Jump to content

Phi for All

Moderators
  • Posts

    21331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    104

Everything posted by Phi for All

  1. ! Moderator Note You need to go back and read where this has been done. If you don't understand it, ask a question. If you continue to ignore replies that are doing exactly as you ask here, I'm going to have to close this thread.
  2. I changed from wanting to smoke a cigarette to NOT wanting to smoke a cigarette by changing the appeal in my mind, but I doubt that would work with something as complex as sexuality.
  3. The harm is more abstract but >0, imo. Your relative is working on a redefinition they can apply to virtually any situation, on the assumption that CLO is "true" (based on further assumptions about Ki, Chi, and Chakras are also true). Arguments like these are impervious to facts or observation due largely to their vague and encompassing nature (use the box enough but not too much). The more they apply this misinformation in their lives, the higher the probability it will adversely affect their choices. They'll ignore when it doesn't hold true and revel in the times when it seems to work. And there's the argument that your relative should have spent these resources on understanding mainstream science (that website represent a LOT of sunk cost). Most(?) folks run up against something they can't figure out quickly and assume it must be complex or counterintuitive or sophisticated, and they dig deeper. The ones who assume it's wrong start making things up based only on what they know, so everything about their ideas makes perfect sense to them, yet they can't really explain it to anyone who understands the science. As long as they aren't changing their entire lives to accommodate these "insights", I suppose there's no harm. If they really are seeing "patients" and selling miracle cures though, I wouldn't feel right about it. If my relative became convinced they had designed an over-unity device and were prepared to invest their life's savings, I'd do what I could to show them they're wrong.
  4. Deconstruction is possible, but usually when folks start making up science, correcting bits of it doesn't make them question their premise, and they end up thinking they're still right but their ideas need more work. You can explain what's really happening when you put your hand near a computer monitor, but it won't dissuade your relative that at least some of their ideas are also at work. Using words like "truth" wrt science is a red flag, and one we've found particularly difficult to discuss. Claiming theories can be true shows a lack of understanding about what theory means in science. So many folks think science is looking for Truth, and that a theory is just a "best guess". The methodology used is very sloppy, and reaches conclusions without addressing other possible explanations (when you put your hand below your waist near a monitor playing a particular video, it turns red because of CLO?, or if you stand in front of the monitor for 15 minutes your sinuses will be clearer?). There is so much woo entwined around the points made. I would assume this relative is emotionally invested in their concepts, so critical thinking and reasoning will only take you so far. In my experience, when someone comes to conclusions based on what they want to be right, reason alone can make them more convinced they're onto something big.
  5. This is all true, but this also describes what a theory is doing. Models need to represent a phenomenon, to show what the explanation is talking about. They should provide a valid approximation of the behavior as a perspective on the phenomenon. Like Eddington using spherical cows to illustrate a particular aspect or insight.
  6. ! Moderator Note A scientific model is the representation of a phenomenon, rather than a verbal explanation. You could use visual models like charts, or a computer simulation, for example. Building a physical model is difficult at the levels you're discussing, but that's another example of a model. Using maths to represent how the phenomenon is calculated is the perfect tool at the quantum level. Without any of these, you don't have a model. This is an hypothesis at best, and several members are trying to help you shore it up where it's falling apart, despite your best efforts to ignore them.
  7. ! Moderator Note Please stop posting just to tell people to read what you wrote. Everyone has read it, and they're asking for clarity about the parts that are unclear or observably untrue. Focus on answering the very valid questions being posed to you. And you keep mentioning a model but we've seen no maths.
  8. Evomumbojumbo has been banned for bad faith arguments, soapboxing, and a pattern of ignoring mainstream replies to creationist arguments. Nobody has time to waste trying to diminish ignorance in a mind that's closed to such efforts.
  9. ! Moderator Note Actually, you started getting reported the minute you started side-stepping mainstream replies. Nobody wants to waste time on these same tired waffles, but you were at least civil about it, so the mods actually protected you from getting the boot earlier. We'll say bye bye and let you bow out gracefully now that your arguments are falling apart. Please remember to remove the refuted parts of your argument from future discussions, at other science discussion forums.
  10. I think a better setup is to have the gents talking about forgetfulness. The first one mentions forgetting an anniversary, the second one tells him about a memory course he took that uses word association to help you remember things. "What was the name of the course?" the first one asks. The second one thought and thought and finally said, "What's the name of that flower with the thorns?" Etc, etc, etc. Heaven's guardian is forgetting his Grimms'. "...a skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood, and hair as black as ebony". St Finger should have wagged his peter at her and denied her admittance.
  11. ! Moderator Note And many will never know because they approved the rule that requires you to paste your information here or give us an overview. When you're ready to comply, please open another thread.
  12. ! Moderator Note I asked you to follow the rules and give an overview of your concept so people don't have to click your links or open your documents. Or there's no reason why you can't copy/paste the whole thing right here so people can participate more easily.
  13. It's pretty common for people using faith to believe to torture definitions of scientific studies they don't agree with. You start with the assumption that your religious beliefs are correct, and then redefine the science. Science, OTOH, looks at the evidence and formulates explanations based on reason, so what we believe is much more trustworthy.
  14. ! Moderator Note Identical topics merged. Please give us an overview, since members must be able to participate without downloading anything or leaving the site. Please explain how you've addressed the previous concerns.
  15. I typically have a tab open to the forums home page to show me who's online, major topics, and status updates. I have a second tab open to Unread Content, and rarely look at All Activity, but lately I'm reading more and not posting as much.
  16. I think All Activity is reporting where you post, so eventually it will stop loading threads you aren't active in anymore.
  17. Exploration by civilized societies has almost always begun with a national effort to pave the way, followed by private enterprise once the paths have been established. Most of the interactions with space outside satellite orbits these days are still done by country-financed agencies (NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, JAXA, to name a few). You should be focusing on the political changes necessary to nationalize the construction of infrastructure off planet. IOW, set up the harvesting of asteroids to mine metals for use in other outer space ventures without trying to make a profit and minimize the costs. Focus on building rather than making money, so that we pave the way for money-making ventures. I would recommend starting with a global solar grid that everyone can use for cheap electricity, to show the world how well some surgically applied socialism could work.
  18. You don't need to include everything when you claim the list is "pretty all-encompassing". It's not, btw. Word games aren't the equal of reasoning. And I didn't say your post was worthless, just the list. It would still be more reasonable for you to establish your claims about the "human value system" before you start listing what people value.
  19. It does NOT go both ways. You made an extraordinary claim ("children are much more malicious and all around disgusting than adults") that needs extraordinary support. Or you could do the intellectually honest thing and concede that perhaps you over-generalized in your attempts to build your argument.
  20. Probably billions of important things, which makes this list worthless. Whoa there, cart before the horse. You need to establish the latter before claiming the former. You should start a thread on why you think the human value system needs reformation first. What's the value of producing a "quick composite" list of things people care about? It's unending and ever-changing. And your list focuses on a predominately negative perspective on what people care about, so your biases further erode any worth.
  21. Well, maybe not great, but noteworthy, interesting, and worth more intellectually than conjecture.
  22. I also think humans are important, but for completely different reasons, and from a multitude of perspectives.
  23. This is General Philosophy, not generalization philosophy. An assertion like this needs some evidence to back it up, and not simple anecdote. Citation from a peer-reviewed study would be great.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.