Can you isolate the experiment from their expectations?
Yes, you can, though I don't know if this study did so.
Make it more blind. Have volunteers (who can't see the images) classify the infants' reactions to the images.
Whoops, hold on. I just RTFA. They're not evaluating based on the infants' facial expressions--they're evaluating based on how long the infants looked at each image. That's objective--hard to see how the scientists' expectations would be affecting the data. Mind you, "more time looking==more scared" isn't obviously valid, but the difference in times between the tests is still significant. You could question whether the girls are learning fear vs something else, but the test still seems to show that the girls are being trained by the images while the boys aren't.
There's also the general contrast between "outward appearance" and "heart". There's things along those lines in the OT--so if it is an extension/expansion, it's not wholly novel.
2) An expansion of a definition of sin based on the only "principals" known at the time (i.e. old testament's 10 commandments).
Ah, that's the part that makes me go "say what"?
The Old Testament law contains a lot more than the 10 Commandments, so they're not the "only principles known at the time". They have some importance, but Moses came down from the mountain with a lot more than that. And for that matter, the prophets say a lot throughout the OT.
Which is why you can't immediately claim that he's actually expanding anything, just because it's not in the 10 Commandments. You have to know what kind of things the OT teaches before you decide that. And even if this particular application hadn't been made in any Hebrew Scripture, that doesn't mean the basis for the application is new.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "Doesn't appear to be a principle as such." Do you mean that you don't agree with it, or that it's not being presented as a principle?
As for broadening the definition of one of the 10 Commandments, I could quibble over whether he's doing that or giving examples of how the Law of God requires more than people self-righteously assume. (Not everything in this chapter is from the 10 commandments, and it starts with a comment about the Law and the Prophets in verses 17-20. The whole Law is or reflection fundamental principles.) But I might just be quibbling. I'm not sure what point you're making.
I don't know where you're getting your info, but it sounds like it's some kind of fringe pseudoskepticism. I'd encourage you to read this post from an atheist, and be more careful with your sources.
Mind you, this was a roomful of atheists. Critical, skeptical people, right? Not so! Nearly half of them were willing to be instantly persuaded by a single talk without checking any sources or reading any rebuttals. Many of them were totally unaware of how historical scholarship was even done. I feel like I could have made up a bunch of stuff, claimed that it was held by the majority of historians, and then persuaded half the audience to believe that Jesus was a Persian myth.
[...]
Anyway, this is one of a thousand events that lead me to think atheists are not generally more rational or careful than belivers. Thus, my plea to all people is: Do not be quickly persuaded. Investigate. Challenge. Doubt.
Comes from Jesus, actually. The sermon on the mount, in Matthew 5.
People have a tendency to settle for doing the minimum, and focusing on external things--the things that show up to other people. Looking good by following the minimum rules, rather than actually caring about acting & living & thinking consistently with principles.
So, in this whole section, Jesus ramps up expectations. He goes from the external, down into the heart. For instance, he points to the command, "Don't murder." Well, yeah, someone deserves judgment for committing murder--but the principles behind that also mean you shouldn't accept anger & division in your heart toward your brother. You should be reconciled.
Similarly, he ramps it up this way at the end of the chapter:
43 You have heard that it was said, âYou shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.â(TM) 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
By the way, he's not quoting the Old Testament there--just some kind of folk saying, or something.
So, he does the same thing with adultery.
27 You have heard that it was said, âYou shall not commit adultery.â(TM) 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
It's not about seeing naked people--it's about lust.
You probably don't accept that he's right about this principle. But yes, it's from the Bible.
Uhhh...forcing someone to undergo a simulated drowning should NOT be divided on whether or not that would be considered torture. Anyone not drinking the koolaid or with an agenda would be hard pressed to have any kind of rational argument about that particular fact.
Oh, I don't know about that. Is it that hard to imagine that someone would define naturally torture in terms of physical pain, not psychological distress?
Of course, for someone to go that route, they'll have to say that "Chinese water torture" isn't torture, either. And that's such an accepted part of the meaning of torture that it seems unlikely.
But I still don't find it hard to believe that someone would think, "Torture is about physical pain", without "drinking the koolaid" or having an agenda.
Plenty of science fiction involves no explanation whatsoever of any of the fantastic technology or events. Or none beyond the kind of "he's got a genetic condition" explanation in this movie.
In my awareness, the quality of the science-fiction-as-science-fiction depends more on how well it explores the results of the speculation. Not on how well it comes up with pseudoscientific explanation for what's going on.
Exploring the impact on a romantic relationship like this seems quintessentially science fiction to me.
Maybe--but I'm pointing out that a single point does not a trend make. It might be that he has a higher intercept, but shallower slope.
Or it might be that he evaluates "having a gun visible in the front of his pants, in his home" as a lower response than you do--that's easily possible, and even seems likely. It doesn't mean he'd shoot anyone for less reason than you.
"His response was more escalated than I think was warranted by the situation. Therefore, there are probably no limits to how far he would go in a worse situation."
In nerd language: It's like you have a graph in your mind. The level of response as a function of situation. R(S) would be the function, something like R = mS + b, if it's a straight line. You have your idea of where that line should be--your own slope and intercept. So you see one data point where his response is above your line, and you extrapolate out, as though his entire line is shifted up by that same amount. But maybe he has a shallower slope.
Go ahead and cross off the Time Traveler's Wife from that list, its not really Sci-fi and its been getting low to mid range review scores anyway.
What are you talking about? What makes you say that it's not scifi? The fact that it's a chick flick, too, doesn't make it not science fiction. From what I can tell, it's just as much science fiction as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Of course, some people define "scifi" differently from "science fiction". Something like "space battle/cool technology/futuristic awesomeness". Maybe you meant it that way.
Bollocks. If it is bed time and you are angry, your tiredness is making you even more angry and irrational. If you just go to bed, half the time you will not even remember that you were angry once morning comes. Just go to bed.
1) Never go to bed angry. You might go to bed before you solve the problem, but no matter what it is, no matter how bad it is, you can always find a way to hug your wife, kiss her, and tell her that the two of you will be able to work it out. Going to bed angry breeds resentment.
The problem is that you're misunderstanding "don't go to bed angry." The point isn't, "Keep talking about it till you resolve the problem." The point is, stop, take stock, let go of the angry feeling, and commit to working it out together later.
Of course, it'll help resolve the argument if you don't wait for bedtime to do this. Make it part of your approach to every argument, as soon as you realize that you're letting anger get the best of you.
Disclaimer: I've never been married. My apologies if I'm oversimplifying because of that. But this seems like a pretty wise general principle, at least.
but you can boil it all down to "you can be right, or you can be happy."
Try putting it this way. She might agree with it, then.
"You can be proven right, or you can be happy. You can self-justify, or you can be happy."
You should be willing to not be proven right for two reasons: (1) Even if you are right, how important is it that other people realize it? (2) Sometimes you'll turn out to be wrong.
Re:Fiction == Making shit up.
on
Tetraktys
·
· Score: 1
Easier, because most of the worldbuilding is already done for you;
I don't believe authors ought to be involved in what's called "world building".:)
"And since Jesus' bother James, and later his nephew, lead the revolutionary Jewish organization Jesus founded, it is not clear why other family members would have to be hidden away, particularly as other people of nominally royal descent were always available to lead as well."
Don't you mean James along with Peter, John, Barnabas, Paul, etc.?:)
This is the biggest reason why I can't stand religion. If you are so frightened by others' opinions as to attack them if they disagree with you then you have no right to make any decisions. It's the same with censorship. If you don't like it, ignore it.
Can we outlaw thinking for ourselves while we're at it? (/s)
Hmm... Does broad-brushing "religion" with criticism that should be aimed at "forced religion" count as "thinking for yourself"?
I suppose it does. Sloppy, unreasonable thinking is still thinking, after all. It just doesn't deserve any more respect than what you're (rightly) criticizing.
The point is that if the bans were there, then the embryos wouldn't be destroyed in the first place.
This, of course, ignores comepletely that most embryos held by fertility clinics (and other sources) are ultimately destroyed anyway.
My view is simple: Why not recycle? If another use can be found for them, great. If not, that's fine too.
I take it you are unfamiliar with embryo adoption. It doesn't have to be that way--people killing these human organisms rather than letting them implant & continue developing.
But even if there weren't that option, it wouldn't be meaningless or ignorant to oppose using them for research. Suppose that you lived in a country where street bums were euthanized, and some wanted to use the wasted biological resources for research. They'll be destroyed either way. Is it meaningless to say, "No, we shouldn't do that"? Honestly, it's not a 100% straightforward question to me. But it seems that there would still be a point to making a stand, and saying, "We should not be treating them like this." Because everything that solidifies their dehumanization in people's minds will make it that much harder to resolve the injustice.
I suppose it's possible I misunderstood his point. If you think what I said was a strawman, I'd welcome the clarification.
He said, "that a fetus isn't a Citizen is black letter law as the Constitution is currently written", because of the born-or-naturalized language. And that's absolutely true. But he brought it up as though it were relevant to abortion.
What do you think his point was, if not, "Because a fetus isn't a citizen, it's not protected"?
You might say that you can't simply abstract away the gender of the participants. The people concerned with race said the same thing.
You're claiming that the supporters of bans on interracial marriage couldn't say, "We don't want to allow those people to get married"? You're claiming that this sentence wouldn't even compute for them?
I'm not sure that people who genuinely support true judicial activism--changing the law rather than ruling on the law--would appreciate comparing it with the power of the People to ignore unjust law in juries.
The definition of "activist judge"- any judge who rules against the way I want.
Keep in mind, though--just because people apply the label to anything they don't like, doesn't mean the label doesn't have a real definition describing a significant point of judicial philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can, though I don't know if this study did so.
Make it more blind. Have volunteers (who can't see the images) classify the infants' reactions to the images.
Whoops, hold on. I just RTFA. They're not evaluating based on the infants' facial expressions--they're evaluating based on how long the infants looked at each image. That's objective--hard to see how the scientists' expectations would be affecting the data. Mind you, "more time looking==more scared" isn't obviously valid, but the difference in times between the tests is still significant. You could question whether the girls are learning fear vs something else, but the test still seems to show that the girls are being trained by the images while the boys aren't.
We is plural, it implies him and at least someone else.
Which still includes him in the dying & whatnot.
There's also the general contrast between "outward appearance" and "heart". There's things along those lines in the OT--so if it is an extension/expansion, it's not wholly novel.
Ah, that's the part that makes me go "say what"?
The Old Testament law contains a lot more than the 10 Commandments, so they're not the "only principles known at the time". They have some importance, but Moses came down from the mountain with a lot more than that. And for that matter, the prophets say a lot throughout the OT.
Which is why you can't immediately claim that he's actually expanding anything, just because it's not in the 10 Commandments. You have to know what kind of things the OT teaches before you decide that. And even if this particular application hadn't been made in any Hebrew Scripture, that doesn't mean the basis for the application is new.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "Doesn't appear to be a principle as such." Do you mean that you don't agree with it, or that it's not being presented as a principle?
As for broadening the definition of one of the 10 Commandments, I could quibble over whether he's doing that or giving examples of how the Law of God requires more than people self-righteously assume. (Not everything in this chapter is from the 10 commandments, and it starts with a comment about the Law and the Prophets in verses 17-20. The whole Law is or reflection fundamental principles.) But I might just be quibbling. I'm not sure what point you're making.
From The Lost Gospel of Judas
I don't know where you're getting your info, but it sounds like it's some kind of fringe pseudoskepticism. I'd encourage you to read this post from an atheist, and be more careful with your sources.
People have a tendency to settle for doing the minimum, and focusing on external things--the things that show up to other people. Looking good by following the minimum rules, rather than actually caring about acting & living & thinking consistently with principles.
So, in this whole section, Jesus ramps up expectations. He goes from the external, down into the heart. For instance, he points to the command, "Don't murder." Well, yeah, someone deserves judgment for committing murder--but the principles behind that also mean you shouldn't accept anger & division in your heart toward your brother. You should be reconciled.
Similarly, he ramps it up this way at the end of the chapter:
By the way, he's not quoting the Old Testament there--just some kind of folk saying, or something.
So, he does the same thing with adultery.
It's not about seeing naked people--it's about lust.
You probably don't accept that he's right about this principle. But yes, it's from the Bible.
FYI, conservative Christian here.
The reason I don't watch porn has nothing to do with thinking that sex is dirty.
Oh, I don't know about that. Is it that hard to imagine that someone would define naturally torture in terms of physical pain, not psychological distress?
Of course, for someone to go that route, they'll have to say that "Chinese water torture" isn't torture, either. And that's such an accepted part of the meaning of torture that it seems unlikely.
But I still don't find it hard to believe that someone would think, "Torture is about physical pain", without "drinking the koolaid" or having an agenda.
Sorry, I forgot to finish my thought at the beginning.
I was going to say, it is true that it's sometimes hard to find the line between science fiction and fantasy.
Fantasy, maybe.
Plenty of science fiction involves no explanation whatsoever of any of the fantastic technology or events. Or none beyond the kind of "he's got a genetic condition" explanation in this movie.
In my awareness, the quality of the science-fiction-as-science-fiction depends more on how well it explores the results of the speculation. Not on how well it comes up with pseudoscientific explanation for what's going on.
Exploring the impact on a romantic relationship like this seems quintessentially science fiction to me.
Maybe--but I'm pointing out that a single point does not a trend make. It might be that he has a higher intercept, but shallower slope.
Or it might be that he evaluates "having a gun visible in the front of his pants, in his home" as a lower response than you do--that's easily possible, and even seems likely. It doesn't mean he'd shoot anyone for less reason than you.
Eternal Sunshine was a drama, and it was also science fiction.
We could go back-and-forth like this, but remember that an argument's not just contradiction.
It sounds like your logic is this:
"His response was more escalated than I think was warranted by the situation. Therefore, there are probably no limits to how far he would go in a worse situation."
In nerd language: It's like you have a graph in your mind. The level of response as a function of situation. R(S) would be the function, something like R = mS + b, if it's a straight line. You have your idea of where that line should be--your own slope and intercept. So you see one data point where his response is above your line, and you extrapolate out, as though his entire line is shifted up by that same amount. But maybe he has a shallower slope.
What are you talking about? What makes you say that it's not scifi? The fact that it's a chick flick, too, doesn't make it not science fiction. From what I can tell, it's just as much science fiction as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Of course, some people define "scifi" differently from "science fiction". Something like "space battle/cool technology/futuristic awesomeness". Maybe you meant it that way.
Bollocks. If it is bed time and you are angry, your tiredness is making you even more angry and irrational. If you just go to bed, half the time you will not even remember that you were angry once morning comes. Just go to bed.
Read this guy's comment. He explained it well.
The problem is that you're misunderstanding "don't go to bed angry." The point isn't, "Keep talking about it till you resolve the problem." The point is, stop, take stock, let go of the angry feeling, and commit to working it out together later.
Of course, it'll help resolve the argument if you don't wait for bedtime to do this. Make it part of your approach to every argument, as soon as you realize that you're letting anger get the best of you.
Disclaimer: I've never been married. My apologies if I'm oversimplifying because of that. But this seems like a pretty wise general principle, at least.
Try putting it this way. She might agree with it, then.
"You can be proven right, or you can be happy. You can self-justify, or you can be happy."
You should be willing to not be proven right for two reasons: (1) Even if you are right, how important is it that other people realize it? (2) Sometimes you'll turn out to be wrong.
I don't believe authors ought to be involved in what's called "world building". :)
Don't you mean James along with Peter, John, Barnabas, Paul, etc.? :)
Hmm... Does broad-brushing "religion" with criticism that should be aimed at "forced religion" count as "thinking for yourself"?
I suppose it does. Sloppy, unreasonable thinking is still thinking, after all. It just doesn't deserve any more respect than what you're (rightly) criticizing.
I take it you are unfamiliar with embryo adoption. It doesn't have to be that way--people killing these human organisms rather than letting them implant & continue developing.
But even if there weren't that option, it wouldn't be meaningless or ignorant to oppose using them for research. Suppose that you lived in a country where street bums were euthanized, and some wanted to use the wasted biological resources for research. They'll be destroyed either way. Is it meaningless to say, "No, we shouldn't do that"? Honestly, it's not a 100% straightforward question to me. But it seems that there would still be a point to making a stand, and saying, "We should not be treating them like this." Because everything that solidifies their dehumanization in people's minds will make it that much harder to resolve the injustice.
I suppose it's possible I misunderstood his point. If you think what I said was a strawman, I'd welcome the clarification.
He said, "that a fetus isn't a Citizen is black letter law as the Constitution is currently written", because of the born-or-naturalized language. And that's absolutely true. But he brought it up as though it were relevant to abortion.
What do you think his point was, if not, "Because a fetus isn't a citizen, it's not protected"?
You're claiming that the supporters of bans on interracial marriage couldn't say, "We don't want to allow those people to get married"? You're claiming that this sentence wouldn't even compute for them?
I'm not sure that people who genuinely support true judicial activism--changing the law rather than ruling on the law--would appreciate comparing it with the power of the People to ignore unjust law in juries.
Keep in mind, though--just because people apply the label to anything they don't like, doesn't mean the label doesn't have a real definition describing a significant point of judicial philosophy.