feplus

I think this is the difference: When on Normal, enemies are inclined to spread around attacks; this includes passing over a potentially fatal blow. When on Hard, enemies always attack the weakest unit and will never pass up a potentially fatal blow. I do not know how AI prioritizes targets, but once a target has been prioritized the Hard AI will focus on that unit. This makes Hard AI both more dangerous and more consistent. Another possible difference is that, on Hard, enemies guarding castles (the three tiles around the charge point) will move and attack after the boss has been killed. I can't remember if this is true on Normal. I have observed no other behavioral differences. Keep in mind this is anecdotal and may be inaccurate.

When you beat FE4 a new option appears in Config that lets you toggle between Normal and Hard AI. I can't find much info on what changes beyond the enemies becoming more "aggressive."

That's the issue: who is "we"? Informed, reasonable members of the public may be able to separate the extremes from grey area cases, but what about politicians representing the less informed masses and special interests? The question is whether you trust the government to wield this power responsibly. I do not.

It's a tough one. The problem with legislating hate speech is where to draw the line. Racist and homophobic remarks are easy pickings, but what about: * a Muslim who says gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? * a group of rabid pro-lifers carrying signs that say abortion is murder? * an atheist giving a speech about how raising children in a particular religion is child abuse? * "mild" hate speech? (eg. "I'm not sexist, but I think women are slightly less intelligent than men...") As soon as a government starts criminalizing hate speech, a precedent is set that opens the door for farther-reaching restrictions.

How tight are funds? I don't believe you can sell weapons while in the convoy so you might have to find time for units to sell unneeded weapons during battle. If you are intending to promote Linde early, the ring takes priority over the whip: Yumina promoting saves turns on Ch.11 whereas I don't see any places an early wyvern saves turns. Will definitely improve reliability however. I imagine the pegs are fairly decent indoors with okay stats and good weapon ranks (+Lady Sword), so improving stats will help there as well. This is a down-the-road question, but where are you planning to invest the Again staff uses? Also, would it be worth making a sacrifice somewhere and then reviving a unit with Aum?

I'm not qualified to give much of an answer, but the Wikipedia page is a pretty good starting point. If you get a chance to look it over I'd be interested to hear where you think US speech law gets it right and where it doesn't go far enough.

I wouldn't disagree about sociology's unreliability, but that's true of all soft sciences: dealing with human behavior and social structures, which don't lend themselves as cleanly to controlled experimentation, will produce less reliable data. I would still say the findings of hard and soft sciences are compatible. Science does not compete with religion in the way you are describing. "God probably does not exist because there is no empirical evidence to suggest this" is, in addition to a category mistake, not a scientific claim. It is a philosophical claim. Consequently, talking about which method is "more reliable" does not make sense. There is no competition between methods because they deal with separate domains of knowledge. If you want to learn about the empirical world, you would not turn to a theologian; if you wanted to learn about justifications for God's existence, you would not turn to a scientist. I did not "change" the definition of compatibility. I took the dictionary definition and replaced the vague word "conflict" with the precise word "contradict." Many disciplines conflict that we nevertheless consider compatible because the truth found in those disciplines aren't contradictory, and I provided examples of this earlier. The clock analogy is exceptionally poor: no one has suggested that mere existence is enough to make things compatible. According to your strawman, I would concede that science (which exists) is compatible with pseudoscience (which exists). Yet I would say no such thing. I have argued that science and religion are compatible because they: * use different methodologies and forms of justification * to study different types of knowledge * that are mutually exclusive That third bullet has been the sticking point. I believe everyone's made their position on that point clear and there is nothing I can add to this conversation that I haven't said already. There's been some decent debate so I hope others respond and make good rebuttals, but I am moving on to other topics.

In the very first post I made I acknowledged that religions wade into empirical territory, and here science can corroborate or reject such claims. This does not lead to contradiction or conflict. Any discipline can make empirical claims. Some will be true and some will be false. Religion making and promulgating false empirical claims is no less compatible with science than something like sociology making and promulgating false empirical claims. There are many obvious differences between your post and eclipse's. I will list some of them. You: * made contributions to the conversation * did not derail the conversation * did not question my character * did not question my religious conviction I have been respectful and have not ignored points unless I feel they are not relevant or have been addressed already. I have been happy to respond to overlooked points other users feel are indeed relevant. I am surprised by these reactions. If the consensus here is that eclipse's tiring hostility is not only acceptable but even appropriate, this is not a good place for serious discussion and I can find better ways to spend my time.

Because I said I did not feel certain points were worth responding to, and then responded to them anyway when prompted, eclipse is right to attack my character and religious conviction. That is not at all reasonable. @Phoenix I read your article. I think it was pretty good. 1. Theological arguments do not require faith. Simple example: atheists opining on theodicy. The compatibility of God and evil is certainly a theological question but atheist philosophers can make (and have made!) strong arguments on this topic without believing in the divine. 2. Non-empirical content is left to other disciplines because science only has the tools to deal with empirical content. It is an empirical method. Science cannot do philosophy, science cannot do theology, science cannot do literature. You say: "science conflicts with theology on the whole because its methods cannot be applied to study theological claims." Do you think science and literary interpretation are in conflict? What about science and philosophy? What about science and mathematics? These disciplines have some overlap in methodology but are more dissimilar than similar. Because the knowledge they produce does not contradict, they seem compatible, which is why I gave the definition I did. I did not address Makaze's post specifically because I believe I've covered his points in my reply to Phoenix. Please don't interpret this as me being condescending. As before, if there are points I overlooked you feel are relevant just let me know.

It is not condescending to respond to points I feel are relevant, especially when I am happy to respond to other points anyway if people ask. It is not appropriate to call my character into question because I am not "listening" (i.e. changing my mind over arguments I find unpersuasive).

eclipse, I want you to pause and reflect on what you've typed. You interrupted a relatively civil conversation to call me closed-minded. I asked you to please stop, as this wasn't charitable. You did not stop; instead, you escalated. You implied I was wrong and needed to be "taught." I pointed out, honestly, that this was itself rather closed-minded. You now have characterized me as passive-aggressive and called my religious convictions into question. This hostility is uncalled for. It totally kills my interest in this or any future Serious Discussion conversation. I will again ask that you please reconsider your attitude towards me, and if you cannot be polite then I would ask you not respond to my posts. I feel both are reasonable requests. Phoenix and Makaze gave good replies, so I will think on them and respond later tonight.

I did not feel the first paragraph was worth responding to. Since you've asked I am happy to address the points I believe are relevant: 1. Theological claims only require faith to believe. They do not require faith to formulate and examine. 2. Science does not reject faith. Its method deals in empirical content, so non-empirical content is left to other disciplines. The definition you've provided is no different from mine except that "contradict" is replaced with "conflict." Please explain what you mean by conflict, how specifically it differs from contradict, and then provide an example of scientific (empirical) and religious (non-empirical) knowledge conflicting.

I defined "compatible" earlier in this thread: "Both could be true without contradiction." You may be using a different definition of compatibility. I suspect this is so because when you say... it's not that science doesn't have anything to say on these types of subjects, it's that it cannot say anything about them. ...I agree with you, and have said this in my own words many times. Science cannot speak to the non-empirical, but this demonstrates compatibility (rather than the opposite) according to the definition I provided. I apologize for wasting eclipse's valuable time. Although I wonder why eclipse assumes I am mistaken and need to be taught by others. That doesn't sound very open-minded.

Let's not mock an entire discipline because you happen to be an atheist. At the very least theology is useful for clarifying theoretical details of the divine (its nature, operation, and consequences) even if the divine does not exist. I did not catch your edit. I would half-agree with what you say: science can investigate the effects of miracles and try to investigate causes, but when it comes to causes its investigations will be fruitless. The most that could be concluded is "No empirical explanation seems to fit" which is no surprise. I agreed with this earlier in the thread: "Miracles are not scientific (supernatural) but they have observable consequences (empirical). If a god suspends a natural law to perform a miracle, the cause cannot be understood through science. Scientists can investigate but will never "find god" under a microscope. The most they will be able to conclude is that an otherwise absolute natural law was violated in this sole instance." If a scientific explanation for the miracle cannot in principle be produced, I see no reason why a supernatural explanation is incompatible.

I am not lecturing you dondon! I am just unconvinced you appreciate why thought experiments work the way they do. For example: There is another way: assume a miraculous event happens in a thought experiment. You think this is circular. Why? "Imagine a god did something miraculous" does not assume a conclusion. It assumes a premise. Are you saying we are not allowed to assume supernatural premises?

You are conflating "miraculous causes cannot be detected by science" (true by definition) and "miracles are compatible with science" (not true by definition). It is this second claim that I am interested in demonstrating.

@dondon Thought experiments are not circular. Here is the difference: * Thought experiments assume one or more premises to explore conclusions. * Circular reasoning assumes a conclusion within one or more premises. If we're going to determine whether miraculous causes are compatible with science, we need to assume a miracle happens. We can then think through the implications of a real miracle and how science would approach it. We are not sidetracked by questions like "What if it wasn't a miracle?" because we already know the answer. This is why a thought experiment is fruitful. @eclipse I would caution against accusing others of being closed-minded. It adds nothing to the conversation and we can't know for sure whether people are willing to broaden their horizons. Better to treat those who disagree with you charitably. @everyone This is not a scientific issue. This is a meta-scientific issue. It is about whether science is compatible with another field of knowledge. Consequently, practicing scientists in this thread should not be surprised that their opinions have not ended the conversation. How much training do you have in theology or philosophy of science? Appeal to authority arguments work only if the the question falls under the authority's domain of expertise.

1. Occasionalism is an example of things "happening" without being observable, something you argued was impossible by definition. Our understanding of how things interact does not change, but there is a divine "happening" that allows objects to interact in the first place. 2. I am saying that induction, unlike deduction, cannot produce certain knowledge. 3. There are many alleged miracles. At least most, maybe all, are not in fact miraculous. But it is a stretch to say that a single miraculous event means our world would be "unfriendly" to science. Good science can make good predictions, even if a hypothetical miracle threw us for a loop. My point does not require belief in miracles. If a miracle occurred, its cause would be supernatural; science, an empirical method, could not speak to a supernatural cause; because science could not speak on its cause, that cause is compatible with scientific knowledge. It is not contradicted by the method.

Depends on what is meant by "observable." If we mean the five physical senses, there is no observable difference between the non-material and nonexistent. The non-material would however fit under a broader definition of "observable" (reason, intuition, revelation). Natural laws do not cause things, rather they are general descriptions of observed connections. They are natural laws because they describe the natural world specifically.

By "nature" you mean existence generally. By "philosophical cause" you mean a general cause (unspecified, could be natural or supernatural). There is of course a distinction to be made between the natural and supernatural. One is material and one is non-material. You assume otherwise and this is why your equations don't work. Observe how silly this reasoning sounds in a different context: Let s be shapes and t be two-dimensional. s = t and s = !t then t = !t Therefore all shapes are two-dimensional. It is circular reasoning.

1. You did not ask for "sufficient difference." You argued that if something happens, "it is observable by definition." Occasionalism demonstrates this is untrue. 2a. You did not address the metaphysical issue I raised. Is this question scientific? If so, how would science address it? 2b. Science does not produce certainty as induction is fundamentally uncertain. 3. The difference between validity and soundness is not splitting hairs. Cats being immortal is a fine thought experiment but does not produce useful conclusions; a miracle occurring is a fine thought experiment and does produce useful conclusions, eg. that science would have nothing to say about miraculous causes. 4. Science cannot speak to the non-empirical because it deals strictly with the empirical. I suspect what you mean to argue is that materialist philosophies have things to say about the supernatural, which is true. 5. I do not understand this point. If the possibility of miracles "destroys predictive power," how could laws predict the circumstances of future miracles? @Makaze By "philosophic cause" you are referring to a supernatural cause. You are claiming that a supernatural cause and nature "are literally the same thing." I have already pointed out that by "nature" you really mean existence generally, and that holds true here. Science does not deal with existence generally. It deals with empirical existence specifically. Science can indeed explain nature (an empirical domain) without explaining the divine (a non-empirical domain).

I am curious how science would stumble upon a natural law that involves divine intervention (a god's continual limitation of energy growth).

1. If you dislike that example, here is another: occasionalism. You might be familiar with this concept already since many prominent intellectuals, including DeGrasse Tyson, have publicly railed against it. It is possible that material beings cannot act as efficient causes despite appearances suggesting otherwise. So when a billiard ball strikes another and causes it to move, it is not responsible for this motion; instead, God intervenes and moves the second billiard ball in a predictable way. Let us assume occasionalism is true. This would not change our understanding of how objects interact and the cause would not be detectable by science, but divine intervention still "happens." 2. One can adhere to scientific and unscientific principles without contradiction, so long as the adhered-to principles are appropriate for the subject matter. Almost everyone does this. "The world exists independent of individual perception" is not a scientific claim yet almost everyone believes it. Why? Because it is a metaphysical claim, and metaphysics involves different sorts of justification and reasoning for a separate domain of knowledge. The same is true of religious claims. 3. An argument is valid if its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises. An argument is sound if it is valid and all premises are true. The purpose of a thought experiment is to produce valid arguments, not sound ones. 4. The "so what" is that earlier in this thread I was challenged about the compatibility of miracle and science. I am arguing in favor of their compatibility. We agree that science is not interested in non-empirical causes. It has nothing to say about them. 5. I am not asking you this. The thought experiment describes a physical law that holds true in all cases except one. If all observations fit before this miraculous event and all observations fit after this event, in what way could the formulation of the law be improved? You've provided the sort of answer I was looking for so I don't agree there's been any incomprehension. The "god constant" equation is a good attempt I think. The problem is that it is an unscientific explanation coated in scientific language. It asserts that c varies by an unknown amount at unknown times. There are no future miraculous events so there are no additional data points. In other words, the initial postulation of the natural law is true except for the sole instance it wasn't. It is an "absolute except."

Speech that incites violence is indeed restricted in the United States, although maybe not to the same extent as you'd prefer.

1. You misunderstood my example. A god creates the universe to look like it was eternal. Big bang cosmology would not exist in such a universe. 2. Again, science does not do epistemology. It assumes a particular epistemology, the scientific method. Non-scientific claims are by definition unscientific, but this does not suggest anything about the truth of those claims. 3. It does not matter that a thought experiment assumption is incorrect or debatable. The function of a thought experiment is to assume premises and explore conclusions. 4. Actual miracles are compatible with science because science has nothing to say about miraculous causes one way or the other. 5a. I did not say science claimed that bolded section. I claimed it. It is an assumed premise in the thought experiment. 5b. If that law is "wrong," please tell me what reformulation of that law would be "right." 6. I said "science enthusiast" because it is a broader term. The conflation of science and scientism is not unique to practicing scientists.