Phi for All

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.

Some people may take a second or third look at their posting style if it's not obvious to them. It still blows me away how many folks whip out a strawman argument like the whole discussion isn't written down. Staff only monitors the rep system for abuse, like when someone uses all their votes for a few days on a single member, no matter what's been posted. Most of the rest is usually adjusted by the membership. I'm not sure why there's so much pushback in that regard, since it's usually pretty obvious when someone does/doesn't deserve the vote they got.

Are you assuming the voting is coming from someone involved in the discussion? Many of the votes are from non-participants who probably don't have much to add, but know they like/dislike something that was posted.

! Moderator Note Your use of this fallacy has become persistent, even after it's been pointed out as such, and that's against the rules here. You need to stop. The terms "reality" and "truth" are commonly too subjective for science, so we use words that better describe the outcomes of various mathematical models. It's really that simple and your dodgy reasoning has nothing to lean on here, so either make your case without using a strawman, or move on, please.

Not even a high-velocity cookie?

! Moderator Note You have a thread like this already where you got answers. Don't open any more, please.

! Moderator Note I think you've been given far too much leeway in the past. Your threads don't get many replies, and it seems you've grown a very thin skin when your concepts are challenged. You need to abide by the rules here, or you need to stop posting, it's that simple. We'd hate to lose you, but you can't sweep mistakes or concerns under the rug anymore. From now on, you need to address concerns and reply in a way that facilitates meaningful discussion, and the staff will be the arbiters of what is meaningful in every case.

Or 4, or 3. Maybe 2 is best. Welcome to US politics! Any system that doesn't address the spectrum of possibilities of human personalities AS a spectrum is faulty to start. As has been mentioned, the fewer the categories, the more people will be excluded, or forced into a label that's restrictive and possibly misapplied. It feels good to "classify" things we wish we understood better, and it's a process that's necessary to lay the groundwork for research, but forcing simplicity on your classifications can be a big mistake. That's almost never the way breakthroughs happen in science. It's the other way around; more particles and properties and elements are found, not fewer. We start with a simple, manageable amount of "explanation", and it grows as it's explained more thoroughly and becomes better understood.

! Moderator Note This is not science, much less science news. If you wish to support any of these non-mainstream ideas through discussion, please open a thread in Speculations, and provide a model for your "theory". Worst. Sockpuppet. Ever.

! Moderator Note Enthalpy, you don't get to soapbox your ideas here like a blog. You've ignored repeated requests for clarity, and that's not discussion, it's preaching. Your rigor is much better than a lot of folks but you have a tendency to shrug off tough questions and plow on past them. You know the rules, you've been around enough. This is unacceptable, thread closed.