Phi for All

First, I don't understand why this is an ethical position. Our need for energy to power our lives can't really be compared to drug addiction, unless you're suggesting we would be better off living only on the energy we produce from our own bodies and possibly those of animals. Horse and buggy, really? Second, electricity is a very practical way to bring energy to our society. Even if you develop alternatives to oil, coal and nuclear, you still have to turn the alternative energy into something that can be used by the masses. Geothermal or wind still needs conversion to electricity to be practical. We can heat with natural gas but you still need electricity to power the blowers that push the heat throughout your home. Third, I think the idea that we're at a crossroads regarding electricity is a false dilemma. We can find ways to create electricity that don't pollute as much as fossil fuels or hydro-electric dams, such as space-based solar. Electricity is not the enemy.

Rolling on the floor, convulsed with laughter, Phi for All almost swallowed the stamp he'd been licking for the envelope containing his nomination of hypervalent_iodine for the Nobel Prize in Comedy.

No, no, it's funny because it's about the evolution of behavior, which B. F. Skinner wrote about, and buzzards eat the flesh off dead animals, which makes them "skinners" too. Plus, I think B. F. stood for Buzzard Feast. I'll have to double check.

Can you really not see the difference between attacking the idea and attacking the person? You seemed to get it when swansont explained it to you. Do you really think it's just "a shorthand" to call someone a hypocrite instead of calling their argument hypocritical? You had me worried there.

So ridicule the idea all you want if it deserves it. But don't do it inappropriately, don't attack the individual. Grow up, don't be hypocritical. This is a science forum that doesn't cherry-pick from the fallacy lists. You yourself have pointed out many fallacies others have used against you. They're all weak arguments, especially ad hominem. That's why it's 1a in our rules. It's real simple. Attack the idea, not the person. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has nothing to do with growing up. It has nothing to do with tone over content. It has nothing to do with your grip. It has to do with fallacious logic. It's real simple. Deal with it. Definitely not. Intelligent Design is a specific movement, not just "Hey, maybe there's a deity behind all this!" It's creationism trying to distance itself from religion in an attempt to be taught alongside science in public schools, violating the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. There's nothing to "prove" there. Just like creationism is different from "Hey, maybe God created everything and we evolved!" Creationism is a strict set of beliefs that have been refuted many times over by mountains of evidence and observation. Intelligent Design is flawed and deceitful. They claim to follow scientific methods but most of it is appeals to incredulity and outright lies. Please tell me you'll study the distinction.

It WAS a question of hypocrisy, as well as causing unnecessary anger. I think kitkat was definitely guilty of hypocrisy but I draw the line at calling him a hypocrite for it. He's failed to answer a question correctly before (I assume) but that doesn't make him an idiot. He's also been cruel before (I assume) but that doesn't make him a sadist. Calling out his actions allows him to correct them. Pinning a label on him personally doesn't help the argument, it's fallacious and weak and it's not going to help him understand where he went wrong. It's just going to make him lash out in kind. I have seven years experience here at the forum and tens of thousands of posts to support me. Some people like to ridicule people instead of ideas. They claim they can't help it, it's just the way they are. And it's ironic that they are labeling themselves in the process. I think if you feel the need to ridicule/attack a person for something they think, you're compromising your objectivity.

I was struck by that early on, and thought it was a hopeful sign, but I think the Tea Party has been compromised on the tax issue by corporations looking to save a few percent anywhere they can find it. I think they do agree on many areas, but their priorities tend to conflict. The OWS objects heavily to relaxed regulations that have allowed corporations to become too involved in the political process that mandates those regulations. They feel this "corporate personhood" has caused the lack of response to the people by the political parties. The Tea Party, on the other hand, feels the people are best served when the markets are allowed to do as they wish: From the Tea Party Movement Platform: Really?! You can't mention "Believing in the People" without making it known you're referring to their work? It seems clear they think the people are only valuable as part of the production of goods and services. The one point where the Tea Party and OWS seem to agree is on lobbying: This is their longest platform point. The rest are short, concise statements. This one states in the first sentence that politicians are burdened with undue influence from lobbyists, then proceeds to ramble on about how the Tea Party is attacked by both parties and isn't a hate group and how focused they are on their goals. I don't see them being attacked by the Republicans (in fact, many Republican candidates are contorting their own stances to agree with the movement); I do see them being funded by lobbyist groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.

I agree with this part. Oh, I think it's clear you have no peers, iNow. This is where I disagree. Again, I think calling a person a hypocrite is a clear personal attack. I'll try to find some relevant studies, but I'm quite sure that the defensiveness this kind of argument creates isn't as conducive to constructive thinking as it would be if you called kitkat's argument hypocritical. Ridiculing his argument allows him to amend it, whereas the personal attack is aimed too broadly to be effective for anything but your own satisfaction.

That's quite obviously a personal attack. You can tell how weak an argument it is by the fact that it assumes knowledge you can't possibly possess. Further, it's a generalization from a single perspective, an opinion stated as fact that makes it weaker still.

If they've demonstrated their ridiculousness to such a point, when you attack them yourself you are either redundant, self-serving or you don't trust in your peer's ability to see what should be obvious. Personally, I think this argument is all about the times when a good idea failed to receive attention versus the times when bad ideas get criticized. Do the math and remember that ridiculing an idea often causes the originator to be more rigorous in the future. Consider the ratio again and you'll see that ridicule is more likely to produce better ideas than allowing bad ideas to go uncontested.

What strikes me is the blatant partisan maneuvering going on for some time now. The Republicans in Congress can't let Obama be seen doing anything positive, so they sabotage any help that might appear to come from his administration. It's clear that Cain jumped to attack the president's handling of Libya, and then struggled to remember why he felt that way. Oppose first, then stall for time to figure out your opposition. Is that a good leadership quality? Is that even a good campaign strategy if you have to think that hard? We're in huge trouble and the US politicians are once again setting up the country to scream across a non-existent fence instead of discussing our problems at a sorely needed round table. Both major parties are fighting to control who gets to do the bidding of the corporate lobbyists, ignoring the representation aspect of their jobs as elected representatives. House Resolution 3035 is a perfect example. A sloppy bill that allows corporate robo-calling of consumer cell phones, clearly something that nobody but big business really wants. Is this really the House's answer to the economic crisis, wasting working America's cell-phone minutes with recorded sales calls? I'm not sure the Democrats are any better, but I know the Republicans lied to us about how the Bush tax cuts would allow big business to create more jobs. I know they lied about keeping jobs in the US, and how much taxes their mega-corporations have been paying. And now candidates like Herman Cain can sit in interviews and stall while they make up crap reasons why they oppose anything the current president has done. I curse Obama for not engaging the American people in his struggles against the House, but his handling of Libya was exactly what was needed, imo. I'd bet a dollar that Libya stabilizes in less time than Iraq (and with a better opinion of the US). I hope this isn't too far off the topic, but I often find myself staring open-mouthed and dazed at many of the Republican actions lately. Cain and Perry forgetting their prepared lines, Rumsfeld criticizing Obama for not having an exit strategy in Libya, and the phenomenal waste of effort at trying to cut taxes for the wealthy when they will make more money if the lower classes have more to spend. The Republicans remind me of a guy I had classes with in college. He was renting an apartment but lost his two roommates because he was insufferable to live with, never helping with shared responsibilities. Rather than trying to get along and find new roomies, he started spending his rent money on himself. When the landlord served him with an eviction notice, he trashed the place and left in the middle of the night. I think the Republicans have demonstrated that they aren't interested in helping with shared responsibilities. They're spending our resources on themselves. Are they starting to trash the place in anticipation of an eviction notice?

There's a big difference between ridiculing an idea and ridiculing the person who has it. The former can put a perspective to the idea that's usually lacking in someone who is ignoring the idea's weaknesses. The latter tends to make the person defensive, and takes the focus away from the idea itself. Ridiculing the person is a weak argument against the idea, it's fallacious and unworthy. It's easy to conflate the two, and only slightly less easy to learn how not to.

I didn't mean to say religion, but rather the focus of religions, the deities that defy observation. Those are outside the natural, observable world that science is interested in explaining. We can't discuss religion in this section or these posts will be removed or split off.

! Moderator Note One thread is enough for this topic, please. It will save everyone from having to go to three different places to respond.

I would hope that the argument posed in the OP doesn't cover things which can be easily refuted, such as intelligent design. I've never seen an ID proponent successfully rebut a competent falsification. I can understand that some refutation seems like ridicule, and I can appreciate that there have been some discoveries that met with derision early on. It's easy in hindsight to claim ridicule, but when you place those discoveries in their proper time, with the proper state of that time's accepted science, it's easier to see why they never gained consensus. What John Cuthber says here is important. It's not about stifling free-thinkers, and it's not about overly rigid approaches. It's about a method of discerning what has merit and what doesn't. Some ideas are just a square peg trying to fit a triangular hole, and it's easy to see that no amount of refinement will make it fit better than the triangular peg that's already there. This is the physics section. Religion is not something that can be physically measured or observed.

I agree. The subject was fascinating, and the links to various studies supported a very compelling argument. I wish it had gone better and if it had, I think it would've been a good sticky thread. As I was reading the thread's earliest pages, I was able to relate well to the input iNow had linked to, and when he referenced an article by Michael Shermer I had previously read in Scientific American, it really set the hook. It was the article about why people tend to believe in invisible agents as a logically evolved survival mechanism. Those who make fewer Type II errors tend to live to reproduce, but that also predisposes us to belief in things that aren't there. Here I have to disagree. The scientific method, if followed properly, gives us the best chance of not biasing results of empirically derived experimentation, which leads to better, more solid conclusions. It removes the need for belief and puts us as close as we can get to the best explanations about natural phenomena. And doesn't that ability to test and dissent make it more valuable than sacred ideology? I agree. My earlier post was simply an attempt to show how any future attempts at a tightly controlled thread, free of off-topic tangents and superfluous comments, might be more successful. I tried to be clear that it was my opinion only, and was not merely supporting any past staff decisions. I suppose I was wondering if it would be possible to create a thread that discussed a subject thoroughly, with input from many covering a range of objections, and then actually reached a conclusion that all involved could agree upon. If that could be done, I'd request that the thread be locked, and anyone who had anything further to add or dispute could do it in a separate thread. We tend to have so many people who join and pose the same questions over and over, and I think it might be helpful if we had threads that were as thoroughly researched and controlled as iNow's How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms, and Why So Many Believe in a Deity to point to, as free from bias as possible and where no one on either side "loses their shit". There is a way to set a thread so that all responses have to go through Moderation queue before they can actually be posted, but everyone would have to agree to abide by staff decisions if a post was deemed off-topic.

What you said in the thread was clear. I don't need any additional focus. And my perceptions are my own, not an attempt to guess your motivations. I'm telling you how your thread was perceived by me (and therefore possibly others), so it really can't be lacking, but I understand your need to be defensive about it. It seems clear you misunderstood my intention. I was impressed by the way you handled the first several pages, and as I mentioned earlier, I think a successfully concluded thread like that would have been incredibly handy for future discussions. It's not really the staff's fault that the discussion didn't go the way you intended it to. Not that it's an excuse, but they were short-handed at the time. I had left and some of the other staff were busy personally and only showing up occasionally. You did a great deal towards keeping things on-topic, and as I mentioned earlier, you did it without censoring dissenters. As will happen in a discussion forum, people kept tossing in tangents and you had your fair share. Moderators continually have to decide whether or not to allow such tangents; overdo it and people cry censorship, underdo it and people call you inept. And tangents can lead to a more complete understanding. Agreed, until it did. As you yourself said, you lost your shit. You felt it was justified, but it really never is, is it? You're supposed to be able to handle yourself without resorting to insulting people. No argument there. I wish we could have a well-ordered thread like that on creationism, or some of the crackpot science claims, something we could point to and say, "Really? We've gone over that exact same thing, you should read this and then come back if you have anything new to add." I'm not sure it's what scientific methodology would agree with, but it would certainly nip some repetitive arguments in the bud. Being wrong isn't against the rules, but personal attacks are. Ultimately, that's a perception that really can't be lacking. I didn't comment on staff response at all, but I won't accuse you of lacking perception. Again, I was commenting that, imo, towards the end your insistence on pruning what you didn't want in the thread, warranted or not, could be construed as bias against dissent. As I said, I wasn't here to see that thread unfold, I read it after you mentioned it earlier in this thread. I think, repeat, I think you started out reasonable, and then lost your shit. You did well, and then you didn't. And unfortunately, how we end things sticks with people more than how we start them.

As was pointed out earlier, Heraclides had the misfortune to be born in an age before the adoption of the scientific method. My observation was meant to be relevant to our era, not his.

Don't conflate refutation with dismissal. If an idea is flawed, it is refuted, not dismissed. Fix the flaws to make it better, resubmit it. If it is refuted again, it will be for different reasons and still will not be dismissed, merely refuted again. Often in our discussions, an idea is refuted and the author continues to argue instead of fixing the problems with his/her idea. This can look like we're being dismissive.

To me, "How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms, and Why So Many Believe in a Deity" looked like you were trying to sculpt a thread you could later link to whenever anyone brought up any faith-based argument (e.g., "We discussed this recently in this thread, and if you'll read the entire thing you'll see we concluded that you're beliefs are part of an evolutionary pattern for survival and nothing more. Cheers."). While this sort of thing would be incredibly handy, it would require as little perceived bias as possible. It's seemed to me that you knew this and were trying to keep things focused and on track, but your own efforts ended up looking as though you were leading the discussion in a preconceived direction. I realize you mainly wanted the off-topic stuff pruned, but your insistence often seemed like you were cherry-picking posts that you wanted and demanding the rest be split off. Even though you were obviously accepting dissenting views, it could easily be perceived as a bias by others reading the thread in the future, thus thwarting the aim of the discussion. And when you get insulting and nasty, you raise unnecessary defenses in people who might otherwise view in a clearer light the evidence put before them. Accepting rigorously tested evidence is de rigueur for the science-minded, a bit harder but still possible for those who aren't as used to rational debate, but very difficult for either while wiping spit off their face.

I get the feeling this is in response to some idea that was ruthlessly shot down for lack of evidence or methodology. If your definition of "ridicule" includes refuting wild speculation that has no predictive power, then how much more time is lost by chasing down every unsupported "theory" that comes from "outside the box"? The scientific method works best when it is followed, not leaped over. Right now, we're navigating some of the most dangerous technical waters of our short existence as a species. With the discovery of fission, our ability to destroy increased exponentially. I feel we have done well so far in recognizing the futility in mutually assured destruction. Imagine if we had discovered nuclear weaponry 500 years ago, because early philosophers discovered relative motion and later scientists in the first century AD found practical applications for the steam engine. Would we still be here to discuss this? This type of speculation works both ways, you know.

If he has an umbrella, he doesn't need anyone else. Perhaps it could be months instead of years and not be so noticeable, yet still have the same answer.

Sounds like another question that could revolve around omnipotence. If God can do anything He wants, even circumvent His own physics, then His atoms could be made of _____________________, which is a substance so holy, so unique and so godlike that it defies description. Some say it can't even be defined by the written or spoken word, and that anyone who tries will be stru

Unfortunately, it's easy to jump to a conclusion like this when someone brings up Darwin in a question about modern evolutionary theory. You don't see many people questioning the timing of next month's total lunar eclipse by criticizing the work of Ptolemy.