Intoscience

When you say you believe in religion in what sense do you mean? I believe in religion in the sense that religions exist, but may not believe in the doctrine of one or many particular religions. Some of which may revolve around or include super natural events or beings.

Fortunately (for me maybe) I'm not "over sensitive" like some.

Well lets say you are investigating the possibility of a haunted house. The scientist conducting the study may personally believe that ghosts exist (in the super natural sense). However the study should follow the scientific method and the scientist remain completely objective and any personal belief set aside during the study. The results data should be verifiable and not subject to influence. If the results prove the existence of ghosts and this is verifiable by further independent tests then great, all good. The scientists personal belief have been verified and would be accepted by the mainstream. If however the results are inconclusive, then the scientist's personal belief should not be invoked in any of the study.

Do I need to answer that? Ok since you ask, any non scientific, non verifiable belief, should not be invoked in the scientific method. Since the scientific method requires objective, verifiable data not personal beliefs, irrelevant whether or not those beliefs match the results.

+1 Absolutely, and applies to all non scientific personal beliefs.

+1 Welcome!

Thank you for the clarification. I'm sure there are some delusional transgender people, like there are delusional people of all gender identities. I can't recall responding in agreement directly to the notion that transgender people are delusional or over sensitive. Though I may have inadvertently done so, by responding in such a way that it could be interpreted that way. I'll take more care going forward, however I'm human and prone to mistakes. I can live with that. The problem is though, it appears (at least to me) that when someone questions another point of view unless the question, or rather an alternative answer is in agreement with yours, you get very defensive and call people out, with occasional misinterpreting, manipulating or taking out of context the reply or rebuttal. An example of this, as per your reply ^^^ where you state that I should be questioning the assertion of others before making comment, in an attempt to present evidence on why you assume/assert (or try to make out) that I'm transphobic. I think there is a difference between a chosen Identity and reality though. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with a person's right to their chosen personal identity. It seems we have 2 tangents and they are being confused with each other.

Indeed, and you are correct my example was one of science. I'm guilty on this occasion of lumping all things together.

Reminds me of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jedi Master “Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” “The truth is often what we make of it; you heard what you wanted to hear, believed what you wanted to believe.” Well said, and my understanding is that this view is shared by most creditable scientists who have similar beliefs that stem from a religion.

I can't speak for @koti , but I have never suggested at any point on this thread that someone is delusional for wanting to be Identified as a specific gender pronoun. In fact I have never used the word delusional, however have used the word ridiculous when a person wants to change the identity of an object, because the current name has a word used that maybe offensive, even though the name has and has never had any offensive intent or otherwise. Thus my point throughout the thread is, how far does this go? You are the one who made assumptions and lumped the trans gender identity in with my argument, when they are at different ends of the spectrum. I respect and would remain courteous of a person's preferred choice of identity, regardless of my opinion on it. As MigL says it will be interesting to see how persons react to some "crank". Maybe comes on a science forum claiming the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old. Would it be fair to call them delusional? or should we accept their opinion and kindly agree with them, so as not to offend them?

Though I agree with you on "truths" (to a certain degree), From the dictionary: the quality or state of being true that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality a fact or belief that is accepted as true I think though some truths can evolve over time but are generally accepted in their current state. So I would say its fair to say that it is "true" that Saturn is farther away from the sun than the Earth regardless of what might change in the future. Interestingly, in the last definition it mentions "belief", this implies that there are different kinds of truths and they should be applied and interpreted in context. For example - 1. I don't believe in god(s), This statement is true (at least for now) 2. There is no scientific evidence to prove/validate the existence of god, This statement is true (at least for now) No 1 is based on belief, number 2 is based on facts (current scientific data).

Yeah pretty much. I don't agree that that particular phrase masks a weak argument, unless used in the wrong context. But I agree that that phrase, and many similar can be subject to misuse dependent on context. For example, if I completed a test where I scored high and another person scored low and I was to remark that I won't consider that persons idea's or opinions such that I used the phrase "I don't suffer fools" then this would be an example of poor use of the phrase in this particular context. But if a person was persistently been idiotic with the intent on disruption and I stated the same phrase then I would find this acceptable use Ok, fair enough. I don't claim to be anymore or less aware than others, so am open to the fact that you and others may see my blind spots. It might be that its just a matter of interpretation, or difference of opinion also, which at the moment that's how it seems to me. Something we can agree on in this thread.

This is a good point, religion can serve many purposes, some that don't focus around a "creator". Personally I like to consider my self as an amateur scientist, I don't believe in god, but I do appreciate some of the principles in most religions.

Thanks, I appreciate your support! Well they say stress is a big factor in poor health, so taking a more relaxed approach is something I want to aim for. The difficulty for me is in the balancing - obsession, commitment, stress, disappointment...

Fair enough, we have difference of opinion. I think that many phrases have the potential for mis-use, in fact we see this all the time. This is the problem with interpretation, context and intent. What might start out as an innocent term or phrase can be easily mistaken as offensive or discriminative. It never crossed my mind to equate my example with sexual identity in the way that you assume, consciously or otherwise. You have made an assertion that I have "lumped" the two together in one simple category. On the contrary to this, my whole point is that you cannot lump these things together!! But this seems to have passed over your head. But people are asking for ridiculous things like changing the name of black berries, then comparing this to genuine offensive and discriminative words or phrases. This is my point!! I have a good friend who is trans (which I have mentioned previously in the transgender athletes thread) so I can assure you, your assumption that I'm transphobic is way off the mark. Ironic isn't it, If your opinion is not with the "status quo" then you are judged accordingly, and in the process accused of being the judger and intolerant. If my opinion of someone is that they are an idiot, but someone else's opinion is that they are a genius. I'm wrong to assert such an opinion but the other person is fine to assert theirs? Hmmm... doesn't seem much equality there now does there?

Who is anyone to judge either way? Generally someone who purposely disrupts at the cost of the majority with no positive intent, gets judged by the majority and dealt with accordingly. Some people have a higher tolerance than others, it would be very boring if we were all the same.

Agreed, My understanding is that many scientists who do believe in god, believe that god sits outside science, in that science cannot be applied to god, nor should it. So to invoke god in a scientific manner is to assume the machine builder is required for the machine to operate per say, which is not the case.

I've always eaten plenty of veg and a good variety of them, so all good there. Thanks +1 I'm terrible for "over analysing" and I do get obsessed with certain things. I'm sort of an all in or all out sort of person, when I'm in I give 100% but I can soon get despondent upon failure, which is something I need to learn to accept. One of the reasons I participate in forums such as this is because the majority of folk on here are smarter than me, so I hope to learn and improve my own intelligence from it. Thank you for this, This is pretty much what I have read from the actual doctors rather than the fad pushers. I'm doing the 16:8 regular and then throw in a 24 hour one every so often then at the weekend I have one day where I just eat how I feel and in line with my family. I'm not starving myself, but I'm trying to remain strict and consistent without putting myself under too much pressure. As I stated I'm prone to going all out on things and finding myself burned out or disillusioned. The reason I posted this thread is because I want to take a more methodical approach which will give me the results I'm looking for (well as best as possible) that I can maintain for the rest of my life without detriment to my health and wellbeing, but rather improve my health and wellbeing. In addition because I'm seeing some results people have commented, some positive some negative (as expected) but also some have asked on what I'm doing and what advice I can offer them. The last thing I want to do is suggest something that's not helpful or could be harmful! Obsession is something I do suffer with, not particularly my appearance, though this thread may suggest this. It's rather my health and fitness that is my main concern and I have been guilty many times of over doing things. This time I want to keep it simple, consistent and long term.

I haven't once on this thread referenced "trans", maybe you are mixing me up with someone else? I have no problem with sexual identity. My point has been solely focused on what in my opinion is the ridiculous, such as the example I gave earlier where a person complained about calling a black berry a black berry. Thus how far does PC go? Regarding the "bare truth", again you are mis-interpreting, what I'm talking about is actual facts not opinions. The earth is round not flat, you can chose to call it flat, have the opinion that its flat, but its round - fact = bare truth. You are free to have the opinion that "suffer fools" is a misused phrase. You may form the opinion that its offensive, gather enough support you may even get it generally accepted as offensive. Where I come from the phrase is used quite often and has a few meanings. Generally it means that someone is acting up in an unaccepted idiotic way, with the intent to disrupt.

So, I have always been interested in keeping fit and healthy, exercise, diets, food management and the short/long term effects on health. I'm an active person, reasonably athletic and have, in general, kept myself in reasonable shape (though not strictly consistent, and recently due to the covid restrictions). Although I'm quite knowledgeable on exercising and keeping fit through activity etc..., my knowledge of diet and food management is limited to what I've read in popular magazines and the fads of diets etc... over the years. I have maintained what I felt was a reasonable diet though again not strictly consistent. I have also experimented in the past with the odd fad diet, though this has always been short lived as most diets I have experienced tend to be unachievable over the long term and often only result in brief short term results. Cutting to the chase, However, I'm at that "age" now where my body likes to store fat around the mid region, in spite of my efforts to keep it low level I struggle to maintain a trim waist line and I'm also concerned about developing diabetes. So recently I have upped my exercise regime to a level I can maintain (injury or ill health aside) consistently for the foreseeable. But along with this I have been looking in depth at my diet. I don't want to do a fad diet that just gets rid of the fat fast, I want to manage my food in a way that can be consistent and healthy for the rest of my life. I have been looking at intermittent fasting, ketosis (low carb high fat) the types of foods to eat and those to avoid etc... (especially for my age and susceptibility to type 2 diabetes). There seems to be some confliction, since this is big business and people can be easily drawn into fads. I'm currently doing the intermittent fasting along with a low carb - high fat diet, and I'm already seeing some benefits from this. I also feel that I could maintain this life style change quite easily, but my concerns are now for the possible negative effects of my long term health. Do any of you good folks have any views, knowledge and/or experience in this?

No Worries, I don't mind being criticised, that's how I learn, get to understand other points of view and shown my errors when they occur. Understanding my partner's mind is/can be a difficult one. She has often said that she misses her mother because her mother was always brutally honest with her regardless. Yet when I do the same she often lashes out, I guess looking for sensitivity and support. But then when I do show her sensitivity she calls me out and claims I'm just telling her what she wants to hear so not to hurt her feelings. But the point to all this, and I think it's relevant to this thread, is that sometimes you can't win with some people. You make a statement that is brutally honest based on factual evidence and you get called out for being insensitive, non courteous or worse. But when you deny the bare truth to save someone's feelings you then get branded a liar, or manipulator or worse. Yeah, you can just be the person who sits there and says nothing but where does that get us? stalemate? The art of politics is a difficult game to play. My father is exactly like this ^^^ he gives people a hard time and won't suffer fools, but would put his own life on the line to help or save anyone. Maybe because I have been brought up by a person like this makes me similar in some respects. Though I am more sensitive than my father, because my mother is the polar opposite to him, where a person's feelings is paramount, though she is kind towards people, she is not as generous towards others as my father is. My partner doesn't always work that way, she often sees through the bullshit and gets annoyed at me being so cooperative. I have to be very tactical with my approach.

I agree that one should remain sensitive where possible and there is no need to express your feelings unless asked to. But what then, if someone asks me a question do I answer honestly, even knowing that it may offend, or do I try to be sensitive and considerate if that means lying? The trick, obviously is to answer honestly in a subtle, sensitive and inoffensive manner, however this is not always possible. I wouldn't say I was proud of having or expressing offensive feelings, on the contrary, I would however prefer to stay true to myself. I guess for me personally I often get conflicted, since being honest is important to me be it given and/or received. Being sensitive is also important especially with those I care most for. However, I prefer to be honest and prefer honesty returned at the cost of my own feelings, so be it. Maybe this is my flaw and one I should endeavour to improve on, I'm open to that.

I try to remain honest, in fact I even try to be bluntly honest which often gets me in a spot of bother, especially with my partner when out shopping! Such that she often states that I'm unkind and have no regard for her feelings, maybe she is correct? I think honesty, should prevail where possible, even if that means offending someone in the process. I think this is one aspect that people dislike about JP.

That's on my menu for this evenings dinner - grilled bacon medallions, poached eggs, large field mushrooms, fresh tomatoes, fresh avocado, baked mature cheddar and spinach. My stomach is rumbling as I post this and dinner is 6 hours away yet!!

You have damaged my feelings, or have you? Maybe I am offended maybe not, just being polite and courteous so as not to return the favour? There can be many reasons, depends on your interpretation of what one says that would determine to you whether it be an excuse or not.