Phi for All

We've had a few posts and even some topics opened lately about dismissing ideas for lack of evidence. Most are criticizing some kind of "liberal" agenda on staff's part, so it occurs to me this is in part motivated by the recent POTUS election. I want to clear up some points on that. It's both an official stance (because it concerns the rules, and because I'm posting this where the only reply can be from other staff members), and a personal one (since it may concern judgements not covered by the rules). Adherence to the rules that have evolved over SFN's lifetime is hardly "liberal". We're interested in discussions that are scientifically productive, to ensure a sound learning experience for everyone involved. This means following rules. In this, we're actually being pretty conservative. Adherence to scientific methodology is also a conservative stance. Here, I'd have to say we're only moderately conservative. We're far too liberal for many of our most experienced scientific minds (bless you all for your patience and understanding, you know who you are), and it's true we give some folks more rope than others. It's not because we think anyone's wrong idea is better than another's, but often there is a reverse benefit that might be realized by further discussion (How-Not-To threads are valuable - in moderation). But if you joined and now think we're too liberal because we dismiss an idea for lack of supportive evidence, you need to know that's not going to change. We're not going to start allowing Wild Ass Guessing to take the place of scientific enquiry. If you have a question, post it in a mainstream section, and discuss the question without resorting to your speculative ideas. If your idea is speculative, you need to understand that it has no weight without evidence in support. No matter how nifty you think the idea is, it's just another WAG until you support it, and you can go to LOTS of other forums for that kind of "science". It's just not something we want to waste anyone's time on past a certain point. That point is when it should dawn on a scientific mind that evidence is the weight our scale measures best.

The differences have been explained, so I'll attempt an analogy. Let's make it a capitalist analogy and say you own a store that sells merchandise. The Trump to Hitler comparison works because he's getting an invitation to come visit our store and look around, see if there's anything he likes. He's charismatic and friendly if you stay on his good side, and before you realize it he's got a truck parked around back, and he's filling it up with your merchandise, and thanking you for your generosity. He's in control of your life because you invited him. Sharia in the US would be like trying to drive the truck through the front of the store to steal the merchandise. We've got all kinds of security cameras watching the front, we've arranged the approach to the store so a truck can't get going very fast, and we've put those steel posts in front of the doors to prevent the truck from smashing through and ransacking. And as a last resort, even if they could get the merchandise, we've got ways to track it so we can get it back. And we have the police to help us stop these attempts as well. As long as we keep our protections in place, this is NOT a successful strategy.

Over 9000, bering strait, and meLothedestroyerofworlds have been suspended pending account review. We sure don't mind hearing controversial perspectives as long as they don't break the rules, and all three of these accounts have pushed those rules far past breaking. We'll be reviewing these accounts separately to see if the suspensions will become permanent. Upon staff review, the suspensions have been upgraded to full bans for all three. It's always been our policy to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to learning (very sorry it takes so long sometimes), but when it's obvious the learning is secondary to an agenda, we have to draw the line. It's even more important when that agenda is unsavory as racism and discrimination. No place for those in science.

Over 9000 has been suspended for 3 days for abusive behavior and thread hijacking, and for refusing requests for clarity. New member hopefully, shaky start, nothing that can't be fixed with a bit more civility and patience.

What's the difference between an elephant and a grape? Grapes are purple. What did Jane say when she saw the elephants coming? "Here come the grapes!" (she was colorblind)

... and false. http://www.snopes.com/einstein-rejection-letter/

Actually, a small percentage are outright evil and selfish, and a small percentage are saintly and compassionate. Most human beings on this planet today are somewhere in between.

Except the way you define these things, the animal can't lose, so humans are automatically going to fail in your eyes. The way you define "offend" is probably unattainable by any animal we normally come in contact with (i.e., offense requires intention, but animals never intend to offend). Animals can't speak so they can't say anything, mean or nice. The way you define greedy and corrupt are standard to humans only. Why isn't a bear gorging on stored months of honey considered greedy? Why isn't it corrupt for a cowbird to lay its eggs in another bird's nest so it doesn't have to raise its own young? And you're really setting up confirmation bias with a phrase like "for no reason". You always assume animals have some natural reason for doing bad things to each other. It's OK for male lions to kill another male's children, because that's natural for them, right? And orcas can play with a seal until it drowns rather than just chomp on it after it's too tired to fight anymore, because... well, there must be a reason, right? This kind of thinking automatically favors any other animal over humans, for none of the right reasons.

Usually, this question presupposes you can't tell. Which makes it fairly meaningless. I don't mind that a question doesn't have an answer, but it bunches my undies when it CAN'T have one.

Well now you're changing the conditions while still criticizing my choices. Now you're just talking about "a good human", instead of humans in general. In this case, yes, I would save a selfless member of Doctors Without Borders before a snarling, rabid wolf who eat babies (over Vegan protests). But consider this scenario. I know a man who regularly cheated on his wife the whole time they were married. After their two children were grown and out of the house, he left his wife for another woman, but they never divorced. The other woman eventually left him, and his wife took him back in, believing that her vows meant she shouldn't give up on him. He lost all their savings on stock market speculations. He now refuses to find work, and while he's too young for Social Security, he's pushing his wife to take it early, which means her fixed income for the rest of her life will be much lower than if she waited. She can't leave him because she feels loyalty to the marriage. It's like he's drowning, she's trying to help him, but he's pushing her under to save himself. She's now borrowing money from friends who really can't afford it, so it's like he's pulling those people underwater with him too. The man is a sociopath, a liar, and he is a detriment to anyone he comes into contact with. If he was the human in your save-a-human story, and my dog was the animal, you'd be asking me to save someone I know will cause more harm than good to people I know and love, over an animal who has given me and my family nothing but love and companionship. By choosing my dog, I could actually help more humans, humans who maybe deserve my help more than this man. It's more than just choosing humans over animals just because we're the same. Some humans have done nothing to deserve being treated as humans.

There are people I know who don't care about other people at all. Should I love them more than my dog? I don't. I judge every creature by their actions. I love the ones who's actions make my life better.

SimonFunnell has been banned for abusive behavior, an overall lack of trust, and his inability to apply science to any of his discussions. Since this is a science discussion forum, it would be wrong of us to hold him back from his other, unquestionably more productive pursuits.

SimonFunnell has been suspended until staff can confer on whether or not to make it permanent. If you come to a science discussion site, bring some science, and leave any intellectual dishonesty at the door. If you claim to have the math but refuse to show it, you don't have the math.

I find it interesting that the concept of an initial mated pair seems intuitive to us, until we discover evolutionary knowledge, which tells us that species have no such defined markers. The mother and father of the first creature we'd call a modern human were not quite modern humans themselves, but if you insist on drawing a line somewhere, they're the ones who "begat" the first modern human. So the writers of the Bible either made up the creation story (or adjusted a previous one), or God inspired them to tell a version we could intuitively understand but was wrong, for some reason. If I believed in god(s), I'd have to say my god has a reason for dumbing things down for an Iron Age audience, but somehow his writings must apply across the ages. There must be a hidden meaning to explain all the parts that are obviously ignorant of modern physics and cosmology. And therein lies the rub. Hidden meanings abound, but none has the weight of evidence in support. It seems more reasonable that people ignorant of many modern explanations made it all up, and poured lots of omnipotence into the gaps to fill in where they had no idea. So I go back to the default stance, probably no god(s), no way to know either way. There shouldn't be a conflict.

! Moderator Note Even though this is in the Lounge, I'm going to request that first-time posters stay away. If you are joining just to advertise your YouTube Channel, your links will be removed. We are not here to advertise for you.

I just wanted to point out this conflict, per the OP. Do you know zip about evolution, or do you have the gist of it? Since it can't be both, I would suggest that you only think you know what evolution is basically about, what you refer to as the gist, and from that you're trying to reconcile your beliefs. I would further suggest your "gist" is wrong in many aspects, and this lack of knowledge of the subject has warped your interest in learning more. Ignorance is an easily curable disease, but it's often paired with a stubborn willfulness that makes people reject the medicine that could help.

Ihcisphysicist has been suspended for 3 days for repeatedly insisting on promoting a book, which violates our "no advertising" rule. The rule will still be in place Wednesday....

! Moderator Note Welcome to internet forums! Discussions take place in pockets of mutual attraction and opportunity. All those you accuse of following you around are simply replying to the latest topics for discussion, which you yourself are doing. We try not to make things personal here. Nobody is following you, they're following the discussion you're following. Of course, that's just what I would say if I were following you around....

B. John Jones has shown no desire to learn science in his discussion of it, so together with his willful disregard of the rules he agreed to when joining, we're going to upgrade his suspension to a full ban. We wish him, well....

Whoa, dude, you need to study that in a different thread. But it's clear that you really need to study it.

You could use a hand pump if you didn't want to inflate it with your legs. All that pedaling might be hard on you, especially if you're a little stiff.

From a purely practical perspective, if you had a foot-long tube that glowed between the handlebars, with the lamp on the end facing forward, you'd be much more visible from the side at night. The tube can be rigid, or perhaps made from inflatable material so it relaxes when you aren't pedaling.

In my experience, the religious folks who come here denouncing science are usually trying to make science seem less accurate and powerful as an explanatory tool, to sort of blunt the edge they feel is cutting into their souls, if you will. One member recently made the point that we're supposed to focus on the fact that his god made the heavens and the Earth, and that all the discrepancies in the detailed development of that in the Bible were unimportant. I think it's a case of wanting the validation that science would provide for their stories and histories, but not wanting everything that turns up in a rigorous examination. Like opening up your home to inspection, only to find out that the inspectors are using a powerfully bright light to see into every dirty corner. It's cherry-picking the way you test your information, hoping for favorable results that don't contradict the rest of what you believe. It's not good science, but I don't think that's what they're looking for in the first place. I think many religious people are anti-science because science doesn't stop looking for explanations, and they've already found what they believe are answers.

We occasionally get Reports requesting deletion of text, presumably after editing has timed out. We prefer not to do this at all, and definitely won't if the post has already been quoted or commented on by other members. It makes a thread look very dishonest to have edits after responses. This is the written word. Learn not to blurt while typing.

! Moderator Note You've been talking about selling your boxes, and there were items for sale at that site. Our members request that we keep the site advertisement-free, so that's why we have the rule. We appreciate you understanding why we don't want it here.