Phi for All

Except it wasn't rhetoric in Palin's case, and most definitely wasn't "much the same type". This type of rhetoric, where you call brilliant people "totally stupid and dumb" without any examples of what you're talking about, is strictly a Republican tactic. Democrats are much more likely to actually do research, whereas Republicans learned from Newt and Rush that you just need to use schoolyard taunts to disparage things you don't like.

Did anyone suggest differently? Again, science is not about "proving" anything, and even supporting the existence of gods with evidence has failed. In their current forms, all religions that believe in gods are unfalsifiable. But if one of those gods decides to become observable and deal with us physically, your stance tells me there's no point in even listening. While that may well be true, I think it's a bit too hidebound to declare something is impossible when I can just as easily remain skeptical and fall back on "Show me the evidence and I'll keep an open mind". I get the feeling you're trying to distance yourself from a former belief. "I'm sure if I were God..." doesn't sound like you're arguing like it's all trash to you.

Wow, you are a LOT of noise with very little signal. You have the opportunity to explain your stance and you ignore it every time.

No, I don't. Let me try another example. In the theory of evolution, we observe that animals adapt physically to their environments over generations. Knowing this, it can be predicted that plant life can also adapt to the animals that feed from it, to ensure their own viability and pass their own genes along. And sure enough, we observe that certain birds have adapted curved beaks to fit into curved flowers, and yes, the plants are evolving more of a curve as well. Knowing one thing allows us to make predictions, essentially forecasting future events. I avoid strict beliefs. I don't capitalize gods. Science isn't actually about proof or proving things (that's math and philosophy), so much as it is finding the best supported explanations for various phenomena. Imo, talking about "true nature" and "reality" is subjective and worthless. I prefer beliefs based on trusting the knowledge. I don't use faith or wishful thinking, but I also don't have to deny the existence of things I haven't observed. I don't have to say gods are impossible when I can just as easily wait for one to make a persuasive, reasoned argument.

Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson used the Big Bang theory to predict the presence of the cosmic microwave background back in 1963, basically saying that if the BBT was correct, the universe would still have residual radiation left over from the expansion event. This is the kind of predictive power I'm talking about. If gods do exist, there could be evidence (other than direct observation, which they all seem to be allergic to) that allows us to piece together a theory about them. IOW, it's a possibility, even if it's not very probable. I don't feel like I have to deny the existence of gods as long as I require evidence of their existence. I'm happy focusing on what I can observe until someone provides some good evidence or testable predictions.

GOP Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee calls Harris a "DEI vice president", implying she is dumb and relies on her gender and ethnicity to get ahead, despite an absolutely brilliant career in law and politics. Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming described Harris as "intellectually, just really kind of the bottom of the barrel", despite the evidence to the contrary. Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin claims "Democrats feel they have to stick with her because of her ethnic background", once again signalling racist judgments. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy described Harris as "totally stupid and dumb", again ignoring her success in both law and politics and targeting her as the GOP version of a typical woman. Seriously, I'm ashamed for you that you could even ask this question. It's like you have your head... in the sand.

This is primarily a science discussion forum. Clarity and definition are essential. Also, I definitely don't "intentionally demand evidence to provoke a sense of rationality in the minds of people with religious dogmatism, in a way to shut them up, whereas we're also greatly aware that no such evidence can be provided". I don't deny the possibility of a god, just that to date no evidence exists that persuades me enough to use gods (or anything supernatural) as an explanation for anything. I think it's a bit too dogmatic to insist that "no evidence can be provided". Of course evidence of gods can be provided, as long as someone can dig deep enough and make persuasive enough arguments, and as long as this evidence allows us to make predictions and incorporate the rest of the knowledge we trust without violating falsifiability requirements, as scientists we'd have to accept it. You may not believe that evidence exists (I know I don't), but we have nothing to support that stance other than nobody has ever produced any.

! Moderator Note Who are you accusing of lying, and do you have any evidence of intent? Please don't insert words you don't mean.

Thank the stars we have more trusted sources than YT! https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC7867635&blobtype=pdf It seems the numbers have been adjusted by reclassifying certain capillaries as not part of the measurable, active system. Some of the vessels involved in microcirculation are now assessed differently. This isn't a "false fact" or "dogma" as much as it is part of the methodology, further clarifying what defines a blood vessel. Similar to how Pluto got redefined. That it used to be a planet isn't a false fact or dogma.

! Moderator Note I removed this reference from your title. Your idea may seem crazy, but not you.

The private company made an offer, your local politicians pitched it to the public, the public voted for the sale. I'm sure your local government made it seem like it was necessary, and the private company lied about being able to service accounts for the same money. The public forgets that private companies need the same operating costs as a public utility, plus they need to charge for profit.

Your local grid is owned by a private company that bought your public utility some time ago. They're in business to make a profit, whereas your public utility was there just to provide power. If your town was like mine, it took about two years of hikes after the sale before the rates were about 40% higher. They have no incentive to do anything costly unless they can increase their profits. I think the sale of our public utilities was one of the biggest crimes capitalism has inflicted on us. Science teaches me that a public utility is far more efficient at meeting the needs of the public than a private company could ever be.

I'm focusing on the increased rate of death among Republicans after the vaccine became available: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/25/1189939229/covid-deaths-democrats-republicans-gap-study And while the attributable deaths keep going down, it's still primarily affecting those who refuse the vaccine, and those are primarily folks who support TFG. His denial has been costing him voters for several years now.

Your POV always seems like a parody to me, like you're just trolling to get people to comment on ridiculous statements. "I hate scientists who make weapons, but appreciate the ones who protect Americans!" Your reality has lots of noise and very, very little signal.

Speaking of COVID-19, let's not forget that in 2024 we're still losing an in(s)ane amount of people every day to the virus: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm The majority of those deaths (pneumonia & influenza included) are from lack of vaccination, and the majority of those are supporters of TFG. Add in the folks that would have voted Republican if their red state representatives had cared enough to fund FEMA to help them survive a disaster, and it seems TFG has pretty effectively decimated his own ranks. You aren't supposed to vote if you're dead.

Something that would be more meaningful if discussed with actual participants who knew more about it.

Isn't it true that "infinite density" can also be called mass with zero volume? The mass is measurable, not infinite, but it's in a space with no volume. Is that right?

"Babble babble babble, flood the zone with shit, same old script as last time, I am full of it!"

Dem, as in Democracy? Yes. There are few people here who want to see it overthrown in favor of a corrupt despot. Rule of law is still important to us, as is integrity, honesty, and compassion. Most of us here also enjoy a good sense of humor. Have you ever noticed that TFG has never, NEVER said anything even remotely witty or chuckle-worthy? He insults in an elementary, Rickles-esque manner, and his worshippers laugh when he makes fun of others, but the man doesn't have the imagination or character to say something genuinely funny. Never funny. Never. NEVER.

This sounds like pro-Trump propaganda from a troll farm, and as such is one of the stupidest things any American who wants to preserve our democracy could do. Yep. Straight from TFG's scripts.

Who really cares what you think is true? Nobody here. We're looking for evidence that lends our beliefs some validity. For instance, there are more polytheistic religions than monotheistic ones, so it seems more likely that, in your scenario, people are more likely to choose many gods over one. Also, we don't believe in science the same way you believe in your one god. We trust the information we glean from our processes and methodologies because we can verify it, rather than simply having faith that it's right.

Which people? Can you cite some examples? I think your bias is making the classification seem insulting to you. I know your beliefs give you supremacy over the other animals, and that your perspective makes you want to view everything as a totem pole hierarchy where your god is on top and everything else is below that. Do you think people are trying to deny you your rightful place in the hierarchy by calling you an animal? It's based on observations amassed over centuries, once science was able to operate without being under the thumb of the church.

It's certainly NOT conservative Christian Nationalists hoping to get a jump on Armageddon. I remember the horror of the possibility that Sarah Palin might end up with her finger on the button. The Bible seems to encourage nuking your enemies in God's name, so it seems we've avoided nuclear wars based on humane reasoning alone.

Are you OK? Your reasoning seems to be suffering from poor information. You seem to suggest that progress should be abandoned. Are you Amish?

What's arbitrary about the "animal" category? Nothing, nothing at all. We fit it perfectly. Your supernatural beliefs blind you to the obvious classification and its merits. Humans are animals who have evolved an intelligence at the cost of other natural traits like big teeth or fins or wings. We gave up a lot to have this capacity, and many of us prefer to use methodologies that synchronize well with such intelligence rather than primitive, cave culture fear worship. We have unique brains, and we should be filling the gaps in our ignorance with high-quality knowledge rather than guesswork and superstition.