swansont

I read Deborah Blum’s The Poison Squad (about the efforts to get food safety regulation in place in the US) when it came out and subsequently realized that the tactics haven’t changed. Big business will use any and all legal tactics to protect their profits and shield themselves from blame/responsibility for doing harm by selling us unhealthy (often deliberately unhealthy) food Self-regulation is a myth. Too many bad actors are out there who only care about profits. We see these days that bribery is part of the repertoire, too

No. Matter enters and leaves. Literally tons of space dust enters the earth’s atmosphere every day https://www.universetoday.com/articles/getting-a-handle-on-how-much-cosmic-dust-hits-earth But you said introduction of energy, and the relevant term would be isolated system, and it’s definitely not that.

You need to quantify the proposed effect, and explain why it would affect an electromagnetic interaction

What closed system?

“It doesn’t alter our theory of what caused the extinction event—but it makes it less likely that sulphur contained in the impactor was the smoking gun,” co-author Philippe Claeys, a planetary scientist and professor at the Free University of Brussels in Belgium, said in a statement. “The fine debris thrown into the atmosphere would have [been] the primary factor.” https://gizmodo.com/the-asteroid-that-killed-the-dinosaurs-may-not-have-done-it-exactly-how-we-thought-2000787712

Your tendency to make a statement and the run away when pressed on the details is really f@*%ing annoying. It’s also a violation of rule 2.8; it’s rejecting open discussion of something that you introduced.

Facts are things that are true regardless of whether you believe them. A truth that is incorrect is not a truth. If veracity doesn’t matter what’s the point? No information is conveyed by labeling something as true. Misinformation is false. It does not make facts untrue, since they were never facts or true to begin with. Trump is lying; what he says is untrue. Casting this as “some agree” is warping the description to force it to fit here. “Iran” in this context is the country, the political entity, so it means the leaders empowered to speak and act, not the people. It’s like when Obi-Wan tells Luke that Darth Vader betrayed and murdered his father, and then they had to warp this into a metaphorical description because they wanted to do sequels. It was only “true from a certain perspective” if you decide you can change the meaning of the words, which is equivocation (i.e. a deceptive practice) Being mutually exclusive only means you can’t do both, but it doesn’t make one true and the other false. I don’t see how that affects whether something is true. It’s true that smoking causes cancer and people do it anyway. The actions have no impact on that truth.

It was Mrs. Schrödinger’s cat

Non-sequitur, but can you assign a true or false label to a future event that has yet to be determined? Your teacher was wrong, or the statement was taken out of context. I don’t see what this has to do with the topic.

So one difference is when you look at their multiple definitions, but we could limit ourselves to the use of true and fact that are most similar to each other, i.e. the use of true that’s opposite of false, and fact that’s often synonymous with true.

Or we just call it opinion, as I suggested. But “Bob likes vanilla” is still true for everyone, assuming Bob is not lying, so I don’t see how it’s a personal truth. It’s just truth.

If/when we get responsible government back in the US, it would make sense to mandate the recycling. Tax the batteries up front and make sure recyclers have to take them, but subsidize them to make it profitable. (the hypocrites who complain about socialism or wokeness can pound sand)

What classes? Did your science class coordinate with your literature studies and did civics coordinate with algebra?

On the notion that there are personal/local truths — how do these differ from just having an opinions? If there is no distinction, why complicate the topic by having these different flavors of truths? Someone used the statement “I have a headache” earlier. How do we verify this? Is it just a belief that they have a headache? What if it’s “I like the color red” or “I like broccoli”?

Doesn’t that apply to truth, as well?