swansont

One example of education breeding better education. If the parents don't know this information, they can't pass it along. Puts the kid behind others who know their way. If parents are illiterate, they aren't going to read to their children, which is something that boosts kids' education. If the parents are working multiple jobs, they might not have the time to read to their kids, or take them to the library. So poverty is an impediment. (and of course poverty has connections with racial inequality) In the US, the education system is funded by property taxes, so in poorer areas there is less funding. Not as many resources. Another way poverty is an impediment. (there are more, too. Health is anther factor. Nutrition.) Bootstrapping is possible, but it's still an impediment, regardless of how many examples one gives of people doing it. It's wrong to say barriers did not hinder people, if all you know is the result. All you can say is they did not stop them.

! Moderator Note Let's keep to the topic of calculus here. If you want to ask about this (or anything else), please open another thread (in physics, in this case)

If MSC chooses to return (with perhaps a slightly thicker skin), then perhaps they will be willing to do a little legwork to prove that we should have a these suggested subsections inside of philosophy by providing us with some statistics of how many e.g. logic threads exist already. Maybe going back a year. Along with some examples so we can check the data. In addition, they could also tag their thread titles (e.g. Some title [logic]) so we can track what happens. With that and other suggested subsections (Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics and Phenomenology) You seem to be missing the point. I didn't say we don't apply logic, or that we don't understand logic. I didn't say you don't need to understand logic to do science. I'm saying we don't have to have discussions about logic in order to do good science, which is the kind of discussion you would expect in a logic subsection. You can say the same for math. Physics uses a lot of math But you can have physics discussions independent of the math section, because you don't need to contemplate the purely math considerations. You are using the math, but you are not discussing the math. You can say you need to integrate the force dotted with displacement to get the work — that's a physics question — but that's not a discussion about what a dot product is, or what an integral is, which is what you might discuss in mathematics. IOW, we don't have a mathematics section because you need it to discuss physics. We have a mathematics section because there is a lot of traffic in people discussing mathematics. Which is why "Without logic, no science" is a non-sequitur for making the case of having a logic subforum.

"Military qualities"? Any evidence that evolution happens this quickly? And evidence that sexual dimorphism is disappearing? I'm pretty sure the average height of men is still greater than for women. And weight, strength, etc. We've been doing agriculture for many thousands of years. If it only takes 1000, then there should be none of these differences.

My work colleagues and I manage to do quite a lot of quality science without having discussions that would be put into a “logic” section. What happens when you get a contradiction of the premise in a logical argument?

Nobody is claiming that the site is free of the use of logic. Logic is not a required topic of discussion when discussing science. Feel free to peruse the science threads and see how many of them do not go into discussions of the finer points of logic. IOW, no logic ≠ no logic section But hey, nice strawman.

To follow up on this, the philosophy section has just under 29,000 posts. Physics, chemistry, biology, medical science and mathematics all have more. By a lot, in most cases. That’s one of the reasons they are broken down. Also because we’re a science discussion forum. We include philosophy (and other topics) because there is a natural spill-over in discussions. But the primary focus is science.

Bound systems require a decrease in energy. (If the KE exceeds the magnitude of the PE, the object in question can escape and is therefore not bound.) Normal matter clumps together because their interactions can easily dissipate energy and form bound systems. Gravitational interactions are really bad at dissipating energy. (Gravitational radiation is weak) That’s why DM tends not to clump, or would not (by itself) tend to form a black hole

A reminder that deleting threads on-demand is not our policy. We remove posts that violate the rules. Removal of other posts tends to gum up the discussion. You need to ponder before you post, or do your editing in the time before that option expires.

Tunnel has been banned as a sockpuppet Delberty, Drakes and Brahms

! Moderator Note I will, for the sake of keeping other discussion in line, note that some are even equating religion with literal interpretations of holy books (e.g. as represented by young-earth creationism)

No, not if it’s seawater, or of similar salinity ”Human kidneys can only make urine that is less salty than salt water. Therefore, to get rid of all the excess salt taken in by drinking seawater, you have to urinate more water than you drank. Eventually, you die of dehydration even as you become thirstier.” https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/drinksw.html

Drink all the salt water you want to.

! Moderator Note This is neither helpful nor on-topic ! Moderator Note And also this. Keep such observations to yourself. Also, if it wasn’t important, perhaps not mentioning it would be the best option, lest the discussion get sidetracked.

Desalination cost is only part of the retail cost of water. This doesn’t rebut my post; I don’t see why I was quoted.

redstone has been banned as a sockpuppet of Trần Thành, Energizer and the logic00x triplets

! Moderator Note Rules still require that you post the material here. Not just upload a file.

You misspelled “It’s aliens”

"Strange chemical in clouds of Venus defies explanation. Could it be a sign of life?" https://www.space.com/venus-clouds-possible-life-chemical-discovery.html

drumbo has been suspended for soapboxing and violating our civility rules

! Moderator Note Citation? This is a science discussion site. Please give responses based in science

Having an infinite number of universes does not equate to all things being possible.

logic001 has been banned as a sockpuppet of Trần Thành and Energizer edit: also the craftily-named logic002 edit2: and logic003

You say this as if it were relevant. And true. You can predict the result of raising the temperature of a gas without knowing the trajectory of each particle. You can predict how many particles will decay from a sample after a period of time without knowing the specifics of the particles. There is a lot you can quantify, without having to (or being able to) quantify other things. My point was that "we can't know everything" is not equivalent to "we know nothing" and you have done nothing to rebut that.

Then you meant "not being able to quantify everything" which is not at all the same as "not being able to quantify anything at all"