Phi for All

Dear Invision Community Software...

It's similar to what we see when groups lobby for legislation that affects a small portion of businesses, but they use a big bogeyman company to make it scarier: "What if Amazon started doing this?"

What you're being incredibly insensitive and obtuse about is that even the least worries on a literal MOUNTAIN of worries are significant. It's the most ill-defined job there is, yet the person who "keeps house" is expected to do everything the wage-earner doesn't have time for (which is often equally ill-defined). Personally, I find it repugnant that anyone would judge the worthiness of anyone else wrt health/mental health problems. How dismissive and privileged to think that sleep disorders require more of a professional schedule than a housewife can muster!

We feel like the NFL would feel if someone who'd never played American football insisted that the problem with the game is that the ball isn't round. It's compounded by the frustration that whenever they try to explain the game, the amateur just keeps repeating his claim and doubling down in more bizarre and insistent ways.

! Moderator Note Even in our Religion section, it's required to stick to mainstream science explanations, rather than guesswork and unfounded woo. If you want to talk about this (unevidenced) claim, please start its own thread in Speculations. It will be an uphill battle against mountains of evidence and the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, but hopefully you'll learn something useful from the accumulated stores of human knowledge we've been compiling for you.

! Moderator Note Members must be able to participate without watching videos or going offsite. Please give a summary of the information you want people to have, and please also be clear about what you want to talk about.

! Moderator Note Posts on time travel split to this thread in Speculations.

! Moderator Note Yes, water is water. Please retract your claim that "you haven't produced one example of anything happening the same twice or a dissimilar chemical reaction producing another same." It's the intellectually honest thing to do.

! Moderator Note This was not even close to addressing the post from studiot you quoted. Please think of discussion like a conversation around a table. Studiot asked you a simple question, "Do you know what a complex reaction is and the difference between a complex reaction and a combination of reactions ?" Please answer that, because what you posted... didn't.

! Moderator Note You need to address the questions that have been posed to you by other members, rather than continuing to quote yourself and repeat yourself over and over. Otherwise you are soapboxing, and that's not allowed in a discussion here. Especially address the non-mainstream aspects of your ideas, and support them with some kind of evidence, or be more rigorous in your reasoning.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/scientists-discover-gene-and-part-of-brain-that-make-people-gullible You must be a Libra.

! Moderator Note Posting only a video is against the rules, so that last post has gone to the Trash. People need to be able to participate in the discussion without watching a video or going offsite.

It's reasonable though, given your biases and tendency to assert without support. Do you think this is interesting or meaningful? Not to me. It certainly didn't answer my question about what laws you think have been violated.

I really want a T-shirt that says, "I see nothing! I was not here! I did not even get UP this morning!"

Um, what?! Can you show me something that is allowed to violate a law in order to give rise to the law? What isn't subject to the Law of Conservation of Energy? I can appreciate that nothing I've heard of violates this law.

Sorry, but science can answer "What makes the sky appear blue?", but not "why". Why do you want to remove the meaning from a wonderful word like "why", and equate it with "what" or "how"? Definitions are critical when you are discussing science.

You certainly are obsessed with "origins". If you stop thinking about the "why" part, it also resolves your perceived paradox. Science is about observation and prediction, the "what" and the "where/when/how" questions. The "why" is for philosophy.

It doesn't need to, since there are so many philosophers willing to climb out on that branch. The phraseology made clear I was talking about everything we've observed. The cosmological principle shows the universe is uniform with respect to position and also with respect to viewing angle. Nothing, not a single thing, seems to be outside of accepted mainstream physics. Nothing supernatural exists when we model any of our theories. Then you probably need to go somewhere else. This is a science discussion forum. You have very little persuasive power with your reasoning, and there are literal mountains of evidence that stand against the stuff you're claiming.

This sounds a bit like the Actor/Observer cognitive bias, where you think your own actions are influenced by external factors (the bugs are destructive, you were asked to kill them, you're solving a problem), but others are influenced internally (they're cruel, they kill as a hobby, they're insensitive). I think your perspective may be leading you towards misunderstanding.

Whoa there. Science attempts to explain natural phenomena. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of anything that violates that. EVERYTHING is observed to function within the parameters of the natural universe. If you're claiming something is outside that, or SUPERnatural, then you aren't doing science.

You were the one who asked him to be more specific when he was fairly specific to begin with. And this is just wrong. 😁

Wild stab in the dark: all the unevidenced assertions you made in the post previous to iNow's.

I know the feeling. You've ignored my questions completely.

Possibly because you are difficult to understand. Your response to my question failed to help me gain clarity. Of the two that I've asked, which question of mine do you feel was "rhetoric question"? "How about longueur télomères & double DNA?" is actually not a very good question, since it's so vague and general. It's certainly a bad answer to either of the questions I've asked. "Even excellent scientists cannot respond" seems overly generalized and meaningless. Have you spoken to all of them? Could some of them have had trouble understanding your English? No offense, please, but keeping an open mind is very important when discussing science. Be careful of the conclusions you jump to.

But you joined 25 hours ago, so now you can post as much as you want. Evidence in support of this hypothesis: this is your 6th post.