|
Post by Rodney Farber on Feb 6, 2020 19:29:01 GMT
4 - Is Warren capable of acting as the Commander in Chief if the s*** hits the fan.Is that a slam at her gender or her? .. The woman is the queen of platitudes. She endorses truth, beauty, goodness, virtue, and Ma's blueberry pies while promising to rid the earth of evil, ugliness, and the man-eating shark. If I had a choice of Warren, Sanders, or Margaret Thatcher, I think Thatcher would be my choice even though she's dead.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 6, 2020 19:49:46 GMT
The idea that women would not have wars is a generalization. It is not saying they could not start wars, just that it seems less likely based on observed experience. There was a quote by Merian C Cooper for the Most Dangerous Game press book: "Women inspire urge to kill...The meekest housewife... the most humble servant-maid can be if she chooses, more savage than the most robust of men... Woman has retained, fortunately, the fighting, dominant blood of the savage... She would have perished as distinctive individual long ago had it not been for her savage strain which has always given her the impetus of fighting for her own rights. This quality can be found in the most fragile of women. For a long time I always thought that 'the most dangerous' game would be one in which a woman was involved."
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Feb 7, 2020 8:09:20 GMT
Here are examples of adages that you've heard in one form or other and which are declared to be irrefutable truth - when they're not. 1. Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence - No, Absence Of Evidence sure as shit Is Evidence Of Absence. Imagine there's a mass murderer in your town. All homes in your neighborhood are searched, everyone is questioned, nothing is found to incriminate anyone for anything. Yes it's possible, though unlikely, that the murderer(s) resides in that house with mom, dad, two kids and a dog. The available evidence is that it's someone from a different locale. Of course evidence of something is not proof of anything. Here's a write-up on that topic. 2. We didn't evolve from monkeys. Rather, we and monkeys share a common ancestor - All human beings are cousins to each other since we share a common ancestor at some point in the past. Human beings are also cousins to chimpanzees, we are more distant cousins to Old World (African and Asian) monkeys, and we are even more distant cousins to New World monkeys. The last common ancestor of humans and today's Old World monkeys lived about 25 million years ago and was a tailed primate, something that we would refer to as a monkey. Yes we did evolve from monkeys. No, there never was a female baboon that gave birth to a fully formed human, Creationist stupidity nothwithstanding. 3. Evolution and abiogenesis are completely different things - No they're not. There was a time when the planet was bereft of life with no bacteria or viruses present. There were chemical reactions and these resulted in complex molecules being formed. Some of these molecules survived (subsisted might be a better word) and grew more complex yet. At some point these molecules became complex enough to be considered alive. These ancient bacteria differentiated into different forms and eventually became eukaryotic, like modern trees, fungi and people. It's all evolution, from pre-living formations to modern creatures. 4. If women ran the world there would be no wars - Experience says otherwise. Margaret Thatcher didn't hesitate to make war on Argentina. Catherine The Great (Russia) overthrew her husband in a coup, made war on the Ottomans, Iran and Poland, among others. Maria Theresa was no pacifist either. And what of Bloody Mary, Boadicea, Zenobia and others? 5. science asks how, religion asks why (attributed to UK author Peter James) - Actually, religion doesn't ask anything since every cult or creed already knows the answer. The answer to any question about why things are this way instead of that way is this: Because God wants it this way. For number 4 - the Argentinian's started that one. Its just that the British finished it.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Feb 7, 2020 16:45:37 GMT
"How high is up?"
"Two times the distance halfway there"
"A stitch in time saves nine"
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 8, 2020 0:06:20 GMT
"A stitch in time saves nine" Why's that one junk? Basically just means it's best to fix a problem before it gets worse and ends up costing you much more.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 8, 2020 0:44:50 GMT
"You can't compare apples to oranges!"
Why not? They're both fruit, seems comparable to me. On "The Sopranos" one of the characters flubs it and says "apples to bowling bowls" which ironically works better as an expression.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Feb 8, 2020 3:58:09 GMT
"A stitch in time saves nine" There is nothing junk about that saying.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Feb 8, 2020 4:05:28 GMT
5 - I'm reminded of a Penn Jillette quote:
There may be good reasons to be skeptical of religion but this is not one of them. The same could be said of language. I wouldn't say that is a good reason to disagree. Language isn't considered the uncovering of some fundamental truth of the universe. People would indeed find a different way to communicate, and it would overwhelmingly likely be completely different.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 9, 2020 9:28:25 GMT
Here are examples of adages 1, I believe you misunderstand the expression. If a murder happens, there is a murderer. Absence of evidence indicating the murderer is not evidence of absence of a murderer. 2 is mostly true, humans are apes and apes evolved from monkeys. In common vernacular, monkey is used as a slur by deists putting down the idea that man evolved from animals but of course we are animals, just extra fancy. 3 is incorrect. Abiogenesis is the origin of life itself, the spark if you will that created life from death. As far as we know it only happened once although there is some evidence it may have happened twice. Evolution is change in a species over time and is an ongoing phenomena. An analogy is birth and growing up. 4, I agree it isn't true. War isn't because of men's nature, we have war because all living things compete for resources and breeding rights, even plants. Humans also compete with ideologies. Most of the time we agree to cooperation but sometimes that isn't enough. Humans are docile though compared to most animals. If a stranger comes into my yard I greet him politely, not rip his arms off or encircle with my pack/troop and attack. 5 is spot on for abrahamic religions.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 9, 2020 13:39:14 GMT
Here are examples of adages 1, I believe you misunderstand the expression. If a murder happens, there is a murderer. Absence of evidence indicating the murderer is not evidence of absence of a murderer. I think you're misunderstanding the expression. Evidence for a murder and evidence for who the murderer is are two different things; absence of evidence that there WAS a murder would, indeed, be evidence that there wasn't a murder.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 9, 2020 21:47:35 GMT
Here are examples of adages that you've heard in one form or other and which are declared to be irrefutable truth - when they're not. 1. Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence - No, Absence Of Evidence sure as shit Is Evidence Of Absence. Imagine there's a mass murderer in your town. All homes in your neighborhood are searched, everyone is questioned, nothing is found to incriminate anyone for anything. Yes it's possible, though unlikely, that the murderer(s) resides in that house with mom, dad, two kids and a dog. The available evidence is that it's someone from a different locale. Of course evidence of something is not proof of anything. Here's a write-up on that topic. 2. We didn't evolve from monkeys. Rather, we and monkeys share a common ancestor - All human beings are cousins to each other since we share a common ancestor at some point in the past. Human beings are also cousins to chimpanzees, we are more distant cousins to Old World (African and Asian) monkeys, and we are even more distant cousins to New World monkeys. The last common ancestor of humans and today's Old World monkeys lived about 25 million years ago and was a tailed primate, something that we would refer to as a monkey. Yes we did evolve from monkeys. No, there never was a female baboon that gave birth to a fully formed human, Creationist stupidity nothwithstanding. 3. Evolution and abiogenesis are completely different things - No they're not. There was a time when the planet was bereft of life with no bacteria or viruses present. There were chemical reactions and these resulted in complex molecules being formed. Some of these molecules survived (subsisted might be a better word) and grew more complex yet. At some point these molecules became complex enough to be considered alive. These ancient bacteria differentiated into different forms and eventually became eukaryotic, like modern trees, fungi and people. It's all evolution, from pre-living formations to modern creatures. 4. If women ran the world there would be no wars - Experience says otherwise. Margaret Thatcher didn't hesitate to make war on Argentina. Catherine The Great (Russia) overthrew her husband in a coup, made war on the Ottomans, Iran and Poland, among others. Maria Theresa was no pacifist either. And what of Bloody Mary, Boadicea, Zenobia and others? 5. science asks how, religion asks why (attributed to UK author Peter James) - Actually, religion doesn't ask anything since every cult or creed already knows the answer. The answer to any question about why things are this way instead of that way is this: Because God wants it this way. 1) "Absence Of Evidence" is evidence of absence IF (and only IF) the nature of the claim is one in which evidence would be expected AFTER a proper investigation of the claim. If the claim is not falsifiable OR the claim has not been investigated, then saying their is an absence of evidence, therefore this is evidence of absence is a logical fallacy! And the word "proof" as colloquially used outside of mathematics simply means EVIDENCE sufficient enough to convince. The words are otherwise synonymous! 2) "We didn't evolve from monkeys..." - is a statement that only RELIGIOUS people who don't understand the theory of evolution would say. The scientific claim is that humans and Chimpanzees (not monkeys) share a common ancestor. And that claim is substantiated by both the fossil record and DNA evidence. "CHLCA" would have lived between 4 and 13 million years ago, not 25 million. 3) Evolution and abiogenesis ARE completely different things! One is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY that describes a process by which speciation occurs via natural selection, and is the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. The other is a HYPOTHESIS regarding how the first non-living elements combined to create amino-acids, and the process by which these building blocks of life formed into the first organisms. Evolution has been observed before; abiogenesis has not. The process by which Abiogenesis actually occurs is not know; the process by which evolution occurs is. Abiogenesis doesn't say anything about evolution; evolution doesn't say anything about abiogenesis. The fact that they are both related to "life" does not make them the same thing, and at best they might be described as related topics (just like geology and physics are related topics). 4) "If women ran the world there would be no wars" - I agree that this is a stupid saying, but it's largely misunderstood due to the poor sample size. A handful of examples of female leaders making decisions is not an example of "women running the world". The majority of societies are patriarchal in terms of political leadership and culture. Considering that men have always held the majority of political, social, and cultural power in nearly every society on earth through the history of the human race, we have no way of rendering an accurate judgement over what women would do if those roles were ever universally reversed. 5) "science asks how, religion asks why" - I agree this is stupid. More accurately, sciences asks how, and then attempts to answer those questions by observation, experimentation and utilizing the scientific method. Philosophy asks why, and then posits numerous possibilities that require others to consider and weigh the value of. Religion doesn't do either! It sometimes pretends to know "how", and most often just asserts "why" without any reliable means of testing such assertions, because it utilizes unreliable methods like "faith".
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 10, 2020 4:24:14 GMT
1, I believe you misunderstand the expression. If a murder happens, there is a murderer. Absence of evidence indicating the murderer is not evidence of absence of a murderer. ... absence of evidence that there WAS a murder would, indeed, be evidence that there wasn't a murder. No, that is false. It only means that you don't have evidence for a murder, it does not mean that a murder didn't take place. Logic 101: if it's raining then the sidewalk is wet, but a wet sidewalk is not evidence for rain. Just because there isn't someone standing outside hosing down the sidewalk right now isn't evidence that no one did.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 10, 2020 4:36:56 GMT
... absence of evidence that there WAS a murder would, indeed, be evidence that there wasn't a murder. No, that is false. It only means that you don't have evidence for a murder, it does not mean that a murder didn't take place. Logic 101: if it's raining then the sidewalk is wet, but a wet sidewalk is not evidence for rain. Just because there isn't someone standing outside hosing down the sidewalk right now isn't evidence that no one did. I never said it means a murder didn't take place; I said it's evidence a murder didn't take place. Evidence isn't proof. A lack of evidence when evidence would be expected given something happened is evidence that that something didn't happen. If there wasn't a murder you'd expect to see no evidence of a murder 100% of the time, while if there was a murder you'd expect to see no evidence of a murder <100% of the time. So a lack of evidence of a murder is, indeed, evidence that no murder happened. A wet sidewalk is also, indeed, evidence of rain. Given that it rained, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time, while if it didn't rain you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk <100% of the time. If there is some other situation in which you'd also expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time--say your neighbor's sprinkler always wets your sidewalk--then a wet sidewalk would be equal evidence for both rain and your neighbor's sprinkler and whichever was more likely would depend on your prior information about both (how often does your neighbor run their sprinkler? Was it expected to rain today? etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 10, 2020 4:42:16 GMT
... absence of evidence that there WAS a murder would, indeed, be evidence that there wasn't a murder. No, that is false. It only means that you don't have evidence for a murder, it does not mean that a murder didn't take place. Logic 101: if it's raining then the sidewalk is wet, but a wet sidewalk is not evidence for rain. Just because there isn't someone standing outside hosing down the sidewalk right now isn't evidence that no one did. As I said earlier on the link, there is the scope of the proof and the thoroughness of the investigation. If the thoroughness of the investigation is adequate for the scope of the proof, then a negative proof is possible. If 23 people are on an expedition and they all show up at a meeting during the expedition, then there was no murder. The wider the scope, such as a large city, the more thorough the investigation necessary. To prove there was no murder in a very large city can be beyond the resources of investigators to establish.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 10, 2020 12:06:31 GMT
"Two muckles in the duckle and one in the sky" Is that a saying? Never come across it before. What does it mean? Google won't help, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2020 12:40:24 GMT
"Two muckles in the duckle and one in the sky" Is that a saying? Never come across it before. What does it mean? Google won't help, either. It's Irish... means it ain't gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Feb 10, 2020 16:44:20 GMT
In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 10, 2020 17:09:45 GMT
No, that is false. It only means that you don't have evidence for a murder, it does not mean that a murder didn't take place. Logic 101: if it's raining then the sidewalk is wet, but a wet sidewalk is not evidence for rain. Just because there isn't someone standing outside hosing down the sidewalk right now isn't evidence that no one did. I never said it means a murder didn't take place; I said it's evidence a murder didn't take place. Evidence isn't proof. A lack of evidence when evidence would be expected given something happened is evidence that that something didn't happen. If there wasn't a murder you'd expect to see no evidence of a murder 100% of the time, while if there was a murder you'd expect to see no evidence of a murder <100% of the time. So a lack of evidence of a murder is, indeed, evidence that no murder happened. A wet sidewalk is also, indeed, evidence of rain. Given that it rained, you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time, while if it didn't rain you'd expect to see a wet sidewalk <100% of the time. If there is some other situation in which you'd also expect to see a wet sidewalk 100% of the time--say your neighbor's sprinkler always wets your sidewalk--then a wet sidewalk would be equal evidence for both rain and your neighbor's sprinkler and whichever was more likely would depend on your prior information about both (how often does your neighbor run their sprinkler? Was it expected to rain today? etc.). Semantics isn't logic. Lack of evidence is just lack of evidence. The sidewalk example isn't a puzzle but meant to teach basic logical reasoning. If you leap to the conclusion that a wet sidewalk means rain, you have made an error in logic. You may be right, but it's a guess. A perfect logical deduction/argument can be wrong, just as you can make a guess and be right.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 10, 2020 17:11:04 GMT
No, that is false. It only means that you don't have evidence for a murder, it does not mean that a murder didn't take place. Logic 101: if it's raining then the sidewalk is wet, but a wet sidewalk is not evidence for rain. Just because there isn't someone standing outside hosing down the sidewalk right now isn't evidence that no one did. As I said earlier on the link, there is the scope of the proof and the thoroughness of the investigation. If the thoroughness of the investigation is adequate for the scope of the proof, then a negative proof is possible. If 23 people are on an expedition and they all show up at a meeting during the expedition, then there was no murder. The wider the scope, such as a large city, the more thorough the investigation necessary. To prove there was no murder in a very large city can be beyond the resources of investigators to establish. That is not logic.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 10, 2020 18:03:52 GMT
"A stitch in time saves nine" Why's that one junk? Basically just means it's best to fix a problem before it gets worse and ends up costing you much more. That one confused me, until I added commas. "A stitch, in time, saves nine" Is that proper use of an Oxford comma?
|
|