Found them on metal archives and am listening through youtube.
I’m only a few seconds in, and I immediately get some early Helloween vibes from the guitar tone and playing in Queen of Desire, which is entirely a good thing. Rest of the sound so far is a lot more heavy than power metal, but it’s right up my alley for a Christmas afternoon.
The prompt is dangerous and indulgent for anti-science idiots. You don’t “believe in” science… Science is. You can choose to believe in fairy tales, conspiracy theories and other made up shit like religious dogma, don’t causally equate the two categories - ESPECIALLY not while naming science directly. Maybe say, “what’s a thing that you can’t believe it’s real?” If you need to post.
I see your edit, but it’s still a bullshit post, OP.
I don’t see the issue. Here is the truth, do you believe in it or not? Plenty of stuff I have had a hard time accepting which is another way of saying I didn’t believe it. That doesn’t mean I gave up.
Science absolutely involves belief, the idea that the scientific method is a divorced concept from belief might fly in a badly written Wikipedia article description but in terms of actual science, belief absolutely factors massively into science. So does intuition.
Science is just a meaningless constellation of data points without any belief to connect them. One has to be very careful and continually retrospective about what those beliefs are, but it is absurd on the face of it to say that science is magically outside belief.
Science isn’t a collection of facts, it is a collection of questions that arise from hypotheses that themselves arise from belief and intuition. Just because that is scary and opens up the door to conversations about how belief always shapes our thoughts and actions even when it is in the context of science doesn’t mean you can just slam the door and demand that somehow science doesn’t include these things.
What differentiates science from other things is the intentional practice of questioning one’s conscious and subconscious beliefs, not the absence of belief.
Authoritarian minded centrists always want to bludgeon people with the idea that science is just a set of facts handed down by authority, but that is a lazy and ultimately fundamentally incorrect way to understand and advocate for science. The mistake we made was letting the word “skeptic” be redefined from a lifelong practice of questioning one’s own beliefs to being what some random person who knows nothing about a subject is when they just decide not to believe in something for no good reason.
I disagree. Science is making models to explain the data and testing them. Whichever model fits best the data becomes a leading theory. There is no belief whatsoever.
This aside, I agree with you that many people tend to mistake scientific theories for reality, they are merely good models. Thinking otherwise is belief.
Let’s say the universe is a clock that we can’t open. Even if we make a perfect model that predicts the exact motion of the hands, it doesn’t tell us anything about what is inside the clock (it could be anything really). Belief is when you start believing your model IS what is inside the clock.
I understand that this is a nice way to teach kids how science works, but if you don’t think belief factors into every single thing that humans do in science you are massively off the mark.
Even if belief is very present in human nature, the scientific method is not a form of belief because it is just selectionning the model that fits best the data.
Coming up with models does not necessarily require intuition either when we can automate this process.
I agree it is not straightforward. Evolution arises from gene reproduction, flies are just one easy example because they reproduce very fast. Humans are also using genes reproduction and our evolution can be also be traced. The evidence for evolution is everywhere and it is the simplest explanation that fits all the data.
Flies are very different than humans, but they are built using the same building blocks and processes.
It is not belief it is observation: humans are composed of cells that contain chromosomes. Genetic data is mixed with errors during reproduction (both with flies and humans) resulting in different characteristics in the individuals of the next generation (observable with flies and humans)
Sexual attactiveness of individuals will depend on their genes and their environment (also based on observation), which will impact their number of offspring, effectively selecting some genes and discarding others.
All of this is based on simple observation and you sée that belief has no place in this line of reasoning.
Of course there is more to flies and humans than evolution, yet evolution is such a simple process that it applies to both! Nature is truly amazing
Where do you see belief in what I explained? I’m genuinely curious.
It can’t be the observations as you can make them for yourself, and you cannot find a model that fits the data better with less assumptions as it already fits the data perfectly and has no assumption beyond “organisms make copy of themselves with mutations”
you cannot find a model that fits the data better with less assumptions as it already fits the data perfectly and has no assumption beyond “organisms make copy of themselves with mutations”
It is just a logical statement. A theory must maximize data fitting and minimize assumption. You cannot beat a theory that fits all the data with only one assumption.
Sadly we are not having a debate as I’m giving arguments and you are not willing to criticize them on a core level. I hope other people find this one sided conversation useful.
Umm. So here’s the thing. The scientific method is the best system we have for learning things about the world around us. The problem is scientists are humans.
There are papers published in reputable journals written by lobbyists and special interests to use the trappings and gravitas of science to push their agendas. There are medicines on the market that mostly or entirely don’t work because they were in use before the FDA was a thing. There are lots of papers written by academics entirely to keep the grant money coming, or edited by university management to prevent casting the school in a bad light.
Science, as an institution, is not infallible, and should be examined and audited.
And indeed, a core principle of the scientific method is incredulity. A scientist publishes something, you’re supposed to say “That doesn’t seem right, I don’t think I believe it.” and then repeat the experiment to see if you get the same result.
Relentless advertising the week before the election. Any sooner than that and you’re wasting money. The electorate has the collective memory of a goldfish so wait until the few days, and especially the weekend, before the election and dump it all into an overwhelming advertising campaign. Every other commercial that comes on TV should be one of your attack ads listing everything horrible the candidate you oppose has ever done wrong.
Buying politicians won’t work, that kind of money will either buy one for a few years or many for a few months. But $500m is less than a million dollars a year for just the house of representatives and when that money dries up their normal donors will be there with big fat checks ready to change policies back to the way they were before.
In order to enact real change you’ll need to actually replace the people in power. And even then the major sticking point is making sure that the candidates you endorse actually make the changes that would limit future corruption.
They’re not all Lauren Boebert, but there’s a lot more money than half a billion being thrown around in politics. If half a billion were enough to just buy all the politicians Musk would have done it a long time ago, that’s about 1/400th of his net worth when he keeps his mouth shut.
In total, yes, maybe more. But over, likely, thousands of people and, mostly, for minor things here and there.
Also, just throwing money at people is not somehow a failsafe way to get something. Not everyone can be corrupted and not everyone seeing the corruption is going to be quiet about it.
Yeah, same here. I find that the quality of posts, comments and culture is significantly worse here than on reddit but I don’t want to use reddit anymore because of the API stuff.
But I will say that my entire neighborhood felt like a war zone because my neighbors felt the need to use fireworks all night that can only be described as bombs. One literally shook my walls and set off car alarms. I can’t believe they’re not regulated!
Edit: Apparently they are illegal but the law isn’t being properly enforced. Shucks.
I always took a light jacket with lots of pockets. In line, transfer all your things to the jacket and put that through the scanner. After security transfer everything back and pack the jacket.
even simpler – Firefox will auto-detect a lot of search engines – right-click in the search/address bar and if Firefox can detect it, bottom option will be to add that engine to your list
I just think that Lemmy can’t survive if there is no way to make people aware that a particular post is OC to a fediverse-Plattform.
I have seriously no idea what you even mean by that. Care to elaborate why a site that managed to exist without an OC tag for nearly half a decade is suddenly doomed if there’s no extra OC tag now? Or why good content can not be appreciated if it doesn’t have the right tags?
I expect a social media site to produce original content via its community. Even on a link aggregator style site, there should be more than just expressing an opinion - I can and should do that to greater effect on the site that provided the content in the fist place. After all, it’s about a discussion, not about seeing my particular opinion validated by many like-minded people. So I’m of the opinion that Lemmy needs original content. If that can’t be encouraged even at a basic UI level, I have little hope that lemmy will ever produce genuine content, because there’s no point in going to the trouble if you can just post some link or screenshot to greater effect instead, which you just copy and paste from another post on another platform. And that’s where the problem lies for me: I don’t think Lemmy has enough relevance just by commenting on bot posts. That’s why I’m asking for possible solutions, but nobody seems to want to hear that here. So my quick answer was: “Well, maybe lemmy is just not for me.” Simply because I thought that meaningful, objective dialog and genuine content would be possible here. After about 8 months on this platform, I can’t generally confirm that. This post with a rather neutral question confirms my negative impression - only downvotes. You can perhaps imagine that this didn’t go as I would have hoped. Maybe it was the word “flag” that did not go well with the folks here, but that is basically what i meant: make OC content more prominent because it takes way more effort then your standard link or copy/paste meme. Please just give at least some credit to real the content - that would be a very welcomed change from your average social site.
I mean you can just say NFL in general. Ruins a good chunk of the year hearing about it during work discussions.
No, I will never care about a sport, and especially not overpaid assholes who play it for more money in a couple minutes than I will ever make in years, or more in one game than I will ever see in one place ever.
If I had a genie I would change culture so sports got moved to the same category as politics and religion so you’d never hear about it if you weren’t around scumbags.
I also don’t care in the slightest who’s winning in a huge stadium.
I’ve found that a blank stare when they get to the punch line of their dramatic sports story usually ends the whole thing. You’re meant to react big to every story, so zero reaction throws people off when they want to talk sports.
Agreed. Words are what made us different than animals and words describing abstract ideas made us better than other primates. Words are maybe the strongest power we have
Given the way humanity works, words generally do and should have power (“profane” or otherwise). If they don’t, what’s the point?
On profanity, to me it’s a set of special words to break out for emphasis. If I just casually use them, then they lose value as emphasis. If those words were just as mundane as others, what would be the point of their existence?
He’s definitely a lot better now. He had vomited over 30 times Friday night so we got him to the emergency vet. Hardest part now is trying to get him to take his meds lol
Yikes, that must have been scary! My cat started refusing her treats about a month ago, which is how I had been giving her her meds for the past year, I can really relate to that struggle get them to take their meds. If only they’d understand that it’ll make them feel better!
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.