, and doesn't help discussions. I'd rather ban people who can't seem to get with the program rather than keep them here as fools.

Really?! You think formal logic is the same as informal logic or symbolic logic, except that they're just subcategories of the same thing? I would suggest that the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning alone show this isn't true. And again, logic doesn't form the foundation of science. You keep saying this but it isn't true. I specifically asked you to tell us why "coalescent systems are required for independent though and self-reflection" . You seem to be saying one has to have "systems" that combine before one can think independently. What does this mean and why is it relevant to what we're talking about? Instead, you've given me a hand-wavy defense of the accuracy in the way you use words (yet several other members have mentioned a problem with your word salad posts). Which seems to be exactly what happens when people of differing religions discuss them. They all have a different definition of religion, god, faith, you name it. Please tell me how you can use language to give everyone a universal definition of religion (or god, or faith) all can agree on. Even Ranch dressing doesn't make this palatable. Except there is. No matter how you define sentience, at some point our ancestors didn't have it. You may have to go back a ways, perhaps before our first real primate ancestors, or you could go all the way back to the first vertebrate fish who had their skeletons on the inside for the first time. At some point, our ancestors were not what we could call sentient. Let me show you what I mean by "word salad". Take this above sentence. What it says to me is, "You're wrong because you think empiricism is required for logic, but it's just one of two major components". It's a bad statement, if you really take a look at it. It's like saying, "You're wrong to say that cars need wheels to move because they also need an engine". The rest seems like you're trying to fill in what you don't know with what makes sense to you, and then you call the whole thing "logical". And that's the really bad part, because you've reached all your conclusions so subjectively that it can only be thought of as opinion, yet you'll continue to think you're doing science.

dave the SFN Admin? A different Dave? This was the problem we ended up with last time. Banning an entire subject can hardly be considered light-touch moderation. I have no problems with telling people that religion is the one thing they can't mention here, but historically the problems are not as simple as you think. Yours are not the only reasonable arguments.