Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Strange

  1. What is faith?

    Exactly this. Faith doesn’t need to be justified, rationalised or explained, ffs. IT’S FAITH!!! Totally missing the point. Well done. You believe it does. But there is no evidence that it does. Guess why? Because it is faith. It doesn’t need to depend on anything external. It is, as you say, personal and internal. Citation needed. There are many religious scientists but they nearly all compartmentalise their faith. It might be part of what drives them to be curious and want to learn about the world, but they know they mustn’t let their faith influence the science.
  2. What is faith?

    They can co-exist. I'm not sure that they can work together. One of the purposes of the scientific method is to eliminate human biases, such as faith in random beliefs (like yours), from interfering with the results.
  3. What is faith?

    Exactly. It has nothing to do with objective evidence or the outside world. It is just in your head.
  4. Croatian Toponyms

  5. How are galaxies expanding along with space time?

    That was covered in the "Meaning of Einstein's Equations" link I provided earlier.
  6. How are galaxies expanding along with space time?

    Then you would need some evidence, not just your lack of understanding.
  7. How are galaxies expanding along with space time?

    It is important to note that it is not Doppler shift. If you try and interpret it as such, you get incorrect results.
  8. How are galaxies expanding along with space time?

    This is the prevailing explanation because it works.
  9. How are galaxies expanding along with space time?

    That is a problem with your understanding, not with the model. It doesn't really matter what you think. That is what the model says.
  10. How are galaxies expanding along with space time?

    "Space" is just the distance between things. So, pretty much by definition, if the space (distance between them) expands then they get further apart. Uh, what. That is EXACTLY what the Big Bang model explains. It adds lots of details, like the temperature of the CMB, the primordial proportions of hydrogen and helium, etc, but, basically: it explains expansion. That is what it is a theory of. Obviously not.
  11. How are galaxies expanding along with space time?

    This is a good overview of Einstein's equations: There is some mathematics, but you can get the gist without understanding that in depth. The two relevant points to this thread is that the movement of things towards one another in the presence of mass-energy (ie what we call "gravity") and the tendency of the distance between things to increase in the absence of mass-energy (or a homogeneous distribution of mass-energy) are the natural consequences of the nature of space-time. It requires a force to prevent things falling together, and similarly it requires a force to prevent expansion. So, it is the absence of forces holding them together that allows galaxies to drift apart; it is NOT a force pushing them. That IS a conspiracy theory.
  12. What is this fallacy?

    Claiming that someone else has responsibility for one's own actions. For example: Villain in a movie says, "If you don't pay the ransom / release the prisoners then you will be responsible for the death of the hostages" Trump blames the Democrats for his government's actions against immigrants Julian Assange is hiding from the law and claims he is being unlawfully detained etc Does this rhetorical tactic have a name?
  13. What is this fallacy?

    I think blame-shifting is the right term. It still feels a bit unsatisfactory for some reason but that’s my problem !
  14. What is this fallacy?

    True. But like so many other possible answers, this could cover a multitude of sins. (I would give you a +1 but I seem to have used them all up!) That is an excellent statement of the key point I am trying to describe. It is a non sequitur (and a lie and many of the other things described) but I was hoping for something specific to this particular type of non sequitur, lie, scapegoating, etc. (I would give you another +1 but ...) True. But it was his childish whinging this morning that brought this question to mind....
  15. Please use the "Quote" button. It will make your posts more readable.
  16. What is this fallacy?

    They are all (in my mind) examples where people try to shift the moral responsibility for their actions to someone else. In Assange's case, there is warrant out for his arrest (for jumping ballistic, I think) and so he is hiding from consequences of his actions. He twists this to claim he is being unlawfully detained.
  17. What is this fallacy?

    Those are quite realistic problems of how blame can be assigned. The sort of things that are discussed in philosophy or ethics classes, and also often come up in movies as a way to justify the villains actions ("I have had to sacrifice a few people but it is for the greater good"). That is much closer. This is classic "victim blaming" whereas I am thinking more of a case where the hero is turned into a sort of secondary victim by having the blame (wrongly) assigned to them. Imagine the villain says: "Give me a dollar or I will shoot the kitten. The blood of this cute little kitty will be entirely on your hands. Can you live with that?" Hero: "Well, yes, I can because it isn't my responsibility at all. I may have a moral duty to try and stop you. But if you decide to kill the kitten then it is you who kills the kitten not me. In fact, maybe I'll just walk away now."
  18. What is this fallacy?

    Best so far! I think you are right. I was just thinking out loud, I guess.
  19. What is this fallacy?

    I'm not sure it really counts as a fallacy either. If it does, it is an informal, rhetorical fallacy rather than a logical fallacy. But your point about psychopaths is a good one. The reason the trope works in a thriller is because we (the audience) know The Villain doesn't care about killing people but Our Hero does. And so do we. Therefore, we feel the dilemma (which would exist even without The Villain articulating it so explicitly) of the hero who will feel responsible for their deaths if she/he is unable to stop them.
  20. What is this fallacy?

    Hijacking reported. Can we stick to the example of The Villain in a movie telling Our Hero that she will be responsible for the deaths of all the people that The Villain is about to kill. It looks like there may not be a specific name for this type of argument.
  21. What is this fallacy?

    On second thoughts, the situation I am thinking of is closer to "homicide by inaction" (ie doing nothing to help someone who is dying, which can, I believe, be the criminal offence of "depraved indifference" in the US). Did Bush say that it was the Democrat's responsibility? If not, this is an irrelevant diversion. (And, even if he did, it is irrelevant unless it leads us to a name for this tactic.) I don't really care about American politics - my own country is fucked up quite enough, thank you.
  22. What is this fallacy?

    It is certainly an example of that. I was wondering if there was something more specific. As most examples seem to be from bad action films, I will take a look at TV Tropes (I may be some time....) To take a zero-tolerance approach to immigration which has caused headlines about children being taken from their families. That decision may be right or wrong. It is the fact that he claims it is the Democrats who need to change this, that is relevant to the OP. This is analogous to the prime example (fictional hostage takers) because he appears to be saying something like, "unless you [Democrats] do what I want, I will create more bad headlines" (as opposed to: "unless you give me 20 million helicopters and a dollar, you will be responsible for the death of these kittens")
  23. What is this fallacy?

    Nope. I might or might not think he is right (that is not relevant) it was his decision not the democrats. Close. But that seems to be an unconscious act, whereas it seems to be deliberate in the cases I am thinking of. Closer. But isn't that more like "what about-ism" (you know, as in "What about Obama" )
  24. What is faith?

    They just need to believe in it. Some people belief (in some particular worldview of gods) and some people don't. This is not based on reason or rational choice. It seems to be an inherent part of human nature. Some people are "believers" and others aren't. I don't think choice comes into it. I can't choose to believe in a god (whether Thor or Allah) and you can't choose not to believe in your "higher power". Even if you could choose your beliefs, it still doesn't make believing in an abstract "higher power" any different from believing in "things" (e.g. that the world is run by Lizard Overlords or that the Great Pyramid is an alien communication device).
  25. What is faith?

    If it had some basis, other than just personal beliefs, then it would not be "faith". It would be knowledge. The lack of a factual basis - the fact it is based purely on belief - is what defines it as faith. If you disagree with this, then you are using the wrong word (or using the word wrongly).