Phi for All

Alkonoklazt has been suspended for a week because staff would like a break from all the rebellion against the system. 

18 hours ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

Being that once our star begins to run out of Hydrogen the entire solar system will die shortly after,

This is wrong. Even in billions of years when we move out of the sun's main sequence and into the red giant phase, it won't "kill" "the entire solar system". It will change a great deal, but the system will still exist. Honestly, you need to study more and read popular science articles less.

18 hours ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

should we not be focusing on finding other, younger systems with planets that can harbour and nurture life

What on Earth makes you think we aren't looking? Or, in your ignorance, do you imagine the efforts aren't "focused" enough for your understanding?

18 hours ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

How to live on a planet without destroying its environment and having a negative effect on all other life forms on it?

Trying to learn that now (we've only had one chance in the past), but some people insist on holding their ignorance close, like an old friend, and ignore our current efforts. I guess it's easier to gripe about it than learn about it.

18 hours ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

but now that science has proven that the slightest change to one planet or moon will have an effect on everything else, possibly causing changes to our orbit and/or rotation which has been sighted as being the cause of past ice ages and mass extinctions, should we be crashing satellites and probes into them once their fuel runs out? Are we risking our very future by haphazardly dealing with the left overs of our research in the way we always have? Should we be designing our space crafts in such a way that they can return to earth? Is the easiest way the best way ?  

You started out with a title about exploring our own solar system, then immediately went to "focusing on finding other, younger systems with planets that can harbour and nurture life", and ended with conspiracy, conflating crashing a satellite into the moon with mass extinction events. None of this has squat to do with Astronomy and Cosmology, it's a flawed starter right out of the gate with too many misconceptions, and past discussions with you (particularly wrt expansion vs explosion) have shown you're very wedded to your ideas and don't deal well with being corrected. 

Can you give me a focus for this thread (FTL travel in Engineering maybe, or Ecology & the Environment for a conversation about negative effects), so it doesn't end up like all the rest, with you getting your reputation marked down for being sloppy and unrigorous while nothing meaningful gets discussed?

12 hours ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

I read every comment and all I get is "You're Wrong!"

Seriously?! Not a single comment did that. Every single reply has told you exactly what the problem is with your argument. Now you're either engaging in bad faith, or you just can't grasp the concept that when the entire universe expands, it's NOT expanding INTO anything. It can't, because there is NOTHING else except the universe. If you can focus on this and stop ignoring it, you may begin to see and break this 20 year cycle of ignorance. We all wish you the best!

14 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

So imagine that 95% of mount Everest is missing, where would it be?

Just now, exchemist said:

Yes I can see the logic of that, especially for someone with what sounds like a rather ghastly experience of religion in youth (I was more fortunate).  I am merely pointing out it is not a distinction you can necessarily expect others, in other English speaking countries, to understand automatically by these terms.

Faith is not a pejorative word over here. Its connotations are generally neutral to positive.  "Blind faith" would be pejorative, however, and I think that is what you are describing, actually.

I think you're right. When I'm talking about people believing strongly in something they can't support, I'm using faith to mean blind faith.

14 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK but you are talking about one (particularly crude) view of religious faith. The term is broader than that, at least on this side of the Atlantic, in speech and in the written word. One may speak of faith in an institution, or in a person, or in predictions, e.g.of the Met Office or a financial adviser. Admittedly such usages may be intended to draw a parallel with religious faith, but in a positive sense, whereas the sense of belief at variance with evidence would obviously have a negative connotation. But maybe in view of this exchange I should be careful not to use the term in discourse with Americans.  

I understand all that, I just see no particular efficacy in using the same term to describe what I see as completely different behavior. If history has taught me that someone is usually very capable at work assigned to them, I'll tell them I trust them with this new assignment, not that I have faith in them. I'm using past experience as a metric of my trust.

And I really needed a word to describe the kind of belief that the Abrahamic religions were requiring of me. Sacred ideas, inviolate texts, holiness everywhere, and things that didn't make sense but I was supposed to believe them anyway, That belief was supposed to be unshakeable, and these beliefs were the most important beliefs. So that's what I use the term faith for, belief that doesn't require evidence to support it. 

26 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Interesting.

My OED says, for meaning (1), "Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness etc of a person ; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). It does go on to say "in early use, only with reference to religious subjects; this is still the prevalent application and often colours the wider use".  So not exclusively to be used in religious contexts, though it often is.

There is nothing at all, in any of the meanings, to suggest that belief despite evidence to the contrary is in any way intrinsic to the meaning of the word. (In fact, its use in everyday speech makes it obvious that cannot be the case.)

So I think you have made that bit up.  😄

I observe quite a big difference between the way someone believes in things they can verify, and things they can't but still believe. To me, it's all belief, but faith, and we're talking about religious faith here, seems different than trust.  I don't think your OED definition hits the mark. It mashes together the concepts I'm trying to separate.

It's definitely not about "I have faith that PersonX is a good person", which I would put under a third category of belief, wishful thinking. It's something you hope is true, can't prove, but aren't as adamant about. 

And yes, it's made up. That's the way the language works when there's a need to differentiate. The way I'm asked to believe in science is different than the ways I was asked to believe in Christianity. 

And I'll admit that you have a completely different outlook in the UK on religion than my examples in the evangelical US. I have relatives that will tell you faith is the strongest form of belief BECAUSE it requires no evidence. They talk about how your faith must be unshakeable and steadfast, and how any doubt is wrong. They're proud that they don't question the things they're taught. Asking for evidence is almost sacrilegious.

So yes, making a distinction between faith and trust isn't a mainstream concept, but it's one that's helped me in reasoning my way in modern human life. 

mar_mar has been banned for soapboxing and bad faith arguments. 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The EU and UK is trying unpack the byzantine tax strategies they use to currently hide 'excess' taxable wealth. It needs comprehensive global co-operation though, otherwise they'll just keep moving it.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/rich-untaxed-wealth

Quote

An analysis released Wednesday shows that in 2022, the wealthiest people in the United States collectively held a "staggering" $8.5 trillion in wealth that is not—and might never be—subject to taxation.

Imagine what could be done with even a 10% tax on that kind of wealth. 

37 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And I still don't understand is evolution a change or development? So simple question, why don't you answer.

You've shown that you aren't really interested in the explanations that have been put forth. Like all the other creationists before you, you mock what you don't understand, and flee from rigorous questions. Have faith that you're as ignorant now as when you showed up. Keep pouring god into those gaps in your knowledge! Wishing you all the best elsewhere.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Well, looking at Europe I don't think that representative parties are a clear solution. 

But it should give The People back some skin in the game, which We haven't had for a few decades. The Republicans gave up representing The People and started focusing on corporate interests under Reagan, and the Democrats did the same under Clinton. The difference in donations was too much to pass up. Now We have major issues that 70% of us all agree on, but the corporations don't so we get no action on what could be some of the best, easiest solutions available to us. 

Overpopulation is quite closely related to capitalism from what I've read, so perhaps it's finally time for the US to embrace public and state funding with no private leeching allowed. That would be the old European way, but perhaps I'm over glamorizing a system I didn't live in.

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Conditions on Earth are changing faster than people's minds change.  It takes generations for significant human changes.  We don't have time for that.  We need to adapt quickly or self-destruct.

It only takes generations when one of those generations is unwilling to change. Pick any three major progressive changes and if you can avoid the obstructionists, things will move quickly.

Offhand, I'd allow ranked-choice voting, just so we can break with the two parties that only represent corporations, and get some actual citizen representation going. I'd also nationalize something major, like food production, so healthy food was a right rather than something you have to earn. And my fave right now is to expand the USPS to compete with Amazon, including a vendor portal so small businesses aren't smothered. 

People who have no food insecurities and access to the means to prosperity aren't as likely to have lots of kids. Same goes for folks who are better educated, so a focus there can only help with overpopulation. We really need to stop supporting the industries that spend money to spin fear because we spend more when we're afraid and frustrated.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

I say about large elements and large processes in small.

All right, I have no idea what you're talking about.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

it's a lie in YOUR opinion. what is the evidence??

*sigh* Is it hard for you to focus? My made up neighbors had a made up situation where they didn't understand how their garbage was being handled. They thought it was because they prayed for it, but I know it's because the city has a collection agreement. One is a lie (especially if I don't correct them), the other is the truth. My evidence is the bills I get from the city, and if I get up early enough, I can actually observe garbage collectors (not gods) picking up the trash.

My question was designed to get you to see how sometimes the things people believe have no foundation in the real world. I wanted you to see what it's like to watch someone with bizarre religious beliefs struggle to explain the natural world when you know differently. 

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

and i noticed that it was incorrect example in the core.

Are you trying to say that my premise is bad? OK. Here's another. There are some Christians who believe that their god tests their faith by using snakes like in the Bible. They bring venomous snakes into church and people handle them because the preachers tell them their god will keep them safe. It killed so many of the faithful that most states made it illegal, but you can still do it in West Virginia. 

Do you think I should say nothing when I hear about someone who does this, because it's part of their faith in their god? Or do you think I should tell them it's a lie, and they are very likely to get bitten and die if they do this? What would you tell them? I'm going to guess based on past postings and say you'll be going with a fallacious response, most likely a No True Scotsman fallacy.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

You are either deluded or confused, or perhaps unwilling to understand the current status of the theory of cosmology. Pretty much everyone knows by now that you are, and it only remains to be seen whether or not you are willing to take some information in. If you are, some people here could be of much help.

It just occurred to me that this could be a procrastinatory practice. You know you have a huge mountain to climb, so you start looking for reasons not to start; looks like rain, need new shoelaces, is this the best route? 

Lots of science to study. Looks like some discrepancies, need new books, is this really true? Much easier to blow it all off as not worth it because of all the enigmas. Saves a LOT of time.

18 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Wikipedia doesn't know what  conscience is. For me it is religious concept.

None of this has anything to do with evolution, but how do you explain how so many atheists live moral, compassionate lives without a god to urge them or force them into it? How do you explain when non-religious people have a very well-developed conscience? Could it be that morality doesn't need religion to be effective? Could it be that judging people the way you do isn't really moral at all? I actually think it's immoral that you love a god that wants to torture me for eternity. Shame on you!

34 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

...not only creationists. There's a lecture of N.dG.Tyson, astrophysicist, in which he says that life on Earth made of the same elements the Universe does. And that the Universe is inside us. Now i understand it's absolutely true.

Well, that's something completely different. Of course we're made up of the same elements the universe has available. That doesn't mean individuals evolve during their own lifetime. Evolution's effects are only seen as succeeding generations happen. 

It's very difficult to talk science with you when you have SO MANY misconceptions and yet you still think your arguments from ignorance are relevant. You don't know what you don't know, and it shows.

39 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

But it was imaginary situation, you could think of any plot, but you've chosen this one. So you literally made your neighbors think that all swans are white. And asked me whether i would tell them that there were black ones. As if it was the most tragedy in their lives. Well, it depends whether i'm ready to ruin someone's beliefs. And it's up to a person to attach to one's beliefs or not.

The benefit of a thought experiment is that you can arrange the situation to fit a need. I needed you to tell me how you would deal with a neighbor who didn't understand something but believed his god had done it, that's all. You first told me you would tell them the truth, but now it sounds like you would let them believe what you know is a lie (that god is the one taking care of their trash). I've known a LOT of Christians who believed like this, that it's better to let someone believe in a lie than to question their faith. 

It's funny though. It sounds like you want to tell people about the lies of science and other religions, but when it comes to YOUR religion, it's better to let people believe what they want. Isn't that funny?

2 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

They screwed up, and making supernatural claims. Calling it "scientific claim" doesn't make it one.

Nice to know it was a mistake trying to discuss this with you. Enjoy always being right.

5 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I don't think scientologist claims count. Otherwise, I'd have to count absolutely everything any random person made.

You claimed religion doesn't make scientific claims about how things function in the natural world, that "none of them are scientific claims". iNow pointed out it just takes ONE example to make your statement false. Then you started to waffle about it.

Look, attempts at Intelligent Design being taught in US schools are chock full of examples of religion rewriting science and making scientific claims. Can you please admit it's wrong to generalize and just move on with this discussion?

2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

None of them are scientific claims

31 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You expect me to know every detail of every claim that as ever been made.

You made a mistake here. Can you acknowledge it and move on?

1 hour ago, ttelect said:

Apparently I have been given a "Moderator Note" for 'preaching.

To preach is to EARNESTLY ADVOCATE for whatever the cause is. I find this to be discrimination on SCIENCE found. Regardless of what or where it comes from, if it is proven, it should be considered Science still. 

 

Anyone to mention the GOD particle should be considered religious then, and we know this isn't the case. Consequences should be given to primitive thinking people simply wanting their ears itched by what their primitive professors taught them. They are all bound to the culture they face. The Science I spoke of is beyond our very culture, beyond our very selves. 

Do you know how discussion works? Please get down off the soapbox if you want to talk.

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

It is your belief what others think.

I believe it because I can gather evidence to support my statement. I TRUST what I said, rather than have FAITH in it. I said, "...you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods". Haven't you ever heard about how the Christians persecuted early scientists like Galileo for claiming the Earth revolved around the sun, because the Bible claims in Psalms that the god set the Earth on its foundations so it can't be moved? The Bible claims rabbits have split hooves in Deuteronomy, and that all flying insects walk on all fours in Leviticus, so it's NOT just my belief what others think. I have evidence. Surely you see that?

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

But what about a well known fact that we can see whole in small.

I assume this is that weak macro vs micro argument creationists always bring out. Well, you're forgetting all the time involved (can I also assume you also believe your god is fooling everyone about the age of the Earth?). Small changes each generation over tens of thousands of generation produces speciation. You really should study before ridiculing.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

It is also your belief what others think.

I'm not sure if it's a language barrier, or a reasoning barrier, or just you trying to obfuscate because you have no good arguments, but this response is just weird. I gave you a scenario about my imaginary neighbors, I told you what they were thinking because they told me. I was asking you what you would do if faced with that situation in real life. You answered it, briefly, when you said you would tell them the truth. Ever since then, you've avoided answering further.

I just wanted to show you how people can be wrong in their religious beliefs, like all of us can be wrong. The difference is, science uses information we can TRUST, so we don't get caught in a process where we just blindly believe things we can't support.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Now I am a bit confused on individual vs collective survival. 

I'm not sure why what I said would confuse you in quite this way. By definition, evolution happens within a population over time. It's a mistake to think of individuals unless those individuals are successfully reproducing to pass their genes along to future generations.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Apparently so does ignorance since it seems they tend to reproduce in far higher numbers than the non-ignorant 

There’s an old quote about not judging a fish based on its ability to climb a tree.  Do you know that one? 

Likewise, we should never judge the intelligence of a deaf friend based on their ability to detect perfect tones or discover the familiar voice of a loved one amidst the cacophony of a crowd. 

There are limitless contexts to which intelligence may be applied, and similarly endless “shapes” of “intelligence.” 

Does this entity have skills accurately recalling past events? Does it have skills accurately forecasting futures today unwritten?

Does this entity have the ability shape the surrounding environment, to build a dam, or construct a nest? Is the entity an individual or a colony of individuals farming and building mounds? Does it have the ability to camouflage itself with chromatophores and control 8 legs independently all at once?

Does this entity have a sense of self? Does it process and remember sounds better or do they process and remember sights better? Are they good at calculating complex math in their head without pen paper or tool? Are they able to fix a tractor using a spoon and some duct tape, or resolder a computer chip?

Is this entity a gifted author or poet, or do they perhaps build amazing pieces of artwork and exhibit quality craftsmanship using wood or gems or edible ingredients on dinner plates? Are they good at puzzles or playing Tetris? Are they good at getting unlost along the side of a towering mountain, or avoiding icy spots driving down winter roads?

Do they regularly find insights into the mysteries of the cosmos that intelligent others for centuries before them walked passed simply unaware? Do they know how to predict a tornado, or collect nutrients months in advance before getting covered for months by a frozen layer of tundra? Do they know how to sense and avoid dangers and plan for future security, and can they do anything to act on those plans and make them real?

Or, are they simply going with the flow like a twig in the shoulders of a mighty stream?

All of these things involve “intelligence,” but intelligence doesn’t require all of those things. Sometimes intelligence is simply being kind to the person in front of you, or perhaps sharing your nitrogen with the trees beside you, remembering to breathe and be grateful your skins not turning blue. 

And let’s say “all of nature” is intelligent. Okay, super. So what? Does that mean she knows how to simmer a great gumbo, or that she can manufacturer computer chips by the billions at a 3nm scale? Does it mean she’s really good at fractions and calculus, or drawing hyper accurate maps of cities? 

No, of course not, so why use the term “intelligent” at all when it would likely be better to focus on specific things that are far more relevant and interesting… like asking whether the tree that fish is trying to climb happens to currently be underwater. 

Oh, yes. +1

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Wait. I mentioned that this example is incorrect, but you insist on it. It is incorrect in the core.

It's not  religious belief, it's immaturity. Faith is not about waiting for God to do my work for me.

It's not YOUR religious belief, but you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods. They don't believe in evolution because they never studied it, they only learned to ridicule it.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Are  you waiting your neighbors to "evolve" from the country neighbors to respectful city neighbors?

Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. We see whole populations evolve as each successive generation carries their traits forward to the next.

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Why have you mentioned that they are from the country?

To let you know that my neighbors didn't realize that, in the city, their taxes paid for city trash services. They didn't know where their trash was going, and assumed it was their god answering their prayers.

42 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And i don't see a problem in this imaginary scenario , though you ask for imaginary advice. As for me i would try to make friends with those neighbors and explained about trash. If they didn't pick up the trash I would do it for them, when i notice that trash.

So you would explain that it's the city that sends trucks around early in the morning to collect trash cans, and not their god? You would correct their religious beliefs about trash pickup because you know the real explanation and feel it would be wrong not to help them?

59 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

2 + 2 = 4, no theory involved as this is easily proven.  So math is never theory, it either works or it fails which makes it wrong not a theory

Maths are used to model theories. The Lambda Cold Dark Matter model supports the Big Bang Theory, for instance.

1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said:

which is why dark matter was invented as without the missing mass the math fails, and the universe can't be proven. 

You're mixing standards here. Proofs are for maths (and formal logic). Theories are NEVER "proven", no explanation for anything in the universe is "proven". Theory is our best supported explanations, and the methodology works best if we always assume there's a better (or more detailed) explanation. When you think you've found an answer, you stop asking the question, so theory keeps us searching for better and better evidence for our explanations. Does that make sense to you?

1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said:

As for black holes they once claimed that nothing could escape, now they say different, 

No, you didn't read what swansont said. Hawking radiation happens just outside the event horizon. Nothing is entering and then finding enough energy to leave.