You're not making an argument though. If you'd like to debate you need to be saying something beyond "Waaah there's no debate going on! Waaaah"

Things aren't always what they seem my friend!

They are exactly how they seem in regards to this though.

Not quite as effective is very different from "proven false" though so "you'd" be moving goalposts.

Oh he's the teapot guy! Of course!

>Take homeopathy, for example. Is it reasonable to focus only on what scientists have to say? Shouldn’t we give at least as much weight to the testimony of the many people who claim to have benefitted from homeopathic treatment?

Yes it is. No we should not.

>That Bertrand Russell guy had some good thoughts on accepting unfalsifiable claims.

Please tell me he said not to?

No I am saying the odds are lower than they stated which is true.

I am talking about the odds of any given mutation being advantageous not the odds of any member of a species eventually getting a beneficial mutation. I have no idea where you got that idea.

Did I say it couldn't happen and forgot about it?

Did I say it couldn't happen somewhere? If it could not evolution would not work. What a strange interpretation.

Why don't they use XY? Is it just alphanumeric numbering starting with the A chromosome? How do they pick the order of the chromosomes?

The chances of a random mutation being adaptive is far far lower than 50%. It's more like getting heads ten times in a row.

No all genes are working against the force of entropy to exist. If there isn't a pressure keeping something from mutating like it being adaptive or changing it being maladaptive then it will eventually be replaced.

Even neutral mutations are working against entropy if there isn't a pressure keeping it around. Sure you could have a three generation neutral->advantageous or even a twenty generation disadvantageous->advantageous. In the same sense you could phase through a wall if your electrons all randomly lined up.

How different does a virus need to be for a vaccine to be useless? Or does a vaccine protect against all viruses a tiny bit?

No I don't mean to say polarity is spatial movement. Polarity is a change in the intensity of the electromagnetic field along a line over time.

However it's important to understand that photons are not localized until they interact with something. When they travel through space they don't have definite positions or momentums.

The solution to that is to explain fields not lie about the nature of photons.

>The question being, we're able to describe the physical wavelength in nanometers of these waves that apparently aren't oscillating in space so much as they oscillate between electric and magnetic fields. ...how do you assign a unit of length to that?

Okay I see your confusion. The electric and magnetic fields are overlaid on top of space so they are 100% physically oscillating up and down and side to side as they move through space. If you're talking about motion through one of the fields you're talking about that motion occurring through space.

After all a field is just a value assigned to every point in space.

Why not? Because you don't think they'd understand it? Because you can't explain it?

I'm struggling to imagine a good justification for, well, misinformation.

> but maybe try improving on it rather than just listing the definition and feeling superior.

I can definitely explain it better if you like.

Everything is energy so that's a pretty useless description. Plus photons are self-propagating oscillations in the electromagnetic field they aren't mystery balls of energy any more than any other particle is.

This is like food you have to "acquire a taste for".

I'll stick to enjoying things I actually enjoy instead of things I have to suffer through until they're good.

I have but it just goes in one ear and out the other ya know?

Roots; the answer is roots.

Sorry for whatever you stumbled on.

>If anything, it shows that words can indeed have special meaning to many people, meaning that extends beyond the boundaries of language.

The meanings of words does not extend beyond the boundaries of language.

> there are sound associations in Arabic that only make sense to Arabic speakers

Like words and their connotations? Yeah, I wouldn't describe those as something special and "greater" than the meaning of a word.

It isn't synesthesia; we just use words like sharp and flat to describe sounds so it's only natural to project that meaning onto a word that sounds sharp or flat.