Phi for All

Proven without a doubt like religious beliefs and creation stories? Cute trick but science is not a religion. Religion requires faith in the unobservable. Science measures and attempts to understand the observable. And the theory of evolution has no "blockades" in it. Lack of complete understanding doesn't mean the theory is wrong. Evolution doesn't work on a single being, it only works if that being has offspring so it can pass along successful traits. It isn't though. Mandarin Chinese has twice as many speakers as English does. Wrong again, Spanish is fourth after Hindustani. French is ranked tenth in commonly spoken languages. I don't know which tract you picked up this info from but it's clear you need some different sources.

You guys are really off topic and I'd like to know... why?

/me hands you a Dustbuster and the phone number for the Nabisco guy. Stat!

Why? Maybe yes, maybe... why?

... because *someone* forgot to mention they'd eaten the last of the Cheese Nips. At least throw the empty box away, people.

It's not really about the scientific community's acceptance. It *is* about the most likely explanation. You state it almost perfectly when you say Even with overwhelming evidence to support it, evolution remains a theory and so it waits for a more logical, better supported explanation. Remembering that science is interested only in observable phenomena, any suggestions that an inherently unobservable deity broke physical laws to instantaneously create matter that appears to be billions of years old will not fall within science's purview. Bring it up and you invoke faith so science simply has no further function in the discussion. What?! Common descent is just one aspect of macroevolution that has had thousands of empirically tested predictions based on millions of observations. This type of testing does not assume a truth a priori the way creationism does. Observations lead to predictions and tests for those predictions. Common descent, transitional forms evidence and even molecular evidence help support evolutionary theory at the macro level. It sounds as though you've listened to a few detractors talking about evolution rather than learn about evolution itself. Not good, not rigorous enough, not fair to yourself. You should study evolution to see what it really is, rather than listen to other people who also haven't studied it tell you what it's not.

I'd prefer an EV1 from General Motors after watching Who Killed the Electric Car?

Isn't this a fairly recent addition to the Republican platform? I thought they were all about NOT being the world's police?!

Keeping it under your hat means there is no reason to keep this thread open any longer. A few more hours for any last comments and then we'll shut down since this is in Relativity and I don't want it bumped by new joiners ad infinitum.

Great note to end this thread on. Thanks to all participants, I appreciate all the input. I think this test was valid but I don't think we'll be repeating it.

I will reread to spot these references to sanity. I agree that they should not be allowed. This was not the goal. Period. Again, you state that this is an attack and then you shift the focus onto handicaps, a much more easily defensible argument. Strawman. Reality would seem to disagree but I hear you loud and clear on this one and wish things were different. I disagree completely. Morons and idiots display an inherently stupid behavior in most things (or it is so implied), whereas a crackpot is defined by the ideas he/she holds. And we've repeatedly stated that this is our usage for the term so I don't understand why you remain adamant that it isn't. I would welcome another index, as long as it gave us a similar or greater potential for measuring ideas. You have shown that this way has it's faults like the other ways we've tried. This was never intended to be used in all instances. The thread is still open because we are gleaning a tremendous amount of information from the various reactions to it. We hope most will simply redouble their efforts to be rigorous in their testing and put more effort into understanding basics that will help them with that. I am willing to increase my vigilance to compensate if this index proves fruitful. Whether you meant it or not, it's still a Strawman argument. I actually respect the Slippery Slope argument more since history shows us how easy it is to abuse changes in a system. We know it's a danger and we accept that it will mean an increase in awareness and prevention. It's actually your best argument. It's the reason we've always simply handled it on a per situation basis in the past. But too often crackpots interject their ideas into other people's threads, in addition to ignoring rebuttals in their threads. More time wasted. Believe me, we would love to have someone pitch a pet theory in Relativity, have it get bounced to Pseudoscience and Speculations, only to slowly and methodically make it's way, under rigorous questioning and testing, back into the main science sub-forums, having undergone a test of fire. Can you imagine the draw that would be for the site? It makes my nipples hard just thinking about it . We won't be using Baez' Crackpot Index on any individuals in the future, at least not in a thread like this. It was an attempt to let BenTheMan refute the bulk of Farsight's ideas since his individual critiques in Farsight's threads were mostly ignored. Doing things the same way hoping for different results is a definition of insanity, and we're trying to avoid that, right?

I think BenTheMan was probably going for what Farsight's children would be taught and what they would infect other kids with. Happy birthday to her! I don't know why that should piss you off but you shouldn't let if affect your posts. I take it you teach, based on this sentence. Imagine you are filling the blackboard with equations when one of the students jumps up and starts explaining his thesis on one of the other boards. His ideas are not solid and he doesn't seem to want to do the real work to explain why he arrives at his conclusions. It's obvious to you that he doesn't understand the math and so is convinced it must be wrong. Over the next few weeks this student will interject his pet ideas into just about every module you are trying to show to the rest of the class. It takes time away from the purpose of each module to keep correcting him as his interjections crop up. Many of the students who also don't understand the material are drawn to his ideas because they question your accepted views also. Do you just shake your head and continue with what you were doing? Do you correct him or do you just assume no one will care about his silly ideas? If he continues to do this after you've shown him his errors do you have him suspended? If more students copy his actions do you hear them all out or do you just keep suspending them? After you've suspended a few dozen would you start thinking there might be a better way to show the rest of the students how this type of reasoning is flawed?

If that's what you think then I understand why you object. Since crackpot ideas are not necessarily indications of insanity, I'm going to call Strawman here. No, Farsight's unsupported ideas are being held to John Baez' Crackpot indicator. No, Farsight's unsupported ideas are being held to John Baez' Crackpot indicator. Don't know, but this is another Strawman argument. It is true that Farsight is being used as a test case in some ways. We sometimes take the time to do a thorough job of debunking ideas like his (and creationism, conspiracies and anti-special relativity arguments). We usually dismiss them after a few rounds of "nothing to back me up but a gut feeling"-type posts. I can see where this would come off as bullying to someone who hasn't read and moderated hundreds of similar posts. We try not to do the "attack someone" thing. You have been reading this thread, right? I see a distinction with the term Crackpot. It's different than "idiot", "moron" and similar invectives in that it doesn't trash the person, just their ideas. In Baez' scale, Crackpot has defined parameters adn they are based on the ideas, not the person. Are we clear(er)? I admit the possibility that we may never allow this to be done again. It's a test, a new way of handling something that plagues us occasionally and almost always ends with us just banning the offender. I wanted to try something that has a chance of working better. More Strawman. Please note: Crackpot does not equal insane. Bingo. *sigh* Wrong. Slippery Slope fallacy. Strawman. The only menace Farsight poses is the tacit acceptance of his ideas should we choose to ignore them. Strawman. Congratulations, your cornfield is protected but you're all out of straw. I'm glad there are those who are watching these threads for the use of ad homs. BenTheMan has had several Infractions leveled at him from the Staff until he stopped using them and came upon Baez' test. He showed that he could change his strategy and not just beat his head against the wall. Keep holding our feet to the fire and make this a board of scientific inquiry and intellectual honesty. Bear in mind that we are using an internet forum format so it shouldn't come as a surprise that we have to do things a bit differently and it doesn't conform to most concepts of peer review (or any concept). I've been moderating here for a couple of years now and BenTheMan is right about at least one thing: you can't just stay silent while someone trashes what you love. Many of you have objected when we quietly delete crap that doesn't deserve to stay, you object when crap is left in and now you object to a thread which puts a spotlight on the crap. There's no pleasing everyone and I'm fine with that, it's human nature. I also have to admit that, although Farsight is a bit unclear on what rigorous review and testing really is, he has stuck it out and is still responding. It is for this reason that we didn't just dismiss his ideas out of hand and delete them after banning him. Hats off for that, Farsight.

FYI, bubble text is only allowed in General Discussion threads. Not as big a deal in Pseudoscience as in Physics, but let's keep Gir and the rest in GD, please.

I saw a video on how the big pig farms do things these days. It was pretty sickening but I have to admit I was anthropomorphizing a lot. There is no getting around the fact that these animals are being raised to be slaughtered. They have a floor grid so the fecal matter is removed almost immediately. The place was so pristinely clean that visitors had to be decontaminated before entering to avoid bringing in anything which might infect the pigs (they are highly susceptible to contamination due to being raised in this pristine environment). Most people react pretty badly when exposed to any kind of slaughterhouse conditions. There are no magic wands to wave that instantly and painlessly kill the animal and package it for your table. The pig farmers really have to go out of their way to keep the animals calm. The last thing they need is to have pain and suffering spread through a herd and cause any mishaps. They are making money and they lose money when things don't go smoothly. Ultimately you have to decide whether you like meat more than you hate slaughterhouses.

Let me be clear on this. There are subtleties involved in scientific debate that must be observed, especially on this forum. If I call you crazy it's an ad hom but if I call your ideas crazy and can back the statement up with evidence then I have a legitimate argument. If anyone started a thread solely devoted to ad homs or ridicule of another member it would be deleted and the poster would be given infraction points toward a temporary ban (which was EXACTLY what I was going to do when I saw this thread's title for the first time before I read the OP). What BenTheMan has done here is to use John Baez' Crackpot Index to do the same thing. He is using a measurement others have used to base his argument on. There is a distinction here. Why do you think no one has tried to retaliate by using Baez' index on BenTheMan or Spyman or swansont? It's because it wouldn't work on them. Granted that it's a gray area but I think BenTheMan has used it well.

... with an enormous lorry bearing down on you, air-horn blaring. I think the driver wants to perform a physics experiment involving impact, acceleration and freefall. We'll need to know your mass, mate.

This is the main reason. It's also a test of control, not letting frustration cloud your arguments. And we do want to show that ideas aren't summarily dismissed here, even though they run contrary to accepted science. There are limits though, and I think the coyote has maxed out his ACME card.

No need to move it, and as far as I'm concerned you've used a good litmus test to prove your point, rather than just throwing ad homs and flames everywhere. I really like your use of Baez's index here (he is Joan's cousin, iirc). No reprimand, have some reputation points instead. Gratz, Ben.

Why such an outrageous conclusion? Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. If it became transparent wouldn't it be simpler to conclude that when heated the substance flows to the least complicated state, thus appearing "unscrambled"? Claiming the substance "went to a different dimension" is an indication of their lack of science knowledge. A dimension is a measurement of spatial or temporal extent, not a parallel universe. See above. Ding! Give that man a cookie! Many crackpot ideas have little or no testing that can pass peer review. If they did, you're right, you'd see it splashed all over the media, especially in scientific publications.

Describe your dealings with it to date, please. Tell us about why you are interested in mono-atomic gold.

... if you don't count the more than 30 deaths associated with GMO l-tryptophan supplements.

I wouldn't say it's the only real problem at all. Because GMO producers were able to force the FDA in the US to recognize GMO crops as "just like regular crops", a whole host of regulatory testing was averted. That's how they were able to get away with no labeling in the first place. Who knows what may "crop" up in the next decade or so now that FDA testing has been thwarted. The process is far from sound. The money making aspect is driven by patents which require GMO foods to practically be cloned, causing a homogeneity that threatens the biodiversity in our food supply. Allergies have been linked to the lack of diversity that happens when mass production limits variety, and many GMO foods (again unlabeled) contain genes from nuts to which many people are deathly allergic. It is the process itself which insures that problems will continue. Already there are "superweeds" which have gained resistance to natural predators and chemical herbicides through cross-pollination with GMO crops. Introduction into natural settings is inevitable and unavoidable. And GMO producers are making sure farmers destroy their non-GMO seed stocks so the changes are irrevocable. This is a combination of greed and bad process but I just wanted to show that this is not mere technophobia at work.

Of course not, people have been doing that for ages. But do you take genes from completely different organisms (like fish) and modify your crops that way? Your garden is bigger than most but it's not on a scale that's likely to jeopardize your immediate environment. You are also not breeding for longer shelf life or enhanced taste at the expense of nutrition (iceberg lettuce is the #1 lettuce crop in the US and has the lowest nutrition value as well; it is hardy and survives mass shipping better than other varieties). You also don't modify your crops to be toxin-resistant, then claim that they will need less pesticides to keep them healthy. Monsanto breeds crops that are resistant to their own pesticide Roundup, but then locked farmers into contracts requiring them to continue to use Roundup (even though their patent was about to expire). Since the crops are toxin resistant, farmers have to use more Roundup than with natural crops, helping Monsanto sell GMO crops AND more Roundup than ever before.

Here is the article I read about the ladybugs. It may be a bit biased but they have some good resources backing them up.