What will you continue to believe regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

I am thin and gorgeous!!

fsm said:

What will you continue to believe regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

I’ll continue to believe in a supreme being even though there is no scientific evidence for or against.
Squiggly lines on a blackboard will never prove the existence of a God or not it would defeat the whole purpose. Science and spirituality are two different paradigms and never the twain shall meet.

Not many things.

Maybe my love for coffee.

Being right.

Bogsnorkler said:

Being right.

I was sure that you were left.

fsm said:

What will you continue to believe regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

other people might actually know better

SCIENCE said:

fsm said:

What will you continue to believe regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

other people might actually know better

I remain adamant that I will always change my mind when presented with new factual evidence, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Peak Warming Man said:

fsm said:

What will you continue to believe regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

I’ll continue to believe in a supreme being even though there is no scientific evidence for or against.
Squiggly lines on a blackboard will never prove the existence of a God or not it would defeat the whole purpose. Science and spirituality are two different paradigms and never the twain shall meet.

I disagree, but I’ll say nothing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

fsm said:

What will you continue to believe regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

I’ll continue to believe in a supreme being even though there is no scientific evidence for or against.
Squiggly lines on a blackboard will never prove the existence of a God or not it would defeat the whole purpose. Science and spirituality are two different paradigms and never the twain shall meet.

I disagree, but I’ll say nothing.

we disagree

Lots of things.

I am adamant that the correct spelling ought to be “volcanos” not “volcanoes”, “modelling” not “modeling”.
I am adamant that Uranus should be pronounced “you-raynus” not “urine-us”.
I even insist on “chassis” being pronounced “shassy”, and cringe at the normal pronunciation.
I am adamant that “nuclear” is not pronounced “nuk-you-lar”, despite what the US President said.

Heaps of science things I am adamant about.

I once did a survey of my beliefs, and found that I am adamant about approximately 10% of them.

I am adamant that Iodine is the best treatment for fungal skin infections.
I am adamant that the delay in release of Covid vaccines by nine months (March to Dec 2021) killed more than a million people.
I am adamant that “sustainability” is just another word for “perpetual motion”.

mollwollfumble said:

Lots of things.

I am adamant that the correct spelling ought to be “volcanos” not “volcanoes”, “modelling” not “modeling”.
I am adamant that Uranus should be pronounced “you-raynus” not “urine-us”.
I even insist on “chassis” being pronounced “shassy”, and cringe at the normal pronunciation.
I am adamant that “nuclear” is not pronounced “nuk-you-lar”, despite what the US President said.

Heaps of science things I am adamant about.

I once did a survey of my beliefs, and found that I am adamant about approximately 10% of them.

I am adamant that Iodine is the best treatment for fungal skin infections.
I am adamant that the delay in release of Covid vaccines by nine months (March to Dec 2021) killed more than a million people.
I am adamant that “sustainability” is just another word for “perpetual motion”.

I am adamant that “sustainability” is just another word for “perpetual motion” “wishful thinking” fixed

that the earth is flat

Tamb said:

mollwollfumble said:

Lots of things.

I am adamant that the correct spelling ought to be “volcanos” not “volcanoes”, “modelling” not “modeling”.
I am adamant that Uranus should be pronounced “you-raynus” not “urine-us”.
I even insist on “chassis” being pronounced “shassy”, and cringe at the normal pronunciation.
I am adamant that “nuclear” is not pronounced “nuk-you-lar”, despite what the US President said.

Heaps of science things I am adamant about.

I once did a survey of my beliefs, and found that I am adamant about approximately 10% of them.

I am adamant that Iodine is the best treatment for fungal skin infections.
I am adamant that the delay in release of Covid vaccines by nine months (March to Dec 2021) killed more than a million people.
I am adamant that “sustainability” is just another word for “perpetual motion”.

I am adamant that “sustainability” is just another word for “perpetual motion” “wishful thinking” fixed

Everything that comes into being, is meant to break down.

Arts said:

that the earth is flat

Apparently you did.

mollwollfumble said:

I am adamant that “sustainability” is just another word for “perpetual motion”.

So since we have effective perpetual motion of planets about their stars presumaly you are adamant that “sustainability” is a reasonable goal that all engineering works (including agriculture and medicine) should aim towards.

are you all in agreement that continuation for a nearly infinite time counts as sustainability in perpetuity is that what is being said

SCIENCE said:

are you all in agreement that continuation for a nearly infinite time counts as sustainability in perpetuity is that what is being said

I doubt that we are all in agreement on that, but being an engineer, We agree with it.

Arts said:

that the earth is flat

Nah.

It’s the Moon and the Sun that are flat. Not the Earth.

If the Moon was round then we would see the back side of it every time it rotates.

If the Moon was round it would look like this with gradations in shade.

not like this, flat-shaded

If the Sun was round it would look brighter in the centre.
Not the same brightness across the whole face.

> What will you continue to believe regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

I am adamant that that there are no such things as “human rights”. They’re just privileges that people have come to take for granted.

Arts said:

that the earth is flat

Well we have to make some small adjustments for projects covering a large area, but for most practical purposes, the earth is indeed flat.

The planet Earth on the other hand …

that pain is painful, seems to have had a consistency

or maybe I should write that painful pain is painful, save any arguments about levels of pain

transition said:

that pain is painful, seems to have had a consistency

or maybe I should write that painful pain is painful, save any arguments about levels of pain

might add though i’m not entirely happy about the word adamant, my basic notion without thinking about that word sort of feels like it means a persistent orientation with express beliefs regard, or for

of course I can be adamant and express it if, say, I hit my finger with a hammer, but I avoid the torture of holding the full horrors of all that contributes to aversion – regard pain, pain aversion – which probably means I limit any preoccupation about it, perhaps that’s more aversion to sensing persistent aversion, or aversion to aversion, but there is plenty there I feel quite constantly, some tension I guess

which brings me to the subject of being adamant where instinct are involved, that adamant of instinct, the adamant force of instincts, which for the most part may function quietly, largely unexpressed, and they may arrive at, be adamant the conclusion may not be adamant

for more about the philosophy of introspective black holes the reader will need wait for the book to come out

Peak Warming Man said:

fsm said:

What will you continue to believe regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

I’ll continue to believe in a supreme being even though there is no scientific evidence for or against.
Squiggly lines on a blackboard will never prove the existence of a God or not it would defeat the whole purpose. Science and spirituality are two different paradigms and never the twain shall meet.

See I wonder about that would not god be the ultimate scientist/programmer with all the scientific laws that govern the universe.

Cymek said:

would not god be the ultimate scientist/programmer with all the scientific laws that govern the universe

oh but we are

> What will you continue to believe regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

Want another one?

“The world is ruled by bad puns”.

By this I mean that every decision we make and every act we aspire to is influenced by bad puns.
I could give dozens of examples.

Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

would not god be the ultimate scientist/programmer with all the scientific laws that govern the universe

oh but we are

Omniscience

Cymek said:

Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen

Was.

Cymek said:

Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen

that the Disney corp deliberately created and released the movie frozen so when people goggled Disney and Frozen the movie would come up and not the cryogenic frozen dude

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen

Was.

we mean doesn’t frozen imply cryogenics

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen

Was.

we mean doesn’t frozen imply cryogenics

:)

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

would not god be the ultimate scientist/programmer with all the scientific laws that govern the universe

oh but we are

Omniscience

fair play, nice one

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen

Was.

we mean doesn’t frozen imply cryogenics

The word is “cryonics”. I’m adamant about that.

mollwollfumble said:

I am adamant that Iodine is the best treatment for fungal skin infections.
I am adamant that the delay in release of Covid vaccines by nine months (March to Dec 2021) killed more than a million people.

For which you have zero evidence. You even think you know more about vaccines than a family member who works in the field which is another sign of your stupidity.

Nuclear power production is safer than coal power production in deaths per unit of energy.

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen

Was.

we mean doesn’t frozen imply cryogenics

He was cremated.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Was.

we mean doesn’t frozen imply cryogenics

He was cremated.

which is kinda dead opposite.

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

we mean doesn’t frozen imply cryogenics

He was cremated.

which is kinda dead opposite.

Heh

low temperatures can cause burns

dv said:

Nuclear power production is safer than coal power production in deaths per unit of energy.

¿you will continue to believe this regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

Nuclear power production is safer than coal power production in deaths per unit of energy.

¿you will continue to believe this regardless of any factual evidence to the contrary?

Sorry, just responding to the subject line

SCIENCE said:

low temperatures can cause burns

if you keep knocking my humour with logic I’ll defriend you.

Bogsnorkler said:

SCIENCE said:

low temperatures can cause burns

if you keep knocking my humour with logic I’ll deepfried you.

that burns too

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Was.

we mean doesn’t frozen imply cryogenics

The word is “cryonics”. I’m adamant about that.

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Was.

we mean doesn’t frozen imply cryogenics

The word is “cryonics”. I’m adamant about that.

My ex sometimes used that to get her own way.

dv said:

Nuclear power production is safer than coal power production in deaths per unit of energy.

It wouldn’t be even close, surely.

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

we mean doesn’t frozen imply cryogenics

The word is “cryonics”. I’m adamant about that.

So is a cold shoulder a shoulder to cryon?

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

He was cremated.

which is kinda dead opposite.

Heh

He stll got a full headstone and grave.

sibeen said:

dv said:

Nuclear power production is safer than coal power production in deaths per unit of energy.

It wouldn’t be even close, surely.

If human stupidity and lack of forward planning was removed from nuclear power generation how safe might it be

dv said:

Nuclear power production is safer than coal power production in deaths per unit of energy.

So far.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Nuclear power production is safer than coal power production in deaths per unit of energy.

So far.

I mean we are expecting the coal power death count to shoot up so…

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Nuclear power production is safer than coal power production in deaths per unit of energy.

So far.

I mean we are expecting the coal power death count to shoot up so…

right but if the mass extinction is about to happen then why not cover the major causes up with a bit of nuclear war right

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I am adamant that “sustainability” is just another word for “perpetual motion”.

So since we have effective perpetual motion of planets about their stars presumaly you are adamant that “sustainability” is a reasonable goal that all engineering works (including agriculture and medicine) should aim towards.

No.

A reasonable goal is maximum efficiency.

Sustainability is Snow White and the seven dwarfs. It’s fantasyland.

Sustainability, as it is normally interpreted, approaches minimum efficiency.

You don’t design a car factory on the principle of perpetual motion. You design it on the principle of maximum efficiency.

Permaculture for example approaches the least efficient use of human resources, it approaches the most expensive way to make food.

The raison d’etre for sustainability is that we must not deplete non-renewable resources. Resources are not at risk of being depleted, eg. no peak oil.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I am adamant that “sustainability” is just another word for “perpetual motion”.

So since we have effective perpetual motion of planets about their stars presumaly you are adamant that “sustainability” is a reasonable goal that all engineering works (including agriculture and medicine) should aim towards.

No.

A reasonable goal is maximum efficiency.

Sustainability is Snow White and the seven dwarfs. It’s fantasyland.

Sustainability, as it is normally interpreted, approaches minimum efficiency.

You don’t design a car factory on the principle of perpetual motion. You design it on the principle of maximum efficiency.

Permaculture for example approaches the least efficient use of human resources, it approaches the most expensive way to make food.

The raison d’etre for sustainability is that we must not deplete non-renewable resources. Resources are not at risk of being depleted, eg. no peak oil.

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So since we have effective perpetual motion of planets about their stars presumaly you are adamant that “sustainability” is a reasonable goal that all engineering works (including agriculture and medicine) should aim towards.

No.

A reasonable goal is maximum efficiency.

Sustainability is Snow White and the seven dwarfs. It’s fantasyland.

Sustainability, as it is normally interpreted, approaches minimum efficiency.

You don’t design a car factory on the principle of perpetual motion. You design it on the principle of maximum efficiency.

Permaculture for example approaches the least efficient use of human resources, it approaches the most expensive way to make food.

The raison d’etre for sustainability is that we must not deplete non-renewable resources. Resources are not at risk of being depleted, eg. no peak oil.

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

Fwiw I think it is entirely reasonable to have as a long term goal a civilisation that has negligible negative impact on the ecosystem, atmosphere, hydrosphere or even the contents of the crust. Obviously there is already an amount of land taken up but we can aim to stabilise that impact.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

No.

A reasonable goal is maximum efficiency.

Sustainability is Snow White and the seven dwarfs. It’s fantasyland.

Sustainability, as it is normally interpreted, approaches minimum efficiency.

You don’t design a car factory on the principle of perpetual motion. You design it on the principle of maximum efficiency.

Permaculture for example approaches the least efficient use of human resources, it approaches the most expensive way to make food.

The raison d’etre for sustainability is that we must not deplete non-renewable resources. Resources are not at risk of being depleted, eg. no peak oil.

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

Fwiw I think it is entirely reasonable to have as a long term goal a civilisation that has negligible negative impact on the ecosystem, atmosphere, hydrosphere or even the contents of the crust. Obviously there is already an amount of land taken up but we can aim to stabilise that impact.

I think all conservatives want to keep things the way they are or even try and get them to be the way they were 70 years or so ago. Some fundamentalist conservatives might even want to start culling all introduced plants and even………..gulp………….animals.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So since we have effective perpetual motion of planets about their stars presumaly you are adamant that “sustainability” is a reasonable goal that all engineering works (including agriculture and medicine) should aim towards.

No.

A reasonable goal is maximum efficiency.

Sustainability is Snow White and the seven dwarfs. It’s fantasyland.

Sustainability, as it is normally interpreted, approaches minimum efficiency.

You don’t design a car factory on the principle of perpetual motion. You design it on the principle of maximum efficiency.

Permaculture for example approaches the least efficient use of human resources, it approaches the most expensive way to make food.

The raison d’etre for sustainability is that we must not deplete non-renewable resources. Resources are not at risk of being depleted, eg. no peak oil.

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

Since you mention the perpetual motion of planets, have you considered what would happen if you designed satellites for perpetual motion. All low Earth Orbits decay sending satellites to a fiery death in the Earth’s atmosphere, so design for perpetual motion would eliminate all low Earth Orbit satellites. Placing satellites further out … in the Van Allen Belts.

As a civil engineer and a believer in sustainability, you no doubt design all your buildings and bridges for a million year (plus) lifetime.

Not only is it not necessary to design for sustainability. It is necessary not to design for sustainability.

Efficiency is “satisfy constraints at minimum cost”. Where constraints include environmental constraints. Nothing to do with sustainability.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So since we have effective perpetual motion of planets about their stars presumaly you are adamant that “sustainability” is a reasonable goal that all engineering works (including agriculture and medicine) should aim towards.

No.

A reasonable goal is maximum efficiency.

Sustainability is Snow White and the seven dwarfs. It’s fantasyland.

Sustainability, as it is normally interpreted, approaches minimum efficiency.

You don’t design a car factory on the principle of perpetual motion. You design it on the principle of maximum efficiency.

Permaculture for example approaches the least efficient use of human resources, it approaches the most expensive way to make food.

The raison d’etre for sustainability is that we must not deplete non-renewable resources. Resources are not at risk of being depleted, eg. no peak oil.

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

Nods.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

No.

A reasonable goal is maximum efficiency.

Sustainability is Snow White and the seven dwarfs. It’s fantasyland.

Sustainability, as it is normally interpreted, approaches minimum efficiency.

You don’t design a car factory on the principle of perpetual motion. You design it on the principle of maximum efficiency.

Permaculture for example approaches the least efficient use of human resources, it approaches the most expensive way to make food.

The raison d’etre for sustainability is that we must not deplete non-renewable resources. Resources are not at risk of being depleted, eg. no peak oil.

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

Since you mention the perpetual motion of planets, have you considered what would happen if you designed satellites for perpetual motion. All low Earth Orbits decay sending satellites to a fiery death in the Earth’s atmosphere, so design for perpetual motion would eliminate all low Earth Orbit satellites. Placing satellites further out … in the Van Allen Belts.

As a civil engineer and a believer in sustainability, you no doubt design all your buildings and bridges for a million year (plus) lifetime.

Not only is it not necessary to design for sustainability. It is necessary not to design for sustainability.

Efficiency is “satisfy constraints at minimum cost”. Where constraints include environmental constraints. Nothing to do with sustainability.

Australian farmers are very efficient as you call it. However, their costs are spiralling way out of reach.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

Fwiw I think it is entirely reasonable to have as a long term goal a civilisation that has negligible negative impact on the ecosystem, atmosphere, hydrosphere or even the contents of the crust. Obviously there is already an amount of land taken up but we can aim to stabilise that impact.

I think all conservatives want to keep things the way they are or even try and get them to be the way they were 70 years or so ago. Some fundamentalist conservatives might even want to start culling all introduced plants and even………..gulp………….animals.

Everything must pass.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

No.

A reasonable goal is maximum efficiency.

Sustainability is Snow White and the seven dwarfs. It’s fantasyland.

Sustainability, as it is normally interpreted, approaches minimum efficiency.

You don’t design a car factory on the principle of perpetual motion. You design it on the principle of maximum efficiency.

Permaculture for example approaches the least efficient use of human resources, it approaches the most expensive way to make food.

The raison d’etre for sustainability is that we must not deplete non-renewable resources. Resources are not at risk of being depleted, eg. no peak oil.

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

Since you mention the perpetual motion of planets, have you considered what would happen if you designed satellites for perpetual motion. All low Earth Orbits decay sending satellites to a fiery death in the Earth’s atmosphere, so design for perpetual motion would eliminate all low Earth Orbit satellites. Placing satellites further out … in the Van Allen Belts.

As a civil engineer and a believer in sustainability, you no doubt design all your buildings and bridges for a million year (plus) lifetime.

Not only is it not necessary to design for sustainability. It is necessary not to design for sustainability.

Efficiency is “satisfy constraints at minimum cost”. Where constraints include environmental constraints. Nothing to do with sustainability.

OK, just continue to ignore what I actually said, and persist with your nonsense if it makes you happy.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

Since you mention the perpetual motion of planets, have you considered what would happen if you designed satellites for perpetual motion. All low Earth Orbits decay sending satellites to a fiery death in the Earth’s atmosphere, so design for perpetual motion would eliminate all low Earth Orbit satellites. Placing satellites further out … in the Van Allen Belts.

As a civil engineer and a believer in sustainability, you no doubt design all your buildings and bridges for a million year (plus) lifetime.

Not only is it not necessary to design for sustainability. It is necessary not to design for sustainability.

Efficiency is “satisfy constraints at minimum cost”. Where constraints include environmental constraints. Nothing to do with sustainability.

OK, just continue to ignore what I actually said, and persist with your nonsense if it makes you happy.

Happiness, is a warm gun..

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know how you define “efficiency”, but any reasonable definition would include future costs, and would therefore require “sustainability”, for any reasonable definition of sustainability, as opposed to the ridiculous one you seem to be using.

Fwiw I think it is entirely reasonable to have as a long term goal a civilisation that has negligible negative impact on the ecosystem, atmosphere, hydrosphere or even the contents of the crust. Obviously there is already an amount of land taken up but we can aim to stabilise that impact.

I think all conservatives want to keep things the way they are or even try and get them to be the way they were 70 years or so ago. Some fundamentalist conservatives might even want to start culling all introduced plants and even………..gulp………….animals.

Kind of weird that conservatives, in this country at least, are not at all conservative about the biosphere.