TheDivineFool

I feel that poverty and crime are not the disease as the OP suggests. Rather they are symptoms of the real illness - bad economics.

I thought Einstein formulated the equation Ego = 1/knowledge Didn't Socrates say ''I know that I know nothing''? Humility, not superiority, is the companiom of knowledge. That being said I have no quarrel with superiority of attitude based on superior knowledge.

Not much of a choice there. Any philosopher will find this a Hobson's choice. However, I sense there's an element of truth in such a viewpoint. A lot of philosophy is far from established fact. Most of it seems controversial, sometimes even contradictory. But I suspect this has to do more with the difficulty of the subject matter rather than any failing on our part. As for the accusation that we're trying to simplify (perhaps oversimplify) things to fit our limited intellectual capacity I think that's unfair since we can do little about our limitations and it's not that philosphers are unaware of this problem. As a field that explores the very boundaries of our intellectual capacity philosophy is quite a good subject.

Some notion of quantity permeates all human experience e.g. we love our parents 'more' than our neighbors, etc. Only thing that's a problem is deciding on a universal non-controversial standard.

Generally, our future (the tomorrow) plays the main role in determining what we do with the present (the today). Without a tomorrow, today loses all meaning unless of course you think immediate experience is in and of itself meaningful. How's that done?

OP: Since you criticize scientists and their attitude what do you suggest as a remedy?

You've made a very pertinent comment on the issue. However, I must say that as others have posted, conscious people assist you with their own power when lifting them while dead/unconscious people don't. In that sense, since part of a conscious person's weight is lifted by its own power, the body DOES become LIGHTER. So, I don't think the OP was wrong in asking ''why is a dead body so much heavier than a live one?''

In essence there is no science vs religion. Early scientists believed science was about understanding god's work - the universe and its laws. Unfortunately this friendship didn't last very long as evolution and geology contradicted Biblical creation stories. So, now religion and science don't agree.

Since you use the term 'devolve', I guess that in your opinion the overall trend in human civilization has been negative/backward/harmful/bad/evil. So, 'evolve' in your world means progress in a good/positive/beneficial way. As far as technology is concerned, I think human moral development is out of sync with technology with the latter lagging behind. Almost everyone is aware of climate change and pollution and would like to do something about it but technology is still dependent on carbon fuel. Also, if you look at history, I'm sure you'll agree we've come a long way since human sacrifice, slavery, ignorance of the importance of the environment and divine interpretation of natural events. Surely, this must be progress in your eyes. What may be said however, in your defense, is that evil has become more sophisticated. So much so that it is difficult to recognize it. Military dominance has been replaced by economic dominance. Slavery has been replaced by human trafficking and racism. These are inevitable as evil minds adapt to the laws enacted to check them. Loopholes are found and readily exploited to produce a class of evil so 'refined' that it may be undetectable.

Well, logically speaking ''consensus'' is a strange creature. Any book on critical thinking will say three things: 1. When evaluating the assertions of an expert, one must check for ''consensus'' among the experts. The usual advice being matters on which there's a consensus are more likely to be true. Where consensus lacks, one should doubt veracity. 2. Fallacy of appeal to majority. Just because many people believe in x, it doesn't imply that x is true. 3. When evaluating a scientific hypothesis, coherence is a key criteria i.e. a hypothesis must agree with established scientific ''facts'' and theories. One could say Einstein failed in 1 and 3 but definitely established the truth of 2. As to what constitutes best science, I think a science that is ever critical of itself is the best science. Good science must be willing to adapt to new evidence; rather than claim to know the truth, it must convey a spirit of rational inquiry.

I think the middle of the magnet doesn't have attractive power. So given A and B, we can do the following procedure... You take one end of A and apply it to the middle of B. If there's attraction then A must be magnet. If there's no attraction, B must be the magnet. Or you could break both A and B into two pieces each. If the pieces attract each other, the original rod is magnetic. If the pieces don't attract each other, the original piece is not magnetic.

Ditto michel123456. I didn't understand a thing.

@Phi for All: Frankly, I think the religious god is highly improbable. It just won't fit in the current knowledge framework. However,I'm worried about being to self-assured about what I know and for that matter, our current body of knowledge. I simply can't shake off the anxiety I fee when I contemplate the fact that we can sit on this tiny speck of space dust in one of billions of galaxies spread across unimaginable distances AND pronounce that we KNOW such and such about the universe. If it is anything at all, it is pure unadulterated hubris and more relevantly, foolishness. Thus the miniscule probability of a god, given our current understanding, piques my interest. It looks improbable only when put in context of CURRENT wisdom which probably forms 0.00000000000.....01% of what can be known about the universe. So, it looks to me that we're jumping to conclusions here. That's why, despite the improbabilities imposed by extant stare of affairs, I remain open to the possibility of a god.

I'd like to inform you that theology has made progress, if you can call it that, and the religionists no longer say 'God did it' in the narrow sense you imply. They now say that the laws of the universe were decreed by God and we can discover and use them accordingly. So you see, the God vision has ascended to a grander scale than before. Our learning is not inhibited by it. Rather, we're spurred on to discover the wonders of the universe as created by God. Also, there's no evidence that god is the universe. The argument rests on the irrefutable nature of such a possibility. Personally I don't think god is a plausible hypothesis. However, implausibility doesn't eliminate possibility. The OP is probably arguing from possibility which I think is wrong for possibility doesn't imply actuality. Thus, we're at an impasse for despite improbability of god, we can't negate the possibility of god. The reasonable thing in this case would be to refrain from making categorical statements.

While it is not a 'necessity' to call it God, it is also not a 'necessity' not to call it god. Let's just say, people like to have options, especially when there are options, as is the case here. If you disagree, kindly point out why 'unnecessary' is bad or irrational.