1.a) Things we think we understand, or, at least, claim to understand even though it might involve a lack of empirical evidence to support it. See also Evolution (self referential post, yeah!), Dark Matter, and all of the previous laws explaining how the world works that have since been debunked.
The point is that, for as much as we know, there is always a chance that maybe we are wrong because we haven't actually seen it. We haven't seen macro evolution on the scale that we claim. Doesn't mean it isn't true. However, we have models that "explain" it. Models that might be wrong and that some people claim as fact. I love dark matter (and that a topic was Slashdotted about it earlier today), and the fact that we cannot see it, can't really explain it, but know that something is throwing all of our understanding of how the universe should move into disarray. What do we do? We claim that our laws are all right and make up an invisible force to explain it away. We admit we cannot yet explain it, that we don't understand it. So, we are making up an explanation for that which we don't understand.
So it can be said for religious faith. You sense something that you cannot see and turn to an explanation that does not explain, a theory that appears irrational, and at some point have to admit that you do not fully understand. Will you ever? You might try. Does that make it invalid?
Ask Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Magellan, and modern physicists, biologists, and geneticists.
This could branch into a more indepth study of knowing what we know, faith, philosophy, etc etc, and maybe it should.
"...that E-rated video games contain material that may be disturbing to young viewers or could be dangerous if imitated."
I will be sure to sit down with my children and inform them to NEVER imitate a garden gnome with a projectile-shooting device attacking gigantic centipedes. I will tell them that being an Italian plumber with the capacity to shoot fire is unacceptable. Oh yes, and never, EVER, will I expect to see them trying something so vile as eating pills that they find laying out on the floor.
Actually, that last one might be a good thing to talk to them about...
I would say that your statement is only partially accurate. While there may be a lower cognitive drain (I will agree with you only for a lack of evidence to the contrary) on the driver, consider the tendency of people, when engaged in conversation, to make eye contact. This might not be manifested as fully in a driving situtation as compared to a conversation in a home, but it will still occur with glances from the corner of the eye, a slight turn of the head, or a full gaze at their face as they explain some horrific part from their past involving a drunken father, a monk, and a llama. Similarly, on the topic of visual distractions from passengers, many of them have this tendency to move. If their butt is sore, they might shift. If they want to grab a CD, they might reach for a storage compartment. Really, they bring about an additional set of distracting environmental variables.
As to them responding to the same stimuli in the environment, I have rarely found a driver to see the same things that I do, let alone anything that I cannot that might be useful to my awareness. Yes, they may occasionally see a deer off to the side of the road. Let us think about that, though - they are looking OFF the road. One of the joys of being a passenger is having the ability to enjoy the scenery. How often have you had a passenger ask you to look at something or "check that out!" while you were driving? While you might argue that it is their duty as a responsible passenger to keep their eyes on the road, they rarely do it to a great extent.
And, finally, my favorite example of passengers being a distraction and not paying attention to the road (or the impact of their actions) - one of my ex-girlfriends was in the car with me as I made an entirely legal U-turn on a green arrow, with no visible obstacles or dangers. 3/4 of the way through the turn I hear this horrific scream. I, of course, assume that I had failed to see a semi run a red light or something, and veer onto the sidewalk to avoid whatever impending doom is approacing from the periphery.
The source of distress? A common house fly had flown towards her eye, and she panicked.
Not a distraction, not a negative influence on driving skills or response at all.
I certainly hope that the definition of "his generation" somehow excludes me. Sadly, I do not think that it does.
Just for the record, there are those of us in the Generation X / Y / Z (someone tell me which one we are using these days) that are capable of stringing together two or more thoughts into sentences. Shoot, some of the more ambitious of us even try to create coherent paragraphs.
To preface the following, I will admit that I have a MySpace account. I must say that I agree with some of the poster's comments. I think that the overgeneralization and stereotyping of MySpace users is bordering on ridiculous. We are not all Emo Cutters! Some of us are Shirtless Jocks, too! I luv to roll with my boyz in my ride hit me up peeps. Ur hot!
Seriously, though, I know of enough parents that have accounts (some as a joke, some as an attempt to be involved with their childrens' lives, and some as a kind of sad and desperate attempt to be a part of a new trend), as well as coworkers, friends from college, and other people from the ranks of Professional America to make MySpace a ubiquitous cultural entity.
There are enough comments about the lack of proper design (both in the layout of the site, as well as the CSS that gets butchered by users), the horrible advertising, and all of those other oft-lambasted traits of MySpace and its consituents, so I shan't add to them.
Slashdot Mirror
1.a) Things we think we understand, or, at least, claim to understand even though it might involve a lack of empirical evidence to support it. See also Evolution (self referential post, yeah!), Dark Matter, and all of the previous laws explaining how the world works that have since been debunked.
The point is that, for as much as we know, there is always a chance that maybe we are wrong because we haven't actually seen it. We haven't seen macro evolution on the scale that we claim. Doesn't mean it isn't true. However, we have models that "explain" it. Models that might be wrong and that some people claim as fact. I love dark matter (and that a topic was Slashdotted about it earlier today), and the fact that we cannot see it, can't really explain it, but know that something is throwing all of our understanding of how the universe should move into disarray. What do we do? We claim that our laws are all right and make up an invisible force to explain it away. We admit we cannot yet explain it, that we don't understand it. So, we are making up an explanation for that which we don't understand.
So it can be said for religious faith. You sense something that you cannot see and turn to an explanation that does not explain, a theory that appears irrational, and at some point have to admit that you do not fully understand. Will you ever? You might try. Does that make it invalid?
Ask Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Magellan, and modern physicists, biologists, and geneticists.
This could branch into a more indepth study of knowing what we know, faith, philosophy, etc etc, and maybe it should.
"...that E-rated video games contain material that may be disturbing to young viewers or could be dangerous if imitated."
I will be sure to sit down with my children and inform them to NEVER imitate a garden gnome with a projectile-shooting device attacking gigantic centipedes. I will tell them that being an Italian plumber with the capacity to shoot fire is unacceptable. Oh yes, and never, EVER, will I expect to see them trying something so vile as eating pills that they find laying out on the floor.
Actually, that last one might be a good thing to talk to them about...
I would say that your statement is only partially accurate. While there may be a lower cognitive drain (I will agree with you only for a lack of evidence to the contrary) on the driver, consider the tendency of people, when engaged in conversation, to make eye contact. This might not be manifested as fully in a driving situtation as compared to a conversation in a home, but it will still occur with glances from the corner of the eye, a slight turn of the head, or a full gaze at their face as they explain some horrific part from their past involving a drunken father, a monk, and a llama. Similarly, on the topic of visual distractions from passengers, many of them have this tendency to move. If their butt is sore, they might shift. If they want to grab a CD, they might reach for a storage compartment. Really, they bring about an additional set of distracting environmental variables.
As to them responding to the same stimuli in the environment, I have rarely found a driver to see the same things that I do, let alone anything that I cannot that might be useful to my awareness. Yes, they may occasionally see a deer off to the side of the road. Let us think about that, though - they are looking OFF the road. One of the joys of being a passenger is having the ability to enjoy the scenery. How often have you had a passenger ask you to look at something or "check that out!" while you were driving? While you might argue that it is their duty as a responsible passenger to keep their eyes on the road, they rarely do it to a great extent.
And, finally, my favorite example of passengers being a distraction and not paying attention to the road (or the impact of their actions) - one of my ex-girlfriends was in the car with me as I made an entirely legal U-turn on a green arrow, with no visible obstacles or dangers. 3/4 of the way through the turn I hear this horrific scream. I, of course, assume that I had failed to see a semi run a red light or something, and veer onto the sidewalk to avoid whatever impending doom is approacing from the periphery.
The source of distress? A common house fly had flown towards her eye, and she panicked.
Not a distraction, not a negative influence on driving skills or response at all.
I certainly hope that the definition of "his generation" somehow excludes me. Sadly, I do not think that it does.
Just for the record, there are those of us in the Generation X / Y / Z (someone tell me which one we are using these days) that are capable of stringing together two or more thoughts into sentences. Shoot, some of the more ambitious of us even try to create coherent paragraphs.
To preface the following, I will admit that I have a MySpace account. I must say that I agree with some of the poster's comments. I think that the overgeneralization and stereotyping of MySpace users is bordering on ridiculous. We are not all Emo Cutters! Some of us are Shirtless Jocks, too! I luv to roll with my boyz in my ride hit me up peeps. Ur hot!
Seriously, though, I know of enough parents that have accounts (some as a joke, some as an attempt to be involved with their childrens' lives, and some as a kind of sad and desperate attempt to be a part of a new trend), as well as coworkers, friends from college, and other people from the ranks of Professional America to make MySpace a ubiquitous cultural entity.
There are enough comments about the lack of proper design (both in the layout of the site, as well as the CSS that gets butchered by users), the horrible advertising, and all of those other oft-lambasted traits of MySpace and its consituents, so I shan't add to them.