Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 4451-4455 (the 1st through 5th of February, 2021)
cesium133:
Axiom was the spaceship from WALL-E.
Wingy:
--- Quote from: Case on 06 Feb 2021, 09:42 ---
--- Quote from: Wingy on 06 Feb 2021, 09:36 ---
--- Quote from: Case on 04 Feb 2021, 08:44 ---Paul Muad'Dib would like to have a word ...
--- End quote ---
Maud'Dib was a self-admitted coward. And Einstein suffered from an inability to accept the consequences of his own results, which is also cowardice, just writ a bit larger.
--- End quote ---
What? :psyduck:
--- End quote ---
Einstein came out with the general theory of relativity, and when it was shown it depended on quantum mechanics, refused to believe it and scrambled to find some way to force QM out of relativity - to keep the Newtonian universe. He then invented the cosmological constant, and it wasn't until years later that he finally admitted publicly why he did that and confessed that it was a blind alley and a mistake.
In a parallel fashion, Maud'Dib saw the golden path and rejected it. And in his cowardice, arranged that his decisions which brought evil only allowed for the evil to be revealed after the event had happened. See Children of Dune, the final confrontation between the Preacher and Leto the second, pgs 338-350 in my paperback. The relevant quote is on 349.
Is it cold in here?:
--- Quote from: Thrillho on 06 Feb 2021, 13:16 ---
--- Quote from: Guairdegan ---Yes, I remember very well that any show of emotion from a boy resulted in punishment from teachers. Never physical, but being brought to the front of the class so everyone could "see the sissy" was the norm. At home it was "Shut up crying. Keep it up and I'll give you a reason to cry."
--- End quote ---
This is the version of masculinity you're lamenting being out of style?
--- End quote ---
I can't speak for him, but since he started with
--- Quote ---Boys should be free to wrestle, be physical, be rough and tumble, and just be boys
--- End quote ---
my first guess is that he's describing in that sentence his idea of non-toxic masculinity and pleading that it be accepted.
Reconnecting to the comic, Clinton seems to be self-accepting about every positive aspect of his masculinity.
EDIT:
I started a thread in DISCUSS titled "What is toxic masculinity?".
Morituri:
--- Quote from: Gyrre on 05 Feb 2021, 18:10 ---The underlying point of the whole video is that science doesn't deal in absolutes (except for absolute zero), that blind unquestioning faith in science causes people to act unscientifically.
--- End quote ---
The first principle of science is to refuse to accede to blind unquestioning faith. If something affects your life, or if you care about it, test it in every conceivable way to see whether you're being lied to. Or whether the people telling you are just wrong. Or if the authoritative sources on the matter for the prior six hundred years have *ALL* been wrong.
Your "body of scientific knowledge" is the set of things you're aware of that as far as you know nobody has been able to prove are wrong.
In my field, for a long time we worked on the basis of empirical methods and heuristics. A lot of us still do. We poke and prod and fiddle with meta-parameters and network architectures and I/O conventions, not necessarily knowing why certain adjustments have the effect they do or whether an adjustment gets us closer to our goal. In a lot of ways it's been more art than science. It became science because we can measure our success - we have benchmark datasets and we can tell when we find a way to improve our accuracy. We've been meticulously recording our progress and the effect of each adjustment, whether we understood it or not.
And now real theories are finally starting to get traction. People have proposed mathematics that explains most of our meticulous notes most of the time and other people have demonstrated counterexamples to those proposals and then new proposals have come forward and we take a look and say, "well if this is true then I should take it to this absurd extreme and try THIS" and then "THIS" actually works better, or actually doesn't, and we have a new methodology or a beautiful hypothesis is slain by an ugly fact.
It's still pretty rough. There's a huge amount yet to learn. If we were comparing it to physics I'd say we're at the point of trying to figure out whether we can predict simple things like how fast water flows downhill, and nowhere near being able to design internal-combustion engines. But we're learning. We're developing. And it happens because we keep testing and we keep track of what *doesn't* work as well as what *does*.
Gyrre:
--- Quote from: Mr_Rose on 07 Feb 2021, 01:08 ---Yes, axioms are arbitrarily defined as true within a given paradigm; that is just for that paradigm though.
The cellular biology paradigm assumes MRS GREN holds true for all life but we know there are life forms where that s not 100% true 100% of the time (virii for a start) so we need to define a new paradigm.
Choosing a particular set of axioms (your paradigm) to work with when addressing a particular topic is a matter of convenience and convention, not faith, and changing the paradigm if the current one proves insufficient is the expected outcome, not heresy.
Now, what was your actual point, please? Because I’m genuinely not sure and no, saying “watch the video” again is not communicating that.
--- End quote ---
'Faith' as in 'I accept this as it's presented', not as in 'religious faith'.
Perhaps you guys have too much baggage shackled to the word 'faith'?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version