He told BBC News that, if his theory is correct, these life forms would have been similar to slime mould - a brainless single-cell organism that reproduces with spores.
Still a one cell organism. Even much of the less complex life forms have very much more cells.
A zoom in into the complexities of some scientific (or, sometimes, other debates) revealed oftens that both sides has had their arguments, their reasons. In the historical treatement of this or in the cause of school stuff, it appears that one side has a self evident truth and the other side simply doesn’t get it.
For instance, the The Great Debate aka Shapley-Curtis-Debatte. Everyone at least vaguely familiar with astononmy knows that the universe is much greater than one galaxy. But back then, there were mixed evidence. And the reasons one side won is often complicated, and involved some theoretical assumption you could doubt. Who knows about the theories about standard lights and all that stuff? It’s not that difference from today.
The power of science, in my opinion, is the acceptance of doubt. You are not forced to believe but think about ways to test.
Honestly, for many people, it was a hugh discovery that even the experts can be wrong about something. I know, I got a lot of downvotes.
What was her secret?
As far as I know, reconstructing faces from bones is more art than science. There is little to be done about that.
This is a criticism of the article, no one should be offended by it. Criticism is a tool for archiving the truth.
The DSM-5 is just a kind of definition. We define Dyscalculia as a specific learning disorder. Thats in itself isn’t a factuall point.
number-based information because their brain doesn’t process math-related concepts in the same way as those without the disorder
The link is a 404. Anyway. If we assume that the brain processes math-related concepts somehow (!) different, we have a lots of implication. First, the brain works in a way that it can process math-related concepts different but all other informations normal. Secondly, there are a neurological basis which differentiate between mathematical and other realms of thinking, lets say linguistics. Thirdly, if the add the assumption that this “math-related reasoning” is locelated somewhere in the brain, we could find a “mathematical area” just like the “Wernicke’s area”. Fourthly, you could develop a test for dyscalculia based on biomarkers.
People with dyscalculia often struggle with transitive inference—a form of deductive reasoning used to derive a relation between items
But not with spatial tasks? I would expact that transitive inferences could be more linguistic and spatial taks need to be done mathematically.
They may also have trouble keeping track of time
This is reminiscent of Kant on arithmetic…
a child with dyslexia is 100 times more likely to be diagnosed and given support than a child with dyscalculia.
It’s a shame…
While acknowledging that being able to label learning disorders is necessary for allocating resources to students, Ansari says it’s important to think about them as a continuum.
Doesn’t this view (at least in a naive interpretation) implies that the theory of a general factor of intelligence, the g, are false?
Morsanyi points out that children typically learn to read within a few months, and once they have, that skill is mastered.
While this is true, the art of understanding a text, got the intention of the author, “read between the lines”, are more rare. Some people got a nearly natural feeling about words and their meaning. Other not.
The largest study to date, which included 1,303 children, points toward number blindness as the cause.
Interesting, if this ability is connected to the faculty to make transitiv inferences.
But over the past five to 10 years, researchers have started to focus on how these numerical systems interact with domain-general cognitive skills, cognitive abilities that are not specific to math, such as executive function and memory.
If these different branches are highly interconnected, doesn’t that contradict the above statements that there is a specific problem with math?
I suspect the idea may be that given a fully constructed context, you may be limited to however that context permits you to be instead of an independently actualized/realized person.
Could have some unwanted implication for religious people. Or maybe not. 😉
To be frank, I cannot make much of this line. This doesn’t preclude some other can make more of it. From the point of view of a reader, it would be great if the writer of this article would put a bite more into this line.
Although if that may be what Nozick was getting at, it’s not without its own problems, much as you highlight with their position supposing existence harboring deeper meaning and significance apart from conscious creations.
To make a long story short: I feel agnostic about this questions. At least, to a degree.
I’m unsure if this piece belongs in a group called “science”. Its more about philosophy or arts, at least if you ask me.
But the questions it explored about the nature of reality – and our supposed affinity to it – go back further.
The idea of a Matrixlike state is as old as the first human thoughts.
Would it matter to you if it wasn’t “real”?
That is not the same situation as Cypher in Matrix. Cypher wants himself to be fully ignorant about the fact that something like the Matrix even exist. He wants a “normal” life within the Matrix.
In other words: He wants the exchange of a unpleasant reality for a lie. And this is the reason he is the true antagonist of the movie. The machines (eg. Agent Smith) are the evil ones, sure. Yet he is the one who makes a choice like Neo. Neo wants to beginn this heros journey with his new found mentor, while Cypher wants to go back in the old situation and even forces Neo and the others back.
Even within the structur of the story, the movie makes a strong statement againt Cypher’s approach.
The second was that “we want to be a certain way, to be a certain sort of person”, and we cannot truly be anything in the experience machine.
I don’t understand this one.
Through the lack of “contact with any deeper reality,” we would lose access to meaning and significance.
That implies that in this reality lies deeper meaning and significance.
If we assume this is true, then the inference is unavoideble. What about a state of doubt? Maybe it would still follow, maybe not.
Hindriks says. Their goal was to test whether versions of the experience machine that kept participants more in contact with reality would be more acceptable to them. They found that respondents were significantly more willing to take an experience pill
Any fictioal book or movie or video game is a kind of this experience pill. Therefor, we already know that people are willing to take the pill if they stay in contact to the reality and don’t forgot the truth.
My intuition tells me, the two reason we favore reality over a experience pill are:
“Strong” Sapir-Whorf might be bullshit, but the weak version is worth checking.
Really persuasiv sounding. ;-)
My hypothesis is that the sort of people who’d engage on persuasive bullshit cares less about truth value of the statements, and that’s what giving them a hard time asserting the truth value of what others say.
Hontestly speaking. This viewpoint isn’t completely false. In some contextes, other aspects are more important than just straight up true value. For instances, some people seems to be used to judge a view not on the merit of it’s reasons, but because of the socially consequences which would arise if the view would hold by a lage mayority. Even if we agree that such points should be irrelevant for a rational discussion, we already know that not all discussions are rational.
I really hope this impressiv and “scientific sounding” headline is more than just another example of the named effect. ;-)
In a series of studies conducted with over 800 participants from the US and Canada, the researchers examined the relations between participants’ self-reported engagement in both types of BSing and their ratings of how profound, truthful, or accurate they found pseudo-profound and pseudo-scientific statements and fake news headlines.
Selfreporting. And this 800 participants, where are they from? Students?
I remember, there are a lot of studies about the (supposed) psychological traits of persons who believe in “conspiricy theories”. Getting to the big parts, I still have some criticism of the study
Google “Deep Bach”.
Music is the area of art in which a mathematical viewpoint makes the best sense.
Does this mean that writing by hand is an important mental exercise?
The whole system is so messed up on multiple levels. You not only have to publish some result that is correct (true) but it also has to be positive (support your hypothesis) and sufficiently "important " to your field or else your whole career is at risk.
The publication or reproduction crises comes for a reason.
In my opinion, the flaws of the current system are well-documented and even understand to a degree. The actuall problem is to come up with a new system. This system has to be objectiv and fair and must measure the quality of scientists’ work.
Its not a perfect metric, but one that allows us to make a quantitative comparison.
The image that some unserious magazines pushed the main part of the fake papers is not sattled by research as I have read long ago. Some scientometrists has checked out and find out that even many of the “small magazines” use regular peer review. Is actuall a small minority of magazines which let them be paid to publish “science spam”.
So, even Nigerias has an issue with too much use of antibiotics?