swansont

Rather than just posting such guesswork, one could search for actual scientific studies on the topic. We’re a science discussion site; it’s what we expect.

I think so. Most are. There would likely be a down-ballot effect if he’s not on the ballot; some republicans wouldn’t show up to vote, and thus not vote for state or local candidates. I imagine this would be appealed and SCOTUS might rule that it can’t apply to federal elections. Unlike their foot-dragging with the immunity issue, the’d probably act quickly.

Genetic does not necessarily mean inherited - mutations happen Inherited genetics can be recessive traits. There could be multiple alleles, and it could be that it’s not just one gene responsible. edit: xpost with CharonY This is an internet forum; it’s international. You might be posting from the US but others are not. As far as the first amendment is concerned, SFN is not an arm of the US government, so it does not apply. You need to follow the rules. It would behoove you to understand why

Washington state has a law about felons running for office https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/plot-twist-for-trump-wa-has-a-law-against-felons-running-for-office/

Not just TFG. We’ve seen it over and over again: politicians who aren’t “for” something (or are actively against it) until they personally experience a situation that brings the idea into focus. They lack the empathy and broadness of mind to conceive of motivations that are not ingrained in them already. Trump has just distilled it to a somewhat purer form and in a more visible way.

Line from Ken White, aka popehat “Susan Collins said it was outrageous that Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts since he clearly learned his lesson after the first one.”

! Moderator Note “I will explain why in my opinion” That’s a big NOPE, (this is not about opinion) along with our rule about not posting videos by themselves I think we’ve had enough here.

It’s not about honest belief. If the juror knew he was guilty but voted not guilty because they placed loyalty to Trump above their sworn duty as a juror, and dealing with any blowback. (Much like the modern GOP, placing duty to party above duty to country) Cruz is tacitly admitting that Trump is guilty (if that statement is accurate)

Since that’s what I was talking about, yes. Relevant? Possibly. But you did’t provide this information/context earlier (nor the Sagan quote), which is the problem.

How has he violated, or otherwise made a mockery of, the first amendment? Doesn’t matter to the MAGAts. Saying it was rigged is a trigger for the rabid response team. Rationality or factuality don’t enter into it.

How your quote addresses that is beyond me, seeing as it does not mention bias in any way. I don’t think anyone has argued that scientists are immune to bias. Certainly not the OP. Quite the opposite.

Perhaps we could get a definition of bias (or “biasness”), because I’m not seeing it. I thought bias was favoring or disfavoring a result in a way not justified by the evidence. I don’t see how e.g. studying string theory is bias, since nobody is saying it’s an actual model of anything, yet. It’s a work in progress. It’s not like it’s been shown to be wrong, and studied anyway. Funding of string theory is probably an example of bias.

So “anonymous” isn’t the key here. Then iNow’s suggestion works. Use anyone else’s phone.

Probably, but not because he’s shown contrition and shown that he’s “learned his lesson” If it’s just a fine, which someone else will pay, is that enough for interfering with an election?

it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence. So while I’m sure you think you have a point, by not providing enough discussion and context, you have not made it apparent.

My turn? You have yet to provide any. And I can’t provide evidence of things that didn’t happen - i.e. bias avoided. Truth sounds like the situation with SJ Gould’s definition of “fact” “In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” IOW, the body of evidence is massive, so overturning it requires a significant amount of evidence. An observation or two won’t suffice; the first approach would be looking for confounding conditions, like a strong wind or someone throwing the apples, should you see one rising. You would not just throw out the concept of gravity based on that. So yes, the laws of thermodynamics would be such Truths. If someone presented you with a device purporting to be over-unity, the first order of business would be to look for the hidden battery, as opposed to chucking thermodynamics in the dustbin. “Why is dimreepr a distracting source of pithy commentary instead of actually adding to the discussion?” — me

Many other republicans wouldn’t support him had he continued, in stark contrast with the current cult known as the GOP. You can’t be a member these days unless you declare the 2020 election stolen and myriad other “alternate truths” As compromised as the Roberts court is, it’s not laid out in the Constitution so this isn’t their fault. It’s the republican in congress who failed to convict him when he was impeached, or otherwise hold him accountable.

! Moderator Note Be mindful of rule 2.1 here. Tread carefully.

But not scientific bias - you come up with the same answer.

Interpretations are personal preference; I don’t see how that’s bias. What is the evidence that this is happening? What is “taboo” in science, other than concepts that have already been shown to be wrong? Is it bias to e.g. dismiss perpetual motion? Or have we established the bona-fides of the laws of thermodynamics well enough that we don’t need to waste time on unsubstantiated claims?

! Moderator Note These are not issues of modern physics, and we prefer one topic per thread. Try again.

I was responding to MigL’s points; what I want to know is how they are examples of bias, and the evidence that the bias is in the scientific process. It takes more than finger-pointing. There are reasons to support the notion that light is a particle, and that it’s a wave. Where is the bias? It has rejected ideas that did not meet with prevailing thought, but that could be because there was insufficient evidence to challenge it. What we need is evidence, and not just accusation or innuendo.

It’s not bias to support a model that has evidence supporting it. In a similar vein, one should be able to show evidence if bias, rather than just an article which lays out claims of bias. And a “champion of links to studies and citations and references on this forum” might be expected to provide an actual link.

It can only hide behind the sun for a few months at most.

The number would still be traceable to a business, which might indicate to the recipient who called.