Phi for All

They must have eaten little strawmen, based on this question. I doubt any forests are being trashed. I think your proximity to buffalo herds makes it a good environmental alternative as a protein source. I've heard various claims about the fat content, but what would sell me most on buffalo is a lack of growth hormones injected for market potential. I don't know that buffalo has less but I've heard it does, just because the scale of production and the larger size of the animal makes it unneccesary. Do you notice much difference in taste, Norman?

How about: I have this 12 ton block of raw sodium on the balcony of my apartment, which overlooks a big swimming pool and I hear this ominous creaking sound....

Was the bread you put in just as hard and cold when it popped out? I had that same toaster....

Perhaps with the new presidential administration and their promise to reinstate science to it's rightful place, Mr. O'Brien will find his employment status changing. Btw, I hear Jennifer Aniston is going to be on Discovery when it visits the International Space Station in February. They're airing a live cable special called Vapid Valentines From The Void. You heard it here first.

This is a good point. Some people can use the tags to (seem to) destroy an argument peicemeal, like tearing a tapestry thread by thread because it's too strong when whole. It's usually a lot of little straw men designed to hold little bits up to ridicule. But, as in the case of this post, I chose to highlight the part of iNow's post I wished to agree with and elaborate on. He can safely assume I agreed with the rest but had nothing to add. It's as clear why I did this as it is when someone misuses it when you're paying attention. I actually think it makes spotting fallacious arguments easier because the fallacies are applied to specific bits and not the whole post.

I disagree. Many people are right most of the time but have a few bits wrong, or they use good reasoning in most places but fall to fallacy at a weak moment. The quote tags allow you to support and add to good arguments without giving that support to the bad parts. Given the human inclination to key on the negative, I think many posters would look less favorably on posts that held a few negative comments among the positive. With tags, you can single out the parts that you object to.

Please make sure this statement does not lead off-topic for the Astronomy/Cosmology section.

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track. This post is a standard text set by SFN policy and was not devised by the person posting it.

You have exceeded your interest potential with me. You are no longer worth the effort.

I was referring to your telling me I didn't understand your purpose and therefore tried to define your purpose. I didn't, and used careful wording to ensure that what I wrote was strictly my opinion. You free to hold your own opinion of my opinion.

Let's be clear. Any faith I have is not rooted in anything firmer than a skepticism that science may be overlooking something it can't observe, merely for the fact that we observers are limited within it by the senses we possess. I don't even really call it faith, and I certainly don't call it religion. Think of it as an absurd amount of skepticism. I agree and would never try to do so. Neither would I completely and utterly dismiss something purely on the basis that it is highly improbable. I'm not big on absolutes in anything. We discovered, through science, that some fish can sense EM fields. We didn't always know this, even though science has been observing fish for some time now. I think there is a very low but existing probability that there are aspects of the universe we are currently incapable of observing.

The old Macs were truly amazing when the rest of us were using Franklins and Commodores. Even the Apple IIs were greenscreen junk once the Mac's proto-windows made navigation so intuitive and we'd had a taste of a DOS-less diet.

I agree with this completely. "Belief" is a culprit. "True" has some culpability as well. There are varying degrees in just about everybody's definitions that causes problems. "Proof" and "evidence" are also often misunderstood as well.

Please don't do this again. I chose the word "suggesting" rather than "stating" to avoid trying to strawman you by claiming to know your "purpose". In much the same way, in post #2, I carefully used the word "implication" rather than claiming that "evolutionist" was absolutely an attempt to equate faith with rigorous study. I'm not comfortable with generalizations, as stated many times in this thread. It is fine where it is. I would have reported it and suggested it be moved if it was inappropriate, something every member can do. What I suggested was, in light of subsequent posts, that the implication of a psychological reason for "why some people get so pissed off by such a universally used term like 'evolutionist'", coupled with the evolutionist = belief equation, might have given the intervening fire some substantial kindling.

My take: Believing something is true, in a scientific sense, is studying something thoroughly, examining the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is most probably true. Believing something is true in a religious sense is looking beyond the natural evidence and concluding that science can't deal with what can't be observed, and taking it on faith that there is a possibility of something there. I don't say that one is superior to the other, simply that scientific method is a more rigorous approach while faith attaches itself to a smaller probability. I happen to have faith that there exists in our universe certain things we aren't able to observe with our limited senses. Some fish can sense electrical fields. I imagine how different our own lives would be structured if we could know there was life in close proximity but beyond our sight, smell and hearing. I haven't studied this to be able to accept it, I just have faith that there is enough of a probability to make it possible. It is different from my acceptance of certain scientific theories because I have been able to study those and determine they are most probably true.

You've obviously never been the guru everyone relies on for answers. Being worshiped can be more fun than fun.

I also think the opening post was loaded by suggesting there is something psychologically wrong with people who get angry with a label like evolutionist. I tried to steer clear of that but putting this thread in this section may have doomed it from the start. I agree, and iNow has admitted, that his response was overly passionate. I further agree with you that a dismissive or insulting response neither helps set the tone nor keeps it from devolving into combative posturing. However, it was Pete's choice to lump my responses with iNow's. He was questioned about it by several people, including those who seemed to be supporting him. He chose to ignore those responses, and due to his open declaration regarding iNow, it was hard NOT to assume he was putting all those who's answers he didn't agree with on his Ignore List. I totally got your point, and it was a good one. I wish I had had more time to include it in my responses, but my new job only allows me a certain window of time in the early morning for posting, and correcting Pete's misrepresentations took up most of it. I completely agree that the only way to avoid the stigma of a persistent label is to embrace and redefine it so it becomes your own and loses the stigma. I would still like to talk about the difference between how a scientist accepts science and a religious person accepts religion. "Belief" can't mean the same thing to both.

I ended up having to defend some misrepresentations about what I was talking about though, and I never got a good response regarding the difference between "belief" / "acceptance" for science and religion. I still think this distinction lies at the heart of any anger over the label. Doesn't studying something thoroughly enough to understand it before accepting it carry more weight than accepting something because it fits in with your spirituality? And isn't that perhaps why one might object to being lumped together with the other? And note that I'm not trying to marginalize anyone's religious beliefs.

I remember my best friend had that Mac. He had a special backpack he could carry it around in. He also knew EVERYTHING there was to know about that computer since he had every program that would run on it and knew them inside and out. It was pretty amazing at the time. it wasn't long before there was more than one person could keep up with, and he was forced to specialize more and more.

We should split this section into two parts. Section 1 is for Jokes, and Section 8 is for Not Funny, Not Even Unfunny

Domestic Affairs: D+ -Education: D -I feel that No Child Left Behind was a good idea but it was so underfunded that it became a hindrance to positive learning. His stance against stem cell research made science a bad word in half the households in this country. -Economy: D+ -Bush was asleep at the switch with regards to the economy. Even McCain warned him his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible. And as a moderate Republican, he should have been more interested in curbing government spending instead of racking up more deficit. The pal-sy deals in the Iraq war didn't help spread the wealth much either, a move that did much to undermine free market process. -Other: D -He inspired no confidence in our country other than an "us vs them" kind of uneasy domestic alliance, and it never felt really good, did it?. His lack of transparency, his coercion tactics, his general air of underhandedness all helped to make his the least trusted presidency I've ever seen in my lifetime, including Nixon. International Affairs: D -Relations with China: C- -He unnecessarily aggravated the tensions between China and Taiwan with a hawkish stance that left little room for diplomacy. -Relations with Russia: B- -His stance with Russia was the same as his stance with China, but it works with the Russians when you roar like that. -War on Terrorism: D -He didn't get bin Laden, and I don't believe you can win a war on terror when there is religion involved. He did NOTHING to de-involve Islam (just the opposite, in fact) and for that alone we are in more danger now than before 9/11. -War in Iraq: D- -Take away the fact it should never have been started the way it was, he quite obviously wanted it to last as long as possible, with no exit strategy and no strategy that might have assured other countries it was anything other than a mistake. -World Standing: F -I don't think this country has EVER been held in lower esteem during any other president. -Other: C -The Bush Administration will end up helping the Obama Administration in its diplomatic efforts in much the same way it ends up helping to stop hitting your foot with a hammer. Obama is going to have at least a year of "good cop" good karma to work with, so thanks for that, W.

My response was in reference to a previous statement you made: I had said that I found your argument that, because I referred to "people" that I meant "all people", to be ludicrous. Just that one argument. Your response here seemed to include *all* my arguments as ludicrous and poorly reasoned, without ever having detailed why they were so. I was merely hoping you would respond because earlier you claimed you wouldn't. Apology accepted. I'm sure you meant the only comment which could possibly be taken as hostile *besides* the one I referenced above about *all* my arguments being ludicrous and poorly reasoned and wanting to ignore me. No' date=' it's an example of me trying to get at the root of why you had so many problems on that other forum, which you introduced as part of your OP. It was a question, not an attack. And your answer here seems to show a hypersensitivity to disagreement which I suspected was part of the problem you had there, and are obviously experiencing here as well. Is it OK to say that you seem hypersensitive when someone disagrees with you? Do you perceive that as an [i']ad hominem[/i]? You originally asked for some psychological input into your original question, and this thread was placed here in Psychiatry and Psychology purposely, was it not? Without pointing fingers or unintentionally making any ad hominem attacks, I would suggest to all participating members in this thread that hypersensitivity to disagreement might also be a factor in why evolution proponents and creationism advocates get angry with the labels thrust upon them. From my pov, I think the creationism advocates are upholding their sacred faith and the evolution proponents are upholding scientific method. Both sides can be touchy about what they consider the cornerstones of what they hold to be true.

Since I am involved in this thread, I have no Moderator status in it. This accusation of impropriety on my part has been reported and I have requested that an Administrator check the logs to see if anything has been deleted by me. Pmb, if you can bring yourself to respond to this post, I urge you to point out where you think I have deleted anything. My integrity as a staff member has been questioned and I take that very seriously. Frankly, I am baffled by your hostility. Is this typical of your reactions at that other forum you mentioned?

Thus it was you who said "Evolutionist" more or less implies a "belief" in evolution. Since you didn't qualify people it refers to all people, does it not? I find that argument quite ludicrous. If I said I met nice people yesterday, does it imply I met *all* the nice people there are? It is clear that you used it to mean faith. If you assert that this was not the case then your statement is misleading. I very clearly tied the concept of belief with the concept of faith and I don't see why you're obfuscating about it. It is that tie which often causes frustration in those who have studied a thing and understand it to be most probably true rather than simply taking the word of another without evidence and assume it must be true. Sorry if I confused you. Accepting that something is true, belief or faith, is different from studying something, weighing evidence, thoroughly researching the methodology used and then concluding that it is most probably true. Can you see that? You find it surprising that I don't think you have the authority to dictate how the word belief is used by all "evolutionists"? I find *that* surprising. I'll accept that evolutionists like yourself and Ernst Mayr have decided to use the term in this way. I am a proponent of evolution and I choose not to. To me, there is a decided difference, so please don't make any more decisions for me. Let's be clear here. The term we're discussing is "belief". Would you care to have me add a poll to this thread? Perhaps this would show that there may be some disagreement. Generalizations are often fallacious, just like the strawman example you use regarding indefinite integrals. Again, I offer a poll, in either this thread or another, to determine if the members here define their belief in evolution in a different way than creationists define their belief in creationism. This is incorrect. The assertion I made was regarding the psychological basis for the frustrations sometimes felt by scientists when they are labeled "evolutionists". Please don't shift the goalposts.

Incorrect. I made no generalization which involved "the all people". I said that a term like "evolutionist" can cause indignation in people who understand evolution to be true rather than having faith that it is true. I went further to suggest that there is no deeper psychological reason, which was my interpretation of your OP and why you placed it in this section. I was unaware we were discussing you. I thought this was about "some people" getting pissed off at the term. You seemed OK with it, but perhaps I'm wrong. I rarely yell at creationists, or people who use the term "evolutionist". Sympathy is my evolved response these days. I was unaware that there was a way it was meant to be used by "evolutionists". Can you cite something besides the dictionary to back this statement up? I think *you* are the one generalizing now. Merriam-Webster is not a scientific publication. I think there is some miscommunication going on here. Believing something is true, in a scientific sense, is different from studying something thoroughly, examining the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is most probably true. And if some scientists take offense at the implied "belief" aspect of the term "evolutionist", it is probably because it seems to relegate their studies to the same level as blind faith. You asked for some deeper psychological meaning behind this irritation and if you aren't willing to see that it might be insulting to someone who has spent their life in pursuit of knowledge, then I don't think you're really trying.