Phi for All

While true, it's not properly Science News. By not posting your intro in the intro thread suggested when you registered, you have a) made a simple mistake, b) registered for a reason other than discussion, or c) failed the Turing Test. Your reply/non-reply will help us narrow those choices down.

So what aspect of this story did you want to discuss?

This is the surest indicator to me that this is not the healthcare bill the American consumers need. A plan that's in our best interest should not have insurance companies breaking out the champagne.

It's going to be a looooooong night, all. Enjoy yourselves. Stay next to someone warm. I promise the sun will come out tomorrow.

Probably takes more explosives to blow us up.

OMG, that's funny. I can see Bill O'Reilly now, doing the interview with the FDA official. "So you think Americans should stop drinking so much soda. Why don't you support our troops in Afghanistan?"

Most Americans ignore the fact that dangerous things can be present in their food because the FDA has provided their recommendations for how much they can safely consume. It's not the FDA's fault that the majority exceed those limits on an almost daily basis. Of course, the FDA doesn't exactly run commercials during FOX News warning people not to drink more than one soda per day.

You started this whole line of reasoning by strawmanning Severian's responses to teaching abstinence with an argument about teaching abstinence-only. Then when he asked why his daughter not having a mobile phone wouldn't prevent her from getting sent inappropriate pictures on her mobile phone, you strawmanned him about internet pictures and television. Your overall stance is not in question here. Losing your temper because someone didn't get your joke shouldn't really be a justification. It's very hard for someone to "lighten up" when you come on so strongly in your own argument. You know I love you madly but I think you're out of line on this one. Your remarks seemed to be attempts to marginalize and ridicule a perfectly legitimate stance, and I think you know how I feel about that style of debate. I'm done with my rant unless you still think you're the injured party here.

I'm becoming more skeptical of supposed bipartisan efforts, but in this case it seems like a move that would not only bring back a much needed regulation, it would also go a long way towards restoring consumer confidence in the banking system. Severian and bascule, two peas in a pod.

mooeypoo, I have to say, I've never seen you this way before. You've been strawmanning Severian repeatedly in this thread, misrepresenting what he has so carefully said, and you've been pretty abusive as well, with the "stuck at some orifice" remark and the (again) emphasis above. To restate your position here is superfluous; Severian wasn't commenting on your overall position, he made some very targeted comments to some very targeted quotes. Sorry, but I think some perspective is much needed here.

Consumers need to demand better from the marketplace. It would only cost US$0.001 per can for Coca-Cola or Pepsi to switch to a healthier sweetener, which they would do in a heartbeat if we stopped buying their products in favor of something better for us. But they aren't going to volunteer to lose millions unless consumers force them to change. And I agree with bascule about re-examining the sugar tariffs. They've been in place since the early 1800s, longer than the subsidies for the oil and gas industry. The reasons for the subsidies have expired long ago.

Also suspect is the fact that products containing chemicals synthesized in a lab often do so for reasons that favor the manufacturing, sales and storage process over my health.

You can't *be* awesome if you can't *spell* awesome. It's like a law.

Actually, there is no cannibalism allowed in my house. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than I'm prepared to admit, but all overnight guests are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they're to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up.* * Excerpt from Monty Python's Flying Solstice (I thynk).

I'm a Heathen. There's a difference. Although, my wife makes great soup, and I'm going to miss her.

We are having such a feast for Solstice! Pierogi, rolladen (I think the steak is from a white female cow), fresh steamed veg and lots of good friends. You're invited, Norman Albers.

He is NOT calling himself insane, he is calling himself insane_alien. It's a name only. If you see that Sisyphus can be the name of a member of SFN and not an ancient Greek hero, you should be able to see that insane_alien can also be just a name.

I didn't read walkntune's post #25 in the context of writing a song or describing a personal feeling. This chain of reference started with his statement: He was quite clearly referencing aspects of science, yet later stating that scientific method was limiting in that regard and he also used intuitive thinking (a clear red flag to me when coupled with talk of Einstein). However, since this is the second time today, in this thread, that I have failed to make myself understood to you, mooey, I'm willing to believe the fault lies with me and splitting my attention between work and play. So sorry.

The reason the scientific method is so valuable as a tool is that using it properly gives the best chance for logical results. Abandoning it for bursts of artistic license and intuitive reasoning defeats its entire purpose.

Your title, Origin of psychosis, psychoses, causes, cultural sources, implies that religion is the origin of psychosis. Your opening questions, "Is it possible that religion is causing psychoses ? Is it possible that the same is doing philosophy ?", imply that religion and philosophy are the root cause. You did qualify your statements at the end of the OP, and it's possible that your English grammar was misleading to me. Further, when I mentioned that your OP seemed to be a generalization (in post #4), you ignored my comment rather than clarifying. I'm willing to drop the generalization argument since you've come back to clarify what your intent was. No worries on that score anymore.

It's probably not the guy you're thinking of.

I said it *could* mean we're alone. I was thinking that the possibility might encourage people to support exploration that would prove we're not. Obviously we wouldn't start with assumption that we are alone (the scientists leading the search wouldn't allow it ), but the fear that we may be could logically lead to denial and thus help the pioneering effort.

As soon as I read this it occurred to me that many people would realize that, if there's no god, we could be alone in the universe. This might actually lead to more space exploration in an attempt to find other life.

But there are plenty of alternatives to driving a car for transportation, and it can be argued that there are national safety concerns involved. The alternatives to healthcare are much more limited and unsound. And being forced to purchase insurance from a private company doesn't carry the same national safety concerns as seat belts and air bags on a car. I suppose you could argue that sick people could put others at risk, but I don't think there are even any state laws that make inoculations or medical care mandatory.

Isn't part of the Abrahamic god's allure that He manifests Himself in indirect ways that can't be predicted or observed? Hasn't He vowed not to present Himself until such a time as mankind is worthy? How can science fully disprove Him if He won't show Himself in a measurable way? Edit: I see you want to bypass this hurdle, but I think it will always be at the root of the Abrahamic concept of faith. I think there would be a bit of both, along with a bit of everything else from apathy to violence. But I don't see any of the major churches overthrowing the concept of faith for any amount of proof on science's part. After a brief period of instability, there would probably be more people on both sides of the fence that were adamant about what they know to be true.