|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On June 08 2026 06:48 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 08 2026 04:55 Razyda wrote:On June 07 2026 06:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As a point to the discussion earlier I think I've seen posts about the teenager in England being stabbed on r/conservative every day the last week, and there are multiple posts about it if you scroll for like 30 seconds.
I realize it's a sad story with some pretty fucked up behaviour from the cops but and it's national news in the UK. But it's still not normal to have that much focus on something that happened in another country (a year ago and the murder has been sentenced). To be fair it is kinda like in this very thread, I think most of the posters is not from US. And police went above and beyond any reason with this one. I think most posters are probably from India, China, Russia and related countries so that checks out.  I agree the police fucked up really bad. At the same time the racist angle that US politicians are going for doesn't hold any water. From the police officers perspective they have a people calling that they have been attacked and that there were no weapons involved. These guys are calm and collected. They reach the scene and they have an agitated person, drunk who supposedly just took a beating. Dark clothes, not easy to spot blood or stab wounds. He says he's been stabbed and they should have checked but I imagine "Officer I've been ..." is something they probably hear every day when arresting drunk people. There are a lot of things they could, and should have done different but to me it doesn't feel like 2 tier policing and while it's sad the kid died in handcuffs he was dead at that point and there wasn't anything the police could do about it even if they tried. It's fucked that the murderer didn't get cuffed but he did go to jail for 20+ years. I think there are other cases where a suspect has said "I can't breathe" to police officers that are worse because the police actually killed the suspect themselves. I suspect most posters on r/conservative would not agree. Do you seriously believe that if it would be few white people claiming racial abuse standing over black guy repeating he was stabbed, police would cuff black guy without hesitation (we are talking UK today, noy US in 1840)? Part of the grooming gang scandal was that people were afraid of accusation of racism. As for racist angle: https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/our-work/race-action-plan/police-anti-racism-commitment.pdfProducing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm. It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial
equality).What do you expect if NPCC produces such document???
Aye man it’s just fucking awful being a straight white bloke living in the UK, frankly I’m impressed with myself that I haven’t hung myself yet.
Most of these measures are attempts to redresss inequal standards in things like policing historically.
Oh noes not the grooming scandal which has been fucking subject to multiple inquiries and adjustments to policies because of obvious failures in both policing and social service policy.
Half the people frothing at the mouth about grooming gangs don’t give a singular fuck about sexual assault, they’re just mad it was a bit of brown on white action. If it doesn’t involve a Muslim it’ll circle back to ‘was she dressed proactively’ or ‘was she drunk’ or whatever.
Like Jesus spare me the false outrage
|
On June 08 2026 08:04 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 07:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
This was a horrific incident that the racist right has decided to exploit as hard as they possibly can to try and convince the world that UK cops hate white people, despite most police forces in the UK being found to be more likely to be racist against literally anyone except white people.
I didnt say UK cops hate white people, as a matter of fact I think they have short end of the stick. Whatever they do there will be either right or left wing press jumping on them. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 07:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
or involved higher ups making decisions having thought about those decisions, you could maybe make an argument about some kind of systemic issue here.
Who exactly do you think wrote the document i linked above?
So I'm to assume you think that kind of document is evil, or at least extremely misguided, is that right?
The problem imho is that we are in a very complex situation requiring complex solutions to try and correct systemic issues. simply treating everyone identically is not only a way to ignore the systemic issues that already exist, but makes absolutely no sense to begin with.
As a cop, you have to be aware of the context and circumstances that you are doing your job in. That includes bigger societal trends such as being aware of our justice system's flaws. Now the document doesn't say that cops should ignore people who say they've been stabbed, but only if they are white. It doesn't even remotely come close to suggesting that, that is more of a common sense thing. Its case where the cops can either use good judgement or bad judgement, but neither has anything to do with skin colour or race, and is much more likely to be about the kind of attitude they are greeted on the scene with, who is complaining about what, and what the cops intuitively believe has happened at the scene.
They fucked up, and bad, because their judgement was bad. Presented with a set of claims in front of them, they believed the untrue ones and didn't believe the true ones and the consequences were huge, but I don't understand how anyone can claim race comes into it even for a second.
Basically, that document is not related to what happened in this case.
|
On June 08 2026 06:38 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 06:33 Godwrath wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. can you define what policies should we compromise to be against to ? Like out loud. I will be honest, the whole pandering to the "centrista" voterbase has proven over and over to be just akin to roll over and just lose. So maybe you should make a compelling case on why this time is going to work against right wing populism other than just your word on it. I also love the framing that Trumpism is basically inevitable. The only way not to get Trump is to become Trump yourself by "compromising" by giving the insane fascists everything they might possibly want. Because surely then they will vote for you. And only giving them some things just proves that you are not "compromising" hard enough.
Accurate.
If you don't give it to them, they'll just find a way to get it anyway while pretending to give a shit about laws.
With Bezos helping out a bit here and there.
They wanna leave as many as they can with attacking as the only strategy left, ideally.
Staggering amounts of corruption. Knowing if you have Republican puppets around you can be a lifesaver.
Plot says yes.
|
Do you guys work from home? This study www.science.org just came out.
This is what they found:
Our results suggest that remote work substantially increases isolation and worsens mental health, particularly for those living alone. Although a large body of research finds that workers want to work remotely, our findings suggest that workers may not realize the costs of remote work for their well-being, which may take time to accumulate. Understanding remote work’s impact on mental health is important for workers deciding where to work and for firms and governments setting remote-work policies.
I personally have felt this way. I am more productive at home, but the feeling of being isolated definitely got to me in my previous job. Now, in my new job, we have a standing policy of no working from home at all which I initially resented strongly. Now, after a full year of being forced back in the office, I have to say I feel much happier about going to work, and appreciate more my interactions with my colleagues. I still get way more done at home, and take "sick" days to finish off grants and whatever at home, but I do see this impact. What's your experience?
|
On June 08 2026 06:48 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 05:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 08 2026 04:55 Razyda wrote:On June 07 2026 06:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As a point to the discussion earlier I think I've seen posts about the teenager in England being stabbed on r/conservative every day the last week, and there are multiple posts about it if you scroll for like 30 seconds.
I realize it's a sad story with some pretty fucked up behaviour from the cops but and it's national news in the UK. But it's still not normal to have that much focus on something that happened in another country (a year ago and the murder has been sentenced). To be fair it is kinda like in this very thread, I think most of the posters is not from US. And police went above and beyond any reason with this one. I think most posters are probably from India, China, Russia and related countries so that checks out. I agree the police fucked up really bad. At the same time the racist angle that US politicians are going for doesn't hold any water. From the police officers perspective they have a people calling that they have been attacked and that there were no weapons involved. These guys are calm and collected. They reach the scene and they have an agitated person, drunk who supposedly just took a beating. Dark clothes, not easy to spot blood or stab wounds. He says he's been stabbed and they should have checked but I imagine "Officer I've been ..." is something they probably hear every day when arresting drunk people. There are a lot of things they could, and should have done different but to me it doesn't feel like 2 tier policing and while it's sad the kid died in handcuffs he was dead at that point and there wasn't anything the police could do about it even if they tried. It's fucked that the murderer didn't get cuffed but he did go to jail for 20+ years. I think there are other cases where a suspect has said "I can't breathe" to police officers that are worse because the police actually killed the suspect themselves. I suspect most posters on r/conservative would not agree. Do you seriously believe that if it would be few white people claiming racial abuse standing over black guy repeating he was stabbed, police would cuff black guy without hesitation (we are talking UK today, noy US in 1840)? Part of the grooming gang scandal was that people were afraid of accusation of racism.
If you are a beat cop your job on a weekend night is to bring in the people figthing, find the witnesses and maybe take some statements. Finding out the "why" is a job for a detective down at the station.
Humans are pattern recognition machines. I think we can assume that normally the party to call the police is not the instigators and the calm and collected side vs the drunk, on the ground agitated side is probably also normally not the instigators.
Dispatch says there were no weapons involved and the guy on the ground is talking, probably not seriously injured.
White bloke getting into a fight with a brown bloke over a racist comment is probably as common as someone copping a feel on another guys girlfriend.
The scenario checks out as something very normal for a cop.
Switch the races involved and only one thing changes. As a white guy neither me nor any other white person I know would ever say "racially motivated attack". That seems like something white supremacists would say.
We would say that a drunk crazy Indian dude got aggressive and then describe that he talked shit about white people, colonial history or whatever.
Given that I think the reaction would be the same.
If we were using language typical for racist assholes it's very possible the pattern recognition engine in the cops would go off and they would take both parties in to the station in cuffs.
|
On June 08 2026 14:20 EnDeR_ wrote:Do you guys work from home? This study www.science.org just came out. This is what they found: Show nested quote +Our results suggest that remote work substantially increases isolation and worsens mental health, particularly for those living alone. Although a large body of research finds that workers want to work remotely, our findings suggest that workers may not realize the costs of remote work for their well-being, which may take time to accumulate. Understanding remote work’s impact on mental health is important for workers deciding where to work and for firms and governments setting remote-work policies. I personally have felt this way. I am more productive at home, but the feeling of being isolated definitely got to me in my previous job. Now, in my new job, we have a standing policy of no working from home at all which I initially resented strongly. Now, after a full year of being forced back in the office, I have to say I feel much happier about going to work, and appreciate more my interactions with my colleagues. I still get way more done at home, and take "sick" days to finish off grants and whatever at home, but I do see this impact. What's your experience?
I felt the same during my 100% Homeoffice during covid.
Now I do 100% work in office again and feel much better, all the little interactions/laughs with collegues are important. It's also just nice to "leave work at the office" once your done for the day.
As long as I was motivated, I was very productive at home... But oh god, the days when I wasn't? I barely did anything.
I wouldn't mind 1-2 days of Homeoffice a week but more? No thank you.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On June 08 2026 14:20 EnDeR_ wrote:Do you guys work from home? This study www.science.org just came out. This is what they found: Show nested quote +Our results suggest that remote work substantially increases isolation and worsens mental health, particularly for those living alone. Although a large body of research finds that workers want to work remotely, our findings suggest that workers may not realize the costs of remote work for their well-being, which may take time to accumulate. Understanding remote work’s impact on mental health is important for workers deciding where to work and for firms and governments setting remote-work policies. I personally have felt this way. I am more productive at home, but the feeling of being isolated definitely got to me in my previous job. Now, in my new job, we have a standing policy of no working from home at all which I initially resented strongly. Now, after a full year of being forced back in the office, I have to say I feel much happier about going to work, and appreciate more my interactions with my colleagues. I still get way more done at home, and take "sick" days to finish off grants and whatever at home, but I do see this impact. What's your experience?
I didn’t like working remote, but I was effectively an intern, so in that environment I would have liked the ability just to shoot the shit with seniors or ask a bit of help instead of having to schedule a Slack call
When I say working remote I mean I went into the office, just weren’t always many around.
I don’t want my living space to be bleeding into my work space, entirely personal preference. Also I had fuck all commute time either
There are also clear advantages to it, I don’t think it’s great for onboarding is all. I’m generally in favour.
|
I am less productive at home because I actively do anything else than work and I'm absolitely miserable. I only do it for the kids. When it'll be managable, I'm going back to fulltime commuting.
|
On June 08 2026 04:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 04:13 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven.I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. On June 08 2026 00:39 Vivax wrote:
Whatever. I'm not here to argue about proving or disproving religion or the big bang. I just found the thought process similar between that phrase and what exists as a still unproven theory.
You can intuitively know or at least accurately guess things without material proof, sometimes. Not a fan of pure materialism either way. On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory.You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang. Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers. A "scientific theory" is the gold standard of explanatory and predictive power. There is nothing better or more accurate or more empirically supported than a scientific theory for a given set of phenomena, observations, data, laws, and mathematics that are about a specific topic. Not that I agree with Vivax, but You guys really should be more careful and precise when discussing science. I mean, is String Theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Also yes. Is Loop Quantum Gravity a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Most likely. Is multiverse theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Does it matter? Is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Depends on who you ask. I could go on, but I hope you get where I am going. It sounds like you're the one who needs to be more precise. Multiverse theory is not a scientific theory. Google it. You made the same mistake that Vivax made: a scientific theory is not the same as a colloquial theory or a hypothesis. Multiverse theory is a hypothesis, one that is likely unfalsifiable, which - as you and I both agree at the end of this post - is a problem because falsifiability is necessary to become a scientific theory. It has not been elevated to the status of scientific theory. Unless you think that multiverse theory is currently falsifiable? Similarly, please explain how string theory is currently known to be falsifiable too. Of course, a lack of falsifiability doesn't mean multiverse theory is automatically right or wrong, but don't assert that evolution, big bang, plate tectonics, atomic theory, germ theory, and gravity don't deserve proper credit as scientific theories just because you can list hypotheses. I actually listed scientific theories and correctly called them scientific theories. Are "Loop Quantum Gravity" and "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" actual scientific theories, or are you mistakenly asserting that they are, like you did with multiverse theory? I don't know anything about either LQG or CCC, but you're the one with the burden of proof here to explain why they've supposedly been given the premier status of scientific theory. Show nested quote +Also, I noticed you mentioned Big Bang in your list. I hope you are aware that many physicists, including some Nobel Prize laureates, do not actually believe in the Big Bang? Well it's a good thing that the truth of an explanation isn't contingent upon there being 100% consensus  Show nested quote +PS. Scientific theories (outside of math) aren't really ever proven (in the strong sense of the word). Mathematics has theorems, which are different from scientific theories, which are both different from colloquially speaking of theories and hypotheses. A mathematical theorem is proven, yes, but that's not a theory. The similar words can definitely be confusing. Show nested quote + PS. I do believe in the modern theory of evolution. I also believe it can be wrong, as any scientific theory can be shown to be wrong by new observations and replaced with a better theory. Yes, scientific theories are falsifiable. That's one of the reasons why multiverse theory is not a scientific theory.
If you believe that many world interpretations (multiverse) is not a scientific theory (by the virtue of lack of falsifiability). Then I assume you think the same of string THEORY? I mean, I could agree with that in principle. But this is a really peculiar position to hold. String theory is one of the most prominent fields of research in modern physics, thousands of articles published, millions (or even billions) of dollars spent on research, and it is not even a scientific theory in Your opinion?
If what scientists are doing at universities does not fit your definition of science, then you really should ponder if you are using the correct definition.
|
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku.
|
On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku.
It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative.
You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support.
I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point.
|
On June 08 2026 16:31 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 04:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 04:13 Silvanel wrote:On June 08 2026 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 22:50 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 22:47 Simberto wrote:
Obviously it isn't just Darwin, Darwin lived in the 19th century, and afaik didn't even know about genes. A lot of science has happened between 1871 and 2026. And a bunch of additional science will happen.
As far as i (not being a biologist) understand, there are a bunch of open questions in biology. But evolution being a core mechanic of the development of life is incredibly well supported by evidence. I don't think anyone would complain about an approach of "this is what we know, why we think we know it, and potential alternative explanations and why we don't think they fit very well, but these are some open questions and current ideas on what may fill them, and how to investigate it."
After all, that is how science works, and it has been how basically all of my science education has worked.
But once you start using "God did it, the bible says so" as an argument, you can't really do any legitimate science anymore. And teaching something like that as a legitimate opinion that warrants taking as seriously as centuries of scientific study and experimental evidence is simply not something a competent science educator should be willing to do. If you always view religious texts as literal rather than guidelines, sure. Don't see why fiat lux is different from the big bang theory, depending on which entity you assume behind it. A spiritual one or a giant processor. Just to avoid confusion and disappointment, this is satire right? No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards. Is it random or isn't it. It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is. At that point it's up to you what you believe. Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven.I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. On June 08 2026 00:39 Vivax wrote:
Whatever. I'm not here to argue about proving or disproving religion or the big bang. I just found the thought process similar between that phrase and what exists as a still unproven theory.
You can intuitively know or at least accurately guess things without material proof, sometimes. Not a fan of pure materialism either way. On June 08 2026 00:58 Vivax wrote:On June 08 2026 00:43 Simberto wrote:On June 08 2026 00:19 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2026 00:03 Vivax wrote:On June 07 2026 23:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2026 23:21 Vivax wrote:
[quote]
No. It's the same idea behind it or at least similar. Some random event propelled light and mass outwards.
Is it random or isn't it.
It's not necessarily scientific just because you have to assume it's random not knowing what the alternative is.
At that point it's up to you what you believe.
Apparently I have a twin somewhere, must be the evil one. There is simply no way you've studied big bang cosmology if you think that it's "the same idea" as, "or at least similar" to, Supernatural Deity Declared "Let There Be Light". Start with this introduction, and read the entire entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Please note that the Wiki's countless scientific references, sources, and citations are significantly more in depth than just a one-liner from an ancient, historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate religious text. Yes. It's a theory. It says it right at the top. Not something proven. I'm not here to argue for a particular religion either way. Just to argue that the thought behind it is similar. Light out of god/the unknown. Who knows. It's just outside the scope of the provable, at least right now. Religious experiences are only subjective and not empirically provable anyway. And we're probably shitting up the thread with it. Subjectively I feel like I'm living on top of a hellgate or something which doesn't necessarily imply I believe in hell. But I guess I'm not getting torn up by a guy with a chainsaw so it's all good. You’re using the word theory wrong. It doesn’t apply a lack of proof. Things that are proven by science are still theories. I think the only area where one can truly prove stuff is maths. Everything else could always just haven been random chance every time something happened in the past. Sure, every time in the past when i let go of a ball, it accelerated downwards. But maybe that was just random chance, and next time it will move upwards. But obviously that isn't really a sensible way to approach things. The core question is "how good does statistical proof need to be for us to accept something as true." At some point, we need to accept some things as "true enough" if there is overwhelming past evidence that things do seem to work like that. And most accepted scientific theories are way beyond the level that a normal person would view as "overwhelming evidence". I fucking hate the stupid "it's just a theory" discussion that is based on nothing but people not knowing what words actually mean. The whole thing is such a silly standard cliché that i honestly didn't expect someone to seriously say that. What is next? "Bro, what if, like, the universe is like, woah man, you know?" stoner cosmology? If it's unproven, then it's just a theory.You don't hate that it's just a theory, you probably just hate that someone considers the simpler spiritual one as equally possible (two unproven theories are still a zero in fact checking but you can ramp up the approximation) because you gave up on believing that religion holds any value. Can I prove that some chemical structure is going to relieve you of pain just by looking at it? I can just test it. You can't test the big bang. Pi probably just exists to troll mathematicians with supercomputers. A "scientific theory" is the gold standard of explanatory and predictive power. There is nothing better or more accurate or more empirically supported than a scientific theory for a given set of phenomena, observations, data, laws, and mathematics that are about a specific topic. Not that I agree with Vivax, but You guys really should be more careful and precise when discussing science. I mean, is String Theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Also yes. Is Loop Quantum Gravity a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Most likely. Is multiverse theory a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Does it matter? Is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology a scientific theory? Yes. Is it bullshit? Depends on who you ask. I could go on, but I hope you get where I am going. It sounds like you're the one who needs to be more precise. Multiverse theory is not a scientific theory. Google it. You made the same mistake that Vivax made: a scientific theory is not the same as a colloquial theory or a hypothesis. Multiverse theory is a hypothesis, one that is likely unfalsifiable, which - as you and I both agree at the end of this post - is a problem because falsifiability is necessary to become a scientific theory. It has not been elevated to the status of scientific theory. Unless you think that multiverse theory is currently falsifiable? Similarly, please explain how string theory is currently known to be falsifiable too. Of course, a lack of falsifiability doesn't mean multiverse theory is automatically right or wrong, but don't assert that evolution, big bang, plate tectonics, atomic theory, germ theory, and gravity don't deserve proper credit as scientific theories just because you can list hypotheses. I actually listed scientific theories and correctly called them scientific theories. Are "Loop Quantum Gravity" and "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" actual scientific theories, or are you mistakenly asserting that they are, like you did with multiverse theory? I don't know anything about either LQG or CCC, but you're the one with the burden of proof here to explain why they've supposedly been given the premier status of scientific theory. Also, I noticed you mentioned Big Bang in your list. I hope you are aware that many physicists, including some Nobel Prize laureates, do not actually believe in the Big Bang? Well it's a good thing that the truth of an explanation isn't contingent upon there being 100% consensus PS. Scientific theories (outside of math) aren't really ever proven (in the strong sense of the word). Mathematics has theorems, which are different from scientific theories, which are both different from colloquially speaking of theories and hypotheses. A mathematical theorem is proven, yes, but that's not a theory. The similar words can definitely be confusing. PS. I do believe in the modern theory of evolution. I also believe it can be wrong, as any scientific theory can be shown to be wrong by new observations and replaced with a better theory. Yes, scientific theories are falsifiable. That's one of the reasons why multiverse theory is not a scientific theory. If you believe that many world interpretations (multiverse) is not a scientific theory (by the virtue of lack of falsifiability). Then I assume you think the same of string THEORY? I mean, I could agree with that in principle. But this is a really peculiar position to hold. String theory is one of the most prominent fields of research in modern physics, thousands of articles published, millions (or even billions) of dollars spent on research, and it is not even a scientific theory in Your opinion? If what scientists are doing at universities does not fit your definition of science, then you really should ponder if you are using the correct definition.
It's weird you came in to the conversation pushing the importance of precision, yet don't even realize that scientific theories must be falsifiable. Again, I'll ask you: what is falsfiable about multiverse theory and what is falsifiable about string theory? I know they use the word "theory", but that's not implying the peak recognition of a *scientific* theory, and that difference (colloquial theory/hypothesis vs. officially becoming a scientific theory) was literally the whole point of the discussion that you entered into. And judging by your dodge of the other two "theories" you brought up, it sounds like you went 0 for 4 with counterexamples.
|
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd.
Also let me ask You this: Do You consider "Steady State Theory" to be scientific?
|
On June 08 2026 06:44 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 06:27 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 05:49 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 03:43 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:
[quote]
What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist.
What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical?
I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. No, I’m suggesting it didn’t work, because it didn’t work. You know what they say about compromising: if you try a California politician that can't imagine what she would do differently than her unpopular, departing President, you've proven that it doesn't work! The only other proof you would need is a UK politician that managed 33.7% of the vote not being more popular! Right! The compromising president was unpopular, partly because the hardline extreme leader of the of the opposing party didn’t allow compromises, even ones that they favoured. Such as on immigration. So now it's Biden's fault that Kamala couldn't draw a distinction between herself and Biden. This might be the apex of denying Kamala agency, and trust me, I've heard that she was the sad result of circumstances beyond her control for at least two years and maybe more. Probably enough playing games with somebody that thinks everything Kamala did wrong is minor compared to her half-assed attempt to play at a moderate. Democrats are kings of trying nothing, and being all out of ideas. Thank god that Trump is term-limited, I swear. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 06:33 Godwrath wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. can you define what policies should we compromise to be against to ? Like out loud. I will be honest, the whole pandering to the "centrista" voterbase has proven over and over to be just akin to roll over and just lose. So maybe you should make a compelling case on why this time is going to work against right wing populism other than just your word on it. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 02:12 Falling wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 05:39 Introvert wrote:
I said if he's a fascist Dems should have been willing to make steep compromises. Their unwillingness belies their rhetoric. But I still say if one was trying to defeat a fascist they would soften they policy stances to try and prevent said fascist from winning. That might be the most stark example of being a "moderate." It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory. Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward that has a hope of passing or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart. Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs). Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 02:54 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 02:12 Falling wrote:On June 08 2026 01:55 dyhb wrote:On June 08 2026 01:29 Billyboy wrote:On June 08 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 17:20 Godwrath wrote:On June 07 2026 15:23 dyhb wrote:On June 07 2026 13:16 Billyboy wrote:On June 07 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:
[quote]
[quote]It's a fair point, and one of the aspects I hope the Democrats use to win in 2028. If the country is crashing down, and through this country the world, then almost any compromise to pick up more in the middle is Priority #1. If this is politics as usual, and you want a bigger victory through unabashed support for numbers 1 through 20 of progressive policy goals (a win and a mandate), then continue acting as I observe. I want Trump gone and (likely) Vance defeated, and I want Democrats to moderate in order to make that a resounding victory.
Sorry if you think it's just so unfair to pivot for an election win. You're dealing with the electorate that exists, not the one you think you deserve. What do you specifically mean by moderate though? Like what was Harris doing that was so wild? She was basically going to be more Biden, who was famously moderate, often making deals with the Republicans to the chagrin of the American Leftist. What, other than right wing media yelling about it, made Harris radical? I'd really ask you if you know what compromise means, and if you can observe the tension that I'm pointing out in the post. You'll notice that you're bringing Kamala to the discussion, not I. And perhaps you meant to reply to a post about Kamala and radicalism. I am not trying to sound snarky here, have you thought that If you truly want Trump and Vance gone, maybe it's about time you start compromising.? That's precisely the point of my post. You're unwilling to compromise on the progressive agenda to defeat Trump, so you are happy enough to see Trump's VP elected. I'm saying run honestly on progressive positions regarding the economy, trade, and parts of foreign policy, but take positions against much of the rest. I'll vote for that, merely because it would be worth stopping Trump-populism in the form of Vance. You haven't identified any compromise you're willing to entertain, so perhaps you are just asking that in others and getting ready to blame that in others. Harris was a moderate candidate and willing to compromise all sorts of progressive positions. Your point is just completely wrong. The Dems and Republicans are very different. Are you guaranteeing to me that she's the candidate in 2028? I'm aware of the argument that voters should bank on her decision to not actively campaign on issues that were so important to her in the 2020 Democratic Primary. That's tangent to my argument, so I can only assume that you want to see the state of 2024 moderation again in 2028. I think you are likely to see a fighting liberal win the Democrat primary. A progressive will not because while they are very noisy online, and very good at sabotaging their own party by purity testing mayoral! candidates solely on their position on their position on Israel-Palestine! (Mayors are well known to have jurisdiction over foreign policy) they otherwise are not very capable of bringing policy forward or building coalitions. So I fully expect a candidate who is a moderate politically within the liberal wing of the party, but a fighter by personality to win--- if the Democrats are smart. Israel-Palestine is actually a good example of what needs to happen. The progressive wing of the Democratic party has been making receipt of campaign funds from AIPAC tantamount to a Trump ally and reason to lose your primary (despite however unsuitable the other major candidate is generally). The Democratic party should be about coalition building without litmus tests like AIPAC or "Stop The Genocide" or BDS. There are a ton of other positions to take on this, like Israel has to spend its own money if it wants American weapons, or extracting diplomatic concessions regarding the West Bank and Gaza in order to play ball. Trump ran on trans issues because it plays. Harris did not. Trump ran on border issues because he told the Republicans to spike the border bill to guarantee he could run on it. Exacerbate the problem so you can win on it. But she wasn't enough of a fighter to parry the attacks. 2008 Biden could have and that's basically what they need (minus the verbal gaffs). If you get a fighter that knows how to fight back against accusations of extremism, Dems win. And it's not enough to simply not campaign on a topic that you previously spoke on as if it was a core civil rights issue. That leaves you vulnerable to attack. What changed on this civil rights issue, and can you craft a believable/convincing story on what changed? If Biden could drop border crossing to ~30% of previous on June 4th, 2024 (by executive authority, and not through Congress), why was that only done after 8 million peoples-worth of policy failure over his term and his last full year in office? What would you do differently? 2008 Biden could have done it and 2016 Biden could have done it too. But he didn't run in 2016 (I've heard a billion competing theories on that). By 2024, he couldn't debate. Kamala's ... how do I put this gently ... style of rhetoric is not conducive to fighting back on attacks that erode the moderate wing of her base. If she's the nominee, she needs to hone it. And she still might run and win simply based on the weakness of her opponent! I want a better horse in the race. I'm interested, Falling, if you read the investigations prior to the 2024 campaign "she refuses to take responsibility for delicate issues and blames staffers for the negative results that ensue ... the VP herself also bears responsibility for the way her office is run. It all starts at the top", 92% staff turnover. And then some of the 2024 campaign post-mortems, like Hey, nobody has come to our neighborhood. The campaign doesn’t care about us... The covert operations, many of them led by Black organizers, represented extraordinary acts of insubordination against the Harris campaign. I'm not going to link all of them. They were diverse enough, and sourced enough, to make me think there was a problem with Harris as an administrator and director of her own campaign, and not just disgruntled campaign operatives beefing about the direction. NYT, Politico, etc reported. If you need more examples, or are unfamiliar with progressive policy ideas apart from the economy and trade, please ask a progressive. We have enough Democrats telling you what Republicans think that getting moderate Democrats telling progressive Democrats what they think is pretty obviously dumb.
Sry i don't specifically quote the part you are addressing, on my phone right now.
I still don't think you are answering the general points most people and me are making. Is that compromising in "stuff", is a two way street. When you are asking the other side to revert their positions in pretty much everything and stay on the stuff you already agree on, that's not compromising. That's just giving in.
That's why the first time i tried to engage with you in this i asked you (as specifically you, not the right) if you already had thought if you really are compromising in a meaningful way?
We can also discuss in how well does It works from a strategic point view, but It should be fairly obvious just by looking on how It has worked in the past (and Trump's rise 2015/16 is itself a great example why It does not work against right wing's populism)
So i ask you again, are you truly that interested in getting away from trump's populism to compromise ?
|
On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd.
I don't have a theory of scientific theory. I don't have my own definition of it either. You're the one who listed 4 hypotheses, incorrectly asserted that they're all scientific theories, and then used that as evidence to try and knock actual scientific theories. That word "scientific" in front of "theory" doesn't just mean that a scientist proposed a colloquial hypothesis/theory. The hypothesis needs to go through an incredibly rigorous scientific process which often takes decades - falsifiability, empirical backing, explanatory ability, predictive ability, peer-review, etc. - to be elevated to the gold status of a scientific theory.
Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Many people, including myself, went into detail on how colloquial usage of theory/hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. I will write more about it below in this post, too:
On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point.
And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with scientists positing hypotheses! They do it all the time, and they need to do that. They make observations and have ideas, and while most of those hypotheses end up going nowhere, once in a while they gain some traction.
And then maybe a smaller subset of those end up having mathematical backing.
And then maybe an even smaller subset ends up being falsifiable.
And then maybe an even smaller smaller subset ends up being empirically supported.
And then maybe an even smaller smaller smaller subset ends up passing peer review and reaching a consensus.
And so on and so forth, until maybe an original hypothesis has been molded and reexamined and modified again to one day become a scientific theory, but there are so many vital steps in between.
Silvanel isn't the only person to think that a hypothesis is a scientific theory, just because the hypothesis was proposed by a scientist.
Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory.
There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology.
Ironically, oBlade of all people recently mentioned the Creationism vs. Evolution debate that has been going on in many high school science classrooms for decades (sometimes it's called "teach the controversy" - as if there is an actual controversy in biology about whether evolution is true and about whether we should teach Biblical alternatives as science - and nowadays Creationism is often repackaged as Intelligent Design). That's another example of Unfalsifiable-Non-Science vs. Top-Tier-Scientific-Theory that too many people incorrectly assume are Reasonable Explanation 1 vs. Reasonable Explanation 2. I think scientists and science educators need to do a better job of communicating (and I think laypeople need to do a better job of learning how to accurately Google and fact-check things).
|
On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. I don't have a theory of scientific theory. I don't have my own definition of it either. You're the one who listed 4 hypotheses, incorrectly asserted that they're all scientific theories, and then used that as evidence to try and knock actual scientific theories. That word "scientific" in front of "theory" doesn't just mean that a scientist proposed a colloquial hypothesis/theory. The hypothesis needs to go through an incredibly rigorous scientific process which often takes decades - falsifiability, empirical backing, explanatory ability, predictive ability, peer-review, etc. - to be elevated to the gold status of a scientific theory. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Many people, including myself, went into detail on how colloquial usage of theory/hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. I will write more about it below in this post, too: Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with scientists positing hypotheses! They do it all the time, and they need to do that. They make observations and have ideas, and while most of those hypotheses end up going nowhere, once in a while they gain some traction. And then maybe a smaller subset of those end up having mathematical backing. And then maybe an even smaller subset ends up being falsifiable. And then maybe an even smaller smaller subset ends up being empirically supported. And then maybe an even smaller smaller smaller subset ends up passing peer review and reaching a consensus. And so on and so forth, until maybe an original hypothesis has been molded and reexamined and modified again to one day become a scientific theory, but there are so many vital steps in between. Silvanel isn't the only person to think that a hypothesis is a scientific theory, just because the hypothesis was proposed by a scientist. Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory. There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology. Ironically, oBlade of all people recently mentioned the Creationism vs. Evolution debate that has been going on in many high school science classrooms for decades (sometimes it's called "teach the controversy" - as if there is an actual controversy in biology about whether evolution is true and about whether we should teach Biblical alternatives as science - and nowadays Creationism is often repackaged as Intelligent Design). That's another example of Unfalsifiable-Non-Science vs. Top-Tier-Scientific-Theory that too many people incorrectly assume are Reasonable Explanation 1 vs. Reasonable Explanation 2. I think scientists and science educators need to do a better job of communicating (and I think laypeople need to do a better job of learning how to accurately Google and fact-check things).
That ship has sailed. If it's not legislated so that AI responses need to be factually correct by design, we are screwed. At the moment the most we are going to get is "a controversy flag", which is the weaselly way of doing this.
|
On June 08 2026 19:36 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. I don't have a theory of scientific theory. I don't have my own definition of it either. You're the one who listed 4 hypotheses, incorrectly asserted that they're all scientific theories, and then used that as evidence to try and knock actual scientific theories. That word "scientific" in front of "theory" doesn't just mean that a scientist proposed a colloquial hypothesis/theory. The hypothesis needs to go through an incredibly rigorous scientific process which often takes decades - falsifiability, empirical backing, explanatory ability, predictive ability, peer-review, etc. - to be elevated to the gold status of a scientific theory. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Many people, including myself, went into detail on how colloquial usage of theory/hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. I will write more about it below in this post, too: On June 08 2026 18:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 08 2026 17:14 Uldridge wrote:
If I recall correctly, string theory is considered not all that highly in the particle physics comnunity. It was massively megaphoned by Michio Kaku. It was hugely popular in the 90s because it seemed to solve so many problems in such an elegant manner, but in the last decade it has increasingly seemed that it is an impasse. It’s never been verified experimentally, and is in a way unfalsifiable, as you can always tweak it towards higher energies when a result comes negative. You can’t say it’s totally dead, but I think the moment none of the particles predicted by supersymetry appeared at the LHC, the theory was on life support. I don’t think Michio Kaku matters one bit. He is just a sensationalist communicator at that point. And to be clear, there's nothing wrong with scientists positing hypotheses! They do it all the time, and they need to do that. They make observations and have ideas, and while most of those hypotheses end up going nowhere, once in a while they gain some traction. And then maybe a smaller subset of those end up having mathematical backing. And then maybe an even smaller subset ends up being falsifiable. And then maybe an even smaller smaller subset ends up being empirically supported. And then maybe an even smaller smaller smaller subset ends up passing peer review and reaching a consensus. And so on and so forth, until maybe an original hypothesis has been molded and reexamined and modified again to one day become a scientific theory, but there are so many vital steps in between. Silvanel isn't the only person to think that a hypothesis is a scientific theory, just because the hypothesis was proposed by a scientist. Vivax isn't the only person to think that a supernatural explanation is as reliable as a scientific theory. There are millions of people who make these errors, which are often reasonable ones to make - especially when there is confusing terminology. Ironically, oBlade of all people recently mentioned the Creationism vs. Evolution debate that has been going on in many high school science classrooms for decades (sometimes it's called "teach the controversy" - as if there is an actual controversy in biology about whether evolution is true and about whether we should teach Biblical alternatives as science - and nowadays Creationism is often repackaged as Intelligent Design). That's another example of Unfalsifiable-Non-Science vs. Top-Tier-Scientific-Theory that too many people incorrectly assume are Reasonable Explanation 1 vs. Reasonable Explanation 2. I think scientists and science educators need to do a better job of communicating (and I think laypeople need to do a better job of learning how to accurately Google and fact-check things). That ship has sailed. If it's not legislated so that AI responses need to be factually correct by design, we are screwed.
Can they be correct by design? I mean, by this point it is pretty much concluded that with current approach there will always be hallucinations and errors as the LLMs are probabilistic in nature, right?
|
Misinformation has always been a thing due to interest groups. "Absolute" truths are not all that important honestly, it doesn't make humans better at humaning.
But we mostly use it to solve problems we're creating ourselves and satiating our incredible curiosity, which might be inexhaustible. I wonder.. will humans be like: we finally know everything, time to rest, once we've unearthed everything, or will we somehow find a way to fuck it all up because it's not enough?
|
On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
I have read (in full) many of the books quoted in that wiki article and even some quoted articles. That topic is much more complicated than you think.
In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it.
You also didn't answer my question regarding Steady-state theory - do You belive it to be a scientific theory or not?
|
On June 08 2026 19:58 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2026 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 08 2026 19:07 Silvanel wrote:
The problem is that your "theory of scientific theory" is not actually describing reality. But some abstract, non-existing world. In practice:
- People use the word "theory" differently depending on circumstances.
- People practice science differently.
- Use words like "theory", "hypthoesis", "model" and so on often interchangeably and not in precise ways.
I am of the opinion that theory of science should describe activities considered to be science by society. Not some arbitrary subset of it. Otherwise we end in a world in which Edward Witten and Leonard Susskind are not actually scientists (because they spent most of their life working on String Theory, which is not falsifiable). And that I find to be absurd. Please read this for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In essence, I am of the position that a theory of science should describe activities that scientists actually do, not some abstract, imaginary version of it.
For stuff that's not really measurable or is more out there you always have philosophy. Even if you can't apply strict scientific method you still need to be able to argue your case among your peers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
