1) This is an incorrect usage of 'counter-intuitive' 2) No it's not, because this is what "intuitive" means:... 3) No, "intuitive" can include experience. 4) OK, I still think "a priori" is a valid school of thought (here's why:...), but I concede your point about experience & subconscious reasoning. However, "counter-intuitive" STILL is perfectly fine here. Here's why:... 5) YOU'RE CHANGING THE GOAL POSTS!1!
The "goal post" is, and always has been, defending "counter-intuitive" as a valid word choice in the summary. My original argument (relying solely on a definition of "intuitive") was off-base and narrowly defined, which you corrected. I have conceded that, THREE TIMES NOW. It does not invalidate the original point, which still stands.
Here, I will trivially amend my original reply:
"Um, if someone needs the relevant college-level courses to understand this, then by definition it IS counter-intuitive."
If calling that "shifting the goal posts" makes you feel better, go right ahead.
The only thing I was discussing is your implication, and later, outright statement, that education and experience have nothing to do with intuition, by definition.
Then why the hell are we still talking? I admitted the validity of your position, that experience DOES inform intuition (in a certain school of thought at least), in my very first response to you.
YOU ARE RIGHT. I WAS WRONG TO SUGGEST THAT EXPERIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "INTUITION". SO VERY VERY WRONG. DID I MENTION HOW RIGHT YOU ARE? Not sure how many more times I can keep repeating this...
That article also explains that there are two competing schools of thought, and that one of them directly supports my point of view
I did read the article, and I did acknowledge that there are two schools of thought: "both a priori and experience play a part"... that would be the two schools of thought the article describes? In other words, I conceded your point that subconscious reasoning (ie, informed by experience) can play a part.
So seriously, piss off with your "you're not even reading or responding to my points" ad hominems. Just because I employ brevity and attempt to keep the discussion focused on the actual point at hand (whether "counter-intuitive" is appropriate in the summary of this specific article), instead of belting out a wall of text does not mean I am not responding to your points.
Let me ask you a question, what phrase should the author should've used instead of "counter-intuitive" to get his intended meaning across?
Context matters. The audience matters. The phrase "counter-intuitive" here means "contrary to the expectations of the average reader of this article" (and YES, I read your point that there is really no such thing as "average". Semantic quibbling that obstructs the general conversational usage of common words seems to be a hobby of yours).
In fact, forget "intuition", here are some definitions of "counterintuitive" (and yes, I am deliberately avoiding definitions that ONLY say "contrary to intuition", because that's just a trivial re-arranging of "counter intuitive" and not very helpful):
"contrary to intuition or to common-sense expectation."
"seemingly contrary to common sense"
"Contrary to what intuition or common sense would indicate"
"contrary to what common sense would suggest"
Common sense:
"sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence."
"Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment."
"sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts"
"the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way"
Note how all of these specifically exclude specialized or advanced knowledge.
"Counter-intuitive" is a perfectly valid adjective in the article summary for its intended audience. The fact that a minority of readers may have specialized or advanced knowledge that counteracts what everyone else lacking that specialized or advanced knowledge would naturally expect does not change that.
"Intuition is a priori knowledge or experiential belief characterized by its immediacy."
OK, so let's agree that both a priori and experience play a part. But the whole point is the meaning of the term "counter-intuitive" for the title of this article! That is why I said "layman's expectation".
In short, if you insist on defining "intuition" by experience, the term "counter-intuitive" is meaningless.
It's like protesting that 6'2" isn't "tall", because you're 6'4" (that your personal reference frame overrides the general usage of the word).
Bethesda isn't making this though... ZeniMax Online is, a sibling company to Bethesda (ie, also owned by the parent ZeniMax Media) built from the ground-up to focus on online gaming. Presumably, this has been specifically done so Bethesda can continue their single-player focus. So there's hope.
We haven't had to rely exclusively on direct verbal perpetuation of knowledge/experience/wisdom since the invention of writing. One may make qualitative arguments of course.
My boycott started a decade ago after my first digital camera, a Sony CyberShot, which only accepted Sony Memory Sticks and (very expensive) Sony InfoLithium batteries.:P
There are way too many people in this thread who are treating energy like just another commodity subject to normal laws of supply and demand, that "the market will just fix everything and magically come up with new replacements".
Oil used to have an EROEI of 100, now it's about 3. When that reaches 1, it doesn't matter how much money is thrown at it. Our entire civilization runs on oil, pretending we'll manage to replace all that with alternatives (on the SCALE that oil is used) is depressingly laughable.
"Diminishing returns of the EROEI is a chief cause of the collapse of complex societies" - Joseph Tainter, from linked Wiki article.
The idea was that every person was given 0.75 "credits" for having a child. So a couple would have 1.5 credits between them. If they want a second child, they can purchase a half-credit. If not, they can sell their extra half-credit (or all their credits, if they want no children at all). Credit prices would be driven by normal market forces of supply and demand.
In theory, this would reduce the population each generation to 75% of the previous, while still offering an avenue for flexibility on number of children.
Of course theory is often neater than practice, what about unwanted/accidental pregnancies, etc...
It's a sad day when the reddit thread is having a mature and helpful discussion about this, while Slashdot (with the exception of your above post) is having a circlejerk making fun of Mac users.
Where the frig in the Periodic Table does one find "Unobtanium"?
Jesus H Christ. It's fiction. Fiction usually contains at least some fictional elements. The establishing premise of the story is that a mineral is discovered that is so valuable (a naturally occurring room temperature super-conductor) that it motivates humanity to undertake the incomprehensible expense of mounting an expedition to another star.
Did you hate the mystical golden glowing suitcase in Pulp Fiction too? It's called a MacGuffin, get over it.
Entity, meet biological warfare (easily possible, given the ease with which the DNA was replicated) and a gaggle of large asteroids being flung at the surface just for good measure (also possible, given the massive energy require to go FTL (or was it near-light?) speeds in the first place).
Right, run into trouble with the natives, level the fucking planet. Destroy the life-supporting capabilities of an entire habitable world (potentially the ONLY accessible habitable world other than Earth for all we know). Brilliant. Let me guess, you think the Middle East should be turned into a sheet of glass to make it easier for the oil companies?
Plus you know, it's a mining corporation. They brought a small defence force, not extinction-level bioweapons. And your argument that "because they managed to make it to another star, clearly they can throw asteroids around like tinkertoys" is just an assumption on your part that is not supported by anything we've been shown.
That being said, I fully expect Earth to return to Pandora in one of the sequels, and retaliate with far nastier weapons.
The truth is that Cameron puts a lot of thought into his world building, even if a lot of it doesn't make it up on the screen. (Because Cameron understands mass appeal, and that doesn't include technobabble). I've read he's written a multi-thousand page "Bible" that Avatar is based on. The thought that has gone into it is actually pretty fascinating. Ie, ISV Venture Star is a pretty interesting read... especially the part about how is was more economical to have the engines at the front, angled out slightly and "pulling" the crew habitat along, instead of a more conventional, rigid design with the engines pushing the ship. That's a LOT of thought to put into the spaceship design, when you consider it's onscreen for maybe 20 seconds.
(Pandorapedia, btw, is an official 20th Century Fox site, not just some fans making shit up)
Well according to Wiki, "Flares are powered by the sudden (timescales of minutes to tens of minutes) release of magnetic energy stored in the corona."
Interestingly though, it says the actual mechanism is not understood: "Although there is a general agreement on the flares' causes, the details are still not well known. It is not clear how the magnetic energy is transformed into the particle kinetic energy, nor it is known how the particles are accelerated to energies as high as 10 MeV (mega electron volt) and beyond."
solar panels still never even come close to putting out energy that comes close to the energy used in manufacturing the panels
Hmm. I wonder what I'll turn up if I google "solar myths".
Myth #5: Making solar panels takes more energy than it could ever produce.
A report by the National Renewable Energy Lab shows that solar photovoltaic panels actually payback the energy used to produce the panels in 1 to 4 years depending on the type of panel. Because solar panels last at least 30 years, PV systems will provide at minimum 26 to 29 years of pollution-free electricity for your home!
Slashdot Mirror
Where did my damn mod points go
Turkey and ham, lettuce tomato green pepper & onion, and MUSTARD. Awesome cold sub. And low calorie too.
Good grief.
Summary of discussion:
1) This is an incorrect usage of 'counter-intuitive' ... ...), but I concede your point about experience & subconscious reasoning. However, "counter-intuitive" STILL is perfectly fine here. Here's why: ...
2) No it's not, because this is what "intuitive" means:
3) No, "intuitive" can include experience.
4) OK, I still think "a priori" is a valid school of thought (here's why:
5) YOU'RE CHANGING THE GOAL POSTS!1!
The "goal post" is, and always has been, defending "counter-intuitive" as a valid word choice in the summary. My original argument (relying solely on a definition of "intuitive") was off-base and narrowly defined, which you corrected. I have conceded that, THREE TIMES NOW. It does not invalidate the original point, which still stands.
Here, I will trivially amend my original reply:
"Um, if someone needs the relevant college-level courses to understand this, then by definition it IS counter-intuitive."
If calling that "shifting the goal posts" makes you feel better, go right ahead.
Then why the hell are we still talking? I admitted the validity of your position, that experience DOES inform intuition (in a certain school of thought at least), in my very first response to you.
YOU ARE RIGHT. I WAS WRONG TO SUGGEST THAT EXPERIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "INTUITION". SO VERY VERY WRONG. DID I MENTION HOW RIGHT YOU ARE? Not sure how many more times I can keep repeating this...
I did read the article, and I did acknowledge that there are two schools of thought: "both a priori and experience play a part"... that would be the two schools of thought the article describes? In other words, I conceded your point that subconscious reasoning (ie, informed by experience) can play a part.
So seriously, piss off with your "you're not even reading or responding to my points" ad hominems. Just because I employ brevity and attempt to keep the discussion focused on the actual point at hand (whether "counter-intuitive" is appropriate in the summary of this specific article), instead of belting out a wall of text does not mean I am not responding to your points.
Let me ask you a question, what phrase should the author should've used instead of "counter-intuitive" to get his intended meaning across?
Context matters. The audience matters. The phrase "counter-intuitive" here means "contrary to the expectations of the average reader of this article" (and YES, I read your point that there is really no such thing as "average". Semantic quibbling that obstructs the general conversational usage of common words seems to be a hobby of yours).
In fact, forget "intuition", here are some definitions of "counterintuitive" (and yes, I am deliberately avoiding definitions that ONLY say "contrary to intuition", because that's just a trivial re-arranging of "counter intuitive" and not very helpful):
Common sense:
Note how all of these specifically exclude specialized or advanced knowledge.
"Counter-intuitive" is a perfectly valid adjective in the article summary for its intended audience. The fact that a minority of readers may have specialized or advanced knowledge that counteracts what everyone else lacking that specialized or advanced knowledge would naturally expect does not change that.
Thank you! Cannot believe the explosion of arguing that quote generated...
Newsflash: Words can have varied connotations depending on their context. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(philosophy)
Very first sentence of article:
"Intuition is a priori knowledge or experiential belief characterized by its immediacy."
OK, so let's agree that both a priori and experience play a part. But the whole point is the meaning of the term "counter-intuitive" for the title of this article! That is why I said "layman's expectation".
In short, if you insist on defining "intuition" by experience, the term "counter-intuitive" is meaningless.
It's like protesting that 6'2" isn't "tall", because you're 6'4" (that your personal reference frame overrides the general usage of the word).
Bethesda isn't making this though... ZeniMax Online is, a sibling company to Bethesda (ie, also owned by the parent ZeniMax Media) built from the ground-up to focus on online gaming. Presumably, this has been specifically done so Bethesda can continue their single-player focus. So there's hope.
(More info on ZeniMax Online: http://www.zenimaxonline.com/faq.html)
Nice circular definition? "Something is intuitive if it's intuitive to me"?
Intuition is direct, a priori, instinctive comprehension of a concept, NOT relying on experience, and "without inference or the use of reason".
It is counter-intuitive that a solar cell "throwing away" light will result in higher energy output.
If you have facts/knowledge/education on your side that counter this "layman's expectation", you're no longer relying on intuition.
Claiming you develop a better "personal intuition" as a result of education/experience/whatever is simply an incorrect use of the word.
Um, if someone needs the relevant college-level courses to understand this, then by definition it is NOT intuitive.
What do you think "intuitive" means exactly?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional, wait until you hire an amateur."
Using pretty absolute language, aren't we?
We haven't had to rely exclusively on direct verbal perpetuation of knowledge/experience/wisdom since the invention of writing. One may make qualitative arguments of course.
I believe this was the cornerstone of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
I'm thinking pointing your heat dissipating surfaces directly towards the sun might decrease the efficiency of said heat dissipation.
(Obviously this becomes less of a concern the farther from the sun you are)
Or maybe he means that, generally speaking, the tech sector has historically been resistant to economic downturns. Nah...
Or maybe in his rush for a f1st p0st, this AC actually just misread it as Australia and made a stupid attempt at humour.
If you want good tech prospects and an economy that just won't quit, try Calgary.
My boycott started a decade ago after my first digital camera, a Sony CyberShot, which only accepted Sony Memory Sticks and (very expensive) Sony InfoLithium batteries. :P
Exactly.
There are way too many people in this thread who are treating energy like just another commodity subject to normal laws of supply and demand, that "the market will just fix everything and magically come up with new replacements".
Oil used to have an EROEI of 100, now it's about 3. When that reaches 1, it doesn't matter how much money is thrown at it. Our entire civilization runs on oil, pretending we'll manage to replace all that with alternatives (on the SCALE that oil is used) is depressingly laughable.
"Diminishing returns of the EROEI is a chief cause of the collapse of complex societies" - Joseph Tainter, from linked Wiki article.
There was an interesting idea about this in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.
The idea was that every person was given 0.75 "credits" for having a child. So a couple would have 1.5 credits between them. If they want a second child, they can purchase a half-credit. If not, they can sell their extra half-credit (or all their credits, if they want no children at all). Credit prices would be driven by normal market forces of supply and demand.
In theory, this would reduce the population each generation to 75% of the previous, while still offering an avenue for flexibility on number of children.
Of course theory is often neater than practice, what about unwanted/accidental pregnancies, etc...
Thank you.
It's a sad day when the reddit thread is having a mature and helpful discussion about this, while Slashdot (with the exception of your above post) is having a circlejerk making fun of Mac users.
Correct, one of the inspirations for Game of Thrones/ASOIAF was the War of the Roses, with Lancaster => Lannister and York => Stark.
Jesus H Christ. It's fiction. Fiction usually contains at least some fictional elements. The establishing premise of the story is that a mineral is discovered that is so valuable (a naturally occurring room temperature super-conductor) that it motivates humanity to undertake the incomprehensible expense of mounting an expedition to another star.
Did you hate the mystical golden glowing suitcase in Pulp Fiction too? It's called a MacGuffin, get over it.
Right, run into trouble with the natives, level the fucking planet. Destroy the life-supporting capabilities of an entire habitable world (potentially the ONLY accessible habitable world other than Earth for all we know). Brilliant. Let me guess, you think the Middle East should be turned into a sheet of glass to make it easier for the oil companies?
Plus you know, it's a mining corporation. They brought a small defence force, not extinction-level bioweapons. And your argument that "because they managed to make it to another star, clearly they can throw asteroids around like tinkertoys" is just an assumption on your part that is not supported by anything we've been shown.
That being said, I fully expect Earth to return to Pandora in one of the sequels, and retaliate with far nastier weapons.
The truth is that Cameron puts a lot of thought into his world building, even if a lot of it doesn't make it up on the screen. (Because Cameron understands mass appeal, and that doesn't include technobabble). I've read he's written a multi-thousand page "Bible" that Avatar is based on. The thought that has gone into it is actually pretty fascinating. Ie, ISV Venture Star is a pretty interesting read... especially the part about how is was more economical to have the engines at the front, angled out slightly and "pulling" the crew habitat along, instead of a more conventional, rigid design with the engines pushing the ship. That's a LOT of thought to put into the spaceship design, when you consider it's onscreen for maybe 20 seconds.
(Pandorapedia, btw, is an official 20th Century Fox site, not just some fans making shit up)
A book requires you to engage your imagination to visualize what is happening.
A good novel also contains far more depth than is possible to capture in a theatrical format.
Well according to Wiki, "Flares are powered by the sudden (timescales of minutes to tens of minutes) release of magnetic energy stored in the corona."
Interestingly though, it says the actual mechanism is not understood: "Although there is a general agreement on the flares' causes, the details are still not well known. It is not clear how the magnetic energy is transformed into the particle kinetic energy, nor it is known how the particles are accelerated to energies as high as 10 MeV (mega electron volt) and beyond."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare#Cause
Hmm. I wonder what I'll turn up if I google "solar myths".
Source