StringJunky

@CharonY The method of determining the veracity of facts has changed: one must be conversant in Youtube and Twitter. The written word is so 'yesterday', even long-time posters here tend to present videos rather than papers or articles now. The written word as a medium for evidence seems to be going the way of the hieroglyph. What I don't get is video is so slooow to input... I thought the world was getting faster and less patient. #LudditesRock

I found this that may interest some by Carl Sagan from his The Demon-Haunted World: 1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” 2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. 3. Arguments from authority carry little weight—“authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. 4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. 5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. 6. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will. 7. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging. 8. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise)—not just most of them. 9. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. 10. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable, are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle—an electron, say—in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Yeah, trying to follow where Trump led.

But not smart enough he can handle that many balls in the air at the same time. Putin has up until now appeared shrewed and smart by fostering a state of personal elusivenes and mystique. Now his actions are visible, the reality of his true neptness is there for all to see. He's a gangster with a mentality to match. Putin has singlehandedly destroyed the decades-long Russian illusion of being a superpower in a few weeks. It's my personal opinion that only US can claim that handle. I think China is the same as Russia. Only their nukes give them any real military status. The US can fight on any level to a high level of competence and commitment by its servicemen. They aren't oppressed.

You are crediting him with too much intelligence.

Putin clearly has bit off more than he can chew. It's a bit like a community football team winning all their matches and thinking they are good enough for the UK premier league or one of the other top national football divisions. This conflict, even if he gets what wants, will surely make him think twice about attacking a NATO country. I suspect China has thought/is thinking like Russia too; that it is invincible by sheer numbers. If you don't have committed soldiers and citizens, that strength is just an illusion. Ukraine has shown that handily, with material support from the West.

I read a few days ago, Ukraine were going to get anti-ship missiles, then one is on fire yesterday; coincidence? Russia has stated it will attack weapons imports from NATO, butI imagine that's been a Russian priority anyway, and they are just saying it now.

Do you think she's dyed her eyebrows

That one-way natural understanding is probably useful for the Ukrainians. Hopefully, it gives them an edge in spontaneous intelligence gathering that doesn't require interpreters.

No, she's known for her blemish-free skin. WYSIWYG. She's dyed blonde most of the time though. I suppose it's whatever her job dictates.

Nicole Kidman carries red hair well . Unusually, she has no freckles.

It was relevant to my point, which you seem to be immune to understanding. Never mind. We'll let that talking point go.

It's the set of justices that represents the needs of the people, with each particular justice bringing a viewpoint/speciality from a particular demographic. One cannot do it all. The important thing is that each trusts the veracity of their colleagues contributions, so that they can make considered judgements. The political element is a serious flaw and probably negatively influences the free exchange of expertise between them.

They aren't showing off about it now though. This is one of those cases where society has moved on and some are still alive. They could theoretically still get publicly pilloried.

Why did you bring up Kavanaugh when I was responding about Clarence Thomas? You are attacking something I'm not even talking about. I was talking about how values change over time. Yes, Kavanaugh is relevant, yes Thomas is relevant... because they are part of our time. Go back to JFK's time, and Rolling Stones, Bowie etc, with random fornication, not so much, and was actually deemed ok, and even cool.

When did 'Kavanaugh' look like 'Clarence Thomas'? Look at what I quoted.

Yes, it was within our time and the social rules on sexual misconduct have not changed, so ones moral outrage is applicable. Go further back, sexual fidelity wasn't even an issue in making high office appointments and philandering was even admired. JFK comes to mind.

I thought that was quite straight forward, but I'll spell it out out for you: within ones living memory. Beyond that, the boat has sailed. But even then, I realize, at 60 years old, that some of my postions are increasingly antiquated in the eyes of the present youth. Social values are not immortal and unchanging... on multi-decade scales they are fluid and ephemeral.

It's not described to that level of finesse.

We can judge those things with our modern lens because they are modern events to us. The effects of those choices are tangible in our present. Our judgement is pertinent.

You are pointing back to less equitable times, when societal hierarchical stratification was a thing to be promoted and lauded. I think we just have to say that it was 'right and just' for those times. We shouldn't apply our modern moral mores on times so long since gone. In a couple of hundred years time, some things that we consider moral and just now may be anathema to a future society in the same location. Societal life is like a dictionary, it's meanings are pertinent only to the times they were written.

We must not exclude the minority sensible part of that demographic.

OK, I wasn't aware of that. It's not manufactured, it's just not seeing the whole picture. You used this argument before and it annoyed me greatly... it is unjustifiably superimposing an attitude on a perceived 'group'... they are not monolithic.

Like I said, he should have kept schtum. It was an political act of overt virtual signalling to his base that he said something in advance. The fault is entirely his.