Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/13/24 in all areas

  1. I completely agree with @TheVat. The idea of 'truth' makes no sense if we do nor relate to an objective reality. Our scientific theories are about something. And they can be wrong, or true, in their (limited) domain. The earth never was flat, we know that. A majority believing that is was (is) may have reasons to think so, but it is, and was never true. For me the expression 'my truth' makes no sense: the word 'truth' implies that it is claimed to be the case for everybody. We dis-cover reality. Maybe not as it is, but as a map of reality. If we behave according to the map, e.g. find our way to the Eiffel tower, and we get there, then the map was 'true'. There may be much left out from the map, but the map expresses at least some true aspects of reality. Science is not just a 'narrative', as many post-modernist philosopher liked to say.
    4 points
  2. This is the dominant definition of truth in the past century - that truth is by definition statements that correspond to an objectively determinable state of affairs in the world. The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are – to the facts. This idea can be seen in various forms throughout the history of philosophy, but it really got serious traction with folks like G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell. So you're in pretty good company, and I would say the correspondence theory has generally been adopted by scientists. 8 billion people may entertain myriad beliefs but those cannot gain the status of truth, or true statements, unless they correspond to objectively determined facts. E.g. "I see the light is red," is subjective, but "Anyone who measures the light finds its wavelength to be 650 nm," is true because it does not change due to variations in human perception, i.e. it corresponds to a fact external to a particular perceiver. Beliefs can change. "The earth is flat" was a belief that eventually was shown not to match the reality. So it was never true, because the earth has always been an oblate spheroid. The truth has not changed with respect to the earth, our beliefs have. Now our beliefs correspond better to the fact that the earth is round. But the truth was always what it was - in that sense, it is objective, because it doesn't "care" what we believe. The epistemological goal of humans is to improve our perceptions and measurements and inferences from them to get closer to the truth - the objective reality outside our heads. Were this not the case, no one would bother with science or philosophy and we would bow to chaos. To reiterate, there is no such thing as "my truth." Truth, by its definition at least since the Enlightenment era, is that the truth is out there in the world and not something that only corresponds to one person's belief system. I keep hammering on this because I see many people veering towards solipsism (as Moon mentioned) and the incoherent notions of personal truth or alternative facts. If it's personal, and only personal, then it's an opinion or a belief or a conjecture or a feeling. Not a truth.
    4 points
  3. If he’s moving faster than light then that’s not unreasonable
    3 points
  4. Some have said that the universe appears to have been designed intelligently and this has been cited as an argument in favour of a divine creator. Arguments have gone something along the lines of "Take the complexity of the human eye, whether it came into being 6000 years ago or evolved over millions upon millions of years, it looks kind of like how we would design a camera." There is a reason this argument falls flat on it's face. The same reason an argument in favour of the chicken coming before the egg would fall flat on it's face. There is a temporal bias at play wherein you see how we have designed things first and you see those same patterns in nature around you second; there lies the mistake because those patterns came first and are the basis of how we design things intelligently. The universe is not modelled after intelligence, rather our intelligence is modelled after the universe. If you stumble upon a watch that may prove there is a watch maker but without time and space and the nature of those things being what they are, neither the watch or the watch maker would exist. Intelligence wouldn't exist. The universe was not designed intelligently, the universe designs intelligence. I am purely agnostic when it comes to the existence of the divine or some kind of creation. If something comes down from the sky with seemingly god like powers I'll be assuming technology that I don't understand before "This can only be a god." The Teleological argument has just never sat right with me due to this strange temporal bias at play within the minds of the religious and the spiritual. I'm open to hearing better arguments in favour of the existence of some kind of cosmic entity that actively cares about me as an individual but intelligent design just is not one of them. It would be like building a model of the golden gate bridge and then claiming the architect of golden gate bridge used your model. Unless you have a time machine it just doesn't make much sense.
    3 points
  5. Why do you pick on Africans? Their impact on climate change has been negligible in comparison to those accustomed to riding in modern air-conditioned automobiles.
    3 points
  6. Not missed out but it doesn't stand out as an option except in the sense that at small scale it would be the easiest to attempt using existing technologies. According the the Nuclear Devices for Planetary Defense link (included in the quote I used - KI being Kinetic Impactor) - 605 metric tons is a LOT of mass to launch, far beyond existing capabilities. And (if I understand it) high speed impacts shed a lot of energy as heat and explosively, not all will be delivered as changed momentum in line with the direction of the impact. Not necessarily a problem and possibly advantage if sideways deflection does it better. I still look at meteorite defense as a longer term challenge; yes one could be identified tomorrow but the odds favor not. In terms of odds a too ambitious "being prepared" program could look like waste - Note that this looks at risks from objects within the solar system - there remains the possibility, if very low likelihood, of large objects from outside the observable solar system.
    3 points
  7. Assume you and I are prehistoric people who have no idea the Earth is round. We are both at the equator, but separated from each other by a couple of thousand miles along it, and we decide to do an 'experiment'. We both head due North, and after several hundred miles of travel, we notice that our lateral distance has decreased considerably. The farther north we travel, the faster our lateral distance decreases, until finally, at a place with the signpost "North Pole", we crash into each other. So what do we conclude from our 'experiment' ? Some mysterious 'force' seems to be drawing us together, and this 'force' seems to act without any connection between us. Now all this is due to the fact that prehistoric peoples didn't know they were living on a curved surface. We present day people, know the Earth's surface is curved, so we don't come to such foolish conclusions. But what if it isn't just two dimensional surfaces that can be curved; what if both space and time comprise a manifold that can be 'warped' or curved by the configuration of the energy contained within it, whether that energy is in the form of mass, momentum, stress, or even pressure. It seems some of us are still foolish enough to make those assumptions, and wonder what is connecting the two bodies drawn toward each other, when the 'path' ( known as a geodesic ) is simply constrained to the 'lay' of the land ( known as a 4 dimensional space-time manifold )
    3 points
  8. The light clock experiment with 2 light clocks( red and blue) starting at the same point: The expanding circles highlight how the the light pulses travel at c. The same experiment, but now, we are "riding along" the blue light clock. From the inertial frame where the red clock is stationary, the blue clock ticks slower, and the from the inertial frame where the blue clock is stationary, the red clock ticks slower. Keep in mind this is the same scenario, just viewed from different inertial frames of reference.
    3 points
  9. I've wondered about octopus intelligence because of their intelligent behavior (they test smarter than human toddlers, in some respects) and also things like having the highest encephalization quotient of any invertebrate, a degree of synaptic plasticity more associated with learning and memory centers of vertebrates, sophisticated control of 5 different types of chromatophores, and the whole "embodied" brain thing which is so unlike vertebrates. My guess is that they do have a unique form of intelligence that we are only starting to be able to measure. I have wondered if someday we discover that they are able to use chromatophores as a sophisticated language system, and not just for camouflage or basic emotions. Half a billion neurons is a lot, when you are invertebrate and weigh 6-20 lb. Another factor is that they are both predators and prey. This dual role usually makes more higher overall intelligence in the animal kingdom.
    3 points
  10. ok well as far as the chart goes the details are correct the main reason why the SM model uses the SU(n) groups is that tis group is compact which becomes important for renormalization as well as Feymann path integrals. the SL(n) group is not compact which can lead to issues with renormalization even though both groups are closed groups the isomorphism for the Lorentz/Poincare group for example is \[S0(3.1)\simeq Sl(2,\mathbb{C})/\mathbb{Z}_2\] spinors are defined to transform under the action of the \( SL2(\mathbb{C}\) group. So yes that link is accurate where it gets used as opposed to other group types depends on the state being described. However as shown here \[S0(3.1)\simeq Sl(2,\mathbb{C}/\mathbb){Z}_2\] you can have isomorphisms with other groups the isomorphisms for SU(N) to the SL(2,c) group can be found here which is what reference 6 of the link you gave which corresponds to the chart you posted employs further details here https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/121903/2/memoria.pdf I should also forewarn you though that the Schrodinger equation of QM is not Lorentz invariant although the Dirac equations are. The operators used in QM (position and momentum) are not employed in QFT (field and momentum). QM uses the Klein Gordon equations which are Lorentz invariant. This is the purpose of reference 6 ": Linear Canonical Transformations (LCTs) are known in signal processing and optics as the generalization of certain useful integral transforms. In quantum theory, they can be identified as the linear transformations which keep invariant the canonical commutation relations characterizing the coordinates and momenta operators. In this work, the possibility of considering LCTs to be the elements of a symmetry group for relativistic quantum physics is studied using the principle of covariance" reference 6 here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.10053
    2 points
  11. We were looking for a design that provides lift. That’s function, not form, which is what Genady was pointing out.
    2 points
  12. I don't think so. AAMOF, ideas like "we live in a simulation" or panspermia sound to me dangerously close to trying to revive the idea of an intelligent creator, but with an aura of scientism about it. All of them (and the ones to come) equally vulnerable to the infinite-regression argument: Who simulated the simulators?, and Who seeded the seeders? etc.
    2 points
  13. Poles can be a problem for politicians ..
    2 points
  14. I wonder if his sentence will prohibit associating with other felons. That would really cut down on options; so many of his former staff have been convicted.
    2 points
  15. Almost all our behaviour is a combination of a genetic basis, that kind of forms a certain baseline, but, especially when the brain is involved, environmental exposures, learning and other feedback modulates the outcome (after all, the brain requires input to develop). So the question of nature vs nurture is, based on what we now know, mostly nonsensical. There is no versus, there is an end. The only part that is often unknown is how much. Also note that many of these non-genetic exposures can happen before birth- exposure to hormones but also chemicals in the womb affect early neuronal development. And yes, homosexuality has been observed in at least 1,500 species, suggesting that it is a common, low-frequency outcome of how sexuality is wired https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1019-7. There have been quite a lot hypotheses why it may arise, and why genes favouring homosexuality persist. Note that genetics is not a 1:1 carbon copy of traits. Combination of genes can result in a wide diversity of traits which can be quite different from the parent. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any benefit to sexual reproduction and we would more likely continue to procreate e.g. via parthenogenesis. What seems to be the case in humans is that the foundation of sexual orientation is laid early in childhood and, once developed, it is fairly stable. I think it is not yet known if and how much flexibility there is in the developmental path to sexual (and other) identity. There are suggestions that events in early fetal development already could be an important factor. One clue is the fact at least in men, the birth order sees to have a highly reproducible impact. Across many groups men with same-sex attraction have a greater number of older brothers, than heterosexual men. One hypothesis is that had a male child have some sort of immune response that creates antibodies specific to protein involved in male brain development. These antibodies increase with each male fetus and somehow increase the likelihood of developing same-sex preferences. There is some vague support for that (mostly the enrichment of antibodies against certain fetal proteins in mothers with multiple male children), but evidence remains at the correlation stage. So in short, it is complicated and not resolved yet.
    2 points
  16. Thanks for the link! "In 2011...scientists began to study strategies that could deal with 200–1,600 ft objects when the time to Earth impact was less than one year. He concluded that to provide the required energy, a nuclear explosion or other event that could deliver the same power, are the only methods that can work against a very large asteroid within these time constraints." "A study published in 2020...researchers ran a model that suggested a nuclear detonation near the surface of an asteroid designed to cover one side of the asteroid with x-rays would be effective. When the x-rays cover one side of an asteroid in the program, they produce propulsion energy that would propel the asteroid in a preferred direction...a nuclear impact offered more flexibility than a non-nuclear approach, as the energy output can be adjusted specifically to the asteroid's size and location." Again, thanks. I had not even thought of searching Wiki for this.
    2 points
  17. 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 😄 .
    2 points
  18. They also have learned that the simple act of repeating falsehoods can make things "feel" real (which apparently is the current benchmark of things). Essentially all bases are covered. If it is a fine or probation, it is evidence that the whole thing is a witch hunt and no big deal in the first place. They are being persecuted (which apparently everyone wants to be and therefore feels real). If he gets the maximum sentence, it is clearly evidence of a witch hunt and shows that conservatives are persecuted. As apparently nothing exists beyond short-term memory (and I have doubts about that), one cane remodel reality at any moment, which is incredibly convenient if one does not want to take personal responsibility for anything. I feel like that folks think folks think that politicians have to do this complicated maneuvering and mind manipulation and so one to get folks on their side. Meanwhile current predominantly right-wing populists realized that just making stuff up on the spot works even better. Having no shame somehow became a superpower over the years. Missed that part earlier, but IIRC in the US, criminal cases does not allow for majority convictions (that would only work for civil cases). I.e. the verdict had to be unanimous, otherwise it would be considered a hung jury. I think Cruz in an interview mentioned something to the effect that one of the jurors should stand up and take one for the team to create a mistrial. Which basically tells you all you need to know about their regard for law and order.
    2 points
  19. it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence. So while I’m sure you think you have a point, by not providing enough discussion and context, you have not made it apparent.
    2 points
  20. This has been tested in South African courts. In what I consider to show a remarkably conciliatory attitude, the San and associated peoples stated that they didn't object to the term 'Bushman' providing it was framed in a positive context. Obviously our racist little troll falls way short of that requirement.
    2 points
  21. Trump's has just said that "The real verdict will be the presidential election" which is simply false. The real verdict was just given by a jury of his peers, and unless it is overturned on appeal (highly unlikely), he is now - and will remain - a felon convicted on 34 criminal indictments.
    2 points
  22. The best documented effect of nitrites in the diet is their reaction with secondary amines to produce nitrosamines which are carcinogenic. Meanwhile, back at the actual question, it's ethanol.
    2 points
  23. Religiosity is most likely tied to our tribal tendencies and adherence to group norms and mores. Members of the tribe who acted and behaved in ways contrary to local social expectations tended to find themselves ostracized or separated from the group and so consequently lost access to food, protection, and access to mates for reproduction (I.e. they were selected against). Cooperation and shared explanatory narratives fed cohesion, basically. Belief in god(s), however, is slightly different than religiosity and is far more likely related to our abilities around mental rehearsal of interactions with unseen others and our tendency while young toward accepting stories from parents and tribal elders.
    2 points
  24. To generate heat and outgassing on the surface areas to apply Newtons second and third laws without causing large chunks to separate from the asteroid. Those I suggested may or may not work depending on laser sustainability and ability to reduce the output in case it's needful. This method would well on an icy asteroid possibly a solid rock face not too sure the practicality for a conglomerate surface. The other issue being rotation. I have been wondering the practicality of a single craft with both nukes and lasers the combined weight would also make it a suitable tractor but then a single craft could theoretically be equipped with all three options.
    2 points
  25. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water. I see a world where maybe 20% of people use religion in a negative way, but that fraction receives 99% of the media coverage. The other 80% show up for religious services or ceremonies looking to connect with something larger than themselves, foster kindness and compassion in themselves, find social connections, rein in aggressive impulses, and help people who are in need. Those people, unless they're chaining themselves to a nuclear weapons facility gate or demonstrating outside a prison before an execution, get almost zero notice.
    2 points
  26. I hesitate to answer bc I think it's an absurd question (please don't think I'm ridiculing you), it's like saying "which aphorism is your philosophy?". One's worldview depends on the world one lives in, one has to think beyond it's limits and look for the awe that puts one in perspective; our relationship with the world depends on our ability to forgive it. If you watch the world through the medium of the popular press, you're borrowing their perspective, not thinking of your own; don't look at the screen, look out of the window. This is worth a listen, it goes some way towards explaining my point...
    2 points
  27. I shy away from worldviews (try to), even though sometimes I can't help getting tangled in them. There are too many obstacles, some of them really thick, to acquire any kind of a vantage point. And the individual perspective is only too limited. I see a piece of landscape from where I stand. That's all. Besides, there are already too many Manichaeans out there, preaching with too loud a voice. I don't want to be that person. I must side with Genady here, but as a dream perhaps. That some day mathematics, logic, and similar tools of analysis can tell us what this or that pattern does in the great scheme of things. As for the rest, such tools will hopefully tell us why and what in the world cannot be understood on account of logical/semantic incompleteness. Mathematics is so... dispassionate. Atheism is not a worldview, btw, as far as I can discern. It's more of a 'what do you mean by that' attitude the way I understand it.
    2 points
  28. I'm with Airbrush on this and think nuclear devices delivered by variants of existing rockets would be the preferred means, probably the only one possible any time soon. Longer term - and I do think meteor defense is best viewed as long term - other options may become possible. Delivered and it is done versus delivered and just getting started. Much more deflection from less payload. Shorter mission times. Uses familiar technologies with lots of existing knowhow and capability. The links people have provided, including yours appear to support that although different asteroid examples and different units make direct comparisons a bit tricky - at least for me. https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608157 with Apophis (320m diameter, 46 million metric tons) as example for a 1 ton gravity tractor - 3.7mm per sec per year (? Someone else should check units and arithmetic?) https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20205008370/downloads/Nuclear_Devices_for_Planetary_Defense_ASCEND_2020_FINAL_2020-10-02.pdf with 560m diameter object and 550kg payload - 65 to 165mm per sec in a few seconds to minutes with a single 1 megaton nuclear device for a significantly larger object. Having the device stationary with respect to the asteroid seems to be preferred over one coming at it at high velocity but not sure how that would work directly along the trajectory.They look to smaller than 1 Mt explosions as preferred - several small ones better than one bigger one. Spinning object? Having a quick search for rotation rates - it sounds like a large rubble pile would max out at 1/4 rotation per hour, slow enough for a nuclear detonation to give directional push. Small ones would be suitable for dispersing blasts. Too close to Earth? The "nuclear devices" paper deems several months of warning as a short warning, late response scenario and doing the detonations more than a month out from expected impact is considered a rapid response. I can't see that as an EMP risk to Earth that far out. Anything as close as the moon will be days at most away - too late, kiss arses bye bye. Nukes not designed for use in space? I expect some probably are even if that isn't advertised; the potential for nuclear warfare to happen in space has been known a long time; it may be against arms agreements to put any into space but military planners always look beyond existing treaties if only on an Irish basis - to be sure, to be sure.
    2 points
  29. There would not be a shock wave. It would be just an intense, short pulse of heat. ChatGPT says: "The distance of the explosion from the asteroid and the yield of the nuclear device would be crucial. For rock fusion to occur, the heat and energy must be sufficient to melt the surface material. If the explosion is too far or the yield is too low, the energy might dissipate without causing significant melting." "In theory, a nuclear explosion could cause surface melting and outgassing, potentially pushing a "rubble pile" asteroid. However, the practical implementation of such a strategy would require precise control over the explosion's distance and yield, careful consideration of the asteroid's composition and structure, and strategies to mitigate the risk of fragmentation. More research and testing would be necessary to evaluate the feasibility and safety of such an approach."
    2 points
  30. You will need rockets that are designed to escape earth. What will happen to ANY asteroid composed of anything, metal, rock, ice, rubble pile, cotton candy, or all those combined, when you explode a nuke at the correct distance from the asteroid? There will be an intense pulse of heat for a fraction of a second. What will that do? It will melt, blister, fuse, cause outgassing, and explode volatiles, amounting to thousands of tiny rockets pushing in the same direction. This will push the pile a tiny bit without breaking it up. If you have a few hundred of these explosions, to make sure you have enough, you can fine tune for maximum course change. This is way cheaper and faster to accomplish, than gravity tractors. We have thousands of nukes. We just need the technology to deliver them into the path of the asteroid.
    2 points
  31. Fact Check: The Battle of Choisin Reservoir (장진호 전투) began on 27 November 1950 during the Korean war when a Chinese force of 120,000 men under the command of General Song Shilun (宋时轮) surprised a UN force of just 30,000 men under the command of Major General Oliver P.Smith - (N.B. UN = ‘United Nations’ *not* American. British Marines and two Regiments of the British 3rd and 7th Army were present, as well as American Marines). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir Over the next 17 days, the UN force managed to break out of their encirclement and successfully withdrew to the port of Hungnam. Both sides suffered heavy casualties from battlefield action, and from the freezing weather with temperatures as low as -36F. The UN forces suffered around 13,000 casualties (c.1100 killed) while the Chinese are thought to have suffered almost 60,000 casualties (around 29,000 batttle casualties). For which reason the battle is usually evaluated as a ‘Pyrrhic Victory’ for the Chinese - i.e. one in which the losses substantially outweighed any possible military gains.
    2 points
  32. I'm no expert here, but feedback mechanisms in biology are so frequent that I think pointing to the presence/absence of a certain chemical as the cause of an illness (or of any other process for that matter) is probably not the way to go.
    2 points
  33. I fully agree that 'absolute truth' does not apply to the sciences (nor to any other 'truth capable' discourse). Let's call that 'Truth' with capital 'T'. But truth, lowercase 't' certainly applies to sentences that claim to reflect part of reality. E.g. 'the Eifel tower stands in Paris' is true. See also TheVat's description: Simply said: a statement is true, if it corresponds to objective facts. So this is the most simple definition of 'truth': factual sentences are 'truth-capable'. Now, is the sentence 'The earth is flat' true? Well, we know it isn't. Is the sentence 'The earth was flat in 4000 BCE' true? Again, no, we know that 4000 BCE the world was just as round as it is today. Does it then make sense to say that ''The earth is flat' spoken by somebody in 4000 BCE is true? She might be expressing what she really thinks, so she is 'truthful' (she really thinks the earth is flat), but the sentence isn't true at all. She just can't know it. Nothing concerning the topology of the earth did change since 4000 BCE. What changed was how people saw the world. Now for science: scientific theories are abstractions from true statements. They also contain how these abstractions can be translated into concrete empirical claims. Simplified: you have a theory, you put in the initial conditions that you measured or setup (when it is about an experiment), and the output of that are predictions of what you will observe, i.e. basic statements about 'affairs in the world'. If these basic statements turn out to be correct, again and again, even in very different situations (different initial conditions), then we can call the theory true, at least provisionally. (Or you can call it "best currently accepted internally and externally consistent provisionally validated model” as iNow prefers ). Now Truth would be the ideal that for every possible state of affairs, we have a scientific theory, with which we can predict and explain all possible states of affairs. I think that in this view it becomes clear that: we will never reach Truth but we strive to explain as many truths as possible, so aiming at Truth is still a heuristic principle and that trying to falsify scientific theories is the fastest way to make progress in science; repeating the same kind of measurements again and again to confirm a theory is pretty useless.
    2 points
  34. For me, it's about the time and effort others put into their responses to make them as clear and meaningful as possible for the rest of the folks in the discussion. You often seem to be listening (and responding) to only what you're thinking instead of what other people said. You're even quoting yourself now, like we aren't that important. You also often seem to put special emphasis on the vagueness of your responses, like a guru claiming, "Life is a river". I mostly ignore it because questioning it only brings more vagueness. I have to admit it offends me for two reasons. First, it seems intellectually lazy for a science discussion site (which is probably the exact opposite of the way you think of it), because you can never be wrong if you're vague enough. Second, you often talk about how much you've had to drink while posting, and I'm over 30 years sober, and enough of a snob about it to think we aren't getting to talk to the real you. I'm not looking for arbiters, truths, or wisdom nuggets. I'm here to talk to folks about life on Earth, their experiences, and to share knowledge. I like that knowledge wrapped in transparent cellophane with a simple twist tie, not covered in opaque brown paper, glue, and duct tape.
    2 points
  35. I find deGrasse Tyson a bit glib and the level of Cox’s explanations seems to be for 11yr olds - a sad reflection of the assumption in the British media that nobody in the population knows any science, even though we all learn a fair bit in school and many people take it further. (British media seems run by arts graduates , quite unlike say France where the prestigious grands ecoles were founded by Napoleon to study science and engineering.)Cox is also a bit annoying, somehow, for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on. Kaku seems to be a bit nuts, but I don’t really know much about him. Sagan was far better than any of them I think. I quite like Sabine Hossenfelder on physics.
    2 points
  36. AI generated image for "Bill Gates installing windows":
    2 points
  37. We convert yellow/white Phosphorous to red, and sparge it with steam in a highly acidic/ hi-temperature environment to produce Phosphine gas ( Hooker Chemical patent from the 60s ), inerts and other impurities removed to about 95 % purity, then compressed. It is further distilled to hi-purity ( 99.99996 % or better ) semi-conductor grade, for doping, mixed for use as a fumigant, or reacted with different olefins to make organo-phosphorous derivatives for mining chemicals ( extraction ), biocides, and even medications.
    2 points
  38. How about posting stuff that has context and explanation, that’s on-topic? That might help. I mean, what does “It's the people who pay for protection, that inspires a war...” mean? Who are the people to which you refer? How are they paying for protection? How does this “inspire war”? How is any of this relevant?
    2 points
  39. I will confess that I sometimes wear pants that say, f you, I just want to be comfortable. I have tried to advance the position that my running pants are more stylish than mere sweat pants but it's been suggested they are really just fancy sweat pants with pockets. My position is that running pants with pockets are: A. Pants. Suitable for most public venues and occasions. B. Warm. This is important in a cold windy climate. C. Have a flexibility and ability to stay up (elastic waist plus drawstring*) that makes them ideal for most physical tasks. So this approach to public pants display combines logic and empiricism in a beautiful synergy, while also serving as a superficial snobby twit detector. That said, embarassment is a useful thing for social creatures when it causes us to regret transgressions like dishonesty or foolish boasting. * belts are digital, drawstrings are analog, and analog + waists = freedom! Sounds quite stylish. My son often wears such attire, and looks splendid in it. Some people really rock black, and not just classical musicians. Though July in the American Midwest, where he lives, tends to concentrate the mind on somewhat cooler clothing choices.
    2 points
  40. I've found that I'm not best judge when it comes to self-assessment. I make mistakes in social contexts if I'm not looking for outside input. My own reasoning can only go so far since it's tightly tied to my knowledge. It's embarrassing to me when I realize I've made a mistake that could have been easily prevented by asking others. So in this context, embarrassment helps me stay humble about what I know. There's always more to learn. Are you saying you use formal logic to make decisions? I've seen many philosophers use formal logic to make a completely false statement that's still valid. Formal logic is NOT an empirical study. Most of your examples seem like cultural pressure, and the need to "fit in" with our tribe is stronger in some than others. What we wear is often signalling to others something about us, and misreading those signals can embarrass us into either better focus or figuring out personal solutions. Sometimes that personal solution is "I don't care if people make fun of this shirt, I love it!" And there are arguably situations where one should be embarrassed by their actions. It's one thing to ignore whether you're using a feminine or masculine deodorant, and quite another to skip the deodorant altogether (or much worse, douse yourself in cheap cologne/perfume) in a situation where other people have to put up with your mistake. Embarrassment is normally something felt in degrees. The bigger the offense, the more embarrassed you should feel about it. I wouldn't say it's a useless feeling, but I do think it's probably being abused by some, used to manipulate us by others, and in general something you should avoid by focusing less on the embarrassment and more on whether this is something you need to fix or not.
    2 points
  41. “For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this” (emphasis added)
    2 points
  42. In this video an octopus appears to lead a woman to a small cashe' of human artifacts including a photo of a human. Is it a reasonable conclusion that the octopus realized the possible value of a picture of a human or somehow thought a human would be interested in a picture of a human or even that the octopus connected the artifacts with the human due to the picture? If this is accurate it raises some real questions about just how intelligent an octopus really is. The video is 01:34 long, in my experience I've seen octopus do some unbelievable things but I never was able to decide if it was my own perspective that decided the octopus was acting as an intelligent agent or if the octopuses actions were actually intelligent independent of my own perception of its actions?
    2 points
  43. What does that have to do with physics ? Simply put the reason cosmological redshift exists has nothing to do with probability but is a direct consequence of expansion due to thermodynamics. There is no guess work involved. The further an object is from us the greater the cosmological redshift value will be. That will not change due to some hypothetical probability. Just as there is no guess work behind expansion being homogeneous and isotropic. Physics isn't guess work. Its careful examination of observational evidence combined with mathematics to describe what is observed. Its not random guesses or mere logic games. That has been repeatably mentioned this thread. Any object you measure at the limit of any telescope will have the corresponding redshift to distance relation. That isn't based on any guesswork but is simply put what has been shown through all observational evidence. For example using one equation I was able to show your guesswork incorrect with regards to the SMBH. You could easily have done the same thing. The formula for Newtons gravitational law is extremely easy to use. If you spent more time studying why cosmology states what it does and learn how the thermodynamic laws are involved in expansion you would be far better off. Simply put expansion is easy to understand once you look at those equations of state I posted earlier.
    2 points
  44. You can be a scientist but not publish very much; it depends on your circumstances. Not every scientist lives in the "publish or perish" world of academia. In any event, he has a number of journal publications in the last 30 years. here are three from <20 years back The Faint-End Slopes of Galaxy Luminosity Functions in the COSMOS Field C. T. Liu et al., 2008, Astrophysical Journal Letters, v.672, p.198 COSMOS: Hubble Space Telescope Observations N. Scoville et al., 2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.38 The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview N. Scoville et al., 2007, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, v.172, p.1 I'd like a citation on that "fact" IMO no, but it also depends on the level of discussion. If you aren't supposed to discuss things outside of your area of expertise we'd have to disband SFN. i.e. you can still know certain things and discuss them despite not being an expert. The issue is knowing your limits and recognizing when you are out of your depth. We aren't aware of serotonin and dopamine? That's news to me. Your summary sounds like he was making general statements, which doesn't require expertise. It's wrong in the same sense that all science discussion is wrong - there's always more detail, and general statements always have caveats. But if you object to general statements, you'd have to eliminate almost all discussion.
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.