Phi for All

Being wrong about a false conspiracy has little consequence, especially when one can brandish the shield of skepticism. Being right about a true conspiracy holds great value, especially when one can wield the sword of "I told you so!".

! Moderator Note You were warned not to hijack threads by diverting links to other threads. Similarly, responding to other threads within this one is also distracting. PLEASE STOP NOW. Further, your combative attitude is completely uncalled for. No one has done anything to deserve this kind of treatment. If it continues, you will be suspended immediately. Contradicting your ideas is in no way a personal attack. No one is being rude by pointing out your errors. Please follow the rules you agreed to when you joined this forum! If you further derail this or any other threads by responding to this modnote, you will be suspended immediately.

You mean like when FOX News covers a Tea Party rally but uses footage from a much bigger rally? I can see why FOX would need the deception, but why would NASA need to do that if they actually went to the moon? And which photos did you think were "fishy"? It's clear and observable that we built the rockets that went up. If the "primitive" technology could overcome the largest of the hurdles, what parts are left that were beyond our abilities? The cost of the trips exceeded their value, which, after you count the advancements in technology, was mostly informational and inspirational. As for marketable goods, even if the moon was made of gold, it wouldn't be worth the cost of extraction and transportation back to Earth.

It's very real. And relativity gives us the GPS system. Using that and adjusting between the WGS84 and NAD27 map data, you could plot the border's coordinates to within about 100 meters. That's quite a bit more accurate than "It is where we say it is". No need to go beyond a shadow of a doubt when you can get that close.

As the other candidates continue to show their flaws, Huntsman can't help but look better and better. Maybe he's just laying low until he figures out how to spin his spending record.

I think it's obvious that a decade of No Child Left Behind has had disastrous results on the nation's publicly schooled students. IMO, there has been a concerted effort to make public education look bad in order to encourage privatization. Stop those efforts by any means possible first; this will clear the way for a proper foundation any future changes can rest upon.

Both major US political parties seem unwilling to stop bowing to pressure from big business lobbyists. Both are having to contort their own platforms to cater to major protest groups like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. It seems like a prime time for an Independent candidate, one who specifically addresses some of the key issues relevant to our current woes, to step up and pledge to stop the nonsense that American politics has become. What would you look for in such a candidate? What platform points would attract you that aren't seriously offered by either the Democrats or the Republicans? What would be a good strategy for overcoming the curse of the Spoiler Effect? To help steer this discussion, if you're a staunch platform Rep/Dem, refrain from posting unless you'd seriously consider voting for an Indy who better represented you. I don't mean to exclude you, but I'd like to hear from those who feel underrepresented by the majors. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As a means to increase the likelihood of future successful Independent candidacies, I think a change from the winner-takes-all voting system would be a key platform point. iNow summed up my feelings on it very nicely in this post in a different thread, and I doubt I could say it any better.

Great observations. An eternal dilemma, that. We went artificial several years back so I can appreciate the magnitude of your electrical endeavor. Brav-ho(ho-ho)! The perfect place to invite fathers from around the neighborhood to share a cup of Christmas spirits, past, present and future. [insert bearded, red-capped smiley here]

I've never seen this expressed as eloquently and meaningfully before. It strikes me that such scholarly appraisal is only available at a site like this where politics is viewed from a more erudite perspective than your average sound-byte filled political forum. Well done, iNow. Btw, I pictured you saying this standing in front of a rapt crowd of supporters. There were balloons. Will you be 35 by 2016? Off-topic, I was going to start a thread about what platform would be most beneficial for an independent candidate to work from, and I think this is one of the top three issues. I think it would resonate with the people and it's an issue that doesn't already carry a lot of pre-judged baggage with it. And you're never going to see it discussed with any kind of intelligence from either major party.

Avoid the immorality and leak the story directly to the local news. Tell them you suspect this particular dish is being dosed with something to make it addictive, and encourage them to investigate. If it's true, you've done your city a great service, and furthered the career of a reporter. If it's false, the news station is out the money for the lab test, which is a write-off on their taxes. If it's false but they run the story anyway, you've given the restaurant a huge dose of publicity, which will allow them to continue to produce this ambrosia you're drawn to.

&Now you should understand how difficult it is to enforce the forum's rules when one of its most prolific members ignores them repeatedly.

It might not take as much time as you think. A brief link to support of the Bush administration should do it.

From the thread Did Apollo really travel to the Moon?, Schrödinger's hat referenced a great piece of ridicule that perfectly exemplifies why ridicule can be an effective tool in pointing out inconsistencies in a firmly held idea (scroll to post #8). And note that absolutely no people were personally attacked in the filming of this skit.

The sheer number of threads you've opened regarding microscope brands confirms my suspicions that you are an agent of The Science Apparatus Manufacturers Association, Microscope Division. An email is being sent and attached you will find a copy of your bill totaling US$23,285.00. Your prompt payment is appreciated.

I'd say she was being hypocritical in this instance. Journalist.

I see where you're coming from but I still think reality shows that the scientific method, while not attempting to be "proof" of anything, offers the best course for natural explanations of various phenomena, requiring no unobservable, supernatural, paradoxical entities and the suspension of rational thought. None of the thousands of religions can even come close to matching the scientific method for its ability to minimize doubt's shadow. Certain religious approaches, such as young-Earth creationism and Intelligent Design, are in direct conflict with what science has observed. Others assign supernatural causation to phenomena science can explain naturally. While the existence of deities themselves are beyond the purview of what science concerns itself with, their involvement with what we can observe is always a point of disagreement.

I don't think so. Do you think the US is as evenly split down the middle in terms of ideology as the 2000 / 2004 presidential elections would suggest? Or is it the result of having only two major parties? I think independents would fare better if our voting system wasn't winner-take-all. As it is now, people often vote for a candidate only to stop the other candidate from winning. A vote for an independent who may represent you better could very well allow your worst candidate to win, especially when the vote is close. But the two major platforms tend to poison any type of common grounds they may share with partisan rhetoric. I don't think anybody wants tax dollars going to healthy, work-capable people who want to live off welfare. Similarly, nobody wants a widowed mother of three to be thrown out in the streets. Yet the major platforms refuse to acknowledge such common ground on the welfare issue. We may not agree on the details, but I think there is more common ground out there than terms like liberal/conservative, right/left, Democrat/Republican will let us admit. But it's in the parties best intrests to keep us bickering about it so we don't get together to solve the real problem. How much unrest is caused when people are voting for *anything* they consider an evil, lesser or greater? How much better would you feel to back the candidate who most nearly represented the stance you do? Pretty sure the incumbent almost always gets his party's nomination if he wants the job.

It's obviously important to us (us being the ridicule-the-ridiculous-idea-not-the-person crowd). I think doubly so because we're not so far apart in our stance. This isn't a lynching, it's the extra effort one uses when one sees a finish line in the near distance. I think it would make this a better forum, make us better communicators and make our choices more supportable if we could arrive at consensus on the subject. The only meaningful difference in our stances (I'm not including the group that sees no validity in ridicule) is that you draw no distinction between using a word that implies a constant behavior and separating such behavior from the actual person with a slightly modified set of words. We've shown there is a benefit in not causing unnecessary defensiveness but you've shown no benefit for your stance. You claim the difference is one of "tone", but it's precision in terminology, something I believe you value. Why is it important elsewhere but not here? When it can mean the difference between validating an argument as objective or leaving an opening for detractors to claim you are subjectively attacking someone's character, why do you insist on it? You've always been a valued member here and you make it very hard to deal with trolls and flamers when you use some of the same attacks they use. Calling people names when it's their arguments that deserve it isn't "an objective statement of fact", it's transferring the characteristics of their idea onto them and attacking. Could you at least try to shoot the gun out of their hand instead of just plugging them between the eyes, cowboy?

They're both catering to the ones who are willing to fund their re-elections and pay for the spin that convinces the voters. It would be very interesting to see voter reaction to a strong independent who wanted to put an end to the nonsense and focus on bringing back a robust economy that wasn't based on broken promises from big business. I think a big part of the problem is that most politicians come from big money. There's a disconnect with people who live their lives being serviced by lesser mortals. It's hard to consider the needs of working America when you're busy thinking about what toys need to go on your main yacht and which can be put on your shadow yacht. I see what you mean. It would be very good for the Democrats, almost ensuring that Obama would be re-elected. I tend towards the Democrat platform but don't really trust them much anymore. As you said earlier, they're really not much better. I like Obama's policies and his goals, but I hate that he thinks American's should just sit back and let professional politicians handle the governing. It's caused him to miss some great opportunities to engage the public on issues where he's being stonewalled. I hate that he doesn't seem to want to bother us. It makes me think he's just another pol that doesn't want to poke the beast too much for fear of what will happen if we're aroused. Beyond that, having a third party would show us that we don't need to settle for "nearly as good" representation. If the Tea Party could thumb their nose at the GOP, maybe those of us who are more concerned with efficiency in government spending could give the full bird to the DNC.

I concede this point. It is plain to me that some things need to be repeated in order to finally break through the sheer volume of clutter and pre-conceived stances. You forgot the third group, those who agree that ridicule is a valid tool but disagree when it is used to attack personally, rather than ridiculing an idea. Here again I fear I must again resort to redundancy again. The definitions of the various words used to attack someone personally almost always carry examples where the behavior is inseparable from the person. An asshole is incessantly irritating and contemptible, a moron consistently makes stupid choices, a hypocrite is like the non-voter who complains about elected officials, an idiot is a stupid or mentally handicapped person. Calling someone by these names automatically impugns their whole character. iNow claims he's not using these attacks fallaciously because they're just observations and not being used against an argument, but this is a discussion board and virtually everything can be said to be an argument about one thing or another. You (Ophiolite) had made a point about ridicule being a valid last resort choice. Then kitkat argued that your opinion came from a closed-minded, hidebound point of view and therefore couldn't reflect an up-to-date commentary on the subject. That's when iNow remarked that kitkat couldn't take what he'd previously dished out and therefore was a hypocrite. Isn't that an observation AND an argument against kitkat's statement? Wasn't the comment being used to refute kitkat's stance as being flawed? Isn't it therefore an ad hominem attack, aimed at the person instead of his hypocritical arguments? We have the ability to distinguish between a person and their ideas. We have the power of language which gives us the means to further refine that ability. With that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely. We know that attacking a person causes defenses that make discussion less productive and meaningful. We know that attacking an idea is the right (even the duty) of the skeptic when we have evidence the idea is flawed. To me it seems painfully clear that this is a viable answer to those who rail against critical judgment or claim that great ideas are lost to ridicule. Maybe the ideas were lost because it was the originator who was ridiculed instead of the idea. Maybe now that we have the scientific method and understand how weak fallacious logic is, we can modify the way we argue so we're very clear about what is worthy of ridicule instead of who.

If the middle class would stand up to show the pols that "thinking of themselves" should require more thought to what the people want instead of the corporations, I agree that this focus wouldn't be as much of a problem. You can't maneuver yourself into a cushy private sector job if you can't get re-elected. We're to blame but we've been manipulated in this as well. It's easy to whip some folks into a frenzy when you claim a certain group is threatening deeply held beliefs, and the pols are very good at that. I would agree but I don't think the time is right for the Tea Party. Stripping away already eroded regulations seems counter-productive at a time when most our problems can be traced back to giving corporations and banks far too much power. Corporations aren't necessarily evil or greedy, but it's a big part of their mandate to grow and prosper in any legal way possible. We've allowed them to lobby to relax the laws too much and it's come back to bite us in the ass. If we put the regs back into place and make lobbying more costly than it's worth, corporations will look elsewhere to cut costs and bring more profit. Hell, if we work hard enough at it, we may even be able to bring back the model of happy, healthy, well-treated, well-compensated workers being more prosperous and beneficial, to replace the model where treating them like dirt and making them fear losing their jobs is more profitable. Wouldn't that be something?

Here's a link to some folks at Cape Cod Research that may interest you. I don't know if they've been able to develop this product, or whether it's available outside the US military, but there is a business contact that will know more. Good luck.

You said it was perfectly straight. Are you assigning any magical, time-bending qualities to this sight? When you say "perfectly", to what are you referring?

Ridicule is a tool. It helps to shape the way we learn. But like most tools, it needs to have safeguards to make sure it isn't used improperly or ineffectually. That's why I think the distinction between personal attacks ("You're a hypocrite") and attacking an idea ("What you said was hypocritical") is as important as making the back edge of a scalpel dull. Especially in science, it's important to only cut what needs cutting. Sometimes the "facts" that are spoken deserve ridicule. I agree with others that it should be more of a last resort, but sometimes people are insistent to the point where ridicule is a viable, effective option. Especially here, in a discussion forum where we can't read body language, facial expressions, etc., precise language and distinctions between what is effective and what is not is very important. We know that ad hominem is wrong and shouldn't be used. We know that making a "valid observation" that impugns the character of a person rather than his comments tends to raise unnecessary defenses, which are not effective to a discussion. The dictionary definitions of "hypocrite" that I found gave examples where the hypocrisy was of an ongoing nature, e.g., a person who never votes but complains about government is a hypocrite. Making a random hypocritical comment does NOT make one a hypocrite. It just means that the comment was hypocritical. We should be capable of learning (training ourselves, I think mooeypoo observed) to make those distinctions work for us. Ridiculing an idea should be a viable tool of last resort, and we should train ourselves to know how to wield that scalpel effectively. It can be argued that those who disdain using tools that help keep things clean, productive and efficient, with the least amount of unnecessary work for everyone else, are like guys who refuse to use the urinal and instead insist on pissing all over everything and calling it a valid way to relieve themselves.

Why do you, a person who understands the importance of language and its use, fail to see a distinction between attacking a person and attacking the ideas the person has, to the point where you consider one "a shorthand" for the other, basically conflating the two? But I've mentioned that the distinction is one between an acceptable argumentation tactic an a known and well-documented logical fallacy, an argument you've avoided multiple times now. This is not opinion. We're still in the Physics section, so I'll ask you directly. Do you agree that ad hominem, an argument attacking a person's character rather than the arguments they pose, is a logical fallacy and should be avoided?