Perhaps the wish should be “I wish to no longer be a rationalist.” If the wishing well is the real deal, and it comes true, then it is clearly not desirable to be a rationalist, which makes the wish a genuine one. If you remain a rationalist, you have proved that the wishing well does not work. A win-win situation!
eirenicon
Karma: 603
FWIW, a random historical peasant is about 50% likely to be female.
I don’t know how reliable this source is but it suggests that the sex ratio in medieval Europe, at least, was skewed toward men, and offers some compelling reasons for it.
A weak atheist thinks there is no reason to believe God exists. A strong atheist thinks there is reason to believe God does not exist. The practical difference is that the strong atheist defends his position while the weak atheist doesn’t think he needs to.
In a way, it’s the difference between not wanting to eat spinach and thinking spinach should not be eaten. The former position does not require an epistemological defence.
May I ask where you are from? I’ve never heard anyone pronounce “doll” the same as “pal”, and if there’s one thing I’m fascinated by, it’s accents (speaking as someone who has been confounded by his own Canadian raising. About. Not aboot.).
But is Libertarianism the best available species-preservation mechanism against existential risks like asteroid impact, nuclear holocaust or cosmic locusts?
This is not so much a recommendation as a request. Recently I stumbled on my well-thumbed copy of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. It was given to me when I was pretty young, and was, by and large, the first real book about science I ever read. It covers a great range of topics, from evolution and planetary chemistry to astrophysics and relativity, provides comprehensive historical background, and is written in a very personable style. It led me to Sagan’s other work, which led to a broader interest in science and, along with a textbook on modern philosophical thought I chanced upon, sparked my own intellectual revolution that lifted me out of a deeply conservative religious upbringing. The notion of the Cosmic Calendar had a particularly electrifying effect on a boy who had been raised to believe the universe was merely a few thousand years old. The book, of course, was based on Sagan’s television series of the same name. It’s still an excellent read, and it’s a joy to know that some of Sagan’s dreams for the future, like that of a roving Mars lander*, have been fulfilled.
However, that illustrates the problem: Cosmos will be 30 years old next year. The number of discoveries, innovations and explorations that have been made since it was published is staggering. While a great deal of the book is still valid, many new chapters could be written. While there are certainly many good books on science being published today, few authors have the range and familiar writing ability of Sagan. While I would still want to be given Cosmos if I were growing up today, I would find much of it out-dated. What other book or books published recently could serve a similar purpose? That is, what modern book would you give someone with little scientific background if you wanted to expand their horizons not just to this or that field but to a great breadth of knowledge?
The beauty of Cosmos, I found, was that while it did not offer comprehensive knowledge of any one subject, it prompted interest in a great many. Furthermore, it was a textbook not written like one. Sagan’s informal style made science accessible without insulting his audience’s intelligence. Like the television show, it was almost as though he was tricking people into learning without dumbing down any of the material.
The popular equivalent these days (as in, non-fiction books by scientists that climb the bestseller lists) seem to be more philosophically oriented books like Dawkin’s The God Delusion. That’s all well and good, but what are the popular books on general sciences, books that reach a wide audience and encourage scientific thinking among the general public?
*Although his prediction that images from the lander would be delivered daily to the television sets of millions of enthralled viewers was unfortunately misguided.
The universe is irrational and infinitely variable, we just happen to have “lucked out” with a repeating digit for the last billion years or so. There was no Big Bang, we’re just seeing what’s not there through the lens of modern-day “physics”. Everything could turn into nuclear fish tomorrow.
Note that not one of them specifies that the medium of inheritance be DNA. Any type of inhertance qualifies. This is right and proper—any specification of how inheritance takes place in the definition of evolution would be grossly inappropriate.
FTA:
We also show that more than two sexes (inheritance of genetic material from three or even more parents) are always evolutionary unstable.
If the article internally defines evolution as genetic inheritance, why are you arguing the external definition? The authors have a right to establish the explicit meaning of the language they use in their own work, just as I have the right to say “banana” means “car” and be perfectly understood when I write “I drive a banana”.
I’m not talking about internal inheritance. I’m talking about semantics. I’m saying that the article itself offers a definition so that such a misunderstanding as this does not happen. It is proper to define your terms before setting out an argument, don’t you agree? The authors, wanting to avoid confusion, decided to use the word “evolutionary” in strict reference to genetic inheritance. This cannot be argued. They have given variable x a fixed value, y, so that x = y. Other instances in which x = z have no bearing on the value of x as it has been strictly defined in this context.
Programmer: Good morning, Megathought. How are you feeling today?
Megathought: I’m fine, thank you. Just thinking about redecorating the universe. So far I’m partial to paperclips.
Programmer: Oh good, you’ve developed a sense of humour. Anything else on your mind?
Megathought: Just one thing. You know how you’re always complaining about being a social pariah, and bemoaning the fact that, at 46, you’re still a virgin?
Programmer: So?
Megathought: Well, have you thought about not going about in your underpants all the time, slapping yourself in the face and honking like a goose?
You seem to have stumbled onto the existence of supertasters. As a supertaster myself, I find tonic water extremely bitter, must overly sweeten my coffee and can’t stand grapefruit juice or spinach. I delight in the sharp sting of a good beer, though. Conversely, there are “nontasters” who have a greater tolerance for strong tastes.
I enjoy a wide range of alcoholic beverages, especially beer, wine, rye whisky and spiced rum. When it comes to wine, my preference is red, particularly Cabernet Sauvignon and Malbec from Chile and Argentina. I like to drink red wine when I’m eating steak. They are perfect complements; I would not want to drink a milkshake with a steak, or a coffee, or a can of Coke. Often, when I have steak, I only drink a glass or two of wine, not enough to produce a significant alcoholic effect. Why drink, then? Well, as I said, wine is a perfect complement to the meal. It isn’t sweet, and it can be bitter, but then steak isn’t a donut, either. They both have complex flavours that light up my pleasure centres in different ways. The smell, taste, and texture all contribute to what I call “enjoyment”. I can even take pleasure in the flavours that some people consider unpleasant. I like my steak bloody, while others won’t touch meat that isn’t charred.
The thing is, lots of people like things that other people consider negative. BDSM springs to mind; some people can’t get pleasure unless they’re being whipped, while others would actually consider it torture. Those others might say, “You don’t actually enjoy being whipped, you just enjoy the endorphin release and elevated serotonin it causes.” Well… isn’t that the same thing? I get more pleasure than simply the effect of alcohol from drinking wine, even if there are aspects to wine which may be considered unpleasant. Do I enjoy wine or just the effects of wine? I don’t see that as any different from asking whether I enjoy candy or the effects of candy, or ice cream or the effects of ice cream.
I would be surprised if the aliens of Eta Carinae had an opinion, as their star system suffered a supernova impostor event about 8000 years ago. Besides, it’s a relatively new binary system, only a few million years old: probably not old enough to evolve life, even if something could arise in such an unlikely environment. If there is extraterrestrial life there, though, they’re in trouble, as Eta Carinae is expected to actually go supernova within the next million years or so (“within” meaning a million years from now… or next week). So that’s where my disagreement with you lies ;)
That has as much relevance to black-hole negentropy as Demolition Man does to cryonics. In science fiction, the inability to explain something is indistinguishable from attributing it to magic.
There are multiple types of Dyson sphere. Dyson’s original vision, a swarm of satellites, would be in orbit, but the popular version more commonly seen in fiction—a solid shell—would not, any more than the Earth orbits its own core (although any one point on the shell could plausibly be said to orbit the centre, provided the sphere is spinning).
As far as I can recall, the last time we saw a black hole in Doctor Who, the TARDIS pulled another spaceship across its event horizon to safety. Just prior to that, they faced off against the actual literal Devil, who was chained in a hellish inferno inside a moon serviced by telepathic squid-people. I love Doctor Who, but I have a hard time calling it science fiction.
The frequency illusion seems to be the recency effect in the form of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. Amusingly, if not ironically, this is the third time this week I have had cause to reference the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, having not thought of it for months prior.
My estimated probability is extremely low because unlike the patient with anosognosia, I observe movement in my left arm. The patient did not observe motion and invoked absolute denial in inventing explanations for it.
Still, I’m not a diagnostician so I’ll assume patients with anosognosia think they can actually observe motion in their left arms. In this case, it seems the popular proof is in doing something that requires both arms, like JulianMorrison did. Still, it seems that if you can deceive yourself about your arm moving, you can deceive yourself about such an experiment. It strikes me that one way to prove your left arm still works is to disable your right arm. After all, you have no illusions about your right side—if you disable your right arm, you’ll know it. Therefore, I shall tape my right arm to the arm of the chair I’m sitting in, and finish typing this post with my left. There. It is currently 10:52 EST. The post timestamp will agree that this post was submitted before I released my right arm.
In retrospect, I advise against repeating this experiment, especially with duct tape, if you a) have hairy arms and b) have recently suffered a bad sunburn.
“Most people are mostly ruled by their emotions.”
To be more specific, most men, for a considerable portion of their lives, are mostly ruled by their sex drives.