The votes are in and the choice is unanimous: the forum really is a circus and the members really are verbal jugglers and everybody really wants to keep it that way. You call your subject philosophy, but the only thing you tolerate is consensus. You all insist you don't want to stick to any hard meanings for your words or to pursue any particular conclusions in your discussions, because you don't want to be restricted in any way. No standards, and especially no excellence allowed. But then you got bent out of shape when I called you verbal jugglers and your forum a circus. Only one member took issue with the substance of my posts; he said "You're wrong!" One member accused me of being belligerent, as if it were my fault for provoking the ad hominem attacks. I'm not belligerent, I'm arrogant, meaning I'm right and I know it.
The conclusion, even though I know you hate conclusions, is that you have nothing that I want and I have nothing that you want, so there is no reason for us to seek each other's company again.
I can't imagine what you mean by "short range". Electromagnetism operates across the entire universe according to the inverse square law. You have heard of radio astronomy, right? And you have seen the pictures from Hubble, right? But I didn't say electromagnetism I said electric charge, which is according to the inverse, not inverse square. If this is your idea of good science then ... Oh let's see, I want to be polite here ... Nope, there is no polite response.
That is a very long book. I don't think you have had enough time to read it all the way through yet. There is much to explain, so it is impossible to explain all relevant points in one place. And you should remember that very little of it is known for a certainty. The translation difficulties are discussed in the text, along with the difficulties of assigning times and dates. For example, some of the stories are in languages that don't have past, present, or future tenses.
Sorry if my first answer seemed incomplete, I'll try again.
Lobachevsky found that the mistake in geometry involved a change of viewpoint. Prior to that, geometry was called geometry. After that it was called plain geometry, to distinguish it from geometry on some other surface. There are two other surfaces of interest, the sphere and the saddle. The saddle happens to be the variation that led to a new branch of math, which is the one that is used in relativity.
When you compare relativity to quantum mechanics or string theory or even Newtonian physics, you run into similar difficulties, all stemming from the differing viewpoints.
The problem in perdurantism is that they are still trying to sort out what the viewpoints are and which ones correspond to reality. (And in some cases reality itself seems uncertain!)
Ask any economics professor; he'll tell you which side he's on. The school will tell you who endowed the department. These things are a matter of record, they are not done in a corner.
Austrians say the market is driven by production, Keynesians say the market is driven by consumption. That is why politicians, Keynesians, always talk about stimulating the economy by increasing government spending, while Austrians talk about improving conditions to promote production.
I have fully explained my position about the voting buttons. And my advice is only a matter of convenience, so we don't have to teach the subject at the same time we are discussing it.
Ok, let's see what we have so far:
* Keynesian economics has a record of success, no examples offered, no discussion required.
* The alternative is "right wing economics that you support", which sounds like it means that anything I might say after this is pre-rejected. That is the big advantage to having cliche names for concepts; you don't have to think, just pick out a meaningless name like "right wing" and ignore it after that.
* I am accused of "lecturing", which I admit, and "must not speak outside their fields of expertise, which I deny. I am receptive to anyone's arguments if they are cogent and coherently presented. You are in fact misquoting and falsely accusing me.
* You drag in something off topic, something we have not discussed in context, and then offer another misquotation: the site you mention does not argue that, it hypothesizes it, which is a valid step in the scientific method.
If you and I are to discuss anything you are going to need to clean up your presentation. You need to get honest and you need to get in touch with reality. And you need to study up on the meanings of the words you use. You seem to have a habit of replacing meaningful words with emotional trigger words.
This is a fascinating subject. In fact, it is several fascinating subjects, each with dozens of internet forums dedicated to discussions.
"Consumerism" is a pseudo word that was invented as part of the confusion generated by the introduction of Keynesian economics to replace traditional (or Austrian) economics. These two schools use the same words to discuss the same subjects, but the Austrians test every concept against the real world, while the Keynesians turn those concepts sideways* to benefit political purposes. Politicians have followed Keynesian theories since the 1930s. Big bankers paid to place Keynesians in charge of university departments, and that is why all political advisers and news readers speak in Keynesian terms even though they are obviously speaking nonsense**.
*Literally sideways. Austrian economists use a "PQ" chart, labeled PRICE on the bottom and QUANTITY on the side, to illustrate how markets operate. Keynesian economists use the same chart but PRICE on the side and QUANTITY on the bottom.
**The recent "Cash For Clunkers" program was a clear example of Keynesian thinking: that if all the old cars in the country were crushed the country would be enriched by the cost of their replacement.
I can not recommend this as a topic on this forum until all participants have studied ECON 101, so they at least know the words.
Scientists date their discipline from Euclid and his book Elements of Geometry. The rather large number of mistakes in modern science are perhaps because few scientists ever took the class, so they are not aware of what is supposed to be the basic approach to their work.
Campanella, perhaps you have forgotten the topic. Here it is:
Science. Universe. These are real things, not arbitrary game pieces. If you want to play a parlor game you are free to postulate anything you choose. After all, logic was originally nothing more than a Greek parlor game. But when the discussion involves reality, you must insist that all game moves comply with reality. That leads to science, which by definition is knowledge based on observed phenomena. So anything based on a supposition is accepted only tentatively, as long as it can not be disproved. If it is ever disproved it must be thrown out. The downfall of much of modern science is that they fail to throw out suppositions that are disproved. And many philosophers waste their efforts wrestling with concepts that don't exist in reality. No amount of juggling words can excuse something that is false.
ETA: I must point out a misunderstanding:
I did not say the premises were false. I said the argument is not robust. That means it does not prove all cases.
I said nothing about where the rules come from. I said that is a separate process. And please don't try to name me as any "ist" because that implies that you don't want to think about what I say; just label it and let it go. (I have met people who said "Well of course you think that. You're a ___ist. All ___ists have to think that!")
"Never" was a poor choice of words there. I should have said something like "eventually not", since governments do quite often tolerate religions they don't control. But all governments eventually collapse, and bastardizing the religion is almost always one of the symptoms of the process.
Well here we have an inline example: the original message is not displayed because it got three negative marks, which are otherwise meaningless, but there is one positive remark which more than offsets the three anonymous negs. You see, I have to ignore anonymous negs because nobody can assess whether they were valid or not.
Ah, you missed the definition. Almost everybody does. The definition is moral=obeying rules. It has nothing to do with good or bad, right or wrong. Just obeying rules. Making the rules good or bad is a separate process, which is what the Ayn Rand quotation was about. Different areas will have different rules, regardless of what is considered right or wrong in your area.