swansont

If someone had demonstrated one, it would be big news, yet no such news seems to exist. Do you have information to the contrary? Science is provisional. We will overturn the prevailing view when there is compelling evidence to do so. But it takes a lot, (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say) when there is so much evidence that the prevailing view is correct. Conservation of energy is a consequence of time translation symmetry (from Noether’s theorem) and there’s no evidence that the laws of physics are changing over time. The ultimate response here is going to be to ask for the evidence: where is it? We kind of expect people to do their own analysis. Not doing it means you won’t (i.e. laziness) or you can’t (lack of knowledge of the math snd/or physics) Either way, that’s your shortcoming, and your job to fix it. We’re happy to help but you have to ask rather than assert. Someone showing up making assertions but without the requisite background knowledge is a rather mundane occurrence. The only difference is the specific implementation, but beyond that it’s kind of boring.

These were known prior to LIGO; theory predicted it and the decay of the orbit of PSR B1913+16 (the Hulse-Taylor pulsar) was experimental confirmation of gravitational radiation, which requires the first two. But none of this confirms the graviton.

Indeed, since nobody has ever demonstrated one, one could easily argue the arrogance lies with the person claiming to be the first to have finally designed one.

Now you're moving the goalposts “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” Science isn't your personal domain, so this isn't a personal choice. If you said “for me, god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”]” that's one thing; that would be a personal choice. But that's not what you said.

You say that as if it matters. Right or wrong isn’t the issue, and people not doing science is irrelevant. Your assertion was “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” so you already defined the scope as people doing science. Who clearly lived 500 years before modern science was developed, so I’m not seeing your point. Just seeing the tap-dancing

Verified by whom? The local substance abuse champion?

It assumes the existence of a god, when there’s no scientific evidence of one. The issue isn't whether it’s true, it’s whether it has scientific merit, i.e. that “god did it is just as viable an answer [as “I don’t know”] in science” You need testable hypotheses in science. But there are wrong ways to think, if one is doing science.

! Moderator Note WTF is this non-sequitur? If someone says they like dogs, it does not mean they hate cats.

The national teamsters union. A lot of locals have endorsed Harris. https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/09/18/harris-local-teamsters-2024-trump

Another factor in this is time spent in the sun without or with little sunscreen. Really does a number on you over the years. Some people still like getting a tan, but higher SPF sunscreen is available and more people use it.

! Moderator Note Please take care not to malign an entire religion (in violation of rule 2.1) when your target is a political group. i.e. not all Jews are Israelis, and not all Israelis support their government’s actions.

Does it say this?Or is it just an inference that requires you to believe also that carnivores were vegans, too? Moved to ethics, because of the title.

I didn’t consider “Evil" refers to adversity in general, such as natural disasters. to be a definition. As a definition, as you say, it’s pathetically insufficient.

So nature is evil? Good soil and the right amount of rain for your crops is evil? Perhaps you’d share the definition of evil that you’re using.

How can natural disasters be evil? There’s no choice, no intent. Nature is indifferent.

…but that’s not the flat-earth that they propose. There are many flaws with the flat earth model; no need to create strawman arguments.

e.x.? What doe the e and x stand for? Did you mean e.g. (exempli gratia)?

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your youtube channel violates rule 2.7

! Moderator Note Not sure why this is in the Lounge, or even what the discussion is supposed to be. You’re just listing characteristics of games. Are you asking if anyone can think of more characteristics?

I will not comment when you are so easily switching between definitions of subjective, because I can’t be sure what you mean It’s a statement that uses a definition of subjective that is not the definition indicated in the OP’s contrast between being objective and subjective. It’s kind of pointless to use the second definition; all science involves people using their minds. In that sense of the word it’s all subjective, so there’s nothing to discuss. But the discussion was framed as subjective as opposed to objective, i.e. whether interpretation or feeling is in play.

Roe said the former president's movement was considered "off the record," meaning it wasn't on his public calendar that he'd be at the Trump International Golf Club on Sunday. https://abc11.com/post/Ryan-Wesley-Routh-court-donald-trump-apparent-assassination-attempt/15309084/ It’s possible it wasn’t announced for security reasons. Oh the nine-irony

What’s the morality of driving on the left vs right side of the road?

TFG golfing there wasn’t on his public schedule, so it’s not a given that this guy even knew he was there. One might expect a presidential candidate to be out campaigning.

The definition that applies to the topic is (a) and what is being used is (b), which is exactly the situation the fallacy of equivocation refers to The author’s context does exclude it. Again, this is not the definition that was being used in the original discussion.

This ignores the fact that the US is the outlier, by a wide margin, and that the utility of schools is greater than what you learn in class.