Phi for All

I am surprised, and actually shocked, to see you trying to claim that a government salary is the same as government subsidies. Subsidies for Musk, for example, include favorable loans, incentives, tax breaks, and environmental tax credits. They even built him factories. I haven't seen any good arguments about billionaires pulling themselves up solely by their own bootstraps. It's well known that billionaires can only exist if they steal the money legally from everybody else. Does anyone have an example of a billionaire whose employees love them as much as the stockholders do? All I ever hear about is how the people who do the most work get the least pay, and the person who gets paid most does nothing but figure out how to get paid more.

! Moderator Note The theme seems political, so moved to Politics.

! Moderator Note Links removed.

That's not something I thought the AI would get wrong, and it seems obvious you can't trust it for even basic facts.

Paraphrasing: "While trying to survive outer space and see if other organisms have different processes, we need to ask these questions carefully. Figuring out if you can switch water with ammonia is complicated, so we need experts in many fields to talk to each other to figure out how it all works." This looks a LOT like what a language program would do, make something sound good to those who don't know any better. To those who do know better, it reads like you've taken something blindingly obvious (or patently untrue), glued sequins and glitter all over it, and now present it as science.

! Moderator Note Before you start any more new threads, there are replies to your other thread that have no response from you. This is a science DISCUSSION forum.

If I put my bowling ball in its bag, I still call it my bowling ball, but I need more volume to store it. But then it would be fairly easy to make a formula that anticipates how much more volume a bra adds to a breast, so perhaps that's not what the OP meant.

Does it change your idea to know that the above isn't true? Science doesn't say "there was no before". Science says "we don't know what there was before, if anything". There's a difference.

! Moderator Note Opening new threads without responding to replies in your old threads makes it look like you have an agenda that isn't discussion based. Don't do this again, and please stop pushing the drivel of this author. It's not science, it's not philosophy. It's nonsense.

Generations of Americans were abused using the Christian Bible to justify the acts of morally bankrupt men. It's become a hallmark that lets them embrace their inner sinner and get away with both sanctimony and sexual abuse. When I think about most church leadership in this country, I picture a corrupt, hypocritical man exhorting everyone else to be better. So actually, I think the Bible is the perfect weapon for TFG to wield. He's a rapist, lots of rape justified by churches in the US, and there's always a way to support the patriarchy if you use the Bible. And this Bible has extra irony built right in by including a copy of the Constitution, knowing the purchaser will never make it to the part about separation of Church and State!

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion site. Advertising other sites isn't allowed here. You're welcome to stay and discuss your interests here, but keep in mind it's not a pulpit or your blog, it's a science discussion site. Nobody is here to be preached at, but we love talking about interesting topics. We discuss science here.

Only in crackpot land. Stop citing Dean to support Dean. If you want to use his arguments, make them clearly and reasonably and support them with real evidence, not hand-waving. This is a science discussion forum.

Ironic, considering "them" was originally used properly in context until you broadened the definition to include the us/them divide, then denounced it as divisive. It's insidious how you weaponized a pronoun.

I feel your pain. Perhaps you should stop dating tennis players, Moon. Love means nothing to them.

It's "deaf". The brain has a hard time adapting to death.

That reminds me, are you interested in joining my professional hide-and-seek team. Turns out, good players are hard to find.

That sounds like my wife. The other day she told me she doesn't understand cloning. I said, "That makes two of us!"

I got a chilly reception for my idea for designer underwear for scientists: Kelvin Klein.

It's obviously not you. Scientists have methodologies to double check their information so they aren't so misinformed. Unfortunately, you've chosen to denigrate something you have no clue about. That's a waste of a good mind. Can you discuss some of these ideas, or are you just here to preach?

! Moderator Note This is NOT a blog. It's a science DISCUSSION forum. You need to amend your style if you want to stay here. Less preaching, less soapboxing, less lecturing. Try sitting at the table having a conversation aimed at persuading us rather than jumping up on the table and trying to shout us into submission. Also, please focus on a particular topic rather than trying to include "a little lesson on everything". It will make replies easier and help keep the thread moving along.

! Moderator Note We need more focus on the science, and less on disrespect.

! Moderator Note Lose the personal attacks, please.

Please learn what logic is, and not from Mr Spock. Formal logic is an a priori study for maths and philosophy, not an empirical study for science. The word you're looking for is "reason".

Do you think a decent fraction of that knowledge could be presented orally? Do you think some textbooks aren't dry and the readers have context, or do you insist on using such a broad brush? Basically I disagree. I think understanding scales more easily the more knowledge you have to work with. The amount of print directly affects the probability that understanding can happen. Do you honestly think reducing the printed word will increase understanding? Will understanding go to 100% if print goes to 0%? Perhaps you can convince me that I should wait until I meet you face-to-face to gain any knowledge or understanding from you.

And now you've made several words meaningless. Conscious, breathing, alive. If stones breathe, now words like lungs, aspiration, and inspiration are worthless, as are reproduction, growth, and adaptation. This is a classic specious argument. It sounds wonderful until you realize just how impractical and misleading it would be.