Phi for All

But the faith-driven believer is 100% certain, and you'll never be more than 99.9%, so that's not a good benchmark. I think how you arrive at your certainty is the key here. Do you just have a gut-feeling about it that won't go away, or have you rigorously researched, observed, tested, discussed, and predicted enough about the subject that you've come to trust the explanation?

Believing anything based on faith alone is antithetical to a methodology that needs to trust only empirical evidence. That's always been a sticking point for me. The religious folks I know are joyously proud that they believe using just their faith. They claim it's strong and abiding, and the more blasphemers claim there is no God, the stronger their faith and certainty becomes. To me, if we aren't using our reasoning powers to explain things, then we're using our emotions to convince ourselves we're right. I think it's easier but less intelligent to let ourselves be led like that. Using our brains to move beyond our primitive reactions is always harder, but it's always our best long-term investment.

Actually, a tick can sense a LOT, mostly body heat and smell (I believe they're attracted to ammonia in sweat). They try to latch on to you with their front legs, then crawl towards skin. I suppose they might have different behavior when on a flat surface, but since they need to latch on to their dinner, it doesn't seem likely they're trying to flea. 😁

Strange: Yes, and they're all impeckable.

michel123456: I don't know, and since the chicken doesn't know either, it doesn't have to account for the signal delay.

Ed Witten: To get to the dimensions compactified on a Calabi-Yau manifold on the other side.

The canals were debunked well over a hundred years ago. The sightings involved no instrument readings, just antique telescopes with no photography. You should study up, they've stopped using orreries at NASA.

We're upgrading the suspension on drumbo to a full ban due to repeated bad faith arguments. If you're trying only to prove a point, write a blog or submit a paper. Discussion is for those open to learning.

Many folks are literally switching to overusing the word "actually" now. As in, "They actually look exactly the same", and "You can actually change that in the pulldown menu", and "That water actually had my retainer in it". Both words can literally mean the same thing while actually being slightly different. Actually, I prefer actually. There's an air of surprise involved, like I can't believe you just said that. "We were actually going to take pictures, but if you want to actually pet the hippo, there's actually not much we can do."

Thank you, studiot. I'm pinning this one up on the Science Education fridge with a magnet in the shape of a bulging brain.

Maestro99 has been banned for a foul-mouthed rant which he chose in lieu of reasoning us through his anti-evolution stance. Apparently, Jesus doesn't love us AT ALL!

fredreload has been suspended for two weeks for soapboxing about speculative topics. If you can't support your ideas, you aren't doing science.

drumbo has been suspended for 2 weeks for trolling and abuse of the reputation system.

! Moderator Note Except you give away this lie by also abusing the reputation system, voting down a particular person's posts no matter what they said. Your disagreements ring hollow, and your stance is very personal and belligerent. Take a couple of weeks off and decide whether it will be worth it for you to be more civil if/when you return.

yes.

Part of the problem is that science uses very specific definitions for most things. You've found it easier to make up some of your own, to describe what's in your head, because what you were reading didn't make immediate sense to you. It's a bad habit, that's all, like using too much slang that others don't know. Instead of making stuff up, you should be learning the definitions science uses, so you can better communicate what you're thinking. As Strange said, you should stick around and get involved in other discussions. It's a great way to learn.

dana_turner is being banned for wasting all of their first five posts on misinformation, rule-breaking, and blatantly incorrect assertions. We're going to take a page out of table tennis rules and call that a "skunk".

! Moderator Note They don't post in this thread, and are therefore outside my purview.

I would have told dimreepr to stop putting words in my mouth, and let him know that I don't appreciate being strawmanned. That way, if he does it again, you can report him for arguing in a persistently fallacious manner.

! Moderator Note That was my first reaction as well, until I realized MigL misunderstands what is meant by "systemic" in this context. I hope going forward he understands we're talking about the process more than the people. It seems to be the key to understanding the "bad apples" argument.

I think it's because God needed a scapegoatsnake. He realized he'd lied to A&E when he said they'd die if they ate the apple, so he puts the serpent into the garden to tell them it's OK to eat the apple. God gets to curse the snake with a forked tongue and make it crawl on its lying belly, and boots the ungrateful tenants who now want clothes as well as a garden. And nobody remembers who lied first.

! Moderator Note You should have reported other members using fallacious logic to argue their points, the way they reported you. There's no need to waste your time on a discussion when someone isn't being honest. If you point out someone's fallacy and they keep using it, or they continuously fall back on strawmen to misinterpret your words, I urge you to use the feature. It gets staff attention.

! Moderator Note Not sure what you're trying to do here, but you won today's Report That Post pool. Please stop playing Fallacy Bingo, or whatever is making you argue in such a disingenuous manner.

! Moderator Note Let's be aware that while guns are an aspect of this topic, it would be all too easy to let that aspect take over the discussion. Let's avoid a split, and stay focused, thanks.

... and then murder him.