great poll my atheist friend.
i am quite up-front concerning my faith,but i rarely speak about it.
so i think this a proper forum to maybe share a tidbit with you all.
i had a wonderful conversation with IamtheBlurr.he was respectful and curious so the conversation was well balanced.i shall paste my final reply to him.i will not post what he sent me (it is public) because i dont feel that proper.
in our last correspondence he had asked me a slew of questions in which i attempted to answer to the best of my ability.
here is that reply:

you dont ask the small questions do you?/grins
IATB:Why do you believe what you have faith in?
enoch:why are you here?for what purpose do you serve?what is the meaning of existence?
i am not trying to berate you with rhetoric.just giving you the scope of your question.you might have well asked me "in one sentence explain the big bang and its relation to gravity and magnetic fields".the reasons why i have faith are complicated as they are simplistic.grand as they are minute.
if i had to answer in a short,finite sentence.i would say because there is more to the universe than we can comprehend,and that we are a part of something far greater,more beautiful than our limited perceptions can comprehend.could i be wrong? of course,i have to leave that option open,to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible leaves a wide margin for error,hence the term faith and not "Know".it is also why i do not preach,or attempt to convince others of my righteousness.the closest i can come to explaining,and i most surely will fail,is that i have a sense of something behind the veil.it is not tangible but it is.it is etheric in nature..yet it is not.everytime i have found myself at a crossroads and attempted to control my destiny i met resistance,but when i surrendered to it,i was always led to the what i most needed and wanted at the time.
is that scientific? no.
do i have any conclusive proof other than anecdotal?no.
could it possibly be something "other"? yes.
if i would say yes to this,why say i have faith? because i have to leave that option open.just because we dont understand it now,does not mean mankind will not understand the mechanics of it later,and it is quite possible there is a totally scientific reason for it.
but if thats true,why say say you have "faith" at all? just because mankind can define or explain a universal mechanism does not detract from my faith.it only strengthens it.
IATB:Regarding philosophy, do you know the definition of the word “conjecture”?
enoch:yes,and it is a trap i try to avoid.sometimes i succeed,other times i fail.it is conversations like these that help me avoid such traps.it is easy to become comfortable when everybody is saying the same thing.challenge the idea and you may find yourself with not only a new way of thinking but a much crisper outlook.trimming the fat as they say.
IATB:That is to say, why do you believe what you believe?
Do you know of any beliefs that you hold which do not have supportive conclusive evidence?
enoch:just that we are a triune.mind=proven.we have one.body=proven.we have that also.spirit=unproven and no discernable test to date to even measure for one.hence the term "faith".
IATB:When I say, I don't believe that there is life on Mars, what do you think I am saying?
A) There is no life on Mars
B) I don't believe there is life on Mars.
C) Both of the above
enoch: B there has been no proof nor disproof of life on mars.there is conjecture based on certain enviromental conditions that may have,or has,supported life.but no actual proof as of yet.
IATB:What is a greater strength?
A) The ability to share ideas.
B) The ability to discern the truth of a shared idea.
enoch: this is a trick question for the answer is both.because they speak of a polarized polemic.one speaks of arbitrary sharing=good.
the other speaks of a personal ability to dissect and discern the shared idea.
both are good and have strengths.i think if you made A)the ability to share ideas without rebuttal or discussion.would have been a better statement for me to judge their strengths.

on a final note.understand that the way i perceive the universe and hence my faith would have had me burned at the stake for heresy a few hundred years ago.when i use the term "god" i am not referring to a masculine entity that resides outside space and time and watches over us as if we were a colony of ants.to dispense his wisdom and fickle judgment as a school yard bully distributes marbles.i use the term as a noun.my interpretation of god is subjective and is not based on any text or scripture.i adhere to no dogma at all.
to put things in their simplest form.the universe and everything within it..is god.
i am running out of time my friend so i will have to bring this to a close.
i hope i answered your questions satisfactorily and i hope the conversations continue.feel free to ask me more questions.i hope your car is coming along nicely.
till the next time..namaste.

you dont ask the small questions do you?/grins
IATB:Why do you believe what you have faith in?
enoch:why are you here?for what purpose do you serve?what is the meaning of existence?
i am not trying to berate you with rhetoric.just giving you the scope of your question.you might have well asked me "in one sentence explain the big bang and its relation to gravity and magnetic fields".the reasons why i have faith are complicated as they are simplistic.grand as they are minute.
if i had to answer in a short,finite sentence.i would say because there is more to the universe than we can comprehend,and that we are a part of something far greater,more beautiful than our limited perceptions can comprehend.could i be wrong? of course,i have to leave that option open,to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible leaves a wide margin for error,hence the term faith and not "Know".it is also why i do not preach,or attempt to convince others of my righteousness.the closest i can come to explaining,and i most surely will fail,is that i have a sense of something behind the veil.it is not tangible but it is.it is etheric in nature..yet it is not.everytime i have found myself at a crossroads and attempted to control my destiny i met resistance,but when i surrendered to it,i was always led to the what i most needed and wanted at the time.
is that scientific? no.
do i have any conclusive proof other than anecdotal?no.
could it possibly be something "other"? yes.
if i would say yes to this,why say i have faith? because i have to leave that option open.just because we dont understand it now,does not mean mankind will not understand the mechanics of it later,and it is quite possible there is a totally scientific reason for it.
but if thats true,why say say you have "faith" at all? just because mankind can define or explain a universal mechanism does not detract from my faith.it only strengthens it.
IATB:Regarding philosophy, do you know the definition of the word “conjecture”?
enoch:yes,and it is a trap i try to avoid.sometimes i succeed,other times i fail.it is conversations like these that help me avoid such traps.it is easy to become comfortable when everybody is saying the same thing.challenge the idea and you may find yourself with not only a new way of thinking but a much crisper outlook.trimming the fat as they say.
IATB:That is to say, why do you believe what you believe?
Do you know of any beliefs that you hold which do not have supportive conclusive evidence?
enoch:just that we are a triune.mind=proven.we have one.body=proven.we have that also.spirit=unproven and no discernable test to date to even measure for one.hence the term "faith".
IATB:When I say, I don't believe that there is life on Mars, what do you think I am saying?
A) There is no life on Mars
B) I don't believe there is life on Mars.
C) Both of the above
enoch: B there has been no proof nor disproof of life on mars.there is conjecture based on certain enviromental conditions that may have,or has,supported life.but no actual proof as of yet.
IATB:What is a greater strength?
A) The ability to share ideas.
B) The ability to discern the truth of a shared idea.
enoch: this is a trick question for the answer is both.because they speak of a polarized polemic.one speaks of arbitrary sharing=good.
the other speaks of a personal ability to dissect and discern the shared idea.
both are good and have strengths.i think if you made A)the ability to share ideas without rebuttal or discussion.would have been a better statement for me to judge their strengths.

on a final note.understand that the way i perceive the universe and hence my faith would have had me burned at the stake for heresy a few hundred years ago.when i use the term "god" i am not referring to a masculine entity that resides outside space and time and watches over us as if we were a colony of ants.to dispense his wisdom and fickle judgment as a school yard bully distributes marbles.i use the term as a noun.my interpretation of god is subjective and is not based on any text or scripture.i adhere to no dogma at all.
to put things in their simplest form.the universe and everything within it..is god.
i am running out of time my friend so i will have to bring this to a close.
i hope i answered your questions satisfactorily and i hope the conversations continue.feel free to ask me more questions.i hope your car is coming along nicely.
till the next time..namaste.

>> ^ajkido:
Um. But why was the answer wrong?


I feel this is quite a frequent offence of QI actually, these trick questions that are quite badly phrased. If the question was "at what temperature does water boil" then a correct answer is indeed 100 degrees Celsius (unless you want to go into the decimal points like conan did). The point that Stephen Fry was making was when Anders Celsius invented the scale he graded it in the reverse. That 100 degrees was the melting point and 0 degrees the boiling point. Shortly after his death the scale was then changed by other people to what it is now (100 degrees boiling) and that was what came out as the generally accepted scale and the one that's used today.

Some people might now say "oh but the reversed scale we use today is called the CENTIGRADE, while Celsius is still the one that he invented so if the question was 'at what temperature CELSIUS does water boil' then Stephen Fry would actually be in the right". A question of semantics, in many countries (maybe even most?) including Celsius native Sweden, the current scale is also called the Celsius scale and no name distinction is made between the original and the current version of the scale, and even in countries where a distinction is made Celsius is still the generally accepted name for the current scale among the population.

Then again I guess the show wouldn't be much fun if the obvious answer turned out to be the right one...

duh? other food that you dont have. like an exchange or something.. is this a trick question? is it going to be on the test?


what happens when you waste enough grain and water feeding cows you slaughter than it would take to feed the worlds hungry??..... what if people just get protein from other sources like nuts or smaller sustainable game?... what if meat becomes a luxury and we have to grow it mostly in a lab? Oh no your life would be over because you can't eat what you want! Kick your feet and maybe mommy will buy u mac donalds.

WHAT I TELL U!!!!

Well...You suck it up and eat what keeps you alive, whether you PREFER it or not. Most of our preferences are unhealthy anyway.... and yea, Otherwise you die. .. but you die anyway... but depending on whether or not you believe you live after you die, that may directly affect how you treat resources on earth. Which is why religion kills us all.

I'll tell you what i do know: I already like peanut butter and jelly.

Technology increases to balance the exponential numbers of resource takers. That's the bottom line: We adapt. Like we ALWAYS do. Life goes on... despite people's best efforts to the contrary.

Trick question...they all have the same god.

Hahaha no he just told me he was going and I saw your avatar. He's no rookie. His fam's been doing it for years evidently.

In reply to this comment by Gratefulmom:
Is that a trick question?

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
My coworker is going to a Grateful Dead concert tomorrow. Any advice for him?

Is that a trick question?

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
My coworker is going to a Grateful Dead concert tomorrow. Any advice for him?

Its a trick question. The answer is neither.

I value science because it provides me with reliable, practical information. Such information is useful for improving my everyday life; while unreliable or impractical information is at best a waste of time and a worst detrimental or life threatening—so recognizing and avoiding such information is important not only to my happiness but to my health and long term survival.

Science, then, is a way of filtering information. The internal mechanism, of course, is the scientific method. This method is important because it is the actual process which filters out unreliable, impractical information.

Strictly speaking, the scientific method is a list of best known methods (BKM). Over time it has evolved into this:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Each of the above eight steps also have best known methods (BKM). For example, the BKM for #4 (Experiment) include double blind groups and controls, while the BKM for #5 (Analyze) include statistical analysis.

“Science” then, is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through the BKM for obtaining reliable, practical information--steps 1-8, namely, information which has been obtained via the scientific method.

while “Good Science” is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through steps 1-8, while also utilizing the BKM for each step – such as double blind groups, controls, and statistical analysis.

and “Poor Science” is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through steps 1-8, without utilizing the BKM for each step.

What passes for "science" today is not science at all. Science today emphasizes "peer review" which consists of publishing articles in several journals and counting how many citations they receive. The presentation of experimental results confirming or refuting a hypothesis is only the first step in the #8 Retest, not the last. A lot of modern scientists forget that.

Here is a quote from Courtney et al in a response to "On The Nature of Science"

"At this point, is science really a powerful, objective epistemology for exploring natural law, or have we merely replaced one set of authorities (the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages) with another (the scientists of the 21st century)?

We must not replace experimental repeatability with peer-reviewed observations as the ultimate arbiter of scientific validity. Only repeatable experimental results qualify as scientific observations."

The knowledge of the Middle Age Catholic Church was based on divine revelation, and had no predicative power. It was viewed by the populace as authoritative because of the position of church leaders, and made widespread by their consensus. Likewise, scientists of the 21st century, in my mind, have lost their predictive power. They are no longer practicing science as it was or is intended. There is little emphasis on repeatability--all the emphasis has shifted to peer consensus. The only reason the general public believes the scientific consensus over any other is their position – not the predictive power of their models – and not unlike the Catholic Church of the middle ages.

The emphasis is supposed to be on the repeatability of results by independent experimenters, not peer consensus in "scientific" journals.

I'm surprised this got sifted as I was more than happy to let it rest peacefully in my PQ.

Actually, the "overacting or in-character" is one of those trick questions: the overacting is in character. I'm stepping on my movie reviewer soapbox for just a moment (hey, some guys know sports inside & out. I know movies.)

In the film, Glover's character, Layne, is your basic teenage slacker who goes to great lengths to help his "friend" John after he learns that John kills a fellow student. Layne's concern, while well-intended, is disingenuous and ultimately wasted. Keanu Reeves' character, Matt, points this out to Layne with "I know you don't really care this much." and that "you don't think things through."

And when Ione Skye's character mentions "Mission Impossible" Matt immediately starts humming the familiar theme. These kids have been raised to believe that if they act concerned and helpful the way they do on TV, then they may actually be concerned and helpful.

Credit goes less to Glover and more to the director, Tim Hunter, for crafting the performance of a kid whose motivation is to, basically, overact. Hunter's directing talents were last used on the AMC's Mad Men, another gem!

There's a good parallel story involving Matt's younger brother, Tim (played by Joshua Miller...now there's bad acting). Tim keeps picking on their younger sister by "killing" her favorite doll. In fact, the opening scene of the film shows him tossing the doll into the river (foreshadow alert) and in the background during this opening scene, we hear John shouting in jubilation at the river's edge, celebrating his own evil deed. Later, Tim destroys the doll's grave marker erected by the toddler, who protests to Keanu Reeves, teary-eyed, "He's killing her again!"

In a brash abandonment of symbolism, Dennis Hopper's pot-dealing character is named "Feck" for goodness sake, playing the only character who really cared about the girl he killed years ago. So basically, he's the only one not feckless. I always thought that was neat.

As you can imagine, I recommend this film as an excellent exception to the cinematic crap that the 80's produced.

Trick question. You can NEVER spot a REAL ninja!

I guess it depends on the specific case, but generally speaking I'd have to say yes, new channels should not be a subset of any other channels.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^flavioribeiro:
Could you give an example that wouldn't fit in the wtf channel?

I think this is a very good way to gauge if a new channel should be created. If lots of videos can validly be submitted into the proposed channel and not into any existing channels, then it's likely a good candidate.

Would you say the inverse of that is true? If lots of videos can validly be submitted to an existing channel as well as the proposed one, then it's likely not a good candidate? It's not supposed to a trick question (obviously some channels already fit that description, but that's leftover from collectives for the most part). I'm asking because I've known what channel I would create for months if given the chance, and it would definitely be a subset of another channel.

There you have it, these questions were extrapolated from a conversation (one-way) b/t myself and dotdude.....I proposed while looking over the ideas (stream of consciousness) that we simply number them and throw them at Mycroft-Linear thinker that he his, he treated it like a pop quiz, and quickly returned to his data crunching.

The trick question between 5 and 6, since there is no such citrus condition, mans you would not squeeze a lemon so hard that it would shoot juice errantly into someone's eye, that's good to know.

Don't know what yer missin',bird-fish tacos are special things...and I thought I was the only one that never regretted ordering the Chairstand, it doubles as a party harness, I love mine....

As for Faust?? Neither the 16th century alchemist, Johann Georg Faust, nor Goethe's tragic poodle-devil follower, wrote anything of note....Guess when you talk to mister literal, you better mean just what you say.

Ok, so I know the roast starts tomorrow, so I'll give Jurassic momma's boy, some room to wiggle and sweat.

paralell or straight? ummmmm trick question?