Phi for All

! Moderator Note Four posts have been... filed elsewhere, as they hijacked the thread topic. A bout of leniency caused me not to issue warning points. Please report hijacking rather than responding to it.

I can't find where "they" said anything like that. Who are "they", or are you trying to conflate this article with some less-than-reputable one?

! Moderator Note Wild Cobra, you need to start citing your own evidence to support your arguments, and stop ignoring the evidence others are providing. Denial alone is insufficient here. Contribute to the discussion, please. Preponderance of evidence after 21 pages will most likely result in closure of the thread if you don't. Report this modnote if you object, but please don't take the thread off-topic by responding to it.

"That trick never works." - Rocket J. Squirrel

Hint: Probably not climate change. The context was post-American Civil War. The South wasn't part of the conversation about standards, and since you're obviously part of our conversations about climate change, your attempts at defamation seem juvenile and ignorant.

Wow. You're a piece of work, you are. Does your oil company pay you well to pick cherries out of season context?

You should start a blog somewhere.

The first time ever, I was 14. I was in Italy with a charter group from the US that included my parents. We were having lunch in a restaurant but I was sitting at a different table than my folks (yes, she was very cute). When the check came at the end of the meal and an older gentleman told me what my portion of it was, I replied, "Don't look at me!" There was an embarrassed silence before he went to the other table to get some cash from my folks, and I was profoundly struck by the juvenile, pampered, ignorant response I'd given. From that day forward, I made sure I always pulled my own weight and didn't look to my parents for every little detail. The first time it was science-related that I can remember was at least 25 years ago, when I heard a man describe why the sky was blue. There was so much information in that explanation that I didn't remember from school. I knew I was ignorant about a lot of science that I should have paid more attention to when it was being taught to me.

You're going to need some frikkin' lasers at some point. Also, make sure to leave tube racks and flasks full of volatile chemicals near the edge of the counter, preferably over electrical cords with frayed insulation. Lab accidents are essential for effective supervillainy.

I have some neighbors down the street who have ten kids and seven cars. The only time I see the whole family together (they home-school the kids and don't mix much with anyone else) is when they wash their cars by hand. I get it, big family, lots of idle hands, why spend $6 per car at the ultra-efficient car wash five blocks away when you can haul out the hose and soap and use cheap water from your own tap to get the job done? They did this even when the city had watering restrictions for lawns during our last drought (the city didn't place restrictions on car washing because most folks use the machine wash when they fill up with gas, or the bay washes with the wands and special soaps and waxes). I think a water tax is the best way to target those who use more than necessary. It's smart and surgical, and it puts the burden where it needs to be and rewards those who conserve instead of those who just claim to be conservative.

! Moderator Note Dekan, please stay focused on this topic. If you want to discuss your overall displeasure regarding the integrity of science, please use one of your other threads on the subject, or start a new one. Report this modnote if you disagree with it, but don't take the thread off-topic by discussing it here, please.

My education wasn't science-focused, and I didn't realize how much that affected my critical thinking skills until I was in my forties. I joined PhysicsForums, which at that time had a relationship with Michio Kaku, and I'd read some of his work so it seemed a logical choice. I learned about arguments and logical fallacies, and got hooked pretty quickly. But PF was huge, even back then, and it was easy to get lost in the crowd. I joined SFN and found the smaller community more refreshing and engaging. I liked that the site owner was a pre-med student whose studies we all followed. Sayonara3 showed us all how to dissect a creationist argument with razor precision and wit, without fallacy or overt ridicule (not sure what he's up to now, but I am sure the British government would have me removed for even guessing). And there was this awesome physicist from the US Naval Observatory who worked with frikkin' atomic clocks, yet made the time and had the patience to discuss science with us noobs. And I discovered through SFN what the power of the web really was, not just immense amounts of knowledge, but bringing me in touch with real-world perspectives from outside the US. Suddenly, I was seeing science and the world through people from all around the world, something I think is sadly lacking in most American's lives. Also, you got a bag of Cheese Nips for joining back then, so I had that going for me. Which was nice.

Americans are the topic. I can start another thread exploring the correlation between religious beliefs and lack of internet access in the US. That actually sounds interesting.

I'm not interested in rivalries. My disappointment is focused on the judgements leveled in this thread at an entire group of people, inferred from specific cases. "Giving proficiency tests to the teachers", "asking questions in school is like asking questions in church", "mindlessness of the system", "teachers are just at it for the paycheck", all of these are generalizations aimed at a group made up of individuals. I'd feel the same way if you were making these blanket statements about gay people or the elderly or any other group.

I think more people think they understand their religious beliefs better than they really understand science. I don't think people go to libraries for research as much since access to the internet in times of personal crisis is easier and more efficient.

Knowing what the app does would help. Can you give us an overview?

"Extension" and "life" seem to me to be the noisy and inaccurate parts of this statement. Living things are simply more efficient at taking in energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat than non-living things are. "Natural part of the universe" seems unnecessary. Can you give any examples of anything that isn't naturally part of the universe?

I'm very disappointed in the generalizations about teachers in this thread. I find it extremely insulting to the profession. Perhaps the problem doesn't lie with all of them.

It really is all about how you ask, isn't it? The part I hope he takes on board is inquiring as opposed to insisting. You can't come to a forum like this with a challenge like that and expect gummy bears and roses.

I'm glad, since evolution and physics generally don't help when you're sick. But I'd call on Lister or Hippocrates before I call on a god. They've had more success with human illness. Or are you someone who believes God can cure cancer but not amputations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_capacity_evaluation

Great post, Delta1212. And not a single nit was picked in your summation.

! Moderator Note Once again, people are criticizing your ideas and you criticize the people. You really need to focus on discussing ideas and stop talking about people's abilities. In fact, I'm recommending you take a week's vacation while you look up the definition of ad hominem fallacy.

! Moderator Note jeremyjr, you've been asked to stick to this topic and stop bringing up closed threads. Further attempts to promote your YouTube channel will be hidden since they also violate the rules you agreed to when you joined. If you look beyond your Galileo complex, you might see that nobody is denying your video exists. Once again, the topic is whether or not such video is sufficient to allow conclusions to be made when such video has no reference points, focus, or objective methodology used in its interpretation.

Why did you just bypass science, right there? You used a logical fallacy called Begging the Question to assume the Earth is a living organism and that there is "science" that tells us why. Yet you've been shown by many people here that Earth is not a living organism, unless you torture the definitions to fit your concept. You are NOT doing science when you do this, you're doing the very thing I fear will keep people misunderstanding the real world and making up their own definitions of what science is. I'm very sorry you persist in this little fantasy you've got, simply because it pleases you subjectively. Science needs everyone using the same definitions, rooted in reality, in order for human communication and cooperation to lead us to the stars. You aren't helping.