Phi for All

Chriton was welcomed by one of the staff in post #20. Do they all have to say it? Why use the word "enemy" to describe someone who may not have all the facts? Isn't it best to assume that members of a science discussion board come here to learn as well as share? This should probably be amended to "Non-accepted science topics that frequently come under discussion". Most members don't have the time to teach basic science to others and have no patience for that which is not mainstream. That is one of the hallmarks of SFN. All discussions must use scientific reasoning, free of the fallacies that mar most other discussion boards, even in sections like politics where opinion is much more common and valuable. I've been watching for just such instances and have found none, except for ajb's mention of his crackpot index thread, but not by any staff members. I am not a fan of labels applied early on in a members tenure here, and personal attacks are against the rules. If a member earns those labels through repeated unwillingness to listen then it's not the fault of the labeler. Fairness has little to do with it. A person's ideas should stand on their own merit, and it should tell you something when multiple people post to point out flaws in your argument. Would you let an engineer continue to build a bridge after you see a mistake that could cause it to collapse, or would you point out the flaw as early as possible so the rest of the work could continue effectively?

Thank you. It's very nice of you to introduce yourself with a wish like this.

I think you're mistaking frustration for anger. It's frustrating when people think their personal opinion is on an equal footing with some of the most heavily researched scientific theories. This is a science forum, unlike most others. It's been mentioned before, but the scientific method works because it doesn't rely on individual points of view, but rather tested evidence researched by an extraordinary amount of people over time. Scientific theories are not "suspicions", the way some people say, "I have this theory...". Theories start as ideas, become hypotheses, and only after exhaustive work and review by others can they start to be called theories. They are objective explanations of observable reality refined by research and experimentation by many people over time. And even then, they are still called theories because they will still be tested against reality forever. It's a slap in the face to call rigorous scientific theory "beliefs", as if one could simply dismiss all the evidence in their favor based on some personal preference. Tolerance doesn't come into play; denying the evidence in front of you, should you choose to actively study it, is purposeful negligence. Why do you think you deserve tolerance?

You're just angry because your little green pips say, "Severian is a grumpy old curmudgeon known to all".

I think it's so a couple of friends can't rep just each other to build up false reputations. It's an honor system with some limitations.

No way! I refuse to listen, because I believe BBT is *my* materialistic theory!! It doesn't belong to you, it belongs to me!!! [/sarcasm] Do you see how silly that sounds? Do you truly believe science doesn't listen to theories because of their source? They probably scrutinize it even more carefully, expecting it to be flawed, but the mere fact that it has been accepted as theory shows that science has a more open approach than creationism. There have been many scientific advancements made by priests. It's no wonder since they worked very hard to keep the average person ignorant so they could horde knowledge as power.

The main value of the scientific method is to take personal views and individual logic out of the equation and present an objective case for any idea. While personal observation is valid, it must be weighed against other observations and evidence to make testable predictions. Many people who think as you do assume that scientists merely study what has already been done, that there is a fundamental flaw in science because it's just building upon flawed premises by "good old boys" who benefit from keeping quiet. In reality, most scientists would give anything to be able to disprove an accepted theory, and many try full time. Theories, pet or no pet, have to undergo rigorous peer review by other scientists who are brutal in their examination of the methodology used and the conclusions drawn. There is no conspiracy to cover up evidence, nothing that could convince every serious scientist in the whole world to overlook sloppy work or specious conjecture. What would be the point? You would make your mark much more quickly by offering proof that a theory is wrong than you would by simply following the pack. Normally, we see people who rant against accepted theories who are just lazy and don't want to study all the mainstream work, or don't have the math to see that they are wrong, but you seem like a very learned person, a skilled engineer. Can you pick one of your "conspiracies" for this thread and expound upon why you think everyone is trying to cover up the truth about it?

That's a lot of things to prove/disprove in one thread. Perhaps you should take them one at a time, so it doesn't get confusing for anyone.

Someone who murdered or raped can't avoid the label because they can't change the past, but does a crackpot always have to be a crackpot? Maintaining the label keeps many from learning any better. I don't think this is always the case, and I think it takes a little extra vigilance to avoid making the label personal. But judging the person in any way is what leads to the impasse that starts with "visionary intuition" and ends with "Galileo-like persecution". I think the only way to deal with lazy logic is with the logic itself, the ideas that lack rigor and therefore don't qualify scientifically. I think everybody loses as soon as someone yells "Crackpot!". It's like a corollary to Godwin's Law.

As Sisyphus mentioned, it is amazing how common the syndrome has become, but I don't know if it plagues one particular group over another. Many engineers have the math to understand a lot of physics, and math seems to be a stumbling block with a lot of Lazy Logic practitioners. Most don't have the full picture because they gravitate to any kind of shortcut they can find. I think the general appeal is the "think outside the box" approach, which some people interpret as permission to throw away the accepted body of knowledge they would otherwise have to study. It's easier to consider your ideas "intuitive" and then even easier to claim persecution by your detractors for having the "courage" to defy the establishment.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people who deserve the title, but for our purposes here I think a label like that is detrimental. I don't like it when a young person is called "kid", I hate it when people are told that their ideas are "idiotic" or "moronic" (because those words are derived from insulting terms), and I don't like it when anyone is marginalized or disparaged since that approach tends to paint the person with a broad brush rather than specifically targeting the ideas they have that are in question. I just wish we could be more alert to our own tendency to lump the person in with the patterns of bad logic or misinformation they display. It's a bad habit and it never helps anyone learn. It's like fighting laziness with more laziness.

As the father of an 11-year-old, I've had to look this up before. Different colors can be caused by different combinations of bacteria, also viral infections can turn mucous yellow or green, and of course dust and smoke particulates are trapped by mucous and can give it a green-brown tint when it hardens.

I think too much "labeling" goes on here at SFN. The quick, easy term "crackpot" is an ad hominem aimed at a person because of their arguments, not solely at their arguments. Once someone has been labeled a crackpot, I don't care who you are, you view even good ideas from them with a jaded perspective. And when someone is attacked personally, it hampers any possibility that they might learn from constructive criticism. The indices can be valuable for testing ideas, but is there a way to remove the personal attack from the terminology? Perhaps a Lazy Logic index?

I'm even starting to hear some fairly conservative friends conceding that it's stupid to keep our prisons full of people who's only crime is possession of marijuana. They make sure to add the "tax-it-like-anything-else" clause, but I think the black market angle is what really got them turned around. Making criminals rich and placing otherwise law-abiding people at risk for an ideology that doesn't stand up well to comparisons with alcohol are strong arguments.

When a new member registers, they are directed to the Introduce Yourself sticky with a link. I don't know what more can be done without neon and some sort of remote cattle prod device. You can't force people to read.

... just as soon as she finds out just what "contributor" means. Let's go easy on those 4-syllable words there, bascule.

Only if you forget everyone from Jelly Roll Morton to Muddy Waters, and quite a few between them and MJ.

ROFL. But this way, at least you can know beyond a reasonable doubt it's not something you're interested in. I tend to look toward the conclusive parts of long posts to find instructional tidbits like this one: If we have to look this far away for answers, I am content with myopia.

Extremely intentional, pre-engineered and rehearsed selective amnesia in both Giuliani's *and* Perino's cases, imo. Once is a fluke, twice *could* be a coincidence, but in the case of US politics, it looks more like a spin job.

Why should I touch that link without knowing *anything* about it? Please take responsibility for opening a thread properly and giving some kind of direction for discussion besides a title and a link. "Speech download" tells me nothing relevant.

In fact, evolution is only the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Darwin proposed that mankind and apes evolved from a common ancestor who may not have walked upright or used tools. In fact, the Catholic church recognizes the theory of evolution, though they consider it one of their god's mechanisms.

It would be interesting to see a national poll come out testing whether these instances of selective memory have caught on with the public. Would FOX News viewers agree with Giuliani and Perino that there were no domestic attacks during the Bush Administration more than non-FOX News viewers?

It's all perception. It looks beautiful, it has a hefty weight to it, and I swear it feels warmer than other metals (although that's probably because it's usually worn next to the skin as jewelry). I guess it's like diamonds. There are much rarer gem stones than diamonds but diamonds are priced inconsistently with their comparative rarity. Platinum is 30 times rarer than gold but it's not 30 times more expensive.

What qualifies as "truth" and "coherency" for diverse cultures over the span of thousands of years?

Oh, that's right, they're only using WTF? for accounting.