Phi for All

What is a "generatoir"? Is it French?

! Moderator Note A new thread for Global Economy has been split to here.

I've always felt informing the public of things they need to know in order to make reasoned decisions was the duty of the government. Education should only be a priority if you want your populace to succeed, and if that's the case then higher education should be baked into citizenship, be an integral part of it. If making a profit is a bigger priority, then charging money for accumulated human knowledge becomes very lucrative. Unfortunately, as we're seeing these days, when you don't focus on intelligence and your citizenry loses half their IQ, they become Q.

I didn't ask you what the problem with "the courses is", if you go back and read what I wrote. That's how discussion works, we have a conversation, between multiple people. We don't sit here and listen while you stand on the table and rant. Forgive me, but I don't have the time to listen to you preach like this. If you want to discuss your idea, you need to actually engage with the people speaking to you.

I'll stop being so critical then. Quantity over quality, controversy over conciseness. Got it.

I'm not as enamored of the "Archie Bunker" perspective as a negative example. Whatever a person's opinion, it's intellectually dishonest to hold anyone to their exact words while tap-dancing around your own. I'm always appalled when intelligent people use words to obfuscate instead of elucidate. It's mental snake oil, imo.

This would be a good place to mention that in two of your other discussions, you gained accurate information about the genetic aspects of inbreeding, and how the sun's radiation causes it to slowly lose mass over time, affecting the orbits of the planets. I suggest you are also wrong about life being a game, and about it being rigged. The perspective you take alters your perceptions, and it's important to align yourself with positive outcomes. Hope and positivity are sustainable, where doom and gloom are not. This perspective only serves to isolate you from several of our best features as a species. Humans are highly cooperative, and the societies we form allow us to achieve great things, as well as some not-so-great, and even some downright bad. It's up to each of us to choose what we do to affect those around us, and to ensure our societies prosper. Communication is another area where we excel, and it doesn't favor hermits. A single person will have access to a limited amount of knowledge, but two or more people can increase what they know exponentially. Money is a financial tool, and we long ago learned the value of creating tools to make life more productive. Opposable thumbs and rich communication and cooperative cognition, all areas where humans kick butt, and all mostly lost if we don't form societies. If money hadn't been invented, you'd still be required to have a marketable skill, and you'd have to barter with others who have the goods/skills you wish to trade for. Money means you don't have to search for the guy who makes toilet paper who also needs the gaskets YOU make. I also have to point out what a pointless argument it is to claim you didn't ask for this life, for this society, for the way things are done. Unless you figure out some way to fix it all at once and very quickly, you have to help your society change the way the rest of us do, focusing on one thing we can change at a time. There is an inherent problem with sudden change; if people aren't ready for it, it's not likely to stay changed for long. Steady progress helps us predict the best uses of our efforts.

The first obstacle sounds like the biggest. Wanting to educate others while lacking your own knowledge seems counterproductive. Why not start with a SINGLE, identifiable goal you can reach, and focus your efforts on that? Educating yourself, removing the gaps in your knowledge, and giving yourself more high-quality information to work with is one of the smartest things you could ever do. Ignorance is a spectrum, and we're all on it, and the more we can learn the better and more informed our choices are. Does that make sense to you?

I suggest you start studying science, and perhaps discuss your findings with peers on an internet forum. A focus on the natural world can help you overcome your animosity towards supernatural beliefs. And hey, I know just the forum! However, discussion means you have to get off your soapbox and listen. Right now you're preaching woe and doom to a bunch of science-minded folks who are astounded and amazed every day by the wonders we discover by observing the universe and studying the reasoned explanations developed for various phenomena. Right now you're hurting over something, and your focus is... unfocused, so you approach your obstacles (we all have them) all at once, as if you can possibly deal with them simultaneously. Instead, I would suggest more of a laser focus on one thing you can change. You can change the society nearest you if you make your lifestyle more appealing, for instance. We don't know what your life has been like, and there's nothing we can really do about it. But we can talk your ears off about science and reasoned methodology. If that sounds good, step down from the pulpit, this isn't your blog, it's a science discussion forum. Ask some questions, or share some knowledge. That's what we're good at here, not trying to talk down a rant or play internet psychologist for people we've never met. You picked this site for a reason, so I'm wondering if that reason is that you like science? Can we talk about that?

I'd really like to know, since that particular tepui doesn't seem to be attached to the rest of the landscape. Do you think there's enough rainfall to fill a small lake?

I have a friend who votes Republican, mostly because he equates small government with NO government. He thinks he's conservative, because that's what most Republicans think of themselves (in my experience), often equating it with "common sense". The problem is, he's anything BUT conservative, in many ways. I can't think of any area where my friend thinks conservatively, not the clothes he wears, the hobbies he has, and certainly not the politics he supports. What my friend really is is an antigovernment radical, an extremist. He has extreme positions wrt what should be done to fix this country. From a young age, he was taught to mistrust the government and do everything he could to pay as little taxes as possible. He's not so energized that he goes to rallies or anything (wife and two daughters ground him a bit), but he cheered the Jan 6 insurrectionists as freedom fighters, and happily defends Trump (until it comes to the pussy-grabbing, which he believes every politician has done at some time or other, so that cancels out in his mind). The way he wants to fix things doesn't account for compromise. His faction thinks compromise is part of what got us into our present troubles, so they take the extreme position of "My way or the highway". I think zapatos might be picking up on some of YOUR extremism, Airbrush. Some of your solutions over the years have been a bit over the top, and here you are making plans to defend the capital using our science discussion forum, so perhaps that makes you seem a bit Trumpy wrt this issue. edit: cross-posted with zapatos

Now that this has been done, does it change your overall arguments? It should, so if it didn't, then perhaps you aren't focused enough. You start with a genetics question about incest, and by the end of your opening post, you've attacked science and scientists, brought up conspiracies, blamed the current stance on negligence, and made claims about the wealthy preferring non-inbred batteries to inbred ones.

I'm unsure of your stance; your laughter doesn't make your thoughts clear on the subject. No, it's not like that at all. Why would reducing such a complicated situation to a oversimplified travel analogy help anyone understand the situation better? I googled Japan and Afghan refugees, and the first hit was this: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Afghanistan-turmoil/In-rare-move-Japan-prepares-to-offer-refuge-to-Afghans, and Uzbekistan is accepting refugees but they aren't being given asylum (they won't be allowed to stay) which is NOT the same as not accepting them across the border, so I'm going to ignore your opinion on these matters from now on. If you'd like to support your assertions with evidence, please do so since that will be much more trustworthy.

You're arguing in bad faith, which is worse than sarcasm or disrespect here.

The vast majority is typically 75%. How can you claim my argument is "untrue" when you only "suspect" more scientists use your definitions of reality and truth? How can you take ANYONE'S version of truth or reality as such, since they can actually change depending on people and circumstances? Like most others, I find your arguments absurd. My definitions give me a great way to help ensure I'm not deluding myself, and they make my definition of the natural world (which is what we're observing, not "reality") clearer and more meaningful as well. What do your definitions do for you, except make you sound argumentative and obtuse?

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

What does philosophy say about objectivity? The reason science doesn't deal with "reality" and "truth" is precisely because those terms are subjective to each person, and can't be trusted as the foundation for an explanation. We can only observe and measure and experiment, and those processes require the removal of as much subjective influence as possible. Also, if I can find a recording of Frank Sinatra singing Gershwin's I'm a Poached Egg, does that invalidate the OP? Straight from the lips of the Chairman of the Board, how can he be lying?

It actually worked on many, but also triggered a lot of cognitive biases that cause the anti-vaxxers and AGW deniers to double-down on their thinking (which was likely to happen from a more scientific response anyway). Ridicule is a technique that galvanizes people, but you can just as easily sour someone's perspective on your arguments as make them see something they've been missing. I think ultimately ridicule is something more effectively applied privately, among family and friends. An internet forum lacks the context to make ridicule effective broadly. I'm guessing here, but I thought it was because they didn't like being contradicted so much, and there are bound to be sites where the liberals are easier to shout down. I'm sure they thought they were arguing in good faith, but I remember people objecting to their POTUS being called a liar, even when you could provide daily links to untruths he'd spoken. People like that shout from soapboxes, they don't discuss anything.

! Moderator Note Getting VERY tired of your lack of rigor in opening posts. You need to do better next time. Vagueness is not a good quality here.

Please show your calculations for the odds on your being understood. This may give you some insight on why you can't explain your ideas to others. The approach you're using is a little dishonest, but probably not intentional. You find you can't tear the whole cloth, so you want to break the individual threads and then claim you've done it. You want people to respond to supposedly deep thoughts with black and white answers. And you still won't be answering Dag1's questions, you still won't be making your idea any clearer, and you run the risk of ignoring some valid points in your quest to refute them with this technique.

We had a thread once upon a time about the benefits/drawbacks of ridicule in science. Iirc, it can have its desired effect, which is to essentially derail a line of thought known to be unproductive. It's the equivalent of your Italian grandmother giving you a slap to the back of the head with her big ring and telling you to think about what you just said.

My comment wasn't about your beliefs at all, since I don't care what you believe. I thought you might be interested in a more accurate way to distinguish between your definitions of religion and science. And your version of religious mentions "faithful", so you might want to look that up as well. It has NOTHING to do with science.

This is strange, and I would have it verified independently. It it's not just confirmation bias making you think this, it could point to a problem that needs further investigation.

Most definitions of "religion" involve supernatural facets (omnipotence, unobservable deities, etc). Since science is focused on the natural world (as you claim we should believe), I think your use of the term "best religion" wrt science is highly inaccurate.

The rep system's worst flaw is a mixed blessing, imo. When we get someone who joins who has a TON of pop-sci misinformation stuffed in their heads and starts their journey to the Wild West Guesswork Factory by posting here, it's often easier for many to downvote, jaded by all the other posters who start their "theory" with cracked science. We've had lots of folks start that way and eventually realize the gaps in their knowledge, but many leave because they get such a bad rep so quickly. I wonder if we might help some of those folks, but then we get so many that have spent "years" on their non-mainstream "theory of everything", so I suppose some folks don't want to learn as much as they want to be right. If there were members who only voted but didn't post, we'd probably consider that abuse of the system. It doesn't happen.