Sayonara

Ha, not intending to mark your posts for spelling and grammar at all I think maybe you misinterpret slightly. We may not fully understand the brain mechanisms behind abstract thought (and I use "may not" there because I honestly don't know how well it is understood; not my field), but as long as we all subscribe to the same definition then we can discuss it in a consistent manner. It's the same for any technical term in any given field. If someone comes along and uses a different definition in the discussion, then they are referring to a different mechanism and/or effects. Which essentially means a different discussion. This can be particularly problematic in an academic discussion because if the variance in definitions is not immediately noticeable, one runs the risk of attracting fallacy accusations.

It still matters, because if we use different definitions in the same discussion, then we are talking about different things. Quite possibly. Probably there are some who have the facility but fail to consciously engage it. It is of course not limited to that area. But when you responded to Lucaspa you were replying to the words "by noting that the required intelligence requires a large and complex brain in order to contemplate abstract thought. Dogs don't have the required brain", which clearly do reflect consideration of that (or similar) topic. It's per se, Latin for "by itself". Not a criticism, just so you know what you are saying Whether or not psychologists understand how they themselves think is no basis for discarding or misusing the descriptive framework which they and others use in their area of expertise. It's a feature of the forums. Since a few months ago, any consecutive posts made in a thread by the same user are automatically merged, and the "new post" marker updated. It helps with spam control and makes things generally more tidy.

So your approach is to pick a word and then glue it to the meaning you want it to have. Good work! See, what I did there was say "good", but contrary to any reasonable expectations you might have had, I have arbitrarily redefined it to mean "crap". If you are talking about abstract thought in terms of behavioural or cognitive psychology you need to use the definitions that are considered to be conventional in that field. Otherwise you cannot have a meaningful exchange.

That's not abstract thought - coherence and logical structure may well be employed, but they do not characterise it. The defining characteristic of abstraction is the distancing of concepts from objects. Be aware that a thesaurus or dictionary is not a technical reference for [insert topic here].

I know it was the way you posted it, that was my point. I don't really think I need to research anything. It was actually meant to be humorous. I imagined you baking parallel trays of chocolate and TNT cookies, then testing them in the bath.

Shouldn't that be "Chocolate chip cookies have 8 times the energy of TNT cookies"?

As Dak says, post your questions in the most appropriate forum. There is always "General Science" if you can't decide which. As always, if there is proportional interest in a topic, we'll open a sub-forum. It's just not worth the extra work for a handful of threads! "If you build it, they will come" would be nice, but we have tried it and it doesn't really work that way

I said lack of use, not absence of use. As you will be well aware if you have ever glanced at the "Why is there no forum for...?" thread in the Suggestions and Comments forum, we strictly avoid maintaining or creating sub-forums for which there is only a trickle demand, and we are happy to accommodate a handful of such discussions in other, perhaps less appropriate, sub-forums. If enough demand arises, requested forums will (re)appear. Believe me, the Philosophy of Science sub-forum has been discussed extensively amongst the SFN Staff. It was not closed on a whim. Touché. I have to say I don't think it is particularly intuitive for a user to discuss a scientific theory in one sub-forum, but have to go seeking out another thread in another sub-forum (a thread which may not exist) in order to discuss the implications, applications, etc. We are quite happy for such on-topic discussion to occur in the "hard science" areas. To justify the depth decisions that we make when we add sub-forums, we need actual demand. Not the presence of a few dozen dead threads and a handful of live discussions which might be relevant, but demand. And that is why we have the "Why is there no forum for...?" thread. It is where those demands should be directed.

Actually, the Philosophy of Science section - like so many subforums - was closed due to lack of use, so perhaps the need you describe is simply not something people on this site actually have. I don't see how you can start out at "the religion forum was taken off the science site" and get to "science has been limited to boring facts". Which is fine, but the fact remains - this thread is somewhat off-topic. I don't particularly disagree with much of what you said in your unnecessarily extensive post. In fact I am all for much of it (except the bits I commented on, obviously). BUT... you have been here long enough to know that: a) if you are diverting a thread into a new discussion that has both merit and interest, the polite thing to do is start a new thread, and b) if you have concerns about changes to the site, there is usually at least one thread devoted to discussing those changes, not to mention an entire "suggestions and comments" forum. I don't intend to have a protracted argument about this.

As is the case with most of the requests in this thread, we don't get enough posts on those subjects to warrant another sub-forum. As per usual, if posts on those subjects increase enough, they'll be accommodated in their own corner.

This thread has lost its way somewhat.

I was under the impression the dead outnumber the living about 30:1

Heh heh

Since we opened we have had a mere handful of geological topics discussed... the geology threads are fine in the General Sciences forum for now. Maybe if a load of geologists arrive we will make a forum for it, and we might even get to find out why it rocks.

The difference is that the latter is merely one of many components of the former, and a seemingly optional one at that. But that is all off-topic.

Can I remind all users that this thread is for common acronyms, which one is likely to come across on these forums and which may affect the meaning of posts. It is meant to be a resource. It's not for any old junk like "IAGTRNSL - I am going to Raymond's Now, Speak Later".

http://www.softscienceforums.net

What would go in there?

If you have been banned from other forums before, then presumably you have some idea of what to avoid. Cheers. We do our best

And off-topic.

Next time I see him on messenger I'll see if he's going to come back and continue the discussion.

Right, let's try this again. Neither - it is ending evidence to disprove [a] generic criticism of evolution, which may be of interest to anti-evolution creationists.

It was good, wasn't it? Nobody ever notices my puns. I'm impressed

It was a simple question, Newtonian.