Phi for All

Well, you're wrong. You should have studied this first. Luke 22:38 The only other time?! This is another example of how your adamancy betrays you. After the garden, within this very same chapter of Luke, Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, and this happened: Luke 22:48-50 And after that, even outside the Gospels, I find eight more references to "swords" before Revelations. Making adamant statements like, "The only other time a sword appears in the New Testament after the garden scene is in Revelation" shows that you spoke first without studying what you were talking about.

You're in a box. The box is in a house. When using "in" as a preposition to describe the noun in the locative case, the most immediate location is implied, which in this case is the box you're in, not the house the box is in. At least it seems that way to me.

Personally, I'd be leery of some of these people who joined up today just to help you solve your problem. I would trust the Cap'n's advice, do a new install. I think the links from the two newcomers should be disabled. We already know one of them is untrustworthy.

Very interesting, and certainly more worthy of protest than some of the OWS mandates. I was talking to a friend of mine last night, very conservative, who was putting the protests down completely. He thought it was absurd to protest about a redistribution of wealth in society. He didn't like hearing that people who had worked hard to earn wealth were being blamed for society's woes. That's all he was hearing about the protest. But when I pointed out that they also wanted to hold the financial institutions responsible for their crimes, he was quick to cite some of the worst offenders. I said OWS is also concerned about some of the regulations which have been eroded in the last thirty years and, to my surprise, he started listing them going back as far as Reagan (I would've thought he'd start with Clinton). Then the greatest thing happened. My friend also said he was concerned with how workers in the US were being treated in the past thirty years, how hard work and honesty were no longer enough to prosper and loyalty was demanded but not reciprocated or even respected. I told him OWS was very concerned with how workers have been manipulated through fear into maximized work for minimized compensation, and he agreed wholeheartedly. I hope our talk made an impression, and I hope next time he sees an article about OWS he'll look beyond the 1% vs 99% argument and think about how OWS can answer some of the other things he's concerned about.

What makes you think argument isn't enjoyable and engaging? And who said your intellectual rigor is lacking? I saw a complaint that you hadn't responded directly. Is your dislike of the argumentative process based on you taking things too personally? And why did you decide to change your name midstream? From johnnypluto to whisperingplant?! Like that's not the basis for an argument? I've been petitioning the Admins to disable that function. Citations aren't changed when you quote someone, so it makes for very weird conversational backtrails. I kept waiting for just that. So far, everything written in this thread is arguable.

You are correct, of course. Age has no bearing on learning, except that those who are young often lack the reasoning framework that older "students" rely on to help them improve. That's exactly why I wanted to start this thread, so that framework can be strengthened and people can more easily see the critical thinking necessary to overcome lazy thinking. I think the members here do a good job discerning the experience of other members, and I hope seeing some bad examples will improve our ability to sort the good learning experience from the bad logic. I wrestled with this, and finally concluded that a verbatim quote was more honest. Paraphrasing an example could easily be exploited, and that in itself is an example of fallacious logic. We don't make our arguments personal. We attack the idea, not who has it. It's important that the idea remain intact through direct quote, and this way the name of the poster isn't even listed, making it easier to argue the idea on its merits alone. This also I hope to show. There is a huge difference between a science crackpot and someone throwing out wild ideas to see what sticks. It's extremely important to know the difference, and I do worry that the crackpot label will be used too liberally. Again, I think it's better to discuss it, bring it out where we can examine the differences in an open forum, and in a thread dedicated to nothing but that. I think, if you look at the examples already posted, you'll see that it's not eccentricity that marks them. It's a fundamental hubris, a lack of intellectual honesty and a rejection of normal work study ethics that is the hallmark of the crackpot, not the ideas themselves. Let me make this clear. I don't want anyone posting ideas they think are crackpot. I want examples of crackpot thinking that show why the reasoning is bad or fallacious. I will personally make sure it doesn't descend into making fun of people's ideas. The normal definitions of crackpot don't fit the science crackpot we've come to know here. We can't hide from the way this mindset erodes the learning process. Their methods ARE negative, so the name we give them must reflect that. This will help separate them from the person who truly has wild ideas and inspired but undisciplined thoughts, but is totally willing to share and learn in the way that science has taught us is honest, meaningful and reflective of the reality we all live in.

So far, there hasn't been any battle between religion and science. It's all been correcting misinformation about what science is. Maybe that's what the real battle is. Ignorance protesting it's impotence against scholarship and reason explaining that more than blind faith is needed to understand the universe.

Aristarchus in Exile has been banned for repeated failure to back up extraordinary claims, off-topic arguments and failure to answer direct questions. Ethically, he had much to say and little to give.

A science crackpot makes foolish claims with nothing to back them up but their own certainty. They're usually convinced that their lack of formal study makes them uniquely capable of seeing the truth through all the academic clutter most PhDs are saddled with. We're always hopeful crackpots can be shown that science isn't what they think it is. With this in mind, I want to start this thread where you can post examples of crackpot thinking you encounter here or elsewhere. A couple of rules. No attributions, please. Remove the names, we're not looking to embarrass anyone. Also, where possible or needed, point out the flawed thinking and possible causes. I'd like this to be a tool we can use to help guide discussions with these people, not a platform for ridicule. Think of someone new to science reading this. We want to share some insights that may keep them from "the dark side". * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * How does sharing ideas make one close-minded? Sharing ideas is a cornerstone of the scientific method, and keeps things honest, keeps information flowing and insures constant testing of theories. And wouldn't this make ANY group that gets together a "religion"? Should we be telling students in classrooms to stop all that congregating? Crackpots, specifically creationists, love to forget that there is a difference between believing something that is supported by evidence and believing something on faith alone. To them, belief, like the Bible, has a very narrow interpretation. This is a personal favorite. It tickles me every time I think about the delicious irony of someone thinking they actually learned enough to single-handedly overthrow all of science. I'm not sure what kind of hubris drives this kind of statement. Statements like these leave no wiggle-room; there's never any "seems like" or "could be" about it. It's always broad, hasty generalizations that paint the speaker right into a corner every time. This is classic crackpot. Theoretical physics requires some top-shelf math skills if you really want to understand the model, but it's clear the average crackpot isn't really interested enough. Their own "theory" is simple enough and doesn't have ANY math. Sweeeeeet! The "personal incredulity" argument is also a frequent crackpot go-to stance. Sort of an interrobang version of skepticism without all the pesky reasoning behind it. The idea that something has to be intuitive to be right is a mainstay in the crackpot's mind. It's akin to the infamous phrase, "I may not know anything about art, but I know what I like!"

Rock hard poetry, Appolinaria! Don't take her for granite. Literally great literal literature. Haikudos to you! Infinite beauty, hatched from the egg of wisdom with strips of Bacon.

But you posted NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. That's the really sad part, you make a claim you can't back up and then further claim you're being persecuted for proving your claim, WHICH YOU NEVER DID. You have no clue what evidence really is. It's been explained but you continue to ignore everyone who tries to tell you. And it's pretty clear, from what you've told us, that this has been happening your whole life. Everyone is wrong but you. My heart goes out to you, truly it does. You need your god's salvation because your life must be hell right here. Sorry to be so harsh. I keep hoping different approaches may help get through. After you made the patently ridiculous claim that swansont, one of our best and brightest minds and someone whose character and intellectual integrity are above reproach, was on some kind of power ego trip because you mistook his avatar for a picture of him holding a gun, swansont explained to you who James Bond is and we thought it was funny. When you couldn't admit your mistake and kept harassing him about changing his avatar to suit your sensibilities, some of the rest of the staff chose celebrities with guns too, to show the absurdity of your stance. Essentially we did what Jesus told us to in Luke 22:36, we sold our garments and bought a sword. In the end, we don't much care what you think. You've demonstrated that you didn't come here to learn like the rest of us. You came here to change all of us, to show us that we are all wrong, and we should think like you instead. All of science is wrong because it disagrees with what you've come to know as THE TRUTH. You quoted insane_alien, not mooeypoo. And yes, the burden of proof is always on the person making the outrageous claims. Always has been, always will be. Wow, dude, seriously? After every single point you've made was refuted but you continue to argue that you're right, you slam someone else for not admitting their mistake? I missed this part. If you have no formal education in science, why are you so convinced everyone is wrong but you? How does that even make sense to you? Beginners don't typically show up and start telling everyone they're not doing it the right way. So it's not your lack of knowledge, it's the fact that you lack the knowledge but adamantly claim you're right that gets you into trouble. Seriously, man, this should be starting to make sense to you. You won't be taken seriously if you keep doing this. Imagine: "Coach, I've never played football before, but I think you should play me because I see the mistakes you're making." "Mr Trump, I've never studied business but it's clear to me that you're going about this all wrong!" "Yo, Yo-Yo Ma, I've never played an instrument before, but it doesn't seem right to rest that guitar on the ground like that. Throw away that hairy stick and listen to me!"

I think it would be ethical for you to apologize to everyone for: 1) claiming to know what TRUE science is 2) joining a discussion forum when you had no intention of listening to anyone who disagreed with you, and 3) misspelling "Aristarchos". I can forgive #3 since you aren't Greek. Thanks for making my day, man! I did a laughing HA, the kind that are always way louder than you think they're going to be. Scared the hell out of my sleeping dog.

But you do need more than your anecdotal experience in a limited Western environment in order to make sweeping judgments about all teenage prostitution the world over. This is a horrible argument called a Hasty Generalization. It's a logical fallacy and we don't allow them here. And I would offer a hypothesis based on observations made up to this point. I would suggest that you started your six months in Winnipeg with your mind already made up about why those prostitutes were doing what they were doing. You didn't go there to learn, you went there to preach. And because you weren't there to listen, your life was at risk every day. You alienated most of those kids who might have done better with someone who would actually listen to them. My hypothesis allows me to predict you will ignore what is being said here, not admit you were wrong and keep preaching. Every single one of those quotes had a date attached to it. Since you have limited internet time, Einstein was born in 1879. Einstein did NOT believe in the personal, judgmental god you've been describing.

No Fido wedding, melon collie, all because Lassie cantaloupe!

! Moderator Note You were warned to stay on topic and stop arguing with Staff and start supporting what you claim as fact. Warning level increased. I'm sad to note that yesterday you claimed you would be banned soon and are now doing everything you can to make that happen.

YOU DID IT AGAIN! Now you must be penalized; no cookie for you!

Reply in Haiku; no exceptions permitted, you gecko lizard!

No. I mean, YES! Well, maybe.... From what I could find quickly online, there doesn't seem to be consensus among psychiatrists whether it's actually a disease or merely a symptom of something else.

This doesn't seem like an opening for a discussion. You ask questions and then you answer them. It looks like someone with their mind made up who wants to preach.

Like many people, you're cherry-picking what fits your belief system. You're choosing the few times Einstein talked about the importance of imagination over the thousands of hours he put into equations and hard science. You're picking something that makes sense to you and deciding you don't need to learn any more to know you're right. And you're choosing YOUR explanation over millions of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of science, assuming they ALL missed something fundamental and are ALL now blindly parroting some explanation you couldn't intuit with a brief study. You're claiming persecution over the possibility that you're wrong. "Everybody is out to get me" seems preferable to "Maybe I need to look a lot deeper". You're cherry-picking the feeling that there must be a simpler answer and ignoring the hard years of study, perseverance and dedication that mark the scholar. I don't mean this as a personal attack. This problem isn't you, it's just the way you're approaching this problem. Your arguments are flawed because you have a flawed view of science. People have been trying to explain, but I think you've only been picking up small bits and then forgetting them from day to day. It's exhausting and it's frustrating, so please forgive me if I try different tones in order to get through.

Imo, you can't learn without challenging yourself. That often means conflict and argument. There's nothing wrong with argument as long as it doesn't cloud your judgement. And if we only used knowledge we knew to be true, no one would ever get to voice an opinion that might lead to knowledge.

I hadn't heard this one before. So sharing ideas makes science a religion? Which is false. I think people took offense when you made a discriminatory remark about an entire population based on what a small percentage of them do for a living. They probably also didn't think it was very funny of you to mispronounce the name of the place in a rather crude way to fit your argument. And I also think people didn't like the whole they-all-deserved-to-die-by-God's-tsunami stance regarding a horrible natural disaster. I'm guessing it all clashes with your True-Church-Christian-love and the benevolence-of-Jesus thing. Not that I know what everyone was thinking. I wouldn't dream of assuming that.

Irony. I get it.

Dawn follows red states, evil horizon precedes the Republicans!

This should be your NEW signature quote!