Phi for All

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.

The number of people who misunderstand "theory" and "truth" are absolutely astounding.

None of this crap is fact. There's no evidence for anything you've asserted. Nobody wants to hear you preach or soapbox. This is a discussion forum, not your blog. Please go away if you can't follow the rules.

I'd like to point out that you've made some version of this claim every time someone brings up ways to avoid bias. Individually, these points may be insufficient, but the way your argument works, the whole is never taken into consideration. And I think you're also making the mistake of thinking that we need to "totally arrest" anything bad about a system or it's no good to us at all.

Your objection seems less about bias and more about too much rigor, that the gatekeepers are holding those trying to get through to standards they can't meet. I've seen this argument a LOT in the last 20 years here, always from people whose ideas can't be supported by evidence. They usually want us to look past the mistakes we see and embrace the core concept, to give it a chance, to not be so hidebound and biased. As others have said, science isn't immune to bias, but not all rejection is biased. Individuals make mistakes, and we hope that peer review and the rest of the process can weed those out. Even mistakes in objectivity.

I'm sure you have examples you can cite, but your statement infers that this happens frequently. Are you assuming that "the science process" does this automatically and with no real parameters or reasons? If this starting gate selection process requires that all ideas presented must be falsifiable, is this a bad thing?

I'm hoping someone in the media can do a better job of pointing out that this case was a complete slam dunk, and similar cases almost always end the same way. This was no witch hunt, it was pretty boiler plate legal methodology. The fact that the Republicans are making more claims about unfairness needs to be offset by the reality of the court system. The evidence made this a foregone conclusion, and the jury was unanimous about that. I have a feeling they're making this stink because eventually TFG is going to be sentenced without facing jail time, which is also typical with these types of first-time crimes, but they want it to seem like the judge waved prison because it's so unfair. I think many in the GOP will look at big fines as no big deal.

The assumption is that ideas are discarded without really looking into them, correct? Then how did they know the ideas didn't meet with the prevailing line of thinking (also known as theory)? You have to look into an idea in order to falsify any part of it. And your assumption doesn't take into account that many people (here at least) have ideas with real stumbling blocks that are unphysical or violate well-known observations. We bring them to their attention, and guess what? They don't amend their ideas at all, but instead claim we didn't really look into it because it doesn't meet with the prevailing line of thinking. There's a big difference between hidebound denial and favoring our current best explanations.

That's exactly what I thought when I read that Luc's contention is "biasness taking on the form of selective 'rational-reasoning' in scientific enquiry". Isn't he basically saying that it's biased to reject a new idea using mainstream knowledge and reasoning?

We were hoping for a yes or no reply to a question about whether you're in an office today or not. My feeling, at least, is that you shouldn't use your own phone or Skype accounts at all if you want to remain anonymous. If you aren't at work, can you go to a hotel? The bigger ones have phones in the lobby.

! Moderator Note Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited here. I'm inviting you to change your tone when posting here or leave with the utmost haste. Frankly, you sound like you're using AI to post in the most racist, offensive manner possible for a forum such as this. You're a caricature of modern male toxicity and prejudice, and none of your recent posts seem crafted in good faith.

I thought we were attacking straw men instead of addressing the real issue here. You claimed we're OK with an infinite population. Also, I'm pretty sure if your perspective gains traction, it will be called a "cleansing" or a "reduction" rather than "the murder of innocent persons". How else do we get where you want to be within your lifetime? Not making so many babies is a generational strategy.

I'm opposed to your plan to exterminate any groups of humans you don't like.

My apologies to all Canadians!

I'm sure science HAS studied this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5897168/ Although this paper doesn't go back to the 1950s, I think it supports your idea.

I disagree completely. The problem is more with current infrastructure, which is weirdly and disproportionately aimed at profit rather than continuing to find new ways to make resources more efficient and readily available. Look at human history, we've gotten very good at improving production and yield in almost everything, and we continue to innovate. Our problem isn't diminishing resources or overpopulation. It's a social problem, where some righteous folks don't think some other folks deserve access to resources. Those righteous folks loudly proclaim that the problem lies with those who have too many children rather than those who are hogging all the resources. The problem isn't human overpopulation, it's that we don't care that we're displacing other species as we look for habitable land. It's that we don't support each other socially, so families need to have more members to handle all the work. It's that we're breaking up extended families so everybody has to buy everything and live independently. Our biggest problem is that we're ignoring our cooperative nature in favor of our competitive nature, and letting greedy people convince us we're the problem. Remember when the plastics industry started suffering major backlashes because so many well-known logos were part of pictures of heaps of trash in every major city? Did they try to fix the problem they created? No, they made a commercial with a Native American (who was really an Italian from Canada) crying because We the People created all this litter, and we better start throwing it away properly. IOW, it was a scam, and I think all this BS about overpopulation is more scam trying to divert attention away from the scammers.

None of this story has anything to do with logic, especially mathematical logic, which is a formal study of its own. This is more of a psychological example, where a child sees more pieces of currency and assumes it represents more money. My brother-in-law used to offer young kids a $5 bill OR a handful of nickels, about 20 of them, and most took the coins. Don't forget the shiny factor here, too. Coins glitter where paper does not.

In one instance you're doing math, dividing 1 by 2 to get .5, and in the other instance you're slicing a line down the middle of a pie. Both instances are NOT examples of mathematical division. All of your arguments are weak in this thread, especially your Arguments from Incredulity (How is this possible? and I can't believe it's true!). You've misunderstood quite a bit, so you need to study more, and perhaps listen to the folks here who are trying to help you see.

Citation? All my studies blame the belief and not the believer. Do you feel personally attacked, is that why you leap to fallacy? Can't you separate the stance from those who hold it?

It seems like the tolerance of those who know the social part of their "stance" will never be funded. You can claim to be socially liberal because the fiscal conservative part of you votes it down. Major studies found the cause of traffic is brake lights. My study found the cause of the rest of our problems is religion, and religion also affects the way people brake while driving.

Isaac Newton kept his occult studies from the Church. He was into alchemy, and his mystic pursuits convinced him that seven was a more important number than five, so in his color theory he added orange and split purple into indigo and violet. So you might be able to be a scientist and still believe in this mystic garbage, but I think you're negatively affecting your objectivity when it comes to theory.

"No, no, I said I wanted 'room to rest' on every landing!"