Phi for All

Do you get the feeling that the knitting and the crocheting were accompanied by some model-airplane-building in an unventilated room?

! Moderator Note Most members here are deeply committed to helping others understand how the layers of scientific knowledge interact to provide the best available explanations for natural phenomena. Willfully ignoring the help others provide is beyond frustrating for those who have taken the time to learn mainstream science. To continue asserting unsupported speculation, or that science is unsure in a certain area when you're shown that science is indeed very sure, is no different than trolling. zorro, please, please, PLEASE re-evaluate your learning process. Often, when someone doesn't intuitively grasp a concept, they determine that it must require "outside the box" thinking, but "the box" contains everything we know. You won't like to hear this but you need to study "the box" before you even know why it might be necessary to go outside of it. No more soapboxing. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Let's please stick to the topic. I hate splitting posts off into unplanned threads.

OMG. Sage should stagger vacation schedules, or stop doing Open Bar Fridays.

Agreed. "Higher power" is so vague it allows people who don't really believe in a personal god to allow for something more powerful than us. Higher power ≠ personal god. Precise words are necessary when tests are run, polls taken. Somewhat related, when I was much younger I had to take a lie detector test for a cashier job I had. The test questions were rigged to find thieves everywhere, since that's what the investigators had been hired to do. I was honest to a fault in my job but when they asked me if I had "taken" money from the cash register that didn't belong to me, my mind assumed they meant "stolen", so I said no. It showed up as a lie because of course I had "taken" money out of the register that didn't belong to me, that's part of the job, giving change to the customer. If you want accurate answers, your questions must be equally accurate.

The Impact of Legal Abortion on Crime is a valid paper, imo. The controversy it created is obvious, but I find none of the refutations offer compelling enough objections to cast doubt on the Donahue-Levitt paper (unless you really suspect leaded gasoline was the cause of all that extra pre-1990 crime). He means it's not exactly evidence that the Catholic Church is benevolent towards science just because they later extolled Galileo's genius. They persecuted him at the time, and that's what matters. John Cuthber was asking if it's OK if he persecutes you similarly, as long as he promises to extol your greatness after you're dead. If the church at the time would have listened to Galileo, don't you think science would have benefited? If so, then it's clear the Catholic Church was an obstacle to science.

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

I think there's a huge difference between knowing people but disliking them just because they're religious, and disliking what some people are doing for religious reasons. I don't get into religious discussions with religious people I know personally. I have no interest in their beliefs until those beliefs become detrimental in some way to me. So I really don't care what you believe as much as how you believe it. You want to give a tenth of your income to the church? OK. You want to use the teachings of your religion to make yourself a better person, I think that's great. But when you demand that public schools, where my child goes to be educated in reality, start teaching intelligent design in science classrooms, well now we have a problem. When you demand that the government, which is supposed to be separate from any church, give money to religious endeavors under the guise of faith-based initiatives, you have introduced your supernatural beliefs into my tax dollars and that is WRONG. When you would put so many actual, living human adults in so much danger to save a clump of cells that might end up human, in essence giving rights to an unborn blastocyst that are superior to that of the host mother, you have ignored reality in favor of your beliefs. Even your morals should tell you that if we adopted the "life begins at conception" argument, it would cause far more harm to living humans than it would save. Every pregnancy would be a possible murder charge. Prosecutor: "Is it true you worked out at the gym on the day of your miscarriage, Miss Smith?" Reality tells us that when abortion was legalized, 18 years later the crime rate went down significantly. Reality tells us that unplanned and unwanted children often turn to crime. Make no mistake, I would do everything I could to avoid an abortion in any case where I had some say in it. I hate that it's necessary, but I can't judge everyone else by my feelings. I think making abortions available is necessary to our society. Is it possible for a theistic scientist to see the benefits past the kneejerk, "babykiller", all-life-is-sacred argument?

This has always bothered me. It seems to imply that if I don't understand the concept of evil, I'm immune from it. If I don't understand evil, isn't there a chance I might do something God would claim as evil? Adam: "Hey God!" God: "Hi Adam. Where's Eve?" Adam: "She's resting after our latest talk." God: "Adam, is that Eve on the ground with her skull caved in?" Adam: "Yeah. We were talking about that apple tree you told us to stay away from, and she wanted to eat one. I needed to stop her and I remembered I once hit my head on a rock and slept for a while. So I found a smaller rock and made it hit her head so she'd sleep. Smart, huh?" God: "You killed her, Adam. That's pretty evil." Adam: "I'm sorry, pretty what?!"

No disrespect at all. I chose words like "can make people seem..." with respect and leniency in mind. Let me make it clear. I have no problem with what people believe until it starts to impact my world. In this, I feel the same way about virtually everything; treat people the way you want to be treated, do what you feel you need to do but be willing to pay the consequences, and don't turn your problems into other people's problems. Your beliefs don't impact me the way it would if an elected official made decisions based on their personal religious beliefs, or a group tried to stop Planned Parenthood from teaching contraception in favor of abstinence. Their are many religious people, in science and out, who have a quiet faith that is just for them and from which they derive a great deal of comfort without ever having forced those beliefs on others. Sometimes I think it takes a scientific mind to believe in God while acknowledging that others are allowed to believe differently. A scientist could be happy with, "We just don't know" as an answer.

I agree that what he's done and how he feels about it is magnificent. I wasn't implying that someone should shower him with money, but I'd at least prefer it be called the Moser Light instead of the Solar Bottle Bulb. I'm glad there are organizations that are bringing this to all parts of the world, and I'm sure Alfredo Moser is just interested in the relief it will bring, but I think his name should be attached to the device for eternity. I think, to the millions of people just like Moser this device is helping, it will bring hope as well as light.

If you think about the whole "Let go and let God" approach to Christianity, it must feel great to trade worship for being allowed to be human, to be forgiven for all those nasty things we do like having unmarried sex and envying your neighbor's jet ski. On the other hand, you have to be taught that those things are sins (if you're oh so lucky enough to live in a place where they preach one of the 9000 sects of Christianity), and I think it's very powerful when someone teaches you that you're basically bad and also teaches you how to be forgiven. Classic stick/carrot. Genuine belief based on feelings, which some call faith, can make people seem a bit like trolls because they offer nothing but wishful thinking and supernatural explanations. The books this faith is based on show no knowledge of the world greater than that of the people of the time who wrote them. But I think being absolved for all those sins you were taught that you committed is such a pleasurable release that many overlook how their religion often ignores reality. I think zorro misplaced an apostrophe in the title. "Science Is An Amazing Work Whose Purpose Is To Explain Gods Creation" at least shows that science is in the business of reality. If you're looking to create gods, religion has many tricks, and science can explain an ever-increasing number of them.

Truly remarkable. This is something that could only come about this way, since business is rarely interested in developing such products. Great ideas that make little money often wither on the vine. Maybe if we adopted altruism as a global currency, our economy might change for the better. This humble guy will affect millions of people with his gift, and I think he deserves more than recognition.

One question I would love to see answered is about the number of limbs for vertebrates. We seem only to be able to have a maximum of four (two sets of two matching limbs), due to having evolved from lobe-finned fish 400 million years ago. Would it be possible to have vertebrates with six or eight limbs, having developed from a common ancestor with that kind of skeletal structure? I can certainly see why it would be too costly to grow more limbs than your species has, but I wonder if a creature with more limbs would be more successful. Or would it require too much else to make it worthwhile, in terms of weight and organ placement?

This is the most likely answer, of course. I can see where it would be difficult for one separate branch to mount a coup on the rest; there are good checks and balances there. But I think deterrents can be built into a unified system also. Please elaborate. "Competition is preserved between services" can also be read as "interservice rivalry causes tension and mistrust". This happens a LOT, and not only in the military. Our FBI is notorious for not sharing information with local police authorities, and between FBI, CIA, NSA and other initialed groups there is too much non-cooperation, to the point where they have to set up special initiatives to curb the problem. Interservice/interagency rivalry is a real problem. It would be more difficult for a commander of a separate service to go rogue than one who could conceivably pull from defenders in multiple skills and roles. I have to think that there is a way to structure a unified defense force to allow for adequate checks and balances to the added power. But I'm far from knowledgeable about the intricacies of modern military command. It just seems like unification would help us stay strong by eliminating a lot of administrative redundancy, gaining some needed flexibility to deal with ever-changing modern warfare and saving the fighting for the enemy.

! Moderator Note Not.

! Moderator Note roger4464, you need to realize that you aren't making yourself understood. We need more details and less hype (please stop ending your posts with "Roger Dynamic Motion", it makes it seem like you're advertising something that you can't even explain, and I think that's causing some frustration). If the idea you are trying to put forth is too difficult for you to communicate, how is it going to replace mainstream theory? Please take the time to focus on a specific area of your idea and give as much detail as possible so we can be more successful at understanding your idea.

I think current division is marked by specialization, but a unified force can still specialize. The only real advantage I see is compartmentalization of knowledge, with a central command (JCS) that disseminates information on a need-to-know basis. There may be valid security concerns here, but I think the savings in time and money would allow us to address those concerns better. I always think about the A-10 Warthog, the jet that the Air Force designed to be a forward scout capable of leading other air assets to ground targets. The Army loved the A-10 for its close support capabilities for infantry, and began requesting them as support in many missions. The Air Force fighter jocks thought such grunt work was unglamorous and squabbling led the Army to request its own version of the A-10, flown by Army pilots who would favor infantry support over flashier missions. We spent a lot of money commissioning the same basic jet for two branches; that would have been eliminated with a joint force unified towards effective solutions instead of diluting their efforts trying to justify ever-growing budgets. Honestly, I think tradition keeps most countries from unifying their military. What keeps the US from unifying is most likely all the contracts and lucrative deals that can happen when you can't even find a computer system capable of keeping track of your expenditures. Yet another area where the US spends a great deal more than anyone else, albeit with markedly more success than our healthcare system.

Let's all make sure to keep those panties unbunched, ladies, and your replies civil. I was always intrigued by Senator Stuart Symington's proposal for a unified military. After fighting to have an Air Force separate from the Army, he realized that dividing the troops this way led to a lot of internal rivalries and excesses. Every dollar Congress appropriates for the military has four hands reaching for it, each hand with a staff of admins trying to justify why that dollar should go to them. Symington later argued for a unified military, where defenders trained and specialized, but we'd have soldiers who can fly planes, soldiers who can drive tanks, soldiers who can sail ships, instead of separate Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. Much more efficient, more flexible, less apt to make redundant purchases, tighter chain of command, there would be lots of advantages.

I've seen this stance many times before. Unfortunately, in claiming that scientific methodology is flawed due to narrow-minded, dogmatic pursuit of mainstream explanations, this argument fails because it's even more hidebound, convinced incontrovertibly that "the box" is wrong and all true answers must come from "outside the box". The "scribbling away buried in equations" argument tells us that maths are misunderstood, especially the way they're used to make predictive models. The part about "they dare not entertain the possibilty [sic] that all their lfe's [sic] work is based on pseudoscience and science fiction", well, that sounds more like a fear that would vex the crackpot, not the scientist who followed a successful, proven method for creating solid foundations on which to build knowledge of our universe.

While I agree that school should be religion-free, you can't stop people from choosing to pay for private religious schooling for their kids. There should be no religious teaching in public schools, ever, and that the taxpayers should have the ability to enforce. I look at it this way. Learning involves being able to discern between what is being taught as mainstream and ideas that challenge the mainstream with better explanations. You have to be able to question the answers, and I just don't think most religions are willing to have sacred tenets questioned that way. If you can ask questions, and challenge your teachers, you're being educated. If you can't, you're being indoctrinated.

Federal aid is taxpayer funding. Right now, churches get an exemption on property tax and donations are deductible. They get no other aid from the government, and they aren't allowed to get mixed in politics. If they chose not to claim the exemption, they'd be like any other private citizen group, only with a church's organization capabilities. They could donate to campaigns, they could back specific campaigns and talk about them from the pulpit. I think the only thing that keeps them from doing this is that they don't want the government in their books. Well, no. I want to strengthen the separation between church and state. Why would I want it eliminated? I don't want religious influence on the government. They have their own schools, they have their own tax-exempt churches, it should be enough. The government should stay out of the People's religion, and the religion should never try to affect the way the government is run.

Some things I've observed over the years here at SFN: Faith is praised as being the strongest form of belief, but it's based on nothing but feelings. Trust seems to be a better way to believe in something if you want it to be real. It was very important for humans to evolve this ability to imagine lions in the shadows, and those who did survived longer than those who didn't. This makes us predisposed to imagining things we can't see, and further allows us to imagine we must have been created by all-powerful parents in much the same way we create our children. We're wonderfully communicative storytellers, and we need a way to differentiate between reality and stories. Science is very good for that. People want to believe that an omnipotent being can save them if they believe hard enough. Many people give their god credit for seemingly miraculous cures they prayed for. Cancer seems to be a disease god can cure, but he never regrows the limb of anyone who loses a leg or an arm, no matter how many people pray, no matter how hard they pray. Could the answer be that god isn't curing anybody? Faith is supposed to be unquestioning belief, so it's hard to see how you can still say you have faith but not as much as you used to. What are you questioning lately? If you question part of it, could it be your intelligence noticing some irregularities rather than a lack of faith in the stories that were passed along to you?

They may organize for voting purposes, but that's not illegal. If you tax them, they become eligible for all kinds of federal aid, they get to bid on government contracts, and most important they get to preach for a candidate in their sermons. That's not informing, that's indoctrinating. We should be strengthening the separation between church and state, not trying to eliminate it. We should do away with faith-based initiatives on principal as well.

Except that if you tax them, they get to use their influence in government, something they aren't supposed to do now.