Phi for All

Part of it is confirmation bias, I think. If something seems wrong, we cherry-pick all the stuff that seems wrong and ignore others explaining why it's right. Sometimes we become even more convinced it's wrong when we hear a reasonable, rationally arrived at explanation. It takes a lot more time to explain things when we already have a heavy bias towards a different answer. And part of it is our pattern recognition ability. Things that are wrong or out of place grab our attention and we MUST FIX THEM IMMEDIATELY! And I think people genuinely want to help someone who has it wrong. So some compassion thrown in there too.

I'm so tired of the privatization approach to everything. There are plainly many areas where cooperative, non-profit-oriented public funds, allocated by experts in that field, work much better than private funding where profit and market share are always the priority. I'm so sorry to hear that Oz is temporarily without its basic research funding. I'm sure we'll start hearing about lots of cost overruns due to private enterprise siphoning off those funds (and more) to fix not having the research done right in the first place. By the time people realize this in x years, you'll be x years behind. People have to ignore a lot of evidence and historical data to make a decision like this. I remember reading about how privatizing prisons in Arizona turned out to be a horrible boondoggle. It was supposed to be a move that saved a lot of taxpayer money but ended up costing a lot more, and made some corporations very rich. And they continue to do it, even though they know it doesn't work. Because privatized is always better, right?

Is anyone still arguing that assertions made here don't have to be backed up by evidence if they're based on faith? That's like having your cake and eating it too, or enjoying special protection as a corporation but wanting the privileges of being a person too. I haven't seen that lately so I can see Iggy's point about the current ridicule being so unproductive it's like a strawman. Science gives limited but trustworthy explanations backed by evidence, and religion gives you an omnipotent god who provides unlimited explanations based on faith in his power. I don't think anyone can ever fully integrate those two approaches, although I can see distinctions that would make being a theistic scientist much easier. "Don't make assertions without evidence" would be a good Rule #2.

If the definition of "believe" being used in an assertion is based on trust, as with something that has lots of evidence that can be studied and tested by anyone with the inquisitiveness to do so, then I would expect the person making it to share that evidence. If they can't, then it's probably based on either wishful hoping or faith. "You shouldn't TRUST in God because he can't be observed in a repeatable, predictable way that allows scientific evidence to be collected about him, the same way as leprechauns and dragons" is entirely correct. If your beliefs are worthy of TRUST, you shouldn't mind following proper methodology and sharing with peers so they can check it out. "You shouldn't have FAITH in God because he's just as supernatural as dragons and leprechauns" is a bad argument. If a person chooses to believe in something anyway that has no evidence for it, that's what FAITH is for. It's not supposed to be rational (when compared to a belief based on TRUST). But again, on a science site you should know that assertions based on FAITH alone are not going to go unchallenged. "You shouldn't HOPE God is real because that's just wishful thinking, like the folks who secretly believe leprechauns and dragons are real" is also a bad argument. If the definition of belief used is HOPE, that usually doesn't engender a bunch of assertions. If someone hopes that their consciousness lives on after their body dies but doesn't assert specifically how that happens, that's just an opinion and should be recognized by everyone as such. Sorry to force my definitions of belief into the thread, but that's the only way I can sort it so it makes sense to me. Belief seems to be grounded in different things, so it makes sense that we actually use different forms of belief depending on what explanation we're talking about.

As with much of the discussion on this site, how one words their arguments is paramount. I think a lot of the "browbeating" that goes on is more about showing how the assertion "God is REAL!" requires more to support it than the opinion "I think God is real". It can get repetitive and seem very heavy-handed but the alternative is to let people assert anything they want without challenge. Scientists, including theistic scientists, aren't (or shouldn't be) very good at lending tacit approval to poor arguments. They tend to speak up. And unfortunately, most arguments that try to "prove" something science classifies as super-natural lack support in basic ways that lead to easy dismissal. And then the argument gets treated like any concept based on a weak premise ("GR is WRONG so I have my own theory!") and the dragons start pooping corn and invisible unicorns start living in garages. Assertions should be treated consistently, don't you think? Religion shouldn't get a pass on a science site if assertions are made regarding it. Faith is based on belief without evidence. Is it too much to ask that it be considered opinion, at least here? I do wish that the knee-jerk reactions could be less boilerplate, less automatic. It does come off as heavy-handed and, because it really does involve opinion, it often seems directed at the person and not the argument. I'm not sure what the alternative is. There are places where people can assert whatever they want about their beliefs and not only go unchallenged but be encouraged by people who believe the same way. I have to assume they're here instead of there for a reason.

I can tell you didn't follow what I recently wrote in the thread. I responded to pears' question about why we have a religion section if we want to keep the discussions rational. I didn't respond when she made "all kinds of 'specific' claims based on her personal beliefs" because she didn't make any. Are you asking me to respond to pears' detractors as a moderator? I try not to moderate threads in which I'm participating. I'm not really interested in the whole God = pooping dragons argument, since it falls on deaf ears. People are free to believe what they want, and I have no problem with it. Personally, I have at least one irrational belief, but I don't tout it as fact or believe it with all my heart and soul. It's more of a wishful thought, and I keep it that way. I don't need anyone else to believe it with me. I would hope that people who practice science (especially Theistic Scientists) can see the difference between belief built solidly on trust, belief supported by faith and belief brought on by wishful thinking. And I would hope that someone posting in the religion section of this particular science site can see the difference between "I believe in God despite there being no evidence" and "God is real, I've seen Him and scripture proves it". Btw, your suspicions were right, I'm going to do nothing about pears, except continue to read her excellent posts. I think you're being alarmist and over-protective and she really doesn't need it. The rant about the kid's blanket actually hurt her stance, imo. I don't like to guess at motives, but I'm pretty sure you just wanted to take some of the heat off her, 'cause you're basically a good guy.

Good, but keep your head down anyway. It's safer and makes you look busy. Stay safe.

I'm sorry, I quoted the part I was responding to, why we have a religion section on a science site. I would, but it doesn't work well when you're there.

! Moderator Note You have owned up to nothing. It's clear that swansont and ajb have gone out of their way to explain where your concept fails, but you're ignoring them completely. This has gone on for more than ten pages and it's abundantly clear you can't provide the support for your idea that this section requires. It really is a shame that you waste the opportunity to learn from our experts. These discussions would be so much more meaningful if you'd take at least some of the more obvious points on board. Thread closed, please don't open another on the same subject.

There are plenty of places you can go on the web to have your beliefs substantiated by like-minded people. For those who worry about that kind of indoctrination, there are places you can go that will challenge those beliefs. And for those who have a scientific approach to life, there is at least one place on the web you can go to discuss religion using rational and reasonable methodology. We have members who have religious beliefs here that don't feel a need to speak in absolutes and Truths and are more than willing to admit that their beliefs can be personal without being sacred and unquestionable. I think you'll find most people who are arguing against the religious stance are arguing against blanket assumptions and assertions of fact. Science goes out of its way to allow for the possibility of being wrong, so it uses "theory" instead of "proof". Religion often makes assertions it can't possibly support, and makes matters worse (scientifically) by requiring "faith" in those assertions. Faith seems like the strongest form of belief to religious people but it's the weakest from a scientific standpoint. For those who allow they could be wrong but believe anyway, there is little to gainsay. It's an opinion you're completely entitled to. For those who want to assert that their beliefs are True and unassailable and that your god is NOT supernatural, well, SFN is going to ask you to support those assertions the same way we would with any natural explanation.

I think "reasonable" should be defined on a science site as "capable of using reason and rationality to explain natural phenomena". The very basis of faith means there is no rational, reasonable explanation behind it. It's simply supposed to be taken as utterly, unquestionably True, and that's not "reasonable" at all.

! Moderator Note Off-topic posts regarding Planck Force split into their own thread here.

It might be my fault, I denied being a "Darwinian" to a creationist. He may have tried to use his intelligence to design this attack.

I believe you were told not to start another thread on this topic. I further believe you've been told that we only ask those who aren't asking. It's a meritocracy around here and you've got a terrible reputation. And I'm sorry but if you start another one of these threads about being a mod, I don't think you're even going to be a member anymore. It might already be too late. I really wish you would listen to people.

I've known Tom a long time now. I've read everything he's ever written here about climate change. I've checked both sides of the debate and I can say that swansont's arguments have never been tainted with emotion, and he never preconceives his conclusions. He's not cutting and pasting, he's providing citation for his argument, which is good practice. I can't say the same about you. swansont posted some refutations of your stance and your responses were underwhelming, and seemed much more tainted by the emotions you accuse him of.

I'm sorry, are you doubting that the members have no clue, or are you doubting that they do? In any case, you'll find a varied mixture of professional and amateur wherever you go on free access forums. Since there are plenty of experts around, it seems like the person who PMd you had a grudge to settle. There are lots of people who come here expecting SFN to be like other sites, and every site has its own behavior. It's up to you to find the site that suits you best. I've belonged to bigger sites where I felt lost in the crowd. I've belonged to sites that allow their members to flame each other at will on the basis of freedom of speech. And I've belonged to sites that didn't care if completely untested, crackpot ideas got discussed in the same threads as mainstream science. Some folks like that. Personally, I think we have a great mix of members, with enough rules and moderation to keep things civil and intellectually honest. We don't have perfection though, and when we do we'll start charging money for it. In the mean time, report posts that break the rules, refute replies that fall short and be prepared to have folks do the same with you.

The data he's quoting is out there for anyone to check. And swansont won't take the bait on an Appeal to Authority argument, so I'll do it for him. He's a physicist for the US Naval Observatory, so his access to and knowledge of the data is superlative.

Wow, thank you for that!

The problem with this stance is that we can't know what kind of discoveries we might make from the decision to mine asteroids. We can project costs, but with no exact idea of what we're going to find out there we can't base our initiatives strictly on least cost/highest gain. NASA's missions have always reaped benefits we couldn't foresee. Exploration is like that, and while cost concerns are important, if we let them alone drive our curiosity, we'll never make it offplanet. Private enterprise realizes that pioneering is risky business. They can mitigate those risks all they want, but eventually you have to admit that the possibilities trump the risk. Visionary space advocates do NOT need hidebound, immediate-profit-centered investors. The money that helps us explore the system will most likely come from either governments or from people who realize the long-term potential for profit versus short-term ROI.

No, if you think this is a matter of faith, then you haven't studied it enough. There is a point when you work backwards towards the actual moment of expansion where the math can't help (yet), but none of it is taken on "faith". When you have as much supportive evidence for an explanation as the Big Bang does, it's intellectually dishonest to compare it with blind, wishful "faith" that has NOTHING to support it scientifically. Evolution is a process, not an event, and as such has no beginning. It requires only life. You have misunderstood it and conflated it with abiogenesis, a typical creationist mistake.

Because the heart of Texas pumps oil, boy! You better watch out your governor doesn't take your batteries away altogether, make you all "cranky".

Although not for mining purposes, NASA has a couple of missions to explore some near asteroids in 2026, using the Space Launch System they're working on now. The more obstacles they figure out how to overcome, the closer we could be to having these resources for our use, and well within the next century. And I still think the drone booster concept is viable. I think it might start as a way to avoid collisions with some of the bigger asteroids, simple things that just deflect them enough to miss Earth, becoming more sophisticated until we can control them to a fine enough degree to put them where we need them. System fishing for iron whales.

And this is true in the US as well, if Americans would realize it. Most people could use an electric car most of the time they drive. There has been an active effort since the 90s to make electric cars seem toy-like and not really serious. A lot of Americans just have this idea that they will be screwed if they need to run errands or do anything that's outside their normal commute range. They probably don't realize how employers might be encouraged to have charging available at work as well. I hope we've reached a tipping point where electric cars can start gaining much more momentum. Tesla Motors certainly has proven they aren't toys.

You're going down a dangerous, twisty road when you start capitalizing things like evil and truth. The capital letter acts like a blanket condemnation, judging people with the stroke of a very broad brush.

Well, again you've chosen to misinterpret "perpetuation" for "origination", and I realize that's an easier argument to attack. But why someone starts swearing like this is not as important, imo, as why they continue to do it. Misogynists in the US know the word "cunt" has a vicious, hateful element to it aimed exclusively at women (different in the UK, I know). They know it, they use it for that reason, even when it's pointed out how hateful it is. And there are plenty of examples of people using these types of hateful words coming from a standpoint of their religion. One only has to look at how vehemently the religious right tries to block legislation against hate speech; they seem to know their viewpoint often causes them to judge others using words most would consider hateful.