Phi for All

The Moderators have been discussing whether we should do more to help drive traffic and garner interest in our threads by more creative editing of thread titles. We're not talking about sensationalism or uber-hyped marketing ploys here, just changing some titles to hopefully make them clearer and more interesting. Many people gloss over the fact that the title of a thread can generate a great deal of interest or it can also act to deflect someone who might otherwise be a great participant in the conversation. We get a lot of titles that are vague and don't help generate the kind of interest we all want for our topics. "Pls Help" or some variation is often used when "Where did I go wrong in this equation?" targets the best people suited for such help, specifies what kind of help is needed and provides a motivation in the form of an intellectual challenge. The latter is also formed as a question that implies it comes from an inquisitive knowledge-seeker rather than someone who can't be bothered to Google. Another problem we've noticed are titles that make an assertion that gets completely refuted in the thread. "Proof of Alien Life Found in Schenectady!" remains on content pages while the actual content shows that this "alien life" was actually a fake or an unfounded assertion. People cruising the list of topics might take such a title more seriously than we'd like without reading the actual content. "Is This Evidence of Alien Life?" is not only more intellectually honest, it would probably draw more readers and participants than its "National Enquirer" alternative, at least from OUR membership. Currently, we only correct misspellings (which we feel also helps validate participation from other scholars) or inappropriate language (which is already covered under the rules). We certainly aren't interested in censoring so much as helping draw the right traffic to each thread. We can change the titles at will, so if we misstep we can always change it back if the thread starter objects. We're also not interested in PM exchanges explaining why we changed a title or why the author wants it changed back. If you have a reason for that specific wording in your title, we'll change it back as soon as possible. We could probably have both for a while ("How contaminated is our water? [formerly titled: Water]"), eventually dropping the former title if there are no objections. What do you think? Should Staff be allowed to change certain titles to make them more descriptive and interesting? Are you drawn to find out more about vague titles or do you tend to gloss over threads with uninteresting names?

! Moderator Note One thread per topic please. I know it seems like you'd get more input but it just ends up being confusing for the participants.

So they can get people like you to invest in building it, or sponsoring their fake video of it. And when it doesn't work, they'll tell you they're very close to success and you just need to give them more money. OK. Send me US$10,000 and I'll make us both RICH!

We seem to be a very complex species. One of our greatest negative aspects is our warlike quality, which is weird since I think one of our greatest positive aspects is our ability to cooperate and communicate with each other. Competition causes waste, futility and inequality, but also drives innovation, progress and discovery. Reaching for the stars isn't a negative aspect of our civilization. The resources we spend on it doesn't take away from other worthy pursuits here at home. We CAN do many things at once with our present capabilities. The innovation, progress and discovery we generate from trying to get off-planet help here at home as well, since much of the technology and procedures we come up with for space travel are applied to earthly problems. I also think we're capable of learning to treat our planet and all its inhabitants better as well as working towards more space exploration. I think a bit of congratulations on our successes is very healthy, as long as we don't stop there and rest on our laurels. If we're always trying to better ourselves as humans and as residents of this planet, and don't assume that we're simply the best already, we can hope that our failures can be learned from and our successes built upon. Secretly, I also hope that exploring space might give us a better appreciation for Earth. Personally, I love to travel and see other places, and when it's time to go home I always appreciate what I've got there a great deal more than before.

Actually, WE think it's just you. Seriously though, I'm sure we're responsible for our greatest failures as well as our greatest successes. Knowledge is a tool. It can be used for good or bad, so you shouldn't blame the hammer for smashing your thumb unless you're also willing to give it full credit for building the house.

I've pondered this as well. Would we all be golden-skinned? Would we gain anything else, maybe increased health and resistance to disease? Overcoming fears and prejudices might have even more benefits than just the obvious sociological ones.

But this is a discussion forum. If your account is deleted, it removes your part of the conversations. If everyone who leaves gets deleted, the threads would be extremely difficult to understand. Very confusing. We have a single line at the bottom of the front page that lists total posts, total members, newest member and most online at a time. I'm offended that you feel we do this to be dishonest. We're a science site. Data, sharing, observation, experimentation over hype and marketing. I'm sorry you're not having a good experience here.

! Moderator Note We have another thread on this posted earlier today, so let's post to that one: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72092-the-largest-structure-in-the-universe/#entry722806

Sigh. The OP asked if we'll ever make it off-planet. Is there another animal at any other place on "the ladder" that can claim a higher rung on spreading Earth life off-planet? That doesn't make my argument anthropocentric. If I were to place bears at the top of the ladder with regard to removing honey from wild beehives, are you going to claim I'm being ursinopocentric? I chose to address the title of the thread directly, pointing out why humanity has reasons to hope. That doesn't mean I ignore our "warts", mistakes and frailties. Your mistake is in expanding my arguments to include areas I never meant to include. Remember the "Anybody have a stand on if they think our species will make it off the planet or perish on it?" question? I fail to see how this is a "counterview" to mine. It has a very limited amount of application to humans being our best chance at developing a way to leave the planet. I don't think humans have always been in their present position, having "emerged" there. Iirc, developing civilizations had something to do with it. You're right, it is development rather than a climb, but as I said before, you're applying my ladder argument too broadly. I meant it solely to be a comment on our position to be able to leave the planet. I understand. Glass half-empty. Got it. I think you underestimate just what a leap in destructive capability nuclear weaponry meant for humanity. If we had gone from flint arrows to sub-machine guns over the course of ten years, it still wouldn't compare with the development of nukes. If we don't applaud the fact that we're still here, we fail to acknowledge that it took hard work and a degree of sanity to make it this far. And I dislike your building leap analogy. It guarantees complete destruction where nuclear capability merely threatens it.

! Moderator Note I can tell you from experience, no member with any credibility is going to download and watch this 11 minute video based solely on a brand new member claiming "the science [is] wrong about [the] solar system". As Ringer requested, please give us an overview in your own words if you want any discussion to develop on this topic.

! Moderator Note Please don't do this. Experience has taught us that multiple identical threads are very confusing for the participants. We'll make sure you get the responses you need, even if we have to move the thread to different sections over time.

Workers getting whatever they need for free is different from "any human gets what they need free". I've often thought it would be interesting to have a cooperative economy without money. I think you'd need a Minimum Subsistence Level, where very basic needs are met with no work required so no one is homeless or starving. On the other hand, if you choose to work and contribute to society, you're eligible for whatever your society manufactures or provides. I like this mostly because it would encourage us to build things for functionality and longevity rather than consumption and repeat purchases. I'm not sure we can ever quench our thirst for trade, though. It would be very interesting to see if a system like this could continue to breed innovation and progress, some of the hallmarks of capitalism.

Please show us which ones you have answers for. It's not really our goal to GIVE students answers to homework questions. We can HELP though.

I can't think of any religious writings that don't have multiple interpretations that are inconsistent with each other. How does a "sympathetic approach" or "a belief that the problem can actually be solved" overcome the natural inclination of humans to interpret even fairly concrete media in their own way? It seems like most religious texts are purposely written to allow for such broad interpretations. Similarly, in music, some composers choose to put every slur and dynamic marking down while others, like Bach, purposely leave much of this to the interpretation of the players or conductors. Many musicians seem to prefer a less structured manuscript, and such can be said for religion followers as well. The thousands of sects of Christianity alone seem to bear witness to the fact that it is difficult to interpret these texts. When you say it isn't difficult if we just take a sympathetic approach and believe it's possible, aren't you really just saying that you seem to have interpreted them just fine and you don't see what the fuss is all about? And isn't that really just a No True Scotsman fallacy? True Scotsman: "The Bible is unequivocally saying that you have to believe everything it says or you'll go to Hell because God loves you." Scotsman: "Really?! That's not how I interpret it, and no one I know sees it that way either." True Scotsman: "None of you are looking at it with the sympathetic approach that I use."

Does anyone else get the feeling that "divine inspiration" is a sort of code for "Hey, I just thought of a fantastic way to make this whole book sound much more legitimate"? Btw, I was divinely inspired to write that. I know because the screen on my laptop dimmed when I was finished.

I specifically replaced the pedestal with a ladder so it wasn't an anthropocentric argument. I think your desire to cast humans in a negative light made you misread my words. A ladder allows for improvement while a pedestal enshrines us. We're not the ultimate animal on this planet, but when it comes to being guardians of the future of the planet, there's no other animal even in contention. I'm aware that your pessimism ignores our successes and simply focuses on our failures. So why bother talking in geological time with regards to human achievement? It sounds like you're just going to look for any way to make us look worse and ignore what we have achieved. I guessed you missed the part where I said "We've done pretty well surviving the discovery of uranium" and "we're not out of the woods yet". That would explain why you strawmanned my position by claiming my statement is premature. It's not, you know. We haven't wiped ourselves out with nuclear weapons, despite all the capability. ???? The insanity I obviously referred to is global nuclear war. The rest of your sentence was so choppy as to completely dilute whatever meaning you were trying to convey to me. Please try again. This tangent tells me that you have huge, untapped reserves of disdain and loathing for our "pathetic" species. Some people do this as a way to set themselves up as some kind of authority on what humans ought to be doing. Despite people like you, I think the species as a whole is uniquely capable of extending the future of this planet's life beyond the life of the planet itself. When the sun goes red giant, I think we'll be watching it happen from another system entirely.

! Moderator Note Better yet, let's have everyone ask questions here in this thread so everyone can benefit.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum and we're not here to promote your book. Please read the rules you agreed to when you joined. If you want to discuss the topic of your book, that's great. You can even put a link to your website in your signature, but please refrain from posts and threads that try to get people to buy your book. That's not what SFN is for.

This seems more akin to pattern recognition, which humans are very, very good at, and will sometimes force the issue when no pattern actually exists. Some see a man in the moon, others see huge figures in the night sky drawn by the stars, and you're cherry-picking things from the Bible that seem to relate to modern physics. Our desire for an order and meaning to things, to tie seemingly matching things together, is extremely pervasive.

I honestly don't know where to begin to respond to this. I think it's great that you base your acceptance on the merit of the evidence that 1 Timothy was based on forged letters. If you feel forgery is the best available explanation, it would be prudent to trust that explanation over what others accept on lesser (or non-existent) evidence. Most Christians I've dealt with claim that the Council of Nicea, using bishops of the early Christian church, was able to decide which of the gospels and other writings being considered for inclusion in the New Testament were of truly divine origin. The Council, like you, seemed to know what the Truth was better than anyone else, so they rejected books like the Gospel of Thomas and didn't allow them to be part of the Bible. So my point is, if the Council got it wrong with 1 Timothy, it's entirely possible they also included other documents that weren't divinely inspired, and also possible that some of the work they rejected didn't deserve it. The whole concept of a divinely inspired religious writing, one that proponents claim is therefore the True Word of God, gets thrown out the window if even one mistake is made by including forgeries as gospel. It casts suspicions on that whole line of argument, which is what many people base their beliefs on. But I also find it hilarious (in a very sad and head-shaking way) that you claim to know the "truth" about Christianity and see nothing wrong with making assumptions and conclusions about that which can't be nailed down, not by you and not by the followers of any of the over 9000 recognized sects of Christianity. It's the height of conceit imo, and explains why you also can't see why your argument is EXACTLY like the No True Scotsman fallacy. You've completely lost your objectivity. You start by praying to everything, and the moment your prayer is answered, you know you've discovered a god. If he doesn't answer your next prayer, you know you've discovered the wrong god and need to keep searching.

Perfect! Could you now mention something about the Nobel prize you'll be winning shortly? No pressure, but it would really help me out.

If you claim 1 Timothy is a forgery, doesn't that bring the entire New Testament into question since the Council of Nicea decreed these chapters to all be written under divine influence? I thought it was damned arrogant of the Council to set themselves up to reject certain gospels and other books they didn't want to be part of the new Bible, and now here you go and trump them by passing similar shady judgement 1600 years later.

! Moderator Note immortal, calling people stupid because they don't hold the same opinion you do is a violation of our rules on civility as well as a logical fallacy. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

I agree. For a trait to be passed along, it has to give evolutionary advantage that allows for better survival to reproduction. I'm not sure what would happen to a person who started picking up radio signals via their brain, but if the government found out about it I think reproduction would be the last thing on that person's mind. Much more likely that we develop an implant. This would happen much more quickly than the generational time scale evolution uses.

Is this homework?