Phi for All

This does clarify your meaning, thank you. I still question why Islam as a whole should be linked to specific extremist acts, though. Again, if Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church celebrates the death of gay people by attending their funerals and preaching that "God hates fags", I don't even link that sentiment to all Baptists, much less all Christians. Extremists have many different ideologies. When certain extremists happen to be a religious leader, doesn't that just make them a more dangerous, infectious extremist rather than a leader of a dangerous, infectious religion? Pro-Life extremists sometimes shoot doctors who perform abortions. Not all of these belong to a certain religion, or are necessarily religiously motivated. It seems more of a moral decision for them. And while other Pro-Life supporters may tacitly cheer that another abortion doctor has been removed, they themselves wouldn't actively support such violent, extreme actions. This is how I see many muslims being "linked" to terrorism. They may secretly applaud when targets they view as oppressive and detrimental get killed, but actively they wouldn't join in on the violence and openly don't lend any support to the extremists.

Again, saying that, "if the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not" is a misrepresentation of Islam. Not all muslim religious leaders support violence, in fact the vast majority don't. Some Christian leaders preach intolerance of certain lifestyles, but it's a misrepresentation to say that Christianity hates gay people.

It may not seem valid because you have misrepresented the situation. The vast majority of muslims are NOT motivated to commit acts of violence, and only a small fraction of muslims are so motivated. It may be more relevant to say that extreme stances are what characterize terrorism, whether they be religious, political, cultural or economic in nature.

This is really a science discussion forum. If you'd like to discuss parts of your articles, you can put them in the appropriate sub-forums listed on the home page and perhaps start a discussion with some questions or observations. If you're not going to stay to discuss them, then I think you should find a forum more appropriate to publication.

Lately, I've been fascinated with metacognition, thinking about how we think. Humans seem to be a mass of conflicting concepts and what we think about ourselves and others is often at odds with reality. Risking lives is not a good justification for speeding to get someplace 2 minutes faster, but we do it almost every day. We're supposed to "keep our noses to the grindstone" yet "go with the flow". We vote people into office who promise to represent us, but then do nothing to get them out when they don't. In discussing it with others, it's easy to spot the glazed eyes of those who feel uncomfortable with thinking about thinking. There's some more cognitive dissonance: those who really should find many reasons why they shouldn't.

Mathematics is the language of physics. I suggest that part of the problems you have with relativity and special relativity stem from not speaking this language. It's also possible that you're having trouble due to a lack of education in the area. Is it so hard to think you might have had a better grasp of the subject if you'd "[made] it that far in [your] studies" (from your PsychForum thread)? I don't say this to be insulting. I consider myself to be logical also, but there are many things that don't make sense to me but might if I studied them more formally. This kind of rigorous study is usually the difference between theory (speculative idea) and theory (mathematically modeled, thoroughly tested predictive hypothesis that has undergone scrutiny from peers in its field).

Oh, I didn't know that was you. Sorry, you can come over sometime and check it out. I just needed it to prop the door open anyway.

NOT impossible. We think of early civilizations with crude tools and we find it hard to imagine that they could have accomplished some of the engineering feats we would find difficult today. But most people fail to take into account the huge amounts of manpower they were able to bring to bear on these tasks. When you have 30,000 people working on a pyramid, you can knock it out in a couple of decades. By comparison, the cathedral of Notre Dame took a couple of centuries. Why were the pyramids built? There are many ideas with varying degrees of plausibility, but I don't think they were big enough on the inside to protect a lot of people from a solar event. There are better designs for larger numbers than the way it was built.

I shall henceforth be known as L. Phi for Me Alone. Doubters will be shot.

! Moderator Note jamiestem, please remember that you are not being insulted. Your ideas are being critiqued, nothing more. This is a crucial step in the scientific method. If it were easy, it wouldn't be the most effective tool for understanding the physical world that has ever existed. As was mentioned before, it's not personal though it may feel that way.

I agree with this. Based on the reasons I gave earlier, I think women would think more "big picture", and make more long-term plans than men would. Like it's more tactical to put out a forest fire, but more strategic and better in the long run to let it burn. I'm already starting to hear this kind of talk after the devastating earthquake/tsunami in Japan. It could be of long-term benefit because a lot of those old facilities needed updating and now they'll be built state-of-the-art instead of just refurbishing the old.

I think it's because Hitler was such an evil genius who couldn't be stopped and ended up ruling the entire world.

It's doubtful that any animal, much less an insect, has the kind of neural complexity to need spiritual solace. How could you know such a thing? We're ALWAYS headed towards some new world order. I think the one thing we know is true is that religion can't be "sucked up by secular forces". The more you try to force it down, the more fervent the believers get. If there is a way to get rid of a religion, I think it would be to make it "unvaluable" somehow. I really don't understand what you mean by all this. I have never heard of Adam and Eve being thought of as gods. Some modern religions, like the church of the science of mind, preach that God is inside each person. Is that what you mean? Oh, and I don't think our new man-god should be ydoaPs. He art evil unto me and thee.

My opinion is that women, as the traditional gatherers, have a much larger strategic focus than men do, as the hunters. For the majority of our existence, men had the tactical responsibility of flushing game and then hunting it down, a more tactical role, while women had to keep on the lookout for a wider variety of things to gather. I don't think one gender is more rational than the other, it's just that their overall focus is different. War is often a strategic option so I don't think there would necessarily be fewer of them if women were in charge. I also think some modern wars are waged because of arms economics, but I'm not sure if women would see the need to use weapon production to grow the economy as a strategic advantage the way the current powers seem to.

I just don't see all these docile, uncreative people you're talking about. I think much of our problems stem from misconceptions between what we really need, what we really want and what we're really getting. How do you think we're being docile in this country? I also think you're being overly dramatic. Flouride has been proven to reduce tooth decay, not "keep your teeth from rotting away". Logically, I wonder why the concentration camps would need to put anything in the water when Learned Helplessness is a fairly pervasive psychological effect. Shooting people who create trouble before it's their turn to die is conditioning enough. Do you have any sources that are accredited? I see plenty of conspiracy sites but none that could cite such a source.

The only abstract I could find quickly seemed to run counter to your claim. While the sample is skewed because one is for military men and the other seems to be for men in general, I wouldn't say that an increase of 2" in 150 years is "not all that different", not in terms of evolutionary scale. Imo, there is too much ad hoc justification in this thread for it to be in Medical Science. Can we thicken the ice upon which we tread with a bit more rigor?

! Moderator Note A speculative post has been removed to keep this discussion within mainstream science. Speculations belong in their own sub-forum!

I think this stunted definition of "productive" requires people like your grandmother to die rather than recover "artificially" so they don't use any more resources than necessary. I'm just guessing that this is based on some sort of "natural" guidelines. Perhaps were seeing the advent of a "Budhist/Amish Scientist" sect that spurns modern medicine and technology. Quite right, Ophioloite. I'd be interested to know if it was the method or the results that are being spurned. Interesting. We do have many biases and inefficiencies with regards to consumption. I think we naturally move towards miniaturization and efficiency, but are too often led astray by promises of personal convenience. Convenience almost always costs someone, somewhere, more than it's really worth.

I was fairly certain this was just a soapbox argument and that your mind was already made up. I work with a Buddhist monk and he called your posts "unrealistic and extreme in their censure". Science provides a way for societies to maintain higher levels of population. You aren't really attacking science; I think your beef is with our civilization, which encourages growth and thus the use of more resources. Ultimately, we will reach a point where we'll need more than one planet has to offer. Since our sun will eventually kill the whole planet anyway, I think it's a good thing science is helping us leave. We'll wave to you and the lions when we go.

rktpro, can you understand now how great a photograph would be? If you don't have a digital camera, then please be extremely detailed in your description and answer ALL the questions asked of you if you want meaningful answers back.

Entropy can also describe a loss of information in a transmitted message, so I'm thinking entropy is THE ADVERSARY you really need to worry about.

Science discovered that keeping ourselves and our surroundings cleaner leads to healthier, longer, bubonic plague-free lives (with little more resources than water, soap and sweeping up dirt and food scraps to keep rats and their fleas away from our living quarters). Joseph Lister pioneered some early efforts in sanitizing surgical tools (and surgeon's hands) which allowed modern surgery to heal more than hurt. Water, soap, carbolic acid vs. the resources required to burn or bury millions of bodies. I'm more than half worried that this won't satisfy you, sxShadoWxs, since, even though sanitation and antiseptics help us live longer in order to think of ways to be "productive", your definition is so narrow that I suppose letting everyone die young and filthy would use fewer resources ultimately. Is this what you were after, an admission that science makes it possible for there to be more human life on the planet, and that's a bad thing because it wastes resources?

It seems like everyone who dies from a brain aneurysm was secretly assassinated by someone from the government. Brain aneurysms are "mysterious", so they must be nefarious as well.

! Moderator Note Thread moved to Computer Help. Suggestions is for site improvement only! It might help to know what you have to work with. What kind of computer do you have, what programs are on it already? And I also agree with your boss. A list helps him see that you understand what you're doing and also gives him some boundaries to work with. Be very clear about what you need and he may be more cooperative.