Phi for All

! Moderator Note I haven't posted since the earlier part of this thread, and I'll refrain from posting as a member in it from now on so I can add a bit of moderation here. While not the most civil choice of words, describing a statement or idea as "stupid" is in no way meant as an abusive personal attack. It's against our rules to call each other stupid, but attacking statements and ideas is part of acceptable practices here. If you have a problem with a person's choice of words, asking them to clarify why they chose them is also considered a best practice.

I don't know for sure that it will happen. I trust fairly strongly that it will because of everything I've learned about the phenomenon, and I know that at any time I can test it myself, changing parameters like height dropped, altitude, type of bullet, etc. There is a possibility I may discover an exception, and that keeps my certainty from being complete and unwavering. Who claimed they oppose each other? I'm asking why faith in things we can't know for certain is often claimed by believers to be stronger than trust in things we can explain based on empirical evidence we can test ourselves, tests that can even be reproduced by others? Again, to separate this type of belief from other types, I call this hope. I can hope that there are things we can't understand due to an inherent limitation, but so many religious people invest so much strength and infallibility in this hope that they call it faith, and claim it's strong enough to allow them special access to vague powers. Nothing they claim as evidence of this miraculous power is ever reproducible or explainable only by supernatural means, yet so many these days place far more strength in religious beliefs than they do in more trustworthy explanations. At least this is what we hear a lot of in the USA, faith in God's will and distrust in science. It seems ass-backwards to me and not very well thought out.

Ah, here's where the misunderstanding lies. I wasn't trying to validate anything with pure reason. I will try to simplify. When I first heard someone say that two bullets, one fired from a gun and one dropped straight down at the same time and same height, will hit the ground at the same time, I didn't believe it. It was counter-intuitive for me and made no sense. I read up on the phenomenon, but still couldn't believe it. I worked out the math using the formulas I found and began to grudgingly accept it. I had it explained to me by a physicist I know and it made much more sense. I slowly began to trust the scientific explanation for this phenomenon, and have even explained it to others who shared my initial skepticism. Then I came across this experiment done by the Mythbusters and the strength of my trust increased tremendously: I didn't have to accept the explanation by reason alone. There was plenty of math, but also empirical evidence and actual experimentation to eventually make the explanation worthy of my strongest form of belief, my TRUST. When I compare that kind of belief with faith, which many religions ask me to have, I find nothing to support it but feelings. I'm supposed to have very strong feelings about beings that purposely avoid the kind of empirical evidence that evokes my strongest form of belief, my trust. I'm asked to have faith, abiding, unwavering faith in forces that followers can't explain. Indeed, some of those followers even seem proud that their God works in such mysterious ways, that His will is unfathomable. And try as I might, all I hear from those statements is, "You need to believe strongly in things you can't possibly know". So why is faith considered stronger than trust by so many believers?

How are you making calculations that take existing satellites into account?

The CFL is meant to replace old incandescent bulbs of varying types and sizes with fluorescent technology. They go into the standard round hole fixtures with screw-in or bayonet type bases. The tubes go into specific luminaires designed to accommodate them, usually in combinations of 2, 3 or 4 tubes per fixture, with lengths from 1 foot to 8 feet. The tubes provide a more even lighting where continuity is important (usually in commercial buildings). All fluorescent bulbs/tubes are much more energy efficient and have better longevity than incandescents (incandescent bulbs use about 95% of their energy in non-visible spectrums, mostly IR as heat), but they contain mercury, they still use low-pressure glass casings which can shatter, they take time to come to full brightness, they can't be used with rheostats. Personally, I think the CFL is an attempt to use existing manufacturing processes to reduce energy expenditures and get the best return on the investments made in the technology. IMO, it's better to leap right over the latest fluorescent technology and go straight to LED lighting. Instead of tubes fixed in ceiling troffers that illuminate in 360 degrees and have to be reflected, LED tubes can be directed just where you want them. The visible light spectrum can be precisely tuned (I've seen LED lights that use only the red and blue spectrums that plants use, perfect for hydroponic greenhouses). LEDs use much less electricity, you can get them with no harmful chemicals, and plastic casings that resist breakage.

There is plenty in the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed that have nothing to do with the supernatural, nothing I would have to take on "faith". Much of what they taught with regard to our treatment of each other can simply be considered ethically sound, something that dovetails with the way I want to live my life. I don't have believe in a god to know that treating others the way I want to be treated is a respectful position. Again, I can "hope" others feel the same, I can even "trust" that those I know well will reciprocate, but there is no "faith" involved in believing some of those teachings. But that word we're taking, that loyalty, is backed up normally by promises to begin with, based on and strengthened by a track record of "trust"-worthiness. "Trust" is the part of belief that gains strength, imo. The longer someone shows their loyalty and fidelity to be worthy of that "trust", the more confident we are in it and the stronger it gets. "Faith", on the other hand, demands strength immediately, without anything concrete to back it up. And furthermore, when "faith" seems misplaced (e.g., prayers denied, or you followed what your religion told you to do and your life still sucks), vague excuses are given (e.g., "It's God's will", "God works in mysterious ways", "We can't know the mind of God"). When "faith" fails, we're told we don't understand it fully, or our "faith" wasn't strong enough. To me, that's "hope". It bugs me that people use all those words (faith, belief, hope, trust) interchangeably when there seems to be obvious differences between them. I have nothing to back up my belief that some part of me will live on after I die, and I'm not willing to change my whole life based on my own wishful feelings alone, so I call it "hope" and hold it separately from the things I "trust". I'm willing to back off the assertion that each religion has it's own perspective on what it considers "faith" to be, if you wish to discuss that part further and clarify why you think this isn't so. You need to be willing to back off the assertion that science is also looking for absolute truth the way you claim religion is. This simply isn't so.

I would never change someone's title because I thought their word choices were poor or I thought of a catchier version. Spelling mistake correction seems to be OK with everyone so far. My main concern remains with those titles that make assertions that are being actively discussed. When it becomes very clear that the assertion is being refuted with little or no evidence in support of it, I think the titles should be amended so people who are glancing at titles aren't encouraged to assume they have support. I would even go further and suggest that bald assertions don't really belong in titles anyway. They have a tendency to produce bias in readers who would be more neutral towards a supposition ("Do Pulsars Contradict the Theory of Relativity?" as opposed to "Pulsars Contradict the Theory of Relativity"). Bunko. Banjo. Bingo.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/green-neanderthals.html "Surprisingly, about the same amount of Neanderthal ancestry is seen in all non-African genomes, even people from places where Neanderthals never lived, like the New World."

This is a False Dilemma. You're setting a condition neither can meet (absolute truth) and then claiming it's the only way to compare them without bias. It's actually very easy to compare them without bias, since science does its best to arrive at its explanations without bias, whereas each religion, indeed each sect in each religion, explains phenomena based solely on their individual biased perspectives.

Strawman. It's obvious that those who focus on healthier diets are better off than those who don't, vegetarian or omnivore. My argument is that there are plenty of bad eaters on both sides of the vegetarian-or-not debate. Just being a vegetarian isn't a magic pill for health. I'd stack a steak-eater who also enjoys an array of fruits and vegetables up against a french-fry and canned soup vegetarian any day. Anyway, since you're not proposing any "theories" in this thread and your version of autodidactism is practically rigor-free cherry-picking and fallacious assertions that ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you think you've learned, I'm going to stop wasting my "discussion" time here. Best of luck with the journals, please keep us posted with any successful publications. I'm pretty sure you won't be telling us about the rejections.

IMO, the only defense for the prohibition of drugs is that they're basically poisons. They alter our judgment and other capabilities in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. This argument also extends logically to alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and other substances we ingest for recreation.

Evidence that your version of "autodidact" includes assertions based on self-selected sampling. VERY bad habit. Nice try at conflating omnivores with "shitty diets". The fact is that poor immune systems exist in both vegetarians and omnivores. Being a plant-eater doesn't automatically give you a healthy diet. If you brushed your teeth you'd see that your dentition marks you as an omnivore.

Here's a study I found... illuminating: http://www.cosine.co.za/Black%20End%20Rings%20on%20Fluorescent%20lamps.pdf

It still makes no sense. Where did I substitute all the experimentation with math? In fact, it's the ongoing and constant experimentation to add supportive evidence to each idea, hypothesis and theory that's the hallmark of the scientific method. This is one good reason why I trust scientific explanations to be the best supported, why I don't have to rely on faith in them. I don't even have to hope they're the best explanations, since the tests are reproducible.

WT?!? It's like you've been dying to use that quote somewhere but didn't bother to read the thread before deciding it was appropriate here.

Wrong. There are no truths involved, and that's why the methodology is ongoing and constant. Hypotheses MUST be capable of being false if any testing is to be meaningful. An idea often starts from a bit of observed evidence, but it's not until that evidence is joined by more evidence that you can make an assumption that starts your hypothesis. If I lived on the coast (two or three hundred years ago) and determined that water boils at 100C in every experiment I devise, I can make the assumption that water boils at 100C, and I start hypothesizing. When I communicate my finding with others and find that some of my colleagues get differing readings, analysis may show me that evidence found in other coastal areas supports my hypothesis, but those at other points in the country don't. I may make plenty of assumptions about why that is, and test every one of them until I finally assume that altitude (or atmospheric pressure) may have something to do with it. I test that and find more evidence to support my new hypothesis. This may even lead me to be able to predict what the boiling point is at altitudes that haven't been tested yet, and if the evidence continues to support the hypothesis for everybody doing the tests, my hypothesis gets stronger. But at any time we might get readings that don't support it, that may contradict it wildly, and that makes it capable of being false, IOW falsifiable.

Citation, please? And where does clothing come into play in your hypothesis? Hair also protects us from the UV end of the light spectrum.

Then whoa.

Toe fat helps you walk steadier when you Thai one on.

On the contrary, I felt the need for further detailing of the definition of belief because others spoke to me of faith as being different from mere belief. For most Christians I know, the concept of faith is rooted in its unwavering strength. They believe "with all their heart", or "with complete conviction", or "beyond a shadow of a doubt". So many biblical stories talk about the unquestioning faith of certain followers, holding them up as examples of faith in God's will. It doesn't matter that others don't separate their belief system the way I do. I took my definition from those who told me their faith was different, abiding, deep, loyal, allegiant, assured, convicted, and all the other words I've used. Those who talk in church about how abiding and unyielding their faith is are praised for it, while those who waver are helped towards shoring up their convictions and solidifying their faith in God. This is not a minority view, no matter how much your argument is hurt by it. There are tons of references to this kind of faith. I'd cite them but since religion is all about how the individual interprets it, I'm sure you could spin them however you wanted. It remains though that faith is often talked about in a qualitative fashion, and strong faith is praised. Since science isn't interested in "proof", but rather supportive evidence based on observable reality, trust is an adequate description for what is the best supported explanations for natural phenomena.

No. As I mentioned before, I've separated my belief system into Hope, Trust and Faith. Hope is for things i want to be true but have little to support them and could have multiple outcomes. Trust is for explanations that are heavily supported by observational reality, experience and testing. Faith is for unfalsifiable explanations with little or nothing to support them but strong feelings. So I trust science because I can test it, or check the rigor others have used to test it. I can hope that I'll win the lottery, or that consciousness lives on after the body dies, but not put such strength of belief into it that I change my life to sustain that belief. Faith seems to require belief unsupported by anything but feelings and it's often characterized by strength, commitment, dedication, and lots of other qualitative criteria that seem disproportionate to the reality in which they're based.

I take a layered approach. Usually something catches my eye on the net or in a book, so I'll research for other pieces on the subject. Eventually I start talking about it (I guess that would be teaching) and hope someone else knows more than I've found. Ultimately, discussing it with others who know the subject gives me the varied perspectives that helps me figure out if there's a practical application (as CaptainPanic mentioned).

How about this?

Apparently, Fancy is a porn star....

There's no doubt in my mind that faith can be a source of inspiration to many. Reagan had great writers and professional training in speaking publicly to deliver such inspiration. What I'm questioning here is why do so many choose to invest in the supernatural with their most unquestioning, unwavering and steadfast form of belief, their faith, while almost simultaneously investing so little of their belief in scientific methodologies that explain natural, reality-based phenomena with such accuracy and productiveness? Why does something with nothing but strong feelings to support it deserve the strongest form of belief?