Phi for All

There are already plenty of folks who spurn science in favor of spiritual solutions. I think the the more science says the proof is beyond doubt, the more they will doubt it. I think this is already happening and in your scenario the only change would be a firmer resolve on both sides. There are aspects of some people's gods that are beyond what science measures. If a god chooses to remain unobservable to test the faith of its followers, how is science going to disprove it exists?

I think bascule is talking about the federal government forcing us to buy something from insurance companies. States can make us buy car insurance and safety seats for kids. Isn't it a federal law that makes us pay for air bags in cars? I guess there is something in the Constitution that could force us to buy insurance from the private sector.

Absolutely. And lol posts or copy/pastes from Wikipedia don't count. Meh. Michiganglions eating frozen custard in the winter. No wonder their brains are frozen.

My neck is starting to hurt from shaking my head. What happened to all the lofty visions and messages of hope? This isn't what the Democrats are supposed to be about, it's not even what the Republicans are supposed to be about. This is pure corporate society machinations. Who do you think will win the Rollerball match tonight?

Impurities and irregularities in the metal ball and lack of access to unlimited energy, perhaps?

There is absolutely no need to discard diplomacy or common courtesy, regardless of how you feel about a person's claims. You only lend merit to claims of persecution when you attack with this attitude, and weaken the logical stance of your peers.

In this instance, I refer to anything that is not explainable by mainstream science. Test results which professed to show something that doesn't agree with accepted physics would require further tests to determine what is causing such super-natural results. If further testing concludes that the test subject behaved in a manner outside of what we know should happen, then the results can be peer-reviewed so others can come to the same conclusion, or point out where the testing was flawed. Can you set up this experiment: ... as a double-blind trial where the experimenters test several "white powders" without knowing which is "white powder gold" and also without knowing what results are expected? In this fashion you would eliminate any bias on the part of the observers and you would also elicit different approaches to solving why they see something extraordinary about the reactions of one of those "white powders", and new experiments could be conducted under equal peer-review. If your test results can be reproduced every time, then any of the results would be predictable. Predict that the elemental nature of the subject will change, or its mass will be affected.

It's not often possible for a Moderator to find another staff member who can be brought up to speed on a thread sufficiently quickly to address problems within a thread that has momentum. In cases like this, a Moderator has a couple of choices that don't involve splitting threads; they can close the thread temporarily or carefully assess whether their intervention will be seen as abuse of power. If they close the thread, posters lose that momentum, and those who were able to afford the time to post right then feel stifled, and rightly so. If the Mod chooses to intervene as a Mod in a thread they are part of as a poster, they know their actions will be under the microscope by the membership and the staff even more than normal. I'm sure swansont didn't take this responsibility lightly, and I don't really see where his actions could be construed as abuse in any way. This isn't a blanket defense of the staff. There have been transgressions in the past that I have pointed out where Moderators have either abused their authority or, through inaction, allowed infractions to go unpunished. In this particular instance, however, I simply don't agree with jackson33 that swansont was out of line in his actions.

Can we stay on topic, please? Chasing red herrings about noetics and telepathy will only cloud a reasonable discussion of scientific testing of the claims of white powder gold. Thank you.

Take any of your non-natural results (like the one where your powder changes into other elements), show some research, make a prediction, set up an experiment to test those predictions and review the results. Share your findings with everyone. Validity. Can you link us to those studies? This would be HUGE news. I haven't seen anything about it. Scientists love two things almost equally about peer review: confirming results and being part of the new frontier, and proving the results flawed after thorough testing. They do NOT love throwing up their hands and saying they can't account for what they see.

I find this part a bit too convenient: It's a secret that you now believe it is wise to protect, and nobody else can search for it until they are ready to accept that it's true? If you want acceptance from the scientific community, doesn't it make sense to work within the scientific method and make some of the powder and your test results available to others so your work can be reproduced and verified, then peer reviewed?

So much posturing going on! Why propose an amendment to import cheap drugs from Canada, knowing it would get immediately defeated, instead of attacking the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act bascule mentioned, which seems to be one of the bigger stumbling blocks to cost-effectiveness? I see this as a calculated diversion, something both sides can point to and say either, "We jumped all over THAT one!" or "Well, we tried and failed". http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9CKBO9O0

I can see you handing out cookies from the campaign bus. Vote Democrash!

I think it's the pre-teen/teen equivalent of "I know my story isn't very good, but I wanted to know what you think". It's a way of lowering the expectations of the authority figure so they will adjust their standards downward, modifying an uncertain outcome and avoiding disappointment from the authority.

I think a manned trip from the moon to Mars would show us how feasible manned flights further out in our own system are going to be. I just think it's ultimately too costly in terms of payload to have a live team on board when you can pack it with so much more robotics and telemetry gear that you aren't obligated to retrieve should something go wrong.

Manned spaceships require too much in the way of life support. Unmanned ships packed with devices to record as much data as possible are more realistic at our present level of technology and resources.

Mea culpa.

Good point. "Reparations" does have a criminal/victim aspect to it.

I don't think it would make muslims look guilty to make reparations to victims of Islamic terrorism, especially if it gives muslims a humanitarian name to go with the faces. We sometimes fear nameless strangers so it would go a long way to know that Hasan is a good and beautiful person who wants to help fix what some extremists from his religion have broken. It's easy to fear "that muslim guy" and harder to fear "Hasan the plumber from Toledo who just wants to help". I think a better use of those resources would be encouraging muslim governments to remove the ability of jihadists to work within those countries. Diplomacy and economics are the only way to fight terrorism, since we've proven waging war on terrorists costs insane amounts of lives and money and in the end just makes more terrorists.

I would also like to say that I really appreciate jackson33's participation. The whole community is better for his point of view, his insights and his input. I'm sure he feels like he is a lone soldier in some of his battles, and that makes him a brave combatant in my opinion. It takes a lot of guts to defend your stance when it is often in the minority, and jackson33 brings a lot of legal acumen to the threads he chooses to post in. His earlier accusations were perhaps born of frustration and I think he deserves a bit of consideration in this regard. I would hate it if we lost all dissenting opinion here. Compound mentality is stagnant and dangerous, and we all need to be challenged on our stances, if only to prove they aren't sacred.

You won't find a more honest and hard working moderator anywhere than swansont. He was offered a moderator position for years before he finally accepted, and it was the best thing that has ever happened for SFN, imo. His defense of scientific rigor and open, friendly, meaningful discussion is unparalleled. Moderators can't act alone when it comes to banning someone on merit, and swansont is not the kind of person to unfairly use his privileges to silence opposing views. I just think you're way off base here, jackson33. The fact that you can question swansont's integrity and still be here is proof that this board operates more transparently than virtually any other forum on the web.

If you ran a campaign in the US showing minarets that look like missiles scattered across an American flag, I'm afraid you might get at least 51% to vote on a ban. Eight years of fear, coupled with recession and jobless frustrations...? Yeah.

Since creationism and ID has no scientific basis, I think it should be moved out of EM&E. Since it will violate the posting rules for pretty much any subforum due to its misinformation and lack of rigor, I have no idea where it should be moved to. Somewhere with a built-in air freshening device, preferably.

I think it's a great site. I was drawn there several years ago, before I had an account here. They had a great relationship with Dr. Michio Kaku, and I had read one of his books on theoretical physics. Dr Kaku has since started his own discussion forums. As others have mentioned, PF has its place online. They are the place to go for hard, no nonsense answers from the big dogs on the block. There are other forums (I'm not going to name them since I don't really know much about them currently and don't wish to poison the well) that are extremely lax in their moderation and what they will allow. If PF is a 10 on the serious-science-only scale, and the TinfoilRUs sites are a 1, I'd put SFN at about a 6.5 - 7. Our seriousness is more about rigor in the methodology of our discussions, whereas PF is more serious about content. I think our position allows that people can learn from mistakes and become better members if they're allowed to defend their assertions. PF is pretty strict about what you post, and will delete and/or ban if they sense you aren't mainstream. Each site serves a purpose.

No. It's just a bit from the opening credits to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I was setting up one of the Mods to retaliate with "We apologize again for the fault in moving the OP without its replies. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked." I should use smilies more often.