MigL

The gravitational wells of galaxies are extremely 'shallow'; the galactic voids where expansion occurs, just slightly more so. The dark energy term ( Cosmological Constant ? ) only slightly exceeds gravitational potential in the voids between clusters, but is not enough to overcome it at galactic scales. The gravitational potential difference is not enough to account for sufficient time dilation which would explain expansion.

Oh my. You sure are picking to discuss all the topics that will get you in trouble.

A much more current example would be the 'infatuation' of some Physicists with String Theory. It has pretty well been shown to lead nowhere, as it doesn't apply to any specific universe, but many possible ones. Yet the 'beauty' of the theory keeps many Physicists working on it, the thought being that aesthetics make 'right'. That seems to me, a 'bias'. Sorry if I seem to be picking on Physicists, but that is what I know.

I would have thought D Trump would just pay off one of the jurors, resulting in a hung jury. But knowing him, he would have used campaign financing, instead of his own money 😄 .

I don't know about you, but I was born, for the first and only time, as a result of my dad and mom having sexual relations, about 65 years ago. Do we need to have a 'birds and bees' talk ...

My personal definition of a 'bias' is a subjective like, or dislike, that is not based on available information. As an example, I know both bread and cake have equal calories, and both are bad for me, but I prefer savory bread, and dislike sweet cake; someone else, with that same information, may like cake, and dislike bread. This has happened in science, and I still believe early QM interpretations are an example. That being said, I do agree it is very rare ( but does happen ) in the hard sciences. It is probably ( my opinion, or bias ) more prevalent in the 'softer' sciences, like Psychology or Sociology where multiple 'conclusions' can be drawn from similar observations. As an example, if a Psychologist links every human interaction to sex, is it a reflection of his observations, or a reflection of his own obsession ?

Personal, subjective preferences ARE biases.

WhooHooo! At least R Nixon had the integrity to quit the Presidency; this joker is still running. I guess they'll re-open Alcatraz for the Presidential debates, and possible inauguration speech. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves for letting someone convicted of an election crime to still run.

Scientists in the 30s and 40s had access to the same evidence of quantum behavior, yet they split along interpretative lines. N Bohr's ( Copenhagen ) wave mechanics, and W Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. One could call that a 'bias' of sorts, since the evidence was the same, but one camp preferred one over the other. It was only later that those interpretations, and many more, were determined to be equivalent. Where were you when I was making that exact same point in the "your thoughts on Islam' thread 🙂 .

Thanks sensei.

Sorry, this 'anarchy ensures only the survival of the most fit ( see, religion is based on evolution )' should have been anarchy, or the lack of moral/social controls, ensures only the survival of the most fit ( see, religion is a counter to evolution )"

I just can't take this conversation seriously, may be scientific bias, when he's talking about reincarnation ...

I, personally, don't see a reason for Luc to back his 'claim' with a citation. ( or perhaps, he can cite me ) There are many examples of this effect in the history of science. Newton's corpuscular theory of light held sway over scientific thinking for a large group of scientists. Huygens wave theory similarly had a large number of believers in its 'truth' ( small t ). Then, for a few centuries, the 'truth', and belief of almost all scientists, was duality, where it is both particle and wave. The actual Truth ( capital T, or maybe I should say current belief and small t ) is that it is neither, but, a probabilistic phenomenon that can act as a wave or a particle, depending on the experiment used to detect it. Even the various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics had their 'followers' and 'apostles'; the 'Copenhagen camp' were N Bohr's followers, and there are many examples of this 'group think' in historical literature. But I do agree with INow, religion and science are based on different paradigms; one on beliefs, the other on evidence. Luc should have started another thread to discuss the evolution of science, and its issues; this one is about religion And I liked INow's quip about Galileo ...

It is a measure of control over a population, that ensures conformity to norms in morality and social behavior ( like treatment of the poor, being thankful for what you have, etc. ). A measure of control is favorable and necessary; anarchy ensures only the survival of the most fit ( see, religion is based on evolution ). A measure of control is unfavorable, and even evil, depending on who, or what, exerts this control, and the corrupted ideological purpose of this control ( wars wer fought 'for' religion, people s were persecuted 'for' religion, etc. )

Humans don't want utopia, they need the struggle and choice; that's what makes us human. The machine intelligence already tried that. They put us all in pods to supply bio-electricity, after we scorched the sky, and fed us an illusion of utopia; the Architect made it quite naturally perfect, a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph only equaled by its monumental failure. The solution was stumbled upon by an intuitive program, called Oracle, whereby 99 % of subjects accepted the program if given adversity and choice, even if only an illusion. Unfortunately, this unbalanced equation leads to an anomaly, that if left unchecked, might threaten the system. This necessitates the destruction of the human race, every so often, to re-insert the anomalous code into the prime program. Oh wait ... that was a movie also.

I really hate getting anonymous phone calls; my thinking is, that if you can contact me, I should be able to contact you back. We get calls from sales people, scammers, etc. and when you try to call that number back, are told it's not in service. We get calls from numbers, and when you call back, the person who answers says they never made that call. These bother me to no end, because I always answer my phone when it rings, thinking it could be an emergency ( texts not so much ). I assume it's some hacking of VOIP that allows for this; maybe @Sensei can shed some light on this. So maybe you shoulden't contact them by phone if you wish to remain anonymous. There's always old fashioned mail.

You're not supposed to swallow it ... Besides, the yellow regular Listerine tastes awful, and makes you throw up if swallowed. But it works better than those 'candy-ass' blue/green colored ones that don't burn. Ingredients are on the label, to finally answer your question 🙂 .

Really ? I'm going to need a citation for that. Not that I don't believe you; I just always thought he was really native American of the Lakota tribe.

Well, one guy had a solution. You collect 6 differently colored stones, from the strangest places, put them on your gloved hand, and snap your fingers. Reduces world's population by half. No wait ... That was just a movie.

I did not know 'world views' could be so contentious and confrontational ... It's humor; chuckle and carry on. ( that was the best line in this whole thread )

Belief is a mental 'perception', as opposed to a physical 'perception', such as a measurement. Huuuuge difference; but I am of the opinion that what people believe is their own business ( although, sometimes, it tends to be pushed onto others ). A mental perception doesn't simply pertain to religion or spirituality, it can also pertain to self image. If I was to say "I believe I'm a woman trapped in a man's body", everyone would be tolerant of that belief, because, although not a physical perception, it might make me a happier, more fulfilled person. Religion and spirituality do exactly the same for some people. Why would you deny anyone of that with intolerance ? ( and no, Phi; I am against providing public funding for religions 😁 )

"The real interval 0<a<1 has no end nor beginning. Nevertheless, it is finite." I would say that as "The above interval has an end and a beginning, yet is comprised of an infinite number of discrete points" ( don't know what you did, but it's impossible to quote your post ) Or you could use the Earth's surface as an example, It has no beginning and no end, yet it is definitely finite. Absolutely. Perception, and even measurement, are not always reality. But we do know quite a lot about nature. The interesting thing about nature, however, is that for every question we answer about it, two ( or ) more questions are revealed. You never finish inquiring about science; it is a lifelong endeavor.

Careful with that 'spirituality' part. Some people have studies showing it's all your fault 😊 . And stop causing traffic jams, too.

Oh ! So you can be either a nice guy, or a callous prick, and blame it on experiences and context ? Come on, I know you're old enough to have settled on a 'world view'. Tell us ... don't be shy.

HaHa ! Lately you're becoming as obscure as Dimreepr. ( no offense meant; I like Dim ) I hope that's not a misspelled derogatory cultural insult 😄 . You really have it in for Religion. Whatever happened to that so called 'liberal' tolerance ? Us 'conservatives' are fine with, and tolerant, of your views and opinions. ( sometimes labels just don't seem to fit, do they ? )