And I was careless. Aristotle believed that knowledge was acquired by sensory experience, unlike Plato who thought that some kind of higher realm was primary and the observed world was, as Yeats put it "a spume that played/upon a ghostly paradigm of things". Aristotle's claim, as I observed in the second half of the sentence, was to have proposed looking at Nature for knowledge; this was quite revolutionary in a world in which people saw a deus in just about every machina. Although his cosmology was pretty strange, he at least had the idea that probably one cause accounted for the movement of things in the sky - his "that which moves without movement", [/. Greek fail]
Agreed. His thoughts on knowledge and observation were quite a leap for the Greeks.
But why cite Wikipedia when there is so much better information on early history of science?
It's rather convenient:) I like Wikipedia mostly as a jumping-off point. It has reasonably good summaries and most articles have citations to follow.
The article you cite describes Alhazen as an "early Islamic scientist" whereas he was pre-scientific,
Ah, there I must disagree. Alhazen, in his Book of Optics, ca. 1020, presents us with one of the earliest descriptions of the scientific method. He built on Aristotle's empiricism, but insisted on experimentation as a means to test hypotheses. He also introduced the ideas of scepticism, criticism and even the concept of Occam's Razor. Unlike Alhazen, Aristotle never bothered to test the obvious (to himself), common-sense ideas he derived from observation. One example of this was the idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. It would probably seem intuitive to anyone lacking a foundation in basic, mathematical physics. That idea persisted some 2,000 years, until Galileo disproved it experimentally.
as was Francis Bacon (to whom I am very distantly related, so I have some interest in the subject).
That is very cool! I've been fascinated with him since I was a kid, when I read about him possibly being the real author of Shakespeare's works. Nowadays, I think his verified contributions to science and philosophy are far more interesting.
Descartes described the experimental method but was a long way from following it. You can argue that Aristotle, by proposing the validity of sensory experience as a clue to understanding the world, was the father of experimental method (experience and experiment have a common root) or you can argue that Galileo was (he actually did experiments to test his ideas), but to try and claim that the moment of truth lies somewhere in between ca. 350 BCE and ca 1600 CE is to try and measure accurately using a jelly stick.
I guess there wasn't one moment, one great leap forward. It was an accumulation of thought building upon previous thought that brought us here. But with Aristotle, this is where one of my pet peeves comes in. My exploration into philosophy started with this book called Great Works of Philosophy. The first chapter was Plato, and I found him circuitous, arbitrary and boring. I called it the most tedious thing ever to be written. The second chapter was Aristotle, and when I was done with him, I apologized most profusely to Plato's ghost. Compared to Aristotle, Plato's work was utterly profound. That second chapter was the most pointless, rambling and self-absorbed drivel I have ever encountered. The excerpt was from Poetics, and Aristotle had summarily sucked the life, the beauty and the essence from one of the things I love dearly, poetry.
Your distant relative Francis Bacon despised Aristotelean philosophy, and expressed his disdain:
[A]nother form of induction must be devised than has hitherto been employed, and it must be used for proving and discovering no
Aristotle was the "father of the experimental method" - he advocated looking at Nature.
This is only half-correct. Aristotle formalized empiricism, but never performed or advocated experiments. The core idea of the scientific method, using experiments to test hypotheses, would first be seen among early Islamic scientists like Alhazen, further developed by Francis Bacon and formalized by Rene Descartes in Discourse on the Method. Any of the three would have a better claim to the title "father of the experimental method" than Aristotle.
Of course you do because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory. When you look at the facts, non existent market-share for itanium, HP paying Intel to continue production of itanium, you understand why Oracle dropped it.
Considering that as of 2011Q1, Itanium demand was still growing and annually bringing in several billion dollars in revenue, I wouldn't use the phrase "non existent market-share" to describe it. Larry basically sabotaged HP's Itanium business out of sheer spite.
Interesting, and looks legit! But that's a disorder so by definition not normal. I like how the article suggests use of marijuana for dealing with this syndrome!
That's the funny thing, we define a "disorder" as something that isn't "normal", but how do we define "normal"? Someone who doesn't have any disorders?;) Maybe it's only actually a "disorder" in the sense that a) it's rather uncommon; b) it's inconvenient to have it when trying to fit into the standardized, regimented cycles of most modern, urbanized populations.
If you think about it, people with the "disorder" generally have regular and "normal"-length sleep cycles, only at a different time from most people, if we aren't forced to comply with the normal sleep-wake cycles. When given the opportunity, we can have perfectly functional and productive lives. Maybe we're not "broken" and don't actually need fixing. Left-handedness was once considered a "disorder" too, right?
...I'm not so sure it's well understood what causes an morbidly obese person to all of a sudden become an athelete.
You said you didn't see him for "a couple of years". That's not "all of a sudden". It's not about being a "natural athlete", it's about making a choice, taking responsibility for yourself and just doing what needs to be done. You spent 30 seconds forming that hypothesis in 2004, and in 8 years you haven't managed to improved on it. Who's the dumbass?
The nifty speaker tricks are even more impressive when you consider that the Apple ][ only had one command for sound: you read an I/O-mapped address to click the speaker. Each read was one click. Clicking at different intervals would produce different tones. Speech was done with a combination of tones and noise. All this had to be micromanaged concurrently with anything else your program was supposed to be doing, on a 1 MHz processor! I remember the first time I heard the opening screen of Sea Dragon and hearing the synthesized voice and just listening to it in awe and wonder.
Try this: super. As a prefix, it simple means more, over, above or beyond. We have 2 kinds of planets in the Solar System: rocky and gas giant. Earth is the largest of our rocky planets, you can think of it as the flagship. So this exo is an Earth-class planet, only 8 times heavier (that's closer to a full order of magnitude than half). A super-Earth. A , where the baseline is Earth. Get it?
So, your anecdote and personal experience trumps the 19/20 studies that the article talks about. Nice. Maybe you should remember that you're one person in 7 billion. I could get snarky and quote your post and asks for lots of citations, but there's no need for that. If you're not a shill, stop drinking the Kool-aid.
Not disagreeing with you, but your post isn't entirely fair, because if you trace the chain back, everything is ultimately powered by the Big Bang. One step forward is gravity, which feeds fusion, which generates energy and all the other elements from hydrogen. So we have to draw the line somewhere to have a rational discussion. I'd suggest containing the discussion to our solar system. So we basically have 3 sources of energy: Solar, which feeds wind, tidal, hydro and petrochem; Nuclear; and Geothermal, which is fed by gravity and nuclear.
There's no point to this if you keep shifting the goal-posts.
Um, if someone needs the relevant college-level courses to understand this, then by definition it is NOT intuitive.
Intuition is direct, a priori, instinctive comprehension of a concept, NOT relying on experience, and "without inference or the use of reason".
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.
I answered all those points. Your response was to pull out a philosophy definition. Maybe you don't realize this, but the philosophers who came up with those schools of thought did not have the benefit of modern neurology and cognitive science to inform their hypotheses. Despite it being essentially off the path, I still responded to that point. Now you come up with yet another redefinition, common sense. I'm not following you down that road. Funny that, since you claim you
attempt to keep the discussion focused on the actual point at hand
The "point at hand" is your statement:
Um, if someone needs the relevant college-level courses to understand this, then by definition it is NOT intuitive.
I refuted that statement by quoting a formal definition of intuition, provided by Google, and I explained why your statement was incorrect. I don't care about the article or the post you initially responded to, and that should have been pretty obvious because at no point before this did I even refer to either. 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.
You seem to want to believe that this magical thing you refer to as intuition, common sense or a priori knowledge just is and everybody has it. The fact of the matter is, it isn't, and we don't. We are born with no _knowledge_, no data whatsoever. (Ok, not entirely true, we start taking in and processing data in the womb.) All we are born (or conceived) with is wiring that is predisposed to process input in certain ways. The rest is data. Experience. Education (whether formal or informal). Even "simple perceptions", like the ability to see, must be learned, and if you don't use your eyes in your first six months or so, you're likely never going to see properly, if at all.
If you want to cling to your definitions, so be it. I think you diminish yourself with those beliefs, but that is your choice.
Slashdot Mirror
A hand job and a kick in the balls is better than two kicks in the balls.
That would make a great sig. :)
And I was careless. Aristotle believed that knowledge was acquired by sensory experience, unlike Plato who thought that some kind of higher realm was primary and the observed world was, as Yeats put it "a spume that played/upon a ghostly paradigm of things". Aristotle's claim, as I observed in the second half of the sentence, was to have proposed looking at Nature for knowledge; this was quite revolutionary in a world in which people saw a deus in just about every machina. Although his cosmology was pretty strange, he at least had the idea that probably one cause accounted for the movement of things in the sky - his "that which moves without movement", [/. Greek fail]
Agreed. His thoughts on knowledge and observation were quite a leap for the Greeks.
But why cite Wikipedia when there is so much better information on early history of science?
It's rather convenient :) I like Wikipedia mostly as a jumping-off point. It has reasonably good summaries and most articles have citations to follow.
The article you cite describes Alhazen as an "early Islamic scientist" whereas he was pre-scientific,
Ah, there I must disagree. Alhazen, in his Book of Optics , ca. 1020, presents us with one of the earliest descriptions of the scientific method. He built on Aristotle's empiricism, but insisted on experimentation as a means to test hypotheses. He also introduced the ideas of scepticism, criticism and even the concept of Occam's Razor. Unlike Alhazen, Aristotle never bothered to test the obvious (to himself), common-sense ideas he derived from observation. One example of this was the idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. It would probably seem intuitive to anyone lacking a foundation in basic, mathematical physics. That idea persisted some 2,000 years, until Galileo disproved it experimentally.
as was Francis Bacon (to whom I am very distantly related, so I have some interest in the subject).
That is very cool! I've been fascinated with him since I was a kid, when I read about him possibly being the real author of Shakespeare's works. Nowadays, I think his verified contributions to science and philosophy are far more interesting.
Descartes described the experimental method but was a long way from following it. You can argue that Aristotle, by proposing the validity of sensory experience as a clue to understanding the world, was the father of experimental method (experience and experiment have a common root) or you can argue that Galileo was (he actually did experiments to test his ideas), but to try and claim that the moment of truth lies somewhere in between ca. 350 BCE and ca 1600 CE is to try and measure accurately using a jelly stick.
I guess there wasn't one moment, one great leap forward. It was an accumulation of thought building upon previous thought that brought us here. But with Aristotle, this is where one of my pet peeves comes in. My exploration into philosophy started with this book called Great Works of Philosophy. The first chapter was Plato, and I found him circuitous, arbitrary and boring. I called it the most tedious thing ever to be written. The second chapter was Aristotle, and when I was done with him, I apologized most profusely to Plato's ghost. Compared to Aristotle, Plato's work was utterly profound. That second chapter was the most pointless, rambling and self-absorbed drivel I have ever encountered. The excerpt was from Poetics, and Aristotle had summarily sucked the life, the beauty and the essence from one of the things I love dearly, poetry.
Your distant relative Francis Bacon despised Aristotelean philosophy, and expressed his disdain:
[A]nother form of induction must be devised than has hitherto been employed, and it must be used for proving and discovering no
Aristotle was the "father of the experimental method" - he advocated looking at Nature.
This is only half-correct. Aristotle formalized empiricism, but never performed or advocated experiments. The core idea of the scientific method, using experiments to test hypotheses, would first be seen among early Islamic scientists like Alhazen, further developed by Francis Bacon and formalized by Rene Descartes in Discourse on the Method. Any of the three would have a better claim to the title "father of the experimental method" than Aristotle.
What Terrorists Really Want
You can download Wikipedia's database in various formats.
+1 Informative. Good summary for all the didn't-RTFA-regulars who _must_ post criticism for lack of anything better to do.
Technically, the herbal stuff aren't actually teas, they're infusions.
Diet, Light, Zero. You can have your cake and eat it too :)
Of course you do because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory. When you look at the facts, non existent market-share for itanium, HP paying Intel to continue production of itanium, you understand why Oracle dropped it.
Considering that as of 2011Q1, Itanium demand was still growing and annually bringing in several billion dollars in revenue, I wouldn't use the phrase "non existent market-share" to describe it. Larry basically sabotaged HP's Itanium business out of sheer spite.
It's the message you get when you try to download for $0 and you're not logged in. Try it.
~13" is the top end in terms of "ultraportable". Notable in that range are the VAIO Z (and SZ before it) the Dell XPS 13 and the MacBook Air.
Scroll down a bit: there's a 7970M, a mobile GPU.
Circle, Square, Triangle, X? :)
Interesting, and looks legit! But that's a disorder so by definition not normal. I like how the article suggests use of marijuana for dealing with this syndrome!
That's the funny thing, we define a "disorder" as something that isn't "normal", but how do we define "normal"? Someone who doesn't have any disorders? ;) Maybe it's only actually a "disorder" in the sense that a) it's rather uncommon; b) it's inconvenient to have it when trying to fit into the standardized, regimented cycles of most modern, urbanized populations.
If you think about it, people with the "disorder" generally have regular and "normal"-length sleep cycles, only at a different time from most people, if we aren't forced to comply with the normal sleep-wake cycles. When given the opportunity, we can have perfectly functional and productive lives. Maybe we're not "broken" and don't actually need fixing. Left-handedness was once considered a "disorder" too, right?
DST or not? ;p
...I'm not so sure it's well understood what causes an morbidly obese person to all of a sudden become an athelete.
You said you didn't see him for "a couple of years". That's not "all of a sudden". It's not about being a "natural athlete", it's about making a choice, taking responsibility for yourself and just doing what needs to be done. You spent 30 seconds forming that hypothesis in 2004, and in 8 years you haven't managed to improved on it. Who's the dumbass?
Nope, some of us really are night people. We can have perfectly regular sleep cycles, only not at "normal" hours.
The nifty speaker tricks are even more impressive when you consider that the Apple ][ only had one command for sound: you read an I/O-mapped address to click the speaker. Each read was one click. Clicking at different intervals would produce different tones. Speech was done with a combination of tones and noise. All this had to be micromanaged concurrently with anything else your program was supposed to be doing, on a 1 MHz processor! I remember the first time I heard the opening screen of Sea Dragon and hearing the synthesized voice and just listening to it in awe and wonder.
I'd be ok with the green skin and anger issues, but the not the purple pants! ;p
A dwarf human is still much larger than a giant ant. :)
Try this: super. As a prefix, it simple means more, over, above or beyond. We have 2 kinds of planets in the Solar System: rocky and gas giant. Earth is the largest of our rocky planets, you can think of it as the flagship. So this exo is an Earth-class planet, only 8 times heavier (that's closer to a full order of magnitude than half). A super-Earth. A , where the baseline is Earth. Get it?
So, your anecdote and personal experience trumps the 19/20 studies that the article talks about. Nice. Maybe you should remember that you're one person in 7 billion. I could get snarky and quote your post and asks for lots of citations, but there's no need for that. If you're not a shill, stop drinking the Kool-aid.
Not disagreeing with you, but your post isn't entirely fair, because if you trace the chain back, everything is ultimately powered by the Big Bang. One step forward is gravity, which feeds fusion, which generates energy and all the other elements from hydrogen. So we have to draw the line somewhere to have a rational discussion. I'd suggest containing the discussion to our solar system. So we basically have 3 sources of energy: Solar, which feeds wind, tidal, hydro and petrochem; Nuclear; and Geothermal, which is fed by gravity and nuclear.
No, it's really much slower, particularly in double-precision:
Nvidia cripples GPGPU in Geforce GTX 680
Benchmark Results: Sandra 2012
NVIDIA GTX 680 Reviewed: A New Hope
Um, if someone needs the relevant college-level courses to understand this, then by definition it is NOT intuitive.
Intuition is direct, a priori, instinctive comprehension of a concept, NOT relying on experience, and "without inference or the use of reason".
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.
I answered all those points. Your response was to pull out a philosophy definition. Maybe you don't realize this, but the philosophers who came up with those schools of thought did not have the benefit of modern neurology and cognitive science to inform their hypotheses. Despite it being essentially off the path, I still responded to that point. Now you come up with yet another redefinition, common sense. I'm not following you down that road. Funny that, since you claim you
attempt to keep the discussion focused on the actual point at hand
The "point at hand" is your statement:
Um, if someone needs the relevant college-level courses to understand this, then by definition it is NOT intuitive.
I refuted that statement by quoting a formal definition of intuition, provided by Google, and I explained why your statement was incorrect. I don't care about the article or the post you initially responded to, and that should have been pretty obvious because at no point before this did I even refer to either. 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.
You seem to want to believe that this magical thing you refer to as intuition, common sense or a priori knowledge just is and everybody has it. The fact of the matter is, it isn't, and we don't. We are born with no _knowledge_, no data whatsoever. (Ok, not entirely true, we start taking in and processing data in the womb.) All we are born (or conceived) with is wiring that is predisposed to process input in certain ways. The rest is data. Experience. Education (whether formal or informal). Even "simple perceptions", like the ability to see, must be learned, and if you don't use your eyes in your first six months or so, you're likely never going to see properly, if at all.
If you want to cling to your definitions, so be it. I think you diminish yourself with those beliefs, but that is your choice.