Ophiolite

Neither. I find your posts extremely difficult to understand. I do appreciate the difficulty of writing in a foreign language, but all I am asking for is that you make a second attempt with the subject that made absolutely no sense to me. This was the passage: Your religion is just part of a larger expression, taking it out is subjecting it, taking it out of context, the real context is the full expression. You cant reduce the value of logic, it is what is, it gives itself value. You have clauses that do not fit in the sentence, yet cannot stand alone as an independent sentence. While preparing this I see you have added a reply. You say that you have rephrased it. Where?

I've deleted two sentences in your post. As written you are asking "isn't disloyalty a good thing". I think you mean isn't codependence a good thing? The last sentence has no bearing on the central question and simply confuses the post. So, at what point is caring for others considered unhealthy? Answer: it is almost entirely context driven, where context includes cultural, religious, political, family and personal aspects. The range of acceptable, or troubling behaviour is wide. I am sure some patterns would be though extreme in almost any milieu, but most could be debated.

But I bought them from a reputable chain store. Do you think I was framed?

If someone said: "You are ignorant of the relevance of Hilbert space to this problem." I would think: "Well, she has me pegged. I may be able to learn something here." If someone said, relating to an error on my part: "You appear to be ignorant of the results from the rover Curiosity's forays on the Martian surface." I would reply: "My mistake. I meant to say 'pre-Pathfinder it was thought that....'" If someone said: "You are ignorant." I would think: "Peasant!" and reply, "Ignorant of what? We are all ignorant. Please be specific." If someone said: "You are an ignorant tool." I would rightly think: "You are being deliberately offensive." I would modify all thoughts and action based upon my estimate of the language skills of the poster. I think the examples above cover the range of ways in which ignorant may be used and in most of them there is no cause for offense. Decades ago, when the world was young and no one had heard of the X-Factor, I knew a technical writer who had this sign on their desk. Eschew Obfuscation I loved that sign.

I am Scottish. You would have to buy.

It you return a response to my question is still required under forum rules. No one is putting you in your place, we're just trying to get you to answer the frigging question. Your passive-aggressive bullshit is becoming tiresome. REPLY REQUIRED

You are free to use words in any way you please. I use ignorant to mean that someone is, indeed ignorant of something. Everyone is ignorant of something. The most knowledgeable person in the world is ignorant of far more than they have knowledge of. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. If you were to wish to waste a few hours you would find a post of mine on this and perhaps other forums where I declare: I see knowledge as like a balloon. What we know is the contents of the balloon. The surface of the balloon is the interface between what we know and what we do not know. The surface of the balloon defines our ignorance. As our knowledge grows, so does the surface of the balloon and so we become more ignorant. My goal in life is thus to be a little more ignorant at the end of the day than I was at the beginning. I always use the word ignorance with precision. I shall continue to do so. Some years ago I was, for a time, a moderator on this forum. At that time, in the space that says things like Lepton, or Senior Member it said Super Moderator, a title assigned by the admin. I thought it was amusing to change the top title to Moderately Super as a play on words. I've never bothered to change it. As physica suggests, you may be over-thinking this. I think this is a highly amusing comment. I ran across it when I was seeking for quotes to include in an internal company guide I wrote on Technical Writing. I wanted something suitable for the section dealing with the timeliness of reports. I found the one you have quoted. I was prompted to include it after a forum discussion about members who never reply to questions. Thank you for reminding me about it, for I see I have failed to credit the author. He truly has an absolutely brilliant name - it is Ashleigh Brilliant. Again, I have no idea what you are reading into it, but I like it because it is whimsical. I have no idea what your metaphor (?) means, but then I've had trouble understanding any of your posts. I am very aware of how ignorant is interpreted by people who use terms loosely and look for things to offend them. I am well aware that some people will so misinterpret it and think the less of me for that. I am equally assured that it brings some people up short, causes them to evaluate their state of knowledge and leads them to a proper view of ignorance and an understanding of its value. I am quite happy to be reviled by some if it brings improvement to others. At this point you cannot offend me, since I haven't decided if your opinions are of any value. 1 1. The British have a dry sense of humour. It is often misinterpreted. It's a price we pay for feeling superior. 2 2. See note 1.

Braking News: I have heard that a new theory of bicycles has been going around. I think it's one of the big wheels in engineering who is pedaling it. (Or perhaps his spokesman.) Certainly we need something better than the tired old theories we have been saddled with. Does any of this ring a bell?

@physica - thanks for saving me the trouble of responding to Bluemercury's post. @Bluemercury - my reply to your last post is physica's. Now, what is your definition of science. And I am requiring you to reply. It's part of the forum rules.

Could you rephrase that? I understand all the words, just not what they mean in the order in which you have placed them.

There have been a number of occasions. I'll pm you with the most recent one, since I can locate it. I am fully on board with you there. However, there are mods and experts who cover most of the topics that we discuss in sufficient depth to be able to make an authoritative statement. This could be presented in a similar way to that of the mod intervention format. I invest a lot of time before telling someone they are mistaken, to ensure that it is not I who is ill-informed. That has saved me several times from looking simultaneously a fool and an ass-hole. But is has also enabled me, on other occasions to identify the ignorance - on that topic - of another member.

It must have come as a hell of shock when they ran into something!

Emotional Intelligence is knowing when to keep your mouth shut. All happily married men have very high Emotional Intelligence.

All good points swansont until we get here. I do not consider that telling someone they are ignorant on a specific topic to be making a personal attack. If they have demonstrated, to anyone with a reasonable knowledge of a topic, that they do not properly understand it and if that lack of understanding is muddying the waters, then it seems to me proper that this should be drawn to the attention of members who may not be in a position to make that assessment. This can be done objectively, with no implicit, or explicit, derogatory comments. It can be done and, in my view, should be done. However, as has been made clear to me by moderator posts and - in the past, pms - this is not the view of mod/admin team. That is what I am expressing concern about.

If i was being cynical I would say "Try to get a grip on reality". But I'll be practical instead. Explain to us, in clear, concise language, how a bicycle works. Once you have done that we can move on from there.

Really? I can look up on the internet the answer to the question "What do you think is the current definition of science"? No, I cannot. You are describing science as a "crude instrument". I need to understand what you consider science to be in order to determine if your statement applies to how you define science, or even if your definition of science is worth considering. Will you now tell me what your definition of science is? Note that you must have one else you would not be able to describe it as a crude instrument. That's just silly. Science routinely employs all kinds of instruments, from the geologist's hammer to the large hadron collider, with which to investigate nature. These instruments are an integral part of science. And of course that brings us back to question 1 and the increasing probability that you do not understand what science is. So, let's be having that definition please. Your definition.

This is likely a response to a Report I made the other day. If not, it could certainly serve as a sound response to that Report. Point 1: I consider an important function of forums such as this to be the education of its members in the methodologies and findings of science. This occurs in two ways. Members learn from reading posts by other members knowledgeable on the topic. Members learn from researching material in order to make a better informed post. I have benefited and continue to benefit from both approaches. I hope the membership in general and the mod/admin team in particular would agree that this educational aspect is an important forum function. Point 2: Sometimes discussions develop in which an inaccurate view of science is presented by one or more members. The correct view is presented by other members. But to a non-expert it can be difficult to discern who is correct. (I am not referring to those discussions that review genuinely uncertain grounds, but to ones where - to the expert - the established, validated view is clear.) It is my belief that it is the responsibility of the mod/admin team to provide clarity in that situation. If this is not done then the team fails to properly implement the educational function of the forum. Point 3: swansont has made it clear that the mod/admin team do not consider this to be their responsibility. I accept that. Point 4: That places the responsibility upon the members. Point 5: In many of these instances it is clear that those arguing for the "wrong" view are ignorant of the subject matter. This ignorance then becomes central to their position and thus, in my view, a bona fide point for discussion. Point 6: Noting people's ignorance on a topic is subject to moderation by the mod/admin team. Point 7: So, as currently applied, the application of rules favours politeness over education. Point 8: I see that as a mistake and shall be posting accordingly. Point 9: I don't expect this to end well.

Still waiting for the answers to the questions posed in #15. 1. What do you think is the current definition of science? 2. What aspects of science make it, in your view, a "crude instrument"? 3. Do you feel that logic alone would be sufficient for scientific investigations? (Your last sentence makes that an implicit absolute.) You have answered three, in responding to Strange. 1 and 2 remain unaddressed.

Since I have never heard of probable logic I cannot be confusing it with pure logic. Please define probable logic, then explain why you did not make clear in your OP that when you spoke of logic you were not speaking of the logic used and acknowledged by millions of scientists and engineers. Nonsense. You have failed to supply sufficient information upon which a logical decision could be made. Perhaps that's what you are trying to convey by saying neither outcome is true. Your opening statement was "I'll start with the premise that we as humans only make sense of the world using logic." Since a large proportion of the world's population follow mutually contradictory religions, or believe in astrology, ghosts, UFOs, conspiracy theories and the like, then your premise is clearly wrong. Some of us do, some of the time. Those caveats change the meaning utterly from your absolute. 1. They buy lottery tickets. 2. They make decisions based on their horoscopes. Many, in some cases arguably most, day to day decisions arise out of reactions to circumstances that are guided by instinct and not logic. In many cases such decisions are exactly counter to what would be dictated by logic. Now that is a perfect example of distorted logic. We have acquired instincts and behavior patterns that, on balance, produced satisfactory results when confronted with particular situations. But those instincts and behaviours were acquired when there were only a few million of us on the planet and we lived in tribes of around one hundred people. Those same instincts and behaviours are now responsible for most of the violence and wars that we endure. That is wholly illogical.

since the OP premise is that humans think logically, is false, then everything that follows from that premise is, at best, unreliable.

You expect me to read 3,549 words with no evidence that they will make any more sense than your earlier posts? Have you heard of an abstract, or executive summary? Want to try giving us one? I've started you off your rewrite with your first paragraph. Good and bad exist in two forms: Self-generated - our thoughts, actions, personal meanings Externally generated - from people and events These have distinct features. Self-generatedNominally good or bad, but effectively neutral Arise from the physics and chemistry of our brains Do not define the quality of our life Externally generated The ‘real world’ good or bad Arise from the complex behaviour of the world Define the quality of our life I shall now demonstrate why these assertions are valid.

Minaras, would you explain what you mean when you use the word perceive? In what way would chemical reactions, much simpler than those present in eukaryotes, be able to perceive?

Where is the personal attack? You have demonstrated on this this thread that you seriously misunderstand evolution as portrayed by your extensive ignorance of its technical aspects. I am saying nothing about your personality, but am specifically addressing your demonstrable lack of knowledge. If you do not wish to have comments made about that lack of knowledge you have two options: 1. Learn more. 2. Don't display the lack of knowledge on a public forum.

Well not the hat, or the denim, or the leather waistcoat, but the wrinkles, the moustache and the wry smile.

Andres, neither CharonY or Arete need me to defend them personally, and their technical positions are unassailable. I'll just say two things: 1. One of the neg reps came from me and I was disappointed I felt the need to award it, for I love your enthusiasm. 2. Stop being such a dick.