Holmes

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Our perception of reality is subjective, of course.
But an objective reality does exist.
( we are as in the Indian parable of the blind men describing the elephant by touching certain parts of it )

I know only what I perceive, everything I know (other than a self evident truth like "I exist") is assumed or inferred from what is assumed.

The proposition "an objective reality exists" is not falsifiable and so must be regarded as a belief.

I'm not maligning the claim or those who make it, but want to point out that this kind of claim is often made without its deep implications being recognized.

26 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

Life exsits because it exsits here .. it's not special so it must happen every other week in the universe.

What do you mean "special" and what is it that must "happen" every week?

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree. I think this kind of thing emphasizes that time exists. 

Well the experience of time exists, you experience it, but it is subjective all experiences are subjective, if you think otherwise then I'm listening...

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Ugh. Same argument like we used to hear about people “choosing” to be gay. Such ridiculous thinking 

This is the strawman tactic at work, clearly you can't control this habit and is the reason you've lost the privilege of engaging in conversation with me,

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

To a cis woman.

How so? how is a person who voluntarily elects to become a trans-woman disadvantaged relative to a woman? 

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Perhaps one whose rights are being denied, are at least not being recognized? Like just about any minority, to some extent.

Like the right to choose to make oneself a member of a disadvantaged group?

Just now, zapatos said:

It is your wording in these threads that often put you at odds with some of us. 

You mean, puts you at odds with him?

59 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And what is your position regarding disadvantaging trans women who wish to compete?

What is a "disadvantaged" Trans-woman? disadvantaged relative to what?

I wanted to mention this Radio show that's been running for quite some time now and is available on the BBC site with all previous episodes accessible.

It's format is a chairman and two, sometimes three guests who are usually from academia.

The approach is to explain to the unschooled listener why some subject, person, belief etc is regarded as important and overall it does a very good job.

Consensus is not always present but generally the panel do not get contentious.

The material is broken down into categories like Science, History, Philosophy, Religion etc.

These show are often thought provoking and often highly informative to a layman who wants to get some insights into the subject.

For example the episode on The Black Death is fascinating, learning how society handled some 40% of people dying back then, how this affected land ownership, art and so on.

Likewise the episode on The Fire of London is also informative (records of land ownership were burnt so disputes arose after the fire and so on).

For Physics there are some superb subject, just take a look and see for yourselves.

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Have you ever been under a general anesthesia? When you wake up, you're acutely aware that it seems as if no time at all has passed, as opposed to sleeping, where you definitely know you've spent several hours in bed. Even if you're really tired and sleep all night through, the feeling that time has passed is strong. 

It's very bizarre NOT to feel time. When the doctor tells you to count backwards from 100, you make it to 97 and then you open your eyes and HOURS have passed, it feels like you've been tricked.

This kind of thing emphasizes how everything is subjective, the claim that there is an external world distinct from us observers is itself based on personal subjective experience.

Objective reality in an inference, a very reasonable and rational one but an inference nevertheless.

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion. Feminine is a group of traits that are traditionally associated with what we consider to be women. I.e. it is a collection of cultural traits that are part of the gender constructs in a given society.

But people are struggling to define "Woman" so I do not see how we can define "Feminine" by reference to Women other than as a recourse to history.

If we are willing to define things based on history and tradition then Women have vaginas, XX chromosome and allowing a person who is not a woman to compete in a women's team is therefore a contradictory act that prejudices women.

That is why my question is relevant.

Quote

Depending on society the certain traits can be either feminine or masculine.

Yes and that distinction is based wholly on the historic fact that there are men and women.

I agree with you, but you must accept surely, that we need solid definitions for Man and Woman if we are to define Feminine and Masculine.

Quote

In the Mosuo society, for example, making business decisions is considered a feminine activity, whereas in most others it is more associated with men. But again, other than to complicate matters I am not sure how that helps in any way. 

Again you are forced to base your explanation on the assumption there's a definition for Women but there is not.

Quote

Edit: However, if you think feminine is an objective indicator of sorts, then I think that could be the root of the issue. Perhaps read the link I provided earlier and see how that relates to your thinking on that issue.

I think Man and Woman are objective, XY and XX chromosomes is a scientific fact based way to define these classes of individuals.

In answer to the question posed in the title of the OP:

• The challenger disaster
• Cold fusion
• Chernobyl
• Thalidomide
• Curing homosexuality

etc, etc, etc

For those unfamiliar with thalidomide, read this, a kid in my class in school was a victim and my mother tells me I could have been but she refused the drug at the time.

Teaching about these mistakes (as opposed to silly things like Pluto and misidentified fossils) would indeed help people understand how science doesn't "work" sometimes.

The restricted CPU support appears to be due to a thing called TPM 2.0, if the CPU does not support that or work with that, then I think MS want to avoid or discourage use of Windows 11.

But MS are all over the place, the company keeps messing up stuff like never before, like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing or they've started hiring more dorks.

44 minutes ago, Sensei said:

BTW, did not you hear about e.g. XXX, XXY, XYY etc. ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy_X

"A relatively common disorder occurring in 1 in 1,000 women, trisomy X is rarely diagnosed; fewer than 10% of those with the condition know they have it. Diagnosis of trisomy X is complicated by its mild presentation; many girls and women with an extra X chromosome show no symptoms significant enough to inspire formal testing."

(so there are ~ 4 millions worldwide people with it)

"The first known case of trisomy X, in a 176 cm (5 ft 9+1⁄2 in) woman who experienced premature ovarian failure at the age of 19, was diagnosed in 1959 by a team led by Patricia Jacobs."

(so it pretty fresh discovery and not fully well understood branch of science)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXYY_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXXY_syndrome

...and more variations at references..

I'll consider the above and respond in due course, in the meantime though:

Quote

No, it's not a social construct.

Some incompetent people and mockers who want to ridicule and disqualify LGBT, are persuading that it is a social construct and somebody can be artificially transformed by just discussion about it..

Very well so define "feminine" for me please.

Right, now back to your first point:

44 minutes ago, Sensei said:

BTW, did not you hear about e.g. XXX, XXY, XYY etc. ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy_X

"A relatively common disorder occurring in 1 in 1,000 women, trisomy X is rarely diagnosed; fewer than 10% of those with the condition know they have it. Diagnosis of trisomy X is complicated by its mild presentation; many girls and women with an extra X chromosome show no symptoms significant enough to inspire formal testing."

(so there are ~ 4 millions worldwide people with it)

"The first known case of trisomy X, in a 176 cm (5 ft 9+1⁄2 in) woman who experienced premature ovarian failure at the age of 19, was diagnosed in 1959 by a team led by Patricia Jacobs."

(so it pretty fresh discovery and not fully well understood branch of science)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXYY_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXXY_syndrome

...and more variations at references..

I just read the Wikipedia article and noticed this "...in which a female has an extra copy of the X chromosome...".

So it seems that this is regarded as a female (XX) with the addition of an abnormality, and a similar definition exists for the others, all of them refer to abnormalities.

I also just saw this too, quite by accident:

Quote

The appearance of at least one Y chromosome with a properly functioning SRY gene makes a male. 

Examining "SRY" gives us:

Unless I'm mistaken, this is what one would call "scientific".

On 5/29/2021 at 12:32 PM, Magnetar said:

I have attached a picture below, and the thought of this idea is confusing me too much. 

-> In the first graph, I have taken the area of a single rectangle (say, first rectangle) as M * Δx , where M represents the arithmetic mean of f(x) and f(x) + Δy ( Δy is f(x+Δx) - f(x) )  which i thought would givea better approximation of the area as opposed to directly taking area as f(x)Δx

 

So the question,(please see the pic first) why dont we take the area under a curve as ∫ (f(x) + dy/2)dx? because when Δx is big, the expression of area under a curve as ∫ (f(x) + Δy/2)Δx  would give a more precise result. will it give the same as Δx approaches 0?

Please tell where am i going wrong.

p.s. - I am a newbie at calculus, so bear with me if my question is stupid 

Get this book (this specific edition), it explains in some detail, patiently, how and why the rules are what they are.

The writer knew how to teach and you'll pick that up as you begin to read it, like all good teaches he anticipates the questions his readers might ask or be asking themselves:

I have many books on introductory calculus and this one covers this specific area (no pun intended) better than the others.

On 2/9/2021 at 12:28 PM, ALine said:

In computer science how do you go from 1's and 0's to the different data types such as int, float, double, Boolean, etc? 

It is all just an upper level of abstraction? Is is a function at the lower functional hardware level of the computer? Does it somehow deal with the different flags in the hardware/software level boundary(do not know how else to put that)?

Thank you for your responses.

The types to refer to are technically classes of finite state machines, all of them can be represented as state machines (and in most cases this is implemented in hardware).

Take "int" ultimately this is just a set of bits but how the bits change over time as events occur is defined by a state machine.

This is my answer, it may not be obvious but I think it goes to he heart of what you're asking.

I agree with the others here, avoid the update unless you have a definitive reason, a major release like this will incur a learning curve here and there and will almost certainly have at least minor annoyances.

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

OK, list  the quantitative physiological parameters of each sex. That means the measurable elements of what encompasses and defines what each sex is. I think that gets to the heart of whether sex, as you seem to think it is, is compactly definable.

Do you really want to pursue this line of reasoning? it leads nowhere useful.

For example what if someone argued that marriage to twelve year old girls should be legalized and accepted by society, including some 12 twelve year old girls?

Today - we and certainly I - would point out that this is a child but then someone could ask "define child for me?".

So, how would you react if someone were to suggest this?

15 hours ago, swansont said:

And framing it as “men who claim to be female” is part of the issue.

I don't see how it is not part of "the issue", if there were not men claiming to be female (that is, demanding to be regarded as female wherever the distinction arises) then there would not be an issue surely?

Furthermore if you insist on supporting this idea then logically we should eliminate the current distinction between men and women altogether since if we cannot scientifically define "woman" (as you and some others appear to argue) then why even entertain the concept at all?

Why even have terms like "feminine" or "masculine" when there's no logical prospect of defining these? 

Can you define "feminine" for me for example in objective scientific terms?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

That is not what I said. Not at all.

I’ve already clarified this for you more than once, yet you persist in your misrepresentation. 

It’s as if I’d said, “This is a lovely home. It reminds me of my grandmothers house,” and you replied, “I’ve never lived with your grandmother. I don’t even know her. Why are you lying? What’s wrong with you?”

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's not a sharp dichotomy. It's not male and female, it's a continuum: maleness to femaleness and vice versa. In the world of science, 'commonsense' is what it tries to avoid and is not a defence... it's a subjective position.

There are two sexes male and female, as for "gender" this is a social construct.

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for sharing that lovely insight. That remains irrelevant to my point and it seems clear you’re refusing to argue in good faith. 

No, I'm refusing to argue with you at all in any thread in this forum from this point onwards. Your modus operandi is to seek out opportunities to disparage others, to discredit them and attribute to them negative characteristics, this is the case  just now where you introduced the suggestion that my position on this issue of gender and sports means that I must inevitably be opposed to gay marriage or that I must inevitably be a racist.

I've made many posts in this thread and nobody has stooped to this level despite my obvious disagreements with several people here.

Personally such conduct should not be tolerated but that's a matter for others, I simply want nothing more to do with you.

Just now, iNow said:

It’s called a comparison. A suggestion of similarity. This isn’t exactly rocket science. 

It's misleading speculation intended to disparage me, I fully support gay marriage, I fully support the fair and equal treatment of people irrespective of skin color.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I have no idea and it’s irrelevant to my point 

In which case the claim that my position on gender and sports is "akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned, or suggesting blacks be treated separate but equal" is pure speculation.

In fact attempting to imply I am a racist is possibly a breach of forum rules.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t know. I wasn’t responding to CY

Thanks for recognizing this wouldn’t be equitable 

The expansion of women’s sports in the US was driven by the realization that there was rampant discrimination. To exclude anyone who isn’t XY or XX would be further discrimination.

I did not actually suggest that we exclude those who are neither XX nor XY, I just said that such individuals are neither male or female.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

“tradition” is chock full of discrimination, so perhaps it’s best not to lean on that.

Perhaps, but the division men and women is based on an objective scientific facts, the chromosome pairing. To tell women that they must now compete with men who claim to be females irrespective of this chromosome criteria is inherently prejudicing women, it makes their challenge more difficult while making the challenge for these men, more easy.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

What about disadvantages to trans women?

This is not a real disadvantage, if they no longer want to compete in the men's category then that's their choice, I do not see why women should be expected to suffer just because men who claim to be female decide to no longer participate as men.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

This whole thing boils down to either accepting or rejecting that trans women are women.

They quite obviously aren't, they have XY chromosomes whereas women have XX.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Born or typically live with it, or not, referring to something that gives an objective advantage. You aren’t born with bionic limbs, per the example.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, it is unscientific, and your earlier example shows you can’t use chromosomes to get you to 2 categories.

Yes, I have no problem with new categories being introduced.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes. Accept them as women, because they are. 

Your proposal here is akin to refusing to accept gay marriage and forcing same sex couples to be called civilly unioned, or suggesting blacks be treated separate but equal. 

What is my position on gay marriage and same sex unions?

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Did you read my link. Nobody has ever consciously misrepresented their gender in high-level sport at the time of writing.

I don't see how one can misrepresent their gender in this day and age, one's gender is merely announced ("fluid" to use the trendy term) nowadays it seems, not imposed by nature.

Since there are at least 58 genders, insisting that these can all be meaningfully and fairly partitioned in sports into just two categories not based on chromosomes strikes me as unscientific.

If this is to be partitioned into just two then surely, scientifically basing it on the chromosome paring of XX and XY solves this problem.

1. Agender
2. Androgyne
3. Androgynous
4. Bigender
5. Cis
6. Cisgender
7. Cis Female
8. Cis Male
9. Cis Man
10. Cis Woman
11. Cisgender Female
12. Cisgender Male
13. Cisgender Man
14. Cisgender Woman
15. Female to Male
16. FTM
17. Gender Fluid
18. Gender Nonconforming
19. Gender Questioning
20. Gender Variant
21. Genderqueer
22. Intersex
23. Male to Female
24. MTF
25. Neither
26. Neutrois
27. Non-binary
28. Other
29. Pangender
30. Trans
31. Trans*
32. Trans Female
33. Trans* Female
34. Trans Male
35. Trans* Male
36. Trans Man
37. Trans* Man
38. Trans Person
39. Trans* Person
40. Trans Woman
41. Trans* Woman
42. Transfeminine
43. Transgender
44. Transgender Female
45. Transgender Male
46. Transgender Man
47. Transgender Person
48. Transgender Woman
49. Transmasculine
50. Transsexual
51. Transsexual Female
52. Transsexual Male
53. Transsexual Man
54. Transsexual Person
55. Transsexual Woman
56. Two-Spirit