zapatos

Um, I think you misused the colon.

I think this is too complicated an issue to be decided by whether or not they are 'entitled'. What is the impact of the law? Are funds available? If additional funds to pay for brand names is raised, will it impact other areas? Who should make the determination? Doctors? Patients? Governments? How much of a decrease in drug effectiveness is acceptable? Is it worth listening to people bitch about it? How does this affect the politics of those involved? You probably need a method that is sustainable, effective, and delivers maximum benefit with an acceptable amount of downside. After you've done this, you can feel comfortable telling grandma that she just has to live with what she is given. As an aside, my insurance plan insists on first prescribing generics, but then the doctor has the authority to use other brands if the effectiveness of the generic was not acceptable to him.

Did he tell you anything about the spaceship other than where it would be?

I tend to think you'd quickly run into problems if this was true. For example, let's say that I perceive the apple as red and am told it is red. You perceive the apple as black but are also told it is red. All other colors we perceive the same and have the same name for. We are now asked to pick from a color pallette the color which seems to be a lighter shade of the color of the apple. I pick pink, which we both agree is pink, and you pick gray, which we both agree is gray. At that point we realize that we perceive colors differently. I think if we perceive colors differently we would have people constantly criticizing the clothes we picked for the day. Which is exactly what happened with my dad who was color blind. It was obvious to the whole family that he did not perceive colors as we did.

That was a great explanation! I'd give you +2 if I could.

So are you hurt that I had the temerity to question your proclamation on atheism? Let me know next time you are speaking ex cathedra so I know which statements of yours are infallible.

My apologies for commenting on a public forum. I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to speak unless spoken to.

For me this place is very much a learning resource. I understand how you two use this site, but my interest in science is more casual, and I am not going to apply it at work or in school. Everything I hear all day long I look at with a critical eye, whether it is someone's interpretation of Relativity or directions to a concert. It is not so much an overt process, but I always consider the source, weigh the risks of accepting the information as given, and determine whether further research is required or whether to just move on with what I've been told. At this point I know the credentials of you two well enough to be comfortable accepting that what you speak of with confidence is likely correct. While I would not accept what you say without checking if I was designing a new wing for a fighter jet, I am not likely to check up on what you tell me if I only have a casual interest in it.

I do see your point and believe it to be valid. The problem I see is that while you may very well be using the 'correct' definition of the word, that does not buy you much if the masses are using it differently. Common usage drives the definitions of words. Clearly not everyone is using it the way you are. When I was a kid, being gay only meant you were happy. "I'm not superstitious, but I am a little bit stitious." -Steve Carell

No, the problem is that you are telling me it is a problem to look up the word atheism if I want the definition of the word atheism. It gives me the same uneasy feeling I get when the mechanic tells me my car won't start but doesn't want me to try turning the key.

Completely agree. There are many ways to help you determine if information is valid. I am simply saying that researching someone's credentials is one of them. And if I do a Google search on this topic, I am still going to look at the credentials of the web site I land on. (Was it MIT.com or pseudoscience.com?)

Rigney said: To which you replied: You are the one who declared him an atheist. I think it is rather disingenuous of you to claim that I was wrong to look up the definition of the word you used to describe rigney. You used a lot of hand waving to trick me into ignoring the definition from Wikipedia of the word 'atheism' and instead use your personal definition. I think the fact you did that supports my view that the definition is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. If it is that clear, then why didn't Wikipedia say it like that?

I don't think it is as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Atheism is not a scientific unit of measure that does not vary. The meaning of words varies over time and location. Or, as in the example below from Wikipedia, it varies within the same paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism In the broad sense as defined above, you have to reject belief in the existence of deities. Saying you are not sure would not make you an atheist. In the most inclusive sense as defined above, you simply need lack of belief in deities. Saying you are not sure then would make you an atheist.

Your point is valid and I believe you are correct. When making a pursuasive argument, merit and content reign supreme. There are however different types of situations to consider. For example, I was looking at the thread "Why does light bend during acceleration?" and it contained the following: First from Elfmotat: Followed by this from DrRocket: I don't know who to believe. I know that their credentials won't guarantee who is correct and who is not, but if I determined that one of them had a PhD in physics and the other was an avid reader of science fiction, I would have some useful information. Similarly if I am on a jury and the prosecution brings in an expert witness on 'cause of death', one who has relevant PhD's and years of experience up the wazoo, while the defense brings in an expert on cosmology, I think their credentials are important. Har! Very clever. +1

I saw no appeal to authority in this thread, although I do believe there is one appeal to ridicule.

You are welcome. What evidence are you basing that on?

No one has made the claim there is absolutely nothing in space. You are arguing against no one. I can't tell where you are going with this thread. You ask questions, people answer, you reject their answers without evidence, and don't offer alternatives. What is it you want? I'm also curious about you explanation for moving through things. Presumably moving through wood is harder than moving through water, which in turn is harder than moving through air, all due to decreased density. But then at the point where we have the least density of all (empty space) you claim that suddenly movement is impossible. How does that work? If there was only one atom in a given space, could we move through it then? What suddenly happens to space when it becomes completely empty?

That would be a pretty small computer.

Quite serious. Twelve years of Catholic school for me, eight for my wife, twelve for my kids, two nuns and two priest in my extended family. My wife is one of eleven kids due to her mother's strict Catholic stance. In other words, I've had heavy exposure to Catholics as friends, family, parents of the friends of my kids, in schools, in social settings, etc. A generally middle class group of people, more or less centered around Missouri, USA. Based on that exposure, I would guess that fewer than 5% of the Catholics I have known base their beliefs or actions on what the Vatican has to say. They seem generally to have been influenced by their Catholic upbringing (as have I) but as a whole I'd say they think for themselves. A small example is that I have about five openly gay extended family members, who along with their partners are treated exactly as any other family members are. Two of them are sons of my extremely Catholic mother-in-law. My exposure to Catholics is one of the reasons I often find myself defending religion in various threads, even though I am an atheist. Many people here joyfully rip into religion, and my exposure to it (which I realize may not be representative) has been almost all positive.

I was raised Catholic and most Catholics I know also don't give a spit for what the Vatican thinks.

Maybe someone is trying to get your goat because they think you are a bit of a curmudgeon. Did you get something similar on the day the earth returned to its orbital position corresponding to the day of your birth?

If two people explain the subject in a clear and concise manner, but tell me opposing things, the person with the doctorate conveys more trust than the person without. The person's credentials don't trump all else, but they are a useful piece of information.

I just bought it and will be starting it soon. I'll let you know what I think. Thanks for the recommendation!

I agree also. While no one is right simply because of their credentials, knowing what someone's credentials are helps a great deal. The more I understand the background of the person explaining something I'm not familiar with, the easier it makes my life. If it is a fairly standard scientific principle they are explaining, I will probably investigate further if a layperson is explaining, and will probably not investigate further if an expert was explaining it. It is lower risk to take the word of an expert than a layperson. My wife is more of an expert on me than my neighbor. If they both give me the name of a book to read, who is more likely to have made a good selection for me? I can't investigate everything myself; I'd never get anything else done. Knowing someone's credentials helps a lot if I know nothing else about them.

When my kids were little we used to negotiate our way through dinner. Kids: Can I be done now? Us: Finish your food. Kids: How about if I have two more bites of potatos and a piece of the meat. Us: Eat the rest of your peas, some meat, and finish your milk. Kids: Can I eat all of the potatos, meat and milk, and then skip the peas? Us: Grrrrr.