Phi for All

That means somebody's spin doctor degree is paying off for the fossil fuel industry. "Fear progress!" has been the cry of almost every modern industry that stifles competitors while reaping maximum profit so they can afford to hire folks to make videos that scare people away from change. Stop and think about how many more nice conveniences and amenities you could have if we stopped funding oil and made solar electricity super dirt cheap. There are so many goods to be manufactured that are waiting for the costs of the energy to power them to go down. Much of that has been stifled by shenanigans with battery patents big oil holds or held. EVs and solar power need to be supported. We're going to get around the obstacle of big oil eventually. I heard we now have ink that can print a solar panel, so it's obvious that progress is trying to help while ICE and oil proponents want us stuck in the tar pits.

I claim you're wrong since you could easily go on Google Scholar and look up all the studies done worldwide on premonitions. Enjoy yourself because I'm done wasting my time on your lack of reasoning and rigor.

Fortunately for me, I study rigorously within my own limitations, and I have grand access to some excellent scientific minds, and I don't have to think twice about your ridiculous notions of how "fast" I'm being. It doesn't take a lot of time looking at available evidence to conclude that an explanation is unlikely, and one can always extract something from the junkpile the second it provides evidence that it doesn't belong there. You post as if unlikely = impossible, and I really wish you'd stop misrepresenting my stance.

It seems arrogant of you to assume I'm dispelling anything without investigation. There have been "documented" cases of supernatural abilities ever since we've been able to document. And there have been investigations into these claims as well. You may have started this thread, but you shouldn't get away with these blanket claims of hidebound, unreasoned dismissal here. You're playing an intellectually dishonest game of "Heads I win, tails you lose!" Proof of anything? There is none, for anything, so science looks for the best supported explanations instead. These magical emotional bonds you describe have been claimed by every generation since we learned to write our histories down. Yet the theory of evolution tells me that such a magnificent trait, one that protects life and makes an individual more likely to survive to procreate, would be selected for in every generation, strengthening these abilities and making them even more worthy of selection. So if this is not just selective perception or confirmation bias, why hasn't this ability gotten stronger, or even strong enough after hundreds of generations to be observable through repeated experimentation and trials? When I add that basic observation to all the testing and experimentation into supernatural abilities that have been done, all the peer-reviewed studies by scientists who were really hoping to find some validity to the claims, I find I can relegate these claims to the low-signal/high-noise junkpile of "things that are almost certainly false".

You're saying it's been 100 billion years since the BB? Do you have any evidence for this, besides not having the maths to show it? Also, big bang math cult = hilarious. How long have you been resisting mainstream science and the best current explanations? I think your cult is much smaller than our cult.

The ultimate populism, an entire government workforce beholden to one person. In this case, a diseased, demented criminal extremist being propped up by more criminal extremists.

I don't know what to say. It feels like you've used the calculative power of that wonderful human brain of yours to predetermine how the women you're attracted to should behave in any given situation. You're prejudging both you and them in terms of what should happen between you, and basing it all on your preconceptions. And the worst is that if she doesn't behave the way you think she should, she's a villain. You've etched a path to joy in your mind so narrow that you tread it alone. You deserve better than this, but it's you who are your own villain. You think you're avoiding drama and that she should be grateful for that, but people who view women this way, talk this way about them, you're a complete Greek tragedy mask. I've done some acting, and believe me, you're foreshadowing bad times ahead when you talk to anyone as if you already know the outcome of things. Life is supposed to be lived moment to moment, not by a script you've written but haven't shared. OTOH, and this is important, part of your script paints you as an underdog. You've been beaten down, oppressed, yet you remain a good person at heart who truly wants things to be better. The rest of it is super creepy, truly dude, and I don't know how you're going to divest yourself of your super harsh prejudgements, but I think you need to spend a whole lot less time guessing what others think of you. If you can, underdogs who persevere are extremely loveable. And the key component to being a great underdog is humility. You're so much more than these scripted definitions you have of confidence and arrogance.

Love this!

It's a real phenomena which is easily explained. We have an array of ways to measure sensory input, and a very intelligent brain that puts lots of data together very quickly. Claiming it's "unexplained" just makes it easier for people like Sheldrake to make claims like this.

I think it's garbage. This is all explained by normal sensory behaviors. We have a really good field of vision, amplified by hearing that helps focus in the right directions. And of course we understand how it happens, it's not some mystical woo magic. Rupert Sheldrake?! Jesus, you don't need him to explain anything about science. You've heard all this before, though. You've posted this elsewhere and took it down when you got answers you didn't like. Are you arguing for this in good faith?

Cheating, lying, and criminal behavior. Does that make him "successful" or does it make him dishonest? When you get people to do work for you that you never pay for, and inflate the value of your businesses to get favorable loans while deflating the value for tax purposes, your books look like those of a successful businessperson. But it's against the law. Is that being "successful"? At least until you get caught, I suppose, then you can lie about being persecuted for it. Does "successful" mean you aren't responsible for the things you say and do?

I don't know much about incels. What I've heard leads me to think that these men are trying to fit in to a patriarchal society that often treats women toxically, but they themselves aren't typically aggressive or toxic. The aggressive assholes are able to attract many women, while the incel sits alone, believing they would treat a woman much better. I'm probably completely off-base here, but it seems like incels are too focused on the kind of women who like aggressive men (and are turned off by anything else). If they could approach the ones who are turned off by toxicity, they'd probably fare much better socially. Also focusing on whether or not you're going to have sex with someone may not be the best social strategy. And most importantly, if a woman doesn't want to have sex with you, you shouldn't need to tear her down to make yourself feel better. There is a small subset of humans who want to be around any of us, and an enormous subset that don't. Just keep swimming. Politically, I wonder if our education system can be overhauled to address many mental health issues. Something tells me that early monitoring and intervention could help with some of these problems. I was a big fan of Love & Logic courses when my daughter was younger. They emphasized that the younger the child, the more monitoring they get vs zero responsibilities. As they grow, you give them more responsibility and monitor them less. I think this kind of dedicated approach could reduce the number of children who get caught up in depression and self-esteem problems.

! Moderator Note Closing this for now, mostly because someone has reported every post with a counter stance to their own. It will take a while to sort this out, what with us being a volunteer staff and all.

Isn't that the truth. It reminds me of the "skeptic" stance, "I question everything, so I'm always right". It's self-perpetuated bias.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-mocked-rally-sharks-rant-las-vegas-boats-1910275 He wraps up the rant by saying, "We're gonna end it for boats!" ?????? It's going to be a long, hot summer of rallies, and I don't think he's going to make it without exposing his mental degradation even more.

You made up the baryon sweep?! I was counting on this being real to remove the baryons my starship accumulates during warp travel. As my comedian friend Bob Meddles says, I didn't get to be a starship captain by living in a fantasy world!

As long as you're not in a boat with a battery, because shark.

! Moderator Note Since you're just repeating yourself and soapboxing, and since this isn't science, I'm going to close this. Nothing about it can teach anybody anything meaningful about science. Consider another source of discussion.

There's nothing persuasive about making claims you can't possibly be sure about. You simply can't know most of the things you're claiming, like the universe being eternal. As far as matter, gravity, and motion being eternal, we have evidence of a time when they didn't exist as we know them. And your Mother Nature reference is childish and lacks nuance, or any understanding of science. Why again are you looking for a science discussion if you clearly don't want to learn any science?

jv1 has been suspended for a week for bringing up a topic they couldn't support before, again. You need to overcome objections when describing something that isn't mainstream.

! Moderator Note We're not doing this again. This speculation couldn't be supported before, and changing the diagrams doesn't change that fact. This is a waste of time and you've shown us this before, and your threads on it were closed, and you were asked not to do this again. Have a vacation, think about the rules you agreed to follow, and if you come back, we can discuss some science.

You asked earlier why this topic seems to keep circling back to the beginning. You give examples of bias in science, and each example shows how that bias was dealt with, or its implications in the respective field. These are indeed evidence of bias in science. But then you make the mistake of assuming such bias is rampant, that it goes undetected all the time. This is what you can't provide evidence for, but you keep making the claim. How can you find evidence of something you claim is being ignored? How can you detect what isn't being detected? THAT is why this topic goes around in circles, and why you keep making the assumption that this bias has run amok among the community. There is a difference between bias and systemic prejudgement.

! Moderator Note We prefer that you respond on your own, without using AI generated language. The above makes little sense as a scientific response to what's been written. "Inquiry explores the pressure on the universe"?! This is a discussion forum for people.

Please don't resort to strawman fallacies. It was your claims that the bias permeated all of science that were shot down by several posters. At times, you've admitted it's not a universal phenomenon, but then you keep going back to a subjective view, and point out where bias has happened. This is why we keep going around in circles about this. Bias in science exists, but it's not automatic, it's not widespread, and it's not bias to accept explanations that work well for us.

It's because of the way you've set up the premise. There should be a way to define the type of bias you're describing so it can be assessed, but you haven't pinned it down for us. It's always present, you claim, but then you can't point to a trend. It affects all of science, you claim, but you can't support that, yet you claim it anyway. Your claims of widespread bias get shot down by evidence, yet you persist in claiming the bias exists. Someone said it many pages ago. Claiming widespread bias in science after all the posts asking for evidence shows that you're biased towards this argument. You can't believe bias isn't affecting science in a way that calls its conclusions into question, and you can't admit it's not the problem you've claimed.