swansont

Not with a population of ~8.1 billion, or anywhere close to it.

I think the ethics only enter into it if you’re wealthy enough to have options, and having a significant fraction of people above the threshold is a relatively recent occurrence.

Yes. More than once. It’s trivial to check. In the very first post you complained about how you get pushback whenever you mention them. The discussion was split off of a discussion on possible evolutionary advantage of religion because you went off-topic and brought up bias. It’s guarding the borders; making sure that science remains science, and things like astrology don’t get to pass themselves off as having scientific legitimacy without presenting empirical evidence. Which is why we keep asking for evidence.

NOTC got 63.3%, Haley 30.6%, Pence 3.9% and Tim Scott 1.3%. Had Trump been on the ballot, he would have had to get only half of the NOTC votes to win. That doesn’t sound implausible. He got at least half of the overall in almost all of the places he was on the ballot Further, some of the voters that chose a candidate might have voted for Trump if he was an option. None of the other candidates would have gotten more votes, because why would they? I don’t think your conjecture has much merit, and you’ve presented nothing to support it.

No. If you study further you'll find that work is done when there is a force aligned (or anti-aligned) with displacement. With a central force such as gravity, not net work is done; an object will trade kinetic energy and potential energy, but the sum of the two will not change. In a circular orbit, the kinetic and potential energy does not change because the force is perpendicular to the displacement. No work is done. If energy is extracted from an orbital body the orbit will decay. This happens e.g. with atmospheric drag.

And I think this is part of the problem. You are only repeating things other people say, but you aren't prepared to actually discuss and defend it. When you are prepared to discuss the details, I think people will be prepared to engage. But not if you're going to pass the buck like this. You were accused of cherry-picking by one person, and you kinda gave away the game by saying "This one is more in line with my expectations" in reference to the cited study. But this is emblematic of a larger pattern - extrapolating based on a small sample, much like your earlier claims of bias were focused on cognitive science but you were accusing all of science of having these problems. And nobody has argued that there isn't bias. But what we haven't really discussed much is what the biases are and how science fights against it. This whole thread started off discussing religion as the focus of alleged bias, and that's simply excluding non-science from the discussion. Science gets to decide what it investigates and what it doesn't. Trying to wedge religion/spiritualism into the conversation is viewed as an attempt to commandeer the legitimacy of science in a pursuit that is not science, and no, we're not having any part of it. Is it bias? Perhaps. We're biased against such piracy. You are free to go off and contemplate the mind using whatever tools you wish, and if you actually come up with answers I'm sure you'll shout it from the rooftop, but on this side of the border you do science.

We’ve had supporters of the right here, but some of them had difficulty posting in good faith or otherwise violated the rules i.e. they repeated lies, didn’t cite sources, asserted opinion as fact. That tends to shorten the time folks stick around.

There is no NOTA option. As I said, this is moot. AFAICT Nevada (actually NOTC, “None of these candidates”) is the only state that uses this, and even then it has no direct effect, since the candidate with the highest total still wins. The only effect is siphoning votes, which might be antisymmetric between the candidates. Arnold can’t be president unless the Constitution is amended. If you pretend you don’t know who the fascist is in this election, I have to go with Phi - straight from a script. (since too stupid to breathe is off the table). How are things in Russia?

And a point we’ve been making for a while. Complex explanations have a lot of “moving parts” to them, which means the equations that would explain them would have lots of variables, and nonlinear variables with small coefficients. Developing and refining models of these phenomena requires a lot of data, and/or more precise data. There’s no need to invoke bias for not having figured out hard problems the fact that they’re hard is sufficient. If there were this kind of bias we’d have gaps in the easier stuff. But if it’s at the cutting edge there’s no need for that hypothesis, and to entertain such an hypothesis, you need evidence. (a kind of cross between Occam’s razor and extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence) (and I wonder how long it will take for this “valid point” to be forgotten, and we see yet another unsupported claim of bias)

“Teamsters Against Trump Knocks Over 40,000 Doors of Swing-State Union Members for Harris-Walz” https://movement.vote/blog/teamsters-against-trump-knocks-over-40000-doors-of-swing-state-union-members-for-harris-walz/

I don’t understand when people say things like this, but at this point I don’t care; I just assume they were dropped on their head as a child and lack the ability to distinguish the many differences Which is not an option, so this is moot. “spoiling” the ballot (like with 3rd party candidates) just might get the fascist elected

The link nobody can access? It starts with “institutions” which suggests that you are accessing it through a university or similar portal, and is why it’s not paywalled for you. When I went to New Scientist directly it said I had to be a subscriber to read it

The paper mentions bias once (ipad wouldn’t let me copy paste from the pdf) We see that the possible bias proposed here is in how we write the equations down, rather than in the physics. IOW, they are showing we tend to write V=IR instead of I=V/R for language/communication reasons. It’s not a bias in the physics itself. Which suggests I was right before, that this was just a matter of finding the word bias and not understanding or not caring what was actually being discussed, because this has nothing to do with physics discoveries or some flaw in how we figure things out, it’s a linguistics issue with math as the language.

Twenty seconds of Google reveals the source article, now that we have the author information https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2408.11065

You keep saying bias, but there is no explanation of what the alleged bias is.

! Moderator Note 1. You haven’t established that they do, and 2. If all you want to do is bash them, do it elsewhere

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no) I have highlighted the relevant parts. IOW post your idea here, and not by uploading a word doc

Experiment matches theory. Repeatedly. How is there an “interpretation of results” issue? Where is it? Where’s the debate if you can’t present evidence? This is just repeatedly throwing “bias” against the wall and hoping something sticks. I don’t see why it would be. Not-random stuff shows a pattern? The whole basis of science analysis is discerning patterns in things that aren’t random

Even more evidence that we aren’t so different from our close cousins. But, as The Vat is implying, coming to a conclusion is a reach.

That’s the fallacy of personal incredulity. A form of bias. Zipf applies to more than physics laws and language. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law Guess what? Patterns exist! Back to brains, eh? To show bias, you have to show where the result is wrong. You haven’t done that. You’re using bias as a bogeyman. It has no meaning in these discussions anymore. Again, you say that something should not happen but have no support for it. Not being the way you want it to be - isn’t that a form of bias? Bogeyman.

Since other animals exhibit altruism, this is trivially falsified. We are classified as apes because the evidence is that we are descended from a common ancestor with other apes. There is nothing biologically distinctive that would put us in another family, only in a different genus. But if it’s not the case, then there is even less reason to claim that we are in a separate category.

And yet you reposted the statement without correction.

We’ve run this experiment, and did not arrive at that result.

Nope. The states are undetermined. You can’t say one affects the other, because it’s not in a definite state. It does not, e.g. flip a particle from spin up to spin down. There is no interaction. It simply makes the state known, which is what you expect from a measurement. What you can say is that, because the correlation is already known, measuring the state of one particle tells you the state of both. All the information about both is in that one measurement.

“You might expect that this [distribution] would differ quite significantly between the three different sets of equations because they come from different places” … but you would be wrong to expect this. (it’s not “you expect” which is predictive. “you might expect” is cautionary) It’s what one could call a naive expectation. There are a limited number of mathematical forms, and relationships between variables are not random. Kinetic energy, for example, depends on speed squared. It’s not random. They’re related. Without knowing exactly what they looked at it’s impossible to know what the context is, but physics is interconnected in some interesting ways, so things that might seem random are not. And it’s ironic that you’re suggesting some deep meaning to this when you are arguing by quote mining, which is quite superficial and avoids deeper investigation. And “we don’t know” does not imply either some deep meaning, nor does it imply that something should not happen. You still have not shown that this shouldn’t happen, as you claimed.