Phi for All

In my experience, the way their arguments usually run, it appears they think scientists just explain things in the way that makes the most sense to them, because a theory is just a guess anyway, right? I think this is part of why they think other scientists are "hidebound" to their own "answers", as opposed to trusting explanations that use a preponderance of our best current evidence. Nor are you ever likely to be invited to. I'm fairly conservative when it comes to my clothes.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations, which means let's see some supportive evidence.

Is it egotistical if I want you to understand a fine point that only comes from a layered approach to the subject, and I feel the terms you're using are leading you to conclusions you wouldn't make if you DID grasp it? It's not like I get a commission for every person I convert to mainstream science. Overly sensitive I can live with, it's definitely true wrt measurements, definitions, and critical thinking. But it's not for any reasons of ego or offense. It's because when people claim things like "I have a theory", or "It's only a theory", it's clear they have NO IDEA what a theory is, or how strong a theory in science is, and it makes my ass twitch until I can correct them, because they'll NEVER appreciate science as long as they think theory means "my best guess". For example, I learned, from discussion with scientists here, that using the term "reality" the way you do is slightly misleading, so I try to avoid it (and I sometimes nitpick others about it). It's hinting at a concept of "realness" that might be different from what we observe in nature. You can talk about reality in philosophical terms, but when I'm thinking as a scientist, I think "natural universe" rather than "reality". Something we don't stress enough here is that we attack ideas, not people. We do it the way the wind tries to blow down a plant, and in doing so strengthens the stalk and makes it able to grow taller and stronger. People aren't dumb, but can say and do dumb things. These distinctions are important here, and part of the civility we want to maintain. I'm sorry if you've ever felt attacked personally, it's not our way, but it's also difficult sometimes to admit that our ideas are not us. Remember that most ideas are wrong, always have been, and it takes a good system or process to separate the signal from all that noise. Those folks are already lost to resentment because college-educated 22-year-olds got promoted above them despite their experience, and then in the last 20 years those executives took all their benefits and sent their jobs overseas. The best I can do now is not talk down to them while also not sinking to Trump's level, and support free education and better access to it for all people whenever I vote. Most of the folks who come here with a second grade education find their place in discussion by asking questions. You don't have to be well-educated or supremely skilled in the language to point out where you're confused. Those folks never seem to get the same kind of pushback as those who come here with their personal "theories" and wild-ass guesses about alternative philosophies. They usually learn a lot.

The reason the overly sensitive don't want to get involved in science is often because they take corrections like this personally, rather than in the spirit of learning they're steeped in. Every one of us here is hopefully filling the gaps in their ignorance with trustworthy, objective explanations derived from methodical and patient study of science.

You're exemplifying a major problem we have in science: trying to be as clear and precise in our definitions and measurements as possible, while others insist that their mistakes and flaws be forgiven or ignored. This leads to inexcusable inaccuracies and a corruption of reason.

I see it as more of a fallacious argument, where it isn't necessarily wrong, but it often leads to wrong conclusions. It's dangerous because it places the person who uses it in an unassailable position ("You're the fool, I'm not, and I get to define your behavior as I choose"). If the phrase is used instead of critical thinking and reasoned response, I think it's being misused. It's a phrase that can mask a weak reply. Like any fallacy, the danger is accepting it blindly. Slippery Slope is like that; burning a book doesn't always lead to burning more books, but it happens so often that it seems like a strong argument. You also have to be careful with those who claim to be "skeptics". Like "suffer no fools", claiming skepticism puts the claimant in a position of judgement over others, and makes them the arbiter of what's right/wrong/foolish, and MAY cause others to look less closely for a valid argument from them. Does that make sense? I'm not saying your phrase is always misused, it just has a very high potential for it.

It is not applicable, therefore saying it doesn't make sense in this case is like saying my car fails at transportation because it can't get me from Denver to Sydney, Australia. It's a shady argument, imo, since it not really applicable. Does that make sense?

! Moderator Note The understanding you're talking about has NOTHING to do with science, since you'd need to support your concept first. If you continue to bring up your concept of gods, I will move this to Religion.

Are we talking about your opinion on the pronouns I prefer? Are you saying the way you'd prefer to address me trumps how I feel about it? This is the other half of the coin that keeps getting ignored so it's repeated over and over. Now it's time to mention how you're going to be jailed over this soon. I think you're purposely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the arguments you don't like.

Railing against an unjust law for aspects it doesn't cover is a zombie strawman. You need to burn it, then chop it into little bitty pieces over and over to make sure it dies. Even then it's going to eventually twitch and jump-scare everyone.

I disagree vehemently. There are plenty of people around me whose experience matters to me. I do things I know they enjoy and I treat them the way they like to be treated. Not. Rocket. Science. And I think the "should I choose to recognize" part is what causes most of the conflicts. To you it's you being extra courteous to people because you want to, and to me it's me respecting that I'm not the only one on the planet, and maybe I should be looking at the whole idea of identity as a basic right, especially if I'm going to hypocritically require people to use he/him when referring to me.

We need to remember that lots of obsessive behavior is cause by just how freaking smart we are. We question, we analyze, we sift through our experiences, we make reasoned judgements, we make sure to dot and cross where applicable, and we hopefully apply our compulsions in ways that are meaningful. At a certain point we need to accept that we're prepared for what may come, and stop checking that list more than three times.

Do you think telepathy would be beneficial to human survival? Most people I've asked this of say absolutely, it would be a phenomenal benefit. So why don't we see more of it over time, the way evolution works? Why can't we find a single individual who consistently tests significantly higher than average for these abilities? Something that provides such a benefit is bound to make a person more successful and so those traits would be selected for with each generation. We don't see it, so the reasoned conclusion is that what we think of as telepathy isn't possible.

! Moderator Note Are you saying you've figured this out and no longer need any help, or should I leave this open?

! Moderator Note You need to support this conjecture better. Since our everyday actions have zero impact on evolution (which is defined as changes in allele frequency within a population over time), you need to do more than wave your hands on this. This is a mainstream section, and you need evidence that fits within mainstream explanations. If you prefer to ask questions about this subject, I can leave it where it is, but if you're looking to defend a speculation, I need to move it to the appropriate section.

I prefer not to refer to it as "reality", simply because it implies there's only one. When we're talking about people, there are billions of them, so I prefer to "observe the natural world around me" and adapt to all the differences. "Reality" isn't a perspective, it's a subjective conclusion. I think we have to take a long, hard look at why we defend certain actions that invariably offend and alienate others in ways we didn't intend. "Suffer fools" is another phrase that's misused, imo. It implies there's some sort of super common sense that makes the person who has it immune to foolishness, or able to spot a fool a mile away. What it really means is that those people have rigid guidelines for what they'll put up with, and another definition of that is "intolerant". They aren't great arbiters of common sense necessarily, since the definition of foolishness can change with each of them. Saying that you "won't suffer fools" is a stainless way to pass judgement on others while lifting yourself above them. It's like claiming to be a skeptic when you're really just sitting on the fence, unable to make a decision. But it makes us sound smart to question EVERYTHING, or so we think.

! Moderator Note This is the Physics section. Refrain from supernatural explanations when you're posting here. This is a section for mainstream science only.

Dennis Francis Blewett III has been banned for an insurmountable noise to signal ratio. We're a science discussion forum with a volunteer staff, and they need something more.

After reading your latest paranoid accusations in reported posts, it's pretty clear you've got some problems with social media in general. It's not our job to help you figure out how to participate meaningfully in a group without alienating others involved with your behavior. If you've found another forum you prefer, you should go there. If you stay here, you should NEVER post drivel like this again. We have standards you'll need to meet that you haven't met yet, not once in 15 posts.

They really need you, thanks, I didn't know how to ask you, but right on, this will help. Good job, excellent choice, say hi for us and next time you're in town... say hi for us!

You have to create the space below the quote for it to go into, using the Enter key repeatedly. Then it allows you to move it down further.

I think driving, especially on the freeway, is a great example of using all of our greatest abilities at the same time in a spectacularly productive way. If we could learn to appreciate how amazing it is to work together peacefully and harmoniously on the road, I think it would be a great map for the rest of our lives. Think of how amazing it really is to glance at an oncoming car ONCE as you approach the freeway from the onramp and then merge that monster seamlessly because you were able to calculate your acceleration based on their speed. And now think about what an ignorant, spiteful move it is when they speed up to ruin your merge and honk at you. This makes some people feel superior and I just don't get it.

I did it in the Sandbox, and now recreate it here:

Well, if this is what the OP was talking about, then grabbing the tab on the quote works.

And we're learning more every day about how some social media platforms allow these extremists to have multiple accounts, so they seem like an army rather than a few disaffected individuals. I read an article recently about people in the US who plan on quitting their jobs because their employers are making vaccination mandatory. Eventually, the article mentions how, though some industries and sectors are individually different, the number of people who feel this way across ALL jobs is less than 1%. Why are we even hearing about this? It's being repeated across the internet, linked and re-tweeted and spun and it's a tiny fraction of workers. Informing Americans used to be a duty, but now it's just shoveling extremist shit so people stay glued and buy more stuff.