Phi for All

This is a discussion forum, but this thread seems like a tutorial. Did you want to discuss this idea, or teach it to us?

This is an area where I lean Libertarian. We have all kinds of laws in place to prevent and prosecute crimes committed while under the influence. I think legalizing all drugs and requiring quality assurance similar to all the other poisons we sell legally is the only way to eradicate the criminal aspect and allow people to alter themselves any way they like, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

There are probably many factors, but it looks like you already had your own question answered before posing it. I predict this is going to be a thread bashing mainstream science. Somehow, inexplicably, it will probably be tied back to Darwin at some point. Honestly, I think one of the worst barriers to understanding is our own cognitive biases. Critical thinking can overcome this, but too many people never learn it, and the rest of us have to suffer.

Mainstream explanations serve as the physical limit we must respect. We also call it "the box", and you seem to pride yourself in your ability to think outside it. Unfortunately, for some strange reason, you talk about limits for ideas but don't use the perfectly good limits the scientific method provides. You're standing obstinate, still demanding proof (which I told you before, science isn't interested in), claiming to be scientific while not using any of the tools correctly. You obviously didn't like my engineer analogy, but I'm going to try again. If you're putting together one of those build-it-yourself desks from IKEA, do you use the instructions and tools they give you? If it calls for wood glue to hold wooden pegs in holes, do you use wood glue? If the instructions tell you that you have to put the body of the desk together BEFORE you put the drawers in, are you able to understand why? If you answered yes, then why do you insist on trying to do science without using the tools and instructions required? You and cladking both seem to think scientists are unchanging robots who rely on rote learning to join the rest of "the herd" in their wrong assumptions about the natural world. Everyone's wrong but you're right. And so you avoid the very thing that could help you with your perspective, using "the box" the way it was meant to be, as a repository of the best explanations we have to date on various phenomena. That's what you guys are missing out on, and falling behind in knowledge because YOUR explanations are the ones that don't change.

! Moderator Note Let's leave religious discussions out of mainstream sections, please. Physics deals with the natural, not the supernatural.

There's really no way to enforce this with the software, but I'd like to adopt the convention that we don't give negative rep to an OP. This would encourage the concept that there are no stupid questions, and perhaps we won't chase away as many potential learners.

Somewhere along the line in your education, you got the mistaken impression that science needs to "prove" things. This is not true at all. Scientific method isn't concerned with proofs; that's actually for maths, but I know you don't want to hear that. We use theory, because a theory is never "proven". One of the greatest values of a theory is that we always look at the evidence in favor and judge the theory trustworthy based on that. So a counter theory with more evidence in its favor will be accepted as the mainstream explanation. If we thought our theories were "proven", we'd stop looking for better answers. Do you realize that your definition of evidence is dogmatic and hidebound compared to ours? If we used your definition of evidence, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The fact that science works with theory has given you this opportunity to question those theories. But you need to work within the method, and present evidence that supports your conjectures and assertions, and answer any arguments that refute it. Seriously, you have a LOT of misconceptions about science, consistent with not being able to generate the math that might help you easily verify the viability of an idea. I would encourage you to learn a bit more about those things you criticize most. Does it really seem realistic that you have it right and all the professionals are wrong?

A lecture has a single speaker. If the speaker throws it open for others to join in, then it isn't a lecture anymore. And if they're taking questions during the lecture rather than after, it's still not the time to help someone else with the coursework. Why would you pay to listen to a lecture from a more knowledgeable person, and then talk through it? This is your time to listen. I'd be angry if you wasted my time and money distracting me from my lecture. There's a special level of Hell for people who talk at the theater, with a roped-off section for loquacious lecture lovers.

In discussions here, we should all try to avoid words that label the whole person, whether the context is bad or good, simply for accuracy's sake. Nobody is a single thing. But a person's ideas aren't the person, or at least we can't view them that way here and be effective in discussion. So it's perfectly alright for someone to show how your idea is a crackpot idea, but they shouldn't call you personally a crackpot. We should assume that you have ideas that aren't considered crackpot ideas. Personally, I don't like to use the word "idiotic" even when referring to ideas. I can call an idea stupid without implying the person is stupid, but idiotic implies that it came from an idiot, and that's not a blanket I'm comfortable throwing over anyone. Just so we're clear about the definition, crackpot ideas are ones that tend to leap over lots of basic and important steps in order to address a concern that's usually a misconception about a particular mainstream theory. When you say your ideas haven't been studied properly, it's most likely because you didn't present them properly. You're an engineer. If I came to you with an idea about using a fastening system made from lead (Pb) that would be ideal for a particular use since it's a poor electrical conductor, you would probably stop me right away and tell me that lead is too malleable for use as a fastener in this situation. How would you react if I continued to tell you how great my new system would be, and that we could somehow make lead stronger for this application? You know (in this analogy, at least) that lead just won't work, it can't take the stress in this application, but I'm thinking way down the road, about how my lead fasteners are going to solve our conductivity problems and have all kinds of other brilliant benefits. Hopefully, so nobody is hurt, you'll tell me you aren't going to spend any resources on my idea, simply because it fails in some of the most basic tests. I have to ask now, what are you going to tell me when I complain that you didn't properly study my idea?

I have a very hard time with the concept of science as a simple belief. To me, belief is a variable state, with supportive evidence as the critical factor. I believe there may be some spark of consciousness that lives on after we die, but I have nothing to support that belief, so I don't find it very trustworthy. On the other hand, I believe evolution is happening all around us, and is one of the best supported theories around. I believe in evolution, but more than that, I trust it a great deal as an explanation for all the diverse life we see on our planet. The interesting part is, you could probably never convince me NOT to believe in consciousness after brain death, even though I don't believe strongly in it. It truly is just "belief", or more accurately "hope" or "wishful thinking", and not based on anything that could be supported or refuted. On the other hand, show me evidence that outweighs the evidence that supports evolution, and I'll wholeheartedly consider it as a better explanation. I find that the mechanism for looking rationally at an explanation is crucial to whether or not you'll have trouble looking critically at something that overturns your beliefs. If you arrived at your belief without using reason, it's doubtful reason will ever persuade you off of it.

We've held fast with the concept of giving people with new ideas a great deal of latitude, and arguably to our detriment. We've had many top-flight members leave because they disliked how long we allowed many speculative threads to explore ideas that were trivially falsified in the first couple of pages. Once an idea fails the early tests, these threads are usually about teaching everyone except the original poster how the methodology needs to be addressed. The OP is usually still banging on a broken drum, but can be a valuable learning tool for others who follow that thread. I don't think we do a poor job at hearing out new ideas. I think we try to draw a line between encouragement and viability. I don't think we do anyone any favors by encouraging a flawed idea, and most of the time I see people not only pointing out flaws, but offering ways to improve and shore up bad foundations. Certainly, we have members who have little patience for those who skip the basics, or don't listen to constructive criticism, but that's the fine line the staff has to be concerned with. We don't want to lose anybody who has a serious interest in learning.

What would be the purpose? Having worked in an office environment, I know it's bad policy to have more than one person controlling the thermostat. There's very little correlation between what affects the weather and things we could genetically engineer ourselves for. It's much simpler and more easily controllable to continue to work at this from a technology perspective, engineering tools to enhance what our bodies can't do.

What resources are you currently using? Have you taken advantage of local programs?

Bacon is probably why war was being declared in the first place. Before the discovery of oil, bacon would have been a great reason to invade. A little dyslexia when pulling up your link gave me a great idea for a line of pastries. Who wants a bacon danish made with Danish bacon?

Starting fresh would be a great idea. This thread started out with a different purpose. I'd like to see a brand new speculative thread to discuss the actual idea.

Why does an older, bigger, smarter, more accomplished individual feel the need to belittle, demean, and pick on someone they feel is inferior? Perhaps your solution lies more with ethics than logic. I could argue that if this person feels the need to prop up their own self-esteem by belittling others, they aren't smarter or more accomplished. They've failed to mature in a very basic human way. They're just older and bigger, which doesn't make them better. In this context, it just makes them bullies.

I've already started thinking of it as "destebbins" for short. As in, "D'oh, I was SO prepared, but then the boss told MY joke and I was completely destebbinsed!"

Let me give you just a peek into the future of a lingual description of your idea and the problems you may encounter, using the above quote as an example. First, you call it a "belief". To me, that says it's an opinion, not an explanation supported by a preponderance of evidence in its favor. You capitalized the letter S in "some". Is there an importance attached to this? Your use of the term "upper crust", particularly in quotes, could suggest either its use as a offhanded colloquialism, or it could be a euphemism for a harsher term like "eggheads" or "know-it-alls". I'm not criticizing your style, and certainly not you personally. I just want to show how the use of words to describe anything requires a lot of agreement on definitions and context. And the problem specifically is that most people here will be using terminology they learned from mainstream science, while you'll be using other terms known only to yourself to describe what you've been visualizing. Because most people get their science from pop culture sources, in small, digestible bites with lots of cool graphics. Science journalism is still trying to sell ad space, not science. Many concepts are poorly understood by laymen because they listened to a more palatable sound byte rather than read up on a study themselves to see if it has merit. Seriously, when a journalist asks a scientist if they can tell the readers, in laymen's terms, exactly what their new theory means, I wish the scientist would just say, "No, I can't, you need too much specialized knowledge in a variety of disciplines to understand this." I think there's a video circulating around like this.

Are Christians and "evolutionists" mutually exclusive, in your opinion? And are you saying both evolution and religious "creation" happened? I'm afraid your attempt to make things simple hasn't worked, at least for me.

Using your hypothesis, can you show us how the altitude of a geostationary orbit is found? This would give your idea some predictive power and allow for more precise feedback.

If a person's "worth" is being used to devalue an argument they're making, it's an ad hominem fallacy. A good argument doesn't rely on its source. It's also a fallacy to assume someone's argument is better because of who they are. If Person A is saying his arguments should have more weight because of all the things he's accomplished, this is Appeal to Authority, and it's equally fallacious logic. In this situation though, it seems like what we're arguing about is the "worth" of a person, rather than the value of their arguments based on their "worth". If experience is the sole determining factor, isn't that automatically going to make younger people worth less than older people?

This seems similar to when you're talking to someone and anticipate their response incorrectly. For example, I run into a friend on the street, he asks how things are, I tell him I'm flying out on business later that day, we exchange a few more pleasantries, and as we part I anticipate that he's going to say, "Have a great day!" Instead, he says, "Have a great trip!" and I respond with, "You too!", which is completely wrong since he's not going anywhere and now I have to correct myself. Awkward! In part, this is a flexibility issue. If we think too rigidly, we become predictable and have a harder time adapting to change. It seems like a perceptual shift; in the example the OP gives, the character focused on a single instance of public display and over-rehearsed it, rather than honing overall public display skills and adapting them to fit the circumstance. An analogous situation would be in martial arts; I'm sure there are styles that rely on a series of specific moves to achieve a certain outcome, and then there are styles like jiu-jitsu, where it's all about learning the general skills, and then only reacting to what your opponent actually does. The latter style is more flexible, and adapts well to changing circumstances.

! Moderator Note You don't question the evidence, which means you don't question the math. BUT... you question the theory based on a thought experiment, which you've been told repeatedly can't EVER be used to disprove a theory. The mathematical consistency should scream out to you that you're focusing an inordinate amount of effort on a physics dilemma that only appears when you ignore the language of physics in favor of the less precise language of thought. Please consider that, if what you say above is true, you acknowledge that the theoretical structure of relativity is mathematically sound. So the real problem you have is that you can't easily check the math to resolve your misunderstanding, which keeps leading you into more rabbit-holes. This thread doesn't seem to be helping you understand. It seems very important to you and we all respect that, but discussing it like this hasn't done any good (for 8 pages!). Don't open any more threads on the subject. Other than learning the math involved, I don't know any other approach that will help. I just know discussion about it has failed. Thread closed.

I got it to 0, someone else will have to add +1. And can someone add a +1 to the post for me, too? Thanks for a great perspective, Bignose.

Perhaps: The woman watched the other hunters leave without her. Her hand ached, and she looked down to see she was tightly gripping her fist around nothing, having left her hunting stick over by where the others were using the hot sticks to burn the meat from their kill . Her breath quickened and she opened her hand. She could go get her hunting stick, but she knew she was too heavy to hunt. She blinked several times as a wash of emotions tried to cross her face. She loved to hunt, but she knew that her heaviness meant she was going to become more than one soon. She shivered standing in the sun, wondering why she didn't want to join the hunt anyway, and then her hunting hand moved down to her growing belly and her breath slowed to normal. The corners of her mouth went up to reveal her teeth as she thought about becoming more than one, and how other women she'd known had held the small hunters close to themselves until they grew bigger. It looked so good, so right, and she felt herself grow calm when she thought of not hunting... for now, for a while, until she could hold the small part of her close to herself. Then she would hunt again! She opened her mouth and made the sound that all was good, and heard the others around her make the sound too, showing their teeth as they ate. I chickened out and didn't tackle the concept of how H. ergaster would think about individuals. Would the female necessarily be close to the father of her baby, would she think of him as Urk or Tallest or Red Hair? There wasn't a lot of competition for females, so it's hard to think about how family relationships would function. Good luck!