No, the worst happens now. The plague gradually mutated and now destroys itself, but I don't understand why the end should be on December, 21?
This is as bad as Einstein opining about politics. Smart people who are smart-enough should realize that they aren't smart-enough about a whole lot of things. Anyone who hasn't realized and accepted that should only attempt to persuade or opine within their established area of expertise. (This is not necessarily referring to the most-recent posts, by the way.)
I always thought that the bloodspot became the heart. The whole thing is the embryo, right?. When I was in sixth grade (about age 11), we did a science experiment, in school, with 30 or so fertilized chicken eggs. We kept them in an incubator and opened one each day and emptied it carefully into a petri dish, and described and drew it. The bloodspot was beatng, like a heart, within a few days, or maybe a week at most (OK, it was over forty years ago...). And in a few more days it had the beginnings of what appeared to be what would become the major blood vessels emanating from it, which appeared to be having liquid pumped through them by the beating bloodspot.
Last edited:
Honestly, I don’t know.
My two daughters are allowed to socialize. I have worries and I drink a few beers.
George
I dont want to play mind games... you either get the drift of the sentence or you dont. ask for clarification if need be.
Often i will put forth an anecdotal story as preliminary only. -- as a means of pointing the way to future research or info to come.
here is what I think about anecdotes: Any given quantity of anecdotal evidence is weaker than an equivalent quantity of RCT evidence, but enough human experience added together can produce a large body of knowledge. Most people who deny that our ancestors could ever identify febrifuges by observation try to avoid the issue of how they could identify edible and poisonous plants without double-blind pacebo-controlled trials, and thereby the question also of how the poor idiots managed to survive to reproduce.
You would choose to emphasizing the point that plants claimed to be poisonous might not be, which can be true (e.g., poinsettia). Still, if you were stranded in a remote part of the world, as I have been, and a knowledgeable indigenous person told you that one tree full of fruit was edible while another was deadly poisonous, are you telling me you would say you had no basis for prefering one over the other?
I would like to have you take... parables, anecdotes and all as serious. That would start a real dialog and improve communication. Everything else I get is to shut me up and block the very thing you want to do.. communicate.
Thx, Richard Marsh
Last edited:
I've found an illustration to the discussion:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
anecdotal evidence of logic’s superiority
An old joke (?)
There were two nuns walking in a forest on their way to the monastery.
Their names: Sister Mathematics and Sister Logic.
Sister Maths: Did you notice that a man is following us for the last 38.5 minutes? I wonder why he is doing this!
Sister Logic: It’s pure logic. He wants to rape us.
Sister Maths: Oh, no. What can we do?
Sister Logic: The logical thing to do is to walk faster.
After a while.
Sister Maths: We didn’t achieve anything. The man has come closer.
Sister Logic: It was to be expected. This man did what logic dictates. He walked faster too.
Sister Maths: Then what? He will reach us in 1.3 minutes!
Sister Logic: The only logical think we have to do is to split. You will go this way and I’ll go the other way. The man will reach one of us. At least one will reach the monastery and be safe.
Finally, Sister Maths made it to the monastery and anxiously was waiting for Sister Logic. After a while she arrived too, redfaced and sweated.
Sister Math: Oh Sister, I was so afraid. You were 2.5 minutes delayed. Tell me what happened with the man?
Sister Logic: He finally reached me!
Sister Math: Oh, God ! And what happened next?
Sister Logic: I did the logical thing. I raised my clothes!
Sister Math: Good God! What did he do?
Sister Logic: He did what it was logically expected. He lowered his pants.
Sister Math: Sweet Lord! And then what? What happened next?
Sister Logic: It happened what logic would predict. A woman with raised clothes can run, while a man with lowered pants can’t even walk. So, I am here safe and untouched.
George
An old joke (?)
There were two nuns walking in a forest on their way to the monastery.
Their names: Sister Mathematics and Sister Logic.
Sister Maths: Did you notice that a man is following us for the last 38.5 minutes? I wonder why he is doing this!
Sister Logic: It’s pure logic. He wants to rape us.
Sister Maths: Oh, no. What can we do?
Sister Logic: The logical thing to do is to walk faster.
After a while.
Sister Maths: We didn’t achieve anything. The man has come closer.
Sister Logic: It was to be expected. This man did what logic dictates. He walked faster too.
Sister Maths: Then what? He will reach us in 1.3 minutes!
Sister Logic: The only logical think we have to do is to split. You will go this way and I’ll go the other way. The man will reach one of us. At least one will reach the monastery and be safe.
Finally, Sister Maths made it to the monastery and anxiously was waiting for Sister Logic. After a while she arrived too, redfaced and sweated.
Sister Math: Oh Sister, I was so afraid. You were 2.5 minutes delayed. Tell me what happened with the man?
Sister Logic: He finally reached me!
Sister Math: Oh, God ! And what happened next?
Sister Logic: I did the logical thing. I raised my clothes!
Sister Math: Good God! What did he do?
Sister Logic: He did what it was logically expected. He lowered his pants.
Sister Math: Sweet Lord! And then what? What happened next?
Sister Logic: It happened what logic would predict. A woman with raised clothes can run, while a man with lowered pants can’t even walk. So, I am here safe and untouched.
George
Well stated, Richard. I agree that a number of responses one way or another, is good enough for me. That is the ONLY way that I can progress in audio design. Double blind does not tell me anything useful, anymore. Metadata or whatever you call it, is the right way to go.
Ok Lighten up time !
If its zero degrees outside today and its supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be tomorrow?
-RNM
If its zero degrees outside today and its supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be tomorrow?
-RNM
Depends if you're a subjectivist or an objectivist. Subjectivists will consider wind-chill factor and humidity in deciding the meaning of 'twice as cold' 😀
Subjective?
Let's assume that comfort temperature is 20 degrees, body temperature is 36.6, the gradient is about 15. So, twice colder than 0 should be -15?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.