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