swansont

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.

There’s no use to trying to avoid political solutions, since everything will ultimately tie back to politics. At the very least an approach will have a cost, meaning it has to be paid for. And the willingness to pay is inherently political.

This smacks of equivocation. The problem of subjectivity is in meaning different things to different people. The fact that individuals formulate hypotheses does not make them subjective. It’s a manufactured objection, based on a tortured use of the definition. The fact that different individuals might come up with different hypotheses is a strength of science, not a weakness. It means more possibilities are tested. If the hypothesis is subjective - it has a different meaning that depends on the individual, that makes it a bad hypothesis. It would be better to not rely on people who have apparently never become acquainted with science. We tend to quantify things. A good match with data is what makes a good explanation. If you have these vague, subjective issues, it suggests the problem is with having a poor model, rather than a problem with the process of science

iPhone will do this, though I’m not sure of its veracity. Take a picture, drag the bottom of the photo up. There’s an option to ID plants, if it recognizes a plant.

We try to deal in facts, though. Your opinions are not worth much, by themselves

You should include a link when providing a quote. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7040264/#R3 The SLEP program assumes ideal storage conditions, and the article points out that “The bathroom and medicine cabinet are not ideal places to store medications due to heat and humidity”

How often do they change?

No, cherry-picking cannot be used to counter the argument. News often focuses on the unusual, so these become stories precisely because the are a small minority.

There is no guarantee that a system with multiple variables can have all of them optimized. Some variables are not independent, so optimizing one means another can’t be.

You’re the one that broached this, so how about you provide it? An op-ed does not add context.

Then what are you suggesting? And what evidence supports it?

An hypothesis you’ve made but not supported with evidence. But why shouldn’t the default be that prevailing paradigms are sufficient, since it’s actually quite rare that a new paradigm is needed? Paradigms are paradigms because of the massive amount of evidence that supports them. When your neutrino signal seems to exceed the speed of light, why wouldn’t you hypothesize an error with the signal in favor of immediately dumping a hugely successful theory?

The positive or negative aspects are separate from what it is.

Or you can use the standard general definition and recognize that there are different implementations of it, since there are many types.

An op-ed from a conservative columnist has to be taken with a fairly large grain of salt. It’s not exactly credible evidence. The US dept of Labor, for example, gives a different answer https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/equalpay/WB_issuebrief-undstg-wage-gap-v1.pdf “Using more detailed and expansive data than was previously available, the analysis shows that about a third of the gap between full-time, year-round working men and women’s wages can be explained by worker characteristics, such as age, education, industry, occupation, or work hours. However, roughly 70% cannot be attributed to measurable differences between workers. At least some of this unexplained portion of the wage gap is the result of discrimination, which is difficult to fully capture in a statistical mode”

Science is rife with experiments that saw unexpected things. Alpha particles bouncing back off of atoms. Quantized deflection of atoms in a magnetic field. Even seeing different masses fall at the same rate was unexpected. And this doesn’t include just observations that had no explanation at the time. How is that bias?

Quantum computers exist in the lab and there are allegedly commercial products available (D-Wave started selling one more than a decade ago, though I attended a talk from Bill Phillips, a Nobel prize-winner, who was dubious of their claims)

Design? I see no design or technical details.

IOW people who don’t know what they’re talking about say this. Not much of a basis for discussion. There is a biological imperative - a species will die out if there’s no procreation - but that’s not a “purpose” If it was the purpose, then there would be no need for women live past menopause, or for impotent people to live at all.

Is that the conventional wisdom? I don’t think your premise is true. There may be a few who believe this, but I don’t think it has widespread acceptance

It’s only subjective for precision beyond what the method/instrument can provide, and personal interpretation is used.

When we close threads it’s because the OP has failed to follow the rules in some way(s), and we try to be clear as to the reasons. This does not preclude anyone else from opening a thread on a similar topic that does not violate the rules (e.g. closed for lack of rigor or posting just a video? Go ahead and make a rigorous post in a new thread. Dangerous activity? No, since that would still violate the rules)