-
Posts
23489 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
167
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Phi for All
-
We wouldn't tread on Pirelli's tired old format. When it comes to calendars, you make more money on the wrongs than on the rights. Our 2012 calendar is going to be a visual feast of flesh from our fantastic femmes in all their glory, and I wish I could give you a preview, but right now the photos they sent in are Mayan, not yours.
-
Thanks for that mooey, and you're right, the argument really had no point. It wasn't really about religion or science. I found myself just correcting PeterJ's re-interpretation of what I'd written. I really dislike fallacious logic used as an argument against ANY statement, much less personal opinion. Btw moo, I DO think you're the awesomest person on Earth, and don't let PeterJ tell you any differently. When it comes to faith, and those things that people believe without the kind of evidence that the scientific method would consider supportive, I don't automatically assume someone is getting it wrong. There are many things we don't know about, many greater powers possible. But assuming we understand those powers to the extent that many religions claim seems hasty and lacking in reasoned judgement. There are many claims religious followers make that can be refuted or better explained by science, such as creationism, or faces on shrouds or pieces of toast. Belief in the supernatural, that which can't be tested or predicted using science, also has its value, but that can only be measured by the individual holding such beliefs. Things that can't be repeated or tested, those things that offer no predictive power as a foundation for the measurable advancement of knowledge, these things don't interest science, but they have a power in people's thoughts and actions. Again I'll say, I prefer the firm foundation, the careful steps that science takes as opposed to the leaps of faith and mysterious ways of many (not all) religions. I find a lot of wisdom in religious writings, but prefer my knowledge more filtered by testing.
-
It's almost - repeat, almost - funny the way you keep trying to substitute your straw man "you think religion is nonsense" argument for my "science provides a more trustworthy explanation for me" argument. I understand why you feel the need to make me seem to ridicule religion. You want to lump me in with a category of people you feel able to dismiss due to the extremism of their stance. Religion doesn't interest me?! I've been on these boards for the last seven years and have fought hard to keep this section open in spite of multiple attempts (some successful) to close it. You have no clue about what I've been saying if you think I'm trying to dismiss all religion. This seems like an arrogant argument. This thread isn't about specific religions, so your assertion about my lack of knowledge of specific claims is unfounded. There you go again, arguing against something I didn't say. You need to start reading the actual, carefully chosen words I'm writing and stop generalizing yourself. I didn't say the scientific method is opposed to religion, I said it's about observing the natural world and therefore isn't interested in a supernatural deity. Before you go jumping the gun again, this is specifically in regards to deities who have chosen not to reveal themselves to the kind of observation science would require for study and experimentation. Just that. Only that. Read no more into it. I don't deny it, I never said it's impossible, I said I prefer not etching knowledge in stone or putting it under a sacred shroud where it remains free from scrutiny or investigation. Do you see the difference? What's making this hard to follow is your attempts to push my arguments into places I don't mean them to go. Quite frankly, I don't need as strong an argument as "religion is nonsense". I know that's an easier stance for you to rebut, but it doesn't reflect reality. Honestly, you remind me of my 12-year-old. With her, if something isn't great it's horrible, if food isn't yummy it's gross, if a game isn't exciting it's boring. Why do you assume that if I say I prefer the firmer grounding and the rigor of scientific methodology that I must think religion is nonsense? There are many valid aspects of spirituality and even specific religious teachings. I just think science has a firmer claim on those aspects that are based in reality and the observable universe.
-
For the purpose of what I was replying to, the use of the word belief with regard to scientific theory, no distinction was really needed. I never really commented on any religion's claims. I just said I prefer the firmer foundation the scientific method provides for explanations of natural phenomena. What are your qualifiers for taking something seriously? Did you want me to include my life's experience with spiritual matters and various religions before making a rational choice? "Knowing" a thing seems a lot like deciding something is "true". The distinction between believing something is true and accepting the best supported current explanation may seem trivial to you, but the latter seems not only to be a wiser choice, but it's also makes it easier to recognize a better explanation when it comes along. That's an assumption you're not really entitled to, but I'd be happy to explain my position on practically any aspect of religion. You claimed I made a "casual assumption" that the scientific method couldn't be used with religion. I didn't "dismiss the whole of religion", I pointed out that unobservable deities are supernatural, something the scientific method is not equipped to explain. Read back through my posts. I'm really just trying to define why accepting scientific explanations doesn't qualify as belief in the way most religions use the term. I didn't say "religion is no more than unsupported beliefs". I said scientific theories offer the most supported explanations. Frankly, I've lost track of all the things you thought I said that I didn't. I don't know where I said "certain knowledge is impossible", but making an assumption that something will immediately follow is just the kind of thin-ice kind of reasoning I like to avoid.
-
When the corruption is enacted as law, as happens quite often in the US, does it still get counted as corruption? I think historians 50 years from now will point to the Iraq war as one of the biggest, most corrupt scams ever perpetrated on the American public. Maybe if you put enough 0s behind the number, corruption turns into plain old politics.
-
What crack? You mean the one in the clasp holding the cloak together? I think that's just mystical writing, or perhaps a depiction of the mighty Xylxacyxjan bird. Xittenn, I ordered Power Cloaks for you and Appolinaria for Christmas. It will arrive by postal service, all by itself, with no outer wrapping. When it gets there, please, both of you, remove all your clothes, try on your cloak and post the photos. Happy Holidays!
-
My bad. I should have said "followers", perhaps. Or is that unfair? I certainly didn't claim they all did. I merely mentioned those that do. Books like the Bible and the Koran are often called "sacred" by those whose beliefs are bound by them. Am I wrong? I won't ask you to point out where (to avoid unnecessary nitpicking), but in re-reading my first post I have to disagree. I don't get it. "Either you know it is true or you don't" seems like just the kind of incontrovertible statement that a skeptic should avoid. I was very careful not to make any kind of qualitative judgement about religion, other than the observation that one risks greater error by accepting something as true as opposed to accepting something as the best current explanation. You seem to be reading a lot into my words and jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by what I wrote. I made no such assumption. I never said studying religion using scientific methods was impossible. But there are some choices you would have to make. An unobservable deity is outside the natural world and therefore outside the purview of science. I replied to tar's contention that one had to "believe" in scientific theories, with the stance that belief is the conviction that something is true, whereas scientific theory is simply the best, most supported explanation, reached using a methodology which is more trustworthy than belief. This seems like word games to me, no offense. Religion is a broad topic and means something different to just about everybody. There are many things that make religion a valid study. I just wanted to point out where "belief" differs from accepting that a scientific theory offers the most supported explanation for natural phenomena. I shun the concept of "belief" because conviction leads straight to being locked up. If we think we're right about something, we stop looking for other answers.
-
I doubt this is true. Which claim are you assuming is unsupported? A scientific theory will always have much to support it. Your definition of knowledge seems overly rigid. Like the beliefs of most religions. Good observation. I think I made it quite clear I was talking about religious beliefs. Where's the "baby" in this approach to understanding? If I inadvertently included too many religions when I referred to "scriptures", I apologize. Are there some religious scriptures that were written during the Bronze Age that aren't interpreted for modern worshipers? It's interesting that my preferences for scientific methodology automatically, in your mind, relegated all religion to "a load of nonsense". I thought I was being quite careful to describe the difference between keeping an open mind with a skeptical approach and risking error by accepting religious explanations as incontrovertibly true.
-
To the skeptical mind, there are no absolutes, no firmly fixed truths, no proofs, no beliefs. Scientific theory simply offers the best current explanation for observable phenomena, as free from bias and interpretation as we can possibly get. This keeps us questing for the refinement of our knowledge, always seeking ways to test what we think we know. Belief requires absolute adherence to a certain answer. There's usually no way to test a belief so we have to suspend skepticism even further. Religious belief adds a "sacred" factor, threatening eternal punishment if the belief is questioned, making any kind of progress all but impossible. Scriptures written for bronze age primitives have to be interpreted with maddening vagueness to derive meaning for modern people. People stop thinking about the question when they "believe" they know the answer. I don't "believe" in scientific theory; I trust it to be the most likely, comprehensible statement. It's probably not perfect, but at least it stands a chance of being so in the future because we'll keep testing and questioning it. We won't put it under a sacred shroud and protect it from all scrutiny.
-
(Shhh, we'll substitute one of our own ) Your post is highly informative. I appreciate your efforts. CaptainPanic's Urinary Incontinence Protection... The Pad When Things Go Bad!
-
There is a great deal of evidence to support the hypothesis that fractalres' posts are designed to engender just this response. Possible conclusions include maintaining a sense of superiority, cognitive disconnection and poor communicative skills. Due to the number of people who have voiced Klaynos' concern above, and the continued vagueness of the ensuing explanations, I would have to say fractalres' threads make him feel smarter the more people respond with a lack of understanding. Have you ever told a devious riddle and then watched as everyone struggled for the answer that you already knew? For some there is a certain glee involved in being cryptic and watching others flounder as you stand on firm ground. Sometimes more so because you're the one who pushed them in.
-
3 questions I need help answering
Phi for All replied to kholdsnare's topic in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Homework? -
That's a great way to put it!
-
It wasn't mooeypoo's call, since she's involved in this thread.
-
Hmm, I think imatfaal has distinct rogue characteristics. He "prefer(s) to be the guy behind - with a decent metal sword". Can he disable a trap, or pick a lock? I think the OP is mainly talking about how a blade with an almost impossibly thin edge would hold up against metal or stone. Would it fold or would the atom-sized edge slip cleanly between the opposing atoms? Carbon makes steel strong but too much makes it brittle. Would an edge of single iron atoms alone be able to split stone or other metal?
-
FTFY.
-
I would try to avoid anything that might increase prison populations. We already have 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world population. Fines would be hard to pay for someone with no job who now had no welfare benefits. Believe me, all of this has been tried and it's all failed. My best idea is some kind of standardized Minimum Subsistence program, where food, clothing and shelter are provided no matter who you are, for as long as you need it. It would be completely no-frills, available to anybody, designed to keep people off the streets and hep them learn some kind of skill or help clean up neighborhoods. It would provide a kind of baseline where the funds are used specifically for the necessary items instead of being paid out to be used for whatever (*cough* beer *cough*). The biggest problem with this idea is that it would put the widow and her family in with the slackers, possibly in the same facility. I don't like that part but it would end most of the current corruption. The second biggest problem would be the psychological factor, but I'm sure there are ways to address both those problems. Speaking of prisons, here is a study done by the state of Arizona (some pretty hard-core conservatives and the home of Republican Senator John McCain). It shows that privatizing prisons, despite legislation requiring cost-effective measures, is more costly than publicly funded prisons. I think you'll find this to be true in virtually every area where you take a taxpayer-funded program and try to turn it into a for-profit business. And in cases like prisons, you still have to pay taxes for the government to pay for them, and you actually have to pay more taxes.
-
Exactly, no way to absorb the shock. And bone would probably shatter it even if the person attacking you had no wooden pole.
-
I'm glad you brought this up. Welfare is a key social program that can never be effectively privatized. No one I've ever talked to about welfare would deny benefits to a widowed mother of three who needed a temporary helping hand. Equally, I've never talked to anyone who wants those funds to go to a healthy, work-capable person who just doesn't want to work, but it costs less to put them on welfare than it does to put them in prison if they turn to crime for a living. And, apparently, policing the system effectively isn't cost-efficient either, since no one has been able or willing to come up with an answer. I keep thinking a good computer algorithm could be set up to sniff out fraud and corruption in Welfare, Medicare and Social Security. There has to be some flags that fraudulent claims send up that could be sniffed out with the right searches in the systems.
-
I knew a Swiss lady once who spoke five languages. I asked her which one she "thought" in, and she said it varied based on what she was thinking about. Math was easier to think about in German, French for more abstract thought and English for social interactions.
-
The combination of high and low carbon steels folded multiple times makes a sword that can survive being highly sharpened AND stressed by concussive blows.
-
What you're missing is: 1) How long does this process take? 2) How much does the machine cost? 3) How much energy does it take to run the machine vs the oil it reclaims (use the answers to #2 & 3 to figure return on investment)? 4) If it were scaled up from a household model to one that could serve a community, would it be more efficient? I could see a community investing in a larger model and then selling the fuel back to its citizens to pay back the investment if the cost was less than at a gas station. I think a single household model seems inefficient, but without the answers to questions 1, 2 & 3 there's no way to know.
-
The whole concept of sharpening a sword to razor thinness is pure Hollywood. While a thinner blade cuts better, it also is more easily damaged. If the only thing a sword needed to cut was flesh, razor sharp would be best, but if you encounter bone or metal along the way, a thinner edge is going to fold or flatten or nick very easily. Even with diamond, if it's going to take any damage, the thinner the edge is the more easy it will be to damage it. In fact, diamonds themselves are cut by first carving a groove and then placing a steel blade into the groove, which is then struck on the back with a hammer. The same thing would happen to a diamond sword if its edge were so thin that it could easily be grooved by another blade or edge. Steel is best for swords because they need to flex a bit to absorb the shock imparted when you hit something with it. Diamond would actually be pretty rotten at this. The octahedral crystals that form a diamond make them too rigid and firm for use as a sword. Even tougher metals like titanium are no good for swords (busted, Blade!), due to their rigidity. Steel can also be heat-treated which lets it hold its edge longer than other metals.
-
Oh well, suspension is usually a good tool for letting people cool down, read some posts without the urge to respond, and hopefully learn something in the process. It doesn't always work, and there will always be people who are simply inconsistent with our purpose here. Scientific discussion and megalomaniacal behavior do not mix.
-
superball has been permanently banned for repeated personal attacks, ignoring the rules and not learning a damn thing after being suspended.