You want evidence? How's this?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tangled web

Tony,

That "hot air" is theory. The "hot air" directs the lab's or research group's work to begin with. It is the thing used by engineers to build stuff.

According to your meaningless definition of science, perhaps. But not according to the real world.

You read your own interpretation into the definitions just as you read your own interpretation into the Bible. It's the same old hat for you.

If you say so.

It was the one that had something to do with science.

But another thing occurs to me. Why in the heck are you using a dictionary to discuss science? You've got no better source for your information than what a linguist believes a word has been used for? Isn't linguistics itself a science? Or would you rely on science in your arguments as you have nothing else to rely upon? (in which case, why do you eat beef while refusing to eat cow?)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*Originally posted by Tony1
Are you completely incapable of following your own train of reasoning?
I said the first scientist used existing apparatus.
Now after hemming and hawing for a while, you ask if the eye is not an apparatus.
I still say the first scientist used existing apparatus, the eye for one.

I realize that you are unwilling to admit that I might be right about anything, but try to take the long way around when you are denying it.

Here is a symbolic example of what you are doing...*

I see that I have once again underestimated your ignorance.

Perhaps I should refresh your memory.

*Originally posted by Tony1
First and most obviously, the first scientist, whoever that might be, would have had to have used existing apparatus.
Every since that point, every single scientist has been using existing apparatus.
Engineers have been around much longer than your revised history of science and engineering would indicate.
They predate pretty much any scientific discipline you would care to mention. *

Your point was that engineers predate scientific thought. My point was that no piece of apparatus by engineers is necessary and that you made a false assumption. You seem to be saying an ability to create objects preceded logical thought. Contrary to popular belief Socrates did not invent logic. He just popularized it.

If all my wisdom came from one person/book I guess I would be ignorant too. I suppose that its the scientist's ability to admit that they might have error that you are the most jealous about. You don't have the margin error of many voices. If your book is wrong, then you lack a leg to stand on. This statement has been shown to be true. 1900 years ago it told of the end of the world being near...never happened. If I said the world would end eventually, I would be right too.

*If I follow your logic correctly...
Something happened in the past.
If it was bad, the Christians did it.

Am I following you correctly?*

You again ignore the whole statement. I said:

"Every study will have its share wrong paths. Would you say that the Christian Religion is without these calamities? (Both Inquisitions, a Crusade, Salem Witch Trials, etc.) Any study is only as good as the people that pursue it. Science is a little blameless, as it can often defeat efforts to predict its consequences. If you look to the scientific blunders, however, you will see a pattern of ignorance at higher levels of authority in government and business."

Looks like your ignorance is dominating again. If you read that I said all bad things come from christians into that satement, then I question your ability to read: "Every study will have its share wrong paths."

*Originally posted by Tony1
*Any educated person will tell you that an ommission so integral to the statement is bad form. Worse yet you missed the proper "..." that should follow the incomplete quote. It is not possible to have an intelligable debate without a coherent set of rules.*

Does "intelligability" include spelling ability, or is the ability to spell no longer an indication of education?*

If one looks long enough mistakes can be found. You point out a minor spelling error. I can point out a sentence structure error:

[I*Every since that point, every single scientist has been using existing apparatus.*[/I]

My original effort was pointing out the fact that you who are so intent on quoting every word were caught omitting integral details from the quoted statement and without using "...". Your retort did not address this, so I must believe that you agree that you used bad form.

You left out "at higher levels of authority in government and business". That caveat was the point of the sentence and after removing it you altered the meaning of the sentence. I can do it too:

*I think you're right.*

You see I knew that you would come to the proper conclusion.

*Scientists have a strong vision of how life could be, and dedicate their lives to the improvement of mankind.*

See how the structure changes without the "...". If we all played by your rules we would be unable to say anything without fear that it could be chopped up and issued with a completely different meaning. I will give you the benefit of the doubt; your ignorance was an accident.

**And what about Newton? The laws of nature and Calculus. Not bad for someone that was basically a mathematician. Are math and science really so different?*

Well, let's compare integral calculus with say, the "science" of evolutionary psychology.
Are math and science really so similar that you can't tell them apart?*

You ignored Newton's laws of motion. That relates to every field of science. Only by ignoring critical data can your arguments be true, therefore you are ignorant.

*So, we both see a pattern of ignorance, and you have a problem with that?*

Indeed I do have a problem with your ignorance.

*Presumably, a person would be a "true" scientist if he does scientific things AND he is aware of the title [sic].*

Except that I said that said person would be a scientist "with or without their awareness of the title". I should hope that you might bother to look at what I say before you retort.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tangled web

*Originally posted by Bambi
According to your meaningless definition of science, perhaps. But not according to the real world.*

In the real world an engineer has to produce a real object, whereas a scientist really only needs to produce a piece of paper.

*Let's look at one of those definitions again...

--- plau·si·ble adj.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking--- *

Since you underlined "or" in your quote, let's look at what "or" means...

---or1 (ôr; r when unstressed) conj.

1. a. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.
b. Used to indicate the second of two alternatives, the first being preceded by either or whether
c. Archaic. Used to indicate the first of two alternatives, with the force of either or whether.

2. Used to indicate a synonymous or equivalent expression
3. Used to indicate uncertainty or indefiniteness---

Note how "or" joins "plausible" and "scientifically acceptable?"
Only scientists think of scientifically acceptable as being better than plausible.
In real life, they are synonymous or equivalent expressions.

All of the vagueness and speculation included in the meaning of the word "plausible" is also included in the term "scientifically acceptable."

*It was the one that had something to do with science.*

Very selective of you.
Here are the first 4...

---1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>---

Looking at 2 and 4, I can see why you selectively ignored them.
It seems as though a theory is a speculative belief, i.e. a religious thought, using an atheist definition of religion.

*But another thing occurs to me. Why in the heck are you using a dictionary to discuss science?*

Because you seem unclear on the terms you are using.
To you, a theory appears to be a rock-solid proven fact, whereas in reality it is pure speculation.

*You've got no better source for your information than what a linguist believes a word has been used for? Isn't linguistics itself a science?*

Actually, words predate linguistics by some time.

*Or would you rely on science in your arguments as you have nothing else to rely upon?*

You seem to have a strong religious belief in science.
It only seems right to argue things from your perspective rather than my own.

*(in which case, why do you eat beef while refusing to eat cow?) *

How cutesy-poo!

Science literally means knowledge.
I prefer knowledge to speculation.

---science \Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.]
1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.---

*Originally posted by Teg
Your point was that engineers predate scientific thought. My point was that no piece of apparatus by engineers is necessary and that you made a false assumption. You seem to be saying an ability to create objects preceded logical thought. Contrary to popular belief Socrates did not invent logic. He just popularized it. *

Man, you are challenging tiassa's supremacy at missing the point.

I made 2 different points.
1) the 1st scientist would have to use existing apparatus.
2) Engineers predate scientists

I realize that for an inexperienced thinker such as yourself, the first temptation will be to jump to a post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion, but try to resist the temptation.

The two sentences were close together, so the error is understandable.

*If all my wisdom came from one person/book I guess I would be ignorant too. *

If your wisdom didn't come from anywhere at all, what would you be?

*I suppose that its the scientist's ability to admit that they might have error that you are the most jealous about.*

Oh yes, error is what everyone strives for.
It is the American Dream, not!

*You don't have the margin error of many voices. If your book is wrong, then you lack a leg to stand on. This statement has been shown to be true.*

You are right about that.
On the other hand, you will be in a large crowd in the lake of fire.

*1900 years ago it told of the end of the world being near...never happened.*

To hear a science buff say that is very peculiar.
On one hand, the duration of practically everything of concern is measured in trifling billions of years.
On the other hand, 1900 years is a looooooooooooooooooong time.

Perspective. You should look into it.

*You ignored Newton's laws of motion. That relates to every field of science. Only by ignoring critical data can your arguments be true, therefore you are ignorant. *

What's critical about Newton's laws of motion where evolutionary psychology is concerned?

Therefore you are ignorant.

*Indeed I do have a problem with your ignorance.
*

Tough.
Your problem with your own ignorance is much greater.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tangled web

Originally posted by tony1

Based on which other scientists produce other papers, and engineers produce other real objects. Also note that the scientist may him/herself be an engineer.

If you say so. You, of course, have no clue as to the scientific definition of "scientifically acceptable" -- despite the fact that you have been provided with such a definition on numerous occasions by numerous posters on this board.

Hardly. You should try to pay attention to the 5 adjectives within the first definition of plausible alone that I have bolded out for you.

And at any rate, you can hardly make your case by citing dictionaries. The definitions present there are designed to be succinct, yet at the same time redundant and generic so as to capture the prior usage of the word in all sorts of contexts, from scientific literature, to law, to fiction, to news, to the tabloids, to even street jargon. I suggest that if you want to really learn what "scientifically acceptable" means from a scientist's point of view, then you ask the scientist instead of your dictionary.

Yes, a theory is speculative belief when a news anchor asks a pundit what their theory is with regard to the latest political defection of X from party Y. This usage of the word is not consistent with usage in a scientific context.

4 is a bit closer, but is still too wishy-washy. And actually, I didn't much like 5 either, but it was the best on the list. If you want a more rigorous definition of what a theory is, then I suggest you read through some logical positivist literature.

You are the one unclear on the terms. In reality, a theory is neither a rock-solid proven fact, nor pure speculation. However, with regard to evolution there is extra confusion since the term had come to be used for both the physical evidence of change over time and the body of theories designed to explain how that change occurred. The physical evidence is far closer to a rock-solid proven fact than the body of theories. Though even the latter are a far cry from pure speculation to anyone actually familiar with them.

You mean, you refuse to choose a definition of the word that your opponent is using because you feel that it would make you somehow concede the argument. So you go dig in the dictionary, discover some alternative irrelevant definitions and decide to use them instead, feigning genuine misperception. Sure, it's convenient. It also lets everyone know that you actually have indeed conceded the argument (by admitting your inability to actually argue against it rather than deflect it.)

My belief in science is not religious. It is pragmatic.

As to arguing from "my" perspective, I appreciate the courtesy but why don't you try to argue from "yours" for once?

So do I. But you don't seem to actually accept the definition you provided.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tangled web

*Originally posted by Bambi
Based on which other scientists produce other papers,....*

Great way to get rid of trees.

*If you say so.*

That's pretty lame.
You can see it for yourself in the dictionary quotes, yet it's "if I say so."

*You, of course, have no clue as to the scientific definition of "scientifically acceptable" -- despite the fact that you have been provided with such a definition on numerous occasions by numerous posters on this board.*

Hey, it isn't like I haven't noticed such peculiarly one-sided definitions being offered.
I realize that for antichristians whose only hope is "science," a definition for the word "theory" that sounds more "rigorous" than speculation is desired, but you've got nothing to go on.

The fact is that the dictionary equates "plausible" with "scientifically acceptable."
I equate "plausible" with "scientifically acceptable."
Most of the English-speaking world equates "plausible" with "scientifically acceptable."

An antichristian hopes and "prays" that it means something more solid than that.
It doesn't.
It means something that you are basing your hopes on the fact that some guy with a lot of time on his hands is sitting around dreaming up stuff, speculating on different possibilities.

*Hardly. You should try to pay attention to the 5 adjectives within the first definition of plausible alone that I have bolded out for you.*

I noticed those, too.
Somewhere, you seem to have gotten the idea that different dictionary definitions can be voted on by you.
"Well, I don't like plausible, so I'll insist that scientifically acceptable is the only valid meaning."
Well, guess what.
The word means both, and at the same time.

Plausible=scientifically acceptable.

You think I'm trying to run down your precious "science."
Well, I'm not.
Scientifically acceptable=plausible.

*And at any rate, you can hardly make your case by citing dictionaries. *

Sure, I can.
Dictionaries summarize what millions of people think a word means, not what you really, really hope it means.

*I suggest that if you want to really learn what "scientifically acceptable" means from a scientist's point of view, then you ask the scientist instead of your dictionary.*

Sure.
Ask the guy whose life work is making stuff up to make up a definition for what he does.
Riiiiight.

*Yes, a theory is speculative belief when a news anchor asks a pundit what their theory is with regard to the latest political defection of X from party Y. This usage of the word is not consistent with usage in a scientific context.*

Sure it is.
If the guy's a political scientist, it's in a scientific context.

*If you want a more rigorous definition of what a theory is, then I suggest you read through some logical positivist literature.*

I don't want a more "rigorous" definition; I want a more accurate definition.
BTW, logical positivist literature sounds like what you'd have to read a lot of, if you're going to pin your hopes on evolution and other speculative theories.

*... the body of theories. Though even the latter are a far cry from pure speculation to anyone actually familiar with them.*

Of course.
People living in ivory towers often fall prey to that concept.

Keep in mind, the real world is a far cry from reality to someone intimately familiar with mental illness, too.

*You mean, you refuse to choose a definition of the word that your opponent is using because you feel that it would make you somehow concede the argument.*

I realize that is what you're doing.
I fully admit that plausible=scientifically acceptable.
You appear to be the one who wants to reject "plausible."

*It also lets everyone know that you actually have indeed conceded the argument (by admitting your inability to actually argue against it rather than deflect it.)*

I presume that with a statement like that you gracefully concede the point.

*My belief in science is not religious. It is pragmatic.*

Your "belief" is pragmatic?
Your "belief" is your belief, thus your religion.

If your belief in science is not religious, then my belief in God is not religious, either.

BTW, it isn't, it is very pragmatic, and much more so than your belief in science.

*As to arguing from "my" perspective, I appreciate the courtesy but why don't you try to argue from "yours" for once?*

OK.
You're wrong.
I'm right.

There.

*So do I. But you don't seem to actually accept the definition you provided. *

To me, science is knowledge.
To you, it is speculation that has the appearance of knowledge.

 

Stimulus-response

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Stimulus-response. Thus, learned behavior. Also the chemical reactions that become life itself. It pretty much applies to everything in the Universe.

Evolutionary psychology?

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

*Originally posted by Teg
Your point was that engineers predate scientific thought. My point was that no piece of apparatus by engineers is necessary and that you made a false assumption. You seem to be saying an ability to create objects preceded logical thought. Contrary to popular belief Socrates did not invent logic. He just popularized it. *

*Originally posted by Tony1
Man, you are challenging tiassa's supremacy at missing the point.

I made 2 different points.
1) the 1st scientist would have to use existing apparatus.
2) Engineers predate scientists

And then I disputed both points as folly. I see that you are now accustomed to making my points for me.

*You don't have the margin error of many voices. If your book is wrong, then you lack a leg to stand on. This statement has been shown to be true.*

You are right about that.
On the other hand, you will be in a large crowd in the lake of fire.

The chances of your god existing are small already. Now factor in the chance of such a deity being so vengeful as take any good person unwilling to throw out any common sense and subscribe to blind faith. You presume too much.

*1900 years ago it told of the end of the world being near...never happened.*

To hear a science buff say that is very peculiar.
On one hand, the duration of practically everything of concern is measured in trifling billions of years.
On the other hand, 1900 years is a looooooooooooooooooong time.

Perspective. You should look into it.

How many people were born and how many died. By the human perspective 1900 years is a long time. My point was that the end of the world will not be so predictable. Isn't it always an assumption on the Christian part that your god wrote the bible? How could he be so wrong? Also why does he shift positions so much? Like this:

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

This would be similar to a science book saying:

"G the gravitational constant applies to all orbiting bodies."

"Completely ignore G because it won't get you anywhere."

Thankfully this is not the case.

 

*Originally posted by tiassa
Stimulus-response. Thus, learned behavior. Also the chemical reactions that become life itself. It pretty much applies to everything in the Universe.*

I see your brain cells are doing their Brownian motion thing again.

*Evolutionary psychology?*

You haven't heard?

That's the latest thing in pseudoscience, where some guy sits down and tries to guess what a psychologist might have found out about the missing link, if evolution were true and if there were a missing link.

It's a beautiful thing.

It works with zero data, and there is no possibility of anyone finding any contradictory data no matter what you say.

*Originally posted by Teg
And then I disputed both points as folly.*

I am witness to the birth of an entirely new dimension of comedy/stupidity.

You yourself said that the first scientist used the eye as his apparatus.
You have now soundly rebutted yourself, and I congratulate you on definitively proving that your earlier statement was made by a consummate idiot.

*The chances of your god existing are small already.*

The chances of winning a lottery are small, too, but no one takes that as proof that a lottery cannot be won.

*"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5 *

"Visit" does not mean the same thing as "bear."

 

Nonetheless ...

... the laws described in Newtonian physics do play a large part in evolutionary psychology: your brain and the thoughts it contains are subject to physics.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: Nonetheless ...

*Originally posted by tiassa
... the laws described in Newtonian physics do play a large part in evolutionary psychology: your brain and the thoughts it contains are subject to physics.*

I think I see your point.
You're trying to tell me an irresistible force struck your head.

For a guy who didn't know what evolutionary psychology was two minutes ago, you are quite the expert now.

 

You missed the point, Tony1

Tony1, all brain functions are electrical, and thus very subject to Newtonian physics. One need not be an expert in evolutionary psychology to see the connection.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're operating under the delusion that evo psych is a real science.

In fact, it is a double whammy of fantasy, both for being psychology, and for being evolutionary.

 

Take your time and think about what you're responding to

No, I'm not, and that's your problem. That's what you don't understand.

In order to conceive of evolutionary psychology at all, or of the color of the sky, or how cold it is outside ... it all requires brain function, which is manifestly electrical. That electricity is subject to the laws of physics. Any thought you have is.

You're moving so quickly right now that you're looking right past the point.

Calm down.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

*Originally posted by tiassa
No, I'm not, and that's your problem. That's what you don't understand.

In order to conceive of evolutionary psychology at all....*

Actually, I understand that you've just lost control of your reasoning processes.
We weren't discussing the conceiving of evo psych, we were discussing evo psych itself, along with the laws of motion as they relate to your head.

*You're moving so quickly right now that you're looking right past the point.*

You're pounding on the keyboard pretty fast yourself, although I suspect your fingers outpace your thoughts by a wide margin.

 

Actually, Tony1

It's pretty simple when you give me so little to read. And since it's exactly what I was expecting, the affair of moving to the next phase of the issue is quickly done. Such as your evolutionary psychology bit: all I've done is provided a connection 'twixt physics and evo-psych. Just because you didn't think of it before you asked what's critical about Newton's laws in evo-psych doesn't mean you need to pout. Like I said, take your time when posting; especially when reading others' posts. You look a lot less the jackass when you do.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tony1

I cannot have a meaningful conversation with someone that misquotes, lies, and misinterprets frequently. I am saddened to say that I must remove myself from this which has been so corrupted by you.

 

*Originally posted by tiassa
Just because you didn't think of it before you asked what's critical about Newton's laws in evo-psych doesn't mean you need to pout.*

LOL!
You ARE correct when you suggest that I didn't think of connecting Newton with evo psych.

I also didn't think of purple pot-bellied flamingos until just now either, but just thinking of something doesn't make it real..

*Like I said, take your time when posting; especially when reading others' posts. *

You'd like that.
Your posts only seem intelligent when considerable time is spent on them.
However, that is called the ivory tower factor.

In any case, this is another brilliant "south of France" sidetrack, one of so many, tiassa.
Evo psych is imaginary, just like your Newtonian connection.

 

I'd consider my point made, Tony1, but since it's you ...

... we can't assume anything of that sort.

After all, the Bible says many things, and the only ones that seem important to you either empower you to crush your opponents or else promise you salvation. Given your pursuit of supremacy, we can't ever trust you to see what's right in front of you, and especially when you keep pronouncing yourself blind.

Do you understand the idea that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?

Just to think of "Evo Psych" employs Newtonian laws of physics. You seem to resent the presence of that connection.

Well, unlike the Bible, I don't write to accommodate the superstitions of idiots. I know you really really want things spelled out simply, but as simple as some charge God's word to be, you've made a complete mess of that and generally disqualified all the world's Christians from being Christian. So when you're asking that we dumb down our posts to make sense to you ... well, people have been trying--that's the first thing to note. But it seems you want it dumbed down even more, until there is only one possible conclusion because the blissful superstitions of the ignorant demand that conclusion, and will not accept factors which point toward a different solution. At this point, when you ask people to cater to your special needs, we wonder about whether or not you're genuine. The only genuine trends you've shown here is scorn and illiteracy.

Well, it's your sidetrack, if we might recall. I merely pointed out that there is a connection 'twixt Newtonian physics and "evo psych". Sure, it wasn't the one you were hoping for, but if you were a little more patient with your posts, you wouldn't leave that simple hole. So enjoy your time in the south of France; such a lovely destination for your favorite sidetrack.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

*Originally posted by tiassa
I'd consider my point made*

as soon as you take the first drag off your joint.
Unfortunately, debate requires a bit more than that.

*After all, the Bible says many things, and the only ones that seem important to you either empower you to crush your opponents or else promise you salvation.*

Or both.

*especially when you keep pronouncing yourself blind.*

I see your projector is working fine.

*Do you understand the idea that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?*

I'll bite, yes, but what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

*Just to think of "Evo Psych" employs Newtonian laws of physics.*

You blew your point several posts ago.
It's so far down the tubes, behind the Buddha, that you'll never get it back.

*Well, unlike the Bible, I don't write to accommodate the superstitions of idiots.*

We agree totally on that; you write the superstitions of idiots.

*So when you're asking that we dumb down our posts...*

Actually, your posts are plenty dumb enough already.
You may wish to simulate intelligence in some of them once in a while.

*I merely pointed out that there is a connection 'twixt Newtonian physics and "evo psych"*

It's like the connection between the real and the imaginary.
I supplied the real, so thanks for supplying the imaginary.

 

Dreams of Dick Dawson?

You're starting to make me wonder if you're hooked on the Game Show Channel, Tony1. It's almost as if there's a chorus of angels clapping and hollering, "Good answer, good answer!" And they are good answers:

Great answer: what the hell are you responding to? I see a fragment of a sentence there used to set up a joke that, while perfectly droll, has no real purpose whatsoever. Once again, Tony1, you really should stop re-shaping sentences; you'd be considerably less pointless if you simply responded to what's written. Shall I, then, assume in the future that you're merely responding to your own fancy?It would lighten my posting habit greatly to know that you're just polluting topics for the hell of it instead of ....

Yeah, actually, you have a point. For some inexplicable reason, I thought you actually felt yourself sincere in your expressions. Must definitely be the drugs; imagine, sincerity in Christianity ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good answer, good answer! At least you admit that abusing people in order to foster the illusion of salvation is the point of your religion. Now we're finally exposing the "real" Christianity, aren't we, Tony1?

Which one is that?

With the price of rice in China, nothing, so stop introducing irrelevant subjects. If you have nothing relevant to the current debate, take these side issues to a new topic. Rice, China? Sounds like a World Affairs, perhaps Free Thoughts, or maybe a Morality, Ethics, and Justice topic. Depends on how you look at it. But as far as physics and evo-psych go, you seem to have demonstrated your own problem.

If I take your Chinese rice aside in its metaphorical context, then I think the above is the connection you seek and continue to ignore. Your thoughts are physical processes, and those processes are subject to laws of physics. It's easy enough for anyone with better reading comprehension than what you've consistantly shown, so we understand that it's tough for you to make that connection. But, just to be clear, I'll repeat: Your thoughts are physical processes that are subject to the law of physics.

You've mentioned your son's crappy pants before, Tony1. Your childish responses, such as the above, make me wonder if it's really your son's pants you're talking about, and not your own.  Grow up, boy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Take a poll.

What real was that?

Well, okay ... so your answers weren't all "Good answers". In fact, after the first two, you skipped the general decline and went straight to childish. Too bad about that.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!