LMNO thought I should crosspost this from Facebook, so I am.
QuoteThe first conclusion of this essay is that many of us live in different worlds with different personal belief systems. And, although many of us believe that ours is correct, it is no trivial task to convince others. Once a belief system is developed, it is, almost completely, locked in. The term epistemic closure* has been popular recently. Each of these systems is self-consistent and forms a bubble of epistemic closure. When a person is in one closed belief structure, ideas outside of that structure just seem crazy. Within the structure, things make sense. There is logical consistency and no cognitive dissonance. Trying to believe ideas outside of a belief bubble creates creates ideational tension and is not stable.
The second conclusion of this essay is that most of our fundamental knowledge is not acquired by personal interaction with the world, but is delivered by experts. People cannot just call themselves experts, however, and be experts. The set of experts that Joe trusts has no overlap with the set that Mary trusts. Both Joe and Mary think that the experts outside of their bubble are fanatics, and, possibly, evil.
http://coronaradiata.net/2012/12/07/on-the-role-of-experts-in-creating-personal-belief-systems/
It was rather challenging to read this, because as a scientist I mostly take my map for granted. I hold strongly that it can be changed, but it is still true for me as it is for everyone that at least some of my beliefs are expert derived rather than experience. Strike that, most are expert derived. When I think about this I realize just how shaky my own beliefs are, so much more so than fundamentalists who are sure of themselves. It's not the fact that they can change that make them shaky, but the lack of confidence from direct experience. I may witness firsthand certain chemical reactions, but I take the rest of the expert advice on chemistry through extrapolation and consistency. Likewise for most other things.
Hmm, very interesting! I'm going to have to think about my belief system, and its malleability.
But, I think lots of people's ideas are crazy. If they had evidence, would I recognise it?
The second part brings to mind Yudkowsky's shoelace example. If the expert and you are rational folk who believe each other to be honest then the expert's belief is evidence, yeah? I don't quite know how you go about assessing whether an expert is honest, or whether you need a belief that if a great enough number of experts consider and support an idea that it's likely that it's true.
When I encounter something that is total bullshit and I know it I simply ask for five sigma evidence. Most times this leads to "derp, what's that?" but on at least one occasion in life I have been wrong and forced to reassess my paradigm.
There is no shame in being ignorant to a fact, just shame in being willfully ignorant in spite of fact.
Quote from: Pæs on December 17, 2012, 12:38:35 AM
But, I think lots of people's ideas are crazy. If they had evidence, would I recognise it?
The second part brings to mind Yudkowsky's shoelace example. If the expert and you are rational folk who believe each other to be honest then the expert's belief is evidence, yeah? I don't quite know how you go about assessing whether an expert is honest, or whether you need a belief that if a great enough number of experts consider and support an idea that it's likely that it's true.
The problem is when the concept of "rational folk" breaks down because people aren't all that rational. Even scientists.
And we do just take expert opinion as granted. I do it, you do it, everyone does it. Whether that expert is a looney or a respected scientist. The fact is, I feel a great deal of tension when trying to break out of my "bubble of epistemic closure", as the author calls it. I am not so smart.
I have extremely firm beliefs, and I do not consider myself a fanatic.
I do realize that almost all of the people that share my beliefs are exactly as described. Never trust an expert in an unverifiable system. They may not be evil, but they're DUMB.
As a general rule I try not to believe things that are not reasonably verifiably true. I think that my principles are pretty strong but my beliefs are getting less strong the older I get.
I tend to be skeptical of any answers that are too easy. Part of my worldview includes "if it's tidy, it's probably false". The exception being the Dunning/Kruger effect, which has never failed me yet. :lol:
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 04:00:07 PM
As a general rule I try not to believe things that are not reasonably verifiably true. I think that my principles are pretty strong but my beliefs are getting less strong the older I get.
I tend to be skeptical of any answers that are too easy. Part of my worldview includes "if it's tidy, it's probably false". The exception being the Dunning/Kruger effect, which has never failed me yet. :lol:
True. I'm a believer, I've said that before. However, unlike most believers, I don't feel the need to tell everyone all about it, nor do I think my personal beliefs grant me the power to tell everyone else how to act. I also think I believe in a very different god than most other believers believe in (Most of them seem to be worshipping a hateful demon of some sort, as Jefferson pointed out.). The closest I come to any of them would be the nicer sects of the Nazarene church, but even they have some things I don't agree with.
I don't particularly question my beliefs, because they are in fact NOT verifiable. This is why I don't proclaim them to be Truth. Just my own very personal beliefs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 04:00:07 PM
As a general rule I try not to believe things that are not reasonably verifiably true. I think that my principles are pretty strong but my beliefs are getting less strong the older I get.
I tend to be skeptical of any answers that are too easy. Part of my worldview includes "if it's tidy, it's probably false". The exception being the Dunning/Kruger effect, which has never failed me yet. :lol:
True. I'm a believer, I've said that before. However, unlike most believers, I don't feel the need to tell everyone all about it, nor do I think my personal beliefs grant me the power to tell everyone else how to act. I also think I believe in a very different god than most other believers believe in (Most of them seem to be worshipping a hateful demon of some sort, as Jefferson pointed out.). The closest I come to any of them would be the nicer sects of the Nazarene church, but even they have some things I don't agree with.
I don't particularly question my beliefs, because they are in fact NOT verifiable. This is why I don't proclaim them to be Truth. Just my own very personal beliefs.
Nothing wrong with that.
One of the reasons I can't get behind atheism is because they're all fired up about nothing, and intent on telling you about it. :lol:
Roger, that seems well stated, and made me think. thanks.
do you have beliefs that are unverifiable because you believe that verifiable truth is only a subset of the total truth, and you wish to believe as much of the truth as you can, even at risk of believing some non-truth?
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 04:00:07 PM
As a general rule I try not to believe things that are not reasonably verifiably true. I think that my principles are pretty strong but my beliefs are getting less strong the older I get.
I tend to be skeptical of any answers that are too easy. Part of my worldview includes "if it's tidy, it's probably false". The exception being the Dunning/Kruger effect, which has never failed me yet. :lol:
True. I'm a believer, I've said that before. However, unlike most believers, I don't feel the need to tell everyone all about it, nor do I think my personal beliefs grant me the power to tell everyone else how to act. I also think I believe in a very different god than most other believers believe in (Most of them seem to be worshipping a hateful demon of some sort, as Jefferson pointed out.). The closest I come to any of them would be the nicer sects of the Nazarene church, but even they have some things I don't agree with.
I don't particularly question my beliefs, because they are in fact NOT verifiable. This is why I don't proclaim them to be Truth. Just my own very personal beliefs.
Nothing wrong with that.
One of the reasons I can't get behind atheism is because they're all fired up about nothing, and intent on telling you about it. :lol:
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:29:34 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 04:00:07 PM
As a general rule I try not to believe things that are not reasonably verifiably true. I think that my principles are pretty strong but my beliefs are getting less strong the older I get.
I tend to be skeptical of any answers that are too easy. Part of my worldview includes "if it's tidy, it's probably false". The exception being the Dunning/Kruger effect, which has never failed me yet. :lol:
True. I'm a believer, I've said that before. However, unlike most believers, I don't feel the need to tell everyone all about it, nor do I think my personal beliefs grant me the power to tell everyone else how to act. I also think I believe in a very different god than most other believers believe in (Most of them seem to be worshipping a hateful demon of some sort, as Jefferson pointed out.). The closest I come to any of them would be the nicer sects of the Nazarene church, but even they have some things I don't agree with.
I don't particularly question my beliefs, because they are in fact NOT verifiable. This is why I don't proclaim them to be Truth. Just my own very personal beliefs.
Nothing wrong with that.
One of the reasons I can't get behind atheism is because they're all fired up about nothing, and intent on telling you about it. :lol:
:lulz:
It's true. :lol:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 04:14:56 PM
Roger, that seems well stated, and made me think. thanks.
do you have beliefs that are unverifiable because you believe that verifiable truth is only a subset of the total truth, and you wish to believe as much of the truth as you can, even at risk of believing some non-truth?
They are unverifiable because:
1. If God is everywhere, you can't go to a no-God zone to calibrate your instruments.
2. You cannot prove a negative.
Science and religion have no business mixing under ANY circumstances. The classic mistakes made are:
1. Religious people trying to prove God's existence. If you prove his existence, then you have no faith (belief without proof), and you've slain your own beliefs, and possibly your God. Way to go.
2. It's bad science to state that God doesn't exist, because you can't observe either God or the lack of God. The only truly scientific stand would be agnosticism.
Lastly, I have never made a conscious decision to believe. It's just the way I am. In addition, I am bothered by one thing, from a rationalist point of view. Altruism is known to be a survival trait, thus no beliefs are necessary...BUT: The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
that all is perfectly sound in my understanding.
i am curious about the lack of conscious decision in your belief, however. it seems out of character since you put so much emphasis on critical thinking and filtering out 'bad signal'. perhaps it is just not worth going through the effort of rooting it out? (i recognize that i'm possibly at risk of coming across improperly here, talking in text and all. just want to point out that i'm not at all intending any offense and please tell me if i sound rude by way of wording)
as for the last point, are you saying that appreciation for art points to intent in form? what about random traits? not everything in biology has to add survival value. it hardly seems detrimental. besides, i can see how it would arise as a survival trait with cave paintings depicting vital information. this is probably a thread jack though.
Here's where the initial (OP) argument first breaks down for me: "For each, the entirety of knowledge, as I described it, was passed down from people... they considered experts." Sure, as he described it. But that description is highly removed from reality.
The second break is, "Each can generate reasonably consistent descriptions of themselves, their world, and the universe." Except they can't. They can generate descriptions that other people may accept, but it's the same thing as Elizer's "Phlogiston" argument.
The third is, "Neither Mary nor Joe learned about their world through direct experience." Again, this is fundamentally not true.
The author is defining "knowledge" poorly. He appears to mean "things an authority figure told you that you don't have the means to personally adequately test right now." In limiting his scope to either science or religion, and in giving them equal weight simply because they are internally consistent, he fails to grasp the other things a person does learn from personal experience, and things learned by listening to some moron, following their advice, and surviving disastrous outcomes. *
Two conclusions are drawn from the essay. The first is that there is no cognitive dissonance due to the internal consistency. This appears to be a misunderstanding of cognitive dissonance, and also of the way consonance is achieved. Cognitive dissonance happens when you have two conflicting thoughts at the same time. This happens with all belief systems, since none of them can be fully complete (see BIP for details). The second half of cognitive dissonance is how the brain gets over it. In the ideal situation as the author has it, the religious mind will say "God did it" and get on with their day, and the scientific mind will improve their model, and get on with it. But if you notice, the total knowledge of the religious mind stays the same, while the total knowledge of the scientific mind increases. Because of the improved model, that dissonance will no longer happen, where it will continue to reoccur to the religious mind.
The second conclusion is that "most of our fundamental knowledge of the world is delivered by experts." But then he says, "People cannot just call themselves experts, however, and be experts." Which means he's actually saying is, "most of our fundamental knowledge of the world is NOT delivered by experts." From which I conclude that an effort should be made to see which of the self-proclaimed experts should be believed.
So, perhaps we shouldn't look at internal consistency, due to the Law of Fives (confirmation bias). Perhaps we shouldn't see which system has less cognitive dissonance (for reasons noted above). So let's see which system can predict future outcomes more accurately. That more than anything else should be your standard when you come up against "why?" questions. And I would say that if you can predict a future outcome with some accuracy (and not in hindsight as in "phlogiston"), then it's fairly safe to accept that framework of knowledge, even if you don't have absolute mastery over it.
However, the other flaw I see in this essay is that there is a binary accept/reject quality to it, whereas I would go "fuzzy" or "maybe" on it. Am I 100% sure that deep-space astronomy maps to reality? No, but I assign it a much higher percentage than I do to Astrology.
*He does clarify as an edit that he doesn't mean to give each side equal weight; however, once you adjust for that the argument begins to collapse on its own, which is probably why he didn't go back and change the essay, but rather contradict himself in the afterward.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 04:14:56 PM
Roger, that seems well stated, and made me think. thanks.
do you have beliefs that are unverifiable because you believe that verifiable truth is only a subset of the total truth, and you wish to believe as much of the truth as you can, even at risk of believing some non-truth?
They are unverifiable because:
1. If God is everywhere, you can't go to a no-God zone to calibrate your instruments.
2. You cannot prove a negative.
Science and religion have no business mixing under ANY circumstances. The classic mistakes made are:
1. Religious people trying to prove God's existence. If you prove his existence, then you have no faith (belief without proof), and you've slain your own beliefs, and possibly your God. Way to go.
2. It's bad science to state that God doesn't exist, because you can't observe either God or the lack of God. The only truly scientific stand would be agnosticism.
Lastly, I have never made a conscious decision to believe. It's just the way I am. In addition, I am bothered by one thing, from a rationalist point of view. Altruism is known to be a survival trait, thus no beliefs are necessary...BUT: The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
This is one of thse things I could walk around and mull over for months. :eek:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 05:09:42 PM
as for the last point, are you saying that appreciation for art points to intent in form?
Nope. I'm saying there isn't any evidence that I have seen that shows art appreciation to have any survival value, for or against. I can think of a couple of reasons that it MIGHT have helped (tribe cohesion, etc), but it's too widespread to be a random trait.
So for the moment, for the evidence on hand, it leaves the door open to intent in form.
And if you think about it, a God that instilled art and appreciation of art in humans is a God worth having around.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 05:21:04 PM
This is one of thse things I could walk around and mull over for months. :eek:
My father and I have been arguing about it for 20 years. :lol:
He's an agnostic, I'm a believer. We scrap like this all the time...But neither of us is a fanatic, so the discussions are interesting as hell. Our friend (my dad's childhood friend) was some sort of Anglican muckety muck, a bishop or whatever, and he took part in the discussions until the day he died. It was and remains a hoot.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 05:13:58 PM
Here's where the initial (OP) argument first breaks down for me: "For each, the entirety of knowledge, as I described it, was passed down from people... they considered experts." Sure, as he described it. But that description is highly removed from reality.
The second break is, "Each can generate reasonably consistent descriptions of themselves, their world, and the universe." Except they can't. They can generate descriptions that other people may accept, but it's the same thing as Elizer's "Phlogiston" argument.
The third is, "Neither Mary nor Joe learned about their world through direct experience." Again, this is fundamentally not true.
Thing is, everyone has beliefs. Everyone. And when dealing with things that are unverifiable, there cannot be "experts" (sorry to preachers of all religions and Pagan Elders everywhere, but that's the way it is). This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to religion.
And anyone who CLAIMS to be an expert on unverifiable things is therefore a BULLSHIT ARTIST. This is sometimes readily apparent (any history channel show on "ancient astronauts", for example), and sometimes not so apparent.
The acid test is this:
1. Are the claims verifiable given current technology?
2. Does the person espousing the claims claim to be an authority on the matter?
If the first answer is no and the second answer is yes, then the person in question is a bullshitter,
no matter what they're selling (including atheism). Except genuine Holy Men™, who have a special dispensation on account of we STATE that we're bullshitting, but that
bullshit is divinely inspired, so shut up.
If the first answer is yes and the second answer is yes, check the person's credentials.
If the first answer is no and the second answer is no, you're talking to someone in a bar.
If the first answer is yes and the second answer is no, congratulations, you're talking to the only honest man you know.
I agree with you, but the article posted seems to say that even if it's "yes" and "yes", and the guy's credentials check out, we shouldn't trust their knowledge, because we haven't done the experiment ourselves.
The argument that's being made is that in both religion and science, you're only accepting on Faith alone; you don't have direct knowledge. My point is that this is a false equivalence; the scientist has data, evidence, and predictive ability, while the guru does not.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 06:56:56 PM
I agree with you, but the article posted seems to say that even if it's "yes" and "yes", and the guy's credentials check out, we shouldn't trust their knowledge, because we haven't done the experiment ourselves.
The argument that's being made is that in both religion and science, you're only accepting on Faith alone; you don't have direct knowledge. My point is that this is a false equivalence; the scientist has data, evidence, and predictive ability, while the guru does not.
I have to agree with this.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 06:56:56 PM
I agree with you, but the article posted seems to say that even if it's "yes" and "yes", and the guy's credentials check out, we shouldn't trust their knowledge, because we haven't done the experiment ourselves.
At that point, the whole machine breaks down. This is what peer review is for. Not everyone is capable of reproducing experiments in any given field.
QuoteThe argument that's being made is that in both religion and science, you're only accepting on Faith alone; you don't have direct knowledge. My point is that this is a false equivalence; the scientist has data, evidence, and predictive ability, while the guru does not.
And the scientist CAN be checked out...Again, that's what peer review is for. Faith cannot be verified, by it's
very definition, ie, belief without proof.
I'd like to add that belief in the face of evidence that disproves your belief isn't faith. It's stupidity.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 06:34:50 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 05:09:42 PM
as for the last point, are you saying that appreciation for art points to intent in form?
Nope. I'm saying there isn't any evidence that I have seen that shows art appreciation to have any survival value, for or against. I can think of a couple of reasons that it MIGHT have helped (tribe cohesion, etc), but it's too widespread to be a random trait.
So for the moment, for the evidence on hand, it leaves the door open to intent in form.
And if you think about it, a God that instilled art and appreciation of art in humans is a God worth having around.
Whatever did that is worth having around. :)
And whatever did that is beyond what I can wrap my head around...which is kind of my definition of "God". Not the Big Gipper In The Sky.
So yeah, I believe in *something*. It's just bigger and weirder than what usually gets called "God" and it doesn't give a shit about Amurka
(TM) or who's banging what.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 07:11:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 06:34:50 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 05:09:42 PM
as for the last point, are you saying that appreciation for art points to intent in form?
Nope. I'm saying there isn't any evidence that I have seen that shows art appreciation to have any survival value, for or against. I can think of a couple of reasons that it MIGHT have helped (tribe cohesion, etc), but it's too widespread to be a random trait.
So for the moment, for the evidence on hand, it leaves the door open to intent in form.
And if you think about it, a God that instilled art and appreciation of art in humans is a God worth having around.
Whatever did that is worth having around. :)
And whatever did that is beyond what I can wrap my head around...which is kind of my definition of "God". Not the Big Gipper In The Sky.
So yeah, I believe in *something*. It's just bigger and weirder than what usually gets called "God" and it doesn't give a shit about Amurka(TM) or who's banging what.
Precisely. You sound like a perfect candidate for membership in Bubba's First Self-Righteous Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™. We need some new choir members...We lost Iptuous & family to Hansen. It's like losing PD members to Facebook, only it hits us in the collection plate, something of which we definitely disapprove.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 07:15:12 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 07:11:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 06:34:50 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 05:09:42 PM
as for the last point, are you saying that appreciation for art points to intent in form?
Nope. I'm saying there isn't any evidence that I have seen that shows art appreciation to have any survival value, for or against. I can think of a couple of reasons that it MIGHT have helped (tribe cohesion, etc), but it's too widespread to be a random trait.
So for the moment, for the evidence on hand, it leaves the door open to intent in form.
And if you think about it, a God that instilled art and appreciation of art in humans is a God worth having around.
Whatever did that is worth having around. :)
And whatever did that is beyond what I can wrap my head around...which is kind of my definition of "God". Not the Big Gipper In The Sky.
So yeah, I believe in *something*. It's just bigger and weirder than what usually gets called "God" and it doesn't give a shit about Amurka(TM) or who's banging what.
Precisely. You sound like a perfect candidate for membership in Bubba's First Self-Righteous Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™. We need some new choir members...We lost Iptuous & family to Hansen. It's like losing PD members to Facebook, only it hits us in the collection plate, something of which we definitely disapprove.
Count me in. HANSEN IS NOT GETTING MY SOUL, DAMMIT
hey now!
i happen to have a syncretic pantheistic belief structure in which hansen is only one sainted entity.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 07:36:08 PM
hey now!
i happen to have a syncretic pantheistic belief structure in which hansen is only one sainted entity.
I shudder to think WHAT the other ones are, given that.
Spiro Agnew? Roy Cohn?
James Hetfield?
it's is perhaps far too hippy and trippy for your sensibilities. they're all saints. (pantheistic and all) just some of them i get to arbitrarily put an 'especially' tag on.
like Leon Redbone.
i had to look up Hetfield. he doesn't get an 'especially'.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 08:23:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 08:17:49 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 08:04:22 PM
Leon Redbone.
Okay, I guess I'll let you live.
that earns you an 'especially'.
FORGET ABOUT YOUR TROUBLES,
YOU'RE DOING FINE...
\
:walken:
LEAVE YOUR CARES AND WORRIES
FAR BEHIND...
\
:mad:
AND RELAX!
\
:madbanana:
:lol:
i love it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 06:56:56 PM
I agree with you, but the article posted seems to say that even if it's "yes" and "yes", and the guy's credentials check out, we shouldn't trust their knowledge, because we haven't done the experiment ourselves.
The argument that's being made is that in both religion and science, you're only accepting on Faith alone; you don't have direct knowledge. My point is that this is a false equivalence; the scientist has data, evidence, and predictive ability, while the guru does not.
No, I think what the author was pointing out is that there are a large number of things we know, individually, that are received from experts but not individually tested. I believe quantum electrodynamics works as Feynman said, but I can only take his word for it and see that it is somehow internally consistent with what happens around me, because I haven't tested it myself. And there is either a biting anxiety or a backpedal whenever I think about this, because I am like everyone else in that I receive most of my knowledge from experts.
But considering this thread unrolled into the familiar "atheism sucks" rather than discussing this particular kind of cognitive dissonance, I'll pass on the rest.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on December 17, 2012, 10:33:25 PM
But considering this thread unrolled into the familiar "atheism sucks" rather than discussing this particular kind of cognitive dissonance, I'll pass on the rest.
EDIT: Removed initial reaction. If you want a split, say so. Quit your fucking whining.
TGRR,
Enough is fucking enough.
I feel that I'm not fully appreciating the concern that having knowledge you haven't based on direct experience is causing you.
I don't have time to fully recreate the experiments which led to the knowledge that future experiments will be based on. I have to outsource my truth-finding to others.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on December 17, 2012, 03:41:07 PM
The problem is when the concept of "rational folk" breaks down because people aren't all that rational. Even scientists.
And we do just take expert opinion as granted. I do it, you do it, everyone does it. Whether that expert is a looney or a respected scientist. The fact is, I feel a great deal of tension when trying to break out of my "bubble of epistemic closure", as the author calls it. I am not so smart.
I feel like we compensate here by having peer review. If you don't know that the expert can be trusted, you need to believe that the systems we have in place to test their beliefs are capable of determining their validity.
I don't believe that quantum electrodynamics works as Feynman said but I do believe, because it appears that the scientific community believes, that Feynman's description is the best description we currently have. I don't think it's a matter of pondering it for a moment to make sure it's not totally out of whack, then shrugging and nodding a casual "whatever you say, Feynman."
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on December 17, 2012, 10:30:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 06:56:56 PM
I agree with you, but the article posted seems to say that even if it's "yes" and "yes", and the guy's credentials check out, we shouldn't trust their knowledge, because we haven't done the experiment ourselves.
The argument that's being made is that in both religion and science, you're only accepting on Faith alone; you don't have direct knowledge. My point is that this is a false equivalence; the scientist has data, evidence, and predictive ability, while the guru does not.
No, I think what the author was pointing out is that there are a large number of things we know, individually, that are received from experts but not individually tested. I believe quantum electrodynamics works as Feynman said, but I can only take his word for it and see that it is somehow internally consistent with what happens around me, because I haven't tested it myself. And there is either a biting anxiety or a backpedal whenever I think about this, because I am like everyone else in that I receive most of my knowledge from experts.
I guess it comes down to trust and credibility. Is it credible to believe that the entire academic system is built to perpetuate unverified, unverifiable information... the exact opposite of what it was purportedly designed to do? Is that what your personal experience with academia tells you?
I see what the author was pointing out, but I agree with LMNO that the analogy is so flawed as to be virtually meaningless.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on December 17, 2012, 10:33:25 PM
But considering this thread unrolled into the familiar "atheism sucks" rather than discussing this particular kind of cognitive dissonance, I'll pass on the rest.
:crybaby:
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on December 17, 2012, 10:33:25 PM
But considering this thread unrolled into the familiar "atheism sucks" rather than discussing this particular kind of cognitive dissonance, I'll pass on the rest.
:crybaby:
See, he KNEW you'd act like that. :lulz:
I don't know what to say other than that I can't address the cognitive dissonance Kai mentioned because I don't experience it. I don't even really understand it. The reason I don't experience that cognitive dissonance is because, while I cannot personally perform the experiments and see the results that prove the explanations I accept from scientific experts, I can and do experience the world in a way that is consistent with scientific method, and that experience gives me tangible evidence that science and the scientific method are valid and trustworthy.
Whereas, on the other hand, I have no tangible evidence at all that some guy in a very tall hat is communicating directly with a disembodied all-powerful entity.
In addition, I observe that while even highly-regarded religious leaders rarely agree with one another about that which they claim to be experts in, which in my opinion decreases their plausibility, scientists, by and large, do tend to agree with one another, and where there are disputes, it is widely agreed that additional information will resolve the dispute. This trend toward consensus increases the plausibility of scientific experts. Furthermore, I observe that in order for something to be accepted as fact in science, it must fit cohesively with everything else already known about how that field of study works; contradictory information typically invalidates a hypothesis. This consistency increases the plausibility of highly-regarded scientific experts.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:43:40 AM
I don't know what to say other than that I can't address the cognitive dissonance Kai mentioned because I don't experience it. I don't even really understand it. The reason I don't experience that cognitive dissonance is because, while I cannot personally perform the experiments and see the results that prove the explanations I accept from scientific experts, I can and do experience the world in a way that is consistent with scientific method, and that experience gives me tangible evidence that science and the scientific method are valid and trustworthy.
Whereas, on the other hand, I have no tangible evidence at all that some guy in a very tall hat is communicating directly with a disembodied all-powerful entity.
In addition, I observe that while even highly-regarded religious leaders rarely agree with one another about that which they claim to be experts in, which in my opinion decreases their plausibility, scientists, by and large, do tend to agree with one another, and where there are disputes, it is widely agreed that additional information will resolve the dispute. This trend toward consensus increases the plausibility of scientific experts. Furthermore, I observe that in order for something to be accepted as fact in science, it must fit cohesively with everything else already known about how that field of study works; contradictory information typically invalidates a hypothesis. This consistency increases the plausibility of highly-regarded scientific experts.
This is what I meant when I said whatever I said.
edit at 1:48 tomorrow? slow count to 9
Economists are "expects" who frequently use highly sophisticated mathematical models and predictions about the global economy, which inform journalists, bureaucrats, businessmen and elected politicians in their decision making. They are also very frequently wrong.
Military strategists are often highly trained experts, with backgrounds in logistics and operations plannings. Using sophisticated statistical techniques, officers calculate feedback loops to help direct bombing campaigns and targeted strikes against designated enemies and strategic assets. And yet wars frequently devolve into a stalemate of low-level counter-counter-counter-counter-insurgency, which no-one wins until one side is tired enough to retreat.
The intelligence community is made up of career professionals with background historical, cultural, linguistic, "economic", "strategic" and political expertise in the nations they are studying. They use high-tech and sophisticated tools and techniques to verify information and seek out new sources, and even more sophisticated programs to try and model the short and long-term behaviour of regimes and other influential actors. And yet they are consistently duped, either by their own political leadership or by outsiders with an agenda.
A lot of times, these "experts", in addition to academic consultants, are hired by various companies, government bodies, media outlets and so on. They contribute their dubious knowledge to everyone else via articles, television programs, books, talks and so on. Often the success of such individuals is unrelated to their performance at their job, and is more a matter of marketing than anything else. Soundbites. Who can control the media narrative within a given timeframe. Etc.
Our society is geared towards respecting the knowledge of such experts, despite their continued failures. Books like "Think Like an Economist" are bestsellers, just after an economic downturns caused by people thinking too much like economists instead of sensible people confronted with a system too complex for them to understand. Idiot savants like Nate Silver are idolized for being able to use a pocket calculator and completely ignore the wider political context of what they are discussing ("voter suppression will only affect 2% of the total vote and so is not important"). Even more insidiously, there has been the rise of the "generalized expert", wonks like Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesias who, despite having no actual expertise in what they are discussing, believe themselves to be experts at being experts, and so argue with people who have decades of experience in healthcare, foreign policy or housing, via a blinding torrent of bullshit graphs and half-assed statistics. Unfortunately, what these people are really good at are at generating clicks and moved copy, so their editors don't especially care whether they are right or wrong.
What this adds up to is a generalized "intellectual" climate of half-true theories being taken as gospel, of lies masquerading as truth and people with the best rationalizations of why they were wrong getting a large say in how to fuck up the next Grand Project. It is best to think of such people as part of an intellectual cartel of mediocrity.
As Diego Gambetta points out in his book on criminal communication, such cartels are popular in Italian higher education, and presumably elsewhere too. Committees select the chairs, not academic credit. Chairs and positions are traded as favours between those who sit on the committees, "you give my former student a job and I'll owe you something down the line". Interestingly, most of these "academic barons", as they are known, are of poor academic quality. They edit volumes, write introductions and...dont do much of anything else. The research they do return is shoddy, and their quality of thinking is, at best, questionable. Naturally, there are reasons for this, to do with the nature of cartels and criminal incompetence. Each academic baron is reliant on a system of credit and debt to the other barons. A sufficiently talented researcher, however, is a threat, because he does not need favours to get ahead, and will not be in anyone's debt. He is not controllable, and so is not awarded places within the Italian academic system.
As such, the best are excluded from the academic climate, while the mediocre and lacklustre prosper, and have great influence. They are considered "experts" and so courted by the above groups named, while their "expertise" is mostly in appearing like an expert, advancing their own agenda and doing as little work as possible. Their influence on what people believe, however, cannot be understated.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 10:29:55 AM
Economists are "expects" who frequently use highly sophisticated mathematical models and predictions about the global economy, which inform journalists, bureaucrats, businessmen and elected politicians in their decision making. They are also very frequently wrong.
Military strategists are often highly trained experts, with backgrounds in logistics and operations plannings. Using sophisticated statistical techniques, officers calculate feedback loops to help direct bombing campaigns and targeted strikes against designated enemies and strategic assets. And yet wars frequently devolve into a stalemate of low-level counter-counter-counter-counter-insurgency, which no-one wins until one side is tired enough to retreat.
The intelligence community is made up of career professionals with background historical, cultural, linguistic, "economic", "strategic" and political expertise in the nations they are studying. They use high-tech and sophisticated tools and techniques to verify information and seek out new sources, and even more sophisticated programs to try and model the short and long-term behaviour of regimes and other influential actors. And yet they are consistently duped, either by their own political leadership or by outsiders with an agenda.
A lot of times, these "experts", in addition to academic consultants, are hired by various companies, government bodies, media outlets and so on. They contribute their dubious knowledge to everyone else via articles, television programs, books, talks and so on. Often the success of such individuals is unrelated to their performance at their job, and is more a matter of marketing than anything else. Soundbites. Who can control the media narrative within a given timeframe. Etc.
Our society is geared towards respecting the knowledge of such experts, despite their continued failures. Books like "Think Like an Economist" are bestsellers, just after an economic downturns caused by people thinking too much like economists instead of sensible people confronted with a system too complex for them to understand. Idiot savants like Nate Silver are idolized for being able to use a pocket calculator and completely ignore the wider political context of what they are discussing ("voter suppression will only affect 2% of the total vote and so is not important"). Even more insidiously, there has been the rise of the "generalized expert", wonks like Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesias who, despite having no actual expertise in what they are discussing, believe themselves to be experts at being experts, and so argue with people who have decades of experience in healthcare, foreign policy or housing, via a blinding torrent of bullshit graphs and half-assed statistics. Unfortunately, what these people are really good at are at generating clicks and moved copy, so their editors don't especially care whether they are right or wrong.
What this adds up to is a generalized "intellectual" climate of half-true theories being taken as gospel, of lies masquerading as truth and people with the best rationalizations of why they were wrong getting a large say in how to fuck up the next Grand Project. It is best to think of such people as part of an intellectual cartel of mediocrity.
As Diego Gambetta points out in his book on criminal communication, such cartels are popular in Italian higher education, and presumably elsewhere too. Committees select the chairs, not academic credit. Chairs and positions are traded as favours between those who sit on the committees, "you give my former student a job and I'll owe you something down the line". Interestingly, most of these "academic barons", as they are known, are of poor academic quality. They edit volumes, write introductions and...dont do much of anything else. The research they do return is shoddy, and their quality of thinking is, at best, questionable. Naturally, there are reasons for this, to do with the nature of cartels and criminal incompetence. Each academic baron is reliant on a system of credit and debt to the other barons. A sufficiently talented researcher, however, is a threat, because he does not need favours to get ahead, and will not be in anyone's debt. He is not controllable, and so is not awarded places within the Italian academic system.
As such, the best are excluded from the academic climate, while the mediocre and lacklustre prosper, and have great influence. They are considered "experts" and so courted by the above groups named, while their "expertise" is mostly in appearing like an expert, advancing their own agenda and doing as little work as possible. Their influence on what people believe, however, cannot be understated.
I fully agree with this message. And would add that "academic climate" by and large equals "scientific community".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 06:34:50 PM
I can think of a couple of reasons that it MIGHT have helped (tribe cohesion, etc), but it's too widespread to be a random trait.
I think actually the whole of the answer you need is in there. (Malinowski and Fritz Pearls on ritual) ritual is the grease of societies (from tribe to fractally organised megapopulation), social evolution (the evolution of social entities) has been accelerating rapidly for about 12 thousand years, the group organism with the better grease gets to survive. Ritual is the source of all appreciation of art. Appreciation of art is an acquired trait in human individuals (concept of beauty is dependent on culture). Also, the survival traits of human individuals and human societies can and do diverge - essentially, that is the fact whose disasterous consequences threaten us all. I don't see how that's not enough. If you think it's not enough, can you explain why?
I was going to post about what people were "experts" in with regards to the OP. That is, the priest is an expert in the internal game rules of a lifestyle based upon a book. The scientist is an expert in observing and predicting the behavior of the universe. So, I wouldn't rely on the priest to tell me about the nature of the universe, and I wouldn't trust the scientist to tell me how any particular God wants me to behave.
But then Cain's post just kind of blew me away. Nicely put, sir.
I really liked your post, Cain, but I also want to point out the great divide between social science and physical science. Economics is a social science, and a relatively new one at that, with a lot of room for error. I have to admit that even as a budding social scientist myself, I don't think of social sciences when I think "scientific method", simply because they're still too wiggly.
Sure.
But the existence of academic cartels even within the hard sciences, and these cartels being aligned with media personalities and end up promoting the same mediocrity seen within the social sciences isn't too impossible. There would be more pushback, because the facts are more readily available, but they are mostly unaccessible to those outside of those sciences because they don't have the necessary background or training to fully understand the terms of the debate.
Not to mention even scientists can fall prey to hearing something and internalizing it without actually verifying it first. The placebo effect, for example, was widely believed to have an effect on 1/3 patients. This number was based off a single experiment done in the 1950s, which was then repeatedly cited by the academic community without it actually being verified. Two large-scale meta-experiments showed that this number was....a little optimistic, to put it mildly. But the number is still cited to this day, especially in the media.
belief = trap.
OP illustrates this perfectly but still nobody noticed. Instead the impetus is - "well if I can't trust experts where should I get my beliefs from?"
Wrong question!
Beliefs aren't something you should be collecting. They're dumb fucking shit that you should be purging. Hunt them down. Annihilate them. Replace them with models that may be upgraded given better information.
Even fucking science, which does it's best not to be a belief system, suffers because of this innate human obsession with believing things. A theory gets made and tested and proven and this is good. Then another theory is piggybacked or dovetailed into that first one. Repeat a couple of times and suddenly everyone starts believing in the original theory and, at that point it's just as likely to hinder progress as to assist. This is a thorn in the side of an otherwise really good system.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 19, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
belief = trap.
OP illustrates this perfectly but still nobody noticed. Instead the impetus is - "well if I can't trust experts where should I get my beliefs from?"
Wrong question!
Beliefs aren't something you should be collecting. They're dumb fucking shit that you should be purging. Hunt them down. Annihilate them. Replace them with models that may be upgraded given better information.
Even fucking science, which does it's best not to be a belief system, suffers because of this innate human obsession with believing things. A theory gets made and tested and proven and this is good. Then another theory is piggybacked or dovetailed into that first one. Repeat a couple of times and suddenly everyone starts believing in the original theory and, at that point it's just as likely to hinder progress as to assist. This is a thorn in the side of an otherwise really good system.
Well, there's beliefs and there's beliefs. It is absolutely impossible not to gather and maintain some amount of beliefs.
There's even a place for them in physics. For example, the math is quite clear on what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole...But you can't LOOK to verify your model.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 04:04:23 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 19, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
belief = trap.
OP illustrates this perfectly but still nobody noticed. Instead the impetus is - "well if I can't trust experts where should I get my beliefs from?"
Wrong question!
Beliefs aren't something you should be collecting. They're dumb fucking shit that you should be purging. Hunt them down. Annihilate them. Replace them with models that may be upgraded given better information.
Even fucking science, which does it's best not to be a belief system, suffers because of this innate human obsession with believing things. A theory gets made and tested and proven and this is good. Then another theory is piggybacked or dovetailed into that first one. Repeat a couple of times and suddenly everyone starts believing in the original theory and, at that point it's just as likely to hinder progress as to assist. This is a thorn in the side of an otherwise really good system.
Well, there's beliefs and there's beliefs. It is absolutely impossible not to gather and maintain some amount of beliefs.
There's even a place for them in physics. For example, the math is quite clear on what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole...But you can't LOOK to verify your model.
I tend to downgrade ideological beliefs (things are wrong, etc..) to opinions. Makes it easier for me to deal with people believing the opposite. I'm much more open to changing an opinion. My brain seems to be hardwired to protect beliefs on a whole other level which is why, if I find one lurking in the quagmire of bizarre and disturbing shit that comprises my psyche, I put my efforts into destroying it completely, rather than pointing it somewhere different and, potentially, also wrong.
Sciency stuff I don't tend to think of as believing, either. In the absence of an alternative explanation it's how it seems. Historically, some of the coolest science things have happened by challenging a scientific "belief" and finding a better way of doing it. Science seems to happen whether I believe it's for one reason or another. Some explanations lead to cool shit like internet and tide prediction. I don't need to believe in these for them to be useful.
The only thing I tend to believe or disbelieve is people telling me things where I need to make an informed decision as to whether they're lying or not.
Quote from: Cain on December 19, 2012, 09:39:04 AM
Sure.
But the existence of academic cartels even within the hard sciences, and these cartels being aligned with media personalities and end up promoting the same mediocrity seen within the social sciences isn't too impossible. There would be more pushback, because the facts are more readily available, but they are mostly unaccessible to those outside of those sciences because they don't have the necessary background or training to fully understand the terms of the debate.
Not to mention even scientists can fall prey to hearing something and internalizing it without actually verifying it first. The placebo effect, for example, was widely believed to have an effect on 1/3 patients. This number was based off a single experiment done in the 1950s, which was then repeatedly cited by the academic community without it actually being verified. Two large-scale meta-experiments showed that this number was....a little optimistic, to put it mildly. But the number is still cited to this day, especially in the media.
That's also true. Or shit like the Bering Land Bridge, which is a complete nonsense hypothesis with no foundation and yet is STILL widely believed to be true. The problem is, there is so much information available and we have to sort it somehow, and the alternative to NOT believing what you read or hear is to not learn.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 19, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
belief = trap.
OP illustrates this perfectly but still nobody noticed. Instead the impetus is - "well if I can't trust experts where should I get my beliefs from?"
Wrong question!
Beliefs aren't something you should be collecting. They're dumb fucking shit that you should be purging. Hunt them down. Annihilate them. Replace them with models that may be upgraded given better information.
Even fucking science, which does it's best not to be a belief system, suffers because of this innate human obsession with believing things. A theory gets made and tested and proven and this is good. Then another theory is piggybacked or dovetailed into that first one. Repeat a couple of times and suddenly everyone starts believing in the original theory and, at that point it's just as likely to hinder progress as to assist. This is a thorn in the side of an otherwise really good system.
I think we may be having semantic difficulties here with the definition of the word "belief". If you go around not believing anything all the time, you can't learn.
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:47:11 PM
That's also true. Or shit like the Bering Land Bridge, which is a complete nonsense hypothesis with no foundation and yet is STILL widely believed to be true.
Clovis man took Jet Blue, maybe? :?
Not arguing the point, really, I just never knew it was even in question, let alone being absolute crap.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 04:04:23 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 19, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
belief = trap.
OP illustrates this perfectly but still nobody noticed. Instead the impetus is - "well if I can't trust experts where should I get my beliefs from?"
Wrong question!
Beliefs aren't something you should be collecting. They're dumb fucking shit that you should be purging. Hunt them down. Annihilate them. Replace them with models that may be upgraded given better information.
Even fucking science, which does it's best not to be a belief system, suffers because of this innate human obsession with believing things. A theory gets made and tested and proven and this is good. Then another theory is piggybacked or dovetailed into that first one. Repeat a couple of times and suddenly everyone starts believing in the original theory and, at that point it's just as likely to hinder progress as to assist. This is a thorn in the side of an otherwise really good system.
Well, there's beliefs and there's beliefs. It is absolutely impossible not to gather and maintain some amount of beliefs.
There's even a place for them in physics. For example, the math is quite clear on what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole...But you can't LOOK to verify your model.
I would argue that there's faith and there's beliefs. Belief is based on something, even if it's just the word of an expert. Faith isn't based on anything, that's why it's faith.
People around here like to use the word "belief" a lot when the correct word for the phenomenon they are describing is "faith".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 05:49:30 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:47:11 PM
That's also true. Or shit like the Bering Land Bridge, which is a complete nonsense hypothesis with no foundation and yet is STILL widely believed to be true.
Clovis man took Jet Blue, maybe? :?
Not arguing the point, really, I just never knew it was even in question, let alone being absolute crap.
Evidence points to boats, and to the settlement happening from south to north, not north to south. The mental acrobatics indulged in by people trying to defend the land bridge theory has been amusing... "well, the oldest settlements are way down south because.... um... because they came across the land bridge and walked to Central America, and then turned around and started forming settlements as they migrated back northward".
Clovis is so not at all the oldest known settlement anymore, either.
Yep, boats.
They've found ancient Japanese pottery in South America, and there's evidence that some Australian Aborigines may have settled in Tierra del Fuego before the Ice Age.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 19, 2012, 05:56:32 PM
Yep, boats.
They've found ancient Japanese pottery in South America, and there's evidence that some Australian Aborigines may have settled in Tierra del Fuego before the Ice Age.
Yeah, one thing that's interesting that I've been reading is that there hasn't really been much archaeological exploration in South America, for various reasons including the assumption that there's nothing of archaeological interest there. It's nice to hear that researchers are finally giving it more exploration.
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:53:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 05:49:30 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:47:11 PM
That's also true. Or shit like the Bering Land Bridge, which is a complete nonsense hypothesis with no foundation and yet is STILL widely believed to be true.
Clovis man took Jet Blue, maybe? :?
Not arguing the point, really, I just never knew it was even in question, let alone being absolute crap.
Evidence points to boats, and to the settlement happening from south to north, not north to south. The mental acrobatics indulged in by people trying to defend the land bridge theory has been amusing... "well, the oldest settlements are way down south because.... um... because they came across the land bridge and walked to Central America, and then turned around and started forming settlements as they migrated back northward".
Clovis is so not at all the oldest known settlement anymore, either.
Ah. I stopped following that sort of thing a while back, after the whole brouhaha with the Kennewick Man. The fact that it went from "amazing and interesting archeological find" to "ridiculous 9 year long political football" sort of completely turned me off of the whole thing.
Funny thing is, he was apparently (most likely) Polynesian, and showed up in Washington State, which is evidence aplenty of widespread boat use as early as 7600 BCE.
Also, I checked wikipedia, and they're pretty sure the landbridge itself did occur:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_land_bridge
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 06:02:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:53:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 05:49:30 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:47:11 PM
That's also true. Or shit like the Bering Land Bridge, which is a complete nonsense hypothesis with no foundation and yet is STILL widely believed to be true.
Clovis man took Jet Blue, maybe? :?
Not arguing the point, really, I just never knew it was even in question, let alone being absolute crap.
Evidence points to boats, and to the settlement happening from south to north, not north to south. The mental acrobatics indulged in by people trying to defend the land bridge theory has been amusing... "well, the oldest settlements are way down south because.... um... because they came across the land bridge and walked to Central America, and then turned around and started forming settlements as they migrated back northward".
Clovis is so not at all the oldest known settlement anymore, either.
Ah. I stopped following that sort of thing a while back, after the whole brouhaha with the Kennewick Man. The fact that it went from "amazing and interesting archeological find" to "ridiculous 9 year long political football" sort of completely turned me off of the whole thing.
Funny thing is, he was apparently (most likely) Polynesian, and showed up in Washington State, which is evidence aplenty of widespread boat use as early as 7600 BCE.
Also, I checked wikipedia, and they're pretty sure the landbridge itself did occur:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_land_bridge
Wikipedia? Dude. C'mon.
Anyway, the land bridge may indeed have occurred, but the evidence is against it being the conduit for human settlement of the Americas.
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 06:02:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:53:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 05:49:30 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 05:47:11 PM
That's also true. Or shit like the Bering Land Bridge, which is a complete nonsense hypothesis with no foundation and yet is STILL widely believed to be true.
Clovis man took Jet Blue, maybe? :?
Not arguing the point, really, I just never knew it was even in question, let alone being absolute crap.
Evidence points to boats, and to the settlement happening from south to north, not north to south. The mental acrobatics indulged in by people trying to defend the land bridge theory has been amusing... "well, the oldest settlements are way down south because.... um... because they came across the land bridge and walked to Central America, and then turned around and started forming settlements as they migrated back northward".
Clovis is so not at all the oldest known settlement anymore, either.
Ah. I stopped following that sort of thing a while back, after the whole brouhaha with the Kennewick Man. The fact that it went from "amazing and interesting archeological find" to "ridiculous 9 year long political football" sort of completely turned me off of the whole thing.
Funny thing is, he was apparently (most likely) Polynesian, and showed up in Washington State, which is evidence aplenty of widespread boat use as early as 7600 BCE.
Also, I checked wikipedia, and they're pretty sure the landbridge itself did occur:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_land_bridge
Wikipedia? Dude. C'mon.
Anyway, the land bridge may indeed have occurred, but the evidence is against it being the conduit for human settlement of the Americas.
Article says as much. Few, if any, people came across the landbridge, according to what DNA evidence they have. Some megafauna almost undoubtably came across, and some hunters might have followed them, but there is almost no chance that the bulk of any precolumbian people of any time period crossed at the Bering Strait.
Which leaves A) Boats, and B) Vacation Jesus.
It was probably Vacation Jesus, leading the Lost Tribes of Israel across the Atlantic on foot.
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
It was probably Vacation Jesus, leading the Lost Tribes of Israel across the Atlantic on foot.
He does that just to show off.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 08:15:48 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
It was probably Vacation Jesus, leading the Lost Tribes of Israel across the Atlantic on foot.
He does that just to show off.
What a dick!
Quote from: Cainad on December 20, 2012, 08:02:00 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:46:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 08:15:48 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 19, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
It was probably Vacation Jesus, leading the Lost Tribes of Israel across the Atlantic on foot.
He does that just to show off.
What a dick!
Christ, what an asshole!
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)
Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.
This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.
Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)
Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.
This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.
Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.
Quote from: :regret: on December 27, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)
Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.
This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.
Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.
I am not sure if there are any scientific studies on this, but if I can base anything on my own personal experience and observation of those around me, yes, artists get laid wayyyyyyy more.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: :regret: on December 27, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)
Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.
This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.
Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.
I am not sure if there are any scientific studies on this, but if I can base anything on my own personal experience and observation of those around me, yes, artists get laid wayyyyyyy more.
Performers, definitely.
But for some reason an image of Van Gogh mailing his ear to a prostitute popped in my head. He could be an aberration, though. :roll:
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 27, 2012, 07:46:32 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: :regret: on December 27, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)
Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.
This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.
Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.
I am not sure if there are any scientific studies on this, but if I can base anything on my own personal experience and observation of those around me, yes, artists get laid wayyyyyyy more.
Performers, definitely.
But for some reason an image of Van Gogh mailing his ear to a prostitute popped in my head. He could be an aberration, though. :roll:
I know very few performers, so I can't speak to their success in getting laid. I know artists; people who make art pieces (sculpture, paintings, etc.) for a living. Every single one of them is a neurotic motherfucker, and every single one of them gets mad laid. Mostly with each other. I had to put a moratorium on dating within the art community because I have a thing about social incest.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 08:13:11 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 27, 2012, 07:46:32 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: :regret: on December 27, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)
Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.
This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.
Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.
I am not sure if there are any scientific studies on this, but if I can base anything on my own personal experience and observation of those around me, yes, artists get laid wayyyyyyy more.
Performers, definitely.
But for some reason an image of Van Gogh mailing his ear to a prostitute popped in my head. He could be an aberration, though. :roll:
I know very few performers, so I can't speak to their success in getting laid. I know artists; people who make art pieces (sculpture, paintings, etc.) for a living. Every single one of them is a neurotic motherfucker, and every single one of them gets mad laid. Mostly with each other. I had to put a moratorium on dating within the art community because I have a thing about social incest.
Holy shit. :lol:
I recall there was a chart, not sure how legitimate, recording survey results for various college majors (not that a college art major is the same thing as a working artist, of course) on how often they got laid. I think the chart was based on what percentage of respondents had a sexual encounter in the previous six months or something like that. Art majors led the pack by a significant margin.
Well, artists tend to be more experiential and experimental, and have lower attachment to social propriety, so... yeah.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 10:48:06 PM
Well, artists tend to be more experiential and experimental, and have lower attachment to social propriety, so... yeah.
I thought the sciences just made everyone frumpy. Maybe that's just me.
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
I know, I'm just being grumpy and flippant because it's been a year. Stupid Geology. :madbanana:
See, I had it made because I had one foot in the arts and one foot in science. Though, in all honesty, once you added alcohol into the mix, majors went out the window.
Quote from: Cainad on December 28, 2012, 01:31:39 AM
I know, I'm just being grumpy and flippant because it's been a year. Stupid Geology. :madbanana:
Rocks aren't even really a science, and shit.
But seriously, at this point there's no way of knowing whether the type of person who's into arts is more sexual, or whether getting into arts makes you more sexual.
And then there is the whole quantity vs quality debate. Maybe artists are having MORE sex but are they having BETTER sex?
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 27, 2012, 07:46:32 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 27, 2012, 05:02:14 PM
Quote from: :regret: on December 27, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on December 23, 2012, 05:08:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:35:04 PM
The human appreciation for art in all its forms doesn't have - to my knowledge - any survival value, so I am at present assuming that there's more to the story than just biology.
A quick note on this:
(Apologies: I have nothing, no articles or anything, to back up what I'm about to say. This is all from memory.)
Certain things that humans crave fall outside of survival value, but are still related to it. For example: we crave sweets and fats and this guides us to eat what our bodies need. But there are certain tastes and smells that trigger this to an extreme, beyond survival value, but they stem from those same nerves. Example: cheesecake is fatty and sugary and super delicious, and with no knowledge of nutrition, one might be compelled to eat only cheesecake over a more nutritious but less stimulating food.
This impulse to be attracted to super-stimuli (a word that I may have just made up) can extend to all of our senses. Certain sounds are more or less desirable for survival reasons, and so a sonic super-stimuli like music would be like cheesecake for the ears. Likewise with visual art, where we are attracted to certain angles and colors for survival reasons, but a particularly aesthetic painting might be like eye cheesecake.
Of course, this is just theoretic, some food for thought. Many evolutionary ideas are not falsifiable, and this idea certainly falls under that category.
Hmmm interesting idea.
That would make art anti-fitness, like cheescake. Or a peacock's tail.
It is easy to test if it is like a peacock's tail.
Do artists get laid more? If yes, then art has a mayor survival benefit. It is sexy.
I am not sure if there are any scientific studies on this, but if I can base anything on my own personal experience and observation of those around me, yes, artists get laid wayyyyyyy more.
Performers, definitely.
But for some reason an image of Van Gogh mailing his ear to a prostitute popped in my head. He could be an aberration, though. :roll:
Artists are also nuts.
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 28, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
THIS THIS THIS. And there's nothing more annoying than the people who fake it. Hipsters, neo-hippies, Pagan "artistes", and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Deviantart.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 28, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
THIS THIS THIS. And there's nothing more annoying than the people who fake it. Hipsters, neo-hippies, Pagan "artistes", and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Deviantart.
Yeah, but they put out. Don't discourage them.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 28, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
THIS THIS THIS. And there's nothing more annoying than the people who fake it. Hipsters, neo-hippies, Pagan "artistes", and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Deviantart.
Yeah, but they put out. Don't discourage them.
Have you SEEN these people? Nigel, you are the kind of person who can get damn near anyone you want. Why would you want 400 pound people wearing trip pants?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 28, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
THIS THIS THIS. And there's nothing more annoying than the people who fake it. Hipsters, neo-hippies, Pagan "artistes", and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Deviantart.
Yeah, but they put out. Don't discourage them.
Have you SEEN these people? Nigel, you are the kind of person who can get damn near anyone you want. Why would you want 400 pound people wearing trip pants?
Ewwwwwwww no!
Our local poseurs are at least ATTRACTIVE.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:49:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 28, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
THIS THIS THIS. And there's nothing more annoying than the people who fake it. Hipsters, neo-hippies, Pagan "artistes", and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Deviantart.
Yeah, but they put out. Don't discourage them.
Have you SEEN these people? Nigel, you are the kind of person who can get damn near anyone you want. Why would you want 400 pound people wearing trip pants?
Ewwwwwwww no!
Our local poseurs are at least ATTRACTIVE.
Oh, well then. Burn 'em up like cheap firewood. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:49:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 28, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
THIS THIS THIS. And there's nothing more annoying than the people who fake it. Hipsters, neo-hippies, Pagan "artistes", and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Deviantart.
Yeah, but they put out. Don't discourage them.
Have you SEEN these people? Nigel, you are the kind of person who can get damn near anyone you want. Why would you want 400 pound people wearing trip pants?
Ewwwwwwww no!
Our local poseurs are at least ATTRACTIVE.
Oh, well then. Burn 'em up like cheap firewood. :lulz:
I'm cleaning up this city, one hipster artiste at a time.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 09:30:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:49:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 28, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
THIS THIS THIS. And there's nothing more annoying than the people who fake it. Hipsters, neo-hippies, Pagan "artistes", and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Deviantart.
Yeah, but they put out. Don't discourage them.
Have you SEEN these people? Nigel, you are the kind of person who can get damn near anyone you want. Why would you want 400 pound people wearing trip pants?
Ewwwwwwww no!
Our local poseurs are at least ATTRACTIVE.
Oh, well then. Burn 'em up like cheap firewood. :lulz:
I'm cleaning up this city, one hipster artiste at a time.
THE HIGHWAY'S FULL OF BROKEN HIPSTERS ON A LAST CHANCE POWER DRIVE
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 09:31:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 09:30:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:49:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 28, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
THIS THIS THIS. And there's nothing more annoying than the people who fake it. Hipsters, neo-hippies, Pagan "artistes", and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Deviantart.
Yeah, but they put out. Don't discourage them.
Have you SEEN these people? Nigel, you are the kind of person who can get damn near anyone you want. Why would you want 400 pound people wearing trip pants?
Ewwwwwwww no!
Our local poseurs are at least ATTRACTIVE.
Oh, well then. Burn 'em up like cheap firewood. :lulz:
I'm cleaning up this city, one hipster artiste at a time.
THE HIGHWAY'S FULL OF BROKEN HIPSTERS ON A LAST CHANCE POWER DRIVE
:lol: This needs to be a song.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 09:31:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 09:30:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:49:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on December 28, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Yep. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 28, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
I think it is probably more of a function of the type of person who would tend to get into such a field.
But the talent and temperament seem hardwired, it's not something you pick.
THIS THIS THIS. And there's nothing more annoying than the people who fake it. Hipsters, neo-hippies, Pagan "artistes", and ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Deviantart.
Yeah, but they put out. Don't discourage them.
Have you SEEN these people? Nigel, you are the kind of person who can get damn near anyone you want. Why would you want 400 pound people wearing trip pants?
Ewwwwwwww no!
Our local poseurs are at least ATTRACTIVE.
Oh, well then. Burn 'em up like cheap firewood. :lulz:
I'm cleaning up this city, one hipster artiste at a time.
THE HIGHWAY'S FULL OF BROKEN HIPSTERS ON A LAST CHANCE POWER DRIVE
:spittake: :potd:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/sections/mrsa-superbug/
Quote from: hirley0 on December 18, 2012, 09:48:23 AM
edit at 1:48 tomorrow? slow count to 9
TOMORROW has arrived i guess i mean year 2:?? - .... 2:56 = 1/2 /-/r RRy
i miss R | reading bac to tomorrow anyway ? eduit time - post time = RB:
Maybe page 7-page3=4 makes moore cents
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 10:25:51 AM
Quote from: Cainad on December 28, 2012, 01:31:39 AM
I know, I'm just being grumpy and flippant because it's been a year. Stupid Geology. :madbanana:
Rocks aren't even really a science, not true
those ROCKS {throwing size) West of Neuberger ARE placed
there by the Mexicans ! with purpose intent & PLAN'n
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 28, 2012, 10:28:39 AM
But seriously, at this point there's no way of knowing whether the type of person who's into arts is more sexual, or whether getting into arts makes you more sexual.
check the age distribution chart |\ v /| {got it LvR
My professional blog: http://trichopterology.blogspot.com/
yeah ? yeah: eXpect me to show up soon in your sweatY night Mayor
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/crybaby.gif) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uBBIT-kjnAU/TYTN7N4Wd6I/AAAAAAAAAAM/f7v9aK7DdN4/s220/Blog_profile_pic1.JPG) daffINatLi
A serial Licking 4th comming | anyway sHe the head of econ dep maybe '09
did offer me her /-/And when i chased Her down in an ECON semi
never mind bac2DrEam world | about 3AM is my guess | QuanTITateIVe:
atalogue of Orgasms La and/or El {6{{sex| days ago
http://www.biodiversityinfocus.com/blog/2013/01/17/get-zapped/
YEAH ITS MORE LIKE GET d'La'D . &/Or Moused about | i did not find.
The characters you entered didn't match the word verification. Please try again.
Shirley Not / pdx00782 said... it takes Min. Not mS
20130120 15345678 / January 20, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Kai" Burington said... SoundingtheSea -
You're right, it's not even about the payment. The differentiation is about the superiority of academics over non-academics simply because they are, rather than by knowledge or skill. And often not by any conscious intent. March 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM
Kai" Burington said... TGIQ -
Would that I could erase the lines overnight, and never hear another person say "pro-am". March 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM
yeah Daily. 6 times : every 4 hours on the :11's starting in 1.5Hr
7:11 2Li 4K 4h Next 4 11:11
11:11 LiK6
3:11 PM LiLiLiLi K
7:11
11:11
&3:11
3:11 THus THE MOMENT OF TRUTH RAPIDLY APROACHETH?
did My effort have An effect? HArd 4Me to know, Easy if hear ?/? so yeah:
Link 2 L og: http://trichopterology.blogspot.com/ ??????
L/A exist in a form {3:22:37 am
L/B available to be {{ 3:25:38.am
L/C antennae red
? Myspace ? no luck so far: Sat 26
a man? in White headed South photo about 5 am pSt
CONtinuing along without expert hep {they R their
it does occur to me what they do do is assign words to pictures
Like globally speaking dye North America RED White & blue
and then saying stuff like the R/W/B stuff{part is N. America
B'cause We say so & we all agree We said it correctly
{Never mind moving along anyway {{ despite their help
{{{ OR Lack thereof | in the (Um}? picture of the electron :fnord: R69 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33038.msg1236701.html#msg1236701)
i would prefer a different one | the blue arrows may be termed
blue arrows?/? & the Length of the blue arrows might be
the length of the blue arrows | translate to German & VietNamEz see P^
4PM My input is the theory that applying the RULES
for patenting NEW WORDs to describe ?bug parts
could be applied to words used in descriptions of objects
even smaller than bugs | the diagrams of the G_cat come to mind
However my goal is words that would apply for example to the
antenna of the electron . . .
4:11 http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,28564.msg1236127.html#msg1236127
4:16 http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33038.msg1236701.html#msg1236701
ad 1360ad 1368 i do find the concept interesting ad 1372
ad 1356 COPY/paste 20130211 {/-/e He hE :fnord: (http://membracid.wordpress.com/)
ad 1347 tory behind "Ran {&i reAD the Hole thin'
ad 1337 onday, February 11, 2013 at 6:00 AM No comments: {yeah 3:52:11-22.?
ad 1328 :fnord: burlinius (http://coo.fieldofscience.com/2013/02/the-burlinius-head-hiders.htm) & -ovarie :fnord: (http://membracid.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/we-dont-talk-about-ovaries-here/) {eXists.ES =Much d'La&iNt
:fnord: >04/1282 (http://coo.fieldofscience.com/2013/02/trichadenotecnum-six-spots-and-spiny.html) 1287 (http://coo.fieldofscience.com/2013/02/more-on-new-zealand-opiliones.html)
:fnord: 1 hour ago (http://www.biodiversityinfocus.com/blog/2013/01/30/talking-science-scienceonline-2013/) :fnord: this way HONCHO (http://trichopterology.blogspot.com/) daily? St U P id 1252 1263 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=4876)
ad 1372 v READ DOWN v _ until mid March is my guess¿
ad 1405 1417 :fnord: (http://membracid.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/how-to-make-a-giant-aluminum-ants-nest/) 1426 1436 :fnord: +EM1 (http://lpcritic.blogspot.com/) :fnord: 1444 (http://www.biodiversityinfocus.com/blog/2013/02/23/no-bot-flies-are-not-a-viable-weight-loss-solution/) 1447 1453
ad 1477 time to say by by BB it was delightful.
my 0.pology for any itchy bitchy moments : will return in 2015 is still present
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 06:46:48 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2012, 05:13:58 PM
Here's where the initial (OP) argument first breaks down for me: "For each, the entirety of knowledge, as I described it, was passed down from people... they considered experts." Sure, as he described it. But that description is highly removed from reality.
The second break is, "Each can generate reasonably consistent descriptions of themselves, their world, and the universe." Except they can't. They can generate descriptions that other people may accept, but it's the same thing as Elizer's "Phlogiston" argument.
The third is, "Neither Mary nor Joe learned about their world through direct experience." Again, this is fundamentally not true.
Thing is, everyone has beliefs. Everyone. And when dealing with things that are unverifiable, there cannot be "experts" (sorry to preachers of all religions and Pagan Elders everywhere, but that's the way it is). This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to religion.
And anyone who CLAIMS to be an expert on unverifiable things is therefore a BULLSHIT ARTIST. This is sometimes readily apparent (any history channel show on "ancient astronauts", for example), and sometimes not so apparent.
The acid test is this:
1. Are the claims verifiable given current technology?
2. Does the person espousing the claims claim to be an authority on the matter?
If the first answer is no and the second answer is yes, then the person in question is a bullshitter, no matter what they're selling (including atheism). Except genuine Holy Men™, who have a special dispensation on account of we STATE that we're bullshitting, but that bullshit is divinely inspired, so shut up.
If the first answer is yes and the second answer is yes, check the person's credentials.
If the first answer is no and the second answer is no, you're talking to someone in a bar.
If the first answer is yes and the second answer is no, congratulations, you're talking to the only honest man you know.
Bump.
Yes. Perhaps a rewrite can make it into the Bitter Tea project?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 10, 2013, 03:43:00 AM
Yes. Perhaps a rewrite can make it into the Bitter Tea project?
Yep. It's one of the things I plan to submit, alongside Objections I & II.
Also, something new.
Quote from: hirley0 on January 20, 2013, 10:59:46 PM
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/crybaby.gif) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uBBIT-kjnAU/TYTN7N4Wd6I/AAAAAAAAAAM/f7v9aK7DdN4/s220/Blog_profile_pic1.JPG) daffINatLi
I think this is the only time I've ever seen Hirley0 slam someone.
daffINatLi
Although I'm tempted to go back through his posts and see what other gold nuggets could be mined from his musings.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 10, 2013, 03:43:00 AM
Yes. Perhaps a rewrite can make it into the Bitter Tea project?
Fuck YES.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 10, 2013, 03:45:19 AM
Quote from: hirley0 on January 20, 2013, 10:59:46 PM
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/crybaby.gif) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uBBIT-kjnAU/TYTN7N4Wd6I/AAAAAAAAAAM/f7v9aK7DdN4/s220/Blog_profile_pic1.JPG) daffINatLi
I think this is the only time I've ever seen Hirley0 slam someone.
Yep, pretty much. I've seen him sick burn people I don't know, but it's the first truly interactive slam I've seen him issue.
Hirley0 is a brilliant motherfucker.
CURSE YOU NIGEL GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
Also Atheists tend to be that girl that says she's over her ex bf, but still won't shut the fuck up about him.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 10, 2013, 05:47:28 PM
CURSE YOU NIGEL GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
Also Atheists tend to be that girl that says she's over her ex bf, but still won't shut the fuck up about him.
Holy shit, this is a perfect analogy! :lol:
Quote from: /b/earman on July 10, 2013, 05:47:28 PM
CURSE YOU NIGEL GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
Also Atheists tend to be that girl that says she's over her ex bf, but still won't shut the fuck up about him.
BRILLIANT!
Quote from: /b/earman on July 10, 2013, 05:47:28 PM
Also Atheists tend to be that girl that says she's over her ex bf, but still won't shut the fuck up about him.
Yea, I've noticed usually whenever an atheists lays out an argument for atheism, they often end up laying out a list of grievances specific to whatever religion they grew up with. I'll bet you can tell an atheists upbringing solely by what they choose to complain about. :p
Right now Binks is trolling butthurt Atheists. She's one, but she also loathes the atheist community.
Quote from: /b/earman on July 12, 2013, 11:39:24 PM
Right now Binks is trolling butthurt Atheists. She's one, but she also loathes the atheist community.
That's pretty much why I troll Discordians. Besides the fact that they're SO EASY. :lol:
Actually? i was just saying i miss U K.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 10, 2013, 06:04:44 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 10, 2013, 03:45:19 AM
Quote from: hirley0 on January 20, 2013, 10:59:46 PM
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/crybaby.gif) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uBBIT-kjnAU/TYTN7N4Wd6I/AAAAAAAAAAM/f7v9aK7DdN4/s220/Blog_profile_pic1.JPG) daffINatLi
I think this is the only time I've ever seen Hirley0 slam someone.
Yep, pretty much. I've seen him sick burn people I don't know, but it's the first truly interactive slam I've seen him issue.
Hirley0 is a brilliant motherfucker.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 13, 2013, 05:41:11 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on July 12, 2013, 11:39:24 PM
Right now Binks is trolling butthurt Atheists. She's one, but she also loathes the atheist community.
That's pretty much why I troll Discordians. Besides the fact that they're SO EASY. :lol:
Who the fuck are you calling EASY?
Quote from: /b/earman on July 10, 2013, 05:47:28 PM
CURSE YOU NIGEL GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
Also Atheists tend to be that girl that says she's over her ex bf, but still won't shut the fuck up about him.
That's why I am a Zen Atheist, which is to say, God is everywhere -> everywhere is here -> here am I -> I am God -> I am nothing -> there is no God.
That way I get to have a religious justification for my atheism, so I don't spend all that time bitching about what insufferable assholes my fundamentalist Baptist parents are.
acually i do NOT remember how that goes!
a patatoe is a specked tater | a spectater is a beholder |
a bee holder is a bee hive their4 a patatoe is a bee hive?
its some words like those ? check youR F&W
Mon = the next day? in the My Mus thread today
i chatted to my self Tomorrow about 4Ms today from yesterday {Was Sun
{never mind) dime mention a time scale
T = 0:5; {five clocks running at different rates {slow to fast |or| f-s}
0.?,1=Local, 2=Global, 3=Astrol, 4=Cosmic =0 again i guess its FtoS
think of it as a circle OR wheel with 5 spokes ? {never mind go to :fnord: (http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/index.php/topic,12.msg120.html#msg120)
Quote from: hirley0 on July 14, 2013, 06:14:44 PM
acually i do NOT remember how that goes!
a patatoe is a specked tater | a spectater is a beholder |
a bee holder is a bee hive their4 a patatoe is a bee hive?
:lulz:
Potatoes are beehives. It all makes sense now.
Quote from: Cainad on July 23, 2013, 09:18:50 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on July 14, 2013, 06:14:44 PM
acually i do NOT remember how that goes!
a patatoe is a specked tater | a spectater is a beholder |
a bee holder is a bee hive their4 a patatoe is a bee hive?
:lulz:
Potatoes are beehives. It all makes sense now.
Oh my god, it does!
Quote from: Cainad on July 23, 2013, 09:18:50 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on July 14, 2013, 06:14:44 PM
acually i do NOT remember how that goes!
a patatoe is a specked tater | a spectater is a beholder |
a bee holder is a bee hive their4 a patatoe is a bee hive?
:lulz:
Potatoes are beehives. It all makes sense now.
:lulz:
I cant wait to shout this at people at high velocity. This will be my You Nearly Killed Me battle cry.
Quote from: hirley0 on July 14, 2013, 09:53:21 AM
Actually? i was just saying i miss U K. :fnord: (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4876)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 10, 2013, 06:04:44 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 10, 2013, 03:45:19 AM
Quote from: hirley0 on January 20, 2013, 10:59:46 PM
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/crybaby.gif) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uBBIT-kjnAU/TYTN7N4Wd6I/AAAAAAAAAAM/f7v9aK7DdN4/s220/Blog_profile_pic1.JPG) daffINatLi
I think this is the only time I've ever seen Hirley0 slam someone.
Yep, pretty much. I've seen him sick burn people I don't know, but it's the first truly interactive slam I've seen him issue.
Hirley0 is a brilliant motherfucker.
3658 http://trichopterology.blogspot.com/
Quote from: Kai on December 17, 2012, 10:33:25 PM
But considering this thread unrolled into the familiar "atheism sucks" rather than discussing this particular kind of cognitive dissonance, I'll pass on the rest.
ad 3630 really tired.{yeah me2 all the time / & then there is the tormet2 ^READ UP^
Quote from: hirley0 on October 26, 2013, 08:00:19 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on July 14, 2013, 09:53:21 AM
Actually? i was just saying i miss U K. :fnord: (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4876)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 10, 2013, 06:04:44 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 10, 2013, 03:45:19 AM
Quote from: hirley0 on January 20, 2013, 10:59:46 PM
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/crybaby.gif) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uBBIT-kjnAU/TYTN7N4Wd6I/AAAAAAAAAAM/f7v9aK7DdN4/s220/Blog_profile_pic1.JPG) daffINatLi
I think this is the only time I've ever seen Hirley0 slam someone.
Yep, pretty much. I've seen him sick burn people I don't know, but it's the first truly interactive slam I've seen him issue.
Hirley0 is a brilliant motherfucker.
That's an error.
The requested URL / was not found on this server. That's all we know.
yes: iT was :fnord: (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35654.msg1308156.html#msg1308156)
Re: On the role of experts
/-/owever if U think i am deleting it NoW (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4876)
U aRe Rong Rong ЯonG
expert (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34727.msg1308103.html#msg1308103)
ex pert ad 3654} Crying is allowed, in fact its encouraged {Maybe Mandatory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoptera {2:50:00am
9:11AM=64 ? 10/2pi =1.6/H_o (YES: somE} (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_19994.jpg/200px-The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_19994.jpg)
ONCE upon a time, years ago, prior to the current state, of WHAT
i refer to as enforced stupidity; {back then when even i could set foot on a U
campus and read a LiBraRY book on organic chem, ... I took an english class
Yes: Dr. i did take 1, {I can't believe it eithor | Milton as i remember
i do not REMEMBER any Milton butt i sure do remember the water colors
around the margins | reportedly done by WiFe | & the fox photo REmind$
Me of Her now bac2sMac
xpert ad 3672 00:07St ? 7-7:30ampdT NHK newS starting SoOn:55:37am
7 NHK Gene eye "mobil phone"(01) / tapping {04:03:02} | SmOK fireSMOKE'iR photo
CHANGE 7:07 cruption | 7}6:07:52.am :10ttp12 11AUTO827K |-| Uk aLPs | SA
{350m
per ts ad 3681 } http://blog.qr4.nl/Online-QR-Code_Decoder.aspx
I do Not have a link to DNA decoder / any LiNk's AVailable?
Long Distance Information {LDI) put me in touch with
the up link access to CURIOSITY http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/
i would like to help K find the correct place to have hole drilled
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/drc/how_DrC_works.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/drc/ says "Get Flash" {No THanks!=!
Me: drill hole No Flash No CLash { i guess
per t (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35688.msg1308749.html#msg1308749) {ad 3693 {{ 10/30 {{{ 2013
er t
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:38:37 AM
Okay, hirley0, I am sufficiently terrified. :eek:
don't worry so much | i'Ll keep 'ER out of your flower bed
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 31, 2013, 12:40:20 AM
it's SHe's rather beautiful. {i know / don't touch
And don't drink tap water for several days / it causes the runs / sorry ad 3715
r t (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Baryon-decuplet.svg/220px-Baryon-decuplet.svg.png)
Rather Think i would not have been a FAN
http://www.feynman.com/
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Baryon-decuplet.svg/220px-Baryon-decuplet.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Gg_to_ttH.jpg/220px-Gg_to_ttH.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Pictogramme_MG.svg/220px-Pictogramme_MG.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Magnetosphere_rendition.jpg/220px-Magnetosphere_rendition.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Double_slit_x-ray_simulation_monochromatic_blue-white.png/130px-Double_slit_x-ray_simulation_monochromatic_blue-white.png
t =ad 3749 :fnord: (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,24612.15.html)
Okay, hirley0, I am sufficiently terrified. :eek:
Quote from: hirley0 on October 26, 2013, 08:13:22 PM
ex pert ad 3654} Crying is allowed, in fact its encouraged {Maybe Mandatory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichoptera {2:50:00am
9:11AM=64 ? 10/2pi =1.6/H_o (YES: somE} (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_19994.jpg/200px-The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_19994.jpg)
ONCE upon a time, years ago, prior to the current state, of WHAT
i refer to as enforced stupidity; {back then when even i could set foot on a U
campus and read a LiBraRY book on organic chem, ... I took an english class
Yes: Dr. i did take 1, {I can't believe it eithor | Milton as i remember
i do not REMEMBER any Milton butt i sure do remember the water colors
around the margins | reportedly done by WiFe | & the fox photo REmind$
Me of Her now bac2sMac
I missed this post
it's rather beautiful.
Quote from: Kai on October 31, 2013, 12:38:37 AM
Okay, hirley0, I am sufficiently terrified. :eek:
of the "DUST"
Yeah: dust bugs me to, there sure seams to be a lot of it
if i take the time to swab it all up | the very next day more is back
it mostly shows up on the TV & also on the computer screen
as i am back to a CRT as the flat screen went flat & i threw it out
Anyway it is HERE were i wiLL attempt to inter fear in
your surroundings by suggesting positions to take, i will begin
on member page 76
"http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4876"ender: Female Age: 28 Location: Ohio July 10, 2008, 09:33:17 am
v
p63 http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5291
December 23, 2008, 10:56:30 am
v
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4
August 27, 2002, 03:58:14 am
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2
August 22, 2002, 06:51:02 pm
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4407
November 13, 2007, 08:09:32 am
"Ohio"
REMOVED PERSONAL INFORMATION. HIRLEY0, can you please not post personal contact information in the open? - Roger
http://lpcritic.blogspot.com/
genre as an artform.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DxHoO5nSpl0/UTSECDm2u3I/AAAAAAAAAI4/oFJA3wCaNsI/s640/Tachiniddiversity.jpg) |1cm| on my low res screen{800x600
ad 3770 headed to photo of femtogram via beauty school {Maybe {{if U must Kno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton,_Ohio
http://www.carouselbeauty.edu/dayton.php
Phone: 937-224-1454 125 East Second Street
http://www.beautyschoolsdirectory.com/schools/creative-image-dayton-oh/index.php
Dayton (North) 7535 Poe Ave
http://www.wright.edu/cola/Dept/art/
http://science-math.wright.edu/biology
http://science-math.wright.edu/chemistry
the density of water is exactly 1 gram per mL cc
femtogram unit of mass equal to 0.000 000 000 000 001 grams. Symbol: fg.
10^-15 cc?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=438207
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060907145218AASV8tm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_water_molecules_are_in_one_drop_of_water
0.05 grams ÷ 18.0 grams × (6.02 × 10^23 molecules) = 1.67 × 10^21 molecules
^0.000 000 000 000 001 grams ?=1.67/5={1/3) & 10^21->10^8
33&1/3 Million WATER molecules would be my 1St guess FOR a FEMTOGRAM of
ad 3789http://cronodon.com/
http://cronodon.com/SpaceTech/SpaceTech_Intro.html
(http://principiadiscordia.com/forum/NewAvatars/avatar_7539_1350478520.png) / (http://cronodon.com/images/Alien_3a_gif.gif)
LoGal's bro babbEE
ad 3773SO what is all this BS about:?
a very lowest cost / shampoo/rinse ? & not for beauty {art | for science {algebra
explanation pending? {maybe {{ TBD
ad 3800 HAVE been {actually ? derailed by events
will attemp to pick up at LOCATION {If i find 1 {{ delay in effect
Seriously, Mr. , D Well it may be in the key of D ?
i JUST NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS LIKE THAT tho
1:07 i'LL stick with "PSU Library shelves" however
a space that is{delay in effect off limits2Me
Hirley, you can't post shit like that! Please remove it!
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 01:38:43 PM
Hirley, you can't post shit like that! Please remove it!
We don't have any rules about bug pron. This IS, after all, AMERICA.
But if you want a thread split, we can do that.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 01:38:43 PM
Hirley, you can't post shit like that! Please remove it!
We don't have any rules about bug pron. This IS, after all, AMERICA.
But if you want a thread split, we can do that.
It's not the bugs, it's my university address on the page before.
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 03:00:38 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 01:38:43 PM
Hirley, you can't post shit like that! Please remove it!
We don't have any rules about bug pron. This IS, after all, AMERICA.
But if you want a thread split, we can do that.
It's not the bugs, it's my university address on the page before.
Fixed.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:31:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 03:00:38 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 01:38:43 PM
Hirley, you can't post shit like that! Please remove it!
We don't have any rules about bug pron. This IS, after all, AMERICA.
But if you want a thread split, we can do that.
It's not the bugs, it's my university address on the page before.
Fixed.
Thanks. I guess it's not a huge deal. I don't mind if people here find their way to my real life. I just prefer to not have the inverse happen.
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 03:47:03 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 03:31:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 03:00:38 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 04, 2013, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 01:38:43 PM
Hirley, you can't post shit like that! Please remove it!
We don't have any rules about bug pron. This IS, after all, AMERICA.
But if you want a thread split, we can do that.
It's not the bugs, it's my university address on the page before.
Fixed.
Thanks. I guess it's not a huge deal. I don't mind if people here find their way to my real life. I just prefer to not have the inverse happen.
:lulz: That's how I feel about things.
ad 3959 yeah it appears BROKE to me =EoO
7:33:40 am & 07:37:11 3917.7:33&1/3 & 7:37:38
Quote from: hirley0 on November 02, 2013, 09:29:06 PM
http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/audio/CAL3.WAV http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/audio/CAL3.WAV
(http://www.erisbarandgrill.com/photo/math/CAL3.JPG) Callicera, 1980 v Callicera, 1980 {same O {{same o 0k K
it probably dun'T look the same ^ N ^ hoặc âm thanh như nhau, là tôi đoán
3917
Quote from: hirley0 on November 02, 2013, 09:37:00 PM
i would like to be able to do it in viet namese ????/ http://translate.google.com/#en/vi/
MY ANSWER TO NHK 7:11 QUestion
viet has most 4 letter words
B'cause it has many O's 0k fly, the insect bay, côn trùng i do NOT know.{8:02:03.am
ad 3893 5:27[/color] My VA PCP is Bang. :fnord: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Uss_ohio_bb-12.jpg/300px-Uss_ohio_bb-12.jpg) (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,24612.msg1309526.html#msg1309526)
this [im g]< activating 4 letter mode {VIET} kích hoạt 4 chế độ thư
.24 of 24 hrs? from 4amISH 11/3
"Ohio"^ READ UP ^ Limited edition For Tru K fans only>
REMOVED PERSONAL INFORMATION. HIRLEY0,
can you please not post personal con
tact information in the open? - Roger
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2013, 01:38:43 PM
Hirley, you can't post shit like that! Please remove it! {Sorry Sis i Cun't do dat {{ TiZ Gone already:
I do NOT remember what all this was about
{other than super long delays in effect
i don't usually save origional entries any longer
whatever the beef was about is beyond my comprehension at post time
see next post for next clue about what NEXT to do | TOMORROW
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35581.msg1309953.html#msg1309953i did NOT watch the movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ohio_%28BB-12%29
oh My BB12
marked the emergence of the United States as a major world power.
She was sold for scrap on 24 March 1923.
Quote from: hirley0 on November 05, 2013, 04:23:38 AM
he was sold for scrap on 24 March 1923.
:horrormirth: