Holmes did not reject the idea of the supernatural, he even mentioned supernatural concepts while discussing it. Only his personal tradition, seeing some material evidences, and a wish to exhaust this-worldly investigations before ceding to supernatural led him to provisionally reject supernatural conclusions in the beginning.
He said, and I quote "I have hitherto confined my investigations to this world. In a modest way, I have combated evil, but to take on the Father of Evil himself, would, perhaps, be too ambitious a task".
There is no goal post shifting going on, if that is what you mean. You interpreted a set of sentences in a particular manner, I told another interpretation of it, which is what I intended.
Take "Everyone need not know / do everything."
1. Know : Scientists need not know how to convince people (especially non scientists).
2. Do : Scientists need not do the job of convincing people.
You don't have to the a front man,
Which is what I intended to convey, I hope in a better grammar, and I hope this means "a scientist doesn't have to be a front man".
Anyway , essentially you do understand. I rest my case. Any specific questions about this, or you'll just try a general misinterpretation again ?
Scientific papers are also available for the kind perusal of people. If only the people able to understand them completely were to take action against AGW, would we reach anywhere ?
I estimate fewer than 10,000 people globally can understand the climate science papers proving AGW. What is your estimate ? And is the inability of others to understand them, the fault of those who do understand ?
OK. I see it as axiomatic : if you want to post to Slashdot, follow the steps to post to Slashdot. If you want to eat food, follow the steps proven to cause food to be eaten by you. Same for making people to do what you want.
Interesting word choice, by the way. Propaganda became a bad word only in the last 70-80 years or so in very violent global conditions, before which the UK even had a Propaganda Minister. If conditions could kill millions of people, distorting a few words is not the worst deed they did, right ?
In as much as they possess the skills required to convince people, they are scientists *and* good petitioners. A person could play different roles even in your limited understanding of the world, I hope ?
Please quote when I said people don't need to know. I now rephrase to avoid the specific misinterpretation that you are drawing due to your limited understanding of the world :
1. Scientists do not need to know how to convince people 2. There exist other people who can translate scientists' papers into "people language ". Because while there may be scientists able to don the hat of " people person ", it is not a logical expectation that all scientists can do it well.
As individuals, they sure have political beliefs. As only scientists, they have zero skills to propagate their political beliefs.
As scientists as well as individuals, assuming at least 1000 scientists in this world, it is statistically impossible you will agree with political aspect of all of their statements.
But how does it mean all scientists need to do a "better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just" ? I just demonstrated many of them are very likely incapable of doing what you ask of them.
1. Scientists (especially those not in cognitive sciences) don't know how to convince people to do things. Even those that do know how to, need not be skilled in doing it - like the aspects of thinking on one's feet, acting, emoting, judging the audience's emotions and reacting quickly to them etc.
False, and even a cursory study of history proves you false. "Science" gets funding to come to certain conclusions all the time. "Scientists" write extensively on the dilemmas they face when their morality gets challenged by the "Science" they are paid to do. "Scientists" are not the majority of people out there selling political agendas with said "Science". Examples are so easy to find that any citation request will be met with riducule!
I take your word that what you are calling "False" must be false, but it sure is not my statement no. 1 re-quoted above.
A. Are you saying scientists are experts in convincing people to do things ?
B. Are you saying scientists possess the skills required to convince people ?
Any of these are not coming out in your words.
As for me,
Science" gets funding to come to certain conclusions all the time. "Scientists" write extensively on the dilemmas they face when their morality gets challenged by the "Science" they are paid to do. "Scientists" are not the majority of people out there selling political agendas with said "Science".
I agree to all of these, so I don't see which statement of mine you are saying is "False" here, and what evidence you are presenting for it.
I would be inclined to believe you are replying to some completely different post from what you intended, but you quote extensively from my post.
When the solution presented to the masses is "GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY" you bet your ass we need to know why
Ok, but you are yet to explain why scientists need to be the ones telling you why. Which is why I mentioned beforehand the idea of division of labour.
If the scientists do not want people to react to the reporting of it they need to do a better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just those who oppose their political preferences.
No.
1. Scientists (especially those not in cognitive sciences) don't know how to convince people to do things. Even those that do know how to, need not be skilled in doing it - like the aspects of thinking on one's feet, acting, emoting, judging the audience's emotions and reacting quickly to them etc.
2. Everyone need not know / do everything. There is a reason division of labour has helped mankind greatly.
So no, scientists do not need to do a better job of calling out those.... They just need to publish papers and critique other papers.
Or, perhaps those who wish others to take a particular course of action should work harder to make sure that they communicate clearly
Depends on what you mean by "clearly", but most likely no. Those who wish others to take a particular course of action should work harder to make sure that they communicate in ways that are proven to make others to take a particular course of action. "Clear" communication need not be always the way forward - see why .
The simplicity of the word "carbon", as compared with that of "carbon-di-oxide" clearly makes it a winner. Especially when people who are involved (voters, shareholders etc.) have no clue what both of the words mean.
After simplicity achieves the first goal - of not losing your audience, you can appeal to their emotions in other ways. Sharing your dreams, for example.
Do you understand what is being discussed ? You were specific in reply to non-specific context, so you need to be sorry for your own idiocy.
I described the vagueness inherent in the word "overeating". If you can only think of a narrow, specific interpretation of it, work on reading comprehension.
On Android, I've noticed that disabling an app from startup is not enough . It is safer to completely disable apps using :
1. chmod 000 from command line . I haven't tried this after ICS, so can't be sure if this is still feasible. 2. freeze using the paid version of Titanium backup.
Tell you what, go feed yourself until you can't take another bite all day for 6 months
Do you have evidence that "overeating" must mean this when used by English speakers (e.g. American, British, Canadian, Australian, Indian English, being large sub-groups) ? Or do you agree with me that overeating is vague including consuming a pico-calorie exceeding requirements as well as including consuming a tera-calorie exceeding requirements ?
A bigger problem with this debate is that it is too absolute without evidence. You say "companies" don't know certain things, and others day "companies" do know certain things.
You don't give any proof that they don't know - it is certainly possible that they know due to secret data sharing agreements between Target, Visa, Facebook, Google or various subsets of "all companies". The one between Facebook and Visa is well known.
The people you are replying to don't give any proof that the "companies" know certain things. They do give examples of "certain" companies knowing certain subsets of the data under discussion.
But i object to the very possibility of an ease in companies knowing stuff, which you don't argue against.
1. If yes, what would you define a super-massive black-hole some thousands of light-years away, as ? For some reason you just love forgetting an actual "heavy" exists, by calling many of the earth objects "heavy" and just lumping in the super-massive black-holes, as if those two classes are even remotely comparable.
2. If no, tell it to people and see them laugh at you.
Apple owned gas station? Can you get the Apple "manufactured" , or even designed ones in a gas station for $5 ?
1. If yes, I haven't heard about it. Some documentation, evidence, ways to find etc. would be nice.
2. If no, I don't see why hatred becomes irrational due to existence of third party solutions having nothing much to do with Apple. This is a reason for a rational hatred of Apple, a rational love for gas stations, rational love for the manufacturers of said devices, rational love for China(leap of faith concerning country of origin).
Its like "hating your wife because she hits you with a baseball bat is irrational, because there are women you can offer a drink to for $5 in a bar". Or have sex with for $50 in "XYZ" place.
Or is your point that any love or hatred is fundamentally irrational? If so I would ask why are you dragging Apple into the discussion.
My point was not about checking at all. As the changed subject indicates, I was talking about an extremely surprising statement from you about a "tool" that creates the user, which can be dreamt of as possibly responsible for validating the name of the user.
I still don't understand which "tool" you are talking about that has any say in the name of the user, unless the tool is physics and "validation" is prayer. In which case I apologize while mildly irritated at your unusual language.
Slashdot Mirror
Holmes did not reject the idea of the supernatural, he even mentioned supernatural concepts while discussing it. Only his personal tradition, seeing some material evidences, and a wish to exhaust this-worldly investigations before ceding to supernatural led him to provisionally reject supernatural conclusions in the beginning.
He said, and I quote "I have hitherto confined my investigations to this world. In a modest way, I have combated evil, but to take on the Father of Evil himself, would, perhaps, be too ambitious a task".
Ok, so "general misinterpretation" it is.
There is no goal post shifting going on, if that is what you mean. You interpreted a set of sentences in a particular manner, I told another interpretation of it, which is what I intended.
Take "Everyone need not know / do everything."
1. Know : Scientists need not know how to convince people (especially non scientists).
2. Do : Scientists need not do the job of convincing people.
You don't have to the a front man,
Which is what I intended to convey, I hope in a better grammar, and I hope this means "a scientist doesn't have to be a front man".
Anyway , essentially you do understand. I rest my case. Any specific questions about this, or you'll just try a general misinterpretation again ?
Scientific papers are also available for the kind perusal of people. If only the people able to understand them completely were to take action against AGW, would we reach anywhere ?
I estimate fewer than 10,000 people globally can understand the climate science papers proving AGW. What is your estimate ? And is the inability of others to understand them, the fault of those who do understand ?
OK. I see it as axiomatic : if you want to post to Slashdot, follow the steps to post to Slashdot. If you want to eat food, follow the steps proven to cause food to be eaten by you. Same for making people to do what you want.
Interesting word choice, by the way. Propaganda became a bad word only in the last 70-80 years or so in very violent global conditions, before which the UK even had a Propaganda Minister. If conditions could kill millions of people, distorting a few words is not the worst deed they did, right ?
Awesome! I am eagerly waiting for a proof of your thesis. Beginning with a scientific definition of "cannot be trusted".
OK, conclude that. Or you might try to find out what science means. I can hope, can't I ?
In as much as they possess the skills required to convince people, they are scientists *and* good petitioners. A person could play different roles even in your limited understanding of the world, I hope ?
Please quote when I said people don't need to know. I now rephrase to avoid the specific misinterpretation that you are drawing due to your limited understanding of the world :
1. Scientists do not need to know how to convince people
2. There exist other people who can translate scientists' papers into "people language ". Because while there may be scientists able to don the hat of " people person ", it is not a logical expectation that all scientists can do it well.
As individuals, they sure have political beliefs. As only scientists, they have zero skills to propagate their political beliefs.
As scientists as well as individuals, assuming at least 1000 scientists in this world, it is statistically impossible you will agree with political aspect of all of their statements.
But how does it mean all scientists need to do a "better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just" ? I just demonstrated many of them are very likely incapable of doing what you ask of them.
1. Scientists (especially those not in cognitive sciences) don't know how to convince people to do things. Even those that do know how to, need not be skilled in doing it - like the aspects of thinking on one's feet, acting, emoting, judging the audience's emotions and reacting quickly to them etc.
False, and even a cursory study of history proves you false. "Science" gets funding to come to certain conclusions all the time. "Scientists" write extensively on the dilemmas they face when their morality gets challenged by the "Science" they are paid to do. "Scientists" are not the majority of people out there selling political agendas with said "Science". Examples are so easy to find that any citation request will be met with riducule!
I take your word that what you are calling "False" must be false, but it sure is not my statement no. 1 re-quoted above.
A. Are you saying scientists are experts in convincing people to do things ?
B. Are you saying scientists possess the skills required to convince people ?
Any of these are not coming out in your words.
As for me,
Science" gets funding to come to certain conclusions all the time. "Scientists" write extensively on the dilemmas they face when their morality gets challenged by the "Science" they are paid to do. "Scientists" are not the majority of people out there selling political agendas with said "Science".
I agree to all of these, so I don't see which statement of mine you are saying is "False" here, and what evidence you are presenting for it.
I would be inclined to believe you are replying to some completely different post from what you intended, but you quote extensively from my post.
When the solution presented to the masses is "GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY" you bet your ass we need to know why
Ok, but you are yet to explain why scientists need to be the ones telling you why. Which is why I mentioned beforehand the idea of division of labour.
If the scientists do not want people to react to the reporting of it they need to do a better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just those who oppose their political preferences.
No.
1. Scientists (especially those not in cognitive sciences) don't know how to convince people to do things. Even those that do know how to, need not be skilled in doing it - like the aspects of thinking on one's feet, acting, emoting, judging the audience's emotions and reacting quickly to them etc.
2. Everyone need not know / do everything. There is a reason division of labour has helped mankind greatly.
So no, scientists do not need to do a better job of calling out those .... They just need to publish papers and critique other papers.
Or, perhaps those who wish others to take a particular course of action should work harder to make sure that they communicate clearly
Depends on what you mean by "clearly", but most likely no. Those who wish others to take a particular course of action should work harder to make sure that they communicate in ways that are proven to make others to take a particular course of action. "Clear" communication need not be always the way forward - see why .
The simplicity of the word "carbon", as compared with that of "carbon-di-oxide" clearly makes it a winner. Especially when people who are involved (voters, shareholders etc.) have no clue what both of the words mean.
After simplicity achieves the first goal - of not losing your audience, you can appeal to their emotions in other ways. Sharing your dreams, for example.
And have you heard anyone calling CO or CO2 "carbon" when in the context of steel mills ?
Do you understand what is being discussed ? You were specific in reply to non-specific context, so you need to be sorry for your own idiocy.
I described the vagueness inherent in the word "overeating". If you can only think of a narrow, specific interpretation of it, work on reading comprehension.
On Android, I've noticed that disabling an app from startup is not enough . It is safer to completely disable apps using :
1. chmod 000 from command line . I haven't tried this after ICS, so can't be sure if this is still feasible.
2. freeze using the paid version of Titanium backup.
have certain medical conditions
The human condition being one such "medical" condition ?
Tell you what, go feed yourself until you can't take another bite all day for 6 months
Do you have evidence that "overeating" must mean this when used by English speakers (e.g. American, British, Canadian, Australian, Indian English, being large sub-groups) ? Or do you agree with me that overeating is vague including consuming a pico-calorie exceeding requirements as well as including consuming a tera-calorie exceeding requirements ?
Everything comes with faith, even open source.
Just the amount of faith varies.
Every thing is a poison, just to different extents. Polonium - 28 nanograms per hour. Water - 28 kilograms per hour. Both poisonous.
A bigger problem with this debate is that it is too absolute without evidence. You say "companies" don't know certain things, and others day "companies" do know certain things.
You don't give any proof that they don't know - it is certainly possible that they know due to secret data sharing agreements between Target, Visa, Facebook, Google or various subsets of "all companies". The one between Facebook and Visa is well known.
The people you are replying to don't give any proof that the "companies" know certain things. They do give examples of "certain" companies knowing certain subsets of the data under discussion.
But i object to the very possibility of an ease in companies knowing stuff, which you don't argue against.
Maybe it is obvious to Americans, but what is proof of funds? Isn't the $50k cash a credible proof of itself ?
thanks
No. You will understand why not, if you read the wikipedia article instead of only linking to it.
Is a 150 kg barbell heavy?
1. If yes, what would you define a super-massive black-hole some thousands of light-years away, as ? For some reason you just love forgetting an actual "heavy" exists, by calling many of the earth objects "heavy" and just lumping in the super-massive black-holes, as if those two classes are even remotely comparable.
2. If no, tell it to people and see them laugh at you.
Apple owned gas station? Can you get the Apple "manufactured" , or even designed ones in a gas station for $5 ?
1. If yes, I haven't heard about it. Some documentation, evidence, ways to find etc. would be nice.
2. If no, I don't see why hatred becomes irrational due to existence of third party solutions having nothing much to do with Apple. This is a reason for a rational hatred of Apple, a rational love for gas stations, rational love for the manufacturers of said devices, rational love for China(leap of faith concerning country of origin).
Its like "hating your wife because she hits you with a baseball bat is irrational, because there are women you can offer a drink to for $5 in a bar". Or have sex with for $50 in "XYZ" place.
Or is your point that any love or hatred is fundamentally irrational? If so I would ask why are you dragging Apple into the discussion.
Luckily, dead men tell no tales, nor sue any Googles.
It's not a cliche for him to say users of Google search are the product when they are in fact the product. That's called a fact.
Ok, I'll wait for proof that a fact cannot be a cliche.
My point was not about checking at all. As the changed subject indicates, I was talking about an extremely surprising statement from you about a "tool" that creates the user, which can be dreamt of as possibly responsible for validating the name of the user.
I still don't understand which "tool" you are talking about that has any say in the name of the user, unless the tool is physics and "validation" is prayer. In which case I apologize while mildly irritated at your unusual language.