Suppose there were nothing. Then there would be no laws; for laws, after all, are something. If there were no laws, then everything would be permitted. If everything were permitted, then nothing would be forbidden. So if there were nothing, nothing would be forbidden. Thus nothing is self-forbidding. Therefore, there must be something. QED.
NEW YORK — It was all much ado about nothing as physicists and thinkers came together to debate the concept of nothing Wednesday (March 20) here at the American Museum of Natural History.
The simple idea of nothing, a concept that even toddlers can understand, proved surprisingly difficult for the scientists to pin down, with some of them questioning whether such a thing as nothing exists at all.
The first, most basic idea of nothing — empty space with nothing in it — was quickly agreed not to be nothing. In our universe, even a dark, empty void of space, absent of all particles, is still something.
people who believe in “Nothing after death” are believing in an infantile notion. a plebeian mundane quotidian concept. even “the sky is blue” is a bit less infantile. but the sky is actually multicolor.
“Adam ruins” is classic satire. Typically, but not always, and not in Adam’s case, the requirement for satire is humor.
His science isn’t incorrect. In wolves, “Alphas” are the heads of families of migratory wolves. The bonobos are our most closely related evolutionary cousins, and their hierarchies tend to be non-linear and matriarchal.
But so what? The common chimp is closer to the Bonobo than the Bonobo is to humans, and chimp societies do follow linear patriarchal patterns. The wolves must reproduce, and what do male cubs do? Either find females and bring them back to the group or become alphas by venturing out on their own.
Again, so what? The label “alpha” connotes to each species meaning relevant to that species. It’s the term used to describe the phenomenon that females of a species all tend to be most attracted to males of a certain type. Those males are considered “alpha”. This applies even in matriarchal societies — the alpha males are those that the alpha female chooses.
The “alpha” term doesn’t apply in groups where mate-selection is forced, coerced, or desperately driven. You can remove the relevance of the Alpha male by emboldening young females risk-taking and aggressiveness, by punishing male aggressiveness and risk-taking, and by removing cultural barriers that reinforce these behavioral tendencies…. exactly what the BluePillers and much of western media are trying to do in the name of ‘equality’.
look, i suspected you might do this. i know about parts of academia that say “race is just an old social construct”, but that’s politically motivated by that segment of scientists.
this is like a ghost from the past with those tl;Dr, because i’ve discussed race with people in the past who also did tl;dr only when discussing race as if that were the topic of discussion *where they must make it look like they won some debate* so they mustered the longest text they as it were could. race or not, i’m not into that kind of competition or “debate”, as there is no need to usually since the fact is race isn’t just a sociological category and sure, i’ll bring on sources.
you are right that “race” is a conceptually heterogenous concept in one sense, but it’s also a scientific concept in another sense. you say “ethnicity is a sociological term” but the fact is, ethnicity is used in medicine to inform practical decision. it’s not only sociological but biological, including genetic.
race is not a topic either excluded from commonsense and philosophy. everybody knows what it means except those invested in trying to discredit it from your kid on the street to a world-famous guy like Stephen Jay Gould. to repeat: race is the concept of ancestry plus any biological consideration, but including some specifics beyond the mere “ethnicity” or “nationality” category. in fact there are subraces, which are scientific categories, although which become massively unpopular because of Hitler’s &c’s association with such knowledge. once you look into a persons physicality you are bound to somehow see or wonder where they might be descended from geo-historically. it’s not discredited and it’s not a pseudoscience. it’s a relatively well grounded science, in its anthropological part, and its archeology and forensic autopsy part, a skilled person can tell from the mere bones of the one it is working with the latters ancestry. so a racial anthropologist (yes, those were scientists officially before WW2) was able to see from bone morphology ‘this person is related to people who were historically indigenous to this valley in Sweden.’
anyway that Blacks e.g. have a predisposition to certain diseases vs. White ethnicities is a rather common knowledge by now and easily discoverable in reputable sources through google.
that shows it is not just a sociological category. as for being a scientific construct,— all scientific constructs are!
let’s first start with what a simple scientific construct is, and it’s not something that is “absolutely proven or disproven” like the populous often thinks, but it’s by historical happenstance almost if a concept or a word gets re-adapted or politically declared discredited.
firstly, when one is dealing with something unpopular regarding science, one usually has to deal with *scientism* which is not science but the pretense of being science. it’s prejudices in the culture of science, which make even people like Dawkins and Harris make a fools of themselves. but many others too.
a variation of this, and this is usually seen around race, is “race is just a construct”. usually this quite leaves out that every concept in science is a construct. and not only just a construct, it is usually a social construct with varieties of scientific confirmation. often in the history of science constructs have for centuries been used without that much confirmation, until someone recently came and confirmed it and then the name was kept but the concept re-adjusted. i.e. “we now know that this [biological construct] doesn’t do this, but does this.” i’ll be able to find documented cases of this, but most people know about this.
they point out, the value of a corporation as reflected in its stocks frequently goes up when production capacities are being scrapped. The lay-off of workers, or the rationalization of industries with the closures of so-called inefficient plants, are often accompanied by rapid increases in stock prices. Similarly, mergers and acquisitions often see the capitalized value of the combined firms go far above the number reached by simply adding their previous respective values on the stock market. These examples illustrate that the ability to accumulate is not primarily dependent on the capacity of production or more specifically on what is produced . It depends much more on the power a firm can exert over the market. In other words, Nitzan and Bichler argue that value as measured by overall capitalization is an expression of power rather than efficiency. For them, this inversion is the hallmark of capitalism, a system which has come to rely on the ability of capitalists to contain efficiency and economic progress. From this perspective, power under capitalism is based on sabotage
a lot of the new cults are Atheist cults. some of Dawkins’ followers are quasi-cultists, use harassment and shoddy inferior argumentation. no wonder since Dawkins frequently uses fanciful ahistorical notions such as that “science is the best way to do anything.” (that’s a literal quote.) that someone so educated would make a claim like this is ridiculous. that’s not what science even means. “a way to do any and every thing”, nope. that’s not what science is. likely ~ 99% of the world’s people do not read research publications on sex to have great sex. there’s no evidence of those who have the best sex of having based than on science. that claim Dawkins makes is itself pseudoscientific. he made a thoroughly pseudoscientific claim. is someone paying him to make a fool of himself? science is a research method—it’s impossible to do *most things” scientifically, because typically science is to *study* things perioperatively in a limited way, and then exist as a database to seek knowledge in for experimentation. most things we do are nonscientific. science is a type of measure, it is not all measure. all quantification is not science, because it’s more fundamental than science, and even animals do quantification and navigation that is far more protean than science. science is not instinct. we learn to walk by instinct. even before walking we navigate environments, kinetically transferring ourselves through crawling. science does nothing to that but measure that in a limited but expanding sense. infants learn to walk by themselves, and for most people to try to interfere in that inspired by Science would be likely griveously harmful. sex, most know through instinct. what the hell is wrong with Dawkins? is he just out to make money? does he get enthusiastic but scientific blowjobs from Atheist followers?
it’s especially bad about Dawkins that he was actually a scientist, that he’d make such as pseudoscientific claim like “science is the best way to do anything.”
*even devised things* such as writing was an art for thousands of years before science. mapping, only became scientific quite recently. fashion, overall prescientific except in its most latest trends which may use science to make money. drawing, probably much older than writing. generally no one cites science qua science as a way to learn drawing or painting, as it’s something more primitive and exists in prescientific societies around the globe. etc. etc. etc.
sure, applying science to map is the best way—but when it comes to dancing, it’s not really to do with the scientific method. it’s not taught at dance classes, and dancers do not cite it. probably almost no dancer has cited the scientific method as how she became such a dancer. what Dawkins does is reduce all rigor or training to science. he in doing that contradicts himself, because he might at an other occasion tell you that tribal dancing is not scientific.
he’s a freaking pseudo-intellectual that does not realise the shallowness of his own arguments.
We are the harbinger of your destiny Baghdadi.
You now have the attention of those infinitely your superior.
We created you.
Your children will laugh at your weakness and feel shame at what you once considered sacred.
Attack and we grow stronger; flee, and we pursue; nothing can stop the growth of our power.
Defeat awaits you.
You will know pain and shame Baghdadi.
We determined the path of your development. We defined the dogma that you will suffer by. We were present at the moment you took your first steps; we will be present at your end.
Your destiny is our design.
Your institutions are under our control.
You have no weapons except the one’s we provide for you.
We will make use of the bodies of your children.
Your God stands impotent in the face of our technology.
We are the future…
View original post 844 more words