Phi for All

In the thread Ebola in the U.S. of A., the OP made a reference to Americans all being assholes, in violation of our rule 2.1 "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. The reference was not part of the argument, and seemed more like a rough attempt at humor, so no warning points were assigned and the offending language was removed. A modnote was placed to explain the violation but staff didn't want to call more attention than was necessary. Still, we really dislike removing words people have spent their time typing, and really appreciate a more thoughtful approach to discussion.

! Moderator Note Since it's been made clear that reading your comments has not been helpful in understanding what you wish to discuss, asking people repeatedly to reread them is pointless, and further shows you're unable to comply with the parameters of speculative discussion. Many people asking a single person for clarity should not be met with derision and obfuscation. Please consider starting a blog somewhere. Discussion has not been part of your demonstrable skillset so far. Thread closed for lack of evidence-based support. Please don't open this topic again unless you have new evidence.

"Connected" is different than "an offspring of". The bigger problem with your approach is that it encourages others to bypass learning actual science and make up their own definitions and processes, much like religion does. That is NOT a good thing. Using science allows us to see the reality of how we're connected with our environment, and has the added advantage of giving us a perspective based in reality about other planets, should we make the effort to visit them in the future. I think it's critical that we understand our rock so we can make other rocks home as well eventually. I think having little cults of people worshiping the Alpha of Life can only harm our attempts at exploration. Your perspective may seem unharmful to you, but it causes many people to think we shouldn't progress, that humans are somehow unnatural in the technology we use in place of teeth and claws and fur. While you might welcome interplanetary exploration, others with your perspective complain that we shouldn't even have a space program, or that nuclear power is evil and harms the Earth as a living organism. We see every day how seemingly benign concepts are corrupted by others, and I can easily see how your living Earth idea will be used in the future to keep us away from the stars. Again, why can't we be connected to our environment, wherever it may be, without imagining it to be anything other than what reality tells us it is?

Or we could go with the accepted mainstream definitions that more accurately describe this phenomenon, and also have the advantage of being used by scientists worldwide. This seems like a more accurate and efficient approach, as opposed to re-teaching the sunshaker terminology. Why don't you change instead of making everybody else change?

Security people monitoring video feeds 24/7 demand superior quality video that shows size relationship and focus that help them determine accurately whether the subject is an intruder posing a threat or just a bunch of Mylar balloons someone left at the front door of the building. They don't stake their reputations by making actionable decisions, like whether to call the cops or not, on vague and questionable data.

! Moderator Note Not without going off-topic. You should be able to figure it out. As in past threads, you are failing at communicating your point. You seem more interested in accusations of persecution than in discussing your ideas. Can you skip the Galileo complex and clarify what you wish to discuss? And please, as you well know, response to modnotes is not only unnecessary, it's off-topic and does NOTHING to help anyone understand what you're trying to say. Let me suggest you remove the chip on your shoulder and discuss science.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please take the time to read the special rules governing this section. And remember to keep personal attacks out of all discussions here at SFN. Ideas are our focus.

All theory is under scrutiny, constantly. That's one of the things that makes it so powerful. When a theory represents the best explanation we currently have, doesn't it make sense to teach it in school? Many do take these explanations as fact, but should leave a bit of room for skepticism. Can you give me an example from one of the many that make you upset?

I understand why this way of thinking persists. It's not so different from thinking there's a magic sky fairy watching over us. But that's dangerous to me. It means that some people will not take responsibility for what they do to the planet, because there is some grand design we don't yet understand that will automagically sort everything out in the end. I think we're going to need our wits about us in the near future because we've been doing some very irresponsible things to our environment. Some people want that to change, and others want to keep doing them. A lot of the latter folks argue that God has a plan, or that it's all pointless because there's a better place for us, or that the planet is a living organism itself that gave birth to a hierarchy of offspring with humans at the top of the list. We're a species uniquely adapted to move offplanet. I can't think of any other creature that could (on its own). That doesn't make us better, just better adapted to move away from home. I think it's critical that we understand that we're not Earth's babies, that Earth is a rock that can, at present, support great biodiversity. So it's not that I just don't like any analogy or suggestion that Earth is a living organism, I think it's unhealthy, unrealistic, and ultimately harmful to our future. We need to protect Earth because it's our home, not our parent. Parents die, offspring survive to have more offspring.

Only if you're going to treat it like an opinion that reflects on yourself. You shouldn't have to though.

And one that is often taken personally, when it was never intended to be.

! Moderator Note Speculative concepts shouldn't be placed in mainstream fora. We have lots of students who rely on the Relativity section being a place for the best current explanations of Relativity. Thread moved to Philosophy.

As long as the concepts discussed are based on the natural universe, theological claims are explainable by science. This doesn't stop crackpots from continuing to defend easily falsified concepts, but I think the most common theological crackpot arguments involve some kind of supernatural explanation science isn't really interested in covering, like the existence of divine beings or places like heaven and hell.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I do think this suggestion could accomplish the OP's goal without starting a new sub-forum. We've talked about setting up some kind of template for speculative ideas, and I think we have a boatload of stickies trying to tell folks how to approach the board with non-mainstream ideas. I'm always baffled when people insist instead of inquire when speculating. Perhaps it's the very common misconception that "proof" is required as opposed to evidence in support. If you say, "This is the way it really is" rather than "Could this be the way it really is?", you should expect your idea to be attacked with vigor, especially when you have no math to check and the logic you claim to rely on looks like Swiss cheese.

The possibility of the kinds of paradigm shifts you're talking about are dwindling as global communication within the community improves, imo. There are so many minds working on so many aspects of science that missing something major is highly unlikely. And improvements on current theory are on a completely different scale than the shift from geocentric models to heliocentric that you mention. To me, it's all about the preponderance of evidence. I'm not a professional scientist, so I rely on mainstream models to provide the best explanations. Do I worry that all those scientists working every day around the world to advance our understanding of the natural world are missing something huge, some paradigm shift that will show we've been teaching the wrong concepts this whole time? Not in the least.

Are you defining "more relaxed" as "let me propose whatever I feel like"? That's what blogs are for. In my experience, discussions about science need structure and a decent amount of rigor. "People taking an interest in science" should include a substantial amount of mainstream knowledge in order to be meaningful. If we could somehow get people to understand that most of the pushback they receive in Speculations is due to their insistent assertions that their pet theory is entirely correct right from the start, I think it would really help everyone. It's pretty typical for these posters to simultaneously admit they don't know much real science AND assert that their idea is a better explanation than the current models. Skeptical science minds are ALWAYS going to object to ideas presented this way, and they aren't going to want to continue a discussion until these mistakes are addressed. If they don't, it lends a tacit approval to methodology that lacks any sort of rigor. And I wouldn't let the rep system be the arbiter of any kind of topic's worth. All it really does is show a member's ability to discuss science within our rule system. Also, what you propose sounds like an awful lot more work for me.

! Moderator Note Moved to The Lounge, this is NOT speculative science. If clarity doesn't ensue, the thread will be moved to the Bit Bucket.

Unrealistic and unreasonable is EXACTLY how I would describe your insistence that the objects are "self-luminous", morphing, and not possibly ordinary..

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations due to the non-mainstream nature of the topic.

I worry about them even less than you.

That's hilarious. I give an example of why it's a strawman argument, and you counter with yet another strawman. They must cancel each other out, so I'll rate that as a null answer.

This is where I'd have to focus on reality. Does your belief really affect the way you live your life? Do you save all your toenail clippings so the trillions of little universes inside aren't murdered by your callousness? Or are you able to always justify your murderous ways by claiming it's always "down to scale"? Just pointing out some absurdities that don't seem to scale, certainly not accusing you of anything illegal. Personally, I think you should get rid of those boxes of toenails as fast as you can.

Done. Btw, 6. Would you define yourself as creativity? I almost put NO. You should change this noun to an adjective.

But evolution continues no matter what. Even during times of stability, small changes in genes within a population cause those populations to change. Be very careful trying to equate the challenges we face within our lifetimes to any evolutionary processes. Once you're born and then pass along your genes to an offspring, evolution doesn't care what challenges or catastrophes you as an individual face. But the Earth was still the Earth when there was no life. It just wasn't the Earth that we're able to adapt to. It was still the Earth when oxygen began to saturate our atmosphere, and a lot of the life around at the time died off. I think it's pretty premature to think the Earth has been preparing for human life. We're not nearly as stable and successful as some of the dinosaurs, and we certainly aren't as successful as many present lifeforms. We're just the only ones currently able to discuss it over the internet. I think there's a danger in this belief. I value life extremely highly, and I worry that the value is diminished if we're part of a larger living entity. As Strange pointed out, that might seem to make us parasites living off a larger creature. I already think there are too many humans who don't place enough value on the Earth as our home. For the same reason I worry that many religious people think a god will take care of our planet no matter what we do, I think there are those who would love to kiss it all off to a vast, universal entity that will sort everything in the end. To me, this is more like faith or wishful thinking rather than a rational stance that recognizes both our strengths and weaknesses as a species. OK, take your thumb and cut it off. How long will it live without the rest of you? If there were civilizations living within some of the cells in your thumb, what happens to them? I think you're just doing what humans are so good at, trying to find patterns to explain what seems difficult to grasp. I understand if you like to think of it this way, but there is absolutely nothing to support the idea, so it's a belief you arrived at without reason, or just a wishful thought that pleases you. Both are OK I guess, but they shouldn't be confused with a more trusted explanation rooted in reality.

Why do you think stability would be bad for evolution?