1. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #193159 by Vergil on June 14, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Jed,
I honestly wasn't nitpicking, I just read it literally. My misunderstanding. Perhaps you do have a point and there really is something there, but comments like "scientists will believe whatever you pay them to believe" seriously undermine credibility. It sounds suspiciously like the 9-11 truthers who claim that the "government" has "gotten" to every engineer in the world who claims that the collapse of the towers wasn't a controlled demolition. I do hope you are correct because if so, the future of cold fusion will indeed be bright.

2. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #193125 by Vergil on June 14, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Jed,
The more you say, the more you actually DO begin to sound like a tin hatter. I'm no expert either, but a simple statement like "all forms of fusion produce more energy out than you put [into] it" makes me question your expertise. Fusion reactions with elements heavier than Iron are endothermic, and absorb energy. That is why stars collapse and produce nova. I think there may be a disparity in the definition of cold fusion being discussed. Again, I'm no expert, but there is a huge difference between something being possible and something being feasable, much less economically viable.

3. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #192950 by Vergil on June 14, 2008 at 10:27 am

mordacious1,
That's not what I said.

Diacanu,
I can do snark, but that wasn't it. I was simply replying to Jed's comment. "Big oil" is going to stop working cold fusion? Really? If you agree with this assessment then by all means, consider me delusional.

4. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #192015 by Vergil on June 12, 2008 at 10:09 am

mordacious,
You may very well be correct. I'm a happy-go-lucky silver lining optimist bordering on the naive by nature. But when it comes to counting on Joe Public to do a reasonable amount of critical thinking, I'm quite the cynical pessimist. The outlandish nature of some claims probably makes their actual number seem larger than it really is. But I think the same is still true of most message boards. I just worry that the clear thinking oasis is more of a slightly damp mirage.

5. Reality wins in Texas!

Comment #191815 by Vergil on June 11, 2008 at 10:18 pm

I don't see the point in putting any fish on a car, Darwinfish or otherwise. However two things really bother me about the Jesusfish: First, I hate the redundancy of the fish with the name "JESUS" spelled in the middle. Like you are too stupid to know what the fish means. I actually think it's kinda cool that the early Christians used the fish as a sort of "secret code", like a little orphan annie decoder ring to keep the evil Romans guessing. Maybe it happened, maybe not, but the fish with the name and the Beware of Rapture bumper sticker and the little Calvin praying at the cross with the little Calvin girl (which makes me even more angry, but thats another story) sort of takes all of the fun out of it. The second thing that really bothers me is that the guy with the fish is usually the one who cuts me off where the lanes merge. Doesn't he know that those first on Earth will be last in Heaven?

6. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #191814 by Vergil on June 11, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Jed Rothwell,
Unfortunately, the posters in this forum are really not much different than posters in most forums, or people in general. People just like to give opinions on things about which they know little to nothing. Has been going on at back fences for centuries, and water coolers for decades.

7. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #184119 by Vergil on May 23, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Max,
I may be the one confused here, but Shermer seems to be misrepresenting the equation in a HUGE way. N is the number of civilizations with which we may be able to communicate. Not the total number which reside in our galaxy. The difference is in how he defines L. For the purposes of the equation, L is obviously best calculated using the entire "human civilization" as a data point, not individual states. You certainly can't use Ancient Egypt since they had not radio communication. And you shouldn't use simultaneous or consectutive European "states" as seperate points because to an observer (by whom the equation is meant to be used) they would represent one continuous civilization.

8. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #184110 by Vergil on May 23, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Max,
I believe that he is saying that we shouldn't use our experience as an example of probable life elsewhere because as the observer, our point of view is biased. I agree that it is biased. But I think that the bias can be taken into account without totally compromising the observation.

9. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #184103 by Vergil on May 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm

rod-the-farmer,
I'm not sure what you mean by "anthropic". If by that you mean that the anthropic principle applies, then I whole heartedly agree. We must include into the equation the POSSIBILTIY that other life may be quite different than ours. For some reason, many people seem to take that to mean that alien life must necessarily be wildly different. This might be true in a random universe. But (above the sub-atomic level) science since the time of Newton (and before) has shown that there are many Universal constants. There is no reason to believe that just because alien life forms can be different, they ARE different. On the other hand, there are many reason to believe that at least SOME alien life forms would be very similar. Most people who haven't studied much on the subject tend to ignore the anthropic principle. But I think most people who are aware often misapply and overuse it.

I am not assuming that all of the life forms in a galaxy "teeming" with them communicate with electromagnetic radiation. What I am saying (over and over again) is that it is very reasonable to assume that out of many hundreds (thousands? millions? what is "teeming" in a galaxy of a few hundred billion stars?) of civilizations, some would communicate this way. We have found it very effective. Why shouldn't they? We have been sending "pointless" signals for a hundred years. Do you see a reason to believe we won't be doing so (assuming we survive) for the next few hundred?

I am not suggesting that funding for SETI and the like should be cut. Not by any means. And I am not saying that our fruitless search so far has cut down on the number of possible civilizations in our universe. What I am saying is that the fact that we have not detected any other galactic civilizations significantly lowers the PROBABILITY that SOME of the higher numbers assigned to the Drake equation are LESS LIKELY.

10. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183891 by Vergil on May 23, 2008 at 5:40 am

Shaun,
It is not a matter of "want". Apparently you and I differ greatly on the opinion as to whether or not we possess "basic" information on what is required for life to exist. We also disagree on just how "enormous" certain assumptions are, also as to whether or not they are supportable. I find it mind boggling that many people believe that the fact that life exists on Earth under certain circumstances is not good evidence that those circumstances are the ones likely to support life.

11. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183848 by Vergil on May 23, 2008 at 2:50 am

Very interesting article. Of course, the term extreme is quite relative.

12. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183838 by Vergil on May 23, 2008 at 2:09 am

I would think that it would take a discovery outside of our solar system to completely smash the idea that the sun was designed for life.

13. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183830 by Vergil on May 23, 2008 at 12:59 am

Damien,
Just because it is subjective, doesn't mean it's impossible to define. Life has been defined in dictionaries and textbooks for hundreds of years. Though specifics are highly variable, there are quite a few things upon which most people can agree. Living things reproduce passing on "heritable" genetic information. They also feed on "negative entropy". The disclaimer "as we know it" is given a bum wrap in science fiction. The phrase "life as we know it" doesn't mean that there are probably lots of "types of life" out there that we don't understand. It means that any thing we would consider to be life "not as we know it" is outside of our current understanding, and therefore doesn't fit our current definition of life to begin with. There is a difference between placing limits on where life can arise, and assessing PROBABILITIES about where life as we have defined it can arise.

14. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183823 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 11:42 pm

shaunfletcher,
Are you unaware of the arguements for a "Rare Earth", or do you just find the proponents to be unreasonable? I don't necessarily agree with them, but I am far from "astonished" that they reach the opinions they do.

15. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183820 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Something that peak-oil opponents fail note is that you can have enough oil for the next 5000 years, but if it takes more energy to get than you get out of it, it may as well be sand.

16. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183815 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Damien,
Like all definitions, it means what we agree it means. Particularly the context in which it is used. That given, the term is quite subjective in common usage. Can you be more specific?

Don,
True, but even the more advanced civilizations would likely "pass through" a phase in which electromagnetic communication would be common. I don't think anyone is limiting our speculations (you and I aren't, in any case), but what I'm talking about is speculating on what is most probable.

17. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183803 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Don,
Not to sound argumentative (because I think we are almost exactly on the same page), but I would like to point out one thing...and that only because it addresses my entire thought on the matter. I would disagree that we have "no idea" what types of communication or technology other species would be using. Again, as teratornis has pointed out, these ideas have been hashed out in excruciating detail elsewhere. But let me briefly say that electromagnetic radiation appears quite universal, and the fact that we use it for communication is, I would say, quite good evidence for the idea that other intelligences would too. Even if all of them didn't, it is quite reasonable to assume that some of the (presumed) many civilizations would. My point is that it IS reasonable to make assumptions about other possible intelligences because there ARE constants in the universe that, according to the evidence, do exist.

18. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183797 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Don,
I think we both agree that it is likely life out there. However, let me try one more time to explain my point. I'm not saying "rule out". I'm saying "evidence for". I'm not saying "intelligent life existing". I'm saying "TEEMING with intelligent life". I agree that you are correct in saying that ruling out intelligent life with what we know would be premature.

I'm not really specifically defining "local neighborhood", but I suppose our galaxy would fit the proposition. If you have read (or even thought on your own) about the probable spread of civilizations in the galaxy (including the articles linked by our good friend Teratornis), I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that there simply hasn't been enough time for "them" to contact us. Even taking into account the point of sent2null (the idea that lifemaking stars are relatively recent), the idea that we are among the first to advance to the level of interstellar communication in a galaxy "teeming with" intelligent beings is (to me) less likely than us being the only intelligent life in that galaxy.

19. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183784 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 8:13 pm

leigh,
And that is the difference between our side and theirs. Viva le difference!

20. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183769 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Damien,
I didn't say life IN your pen. I said an intelligent pen. I didn't say organisms in boots. I said living boots. The reason we search for life within a narrow band most often is because that is where life is likely to exist. Actually, life is searched for outside of these boundries, but has yet to be found. Are you really and truly asking me why life probably doesn't exist in the Earths core? Are you looking for reasons other than the extreme temperatures and pressures? Or lack of water? Because I've got hundreds more...

21. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183764 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Don_Quix,
I didn't say that it said "anything one way or the other about whether we are ALONE [emphasis mine] or not." I said that it is "VERY GOOD evidence" that our local neighborhood is not "teeming" with intelligent life. Two very different propositions. You put forth some very good possibilities. Yet, unlikely (from what evidence we have so far) probabilities.

22. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183748 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Teratornis,
Good point. Sort of like the fact that most of the arguements creationists make today are the same ones that were dismissed in Darwin's day. Unfortunately, there is always SOMEONE who doesn't get the memo (I unfortunately must include myself in this group, of course...)

23. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183739 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 4:54 pm

windfall,
Again...that fact that we cannot detect radio or similar transmissions in our neighborhood is VERY GOOD evidence that it is not "teeming" with intelligent life. I'd say it decreases your "maybe" to a "probably not" at the very best.

24. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183738 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Damien, but we CAN put limits. Probable limits in any case. Are you suggesting that there might be life on the Sun? Or in the core of the Earth? If you include these possibilities in the discussion then you may as well not discuss it, becase you would then have to include the possibility that the pen in your pocket is intelligent, or that a pair of boots are "living things".

25. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183734 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 4:33 pm

I'm not quite sure about that Melomel. I think the singular nature of the Earth might be relevant whether the properties of the universe are "special" or not. I think that all of the combinations (locally special - universally special, locally ordinary - universally special, locally special - universally ordinary, etc..) all bring up their own interesting philisophical questions. You are, of course, correct on your main point: that the universal constants are much more important, but they are also less understood, so they are more difficult to test and make claims about.

26. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183723 by Vergil on May 22, 2008 at 4:05 pm

righton,
You may very well be right. However, there are some pretty big elephants in the room. First, in the system we know most about, there is evidence for only one form of life. People like to point out that things live in the deep water vents and other inhospitable places on the Earth, but what they fail to mention is that those organisms probably adapted to life there. Because of evolution life can live in various climates, but to be CREATED may require a very unusual circumstances. It is very telling (to me, in any case) that even on our "Goldilocks" planet only one form of life has occured. There are some things in our universe that are indeed "special". There are a hundered some odd elements by definition. Unlike in a science fiction movie you probably can't go to another galaxy and find element number 35 and a half. There are indeed "special" characteristics of the carbon atom that no other atom possesses (though silicon shares some interesting ones). You simply cannot create molocules based on Helium that carry information. (Or if you can, they are simply beyond our comprehension and are as likely as, well, the flying spagetti monster). My point is that when speaking of possible forms of life, just because the possibilities are infinite, that doesn't mean that everything is possible.

The second thing I'd like to point out is that we are getting to the point where we can actually verify some possible answers to the Drake Equation. According to some hypothesis (or possibilities) we should be able to look in any direction of the sky and detect evidence of alien civilization, but have not to date. Now this is a far cry from saying that there aren't any (I know that the search itself can be VERY complicated), but what it does is eliminate a huge swath of higher Drake equation possibilities. So again, though we cannot say what is possible, we do know enough to begin to say what probably is NOT possible.

27. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181512 by Vergil on May 17, 2008 at 10:35 am

Bucketchemist,
I may have been exagerating. A bit.

28. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181322 by Vergil on May 16, 2008 at 11:56 pm

bucketchemist,
You make the atheist posters on this board sound like one note knee-jerk reactionary pitchfok wielding mobsters. Religious sympathizer! Let's burn him!

29. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180665 by Vergil on May 15, 2008 at 1:28 pm

MaxD,
I don't know if I can explain it any more clearly. When creationists criticize proponents of natural selection for believing that an eye just came about randomly, they are attacking a claim that the proponents of natural selection do not, in fact, make. They are misrepresenting the claims of natural selection. And when atheists criticize the Roman Catholic Church for asserting that evolution did not occur, they are attacking a claim that catholics do not, in fact, make. They are misrepresenting the claims of the Church. Now, the proponents of natural selection pointing out the false claim of creationists are not necessarily the same ones making the false assumptions about the Church, but I think that it is the case often enough so that the claim of hypocrasy is not too far fetched.

Reverend,
I wasn't trying to give them any credit at all. I was a mild attempt at humor. One which apparently failed miserably.

30. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180630 by Vergil on May 15, 2008 at 12:23 pm

"Mutual Incomprehension" sounds accurate to me. The church officials could not comprehend an Earth that was not the center of the universe. And Galileo could not comprehend the obstinacy of the church officials.

31. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180559 by Vergil on May 15, 2008 at 7:51 am

Nothing to feel stupid about Philip. I don't always make myself very clear. And certainly nothing to be offended about.

32. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180549 by Vergil on May 15, 2008 at 7:37 am

Reverend,
I was not aware that Theistic Evolution as proposed by The Church NECESSARILY posits an additional force governing the selection/mutation process. I thought that a more Deist view wherebye evolution was set in motion and let take its course was 'acceptable'. Of course, saving a human life by praying for intervention would ultimately interfere in the process. But I don't think those are hairs that Alkal (post #5) and Pieterh (post #82) meant to split.

Of course The Church has a choice. They could hold the same view as the Creationist Fundamental Protestants. They could say Darwin is all wrong instead of saything that he is mostly right. Some might say that this is a moot point. I disagree. I think that someone's answer being "right" is less important than how they got that answer. Creationists criticize Darwin because some of his theories have been revised. He wasn't completely "right". But the important part is how he came up with them. Criticizing The Church's conclusions (it's okay to believe in aliens, evolution occured) is ridiculous because they are "right". What should be criticized is their method of inquiry.

Philip,
By "The Choir" I meant myself : )
I probably agree with the good Reverend 99%. I was not defending "Theistic Evolution" at all. I just meant that Atheists often fall into the same trap Creationists do by injecting theories of the origins of life and the universe into the theory (or reality) of evolution.

EDITED for GRAMMAR

33. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180505 by Vergil on May 15, 2008 at 6:11 am

Reverend Dark,
For most of your post, you are preaching to the choir. I am not defending The Church in general. But if you say that it would be more rational for them to say that aliens are not possible then we just disagree. I didn't say they were rational about science. Did you read the post? "To me, past (and many current) Church positions on things scientific = bad" The point about Darwin remains. We can (and should) criticize the church leaders who refused to look into Galileo's telescope, but to criticize The Church today for believing in a flat Earth makes no sense. What is the difference between The Theory of Evolution vs. The Theory of Theistic Evolution? I wasn't aware of the fact that The Theory of Evolution necessarily includes speculation on Cosmogony.

34. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180484 by Vergil on May 15, 2008 at 4:56 am

Exactly Diacanu.

5 - They have already said "Evolution is okay".
13 - They aren't Bible literalists.
14 - The priest isn't contradicting the "Vatican Rules"
79 - See number 13.
82 - They don't dispute Darwin.
87 - See number 82

I wasn't criticizing the humorous posts. But the general tone of the thread is that the stand reguarding aliens is a bad thing. To me, past (and many current) Church positions on things scientific = bad. Any move in a rational direction = good. Looking for an ulterior motive (ie. nefariously changing its mind just to 'cover their butts' or just to get those butts into pews) instead of accepting the possibility that maybe they think believing in aliens is okay because it just makes good rational sense seems unnecessarily cynical to me.

I suppose I shouldn't criticize the snarkiness. It is just a normal effect of message boards. But I would hope that the one thing that might set a rational, skeptical board apart would be good arguement.

notsobad,
No, I did mean non sequitur. But that doesn't mean I'm not wrong.

35. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180235 by Vergil on May 14, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Diacanu,
Ridicule away. I just think that criticising Hitler for having blonde hair isn't very constructive. But he was a bad person, and criticizing Hitler is cool. So what's the harm, right?

designsoda,
If you throw a six sided die, then no, the choices aren't random. But the choice of which die to throw is, so yes, the set of choices is random. Unless you say that the laws of physics demand that a particular die is thrown. But in that case, are the laws themselves random? At that point, yes, the waters are a bit deep...
Perhaps the Giraffe neck example is a poor one. The fact that an animal is idealy suited for its environment is not random chance. But the conditions of the environment probably are. And the mutations which allow for adaptation are themselves probably random. In other words, if one (or several) of the random mutations in a Giraffe's ancestry were different, then Giraffes wouldn't exist. Perhaps a similar animal, but not the one we recognize today. So in a sense, the specific animal we know as a Giraffe does owe its existence to random chance.

36. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180076 by Vergil on May 14, 2008 at 7:19 am

designsoda,
I too have questions about the use of the term "random chance". Creationists usually misuse it, but atheists often are overly sensitive about it. It definately does apply in some senses. For example, it is not random chance that a giraffe has a long neck to reach the high leaves. But it is random chance that the POSSIBILTY of a long neck was one of the "choices" that the genes had to "choose" from. It is not random chance that the organisms that survived early hostile ever changing environments were the ones best at adapting to them. But it probably was random chance that the conditions existed to bring all of the elements necessary for life together in the first place.

37. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180071 by Vergil on May 14, 2008 at 7:03 am

epeeist,
no and no. To the contrary: rivetheretic and mmurray, for example, both have knowledgeable, on-topic, and informative posts. I would just hope that non-sequiturs like #76 or arguments from ignorance like #45 were confined to the realms of the faith proponents message boards. But like I said, we're all human. (Except, as phasmagigas pointed out, the aliens!).

riki,
Very true. I suppose I get spoiled because it simply so often happens to be the case.

38. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180002 by Vergil on May 14, 2008 at 4:49 am

Wouldn't a Darwin conference organized by fundies be a hypocrisy of a higher order? I have to admit, I find the snarkiness and use of logical fallacy in this "clear thinking oasis" a bit disturbing. I suppose being right about atheism is no immunity to being human. It just makes it difficult to argue with those that claim atheists are an arrogant and condescending lot...

39. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179984 by Vergil on May 14, 2008 at 4:14 am

It seems a bit hypocritical for posters to complain about creationists bringing up the old "chance" arguement because they misunderstand the Theory of Evolution, and then make fun of the Roman Catholic Church for believing in literal interpretations of the Bible. There are plenty of things with which to make fun of The Church without creating straw men. Know thine enemy! That the "official church astronomer" thinks that it's okay to believe in aliens is, to me, a good thing. What scares me (among other things) is the current Pope's apparent step backward in promoting ID, as opposed to John Paul II's apparent acceptance of Natural Selection.

40. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179673 by Vergil on May 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm

I think what he is saying is that advances in science demonstrate that slithy toves do gyre and gimble in the wabe. Furthermore, the borogroves are all mimsy, and the mome raths outgrabe. And a good thing too.