Yeah, really. I find breast enlargements sad, pitiful -- on their best day. It's not breast. It's salt water or silicone. Furthermore, the common nerve damage that makes it so the lady can't feel things properly... that's just appalling; now you have fakes that don't even work other than to hold up clothes. I recognize in the abstract that people *do* like them, I just don't get it at all.
It's not a matter of not liking it when a lady gilds the lily -- I like evening makeup, lingerie, dresses, etc -- but damaging body mods just don't appeal to me on any level. Doesn't seem compatible with a goal of pleasure, and that's always been my focus.
How can someone be the best for civil liberties, but roll back civil rights to a ridiculous degree?
With regard to that, there are two distinct kinds of government interference with the citizens.
One is government stomping all over the guarantees made in the bill of rights. Paul was pretty clear that he was against this, period, which could have resulted in an improvement in civil liberties. We have a severe problem in this regard, and relief would be welcome, even if only in the form of the president lecturing congress and the judiciary.
The other is selected classes getting special attention, such as being first in line for college, home loans, certain states being required to submit election laws for federal approval, etc., and Paul was pretty clear that he was against that sort of thing at the federal level; which, IMHO, could have resulted in states that were radically different from one another WRT minority opportunities. While these things are distasteful in light of the assumption that we're all supposed to be treated equally, we know from history that if left alone, the population will not treat everyone equally, and so, again IMHO, these attentions ameliorate real problems; the overall consequence of Paul's stance here would have been bad.
The first is a matter of freedom and liberty; the second is a matter of additional government control, however well-intended. To resist both is consistent with a liberty oriented stance, but not, necessarily, consistent with benefiting the citizens.
because apple will ultimately rip support for snow leopard away from you, while at the same time breaking your applications.
Already happened to me; I bought Aperture, version 1, then upgraded to 2, then to 3. Then I bought a new camera, moving from a Canon 50D to a Canon 6D. Apple's support for the 6D only works under 10.8, not under 10.6, A large number of my scripts and such stopped working with my OS upgrade to 10.6.8 from 10.5, and although I've worked through most of that, I'm just not willing to do it again.
So I moved to Adobe Lightroom. Featurewise, it's a step down, but at least it works.
My next Macpro will almost certainly be a used one from EBay; something I know I can install 10.6.8 on and keep all my stuff solid.
I like the machines I own, I even like OSX at the 10.6 level, but Apple annoys the heck out of me.
McCain made himself unelectable when he picked Palin as a running mate. Then the republicans shot themselves in the foot by offering Romney. All the while, the republican congress was doing its best to give us as many reasons as possible to not respect the republican brand. Your convention cheated Paul out of his moment in the sun, insignificant as it was in the light of the political atmosphere. On the other side, Obama was offering healthcare to a bunch of people who really needed it and had a record of doing a number of other things people liked.
You had enough advantages among the swing voters -- particularly with those who don't care about the health of others, and the homophobes, and those who would declare a fertilized egg a "baby" -- to win. But you pissed it away with bad choices, congressional malfeasance above and beyond the usual, and a running mate as crazy as anyone I've ever seen proffered for office.
It's that simple.
Obama, for all his faults (and I could go on and on) still seems to me to be better than the alternative was. That was all we had to go with, you know. There was nothing "good" out there. There rarely is. Paul would have been best for civil liberties, but he would have rocked the economy, rolled back civil rights to a ridiculous degree, and put a bullet in what little progress we've been able to make with health care. He just wasn't electable. McCain might have been, until they inflicted Palin on him. We'll never know, now. The rest were clown-shoes-of-the-week, all competing with one another to see just how far they could shove their own feet down their throat.
Plus, they're all either pretending to be, or actually are, religious crazies. I honestly don't know which is worse, but both are really bad.
If -- somehow -- you can get the republicans in congress to act responsibly -- you know, pass laws, get rid of bad law, undertake some moderation of their fringe drooling, muzzle the idiots who keep saying batshit crazy things about rape and pregnancy -- you could still win the next election. The signs aren't hopeful at this point, but the American people have extremely short memories, so it could still happen. I would vote republican; all they have to do is convince me they'd do better for the people than the democrats. I just... don't see any signs of that right now.
And with a final goal of thousands of antennas collecting up to 30 GHz signals across nearly the full spectrum
Hmmm. Sounds like a marvelous database for us SDR freaks to troll through, big chunks of spectrum at a time, eyes on the waterfall and spectral displays.
All ya need to do is create a server that will supply a file that is a chunk-o-spectrum as baseband IQ data, and you'll likely have a whole bunch of eyes on it for you. You'd certainly have mine!
Many European governments are deep into repressive practices already. From suppression of Nazi paraphernalia to various modes of speech, they emulate the worst leaders of past repressive regimes in a misguided effort not to become like them. Pretty sad, really. Of course, I'd be more concerned about it if we weren't showing all the signs of repeatedly trying to go down the same path here in the US.
The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.
Maybe I can help you out. Works under OSX or Windows. Free.
I could even provide you with a recording of a portion of the AM band including one or more stations where Rush is afflicting the spectrum, so you could repeatedly hit the mute button, lol...
From such maybes come later conclusions likely a good bit more concrete. Exploration and the resulting science is a process; it's not very smart to take a point in midstream and bitch about it. Don't hold your breath, go about your life, and eventually you'll catch notice of something that wows you, or enables your technology, etc.
In her day, she was quite a beauty. The plastic surgery on the breasts later on was really sad, but hey, some people like that for some reason that's completely eluded me.
One of her interests is paleontology... that beats the heck out of a number of others one might run into...
As I said, you can find apologist statements. But in no way is this evidence of Einstein's support for Christian beliefs. Zero. He didn't support atheists, he disliked what he characterized, somewhat naively, as a denial there there could be a god, then claimed the title of agnostic for himself.
Unfortunately, there is no middle position called agnostic; you either believe in a god or gods, which makes you a theist, or you don't, which makes you an atheist. You may be very certain that Einstein knew this and was playing the apologist, just as most self-professed agnostics today do. They're trying to avoid offense; a sensible social strategy for the short term, but damaging to all in the long. In Einstein's case, it's forgivable because his contributions elsewhere were so large. In the case of the average confused person, it simply deserves correction: You're either atheist, or theist.
In the case of a Christian trying to pull the trick of assigning Einstein a similarity of belief, it's pure nonsense. He was very clear about it.
In the same way, science didn't progress except under Christianity.
That's simply wrong. Even were we to ignore the 17th century advent of the method itself (by the time science was formalized, there wasn't much of anything else remaining in Europe but Christianity... the later rising exceptions [Chinese and Soviets, for instance] made massive strides in science) and generalize as towards knowledge and technology, there were huge leaps by Greeks, by Muslims, the Egyptians, and the pre-scientific Chinese, just to name a few. Even today, we remain vulnerable to disease and disaster; science is not, at least as yet, a bulwark that defends civilization from anything and everything, including crazy people.
What we do have, however, is the evidence of Christians and Muslims today trying quite hard to repress science. They're failing, and I personally take that as an indicator that the tide may finally be turning from superstition to an tacit acknowledgement that reality is the paradigm that matters, where superstitious bunkum just cannot keep up any longer, no matter how fervently pushed upon the masses.
Well, that's good, as he stated unequivocally that he didn't believe in god.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
There are numerous apologist quotes where he works quite hard not to step on the toes of the religious, but the most anyone ever got out of him was admiration for the complexity and workings of reality.
On the contrary. I simply find it of no value whatsoever to concern myself with things that cannot be proven. For instance, were my existence as you propose, it makes no difference -- so I really don't care if that is the case, or not. It doesn't affect my life in any way, and therefore it has no value.
Descarte's "I think therefore I am" is utterly pointless. That kind of thinking is empty; it leads nowhere, proves nothing, changes nothing, gains nothing, informs no worthy further thinking.
As for science, no. The method is based upon confidence, not surety or faith. Science is a method that can turn left, right, up, down or backwards on a simple provision of evidence, or the failure of a test. It requires this, it doesn't avoid it.
My bedrock of fact is my experience. That experience can be measured, shared, compared, used as input to induction. That's all there is -- and that's all there needs to be. Furthermore, when these things are undertaken, more experience of the same quality comes my way. I don't need answers to unanswerable questions (no matter why they are unanswerable); I don't require answers to reasonable questions that don't affect me; and I don't see any value whatsoever in pretending something is grounded in reality when there is no indication whatsoever that is the case.
Maybe it's because science never really got a fair start, except for Christianity.
The suggestion of worth here is that were superstition (Christianity) not involved, science and technology would have progressed further, faster. Saying that Christians treated science better than, say, those who worshipped Zeus would have, doesn't mean that Christianity treated science well, or that it wouldn't have been better off without superstition in general.
Even today, the superstitious continue to try to set science back, from the content of textbooks to laws proposing ludicrous ideas about newly inseminated eggs. Scientifically speaking, we always would have been better off without the superstitious. It's true today and it has always been true.
You're quite right. It wasn't anti-science. Nothing so sophisticated. It was just (more) mauling of anyone who disagreed with the superstitions of the day, by the clueless idiots who held them and inflicted them on everyone around them.
Actually you do, it's called ethics and philosophy.
No, it's called superstition's insidious infecting of society with nonsensical notions based on nothing more than imagination.
Ethics and morals can, and do, exist completely outside the sphere of superstition. As for philosophy... that's the realm of weak thought. When something rises to the standard of evidence and falsification, it's not "philosophy", and it certainly isn't superstition.
How do you reconcile science (the "how") with theology (the "who")?
Theology doesn't in any way serve to explain or reveal anything "who-like." It's just superstition. Its trappings, sayings and special books are all of absolutely zero worth as there is no evidence whatsoever behind the various claims therein.
Science, on the other hand, does continually add to our store of knowledge, and that in turn drives our technology.
If I am adrift in a lifeboat at sea with two other people, one a scientist and the other a theist, I'm going to listen to the scientist and ignore (or perhaps eat, if it comes to that) the theist. In circumstances less dire, the basic sense of listening to the scientist and not the theist still holds.
However, there are other methods; they're not as effective, and that's why science is the preferred one, but they do produce. From outright discovery (find iceland spar on beach, observe light is yellow when oriented to the sun, blue otherwise... navigation tool!) to sampling (feed prisoners random herbs, note results) to guesswork (alchemy... doesn't work that well, but still produced knowledge.)
What's worth noting is that since science began to be employed as our primary method of discovery, technology has taken a huge leap, building constantly on the mass of knowledge thus gathered. Now it's like a raging torrent, more being discovered than any single person can keep track of by a huge margin, and it is still accelerating.
There may be a superior method to science, but we've yet to find it.
Is it bigotry to observe that a wolverine has bitten one's leg? Is it bigotry to recognize the role of religion in the burning of Giordano Bruno at the stake? Is it bigotry to recognize the role of religion in witch burnings, the inquisitions, the formation of blue laws, the repression of sexuality, 9/11, the destruction of the Buddha statues?
The wolverine may well be an expert in what it does, but that does not bring it into my good graces. Likewise, expertise in religion -- not about it, but in it -- is no place for someone to stand in order to garner my respect. Superstition in all its forms is poisonous to society, as the continual outbreaks of damage it does serve to confirm, over and over and over again.
You assign a worth to superstition that informs and controls what you think of as bigotry. Others have legitimate reasons to not appreciate superstition at all. Your assessment of this as "bigotry" is wholly incorrect.
Science *is* the scientific method. All else derived from it is either knowledge, or technology.
That's not to say you can't produce knowledge and/or technology using other methods -- not at all. There are a number of them that produce, though -- and this is a critical point -- we have found nothing whatsoever that produces nearly as well as the scientific method. That's why, when religion, basically the poster child for no method at all, is juxtaposed with a method, it is science that is used as the other pole.
Science gives us technology, medical care, and a handle on what reality is. Religion gives us (often great) architecture (though derived from technology), music and poetry, (usually really bad) law, and provides a power structure that, if the masses are dull enough, can be used to control society.
Belief without evidence could also be called a hypothesis
One could also say: Belief without evidence could also be called a psychosis. A worthy hypothesis will offer paths to testing, AKA to falsification or verification; because evidence can always be found for imaginings that are connected to reality. That's why science produces progress and technology (and it's also why religion just produces a herd mentality and nice architecture, architecture, mind you, that is backed by technology. Not "god."
Psychosis: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, really. I find breast enlargements sad, pitiful -- on their best day. It's not breast. It's salt water or silicone. Furthermore, the common nerve damage that makes it so the lady can't feel things properly... that's just appalling; now you have fakes that don't even work other than to hold up clothes. I recognize in the abstract that people *do* like them, I just don't get it at all.
It's not a matter of not liking it when a lady gilds the lily -- I like evening makeup, lingerie, dresses, etc -- but damaging body mods just don't appeal to me on any level. Doesn't seem compatible with a goal of pleasure, and that's always been my focus.
With regard to that, there are two distinct kinds of government interference with the citizens.
One is government stomping all over the guarantees made in the bill of rights. Paul was pretty clear that he was against this, period, which could have resulted in an improvement in civil liberties. We have a severe problem in this regard, and relief would be welcome, even if only in the form of the president lecturing congress and the judiciary.
The other is selected classes getting special attention, such as being first in line for college, home loans, certain states being required to submit election laws for federal approval, etc., and Paul was pretty clear that he was against that sort of thing at the federal level; which, IMHO, could have resulted in states that were radically different from one another WRT minority opportunities. While these things are distasteful in light of the assumption that we're all supposed to be treated equally, we know from history that if left alone, the population will not treat everyone equally, and so, again IMHO, these attentions ameliorate real problems; the overall consequence of Paul's stance here would have been bad.
The first is a matter of freedom and liberty; the second is a matter of additional government control, however well-intended. To resist both is consistent with a liberty oriented stance, but not, necessarily, consistent with benefiting the citizens.
Already happened to me; I bought Aperture, version 1, then upgraded to 2, then to 3. Then I bought a new camera, moving from a Canon 50D to a Canon 6D. Apple's support for the 6D only works under 10.8, not under 10.6, A large number of my scripts and such stopped working with my OS upgrade to 10.6.8 from 10.5, and although I've worked through most of that, I'm just not willing to do it again.
So I moved to Adobe Lightroom. Featurewise, it's a step down, but at least it works.
My next Macpro will almost certainly be a used one from EBay; something I know I can install 10.6.8 on and keep all my stuff solid.
I like the machines I own, I even like OSX at the 10.6 level, but Apple annoys the heck out of me.
And yes, Linux powers my servers.
McCain made himself unelectable when he picked Palin as a running mate. Then the republicans shot themselves in the foot by offering Romney. All the while, the republican congress was doing its best to give us as many reasons as possible to not respect the republican brand. Your convention cheated Paul out of his moment in the sun, insignificant as it was in the light of the political atmosphere. On the other side, Obama was offering healthcare to a bunch of people who really needed it and had a record of doing a number of other things people liked.
You had enough advantages among the swing voters -- particularly with those who don't care about the health of others, and the homophobes, and those who would declare a fertilized egg a "baby" -- to win. But you pissed it away with bad choices, congressional malfeasance above and beyond the usual, and a running mate as crazy as anyone I've ever seen proffered for office.
It's that simple.
Obama, for all his faults (and I could go on and on) still seems to me to be better than the alternative was. That was all we had to go with, you know. There was nothing "good" out there. There rarely is. Paul would have been best for civil liberties, but he would have rocked the economy, rolled back civil rights to a ridiculous degree, and put a bullet in what little progress we've been able to make with health care. He just wasn't electable. McCain might have been, until they inflicted Palin on him. We'll never know, now. The rest were clown-shoes-of-the-week, all competing with one another to see just how far they could shove their own feet down their throat.
Plus, they're all either pretending to be, or actually are, religious crazies. I honestly don't know which is worse, but both are really bad.
If -- somehow -- you can get the republicans in congress to act responsibly -- you know, pass laws, get rid of bad law, undertake some moderation of their fringe drooling, muzzle the idiots who keep saying batshit crazy things about rape and pregnancy -- you could still win the next election. The signs aren't hopeful at this point, but the American people have extremely short memories, so it could still happen. I would vote republican; all they have to do is convince me they'd do better for the people than the democrats. I just... don't see any signs of that right now.
Hmmm. Sounds like a marvelous database for us SDR freaks to troll through, big chunks of spectrum at a time, eyes on the waterfall and spectral displays.
All ya need to do is create a server that will supply a file that is a chunk-o-spectrum as baseband IQ data, and you'll likely have a whole bunch of eyes on it for you. You'd certainly have mine!
Many European governments are deep into repressive practices already. From suppression of Nazi paraphernalia to various modes of speech, they emulate the worst leaders of past repressive regimes in a misguided effort not to become like them. Pretty sad, really. Of course, I'd be more concerned about it if we weren't showing all the signs of repeatedly trying to go down the same path here in the US.
The worst US citizens are coming to believe -- and being quite up front about it -- that they have a right not to see and hear things they don't like in the public space. There could hardly be a more dangerous mode of thought for a country that supposedly honors freedom of speech.
Maybe I can help you out. Works under OSX or Windows. Free.
I could even provide you with a recording of a portion of the AM band including one or more stations where Rush is afflicting the spectrum, so you could repeatedly hit the mute button, lol...
From such maybes come later conclusions likely a good bit more concrete. Exploration and the resulting science is a process; it's not very smart to take a point in midstream and bitch about it. Don't hold your breath, go about your life, and eventually you'll catch notice of something that wows you, or enables your technology, etc.
In her day, she was quite a beauty. The plastic surgery on the breasts later on was really sad, but hey, some people like that for some reason that's completely eluded me.
One of her interests is paleontology... that beats the heck out of a number of others one might run into...
As I said, you can find apologist statements. But in no way is this evidence of Einstein's support for Christian beliefs. Zero. He didn't support atheists, he disliked what he characterized, somewhat naively, as a denial there there could be a god, then claimed the title of agnostic for himself.
Unfortunately, there is no middle position called agnostic; you either believe in a god or gods, which makes you a theist, or you don't, which makes you an atheist. You may be very certain that Einstein knew this and was playing the apologist, just as most self-professed agnostics today do. They're trying to avoid offense; a sensible social strategy for the short term, but damaging to all in the long. In Einstein's case, it's forgivable because his contributions elsewhere were so large. In the case of the average confused person, it simply deserves correction: You're either atheist, or theist.
In the case of a Christian trying to pull the trick of assigning Einstein a similarity of belief, it's pure nonsense. He was very clear about it.
That's simply wrong. Even were we to ignore the 17th century advent of the method itself (by the time science was formalized, there wasn't much of anything else remaining in Europe but Christianity... the later rising exceptions [Chinese and Soviets, for instance] made massive strides in science) and generalize as towards knowledge and technology, there were huge leaps by Greeks, by Muslims, the Egyptians, and the pre-scientific Chinese, just to name a few. Even today, we remain vulnerable to disease and disaster; science is not, at least as yet, a bulwark that defends civilization from anything and everything, including crazy people.
What we do have, however, is the evidence of Christians and Muslims today trying quite hard to repress science. They're failing, and I personally take that as an indicator that the tide may finally be turning from superstition to an tacit acknowledgement that reality is the paradigm that matters, where superstitious bunkum just cannot keep up any longer, no matter how fervently pushed upon the masses.
LOL. No, they don't. They say: "Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling"
Whereas I say: Religion is superstition.
But nice try, I'll give you that.
Well, that's good, as he stated unequivocally that he didn't believe in god.
There are numerous apologist quotes where he works quite hard not to step on the toes of the religious, but the most anyone ever got out of him was admiration for the complexity and workings of reality.
On the contrary. I simply find it of no value whatsoever to concern myself with things that cannot be proven. For instance, were my existence as you propose, it makes no difference -- so I really don't care if that is the case, or not. It doesn't affect my life in any way, and therefore it has no value.
Descarte's "I think therefore I am" is utterly pointless. That kind of thinking is empty; it leads nowhere, proves nothing, changes nothing, gains nothing, informs no worthy further thinking.
As for science, no. The method is based upon confidence, not surety or faith. Science is a method that can turn left, right, up, down or backwards on a simple provision of evidence, or the failure of a test. It requires this, it doesn't avoid it.
My bedrock of fact is my experience. That experience can be measured, shared, compared, used as input to induction. That's all there is -- and that's all there needs to be. Furthermore, when these things are undertaken, more experience of the same quality comes my way. I don't need answers to unanswerable questions (no matter why they are unanswerable); I don't require answers to reasonable questions that don't affect me; and I don't see any value whatsoever in pretending something is grounded in reality when there is no indication whatsoever that is the case.
Very, very badly.
More to the point, it's entirely possible to be a scientist with regard to one domain, and complete idiot with regard to another.
European, or African Jesus?
The suggestion of worth here is that were superstition (Christianity) not involved, science and technology would have progressed further, faster. Saying that Christians treated science better than, say, those who worshipped Zeus would have, doesn't mean that Christianity treated science well, or that it wouldn't have been better off without superstition in general.
Even today, the superstitious continue to try to set science back, from the content of textbooks to laws proposing ludicrous ideas about newly inseminated eggs. Scientifically speaking, we always would have been better off without the superstitious. It's true today and it has always been true.
You're quite right. It wasn't anti-science. Nothing so sophisticated. It was just (more) mauling of anyone who disagreed with the superstitions of the day, by the clueless idiots who held them and inflicted them on everyone around them.
Well, except that superstitious crazies can indeed inflict consequences upon us. As they more or less regularly do.
This is why "respect religion" is a dangerous and mistaken path.
No, it's called superstition's insidious infecting of society with nonsensical notions based on nothing more than imagination.
Ethics and morals can, and do, exist completely outside the sphere of superstition. As for philosophy... that's the realm of weak thought. When something rises to the standard of evidence and falsification, it's not "philosophy", and it certainly isn't superstition.
Theology doesn't in any way serve to explain or reveal anything "who-like." It's just superstition. Its trappings, sayings and special books are all of absolutely zero worth as there is no evidence whatsoever behind the various claims therein.
Science, on the other hand, does continually add to our store of knowledge, and that in turn drives our technology.
If I am adrift in a lifeboat at sea with two other people, one a scientist and the other a theist, I'm going to listen to the scientist and ignore (or perhaps eat, if it comes to that) the theist. In circumstances less dire, the basic sense of listening to the scientist and not the theist still holds.
Right: Sir Francis Bacon.
However, there are other methods; they're not as effective, and that's why science is the preferred one, but they do produce. From outright discovery (find iceland spar on beach, observe light is yellow when oriented to the sun, blue otherwise... navigation tool!) to sampling (feed prisoners random herbs, note results) to guesswork (alchemy... doesn't work that well, but still produced knowledge.)
What's worth noting is that since science began to be employed as our primary method of discovery, technology has taken a huge leap, building constantly on the mass of knowledge thus gathered. Now it's like a raging torrent, more being discovered than any single person can keep track of by a huge margin, and it is still accelerating.
There may be a superior method to science, but we've yet to find it.
Is it bigotry to observe that a wolverine has bitten one's leg? Is it bigotry to recognize the role of religion in the burning of Giordano Bruno at the stake? Is it bigotry to recognize the role of religion in witch burnings, the inquisitions, the formation of blue laws, the repression of sexuality, 9/11, the destruction of the Buddha statues?
The wolverine may well be an expert in what it does, but that does not bring it into my good graces. Likewise, expertise in religion -- not about it, but in it -- is no place for someone to stand in order to garner my respect. Superstition in all its forms is poisonous to society, as the continual outbreaks of damage it does serve to confirm, over and over and over again.
You assign a worth to superstition that informs and controls what you think of as bigotry. Others have legitimate reasons to not appreciate superstition at all. Your assessment of this as "bigotry" is wholly incorrect.
Science *is* the scientific method. All else derived from it is either knowledge, or technology.
That's not to say you can't produce knowledge and/or technology using other methods -- not at all. There are a number of them that produce, though -- and this is a critical point -- we have found nothing whatsoever that produces nearly as well as the scientific method. That's why, when religion, basically the poster child for no method at all, is juxtaposed with a method, it is science that is used as the other pole.
Science gives us technology, medical care, and a handle on what reality is. Religion gives us (often great) architecture (though derived from technology), music and poetry, (usually really bad) law, and provides a power structure that, if the masses are dull enough, can be used to control society.
One could also say: Belief without evidence could also be called a psychosis. A worthy hypothesis will offer paths to testing, AKA to falsification or verification; because evidence can always be found for imaginings that are connected to reality. That's why science produces progress and technology (and it's also why religion just produces a herd mentality and nice architecture, architecture, mind you, that is backed by technology. Not "god."
Psychosis: a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.