Phi for All

! Moderator Note Any further eruptions and this thread will be moved to Earth Science.

This is a thread YOU started. It's a discussion about YOUR idea. It's not about my idea. I'm saying you are trying to use science in a way it's not meant to be used. It's not for speculating on what might happen after we're dead if there's no observable way to measure what you're speculating about. You can't test it. So using science to determine things about an alleged "afterlife" is like trying to measure how many past lives you've had with a slide rule. And even when you talk about these things philosophically, you exclaim in assertions and use words like Truth, and try to make it seem like what you say is fact rather than your opinion, your idea of what might be. This makes it seem like you're preaching at us, that you have the one TRUE answer. We came to talk and you've just been yelling and insulting. What's up with that?! Edit to add: I really like the first part of your title. Explanations are what science is for. We always look for the best explanations by seeing how much evidence supports them. Explanations aren't wrong or right, they're trusted or not by seeing how they match up with the real world.

This really does give me a great deal of hope. I applaud this decision based on ethical treatment of our environment, and the acknowledgement of the threat of unchecked burning of fossil fuels. Bravo, World Council of Churches!

You absolutely cannot start by supposing the existence of something that can't be observed as "fact" (or in your case, "Fact" with a capital F). Quite the opposite; if it can't be observed in the real world, then it's supernatural and you can't use science to "prove" anything about it, or state "facts/Facts". It's circular reasoning, bad logic, to assume the existence of a god as proof that it does what you say it does. Science doesn't deal with "proof", it deals with evidence. It doesn't deal with truth/Truth, because what you think is true is different from everyone else on the planet. Your religion is your own, but when you start preaching about Truth and Fact, you aren't trying to discuss science. You're just trying to convert worshippers.

Personally, I always saw the story of Noah as pushing the bounds of credibility purposely, with the intent of numbing the reader/listener to any rational thought processes. If they can get you to believe THAT story, they can get you to believe anything. Two of every animal on a boat that size?! Doesn't it seem ludicrous to flood the whole world just to wipe out the bad humans? Where did enough water to flood the whole planet up to the mountaintops come from? To me, a Hollywood movie, with its required suspension of disbelief, is the perfect medium with which to tell the story of Noah.

Isn't that what the guy who crossed the Alps with elephants said?

I like the idea of karma, but I don't think it's anything mystical. I think it's just human confirmation bias. If you're looking for karmic justice, you're going to see instances of it in the randomness of your life as a pattern. I don't know how many cars have cut me off in traffic in my life, but I certainly remember one time because of alleged karmic justice. The guy cuts me off unnecessarily, so I pulled up next to him and gave him my best glare. Suddenly his car backfires, smoke starts pouring out and he has to pull off the highway. Karma-1, jerk-0. But I know I was looking for that pattern, that I wanted something retributive to happen to this perpetrator of foul deeds. I don't remember all the times I didn't get to see the pattern happen, but when it does you become convinced there's something more behind it. There isn't, it's just our amazing ability to find patterns in everything, even when they don't mean anything.

Work with local and national government and like-minded individuals to improve air quality through a combination of regulations and voluntary programs.

This sounds like a good idea, but experience has shown us that it just confuses people having to move between threads to pick up the discussion.

! Moderator Note Plagiarism is against the rules you agreed to when you joined. It's not an option. Don't copy/paste without giving credit. Period. Do NOT respond to modnotes in thread. Ever. Report them if you have an issue.

The cleanest place is the one you clean up yourself.

A free market economy should sort out a problem like this, and probably would if some of those who claim to want a free market economy weren't so busy manipulating legislation in their favor so they can keep competition at bay. Anyway, further discussion seems to be straying off-topic. Interesting stuff, perhaps a new thread is in order?

! Moderator Note Please provide a link or give a citation when copying the work of others.

A big quagmire surrounds the question of when to move away from an older technology that has established infrastructure, in favor of an emerging technology that could use help competing against the old. I have no doubt that the oil industry will continue to find ways to keep themselves profitable. If the playing field was even, I think it would be more obvious that alternative energies were needed. We still subsidize oil with taxpayer money and that makes it look more attractive than it really is.

I'd like to substantiate that Fred Champion's arguments don't reflect any man I know or would care to know. I'd like to substantiate that it's an abysmally childish argument, and one that seems to be prevalent with those who think being a sociopath is cool.

Define crisis. Right now, we're trying to wean ourselves off oil and look for alternatives we don't have as much infrastructure for. We'll always need more energy, and we're learning that this need must be addressed sustainably. Crisis = Danger + Opportunity.

Bad conclusion. Just because harvesting lightning isn't viable doesn't mean we don't need to worry about energy overall.

What a wide brush this "principle" paints with! I know people who have paperless offices, so I'll be sure to tell them they don't really exist. I don't understand the bit about the cities. Why would we need cities for non-humans? Don't cities and civilization as we know them require us by definition? Look, stimulation can come in lots of forms. I might want the concert tickets because they're worth more money. I could take the tickets, sell them, buy the CD and have money left over. I may not like the chaos of a concert but choosing the tickets makes more sense to me. What happens to this principle if I get more sensation out of not having to empty the trash in my paperless office? I would certainly have more time to spend finding other sensations.

Very interesting concept. Nice to be able to run pipes and wiring this way, if access to them is maintained. The robotics need extra protection from the elements, since this system requires you to be on site. If the camera recognition isn't compromised by being wet, this could be a great solution for construction where rain keeps normal workers idle.

Also effective are squirting lapel flowers, buckets of confetti, and really BIG shoes.

Congratulations, Function! Now the hard work starts.

It can if you treat it rationally. If your cancer is cured, you could take all the reality-based things your doctor did to help as supportive evidence that modern medical practice was responsible. Or you could use your faith in God's curative powers, which you freely admit you know nothing about, and imagine that was responsible. Faith wouldn't need to be disproven if you could show that another explanation was more trustworthy, less born from imagination.

I appreciate the lessons in gluten awareness, everyone. I'll have to decide on how to share the data with people I know who feel SO much better now that they're gluten-free. And there are a few ways native Americans could have ended up here after starting out in Africa. So even the people one might claim to have adapted first and best came from a different climate. Excellent point. Didn't Jared Diamond mention in Guns, Germs & Steel that the seed crops we took with us when migrating had better success when we travelled east and west, as opposed to north and south where we would be more likely to encounter climate changes?

Options for emphasis, that's all. Because sometimes, you need to call attention to a few words, and using ALLCAPS MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A CRACKPOT!!!

I checked with Tibet, and all those positions have been filled. The US could use some adventure-types to keep tourism healthy, though. Lots of travel, sorry. If it's no trouble, could you meditate on the plane?