Ophiolite

1. I am sure you are aware that science does not have all the answers. That, indeed, is why science exists: to develop more answers. 2. You seem to imply that there is something negative about as not having an accurate number. Do you have negative feelings about this and if so why? 3. You are aware, that if reasonable numbers exist, you could find these out by judicious literature searches. Yes? Have you done so? If not, why not?

For someone who so very obviously does not listen to anything anyone says to you it is not surprising that you have such an inaccurate perception of what other people want. Might it not be worth - just as an experiment - to take a deep breath, relax and think about what people are telling you?

Science has allowed us to acquire an ever deeper understanding of the awesome elegance of the universe and its simple underlying laws. It has enabled us to probe the nature of the Earth beneath our feet, peer back to the early years of the universe, reveal the intricacies of the biosphere. You appear, for some reason, to despise this success. That is sad. One of the skills that distinguishes us from our fellow animals is our language. Language allows us to convey subtle thoughts, with meticulous objectivity, or with poetic delicacy. You seem to despise this skill as much as you do the methodology of science. That is also sad. You have encountered many negative responses to your posts here. I am sure you have considered why this is. I suspect you may have reached a faulty conclusion. When people have spent many years studying a topic, becoming genuinely knowledgeable in it and are humbled by that knowledge, it is frustrating to encounter someone who criticises what they do not understand, condemns what they are ignorant of and displays from the outset a hurtful anger. Your reception would have been positive and welcoming if you had come here without the very attitudes you accuse others of. It is certainly not too late to try.

Elizsia, why are you so angry, offended and insulted?

Here is a little bit of history for you. (Just as background what I am writing here are facts - not ideas, not opinions, so there will be no need for anyone to get offended or insulted by them.) Two hundred years ago, in the West, science was practiced -as it had been for some time - by people who practiced, for the most part, Christianity. For many the search for a better understanding of God's cosmos was seen as a deeply religious motivation. Many important discoveries were made by practicing clerics. There was thus an intimate relationship between science and religion. But gradually science adopted what is called Methodological Naturalism. This takes the position that science is not well suited to investigate the supernatural and therefore the existence and nature of God is considered irrelevant to the pursuit of science. So, to answer your question, there is no place - currently - for religion in science. However, if we consider religion to be a branch of philosophy (as is science) it is quite reasonable that a religion sub-forum should exist on the site.

Please provide solid evidence to support this assertion. I have encountered many persons in authority in a wide range of social, cultural, scientific, commercial, personal, political and legal situations. Only in the rarest of instances have any of these individuals attempted to "create the Illusion that their Authority defines their Intelligence" and in most of those cases all of they have succeeded in doing is demonstrating that their intelligence is of little note. i.e they failed to create any illusion. But being intelligent often gives you authority over others, through both formal and informal means. The only people whom I have seen state that it does were fools. So why are you stating the bleeding obvious as if it were controversial? Humans are a social species. Our development is contingent upon a progressive expansion of the range and complexity of our interactions with other humans, beginning with our mothers and growing to include, through the written word, those long dead, or geographically remote. Periodically "detaching ourselves" from the world can be valuable in allowing us to assimilate and process our most recently acquired information, but if you think this represents independent mind development then you are practicing an enormous self deception. Here is one of my own ideas. Many people are smarter than me. Millions of people are smarter than me. Many of them have had very good ideas. Far more good ideas than I could ever have, even if I were smarter than they. I think it will make sense to listen to their ideas.

Clearly you don't like chocolate.

Wrong is wrong.

It wasn't intended to be. Since it was arguably initiated by the US Department of Defense, we seem to have made slightly more peaceful use of it than could have been the case. the DoD never expected so many kittens.

If we are going to eliminate a large % of the population then I favour getting rid of those who say less, when fewer is the correct choice. Not only would this remove an irritant from my daily life, but the average IQ of the population would rise significantly. Welcome to my list.

DS, your proposal is not novel, it is vaguely plausible, but there is really no substantive evidence to support it. Perhaps you would like Robert Heinlein's humorous concept of pantheistic multi-person solipsism. The fabric of your notion is loose enough for it to squeeze into that.

The same thing that causes unfavourable mutations and neutral mutations. Have you found the answers to your post useful?

I should like to oblige you by engaging in the focus of discussion you hoped this thread would follow. Unfortunately the underlying function of dreams interest me much less than their practical utility. I find them of value in three ways: 1. They are often very entertaining. 2. They sometimes provide me with insight into situations that have been causing me concern, but that I have not consciously recognised. 3. They sometimes provide me with useful, practical ideas for work related matters. If any of these areas seems to you relevant to the focus you are seeking I can respond to any points you make, or questions you ask.

It makes us less likely to bomb some of them, and more likely to bomb others. The net effect may well be zero.

1. I concede that Lennon was a poet, but McCartney? 2. Did confusi mean below sea level, or below see level?

If it works for you. It seems to involve far too much thinking and planning for my liking. (Off topic: could you keep in mind that you have started several other threads, some of which are waiting responses from you. I'm sure you are not being deliberately rude by abandoning them.)

I trained as a geologist. Limbo is our natural environment. Uncertainty is second nature to us. It is not a problem. You are focused on doubt in relation to AGW. I am focused on doubt as a cornerstone of the scientific method. But since you want to address AGW, continuing doubt in no way limits action. One need only make a simple risk assessment: what if AGW is a myth? What would be the impact of our efforts to counter it? Simple, a small reduction in economic growth over the next half century, for which we would get a "cleaner world". What happens if we ignore the warnings and it turns out to be real? Frigging disaster. Action can and should therefore proceed regardless of any remaining doubts. I doubt my house will burn down, but you had better believe I have it fully insured.

This often occurs after they have failed completely to respond to constructive criticism.

Facts that were well understood by Samuel Taylor Coleridge as revealed by these lines from The Ancient Mariner: The ship was cheered, the harbour cleared, Merrily did we drop Below the kirk, below the hill, Below the lighthouse top. And that was despite being an opium addict.

Absolutely not. They should carefully, rigorously, and objectively doubt the methods, observations, interpretations and conclusions of other scientists. This is how - and only how - the wheat is sorted from the chaff. This is how hypotheses are refined and theories confirmed. This is how science works. As to the distortion of the meaning of skepticism by an uneducated press and charlatans with agendas, that is an entirely different matter. There is no reason to corrupt a productive methodology simply because the world has its share of fools.

I wrote this early this morning, then lost internet connectivity before I could post. Most points have already been made by others. There are considerably more than five senses. Do you mean which is the most acute in humans? How are you defining acute? Hearing and smell are detecting completely different phenomena. Hearing is detecting vibrations in the air, smell is detecting specific chemicals. Do you assess the acuteness of hearing by the volume that can be heard, or the range of frequency, or some other means? Do you assess the acuteness of smell by how many compounds you can detect, or by the smallest concentration you can detect? And how can you meaningfully compare a frequency range with a chemical concentration? Which sense would most compromise you if you lost it? Sight, surely. Then hearing, then - arguably - touch. That is probably as close as you can get to assessing acute.

Your question has two meanings. The second one, which I doubt you intended, asks about the constancy of brightness. The answer to that is that it is not constant. It is, in fact, a Cepheid variable and the closest Cepheid to Earth. I think it is around 300 light years away. Also - and incidentally - it is a multiple star system composed of the large Cepheid and four smaller companions.

When you come to write your autobiography may I recommend a title: Gullible's Travels.

If there were no unexplained phenomena then there would be no further need for science.

For example this study from 1965. Abstract: Thirty-six college students individually experienced an hour of sensory deprivation while immobile and wearing translucent goggles. Half the sample spent the hour lying down in a horizontal position; half sitting up. Twelve Ss were randomly assigned to each of three report methods: continuous, voluntary, and silent. Anxiety and other S-characteristics were recorded. Sensory deprivation hallucinations (SDH) occurred significantly more often in the horizontal position. Reported sleeping decreased significantly with higher anxiety and continuous reporting. Report method, anxiety, intelligence, sex, daydreaming, and non-SDH visual imagery were not significantly related to SDH occurrence or vividness. Effects of horizontal position were interpreted as due to stimulus generalization from sleep. The horizontal position, analogous to the sleeping position, elicited SDH which conceivably may be analogous to dreams.