Strange

Today I learned about Vavilovian mimicry. Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov was a biologist who studied the evolution of domesticated plants, in particular rye. He proposed that rye was "accidentally" domesticated. Originally it was a weed in fields of wheat and so early farmer would pick it out to ensure their wheat could grow. But they were more efficient at picking out the immature rye plants that looked most different from wheat. So they inadvertently selected for rye plants that looked more wheat-like. Eventually rye became so similar to wheat that it was a useful grain in its own right. This is generally accepted today, even though Vavilov is largely forgotten. Vavilov was killed by Stalin, who only liked science that fitted his political beliefs (e.g. Lysenkoism).

Interesting way of looking at Some are symbiotes of three organisms: Cyanobacteria, fungus and yeast https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6298/488 Today I learned that “lichen” is also the name of several (rather unpleasant) skin diseases

I would say someone capable of critical thinking, who asks probing questions, who thinks about the meaning of the words used, etc. They don't have to have any big ideas, just able to analyse ideas.

If by "visceral" you mean "gut feelings" etc. then the whole point of science is to avoid that sort of unreliable "knowledge". Nonsense. (And also, not what you said. But then communication your ideas clearly was never your forte.) Most new ideas are created by groups. So you think that if you use Newton's laws of motion to calculate the path of a projectile, you will come up with a different answer then someone else? That is irrelevant because we are talking about scientific models. You know, math and stuff. (Somehow I am not surprised that you have no idea what a scientific model is. There seems to be no field in which you cannot demonstrate your profound lack of knowledge.) That is not what I said. You seem to be having problems reading now. Oh, please. You are just embarrassing yourself. "In logic, the law of excluded middle is ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

Not entirely true. But so what? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. When science produces a result it is equally valid whatever your personal ideas are. We all benefit from scientific progress (unless you reject it). Nice straw man. No one said that. But the fact that equality can be proved, means that we can have a certain level of confidence in the consistency of models. It is then a matter of comparing that model (the map) to observations (the terrain) and refining it as necessary. When it comes to science, for example gravity or evolution, we do not each have a unique model. If you are talking about views outside of science, then, well... duh and thank you, Captain Obvious. One of the roles of philosophy is to explore what the roots of belief and knowledge are. (As someone who knew anything at all about philosophy would know.) So hardly irrelevant. (And I think most people with some understanding of philosophy or science would say that knowledge can never be complete.) Many people have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to put philosophy on a formal basis starting from fixed definitions. Some very interesting results have come from such work. Christ. Give us some warning when you are about to throw in a non-sequitur like that. I think the sudden change of direction has given me whiplash. Please provide some evidence that "most people" believe this. So you don't believe in "laws" but you do believe in "logic" underlying reality. Would that be the "laws of logic", by any chance.

IDoNotCare has been suspended for two weeks for hijacking threads with nonsensical posts and then arguing about it. And if they choose not to come back? I do not care

Indeed. There is nothing special about Charlemagne in this respect. It is equally true for a downtrodden peasant in rural Transylvania. When you are little and you think about your ancestors, you soon run into the ancestor paradox: you have two parents and 4 grandparents and 8 greatgrandparents and ... Which leads to questions like: How come the population in the past wasn't bigger than today? "Strangers are just relatives you haven't met yet" https://www.nature.com/articles/news990311-2

There are one or two people who think reality "is" math. But they are very much in the minority. Cladking just likes to pretend everyone else is wrong because it make him feel smart.

Frogger has been suspended for two weeks for repeatedly posting nonsensical posts.

Wow. It's like a 14 year old has just discovered philosophy. What next? Trees falling in empty forests? The universe created last Thursday? One hand clapping? Maybe in a few years you can graduate to The Ship of Theseus / Trigger's Broom.

Even for you, that is a pretty bold position.

You know that people still play, and compose music for, harpsichords and clavichords.

The Terrible Sea Lion: http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Playing the Nazi Card in the Third Reich

Today I learned that Nazi was originally a diminutive of the name Ignatz, which was used to describe someone who was a bit stupid do clumsy. So it became an obvious nickname for the National Socialists: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13551/is-nazi-a-diminutive-of-ignatius

! Moderator Note This is a science forum. Do you have any evidence that these are important factors in crime?

relindwto6 has been banned as a spammer. (We have had a number of spammers recently who ask a sensible questions, get some answers and then post an answer themselves, with spam links. In this case, I thought the answers might be useful to others.)

"craic" not crack. Really? Why told you that? No one on this forum. Yes, the English name "Mary" came from the Greek. (See my earlier post, where I said exactly this.)

Obviously. This is why science never "proves" theories. Contradictory observations can disprove a theory. You say this trivially true (and well understood) things as if you were providing some deep insight. Instead all you do is demonstrate how little you understand of either science or philosophy (or any other subject, as far as I can tell). Another bizarre non-sequitur. Dodging the question again. And we do understand gravity. We understand it so well we have two theories!

There is a great series of lectures by Andrew Ng at Stanford University: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLssT5z_DsK-h9vYZkQkYNWcItqhlRJLN He starts from pretty much nothing and quickly builds up to a pretty good level of detail of most aspects of ML. Also available on Coursera, if you want a more structured approach with tests of your understanding, etc: https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning/home/welcome

Only I if the bees were in space (in which case it would be astronomy). And, obviously, astronomy does that all the time. Hence it is a science. So, astronomy is a science then. Good. Glad we have settled that.

You haven't met Cladking before, then. He said he was leaving some time ago because we weren't sympathetic to his special type of insights and "knowledge".

It is called "translation" for a reason. Lots of things have been mistranslated. Either because it wasn't known what the original word means, or because it describes something unfamiliar to a European audience. Jesus is the English translation of Yeshua (via Greek). (I assume you are just mucking about, here, "or the craic")

It is absolutely true for astronomy. And you have said nothing to suggest otherwise. That is true of physics generally. "rather than doing experiments with stars" Oh good grief. This isn't the idiotic "if you can't do the experiment in a lab it isn't science" is it? (often followed by "therefore the big bang / origin of species / whatever is not science") Another random non sequitur. Well, there is (of course) a whole branch of philosophy devoted to what knowledge is, what it means to know something, what it is possible to know, etc. so I think your statement is a little too reductionist. It is not science at all. (But I am not surprised you don't know that.) That is not a matter of belief.

The same (rather grandiose) statement can be made about botany, physics or medicine. Why do you think this means it is not science? It uses objective evidence, data, mathematical models, testable predictions, etc. It is a perfect example of a science. (And it is one of those rare examples of a science where non-specialists can still make significant contributions.) You either have a very odd idea of what science is or a very odd idea of what astronomy is. OK. Not true but true. Got it. That is entirely possible. Or maybe Cladking will tell us that astrology is a science 😯