Phi for All

In this discussion, how much do you learn by guessing from your novice status, then rejecting replies that are trying to correct you? What you see as "taking the time to learn" comes off more like "stop telling me I'm wrong until I'm finished explaining my idea!". If you were building a house instead of a hypothesis, I'd let you know right away that you screwed up the foundation, and I'd advise you NOT to build any further upon it. And I'd hope you'd thank me for it instead of giving me so much pushback. In science, we're looking for evidence that either supports or falsifies a particular explanation. Opinion has very little meaning there. But hey, every new actor wants to tackle Shakespeare. How hard can it be, really?

How is that an analogy for the topic? AFAICT, people asking you to use their preferred pronouns aren't responding like this at all. They're clearly telling you that it makes them uncomfortable because they don't identify with those gender labels. They're not saying "Stop saying that, you're making me suffer for reasons I won't elaborate on and are none of your business!" Haven't they been elaborating about their reasoning all along, and asking you to make it your business as well? Honestly, I can imagine all this happening to the first guy who tried to tell people his name is spelled differently. Geoffrey: "Actually, I prefer a different spelling. It's not Jeffrey. I spell it Geoffrey." MigL's Great-Great-Grandpa: "Hey, around here we spell it 'Jeffrey', so that's how I'm going to spell your name. You look more like a Jeffrey than a Geoffrey! Are you gonna call the cops if I get it wrong?" Geoffrey: "Of course not, but that's not how I want it spelled. I'm having it written this way in all my legal documents, and asking people to spell it correctly. If you spell it with a J it will be wrong. Why do you want to spell MY name YOUR way?" Koti's G-G-G: "Jeffrey is the way it's always been spelled, and so what if that offends you? I'm basically blameless if I stick to tradition, Jeffrey. Jeffrey! Jeffrey! Jeffrey! Wait, you have to call me Oodiladido from now on!"

As an example, when she was part of the McCain ticket in 2008, many people worried about Sarah Palin and her religious stances, and whether she could put aside her deeply held beliefs that an apocalypse is prophesied in the Bible if she was ever put into the position of deciding to pursue nuclear warfare or not. Based on her past stances, many thought she would only be pretending to consider it a choice. And if you're not Catholic, or believe in a religion that claims the Earth is only thousands of years old instead of billions, how do you find success in biology or another field that requires a healthy understanding of the evolutionary process? How can you simultaneously believe your deity created your species out of dust AND that millions of years ago all us vertebrates were tiny fishes, without pretense of some kind?

That's why I offered "accept". It could basically mean you accept their rights to a particular religious belief system. It doesn't have to mean you accept it as gospel. It has a more affirmative meaning than "tolerate", which seems more neutral to negative, while not being as positive as "respect". In the case of a funeral, I would say you "respect" the individual's wishes, you "accept" that they worshipped in a way you never did, and you "tolerate" the religious aspect that you feel isn't necessary for you to "respect" your acquaintance. You're not an adherent, you understand that they are though, and think enough of the deceased to participate in a way you think they'd appreciate. This hopefully removes any perceived obligation on your part to adhere to religious practices.

You don't seem to be making a distinction between people's rights to an opinion and people's right to point out why an opinion is shitty and wrong. To analogize, nobody is knocking the dinner plate from anyone's hands, they're just pointing out the unhealthy dietary choices piled high there. This seems to be similar to some posters who come here and claim censorship when all that happened was their idea met criticism. Nobody is removing what's been said; instead, what's been said is being held to the fire and found lacking.

I would classify this as wishful thinking. If it helps you in thinking about death, and doesn't cause you to change the way you live your life, I see no harm in it.

Something I had to do was split my belief system into three parts: Explanations I trust, explanations I wish were true, and explanations I accept on faith. Science gives me a methodology that produces information I can trust, and I feel the explanations for various phenomena derived from that method are the strongest parts of my beliefs. OTOH, I wish what you're saying here about consciousness were true, but I have nothing to support that belief except hope. There's no evidence that our consciousness survives the death of our body and brain. There is very little to nothing I believe using faith, since that requires me to ignore evidence to the contrary. Some people think faith is the strongest form of belief, but I think it's the weakest.

Trust me on this, it's your blind spots that will cause you the most woe as you get older. The longer you take to find them, the more shocking and disruptive they'll be when they're uncovered. Ignorance is bliss until it's suddenly not.

Do you have a way to determine whether these people are asking for "respect", or just "tolerance" of their beliefs? It sounds like you give an "acknowledgement" that they have a right to their beliefs, so maybe that's all they're asking for in many cases. Does "respect" mean you have to "accept" their beliefs as valid? There seems to be enough terms to describe behavior on a spectrum, and thus be more accurate in descriptions.

Good heavens! What a suggestion! And I was thinking of adding a poll....

The industry doesn't seem to have commissioned any studies on safety that I can find. Personally, I use self-storage as a capitalism barometer. If I have to store stuff outside my home, I have too much stuff.

So you disagree with my interpretation of the phrase you used, but agree that phrases like it have the potential for misuse. I hope I have that right. I don't think the phrase has a problem with interpretation, context, or intent. I think the phrase can mask a weak argument, that's all, and it's often used to prop up a stance that has nothing else to keep it going. "Suffering fools" is like flipping a coin where you get to claim "Heads I win, tails you lose".

It's interesting what another culture thinks is flattering. Here we say "kissing someone's ass", which at least is assumed to be mildly pleasant for the flatteree, and somewhat drier.

In my experience, the way their arguments usually run, it appears they think scientists just explain things in the way that makes the most sense to them, because a theory is just a guess anyway, right? I think this is part of why they think other scientists are "hidebound" to their own "answers", as opposed to trusting explanations that use a preponderance of our best current evidence. Nor are you ever likely to be invited to. I'm fairly conservative when it comes to my clothes.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations, which means let's see some supportive evidence.

Is it egotistical if I want you to understand a fine point that only comes from a layered approach to the subject, and I feel the terms you're using are leading you to conclusions you wouldn't make if you DID grasp it? It's not like I get a commission for every person I convert to mainstream science. Overly sensitive I can live with, it's definitely true wrt measurements, definitions, and critical thinking. But it's not for any reasons of ego or offense. It's because when people claim things like "I have a theory", or "It's only a theory", it's clear they have NO IDEA what a theory is, or how strong a theory in science is, and it makes my ass twitch until I can correct them, because they'll NEVER appreciate science as long as they think theory means "my best guess". For example, I learned, from discussion with scientists here, that using the term "reality" the way you do is slightly misleading, so I try to avoid it (and I sometimes nitpick others about it). It's hinting at a concept of "realness" that might be different from what we observe in nature. You can talk about reality in philosophical terms, but when I'm thinking as a scientist, I think "natural universe" rather than "reality". Something we don't stress enough here is that we attack ideas, not people. We do it the way the wind tries to blow down a plant, and in doing so strengthens the stalk and makes it able to grow taller and stronger. People aren't dumb, but can say and do dumb things. These distinctions are important here, and part of the civility we want to maintain. I'm sorry if you've ever felt attacked personally, it's not our way, but it's also difficult sometimes to admit that our ideas are not us. Remember that most ideas are wrong, always have been, and it takes a good system or process to separate the signal from all that noise. Those folks are already lost to resentment because college-educated 22-year-olds got promoted above them despite their experience, and then in the last 20 years those executives took all their benefits and sent their jobs overseas. The best I can do now is not talk down to them while also not sinking to Trump's level, and support free education and better access to it for all people whenever I vote. Most of the folks who come here with a second grade education find their place in discussion by asking questions. You don't have to be well-educated or supremely skilled in the language to point out where you're confused. Those folks never seem to get the same kind of pushback as those who come here with their personal "theories" and wild-ass guesses about alternative philosophies. They usually learn a lot.

The reason the overly sensitive don't want to get involved in science is often because they take corrections like this personally, rather than in the spirit of learning they're steeped in. Every one of us here is hopefully filling the gaps in their ignorance with trustworthy, objective explanations derived from methodical and patient study of science.

You're exemplifying a major problem we have in science: trying to be as clear and precise in our definitions and measurements as possible, while others insist that their mistakes and flaws be forgiven or ignored. This leads to inexcusable inaccuracies and a corruption of reason.

I see it as more of a fallacious argument, where it isn't necessarily wrong, but it often leads to wrong conclusions. It's dangerous because it places the person who uses it in an unassailable position ("You're the fool, I'm not, and I get to define your behavior as I choose"). If the phrase is used instead of critical thinking and reasoned response, I think it's being misused. It's a phrase that can mask a weak reply. Like any fallacy, the danger is accepting it blindly. Slippery Slope is like that; burning a book doesn't always lead to burning more books, but it happens so often that it seems like a strong argument. You also have to be careful with those who claim to be "skeptics". Like "suffer no fools", claiming skepticism puts the claimant in a position of judgement over others, and makes them the arbiter of what's right/wrong/foolish, and MAY cause others to look less closely for a valid argument from them. Does that make sense? I'm not saying your phrase is always misused, it just has a very high potential for it.

It is not applicable, therefore saying it doesn't make sense in this case is like saying my car fails at transportation because it can't get me from Denver to Sydney, Australia. It's a shady argument, imo, since it not really applicable. Does that make sense?

! Moderator Note The understanding you're talking about has NOTHING to do with science, since you'd need to support your concept first. If you continue to bring up your concept of gods, I will move this to Religion.

Are we talking about your opinion on the pronouns I prefer? Are you saying the way you'd prefer to address me trumps how I feel about it? This is the other half of the coin that keeps getting ignored so it's repeated over and over. Now it's time to mention how you're going to be jailed over this soon. I think you're purposely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the arguments you don't like.

Railing against an unjust law for aspects it doesn't cover is a zombie strawman. You need to burn it, then chop it into little bitty pieces over and over to make sure it dies. Even then it's going to eventually twitch and jump-scare everyone.

I disagree vehemently. There are plenty of people around me whose experience matters to me. I do things I know they enjoy and I treat them the way they like to be treated. Not. Rocket. Science. And I think the "should I choose to recognize" part is what causes most of the conflicts. To you it's you being extra courteous to people because you want to, and to me it's me respecting that I'm not the only one on the planet, and maybe I should be looking at the whole idea of identity as a basic right, especially if I'm going to hypocritically require people to use he/him when referring to me.

We need to remember that lots of obsessive behavior is cause by just how freaking smart we are. We question, we analyze, we sift through our experiences, we make reasoned judgements, we make sure to dot and cross where applicable, and we hopefully apply our compulsions in ways that are meaningful. At a certain point we need to accept that we're prepared for what may come, and stop checking that list more than three times.