It's not like some big, mysterious secret:

https://www.politicalsciencecareer.com/senator.html

https://www.adn.com/politics/2019/08/18/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-united-states-senator-lisa-murkowski/

But, counter question: if, as you say, the work of a politician is so easy and simple, why would we need someone qualified in something totally different to do the job of "a little activism, a little voting"? Or... do you think the Potus is the one single person in the entire U.S. government who has anything to actually do?

A little activism, a little voting in the senate. He certainly has enough experience making a living off the tax-payer dollar, but not much else. — NOS4A2

I don't think you have a very good grasp on what politicians do all day...

All Bernie has ever been is a politician. What has he ever built? What has he ever ran? What has he ever done? We’re going to put a man like that in charge of the world’s greatest economy and military. That’s something people will have to contend with — NOS4A2

Only in politics do we suggest extensive experience doing the job somehow makes you less able to do the job than someone with no experience.


Well... Maybe the same prejudice happens with teachers, too.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, Bernie is unelectable. Would you agree that would be a good reason to nominate someone who IS electable? My point is that you need to consider the consequences of your choice - and it's possible that your choice will result in 4 more years of Trump. — Relativist

I will vote for whoever is not Trump in the end. And if the American people, including some so-called moderate dems, would rather vote for Trump over Bernie, I guess America gets what it deserves.

But we simply can't keep pushing these corporate Dinos who keep slowly turning America into a Third World country. It's not sustainable.

Do you honestly think Sanders will be able to fulfill his promises, or is that beside the point - i.e. you just want someone with the right set of concerns — Relativist

Bernie already has opened the door for a whole new set of ideas and talking points and politicians to enter the field. Even if he can't do as much as we hope he might, he's paving the way for change.

2016 he was the only one suggesting taxing the wealthy and socializing healthcare. Now we've got almost all the dems running agreeing with the basics of both those ideas. And look at the new politicians like AOC.

For decades we've been told to be more "moderate" with our positions and politicians, because the repubs won't like us otherwise and that has very simply backfired. Big time.

Read what I wrote above. Why are we so wedded to the idea that people must work...in order to have the stuff they need for a reasonable life? — Frank Apisa

I agree with that, and I agree that in an ideal society all basic needs would be provided for. Of course, we'd still need to ensure that people work, or else we wouldn't have much of the abundance we do have...

But you asked why people right now cheer for politicians promising jobs, and the answer is mostly that people know that society right now does not provide for people who don't want to work.

Now, a more interesting phenomenon is that a significant portion of Americans have been led to believe that they don't want handouts and want to work hard for every crust of bread the elites will condescend to toss in their direction... Brainwashing if I've ever seen it.

All work and no play makes Frank a dull boy....

Buuuuuuut,

All play and no $$$ makes Frank a homeless, hungry, cold boy with a cardboard sign at the intersection.

Besides, I like to work. I think Marx was right, that having a job where you feel ownership and pride and satisfaction is an essential part of being a fulfilled human being.

My (completely unprofessional, so take it from whence it comes) impression is that you should look into it being one of the three following:

1. It could be an actual medical issue. Like a cyst or benign tumor or blood pressure thing or some such. I'm guessing you might have already ruled that out? But certainly something to ask a doc about, cause that's good to get on top of on time.

2. It could be a form of migraine. Not all migraines hurt. I know several people who have odd kinds of migraines, like visual ones. Again, a doc could maybe help with that.

3. It's a tactile hallucination as a side-effect of either whatever mental condition you have, or perhaps the meds you're taking for it (if you are). Not to be a broken record, but especially if it could be related to your meds, a talk with the doc is in order.

(Fwiw, I'm very certain there is no weird "being" massaging your grey matter just for kicks, as someone suggested above... :roll: )

I will do my best to avoid such mistakes moving forward. — EricH

:wink: Phew!

That remark sounds like word-salad rhetoric from someone from the liberal arts. — alcontali

Annnnd with that weird remark we've come to the point of no return for the conversation :roll:

Unfortunately, that is not what the problem is about. The LUCA and speciation hypothesis is not about selective breeding. Speciation and selective breeding are simply not the same things. — alcontali

Where exactly is the difference except for degree of change?

Once you realize that there are only so many traits that differentiate one species from another, and that you can change those traits through breeding, and you've done the experiment to change one or more of those traits..... Well, back to your wood cutting analogy, I don't need to chop down the whole forest to know what tools could chop it all down. One tree is enough.

then why don't they just carry out the artificial speciation? Thi — alcontali

Because it would take a really really long time and lots of resources and it's not necessary, because we have both identified the mechanisms by which it works and replicated them on small scales that prove them.

Evolution has such a preponderance of evidence on its side, that really the burden of disproof is on you. And that burden goes beyond merely waving at speciation in experimental settings.

What is even the value of a theoretical idea that cannot possibly have applications somewhere in a downstream discipline? Seriously, if we could make money from any of this, then nobody would be complaining about it, but just be making money with it instead. — alcontali

Well, I disagree fundamentally with the idea that any idea has to have monetary benefits to be worthwhile. Knowledge is an end in itself.

But apart from that, it does have monetary benefits. And I listed several products we use all the time because we harnessed evolution in the form of selective breeding. In fact, civilization as we know it couldn't exist without humans having harnessed evolution in that way. We continue to use that and deeper understanding of evolution to combat diseases, improve overall human health, find ways to solve food resource problems, and create luxury food goods.

Speciation is not a huge, insurmountable problem for the theory of evolution, as much as it seems to be a minor hole exploited by those who grasp at straws to dismiss something that's otherwise pretty airtight.

I haven't given an alternative theory for the incompatible GR + QFT combo either. That does not mean that it would now suddenly be compatible — alcontali

A working theory can't just be usurped because you're dissatisfied with some very minor evidenciary gaps. You need to find an alternative better theory and/or actually disprove the original theory.

The only way to demonstrate that a device can cut wood, is to actually cut wood with it — alcontali

But you're not demanding that something just cut wood. Because the examples I gave do that. You're demanding it down the whole dang tree into matchsticks :joke:

Well, that just means that it cannot be done. That does not mean in any fashion, however, that it is not necessary. — alcontali

You haven't explained why it would be necessary though.

Neither have you given me a good or better, evidence-based alternative theory.

Atheists are robots now? Hah, that's a new one, I gotta admit.

:rofl:

Why is evolving an apple out of a fish the kind of proof you need? When clearly it would just take too long and too many resources to do? I mean, you'd be dead before the experiments were concluded.

It's kind of like demanding scientists create a whole new planet with functioning gravity before you accept the reality of gravity.

I mean... do you have some better, more evidence-based explanation?

Once you get to the second round and the superdelegates take over, Bernie is certain to be screwed. The only question is whether the Bernie bros will burn down the convention center or the entire city of Milwaukee — fishfry

Bernie Bro or no, every American citizen should be up in arms if the DNC blatantly refuses to accept the will of the people.

What exactly about being able to change the attributes of species from generation to generation (as we do when creating new apples) is not convincing to you?

Nice article. Very accurate about Buttigieg, whom I've nicknamed Petty Pete after last night.

I think The Onion really nailed it though. :joke:

This does not necessarily mean that the LUCA theory, which clearly depends on speciation, would be wrong, but as far as I am concerned, it is merely a hypothesis. — alcontali

It's a theory, actually.

Also, I might be a little predisposed against him because I can’t pronounce his last name, lol. — 0 thru 9

Boot-ih-judge. :wink:

Am I wrong in assuming a Sanders / Warren ticket if Bernie wins the nomination? — 0 thru 9

I'd love that, but I think they're all probably courting Booker and Harris right now. I prefer Booker, myself, but Harris would be okay as VP.

Show me one product, service, or technology in general that depends on evolution theory. Furthermore, in a falsificationist sense, show me even just one experimental test to be carried out in a laboratory in which we would be able to successfully evolve one species out of another. — alcontali

Red Delicious Apples
Dalmatians
Scottish Fold kittens
modern wheat
Lettuce
Cold Hardy Kiwi plants
etc. etc. etc.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

I've encountered over and over again that religious and spiritual people want to co-opt aesthetic and sublime experience for their own ideologies. I think they're just misinterpreting these experiences to be religious/spiritual.

But I don't need God or any other woo-woo to experience the Sublime.

From a selfish personal kind of perspective, I'm with you. I'm of the type, I'm ready to get my brain transferred to an android body. Death has no benefits, but life always has possibilities.

But when I think about the consequences of unlocking immortality (or just really really long life), I guess it becomes less obvious.

There's the problem of who would even have access to this technology? Probably just the rich for a while and maybe some upper middle class.... It's ripe for capitalist exploitation though. Who wouldn't be willing to take out unfeasible loans in order to live longer?

Then you'd have issues with population and climate change and earth's resources... That's already problematic, and while I do believe we could solve it, we probably should solve that first before we have more humans living exponentially longer.

I'm sure some sci-fi author must've taken this up somewhere already?

Atheists commonly appeal to amputees as a case study in the problem of evil and the efficacy of prayer. In fact, if you use the search bar in the top right you'll find several threads where people engage in this very tactc.

The appeal to amputees in these scenarios is inherently casting them in a negative light: as if their differently abled bodies are an instance of "evil" or in need of being "healed".

Ergo, atheism has a common problem of ableism and is morally bankrupt, etc. — JohnRB

If this argument were ableist, which I'm not sure it is, but if it were, then that would be a problem with the individual atheists using the argument and not with atheism per se, because atheism does not require or necessarily invoke that argument.

Which is quite apparent you are not as the only thing that I can imagine about you is that you have some sort of infatuation about twins. How is Apollo by the way? — Sir2u

I have repeatedly told you I'm not interested in that tone or vein of interaction. Please excuse me, but I have better things to do with my life than let a perfect stranger be rude to me.

Buh-bye.

Apart from your name, "Artemis", exactly what contact have you had with twins? That is why I asked if you have any professional qualifications. It seems odd to me that some should be so insistent that they are right without being able to do more that point to an article(that has lots of counter opinions) as qualification of their point of view. — Sir2u

Contact with twins? Are you suggesting we rely on arguments from anecdote now?

Once and for all, stick to any objectively verifiable data you can present and argue with me on those same grounds. I'm not going to discuss my own person with you. Take it or leave it.

Which would mean that while genetics plays a big part, genetics is affected by the environments in which the people live — Sir2u

Yes. I've said that pretty much from the start.

First you say that genes are the principal controller of behavior but you think that they might need guidance when their behavior changes. Are there not genes that make people predisposed to those changes? Or are the changes caused by environment overriding the genes? So would joining a church group be make it possible to change what is genetic? — Sir2u

I never suggested churches change genetics. I said church and other cultural mechanisms which help give external meaning to people's lives fill a gap when the genetics for self-fulfillment are lacking in some way or another. Think of it as akin to insulin for T1D patients.

That seems to imply that there is a double standard of some sort operating in your thinking process. You are allowed to mock my qualifications, but I am not allowed to even ask about yours. Why is that? — Sir2u

When did I ever mock your qualifications???

Which according to your "It's not self-evident to you theory" should be impossible — Sir2u

The self-evident part was in reference to the mechanism twin studies are supposed to to suggest similarities arise. It seemed/still seems odd to me that you wouldn't realize the mechanism is genetic makeup.

I usually make it a habit to try and read various points of view, hence my "but no real explanation of why" comment — Sir2u

The article you quote doesn't really contradict my position. It just suggests that nurture is also a factor (remember that under "nurture" falls all environmental influences an individual encounters).

Consider this part of the article:
""In the case of osteoporosis, which we once thought was caused by a single mutant gene, we now believe that there may be 500 genes involved – interacting to trigger the disease in people at different ages," says Spector."

500 genes influence osteoporosis alone. That's 500 points that may or may not be environmentally triggered to some extent or another. And yet, no environment can trigger that for which there is no gene.

So you have read a few articles that say something like that and you are suddenly an expert. Tell me sir, what are your personal qualifications in the area of genetics? How many years have you been studying the topic.

And where exactly did I state how much of a factor I think nurture is? — Sir2u

That's Ma'am2U, thank you very much.

Seems to me odd to insist your five years of observing a couple of twins are worth more in information than the research I've presented. Seems more like you just don't like the results because they don't jive with your position.

Critique the argument as is, or don't. But don't start these juvenile snarks about my qualifications or expertise. That's not just bad philosophy, it's bad interpersonal skills.

Only one of the sets had similar, not identical personalities. How do you explain that? — Sir2u

I explain that by it not being a controlled study and just your observational anecdote.

If you knew anything about brain structure you would know that it changes during your life — Sir2u

Leave the snark.

structure you would know that it changes during your life. The changes are based on many things that happen to you, your diet and the amount of exercise you do can influence the development of the brain. So no, it is not all genetic. If that were so then they would always look identical as well. — Sir2u

As I've repeatedly said, nurture is a factor. It's just not as great of one as you seem to assume.

Happiness and well being are not that easy. It seems silly to think of people having or not having happiness genes, or more or less of them. It would make more sense to say that because they are healthier, they live a happier life. But life is not just about health is it? Would it be possible to have a gene that makes you less worried about everyday problems such as bills and work? Or do you just learn to live with it. :chin: — Sir2u

Your brain structure is determined by your genes, your brain structure determines your personality, your personality is the key to everything that is in your power to find happiness.

There are lots of examples of twins being so alike even after being brought up in different countries, but no real explanation of why. — Sir2u

It's not self-evident to you?

Also, meaning, of the sort we’re discussing, is necessarily interdependent or dependent on others and our culture. — praxis

Well.... Then even atheists would need a culture that has things which fulfill those needs in a productive way.

I think that the problem is more of a growing up thing than a hardwired problem. When I grew up we were told that you have to be responsible for yourself, that you have to learn and do whatever is needed to be able to get ahead in life. And we were taught that we do not get ahead by stepping on others to do so.
More and more parents are abdicating their duties and letting the internet and forcing the teachers to do the up-bring of their kids. Who knows what tomorrows kids will be like or how they are going to survive — Sir2u

Nurture is a factor, but probably not as great of one as people like to think. Twin studies have shown that even adopted into different families, people with the exact same genes have similar life outcomes and life satisfaction rates:

Twin studies link

I think a major misconception is that people are somehow unable to feel or find meaning for themselves and that it must be administered by an authority of some kind. — praxis

There are too many people whose lives clearly lack independent, internal meaning for that to be a major misconception.

The only purpose in life is to live it to its fullest. To get as much as possible out of it while you can.
go places, meet people, eat different food and drink new wines, learn as much as you can about as many things as you can.
To sum it up, experience as many things as is possible and try to be happy while making as many others happy as is possible. I have no intentions of waiting for the next life to start enjoying myself when i can do it perfectly well here and now. — Sir2u

And, you know, I agree with that. That's how I live my own life.

But I've come to realize over the years that this is possibly just a psychological trait people like you and I happened to be born with. Other people might have to to a lot of self-work to get to that place.

I've come to realize that there are lots of people, however, who somehow don't have that. It's just not how their brains are wired. They cannot find meaning inside and through themselves and need some external force to supply them with one. In fact, I think that's probably true of the majority of people in one way or another.

It's why you can have on one hand people with all sorts of problems and issues pull off amazing feats overcoming their circumstances, and then other really objectively fortunate people just fall into despair and throw their lives away. There's some kind of internal drive that some people have and others lack that makes the difference.

For those people, I think there needs to be something, somewhere they can turn to.

I wasn't talking about morality. I was talking about filling your life with meaningful content.

, then is there any value engaging in religious thought and reflection? — Michael Lee

I think the Unitarian Universalist church is a good example of how relatively non-theistic religion can and should work. I'm an atheist, but I think atheism's greatest mistake is that it took away something so fundamemtal to so many people's lives and offered nothing substantial to replace it with.

A few things a UU style church offers:

It gives people a sense of community, which is not something I personally feel a need for very often, but it's important to recognize that most people do need that in their lives.

It gives them a sense of belonging. Not just to a community, but a cause. Atheists need to find meaning in a meaningless universe, so sometimes it helps to have an institution to represent all that.

A safe place to hear and discuss life and ethics and all that. Otherwise all the messages around us tend to be Coca Cola ads and pop culture. People's brains slowly disintegrate.

You accused me of giving support to a psychologist definition. Now you don't seem willing to maintain that. I don't understand your game. — David Mo

Keep it up, Quixote.