How do you debunk people that does not believe in experimental facts? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 03:48:19 pm
content: Recently I came across a comment under a video about GPS being a giant experiment of relativity. The commentator claims that GR is a hoax, GPS does not need compensation in GR to work, and points to a website timeisabsolute  org (I don't feel like linking to it.)Despite the fact that a few atomic clocks have been flew across the globe on commercial flights to verify this, to an extremely high accuracy.One of the clocks even have been the subject of one of Dave's video.How do you debunk this?

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 03:49:12 pm
content: Baseball bat?I had an extremely frustrating conversation with a decorator who believes that the pharmaceutical industry cover up all sorts of alternative medicines because they can't make money from them, he's ordered a Rife machine so he doesn't have to rely on 'big pharma'.The son of a very good friend is absolutely convinced he can make an over unity machine and has thousands of pounds worth of metal working tools and machinery to enable him to build it.Oddly enough, he's not managed it yet.Some people just cannot be persuaded or argued with and it's best to smile politely, back away while maintaining eye contact and leave them to their ideas unless you want to lose a friend or it is affecting other people's lives.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 07:28:53 pm
content: The American military did not believe that they would need to compensate for relativity when they commissioned the GPS constallation. They (reluctantly) encorperated a method of compensation with the assumption that they wouldn't have to turn it on. After finding that the position was wandering by about 10km a day it was turned on and the problem went away.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 07:49:22 pm
content: Teach them the scientific method..>"who believes that the pharmaceutical industry cover up all sorts of alternative medicines because they can't make money from them"That is in my experience, quite true.I could give you a lot of examples of treatments that exist for common health issues which aren't at all well known because they work and are cheap.Example, resveratrol for joints/disc/back pain and arthritisIt actually helps repair joints. Basically, the health related media largely ignores cutting edge science. There are huge important facts that are "facts" in the scientific community which have been waiting 20 years to become "facts" in the popular health and science media. Don't hold your breath.The people who are the most pissed are the scientists. When a scientist has discovered something they know would help a lot of people and has confronted the pharm industry disinformation machine they are not happy campers.

author: metrologist
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 08:34:03 pm
content: I wish I could articulate this in a meaningful way...There was an article of sorts that touched on how we perceive those things that are not really perceivable by us humans, like quantum physics and experiments trying to prove string theory and such (I think it was actually about detecting neutrinos). We build these instrument to make measurements so that we are able to physically perceive our hypothesis. There was suggestion that the instruments we build have our own perceptive bias built into them, so they tend to show us what we want them to show us, because we have built them to do so. We still have no way of knowing if the instrument is showing us what we think it is or if it is responding to something else entirely. We end up making correlations the best we can and that can leave room for interpretation and argument. How could one prove this is not all a figment, that we are all merely beings of thought and all of this a product of our collective imagination?Oh, tired old argument...

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 08:58:51 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on June 01, 2017, 07:49:22 pmWith respect, you know about it, Google knows about it, it's dirt cheap and available over the net without a prescription, it's even been talked about on Oprah, it's not exactly the cover up of the century is it...Anyway, I can see this subject won't go anywhere but downhill so I'm bowing out gracefully.

author: lordvader88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 09:01:28 pm
content: There's a group of people that say (although I really don't know what all they say, so) basically macroscopic geology is due to electromagnetism like lightning bolts and plasma's from the sun. And not due to gravity and erosion on the macroscopic scale.I know enough to know these people have gone off track, and that many of the internet promoters of this type of sci-fi don't know near enough physics, math/etc, to see whats lacking in the above mentioned ideas, and thats a real lack of math and equations to go along with the "gravity is actually electromagnetism" folks.And far from understanding or knowing 1/10 of whats "known" by "experts", I just know its not the more sci-fi stuff like they say

author: lordvader88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 09:04:38 pm
content: And I know some incredibly unpopular and unknown and illegal truths, that the average TV-head has no idea about, or thinks knowing certain things makes them the devil basically.Science is my ally, and a powerful ally it is.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 09:21:44 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on June 01, 2017, 03:49:12 pmI say, it depends on how well you know them. I think you'd be a bad friend if you didn't tell them the truth, but I agree that if they won't accept it, there's no point in pushing the issue.

author: hamdi.tn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 10:22:23 pm
content: the sad part is when engineers , a group of ppl supposedly able of critical thinking, still believe earth is 6000 year old and all the crap that goes by religious crap. i totally respect ppl belief when it come to spirituality but when they try to prouve scientific stuff with their books i totally lose it , and baseball bat can be really useful.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 11:32:52 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on June 01, 2017, 09:21:44 pmCatch 22 ?

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 11:34:04 pm
content: It's best to just smile and wave...Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 11:39:26 pm
content: Quote from: hamdi.tn on June 01, 2017, 10:22:23 pmSo what's your take if those'engineers , a group of ppl supposedly able of critical thinking'can prove their case without ANY doubt ?Does the baseball bat get packed away or used on the messengers anyway...out of habit

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 11:44:35 pm
content: Quote from: hamdi.tn on June 01, 2017, 10:22:23 pmA guy I knew at university is one of the leading lights of the British 'young world' creationists despite having a doctorate in biochemistry.He's a perfectly rational man, can follow a logical argument, and is no stranger to scientific method. I just cannot, for the life of me, understand how he can hold the views he has. I can quite understand that a Christian upbringing, and not just any upbringing, but one in the Plymouth Brethren, can put a lot of pressure on him to want to think a particular way, but not how this otherwise intelligent scientist can ignore the evidence in front of him. Worse still, as he actively publicly argues for young world creationism, he gets faced with the conflicting evidence again and again. I repeat, he's rational and intelligent, and as a biochemist is well equipped to properly understand some of the most compelling evidence for evolution and against young earth creationism, yet continues to honestly believe that the world is a few thousand years old.As I say, I cannot comprehend how he can still hold to his views in the face of all the evidence.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 11:46:33 pm
content: and if 'all the evidence' is centuries old rehashed??

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 11:49:07 pm
content: You don't.You will never win a religious argument with facts and data because beliefs are not based on facts and data. You can't win, it will just frustrate you to try. By "religious" I don't necessarily mean regarding god and the supernatural or whatnot but it seems to be the same mechanism in the brain that latches onto all sorts of beliefs.

author: hamdi.tn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2017, 11:55:14 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Detective on June 01, 2017, 11:39:26 pmi will love to see a fact based debate to prove what it's already provedall i get for now is "it's in the book so it must be true"

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 12:08:27 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 01, 2017, 11:44:35 pmHe doesn't honestly believe it.What has happened is his brain is divided into different compartments, the scientific compartment and the religious compartment. When he argues for a young earth he is voicing the agenda of the religious compartment and suppressing the agenda of the scientific compartment. It has to be understood that most people, most of the time, have an agenda, and what they say is driven by their personal agenda. There is nearly nobody who speaks impartially, based on a purely rational assessment of the situation.Scientists give the illusion of being rational because their agenda happens to align with what we think is factual, therefore we end up agreeing with what they say.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 01:35:13 am
content: I can't say I've delved into the subject too deeply, but on my occasional encounters with the "anti gravity" mindset, I get somewhat bemused when I see apparatus that looks more like electromagnetic levitation than gravity defying.Here, even so-called experimental results are useless when the underlying principles are wrongly applied.Or is this just me?

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 02:07:07 am
content: Q: How do you debunk people that does not believe in experimental facts?A: You can't.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 02:45:30 am
content: The scientific process helps us get to the truth by a process of differential diagnosis.Science is a discipline / process of creation of mental models and challenging them..that helps us continually adjust to complex fact situations.The problem these days is there are people who don't understand that process AT ALL, which is something we all are to blame for, who being so clueless, they want "money" (which is an artificial construct) to buy factuality. To buy laws. To buy "right".But it doesn't. because its an artificial construct. There are some people who just hate that, they hate it so much they want to "get rid of" science, as ludicrous as that sounds.

author: DaJMasta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 02:52:49 am
content: My usual process is to try to get them to explain why their position is right, find out where in their argument isn't sound, and point that out as a counterpoint. People are much more open to considering other positions if they realize there is an issue with theirs, and usually when they're not listening to reason or going with a conspiracy theory of some sort, then they're likely pretty closed off to opposing viewpoints. Usually the people who believe this stuff still do believe in some scientific principals and evidence-based arguments, but they've convinced themselves that their evidence or principals are somehow better than those of the opposing viewpoint.That said, it's a resource intensive method as you actually have to pay attention to their arguments and research them in some cases.... so for people who I don't really feel connected to, I generally don't bother. That's when the smile and nod or leaving it with an awkward "I disagree" will do the trick.For especially elaborate conspiracies or especially simple explanations, Occam's razor could be a good enough argument to be right, but again it's unlikely many who are heavily invested into their version of reality will just accept that their position is flawed.

author: Syntax_Error
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 05:06:08 am
content: My favorite are the flat-earthers. FLAT EARTH. They are real. It's unbelievable.I've learned so much because of them. Not from them, but indirectly because of them, trying to genuinely humor their argument. I've learned about celestial navigation, astronomy, geometry and trigonometry, land surveying, and even network time protocol servers. All because of them and the idea that I should try to not rely on any authority because...of course it's all LIES!It really is fascinating and sad all at the same time.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 05:25:57 am
content: People believe what theywantto believe and many fail to admit that they could be wrong (either to others or to themselves). This is why you often find the majority of the population with a strong view about a subject exhibit confirmation bias (they cherry-pick information and "facts" which confirms their pre-existing belief).You'll always find people who:Consider religious texts as 100% true and interpreted literallyBelieve that electrical cables are "directional" and make their audio gear sound betterHave strong, concrete views one way or another with respect to the "Climate Change" debateBelieve that the law of the land doesn't apply to them (e.g.: Sovereign citizens)... the list goes on forever.What can you do to change their minds? Absolutely nothing. It takes quite an intelligent and mature person of sound mind to question and challenge their own beliefs, something not particularly common in todays society. Over the years I've learnt to simply listen to their point of view but not attempt to convince them otherwise.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 07:11:48 am
content: QuoteYou don't.With stupidity you can deal. With ignorance you can deal.Withwillful ignoranceyou can't do anything. If a person has a mindset that says that anything that is contrary to what he believes in is a hoax/conspiracy/faulty data and is intent on staying in that position than almost nothing will persuade him.With this type of person you can invest vast quantities of time to expose them to other stuff and after a lot of time and energy has been spent hemightstart wondering. Sadly, he will generally return to his default state once you stop.Just look at flat earthers. In the current century.

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 08:18:28 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 02, 2017, 05:25:57 amWe have countries filled with those people and (true to their religious texts' requirement) try to shove their religion down everyone in the world's throats. And they have bombs.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 08:46:45 am
content: Quote from: technix on June 02, 2017, 08:18:28 amThose are straight up psychopath 'leaders', and that includes the good guys as well as the bad (and ugly) on both sides of the game.Note please the 'bombs' usually drop far away from all the psychopath leader inhabited citiesIt doesn't work like The Terminator, On The Beach, Planet Of The Apes movies, where everyone everywhere gets nuked equallyThatsa no gooda for business

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 08:58:21 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 02, 2017, 02:07:07 am+1And you stay away from them or the subject matter of discussion.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 09:10:10 am
content: Quote from: HighVoltage on June 02, 2017, 08:58:21 amLOL, agreednothing funnier than a fiery debate about who is at what level of brainwashing and conformityand this is before the beer starts flowing

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 10:02:32 am
content: You can actually. It's really complicated though, they have to be the experiment subject.When they experience something that does not meet the expectations of their biased minds, they will be very confused. The somewhat intelligent ones will accept it, the others turn violent.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 10:49:45 am
content: Quote from: technix on June 02, 2017, 08:18:28 amYes. Very religious countries, like USA, middle east, africa. They have to put up with soo much bullshit in their daily life, I think their bullshit-o-meter just stops working. I mean if you live your life with thinking about the man in the sky (or whatever), believing things like Bigfoot is much easier, than empirical evidence. I think the concept of causality or critical thinking is just not working for these people, they have probably some kind of brain deformation. Believe it or not, half the population has less than 100 IQ, by definition.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 11:44:38 am
content: Here's a nice presentation of the Backfire Effect. Related to beliefs, and rejection of information contrary to one's existing views.http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believeThen there'shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 12:05:33 pm
content: I once read a study that pointed out that most stubborn people are among the most intelligent and educated ones. They were the most efficient ones to argument their false believes to truth to themselfs. Humans are funny animals.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 12:23:07 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on June 02, 2017, 12:08:27 amOh, I've known him for a long time (nearly 40 years) there's no doubt that (1) he believes this (2) he is honest and sincere in that belief. This isn't some televangelist out to line his pockets, it's a decent honest bloke. I used to share a flat with him, he gave me my first lesson on a motorbike, we used to go climbing and drink beer together.Quote from: IanB on June 02, 2017, 12:08:27 amLook him up on You Tube (Marc Surtees), you'll find all manner of talks he has given. There's no doubt that he's simultaneously engaging the religionandscience parts of his brain.That'sthe bit I can't comprehend, he is not compartmentalizing his thoughts on the matter. This isn't classic cognitive dissonance where the disparate facts are carefully kept away from each other in the brain, this is actively pursuing his religious agenda with science and where, to you or me the two would clash and force us to one conclusion, in Marc they don't and take him to a different conclusion. Yet, he is capable of forming correct conclusions the rest of the time. Its not a question of agendas, it's a question of "Why hasn't he talked himself out of this belief system by now?" and my inability to comprehend how that has not happened.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 04:48:37 pm
content: WRT engineers, one of my co-workers was a "wing-nut" who, of course, did not believe in global warming, biological evolution, or quantum mechanics. On the latter point, I remarked that he would have to stop using solid-state electronic devices, which require quantum physics to understand and predict their operation, and go back to vacuum tubes, which are (almost completely) described by classical physics.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 05:07:15 pm
content: Quote from: Neilm on June 01, 2017, 07:28:53 pmThis is an widely spread myth. GPS was one of the things which finally proved that GR explains reality very well. Without solid experimental evidence to base their design on, and with making relativistic compensation so cheap and easy to switch in and out, it made perfect sense to make it selectable. Of course, now that evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the veracity of GR, nobody sane would build a navigation system which doesn't bring it into the calculations.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 05:11:31 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 02, 2017, 02:07:07 am+1Quote from: CJay on June 01, 2017, 08:58:51 pmThe "big pharma cover up" is something of a myth - although for-profit drug development does warp things a bit.Basically if resveratrol worked, "big pharma" would have no problem taking the molecule, tweaking it to be better, or less toxic, or whatever - but most importantlypatentable, then selling it at artificially high rates to make a good profit. It's "what they do" after all and, by and large, they are good at it.Heck if there was just solid evidence behind it they would probably have no problems making it and selling it for modest profit. Again, pharmaceutical companies are very good at making high purity organic molecules cheaply (it's that "what they do" thing again) and most off-patent drugs will have several companies making them and making profit from them.But, and here's the thing. Resveratrol, while "interesting" has no clinical evidence behind it - a few in vitro studies is about it (and some concern about increased breast cancer risk). So it is no more interesting than the 100,000's of molecules that the typical pharma company screens for drug activity; continuously looking for the magic bullet that is going to make them, or rather their shareholders rich.There was a company set up to try to exploit it so it got further than some of these things but it was not a success.

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 05:16:02 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on June 02, 2017, 05:07:15 pmNow we have two even better experiments up there. The Russians misfired their rockets and sent two of ESA's Galileo satellites on some awkward highly elliptic orbit instead of the usual circular one. Since the solar panels, control surfaces and the atomic clocks on those satellites still work, ESA repurposed those misfired satellites into experiments of GR time dilation effects. We will start to see papers coming in in the upcoming years.

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 05:49:41 pm
content: I understand that the latest clocks can be used to demonstrate GR in the lab, bench top scissor jack height range delta

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 06:19:46 pm
content: I've debated the religious-minded folks for many, many years on other types of forums. I kindof got burned out on it, but I still do it from time to time. The really interesting endeavor is not so much trying to convince them of certain objective facts, which to them seem outrageous, which they seem to ignore or twist into pretzels. Rather ask them what methodology they use to determine what is true or false in the world, or how they determine that the things they believe in can be classified as knowledge1in their own minds.If you delve into that, you will understand what you are dealing with, which is to say again that actually trying to do the convincing in a logical and rational manner is a waste of your time.1. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato, specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 06:42:27 pm
content: Part of this is admitting that there are few if any "facts". Just good explanations. And all of our explanations have holes and hand waving in them. Currently the biggest and most obvious include dark matter and dark energy.Many things that people pound on desks about as science are not as robust as we would like. Climate science is a perfect example. Climate is being predicted decades and centuries into the future. While most of those creating and studying these models do not do this, many others regard these predictions as delivered fact.How many of you would trust an unverified Spice model of a circuit? Spice is far more mature, and the circuits you can model with Spice are far simpler and better understood than the climate.None of this may help in convincing someone who doesn't listen to facts, but accepting that truth is hard to obtain and that you may not have perfection on your side can help in discussions with those of different views.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 06:47:20 pm
content: There are indeed giant holes in our knowledge. Your point about SPICE is a good one, I would not fully trust it, although if my simulation says that a small signal transistor is going to be dissipating 150W I'm going to trust the simulation effectively telling me that my circuit is not going to work. I don't know how accurate the long term climate predictions are, but there's enough data to tell me that something is not going to end well on the current trajectory.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 07:09:48 pm
content: I've said it before on this forum but it's worth repeating: Just because science is uncertain about many things, does not mean it is uncertain about everything. Some people use the relative uncertainty in some areas as justification for discounting all science that disagrees with their religious or political views - or threatens their lifestyle. I deal with this issue everyday in my work.Trying to convince someone who discounts the science in any particular area due to their religious, political, etc beliefs is rarely going to be successful. But letting their views go unchallenged in a public space is also unwise IMO, since it gives the uninformed the erroneous impression that their ideas are based on facts.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 07:28:11 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 02, 2017, 07:09:48 pmIndeed. We're knowledgable enough about Newtonian mechanics and optics that we can create entire CGI films that are good enough that they would fool people, say 40 years ago, that they were looking at objective reality, i.e. an actual photographed film of real actors (and aliens and dinosaurs). There's much we can be as certain about as it is possible to be certain.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 08:45:22 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on June 02, 2017, 07:11:48 amI call them non-retriggerable monostable minds.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 09:36:00 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on June 02, 2017, 06:42:27 pmGood post, heh. It is hilarious to read or listen how the chemistry were taken as a science not long ago, but in view of todays scientifical consensus it were total BS, with all sorts of burning and nonburning airs and what nots. My own believe in science is that is the best approximate working explanation we atm. can get. If all goes well and I retire in old age I wouldn't be suprised that something that is written to the stone today will be then judged to be BS. One example that goes close to every EE is the complex circuit analysis with common concentrated circuit models, it is just an approximation (even with ideal components in ideal cases), not actually 100% precise. It starts to fall apart in long cables or high frequencies (the relative speed of light and wave state in components). Also something like operational calculus have not been here too long, actually my grandparents were born before it were scientifically accepted if I have understood correctly. While this is not a science either but a normal polar representation of complex number as |r| L angle weren't mainstream not until like ww2. ..Or tin whiskers something that is not fully understood by science, but certain engineers face it daily basis.Still science is usually right.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 09:53:50 pm
content: Quote from: Vtile on June 02, 2017, 09:36:00 pmErrm, Calculus was devised independently by Gottfried Leibniz (b 1646, d 1716) and Issac Newton (b 1642, d 1726) so you must have very, very old grandparents! Complex analysis has been around since at least 1545.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 10:01:10 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 02, 2017, 09:53:50 pmNot operational calculushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_calculusand not polar representation with |r| L angle notation of complex number (|r|e^i*angle before it) weren't widely adapted not until of somewhere ww2 time period (atleast on electrical sciences. side note in book of Prof. D.sc. Martti Paavola, Sähköjohtojen laskeminen (calculation of transmission lines), 1947) if you have sources of its history I'm more that interested to read those.And complex circuit analysis with ideal components and consentrated network models is just aproximation, that is why there is transmission line theory and analysis (my translation, hopefully correct).

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 10:19:18 pm
content: Quote from: Vtile on June 02, 2017, 10:01:10 pmSorry, in the rather fragmentary English I took the 'operational' as a mis-chosen adjective, not as meaning 'Operational' (The capital letter makes a difference). Polar representation is as old as the hills, Leonhard Euler certainly used it. Perhaps you're right in that it didn't catch on in electronics until late, but I doubt it.An aside: The first proper description of all the operations of Complex Algebra is down to Rafael Bombelli, which Ikind ofknew. What amazes me is that I can download a PDF of a full scan of his second edition of L'Algebra from 1572 with a single click. Thirty years ago if I'd wanted to see a copy of this I'd probably have had to travel to Bologna to read it in the university library there. (It's in 16th century Italian, I haven't a hope in hell of actually being able to read it in detail, but it's fascinating to get a glimpse into the state of the art in 1572.)

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 10:27:05 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 02, 2017, 10:19:18 pmInteresting. Good to know that teh capital O makes a difference how one perceives that Operationa calculus/analysis. The note of the polarnotationwere a sidetrack and late addition, I should have phrased it better. I did spoke the notation, not actual complex calculus or analysis on that part. (With my perfect bad english, which I do not apologize .)

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 10:30:33 pm
content: Science is not a linear path at all. Sometimes it can take a long time for concepts to formalize or be adopted on a large scale. Some theories may make some educated assumptions, which are not proven formally until much later.Example: Dirac Delta function. It's used in 1st year university math for analysing LTI systems, as well as introduction to control theory but also solving (partial) differential equations, Laplace and Fourier analysis.Some of these concepts, like Fourier series, have been around since 1800s. However if you look up Dirac Delta function this concept along with distributions has not been formalized until WW2 & 1950s.Are university engineers taught distributions? Nope. Too niche, too advanced. Yet for "fixing" some flaws in previous theories with regards to impulse function, it's used everywhere.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2017, 10:51:28 pm
content: Quote from: Syntax_Error on June 02, 2017, 05:06:08 amSo they have been a usefull fools for you then.Is the earth perfect sphere, nope, but still ourpopularizedscience usually approximate it as one.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 12:44:45 am
content: It's a lot closer to a perfect sphere than it is to being flat though!

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 01:03:20 am
content: Quote from: Vtile on June 02, 2017, 10:51:28 pmWe do have the trigonometry approximation that the limit of sine of an angle when the angle is close to zero is the angle itself.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 02:49:26 am
content: Quote from: Vtile on June 02, 2017, 10:01:10 pmI think it's important to recognize that mathematics is an art, not a science. Science deals with understanding the physical world, while mathematics is entirely conceptual, the product of the imaginings of the human brain. As such, the abstract notion of complex numbers being points or vectors in the complex plane goes way back in time to the beginnings of the theory. Just reflect that you get complex numbers by imagining there to be an imaginary number line perpendicular to the real number line, and the concept of magnitude and direction comes immediately from that.Now mathematics is of course used as a tool in science, just as art of various kinds can often be used as a tool for many purposes (e.g. visual or cinematic art can be used as a propaganda tool). The failure of electrical engineers to adopt and see the application of certain mathematical concepts until around WW2 says more about the blindness of electrical engineers than it does about the lack of vision of mathematicians.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 02:58:07 am
content: I've just been to Nasa's new first Juno video release & a month back looking at some of the last Saturn videos from Galileo as it dives closer in to it's soon death. It is truly disheartening, to see all those comments from so many individuals claiming that the Earth is really flat, all these images are fake & they are made up for political and anti-religious purposes after the insane feats of money, time, knowledge, engineering, materials, effort, and lives involved in pulling off these miracles which our for-fathers could not even begin to comprehend.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 04:23:31 am
content: Those people are likely paid trolls. Its not so well known here in the US but its been clear to me for a long time that there are people actually being paid to be a****** online in order to "Shift the Overton window" on a great many issues. There, i said it. You wont read this in the news. Some of the people who went to the rallies of a certain political candidate were clearly these people. They figure heavily in online discussions where they try to drown out intelligent conversations. They get hired from ads looking for people to work from home. A growing number of them are not in the US, many are in Canada and more recently, the Philippines and India.They are very well funded. Which should give people clues as to where that funding is coming from.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 11:10:32 am
content: Quote from: james_s on June 03, 2017, 12:44:45 amYes, naturally. If someone is a bit inclined to believe conspiracy theories or theories that claims that earth is flat, it doesn't help that "science" is not saying the same in every place. It creates more room for these kind of unfortunate believes. I mean if you are sceptic for certain facts it doesn't mean you need to be a fool and believe something utterly stupid like that earth is flat or that stars are holes in the skydome.Quote from: technix on June 03, 2017, 01:03:20 am??Quote from: IanB on June 03, 2017, 02:49:26 amHah, I'm sure you are physicist by mind and education. "Math is only a supporting science for physics, but don't tell this to mr.X (Math lecturer)." - one physics lecturer. Nodding for the rest.... But I think I derailed the original topic now. Sorry about that.I tend to avoid discussions to prove something for people that have faith and have certain religuous like believes (were it on politics or other topics). That doesn't mean I avoid contact with such persons, but the discussion on such topics is usually unfruitfull.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 11:37:49 am
content: Quote from: cdev on June 03, 2017, 04:23:31 amI'm glad you said it. I get sick of pointing out (to zero effect) that flat-Earth, no-moon-landing, planet-nibiru, hollow-Earth, 5000-year-old-Earth, etc types are mostly paid well-poisoners, with probably a tail of 80/20-rule useful gullible idiots. It's a simple propaganda technique - pollute public discussion forums with madness, and everyone who is not already aware of that technique gets the impression all online discussion is pointless. Mission accomplished for the Elites and their Globalist wing-men and other tribes, who really, really don't like the world public talking sensibly among themselves about real issues. Heavens, the peasants might actually decide to do something about the self-styled ruling class. Guillotines, and so on. Can't have that!The trouble is, few people are aware of how ubiquitous propaganda and manipulation are in both the MSM and online media. Partly due to having been already conditioned to recoil from anything they can label 'tin foil hat conspiracy theories.' Two concepts there which were themselves injected into the public lexicon as deliberate propaganda thought-jamming exercises. Give people a pejorative label they can use to avoid actually thinking about something, and most of your thought-controlling work is done.Incidentally, the no-moon-landings bullshit has a secondary objective. It's to destroy the sense of American national pride, and general cultural awareness of what science can achieve when directed towards lofty goals. (As opposed to rapacious corporate profit-above-all-else motivations.) It's another form of intellectual hobbling, all the better to fasten the slave shackles.Speaking of well-funded destructive lying bullshit... youtube /watch?v=AfG1myglfhY

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 11:48:11 am
content: Quote from: Vtile on June 03, 2017, 11:10:32 amWhen someone cannot see beyond their immediate surroundings, they will believe in things like flat earth. It can be proved using basic math and physics and a little bit of calculus.The entire point of science is to allow people to see faraway beyond the horizon, to see large beyond the planet, to see small less than a peck of dust, and to introspect how we should perceive the world.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 12:21:15 pm
content: Speaking of 'what one can see with one's own eyes', I can see that the Moon is obviously a sphere, illuminated from the Sun.So, the Moon is a sphere, but the Earth is flat?I also find in my personal experience, that when someone keeps insisting on a thing that they'd have to be brain damaged to actually believe, then it's safe to assume they are deliberately lying. Your task then becomes to ferret out WHY they are lying. What are they hoping to achieve? Or who is paying them, and what do _they_ want?"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent."-- J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1924-1972, quoted in The Elks Magazine (August 1956)."The greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."-- President John F. Kennedy, at Yale University on Jun 11, 1962"It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth."-- Alexis de Tocqueville."We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."-- William Casey, Director of Central Intelligence. An observation by the late Director at his first staff meeting in 1981. This observation reveals the mentality of cynicism which infests the US Federal control structures, and the reality that these structures regard the American people with total contempt. This attitude is the opposite to the noble concept of service to the American people which ought to inspire holders of public office, and therefore represents the epitome of decadence."What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires - desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."-- Bertrand Russell, philosopher - "Roads to Freedom""You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me."-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."-- Unknown, mistakenly attributed to Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."-- Mark Twain"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true."-- Buddha - Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta."People who believe that there is no major world conspiracy which involves a small number of people manipulating humanity through a hierarchical structure of control toward a New World Order, all have one identical factor in common. They have, in actual fact, not looked genuinely into the abundance of well-researched information on world conspiracy to see if there is one!"-- David Icke"In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."-- Theodore Dalrymple"Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics ... It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing."-- Vaclav Havel"Even open-minded people will often find themselves unable to take seriously the likes of  Chomsky,  Herman,  Zinn and  George on first encountering their work; it just does not seem possible that we could be so mistaken in what we believe. The individual may assume that these writers must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind. We may actually become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply 'can't be true'. It takes real effort to keep reading, to resist the reassuring messages of the mass media and be prepared to consider the evidence again."-- David Edwards"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."-- Frantz FanonPlenty more like these athttp://everist.org/archives/links/__Freedom_quotes.txt

author: X
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 01:48:48 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on June 01, 2017, 03:49:12 pmThe same lot who despise "Big Pharma" are willing to rely on alternate medicine, which is the produce of a poorly regulatedmulti-billion dollar industry?At one abode I was invited to, noticed there was a huge NaCl crystal that was hollowed out and had a CFL in the hollow. I thought they just had it as a cool looking lamp, so I commented "Nice light." The response I got was "Oh that's to stop the EMFs." Of course, the wi-fi router, numerous Apple products, PC, monitor, and the giant fluoro baton light on top would produce more "EMF" than this little thing can stop.Whenever I encounter someone whom I reasonably suspect to be unreasonable, I occasionally bypass the debunking stage and use them as a source of entertainment.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 02:14:19 pm
content: Quote from: Vtile on June 03, 2017, 11:10:32 amQuote from: Spike Miliigan

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 04:47:43 pm
content: My own experience is based on peer reviewed research in medical journals which never make it into the public eye.In the case of resveratrol,its because RESV improves multiple parameters involved in inflammation and healing, for example, it affects expression of a gene, SIRT1 and to give one example- that seems to promote healing of injured cartilage.When you get a lot of research which leads to something working, thats mainstream, cutting edge science that should be publicized.You can get an idea of what I mean from the links below with the caveat that much of what the searches return is irrelevant. But maybe 20-30% of what you get back is useful.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=resveratrol+cartilagehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=resveratrol+kneehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=resveratrol+dischttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=resveratrol+arthritisAlso, in the US at least, "BigPharma" is definitely apoorly regulated multi-billion dollar industry,There is a good website,http://pharmamyths.netwhich has a lot of good info debunking their claims. For example, the arguments they make on why drugs are so expensive in the US arebased on total fabrications.Quote from: X onTodayat 07:48:48multi-billion dollar industry?At one abode I was invited to, noticed there was a huge NaCl crystal that was hollowed out and had a CFL in the hollow. I thought they just had it as a cool looking lamp, so I commented "Nice light." The response I got was "Oh that's to stop the EMFs." Of course, the wi-fi router, numerous Apple products, PC, monitor, and the giant fluoro baton light on top would produce more "EMF" than this little thing can stop.Whenever I encounter someone whom I reasonably suspect to be unreasonable, I occasionally bypass the debunking stage and use them as a source of entertainment.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 06:10:27 pm
content: A long time ago I was working in the electrical power industry, doing site surveys for customer purchased luminairs (street lamps). I arrived at one older gentlemans location and he proceeded to explain to me that the power companies stored sunlight in those cylindrical cans up on the power poles and then fed into the light bulbs where it was released.I could have told him he was totally wrong, angering him and possibly losing him as a customer for the overhead light. I merely mentioned that he was on the right track and had some details wrong. After some further discussion he was accepting the basics of power distribution. And really, his concept wasn't totally wrong. At that time our base power system distributed fossil sunlight. Still does in large part.A head on approach is seldom the best way to change minds. The good ways take time and effort, nuance and understanding. Not something that can be done wholesale, it has to be done retail. One size does not fit all. May be more effort than you have time and energy to invest.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 09:24:15 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on June 03, 2017, 06:10:27 pmAre you sure he wasn't just pulling your leg? That sounds like something my grandfather would have said just to be funny.

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 10:13:14 pm
content: Quotenot sure what theory is being referenced here but the square roots of negative numbers were 1st used in solving cubics in the 1500'sit took another few hundred years to be generalized to complex numbers, mathematicians remained skeptical of 'imaginaries' for an amazingly long timeEuler's work put complex numbers on a firm basis, but his understanding, methods were strictly abstract, 'arithmetic'the geometrical interpretation began ~1800, in 1796 Gauss made a private notebook entry, Wessel published a very complete work in 1799 - which was totally ignored, only rediscovered by mathematical historians in 1890'sthen 4-5 other's published before Gauss decided the idea had sufficiently 'ripened' and published in 1831 - his fame guaranteeing worldwide noticethe complex plane being variously called the Argand, Gauss, and now Wessel PlaneVectors were even more delayed - the term 'vector' coined by Hamilton in 1846 for 'pure quaternions' was reworked by Gibbs in 1880 as today's universally taught 'Cartesian' Vector Calculus due to its success in rewriting Maxwell's Equations for Electromagnetismand of course 'vector algebra' was 1st developed by Grassman before Gibbs or Hamilton - and again ignored until Clifford - who then dies in his 30's, the importance of his and Grassman's work on a 'geometric algebra' being sidelined as a obscure corner of abstract math

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 10:24:17 pm
content: I don't think they're paid trolls. If there's any way to get paid to troll people online I've never found it. I think it's no different than people who genuinely believe all manner of other ridiculous stuff. It's a mental illness of sorts to see complex conspiracies everywhere, based on the belief that the official explanation is wrong, no matter what it is. I don't give them credit for being smart enough to have some more complex motive, just like I don't give the government credit for being competent enough to flawlessly execute some ridiculously complex conspiracy for questionable gain.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2017, 10:34:11 pm
content: Quote from: f5r5e5d on June 03, 2017, 10:13:14 pmThe rigorous footings of complex number theory, which goes back much earlier than the time of WWII as you indicated.

author: f5r5e5d
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 12:47:48 am
content: yes, the Polar Form is found in all Complex Plane work from Wessel onwards - what's bizarre to the modern mind is that the Euler Equation was published in 1748 and it took over 50 years for the Complex Plane interpretation to begin to appear, another 30 for it to be popularly recognizedthe twisting history, multiple invention, unrecognized pioneers show that even in, at the time, cutting edge Mathematics had anti-factual dismsals, deniersthe Gibbs Vector Algebra vs Hamilton Quaternion Algebra 'war' of the late 19th century is full of examples of personal attacks, Professors behaving badly in printand an amazing intellectual fail is Nobel prize winning Michelson apparently, to his death in 1931, still considering his Ether Drift experiment a failure, rather than a keystone for the development of Special Relativity

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 03:03:17 am
content: Quote from: f5r5e5d on June 04, 2017, 12:47:48 amWhile anti-factual deniers did exist, the real reason for the slow spread in popular use was that few people had any application for these mathematics. To mathematicians it was a solved problem, and an occasionally useful tool. The broader world of engineers and technicians had little need and little awareness. It wasn't until the late nineteenth century with radio and and alternating current power transmission that widespread uses for these methodologies existed.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 04:39:57 am
content: Right, but now if you want to get a good job, you need a solid underpinning in math. Many of the best careers make use of sophisticated mathematical concepts. If it doesn't need creativity, there is no need for people, increasingly.Seems like many people who show disdain for science are debunking themselves.The effect will be - the world will ignore them. If the US hitches its cart to science denial, the world has no shortage of innumerate people.Willing to work for much less than ours.In other words, the deniers will be their own - and our, worst enemies. You can't replace an education. What will they do with all those people?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 04:48:15 am
content: Very well put.Robert J. Lifton's term was "thought terminating cliches".

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 04:53:18 am
content: Think of it as one of a great many voter nullification and time nullification techniques. When you're on top you have to be pretty creative to stay there, AND make people think they are in a democracy.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 05:53:55 am
content: Quote from: CJay on June 01, 2017, 03:49:12 pmThe problem you have is that to some extent, your friend is correct. The pharmaceutical does definitely do everything it can to get its drugs approved even when in a number of cases, it should not have been approved. There are many cases that alternative solutions, such as dietary solutions are far more effective then the drugs, but there is very little money into research into dietary solutions.Just as an example, if you have low to mid level Type2 diabetes, you can control it with diet, or a cocktail of drugs. If you take the drug solution, you health is almost guaranteed to deteriorate significantly. With the dietary approach, your health would probably be on par with any other non-diabetic - but no-one can say for sure as the research into the dietary solutions is very sparse.One of the tricks many drug companies has used is to make negative self-funded research results into their drugs disappear. That has lead to some countries introducing laws to say that drug companies cannot do this.In one case of an anti-depressant, a major drug company had 3 positive and 3 negative seperate research results. On that basis, it would not have been approved. The solution was to combine the negative results into one of the positive results (that had a very large number of participants), and with some statistical magic, they had 3 positive results and no negative results. The drug was approved and there are now forums where people on the drug are in tears as they describe the side-effects and the addictiveness of the drug.You are right to be skeptical about alternative medicine which often has zero research, but the way so much of the medical research is funded by the drug companies is a problem. It is a well known and acknowledged problem.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 09:07:37 am
content: Quote from: amspire on June 04, 2017, 05:53:55 amI agree with you up to a point.TL;DR - agree that profit is a bad motivator for pharma with several scandals as a result, disagree that "its all their fault", research is a complex subject.Historically there have been some undoubted scandals - anyone my age will remember the thalidomide debacle in the late 1970's which was definitely a case of drugs being pushed to market too quickly and papering over adverse research findings. More recently it looks as though there was suppression of data from trials of Paroxetine (Seroxat) relating to self harm and suicide in teenagers. There have been others and I'm sure there will be more in the future and the industry really does need to improve its act here and pressure needs to be maintained both internally and externally to encourage it to do so.Did you know that thalidomide and several new, derived/related, drugs are now important, well established treatments for multiple myeloma?It is also true that profit is a rather poor motivator for the pharmaceutical industry - for one thing if you think that you have a market killer except for one bit of pesky trial data thatmightindicate a problem it is rather human nature to brush it under the carpet. Also that the fact that they fund such a large percentage of research that it warps the whole field is not a good thing. I'm sure it even influences "independent" bodies in what research they choose to do. It's easy to see how it goes - do this interesting project with funding from <pharma> company or struggle to find funding and agreement for your morally superior but less mainstream project. When is free choice not free choice? Would you have the moral fibre to do the right but hard thing when the easy thing is not actually wrong?The production cost of most drugs is, in fact, trivial but that there has been very little pressure for cost control, especially in the US market resulting in very inflated prices for treatment.To be honest if I were in charge (unlikely) I would fund all R&D and production from the public purse and insist that treatments were made available at cost.That said the pharma industry is at least better than the quacks who sell Rife machines or Antineoplastons or any of dozens of provably ineffective remedies to desperate cancer sufferers.Looking at some of the points that you make.First off for the specific example of type 2 diabetes. As far as I am aware the normal first line management in the UK and probably Australia (don't know about the US) is diet. Your comment regarding "you health is almost guaranteed to deteriorate significantly" is a bit vague - there is good evidence that metformin reduces several adverse outcomes related to diabetes so, in fact, your health will improve. Unless you mean side effects well....There is no such thing as a side-effect free drug. Sorry but there it is. However if you experience side effects you should really be speaking to your doctor about the risks and benefits of treatment. There is an implied consent in taking a medication and the patient is in control so should be asking for relevant information and investing in their own health, not just passively doing what they are told and then implying it's all "big pharma" or "the medical profession"'s fault. That said if you are not is a position to recognise the harm - the Seroxat thing for instance then the medics and drug companies should be giving you the necessary information.Sometimes the risks from a drug are not that apparent until you start using them widely - statins are probably in the frame here as people are starting to realise that they are not a panacea and have a down side. But ask any ER physician who is old enough to have worked in the late 70's and early 80's how the medical intake today differs from back then and one of the things they might say is that far fewer heart attacks and strokes come in - statins are a part of the reason for that (plus the fact that far fewer people smoke - yes, non drug interventionsareimportant as well)"your health would probably be on par with any other non-diabetic" - umm, well, no - you still have diabetes.Type 2 diabetes is caused, simplistically, by progressive resistance to insulin. There is a long pre-clinical phase where your pancreas can make enough insulin to compensate and you don't realise there is a problem. Then, finally, it can't keep up and your blood sugar rises, you might (or might not) then get symptoms. In fact typically early diabetes doesn't cause any symptoms but it can be picked up on screening tests (so we see more people treated for mild diabetes these days). At that point reducing the insulin requirements by adjusting diet can bring things back under control. For some (lucky) patients that might be all that they need but in most the underlying process continues and it just buys some time.So, yes you can get your blood sugar into the normal range but, no, you are not as well as a "non diabetic" because you still have diabetes (or pre-diabetes, if you like).Getting back to whether drug companies should push diet or fund research into diet as an alternative. On the former, no, don't see that they have a moral obligation - your doctor does though. Would you expect a Ford dealer to discuss the fact that a push bike is better for your health and the environment than driving a pick-up a half-mile to the corner store seven times a week.But clinical trials of new drugs need to compare them with established treatment so anything being put forward for early diabetes or pre-diabetes should be being compared against lifestyle and dietary changes (IIRC there was a big trial looking at this and the arm(s) with metformin were better).But equally it is not ethical to have an ineffective treatment in a trial comparison arm - trials against placebo are only used where there is no established treatment. So, any ethics committee looking at drug for established diabetes should reject an arm with diet alone (which is known not to be enough for more advanced diabetes).BTW you do know that clinical trials are now heavily regulated these days? - look for the "ICH Good Clinical Practice" guidelines if you are interested.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 09:46:22 am
content: Thanks for your comprehensive post grumpydoc. I had considered something similar but..Re: Type 2 DM - yes, first line treatment in the U.S. is diet, exercise, weight loss, etc. - but of course the patient who has an A1C of 10 at time of diagnosis may get a prescription for metformin too...

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2017, 12:04:08 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 04, 2017, 09:46:22 amThat is the magic recipe for all the diseases like heart-attack , strokes, any sort of cancer, prehypertension, etc. We must consider that like an evidence scientific when really isn't proved, but you said that you took a medicinal plant (real, no homeopathy) and ameliorate , he sees you as insane.But the really worrying is about the new term invented: prehypertension (120-140 mm/hg Systolic, 80-89 mm/hg Diastolic) .the big Pharma have the intention that the youngs(20-40 years) that will take drugs?

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 03:11:18 am
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on June 04, 2017, 09:07:37 amHaving Type 2 diabetes does not mean you are in any way unhealthy or on a progression to insulin. Diabetes is a complex that can have combinations of multiple causes, but in general, if you can completely control the blood sugar levels and not overstress the pancreas, you can probably avoid all the normal Diabetes health consequences. I say probably because there has been no proper long term research into controlling Diabetes with diet. Logically though, if the blood sugar never gets high, you will avoid the progressive vascular damage caused by the high blood sugar which leads to the degradation of health.It is currently impossible to satisfactory control the blood sugar levels with drugs (there has been several research projects into this that were abandoned when people started dying) and so the drug treatments will include an expected degradation of health because of the insufficient blood sugar control. All the drugs have long term health side effects as well - usually not adequately researched. It is possible to have remarkably good control with insulin injections as long as you are taking injections with every meal. The once-a-day injections and automatic injection machines are still probably not good enough.For many people with Type 2 Diabetes and a blood sugar of 14, blood sugar levels in the 4-5 range with a peak of 6 during a meal are achievable with dietary controls. For these people controlling their blood sugar, tests will often not show any sign of diabetes unless they are made consume a lot of carbs. They often show no further significant health degradation once the blood sugar is controlled. Without the research, all that can be done is to look at case studies.QuoteIn most cases, the actual research is fine. The problem comes at making conclusions from the research. That is where the science can fly out the door. It is a very interesting (and exhausting) task to look at health guidelines, and then look closely at the quoted research. Often the majority of sources are not from research but from guidelines from other bodies, so it is possible to have an infinite recommendation loop. It is not hard to find two medical professors that draw the opposite conclusions from the same piece of research.I will try an electronic analogy. If you did a research project into PC power supplies, you will probably get a statistically high correlation between PC power supply weight and output capacity. If you ran PC medical system, this could lead to a recommendation that a 600W supply should always weigh over 1.2kg. Trouble is this totally neglects factors such as switching topology, MOSFET channel resistance, capacitor quality, switching frequency, quality of the thermal design, transform construction technology, enclosure weight, construction quality and so on.Judging power supplies only by the weight is a very crude use of science, but in medical research, particularly the huge or long term studies, something similar is often the best that can be done in areas such as dietary issues, diabetes, heart disease, etc.Just do not pretend that the recommendations are accurate because they are derived from the "scientific methodology".

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 03:52:51 am
content: Don't take this personally amspire - I don't know were your got your information but a lot (not all) of what you posted above is just not true. I've treated many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of diabetics over the years and have seen all stages of the disease from first diagnosis though years of health and illness afterwards in patients who have never taken any prescription drugs and those who have. I have seen the complications of untreated, uncontrolled diabetes and cared for hundreds of diabetic complications in hospitalized patients. I am very familiar with the research.This is not the place to debate the pros and cons of the many prescription drug choices available to treat type 2 DM or the benefits and limitations of trying to treat it with diet alone but suffice to say, one of the things that modern medicine is very good at treating is diabetes and its complications -when patients are compliant with the treatment plan. In an ideal world it would always be diagnosed early and patients would always be willing to make the lifestyle choices necessary to control the disease with diet and exercise alone. But in the real world that doesn't happen for a myriad of reasons - failure of the medical delivery system and patient choices being the largest categories. (it is easy to tell someone how to eat healthier, exercise more and to lose weight, but very hard for most patients to do that consistently). The epidemic of type 2 DM and its complications in the western world is by and large not due to a lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of diabetes or lack of effective treatments ( both pharmacological and lifestyle). In fact it can be treated effectively with relatively inexpensive, generic drugs in most cases (metformin, sulfonuryeas, and insulin). Of course the phramaceutical companies would love to convince physicians that their latest, greatest, expensive, patented drugs are better but there is no good evidence that is true and with any new drug, their is a possibility of serious side effects that did not become clear in the pre-FDA approval clinical trials.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 01:48:00 pm
content: As a type-2 diabetes sufferer for the past 2 decades, I fully agree that a lifestyle change is the most important step.It not only takes significant self-discipline, but a supporting spouse (or significant other).My wife, which is a wonderful cook, has embraced the low-carb lifestyle wholeheartedly, even though she doesn't require it (other than to help keep her weight down).She has figured how to make low-carb meals that also taste very good. Not only my opinion, but from acquaintances who have actually tasted them.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 03:17:37 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 05, 2017, 03:52:51 amI don't take it personally, and what did I say that is not true?I have definitely seen many cases of people with diagnosed sugar levels well over 10 permanently reducing this with diet only to 6-7 absolute maximum peak level during a meal without even using exercise. Add exercise and routine levels below 5 are achievable with no drugs. That is true for many people, isn't it? It is a result I have seen a number of times myself, so I know it is not unreasonable. I have a friend who was at the point that he would have to go on injections because the diaformin and dimicron were no longer able to control his sugar level below 9. He couldn't tolerate some of the new drugs. He has been on the low carb diet for the last 3 years and is on half a Diamicron tablet one one or two Diaformin tablets. His diet is not perfect and he is doing no excercise, so it probably is possible for him to cease the sulfonuryeas completely if he wants to put the effort in.As a matter of interest, have any of the patients you have treated been on a low carb diet (50G/day or less) for 20 years +?When patients are first are diagnosed are they told about the low carb solution?If not, why not?Are they told how to get dietry advice for a low carb diet solution? There are easily overcome problems but without guidance they can make it impossible to stick with the diet. Any research into a low carb diet that does not give the participants expert advice on the diet are doomed to failure. I have seen published "research" where people are given a Dr Atkins book (not a great example of a low carb diet) and just told to do it - that is their guidance.I am really interested because if medicine wants to be regarded as science based, and there is such an apparently incredible treatment as a low carb diet, there has to be an exceptional reason not to study it intensely. If there is a problem with the low carb diet, why has Sweden adopted it after an intense study of the research?https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden-becomes-first-western-nation-to-reject-low-fat-diet-dogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/Are they stupid?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 04:22:22 pm
content: Quote from: amspire on June 05, 2017, 03:17:37 pmI suspect the point may be that the systemic problem of insulin resistance is still there. The dietary solution has mitigated or avoided the problem, but has not cured it. If such a person were to go back to an unmodified diet the symptoms would return.Of course it may be argued that drugs only control the problem as long as you take them also, so the difference may be moot.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 05:54:04 pm
content: Given the choice, I'd rather take drugs that would allow me to live a reasonably normal lifestyle than make extensive modifications to my lifestyle to mitigate the effects of a disease.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 06:29:01 pm
content: Quote from: amspire on June 05, 2017, 03:17:37 pmI'm not sure what units for blood glucose are in use in Australia. In the US we use mg/dL. Normal fasting BG is 60-100. Post-prandial up to 120 or so depending on the meal.Yes - absolutely it is possible to control type 2 DM with diet alone - especially when it is caught early. No argument there. For many people with a mild form of the disease that is all that is needed.QuoteA low, consistent carb diet is the standard recommendation for anyone with type 2 DM. That is first line therapy and the recommendation of the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Diabetes Association. Exercise is also a vital part of the general "lifestyle modification" recommendation. So I have seen many people who have been told to follow that. That is also good advice for weight loss. The problem is almost no one is able to follow that consistently long term.In an ideal world, all people with type 2 DM would be diagnosed early (preferably in the "pre-diabetes" stage) and would receive regular detailed dietary guidance and counseling. The problem is that in the real world, primary care physicians do not have time to do this consistently. (Diabetics often have several other chronic health problems that need to be addressed in a 15 minute visit) and the availability of dietician help is limited and variable. When it is available, often patients are unwilling to attend regular dietician appointments and whether the dietary advice and counseling is given by their physician or a dietician, they are often unwilling or unable to follow it. As I said earlier, the problems are in the health care delivery system and patient compliance.As a general point the "low fat dogma" as general nutrition advice (diabetic or not) has been slow to be abandoned by the public and government nutrition guidelines, etc. But over the past 20 years or so it's become clear that some fats are more harmful than others. There is now general consensus that the "Mediterranean Diet" is a good model with moderate consumption of "good fats" olive oil, nuts, etc as part of that.As a general point about the extreme low carb diets - Atkins, South Beach, and the new fad the "Paleo diet" - I believe there is general consensus that they all have merit for promoting weight loss and normalizing glucose metabolism in diabetics and pre-diabetics. The problem is that almost no one can maintain that diet long term. I say that after practicing primary care medicine for 15 years and watching hundreds of patients try and fail.Quote from: IanB on June 05, 2017, 04:22:22 pmYes that is part of it. Type 2 diabetes is a chroniic condition with a strong genetic component. It cannot really be "cured". It can only be controlled by diet, weight loss and/or drugs.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 07:09:53 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 05, 2017, 06:29:01 pmSame as the UK I would imagine mmol/l - normal up to 6.9 mmol/l, HbA1c is also in mmol/l so up to 42 is "normal", 42-48 pre diabetic and over 48 diabetic (I think).

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 08:41:07 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on June 05, 2017, 07:09:53 pmOK interesting. Here HbA1c is given as a percentage (of total hemoglobin I think). "Normal" is less than 6 and 6 - 6.5 pre-diabetic. Treatment goal for DM is generally 7 or less.

author: eyiz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 10:34:56 pm
content: Quote from: hamdi.tn on June 01, 2017, 10:22:23 pmNow hold on there. We can't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old.I went once to a 3D show in an IMAX cinema, can't remember the name of the movie, but there was an archaeologist digging up some old bones. With my 3D glasses on, looking at the scene, it felt almost like if I was in that world. I thought to my self, what if the world we live in now is just an artificial world, a virtual reality just more sophisticated than 3-D movies, couldn't all this archaeological stuff just be "planted" there, for us to find, and make us believe we're on a planet billions of years old? After all, the actor in the 3D movie, playing the role of archaeologist, was doing just that, digging up some bones that the cinema crew had put there, just for the filming of the scene.A true scientist or engineer will be realistic about what he can actually know to be the truth, and what it is he believes to be the truth.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 10:52:30 pm
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 05, 2017, 10:34:56 pmThe missing dimension in that line of reasoning is usefulness. The evidence of nature shows a world that has been shaped and continues to change over geological timescales. If we take that evidence at face value it is useful to understand how the world works and how things will change in the future. But what use is it to suppose that the evidence isn't true, that we might live in a virtual reality simulation, or that the evidence we see is an illusion? How would that help us?I could suppose that I was made yesterday, with all my life's memories planted in my brain to make me think the past was real. I can't know that that isn't the case, but on the other hand, what if it was? How could it possibly change any decision I make today or tomorrow if all my memories happened to be fake? It couldn't. It would be of no use whatsoever to consider such a circumstance, so all sensible people rightly disregard the possibility.QuoteIn short, the truth doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. What matters is the evidence, and how we act upon that evidence.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 10:55:00 pm
content: I'm sorry, but I have to come to the conclusion that the world is only 47 years old. Everything else before that point is a manufactured fixed state, our memories, history and everything else was created on that day.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 10:59:47 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 05, 2017, 08:41:07 pmSame here, % glycosylated is the normally reported figure. The path report will have absolute figures for total and glycosylated Hb in mmol as well.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 11:00:51 pm
content: I don't believe any engineering folk are "creationists".The numbers of people who self identify as fundamentalists is falling very rapidly.My gut feeling about those folks is that they don't want to take any responsibility for the effect of mankind's stupidity and greed, or our cruelty to animals and one another.They are invariably the kinds of people whose families roll their eyes when they come up in a discussion.To totally shift, You two medical folk I am sure have seen this, remember earlier in the thread I mentioned Resveratrol. Look upresveratrol and diabetes.Seems to be helpful in prevention.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 11:03:55 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on June 05, 2017, 11:00:51 pmThey're out there, I've known a few, not very many but I'm sure I'd encounter a lot more if I lived in the bible belt. I'm not sure how it works but I think it goes back to an earlier comment about people compartmentalizing things in their brain.

author: eyiz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 11:24:23 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on June 05, 2017, 11:03:55 pmI'm a creationist. And a physicist. And a computer programmer.Here's the thing. We are already creating new forms of biological organisms, new viruses, new bacteria.A thousand years from now, genetic engineering knowledge will have vastly increased to the point that, with the use of supercomputers, and DNA databases, we can re-design all sorts of living creatures.At that point, man will re-create man, in his own image, after his own likeness. [Genesis 1:26]As the scriptures say, as it was in the beginning, so it shall be in the ending. Life is a cycle.We humans are going to "re-boot".

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 11:25:22 pm
content: Creationists LOL.I asked a religious person who believed this a question on a forum. I asked them, well lets say a deity created us - the question I have for you is - why? Why would an all-powerful god want to make anything at all? There's no challenge for it in this. What's the point?The person said, maybe god was lonely and wanted some friends?

author: eyiz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 11:33:10 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 05, 2017, 11:25:22 pmClose. God wanted to create a world where he could walk about as an ordinary man, and forget that he was omnipotent, for awhile, believing that he was just an ordinary weakling in a mighty universe, a mere speck among the stars.

author: julian1
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 11:39:24 pm
content: Quote from: amspire on June 04, 2017, 05:53:55 amThe big issue, is that IP laws generally only provide property rights -eg patents over unique molecular forms. If it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to get regulatory approval for a new drug, then you can bet that the companies involved in progressing new drugs through trials - need to have the IP locked down on their product, in order to attract the necessary investor funding.Unfortunately, that means lots of things that may have potential medicinal value are overlooked, and don't get research funding since there is no way to monetarize that work. This covers lots of common agents found in plants - such as amino acids, alkaloids, fats etc, as well as derivatives when the patents on the obvious and basic transformations (to reduce toxicity for instance) on those molecules have run-out.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2017, 11:41:47 pm
content: Perhaps the universe, space, time, evolution, us, the whole enchilada is God's dream - and if so, does it matter?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 12:21:14 am
content: Humankind are already editing (our own and other organisms) genomes. (Whether this is a good idea or not is another issue.)>A thousand years from now, genetic engineering knowledge will have vastly increased to the point that, with the use of supercomputers, and DNA databases, we can re-design all sorts of living creatures.I think we will be there by midcentury. Because scientific knowledge increases at an exponential rate. Thats why people who aren't scientists who attempt to predict the rate of scientific change always err on the low side. Its a very human mistake to estimate that the rate of change in the future will proceed at approximately the same rate it did in the past. Unfortunately, its almost the only thing we can predict that we can be sure of, prediction based on that assumption is always wrong.We have to start getting smarter because the people who are making decisions aren't fit to make them. They are making the wrong calls.Quote from: eyiz onTodayat 17:24:23>Quote from: james_s onTodayat 17:03:55>Quote from: cdev onTodayat 17:00:51They're out there, I've known a few, not very many but I'm sure I'd encounter a lot more if I lived in the bible belt. I'm not sure how it works but I think it goes back to an earlier comment about people compartmentalizing things in their brain.I'm a creationist. And a physicist. And a computer programmer.Here's the thing. We are already creating new forms of biological organisms, new viruses, new bacteria.A thousand years from now, genetic engineering knowledge will have vastly increased to the point that, with the use of supercomputers, and DNA databases, we can re-design all sorts of living creatures.At that point, man will re-create man, in his own image, after his own likeness. [Genesis 1:26]As the scriptures say, as it was in the beginning, so it shall be in the ending. Life is a cycle.We humans are going to "re-boot".

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 12:24:17 am
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 05, 2017, 11:33:10 pmWell isn't that just precious.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 12:31:57 am
content: I have no way to determine or prove one way or another whether some sort of higher power exists so I won't comment on that. The thing that gets me though is when people use the complexity of life and the unlikeliness of something as complex as a human evolving from nothing as proof of a higher power existing. Ok, valid point, it is pretty darn astounding, even given billions of years. That said, the idea of a being complex enough to create humans being created out of nothing or existing forever is even harder to believe. Then there is the fact that throughout human history there have been hundreds if not thousands of gods, everyone believes theirs is/are the true god(s) and that everyone else is wrong. They can't all be right, therefor I can only assume that they're all wrong to one degree or another.It also strikes me as rather arrogant to believe we are the center of the whole universe. Earth is a tiny planet, one of several orbiting a rather mundane star in an obscure corner of a galaxy that is not particularly remarkable amongst the countless other galaxies. Given trillions of stars, each potentially home to numerous planets in a sea of galaxies mind-bogglingly huge I find it extremely unlikely that earth is the only inhabited planet in the universe. Given the scale of things, I know if I were a supreme being I would create a planet a bit more significant than the earth and perhaps do something about the billions of people living in poverty, dying of disease and starvation or killing each other off in wars. Then again, from what people tell me about god, he strikes me as a bit of a dick.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 12:35:00 am
content: >The person said, maybe god was lonely and wanted some friends?Sure, and there is much more to it than that.. Just like engineers invent, for the sake of inventing, so will we - because its the true nature of mankind (and other intelligent life, which other terrestrial species can and do and will aspire to also)In fact, what is God? (Imagining a movie plot here) Maybe we are all (intelligent life) potentially God, and could become immortal through technologies, to give one example, nanotech robots which occupy our bodies and repair everything, and through the placenta, mothers in that era transfered that ability to their offspring, to another human, To do it later in life, somebody would have to eat our body (just a small part of it) and drink (a tiny amount of) our blood? In this film, maybe Jesus's instructions to his disciples was meant to be taken literally, not as an allegory.Maybe humans we see as having been spiritually evolved were but that evolution occurred as a result of science, not religion. And of course, the we of 2000 or more years ago interpreted that as divinity, thats just natural.Maybe "Jesus" (if such a person really existed) was just like us, an engineer or scientific thinker, (or- a time traveller sending a message of sorts by his choice illustrated by his choice of professions, carpentry?) time traveling from our own future and his father/mother etc, might have had some influence on the evolution of earth and matter themselves being immortal time travelers from before the creation of Their universe, and being of many races and forms, all having evolved this ability separately, but by the time they got to that level of technology, also having a common enlightenmentthat saw all life as precious and rare and deserving of mutual respect and even love.And of course the true nature of engineering is - in many ways, much like parenthood, the act of creation of new things and eventually, life.Life which may take many forms.I see the human race of the future merging with other life forms just like technologies borrow from one another today..We will be life and be creating new life, including ourselves again, "in (our) their own image".That sounds entirely plausible to me. In fact thats how I expect things to be. its the only plausible explanation.Quote from: xrunner onTodayat 17:25:22

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 12:40:25 am
content: Jesus is relatively modern though, there is lots of documented human history dating back before his time, and little concrete evidence of him ever actually existing at all. Not that it's difficult to believe that a guy named Jesus lived and went around preaching.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 12:43:49 am
content: It doesnt matter if he existed or not.. we should know what is right and what is wrong based on what is right and what is wrong.. (which to me means dont sweat the small stuff, and recognize "magic" when you see it, intelligent life is magic.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 12:49:02 am
content: I would expect the star systems closer to the center of each galaxy to be older and further along in the process than those farther out. The rates of evolution probably vary substantially, I do know for a fact that when there is more radiation there are much higher rates of mutation. (notably in fungi) Fungi on the Mir space station evolved an ability to eat plastics which fungi on Earth largely lacked, for example, eventually causing a fire which led to the decision to abandon Mir and deorbit it, as a form of mold remediation.Quote from: james_s onTodayat 18:31:57

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 12:49:38 am
content: Quote from: cdev on June 06, 2017, 12:43:49 amThat is about as meaningless a statement as I've ever read.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 01:09:40 am
content: Man you are so right! And not only did I say it, i said it here in this thread, which is about people who do things like that.I do think there is a right and wrong, but it needs to be explained when somebody says something is one or the other.I believe in the golden rule meaning do onto others as you would like them to do to you. I think that is kind of a universal truth.

author: eyiz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 06:54:54 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on June 06, 2017, 01:09:40 amWell, there's a universal right and wrong. Call it God or Nature, if you like, that decided this.Wrong...causes pain.Right...gives pleasure.So, it's built into your DNA.When you do right things, you feel good. When you do wrong things you feel, well, bad.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 07:06:13 pm
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 06, 2017, 06:54:54 pmSo by that logic a sociopath who derives pleasure from causing harm to others is doing right. Yeah, something seriously wrong with your thinking there...

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 07:10:56 pm
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 06, 2017, 06:54:54 pmSo if I come to a stop sign, and look around and clearly see no other cars or police, and run the stop sign, is this right or wrong? It did not cause anyone any pain.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2017, 08:16:50 pm
content: I would say that falls into a gray area, technically it's wrong to run a stop sign because we as a society have decided on a number of rules we agree to live by in which to make it a little easier for us to all coexist. One must have a bit of judgment and be able to decide when it's acceptable to bend the rules a little and when it isn't. Most of the biblical commandments ought to pretty much fall under the category of common sense and certainly are covered by the golden rule. Things like don't murder, don't steal things, don't screw your neighbor's wife, etc, those are all things that I think most people would not like others to do unto them. I'm not religious myself, I don't believe in the supernatural, but I still have morals. I try to treat others the way I wish to be treated and I don't need the threat of eternal punishment in Hell to hold me to that. Frankly it's a bit scary that there apparently are a considerable number of people who would be out there committing murder, rape, theft and all manner of other exploitation if not for the fear of burning in Hell. Then there are those who claim to believe in all that stuff but go around committing crimes anyway, I'm not sure how they justify it in their head.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 12:02:19 am
content: Some people have no moral compass and quite literally lie without any indication that they are lying. They cause a hugely disproportionate amount of misery. They also are delusional so they have major flaws in judgment,"Narcissistic Personality Disorder"Lots of politicians, dictators, killers, etc. have it.They can't feel empathy (or emotion) like most of us.They hide it extremely well. They are the most skillful liars and manipulators in the world.When you realize somebody is NPD, if you're smart, you'll not get trapped in their net. Nobody who has will forget it.Beware!Quote from: eyiz onTodayat 12:54:54

author: eyiz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 12:08:21 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 06, 2017, 07:10:56 pmThat's an easy one. To be guilty of a man made law, someone has to first "accuse you" of breaking that law, then a court has to decide if you did, and consider the extenuating circumstances that made you do it. No one is guilty until the court says so. All are "presumed innocent" until proven guilty. So, if nobody saw you go through the stop sign, you did nothing wrong.You can't do anything wrong in a world where the only person existing is you. i.e. from a "social contract" point of view. You can still break God's laws etc...

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 12:21:43 am
content: Quote from: cdev on June 07, 2017, 12:02:19 amLike Trump?He may be a prototype to compare against for potential NPD patients.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 12:23:38 am
content: If anything can be considered "god's laws" I'd suggest that it's the laws of physics, thermodynamics, energy, good luck breaking those.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 12:56:25 am
content: yes, and unfortunately HRC too. And all the dictators, they all had/have it. Only they do the things they do and don't understand why its not normal.A very very high percentage of politicians are. They are the people who most want adulation from "followers".Most people don't want to be politicians. The kind of person who might do it out of a sense of duty - "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" types, are what we should want but criminogenic trade deals increasingly are there to scare the good people away, by giving away "policy space" (democracy's ability to fix things) to corporations as irreversible rights in perpetuity. (See "Investor vs. State Dispute Settlement" and the similar provisions in the WTO "GATS" agreement for examples of how this works) Lower level politicians often don't know about these poisonous deals. But as they rise through the ranks, they find out. They take away government's ability to do anything good for people, implementing a ratchet, (a noose like one way process where only changes that make multinational corporations more profitable are allowed to enter laws without compensation being paid to MNCs in advance) That poisons the well, so to speak.So all we're left with then are crooks. No sane person would become a politician under these circumstances. Thats what they want.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 01:13:43 am
content: Until speed cameras, nobody would care if you ran that stop light if truly there wasnt anybody else in miles. But now thats become an income stream for towns in the middle of nowhere. Just like surveillance has become a big part of social networking sites (and I'm sure, also computer hardware and software companies) business models.If you had created an absolutely impossible situation which you knew was going to trip up a substantial percentage of society just because of the law of averages, you would probably be nervous about dissent too. The problem with creating a self-perpetuating ecosystem of misery though is eventually, it fails catastrophically because its just making everybody miserable, even those who are supposed to benefit. Thats the problem with "groupthink". (as irving Janis calls it) "cover your ass behavior"?The best description of how groupthink works is not about narcissism, its about organizational behavior..even in fairly high functioning organizations it can happen.. its by physisicist Richard Feynman. "what do you care about what people think" Its very good.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 01:23:38 am
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 07, 2017, 12:08:21 amWell I can prove that people exist and that they are the source of laws, however you have a huge monumental really big problem proving that -A. A deity or deities existsB. It has come up with laws for people to obeyC. It rewards or punishes said people for their actions as pertains to these laws.(no, showing us a book that you claim comes from a deity isn't going to cut it, because you'll have to prove that assertion also)I really love it when religious people just toss things out there and expect others to just accept them as true.

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 02:16:41 am
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 07, 2017, 12:08:21 amLet's see...Bibliotical Text (Genesis 1:1-5)Laws of PhysicsIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.2nd law of thermodynamics.The description of Earth is based on the (debunked) geocentric theory of UniverseAnd God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day.Conservation of mass-energyandKepler's Laws of Planetary MotionTry break those.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 02:50:49 am
content: The problem is the usual one: that there is no one to ask what was originally meant by such a description. "Formless and empty" could simply mean the prebiotic state, and darkness could be metaphorical, or refer to a heavy cloud cover. Add in problems of translation and it quickly becomes clear that you can use the Bible to support virtually any interpretation. "The first day" could be anything, since the distinction between day and night is subjective and depends on there being an observer to notice it.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 01:58:02 pm
content: Illuminati believers don't believe in facts, or science, just thefed to them by like minded nut cases. I know two of them, who are clearly deranged but harmless. Another Illuminati believer recently murdered several innocent strangers people by driving over them in his car in Melbourne, including a baby in a pram. His excuse, "The Illuminati made me do it."Even so, people have a right to believe whatever they want in a free western society. Unfortunately, one toxic religion violently disagrees.

author: alexanderbrevig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 02:05:32 pm
content: Confirmation bias will lead you to believe anything.We're all agnostics when you drill down far enough.“The more you know, the more you know you don't know.” - Aristotle

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 02:14:10 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on June 07, 2017, 01:58:02 pmYou shouldn't talk about the Christians like that, it's divisive.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 02:26:03 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on June 07, 2017, 01:58:02 pmOnly one?

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 03:11:52 pm
content: Quote from: helius on June 07, 2017, 02:50:49 amThat is why I quoted 2nd law of thermodynamics there. A state of maximum entropy is "formless and empty" by definition of thermodynamic entropy. The first few lines in the Bible can describe the Big Bang where the concept of time itself is not yet stable, and no widely accepted theory exist as of now. It is totally possible that only Planck time passed in the reference frame of our universe, but in the Lord's frame of reference it really is three days or a week.

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 05:20:14 pm
content: Ardent Sky Pixie Believer here. I wont say my faith to keep within forum guidelines, and I'm not 100% creationist. I will openly say I can prove the existence of biological adaptation, but by no means can I prove Creation.I will mention that working in a multidisciplinary facility with tunneling microscopes, electron microscopes and some really sophisticated laser scanning microscopes has taught me that every time I think I remotely understand some tiny fraction of molecular and atomic structure, some new underlying feature pops up. The world just seems too sophisticated and well designed to have just popped up out of nothingness without a designer. Every time I think I know something, I find there is far more to learn,. I have yet to see a lab get anywhere close to generating the spark of life in 20 something years of working in labs that do a mix of Bio and Applied Physics/Applied Chemistry. At least that is what I tell my fellow Sky-Pixie followers, when they ask how I can reconcile my beliefs, with my university workplace.While I work in a facility that would strongly deny Creation theory at all costs, you might be surprised how many different faiths we have working here, and we have subtle ways of finding each other. Some of my fellow workers can openly show their faiths, even put up recruiting posters, but mine seems limited by social / legal norms from doing that.One point, I've gotten more good dates and social consideration from women at the Sky Pixie Adoration Facility then anywhere else. They are like minded women, with a goal of companionship, and less worship of money or shoes then any other category I have ever dated. And they keep an eye on each other's behavior. Usually they take good care of themselves, too. Which leads me to another point:The main point everyone often misses about faith, is that with a few notable exceptions, that faith based groups often believe in providing second chances, avoiding strife, and offering help or redemption to those who are broken. Especially those people, whom our narcissistic political and community leaders would kill, exile,, jail, or toss aside, rather then help.As we age, experience divorce, medical or social problems, loose friends and family, move to some place far from home, etc., the one place you can always find some acceptance is a faith based place. Even if I'm traveling on business, I can pop into a local community, have a few things in common, and at least have some one to talk to for a few hours. That and the business connections I can develop are fantastic.But I do have to follow some strict rules. About 50% of my local fellow members are really smart, successful people, often highly educated. A large fraction of the rest are people we are helping to become productive members of society, again. Many of them have problems that can be solved just by talking with others. Sky Pixie day is often a chance to unload stress and vent, either thru ritual (Which has some interesting psychology behind it) or by having some one trusted to talk to.So for my friends here who are atheist, agnostic, or just in doubt, please understand peaceful, faith, based communities (Note I did not use the word "Religious", it has very negative connotations in my world) exist for providing community, sanctuary, companionship, and guidance. Call it a sophisticated coping or survival mechanism if you will. That and the food after worship cooked by all those wives (and a few husbands) is amazing, but it will raise your cholesterol.So before you think "Sky Pixie Tribe", no matter which branch, is a cult of idiots believing in the impossible, please understand, that even if we're wrong, our meetings and structure provide a support system for a lot of people who would have no place else to go, or no other source of discipline in their life. Even if He doesn't exist, I can say I have benefitted, and grown in amazing ways from being part of a second family of sorts. Most of my biological family has passed on/expired, and in a emergency, I have a unbelievable support system thru the "tribe", provided I devote some of my time to doing the same for others.We're not a bunch who would go out and start a war or murder people on the street, either. In fact you might find that persons in our group would do whatever we can to stop any such event well in advance. We see the groups who do such things as having not been around long enough to evolve, or being severely mislead. Usually misled by 5% or so of their group who twist the concepts and text around.Even if Irrational, "Sky Pixie Worship" often serves as a badly needed social purpose, even if it just helps develop a person's conscience. That just might be why it exists and thrives.From an Engineering Point of view, think about it this way. If you as the Creator build a huge pile of robots who function flawlessly, with perfect software, what fun would it be to watch after a while? Especially if you know the exact probable outcomes of their function?. If you gave them the ability to learn, adapt, and think, and behave/ misbehave, would it not be a lot more rewarding from the programming standpoint? What fun would it be to create a pile of creatures as companions without spontaneity and the ability to develop an original thought? Would you like to spend your life around C3PO? The number of technologically sophisticated people who think they exist only in some sort of simulation is amazing. Think about it..Steve

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 05:29:10 pm
content: I once found a weird video on Youtube where a guy was claiming he was recieving signals from a fire plug. I tried to explain how radio waves work in the comments which led to a bit of a debate. I recently read an article in my radio club magazine on this cult of people I encountered there who apparently call themselves "geomancers".EDIT: There is a lot of that on Youtube too, just like free energy crap.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 06:27:32 pm
content: Excellent thoughtful post LaserSteve.It's nice to see someone express a more nuanced view than the false Atheist versus Religious zealot dichotomy that seems to too often dominate this topic when it is discussed here.Quote from: LaserSteve on June 07, 2017, 05:20:14 pmThis made me think of this excerpt from a lecture by Alan Watts:

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 06:41:25 pm
content: Quote from: LaserSteve on June 07, 2017, 05:20:14 pmHow could this Omnipotent Deity, which created all basic physical reality (according to what people like you would say)notknow how any creatures it created would behave? There is no level of what we would perceive as "randomness" that it would not understand and know to be predictable because it made the underlying structure. Remember it designed physical reality down to the quantum interactions and beyond - everything and all it's behavior and functionality is a design created from it's own thoughts, that never existed before. What we perceive as random is exactly and precisely a known outcome because it is the way it's designed to be, and the design came from the designer (according to what creationists would say). So claiming that it would enjoy watching "spontaneous" creatures interact as if it could not predict what they will do is nonsensical to me. It cannot design something that it can then not understand. Just as an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being can somehow decide to not exist, because that would be a contradiction. An eternal being cannot decide to be a non-eternal being because it would have been non-sensical to have been called eternal to begin with.Think about it.Besides, there is really no difference for such a being between thinking about something and creating it. For example I can think about what 2 + 2 equals. I know what it equals. Now, what if I write it down on paper as a physical representation? Is there any more meaning for me? No. Same thing applies to an omnipotent entity - it's an unnecessary and trivial task that adds no more meaning at all.

author: Zbig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 06:48:54 pm
content: Quote from: LaserSteve on June 07, 2017, 05:20:14 pmBut you don't wonder where, how and when this designer came about? How does assuming the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, infinitely intelligent, invisible sentient being with sadistic tendencies, who created everything, explain any single thing?Why does your need to ask the questions "who" and "how" seem to suddenly vanish when they're no longer about the universe itself but the guy who singlehandedly created it? How does this make it any easier to understand or accept? I find it really hard to believe you haven't ever gone through the thought exercise likewho created the creator guy and wouldn't he have to be even greater of a creator? And the one before? Since how long does it go on like this? Oh, I guess there was just no beginning of time - it's a loop! Or better - the time itself began with the creator himself! But wait... couldn't we just replace "creator" with "universe", then? Doesn't this make it a tiny bit simpler? Oh bummer...I did as a kid and I will never ever again consider the most improbable answer possible to be the answer, even for a second. Do you really find the notion of adesignerjust popping up out of nothingness without a designer so much more palatable than the universe having just popped up out of nothingness without a designer? Really? Honestly?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 07:41:39 pm
content: Quote from: Zbig on June 07, 2017, 06:48:54 pmYou're assuming that any religion under discussion is one with a omnipotent (etc etc), male, single deity. You're missing all the polytheistic guys like the Hindus (Easy to overlook, there's only over a billion of them), Sikhs, the animists, the ancestor worshippers, and all the many other varieties of Sky (or Earth) Pixie worship. There's much more under heaven and earth than is dreamed of in Abrahamic religious philosophy.An aside: One of the things that I find interesting in looking at most religious traditions that aren't Abrahamic ones is that the Gods themselves are subject to consequences and varieties of rules (moral rules or what would be called in mundane matters the rules of physics). They tend to contain much better explanations of why their gods permit/allow/can't stop bad things that completely stump adherents of Abrahamic religions.Obviously most of the here assembled worship at the Temple of The Angry Pixies. (Watchers of AvE's YouTube channel will know what I mean.)

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 08:01:39 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 07, 2017, 07:41:39 pmAs well as the half billion or more pantheists (Buddhists, Daoists, etc). Many of these are more philosophical belief systems rather than "religions" in the Western sense of that word. Zen Buddhism has been called "the religion of no religion" for example.Personally, I find both religious and atheist zealotry equally troubling and when it is in your face proselytizing, offensive and dangerous -no matter whether it's evangelizing Christian or Islamic fundamentalists or evangelizing Atheists ("There is no god and I am his prophet").IMHO, the insistence of some to impose their non-physical belief system on others is one of the human race's most destructive forces.

author: Zbig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 08:17:59 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 07, 2017, 07:41:39 pmYes, I'm aware there's more than one religion in the world - I'm an atheist, not a moronMy post was worded as a response to LaserSteve's use of singular "designer" but feel free to replace the "designer" with any other diety/dieties ever worshipped. It doesn't matter if you substitute the single male god with a merry bunch of multi-armed deities arguing the fate of the world or humanity with animal-headed dudes over dinner, like in a poor sitcom - it doesn't change a single thing as far as I'm concerned. Even if you refuse to call the entity "god" and start talking about shapeless, timeless cloud of sentient energy or whatever: the wheels fall of the cart as soon as there's a hint of an educated, will-driven act of design by any kind of self-aware driving force playing a role in shaping the laws of physics.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 11:16:50 pm
content: Quote from: Zbig on June 07, 2017, 08:17:59 pmLaserSteve went well out of his way to avoid any useful clue as to which variety of Pixie he was describing, which is why I wanted to suggest that your implicit assumption that it was an Abrahamic, or Abrahamic style god was possibly off the mark.

author: eyiz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2017, 11:37:43 pm
content: Quote from: Zbig on June 07, 2017, 08:17:59 pmHow could anyone be an atheist?You're either a theist or an agnostic.If you claim you're an objective scientist, and can see no "evidence" for God, then you can't claim there's "no God" either, since neither is there any "evidence" for that.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 12:04:58 am
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 07, 2017, 11:37:43 pmIncorrect.Gnostic refers to knowledge, thesim refers to religion.The "A" in front of these words adds "without". So a theist has a belief in god(s) - an atheist has no belief in gods. Notice how the "a" modifies the meaning. Lacking a beliefs in gods does not mean you KNOW there are no gods, it simply means that you have no verifiable knowledge of them hence you have no belief.A gnostic has knowledge of something, an agnostic has no knowledge of something.Gnostic and agnostic have no meaning by themselves regarding religious beliefs. For example I could be an aunicornist (without knowledge of unicorns). If I believed in unicorns I would be a unicornist, just like a person that believes in gods is a theist.That mistake is made repeatedly by uninformed theists.The correct way to use them is as follows -You are either a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.A gnostic theist claims to have direct knowledge of gods. An agnostic theist lacks that knowledge but yet still believes in gods.And you are either a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist.A gnostic atheist claims to have proof there are no gods and so does not believe in them, and an agnostic atheist has no direct proof that there are no gods so does not believe in them.Calling a person an agnostic is meaningless because it doesn't refer to the knowledge base the person is lacking.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 01:16:54 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 08, 2017, 12:04:58 amQuote from: Oxford English DictionaryQuote from: Oxford English DictionaryI'd say that both words are clearly about religious belief.If you're going to makeex cathedrapronouncements on the meaning of words, it's a wise precaution to actually check the dictionary first.Moreover, there can be no doubt about the intended meaning of the wordagnosticas it was explicitly coined by T.H.Huxley to describe his own beliefs about religious issues.Quote from: T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 01:31:23 am
content: I'm using the terms the correct way in the context of explaining the four ways to hold or not hold religious beliefs.QuoteThe statement from eyiz -QuoteIs simply wrong, and not precise, as I clearly showed in my last post. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.So stating you are an agnostic is not the most precise way to use the term, as anyone whose debated these topics for any length of time would know.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 01:32:16 am
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 07, 2017, 11:37:43 pmThis is not how it works. If someone makes a fantastic claim, and there is no evidence to support that claim, then you are entitled to believe the fantastic claim is false.For instance, if you show me a sealed box and tell me there may be a dollar bill inside it, then I do not know if this is true or not. I can be legitimately uncertain of the true state of affairs.On the other hand, if you show me a sealed box and suggest that the Cullinan diamond is inside it, then I am in no state of uncertainty at all. I will be quite sure that no such diamond is inside the box and will have no doubt whatsoever about it. You may tell me I cannot see inside the box and therefore I cannot know for sure. But you know quite well that such assurances will count for nothing and I will on no account believe you.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 01:42:40 am
content: The general claims "there is a God" and "there is no God" are equally fantastic and equally unprovable. Both are personal beliefs.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 01:58:41 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 08, 2017, 01:42:40 amIndeed, however the rational stance is tonotbelieve in a thing if there is no proof, nottobelieve in it. Therefore, the rational stance is tonotbelieve in gods without proof.

author: yada
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:10:55 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 01, 2017, 11:44:35 pmI don't get that. What does he do with the stuff he's learning in genetics? I took genetics and was always thinking that creationists have no fucking clue and just need to sit in on one class and try to tell me everything we learned was nonsense.Just like understanding how the speed of light works, seeing well over 6000 ly's with the naked eye and saying those light rays are at most 6000 years old. 3/4 of the night sky would be dark if you excluded all the light sources more then 6000 light years away.I saw one guy go as far as to say god had planted all the light sources to make the illusion that its older then 6000 years. Why would god want to trick us? What is he trying to hide. The bible makes perfect sense if you only had the knowledge available to you when it was written. Horse men of the apocalypse? They would have jetpacks or tele porters or better yet EM drives. That would take forever to conquer the world on horse back. You could out ride the horse men on a ebike or moped, they would never catch the ISS.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:30:33 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 08, 2017, 01:31:23 amAh, the Humpty-Dumpty approach. Look, if you want to chose your own meaning for words, fine, but only if you want to talk about the "skookumness of the schmoo", or whether "she chooches", not when you're saying someone else is using them incorrectly, then the only place of appeal is the dictionary. You can't use your own definitions of words in a rational argument. To do so is antithetical to communication at best, dishonest at worst (which I don't believe is your intent).Further, you're choosing your own definition ofatheistto suit your argument. Again, the dictionary defines atheism as "the theory orbelief that God does not exist." [my emphasis]. Using the normally understood, dictionary based meaning of the words: Theism is abeliefin a god or gods existing, atheism is abeliefthat they do not exist, only agnosticism stands aside and says I haveno beliefbecause I do not have any evidence.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:34:12 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 08, 2017, 02:30:33 amNo, no you are incorrect sir. I'm being very precise and there is no need for insults.If anagnosticlacks belief in gods, then what is anagnostic theist?As you would have it, an agnostic theist would then mean "a person that lacks belief in gods, that believes in gods"How could that exist? The term would be contradictory - but ... it isn't. The term exists and it means just what I said it did -QuoteAnd, so it goes for the other terms I identified, you can easily google all of them at your leisure.So, you see how to be precise you would have to use the terms as I did. Here is a graphic below if you prefer to look at pictures - but as I've been a member here for years and know well how these types of threads are bound for a lockdown, I will exit it and leave you all to your musings.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:38:21 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 08, 2017, 01:58:41 amSimply verbal gymnastics and semantics.The belief "there is no God" is itself a thing for which there is no proof.In any case, the God/No God question is completely outside the realm of science. There is no testable hypothesis there.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:58:09 am
content: Quote from: IanB on June 08, 2017, 01:32:16 amThere's this fella who's suggested that the Universe increased in size by a factor of 1030between when the Universe was 1 x 10-34seconds old and 2 x 10-34seconds old with no direct evidence. If any claim is fantastical then, just on the scale of the numbers, that one is. By your standard of proof laid out above, we should label this claim false. However, most cosmologists do believe there may be something to this claim and the theory is called Inflation. Obviously this is science so: (1) rigorous attempts are being made to find experimental evidence to confirm or deny this, (2) the innate scepticism of scientists in unlikely claims gets suspended if it's cosmology or quantum physics because it's OK to believe six impossible things before breakfast if it's science.My point is, there is a difference between justified scepticism and active disbelief, and the criteria you supply for belief in falsity aren't sufficient. To have a belief that something is false you must have evidence for that position, not merely the absence of evidence of something being true. To have evidence for neither position requires one to either take a neutral position oneself or to take a faith based position (whether for or against is immaterial, especially as in my opinion either would be foolish).At least you didn't say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - a phrase that makes me want to "reach for my machine gun" as ordinary evidence is quite adequate thank you!

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 03:17:25 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 08, 2017, 02:34:12 amI'm not insulting you, just quoting acceptable nonsense use of words from a man I find very funny. I presume you do get the Humpty-Dumpty reference, from a very famous author also known for his use of nonsense words, and you don't think that's also supposed to be an insult too.Quote from: Lewis Carol "Through the Looking Glass"Quote from: xrunner on June 08, 2017, 02:34:12 amAnagnostic theistis a phrase you cling to, to support your argument about the meanings of words, about which the Oxford English Dictionary, and the creator of the word "agnostic", disagree with you.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 04:16:54 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 08, 2017, 02:30:33 am"Belief" based on alack of evidence+evidence to the contraryI have belief that if I jump out of a tall building then I will die. Not because it makes me feel like a better person believing that, or because many other people believe it, or because it gives me comfort knowing that. It's a belief based onevidence.If you are going to get anal about words, do the word "belief" a favour and acknowledge that there are different reason to have "belief" in something.I also have belief that fairies aren't real.It's perfectly reasonable to "Believe" something based on alack of evidence.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 04:28:40 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 08, 2017, 02:58:09 amCorrect. One should notbelievesuch a claim to be true simply based on a lack of evidence.However, if you want get technical, and because you used it as a specific example, it likely wasn't anabsolute claim, it was a scientifichypothesis.Religion (and many other such things) arenotscientific hypothesis, they are absolute claims of confidence based on faith without any real evidence, and in the face of evidence to the contrary to boot.To us the analogy you did is a mistake.Believing Elvis is still alive ranks in the exact same category.QuoteParaphrasing Doc Brown: There's that word again, belief, is there a problem with the understanding of the word in the future?QuoteAbsolute rubbish.Classic Russell's teapot.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 04:32:03 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 08, 2017, 02:34:12 amCorrect.Although if no one mutters the words religion or god again, and use other examples, it's possible to avoid the lockdown hammer.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 01:26:47 pm
content: Edit to put this in FIRST: I hadn't read the thread before. Replied to an earlier post. Sheer bad luck to post this on religion immediately after the local deity declares the words to be lock-triggers. Peace?Quote from: xrunner on June 06, 2017, 12:24:17 amIt's certainly something that starts with 'p'.No, nothing rude. The word is 'projection'. The assumption that the motives of others are the same as yours. Projecting human traits onto a 'God' (or any advanced non-human intellect) has always struck me as stupendously unimaginative.One of the most laughable things about religion is the reliance on 'black box' sophistry, pretending to be respectable statements. When it is nothing but illogical rubbish.Take "God created the Universe" for example. There are three 'black boxes' there; 'God', 'created', and 'the Universe'. Each one is merely a word, that we humans think we understand as a valid concept. But they are are actually far too vague to put together in that sentence and still mean anything at all.Just a few observations:'The Universe' - of which we do not yet understand the basic rules - the physics. Science gives us some glimpses of how vast it is, and how deep the rabbit hole of Physics goes. But to speak of 'creating' it, means different things to people depending on how much they understand of that vastness. Even then, one could ignore the physical vastness, AND the mysteries of what the Laws of Physics actually are. One could ask a more fundamental question: HOW did those laws come into existence? And WHAT KEEPS them in existence?If the universe (whatever we mean by that) was somehow constructed, then surely the fundamental act of creation would have to be the construction and somehow locking-in the Laws - whatever they are. The periodic table of elements, space and time, stars and their clustering into galaxies - all that follows from the fundamental Laws. Which we have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how they came to be and why they seem to be persistent.How can we talk about something 'creating' something, that we can't even grasp the nature of?OK, so consider some supposed 'God' that did that thing (which we can't grasp.)Err... hello? Complexity problem... Was this 'God' some kind of intellect? But that requires some kind of structure in order to support thought, or processing, or whatever you want to call it. This 'God' had to be able to imagine an objective (will), consider alternatives (freedom of choice), anticipate results (simulation of systems), choose one (will, again), and act to 'create' that. But... this requires a complexity of SOME KIND that must be at least equivalent to the complexity of the created system.People say "God created the Universe" as if that somehow solves the problem of how things began.But only because they are using black box terms - easy, meaningless labels, to avoid thinking about the actual problem.Actually claiming "God created the Universe" just makes the basic problem WORSE. It increases the unexplained complexity, not lessens it. Since 'God' (and the system in which he exists) must have been more complex than 'his' creation, if it was any kind of creative action in the sense we understand.Otoh, if 'God' was _less_ complex than 'his' creation, then that is more like some kind of spontaneous natural process, and there's little point calling elements of it 'God'.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:00:54 pm
content: Quote from: f5r5e5d on June 04, 2017, 12:47:48 amThe 30 year period is likely sufficiently explained by the fact that Wessel published in Danish ["Om directionens analytiske betegnelse" (1799)].

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:04:10 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 02, 2017, 06:19:46 pmHere's a Venn diagram I did years ago. Take it as a joke or not.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:11:54 pm
content: We all believe things without evidence.You are told there is three phase in that power socket. You believe it without questioning it and you dare not touch it.I was told at high school by the teachers the only path to success was a good education and a good job. I later learnt in life that was complete.According to research in 2002, most Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the 911 attacks on the WTC. They also believed and still do, that the people in the Guantanamo concentration camp Gitmo were all terrorists. The simple minds being arguably from over half the population believed thethat the Bush administration and his cheesy American media was telling them. People are very gullible.

author: eyiz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:41:28 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on June 08, 2017, 01:32:16 amAh. But that's the whole thing. There is "evidence" for the existence of God.The problem is that not everyone can "see" this evidence "today".So, what is "belief" to some people, is "certainty" to others.Because of their individual life experiences, some people begin to "see" the evidence.Then they proclaim, for example,"[i For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. -- KJV, 1 Corinthians|13:12When an individual begins to "see", it is as if he is seeing through a dark glass, just the beginnings of understanding start to dawn upon him, then he "knows" there is something more beyond that which he had previously known about the world.The things is, unless you're trained in science, all the things that scientists say to you are not evidence, it's just as fantastical. You have to do some scientific experiments first, and learn lots of mathematics and other things, before you can begin to "see" that what scientists say is "truth."Same with religion. It's just belief to some, and just as scientific to others.

author: Groucho2005
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 02:58:07 pm
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 08, 2017, 02:41:28 pmNow I know that you're just trolling.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 03:09:24 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 08, 2017, 04:28:40 amYou speak as if there's a different standard of logic required when discussing claims about Pixies, creation or similar topics as there is to discussing any other. My argument is that the nature of claim that "There is a sky pixie" is the exactly the same as "There was inflation", and, in a rational world, the nature of the evidence, criteria for belief,activedisbelief etcetera are identical.Quote from: EEVblog on June 08, 2017, 04:28:40 amNo it's not rubbish and I'll thank you not to use such inflammatory phrasing if we're going to have a civilized discussion about it.You cite Russell's Teapot. Let's quote Russell from that article:Quote from: Bertrand RussellRussell's Teapot willingly exposes Russell'sa prioribelief in the unlikelyness of teapots and gods. If you think Russell's statement undermines my position, you've failed to understand it, because I read it as direct support for much of what I've been saying both in terms of the logic (in the mathematical sense) of belief and the definitions of atheist and agnostic. It starts with "I ought to call myself an agnostic" and Russell goes on to explain why, because he takes ana prioriposition (as opposed to a strict evidential one) on the likelihood of pixies/orbiting teapots that he feels he has to call himself an atheist. Russell's definitions of atheist and agnosticism are exactly in line with mine and the dictionary's.I think that I've previously sufficiently qualified what I said that it ought to be completely clear what I mean and that I'm correct. However, it seems to be eluding you so I'll try again. Please note that I used the phase "active disbelief" and "justified scepticism", perhaps you missed that. I probably should have said "justifiablescepticism" in stead of "justified scepticism" if we're going to be rigorous about my position.In the Scottish legal system the possible verdicts were "Guilty", "Not proven" and "innocent". I'm arguing that if you believe that someone is guilty as charged you must have evidence to back it up, if you believe they are "innocent" they you must actively have evidence that they are innocent, if you don't have evidence that allows you to form either of those verdicts then you are only justified in picking "not proven".So, if the claim is "This box contains a cat" I say these positions are logically tenable:Nature of evidenceBeliefBelieves boxcontainscatHas no conclusionBelieves boxdoes not containcatConcrete evidence of cat in boxScientist/AgnosticFoolInsaneNo evidence either wayCatistScientist/AgnosticAcatistConcrete evidence that box is emptyInsaneFoolScientist/AgnosticMy argument is that in the absence of direct evidence only an agnostic/"not proven" position is fully tenable, and theist and atheist positions require a reliance ona priorireasoning. Russell was quite happy to admit hisa priorireasoning and thus deliberately took the label atheist. Note that in this I'm taking the same position as Russell, that likelihood is not the same as provable evidence.I suspect that your discomfiture is that you think of yourself as an atheist and as rational and don't like that I characterise the atheist position as not strictly logically tenable. If your position is 'on the balance of probabilities there are mostprobablyno sky pixies but I haven'tproventhat' then I'd call you a fellow agnostic. If your position is 'there are no sky pixies, period' then I'd characterise that as atheist and you'll just have to get as comfortable as Russell was with the fact that that position includes ana priorielement and put up with me saying that although I agree that your position is most probabilistically likely to be correct I don't agree it is proven.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 03:25:17 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 08, 2017, 03:09:24 pmOf course they are not identical. Firstly, the universe exists and has observable characteristics. It has a past and has a history that we can reason about. Secondly, nobody was claiming there was inflation, they simply said, "If inflation happened, it might explain some of the observations we make now. What do you guys think?" It's a question that exists in a concrete world, a question that has logical consequences that can be considered based on observation and experiment.Now let's try the same thing with sky pixies. "Hey guys, if there is a sky pixie, it might explain some of the observations we make now about the universe. What do you think?" To which the answer immediately becomes, "What difference in the universe might we expect if there was/was not a sky pixie? Where should we look for those differences and what should we see?" And of course this line of investigation becomes a dead end.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 03:25:25 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on June 08, 2017, 01:26:47 pmI think you've hit on a nub of it there. In everyday speech I'll find myself saying things like "Since the Universe was created..." when I really mean "Since the beginning of the Universe...". The very use of the word 'create' implies a wilful act on behalf of someone and shapes how we describe things. You're never going to get me to agree with the 'Politically Correct' that I ought to choose my words to shape what I'm capable of expressing, but I do think there's a nub of truth in language shaping what and how we think. It's quite difficult to have, even a scientific, discussion about cosmology (or particle physics) without the words 'create' or 'creation' creeping in unintended and I suspect that this 'terminological inexactitude' makes an unintended contributory factor to our thinking.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 03:42:46 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on June 08, 2017, 03:25:17 pmThe only way that one can see the two as qualitatively different in terms of provability is if one has formed the opinion,a priori, that they are different. Which it appears you have. You said:Quote from: IanB on June 08, 2017, 03:25:17 pmWhich implies that you think pixies do not exist and do not have observable characteristics.You, by saying that the criteria for proving pixiehood should somehow be different to the criteria for examining any other phenomenon, are perpetuating the claim of the pixie followers for special treatment and an exclusion from logical, rigorous examination. I suspect that is not what you want, but it is what you are arguing for.I suspect that we will find that we are probably going to have to agree to disagree because I suspect that I am not good enough to expose the logical flaw I see in your thinkingto your satisfactioneven though it is obvious to me.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 04:36:00 pm
content: This just popped up in my RSS feed:

author: eyiz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 06:29:52 pm
content: Quote from: Groucho2005 on June 08, 2017, 02:58:07 pmI'm not trolling.You can begin to see the evidence too, if you bother to look.Let's take a simple example, to get you started.About 2000 years ago, a young woman named Mary gave birth to a son. The problem with her story is that she was supposed to be a "virgin."Everybody knew that a woman had to have relations with a man in order to get pregnant, and give birth to children. So, very few people believed in that story about this, so called, "virgin birth." They were all mostly "skeptics."That would have to be "a miracle."The Jews even teased Jesus, questioning the legitimacy of his "virgin birth" story,Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.-- John 8:41That was a direct underhand comment to Jesus that suggested his mother Mary had carnal relations before Joseph. And so Jesus had "two" fathers, one that raised him, and one, that we would today call his "biological father", that contributed the seed.Like you, of the scientific mind, they were not buying this impossible story about a man being born from a virgin girl.Today, however, women give birth to babies without sex with men. They go to the doctor, select features they want from the "sperm bank", get artificially inseminated, and have their own children, without carnal relations with members of the opposite sex. We even have Lesbians that have children, etc..All sorts of things that would be impossible long ago. Nobody would think it strange that a virgin girl could give birth to a son in today's world. We have more knowledge.Our knowledge has increased.Of course, you can argue, that there were no "scientists" 2000 years ago with the knowledge to do this. Sure, no "man" had the knowledge. But, that doesn't mean that no intelligent beings in the universe possessed the knowledge that mankind has now uncovered, that allows him to produce these "miracles" to the untrained mind today.This virgin birth was the first "miracle" recorded in the New Testament.All the "miracles" that were performed 2000 years ago, were done for a specific reason: to enter these things in the historical record, so that in the future times, when men are able to perform these "miracles" themselves, with ordinary "scientific knowledge", they would then "know" that someone had to have had this same knowledge long ago. This would then be the "proof" that some advanced intelligent life had created man, and given him the power to create new life also.All this scientific knowledge, is necessary, to understand the miracles performed long ago. Towards the end of time, man will have sufficient understanding to decode the Holy Scriptures, and understand it's "truths." When Daniel asked the angels when the end would come they said,"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledgeshall be increased." -- KJV, Daniel 12:4So, we see that first mankind has to "increase his knowledge", which is what we're seeing now. To understand the scriptures, some people need to see the "evidence". Before they can see and understand, they have to learn science, then they will be able to open the holy book and read it with "new understanding." Others, because of different life experiences, can begin to see, even though they are not trained in science.For most people, parts of the scriptures are "sealed", i.e. blocked from direct understanding, and only become "unsealed" at specific times in the future, when men develop the ability to "see" and "understand" through their "increased knowledge."

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 07:25:53 pm
content: Quote from: eyiz on June 08, 2017, 06:29:52 pmThat is just an appeal to magical thinking. That at some 'special' time it'll all be clear and logical, even if, at every point in history before that time, it looks like a contradictory mish-mash of history, several different pre-existing mythologies, the opinions of the various writers at the time, and the opinions of the people who selected which texts would be canonical. How can you, in all conscience, suggest that there is any logic or rationality embodied in that kind of thinking? Where does that leave everybody until that 'special' time, wilfully abandoning their 'given' rationality so that they can see the 'truth'?Which brings us back to the original question, how do apparently rational people get to where they believe this kind of illogic? It's one thing to dispute interpretations of evidence such as biology or geology, it's another entirely to abandon logic and rationality and just appeal to what can only be described as magic, and not the kind that Arthur C. Clarke was talking about.

author: eyiz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 08:28:04 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 08, 2017, 07:25:53 pmScientists record their observations in journals, which are archived in libraries, so that other scientists can read them and "check" what they are saying, by making their own observations.Priests do the same thing. The problem with religion, is that it deals with matters on time scales much longer than the lifespan of a human being. So, it is not that easy to "check" the facts in every age an individual happens to find himself living in. But, by keeping the scriptures around, age after age, the observations eventually become subject to fact "checking" by those individuals fortunate enough to live in the age of "enlightenment."Sure, copying texts over and over may result in some corruption, but the main themes remain. Rational people can see what is relevant in the stories that are recorded, and extract the essence of the message from the collection of otherwise imperfect text copies. Skeptics will look for the things that are seemingly contradictory, and throw out the entire message. That's why the scriptures say, "He that hath ears to hear, and eyes to see, let him understand."

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2017, 10:54:27 pm
content: Thread now locked.