Proper references

Dec 29, 2024 6:51 AM

Urgalicity

Views

32754

Likes

1219

Dislikes

13

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's called "consilience". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not for god loving people who call themselves people.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

Of course, sometimes Shakespeare writes a play about it, and common people don't know about the corrected version. Richard didn't actually have the princes killed. The Tudor with the very flimsy claim on the throne did in all likely hood.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Why did the eagles not just fly Frodo to Mordor?

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

Because you don't want to see a Ring Wraith that was once King of the Eagles before he was corrupted.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Because Sauron would've seen them coming long before they reached Mordor. What Frodo (and Sam) did was so unlikely that Sauron didn't even think it possible and that's the reason it worked and it only just did with tons of luck in addition. The eagles would've triggered a similar response as Aragorn going to the black gates to draw out the rest of Saurons Army I'd say and at the very least Sauron would've intercepted them with the Nazgûl.

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

We should probably stop using this meme format considering Vince is a disgusting piece of human filth?

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I guess it’s fine if we still use it for memes about education, seeing that his wife is about to be in charge of that.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ex-wife, but still

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Funny, when you do this to prove all religions are bunk you still get slain on an alter as a sacrifice to the sacred gods and demons of all made up fairy tales from the days of early Homo heidelbergensis trying to explain how the world worked in stories. It's funny that.

However if religion gets you through life and makes you a better person, this is good, but I believe you are jast a good person without it.

2 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 5

I've made it clear the God I'm referencing is Tammuz. He's done me proud so far.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

https://imgur.com/mhUPuOK

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

I appreciate you, I expected to be beaten down hard for a controversial comment. Thank You for this.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Your comment really is not controversial on Imgur.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If someone finds solace in their faith in a god, who am I to judge them. But given the attrocities carried out in the name of almost all religions (now and in the past) and the complete disregard for science and logic to help them stick to their beliefs, I find I have less and less compassion and understanding for religious people (btw I was brought up a Catholic but gave up n any form of religion decades ago). https://imgur.com/dyTSH9v

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

bruh, i get that youre in a crazy internet fight right now and need meme back up but you dont need to post to gallery

2 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 21

Wrong. This shit is awesome and NEEDS to be in Imgur's gallery.

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

I'm not arguing with anyone, I'm a philosopher. I went to college to learn how to argue correctly. These are more like 'now you know' posts.

2 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 4

Oh cool, hope you’re enjoying working at Starbucks! (I joke, I also studied religion and philosophy at university, and also hate my life)

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Getting ready for law school.

2 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

Who died and left Aristotle in charge of ethics?

2 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 2

Platon, why? And were they really in charge of ethics?

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

At the time, yes. Due to linguistic and historical reasons, no one else was aware of the meaning of Ethics.

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Bitch, Platon was Sokrates 2.0! (Pls read in a funny voice, I was actually giggeling)

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Um, Plato.

2 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Yep youre definitely a philosophy major

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Extra Points if the authors are from cultures that didn't even know the other existed. Like, Aristotle agreeing with Darwin is one thing. But Aristotle agreeing with Nezahualcoyotl? That something else.

2 years ago | Likes 269 Dislikes 2

Yup, extra valid.

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Dunno. Patriarchy is pretty widespread, so it would be no real surprise if, lets say, old men rant about female hair. Also extra points if authors are from different epochs. I just discovered a woke feminist describing the phenomenon of hate speech & analyzes reasons. In a book 600 fucking years old.
Still no male allies to be seen. To be discussed: do extra points initiate prioritising?

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

I would hardly consider two cultures being one and the same on the basis of shared patriarchy. It is one of several widespread biases you'll find accross many cultures, whose knowledge came down to us mainly through the writings of old, literate, privileged men.
What's your 600 year old woke reference?

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I thought about the reply to the first sentence for a while. For background info: as a feminist I studied anthropology, worked in desaster response and as refugee commissioner and ended up in womens rights. I tell you from this PoV, cultures are one and the same. Mostly. (Naturally egalitarian societies differ.) We aim for dichotomies, not similarities. So when we start with a unifying premise "patriarchy is everywhere", findings would differ. -Christine de Pizan, The Book Of The City Of Ladies.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well I can't say I even remotely have the same curriculum, but I guess I get what you mean.
When it comes to the way people have viewed the world throughout history, and how it may have influenced their method of knowledge creation, I still think culture remains a paramount factor in spite of common biases you'll find here and there.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Same tool (brain).

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Is that an hypothetical example or did they actually agree on something?

2 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 1

Well, I did my masters on Dragons and my examples were from Congo, Canada and Italy.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Hmm…maybe that diary entry where Darwin writes "I am very poorly today & very stupid & hate everybody & everything"? Because Aristotle and Nezahualcoyotl must have had days like that too

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Conclusions are only universally valid if arrived at by non-mammalian intelligence (looking at you two, cephalopods & daleks!)

2 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

Bonus points if they're from dimensions beyond comprehension, where mortals fear to tread, etc.

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

I can say pretty confidently that Aristotle's culture was not aware of Darwin's.

2 years ago | Likes 162 Dislikes 2

Brave of you to assume that Aristotle didn't have access to a time machine.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 1

Yes but Darwin was of aristotle

2 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 1

Thus, the start of this comment thread was phrased stupidly. Only Darwin can disagree or agree with Aristotle. It can't work the other way because of how time is.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The most proud I have ever been of a publication was when I used a very different method that confirmed lab results: water in soil freezes from the centre of the pore outwards (permafrost). I had results from an experiment that made no sense until the lightbulb clicked on and I realised we had to be observing that phenomenon in situ. Made my whole month

2 years ago | Likes 98 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Yoink

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not enough ingenuity goes into reproducing results. Einstein's Ph.D thesis was recalculating Avogadro's number, incidentally written during his annus mirabilis.

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Glad you made a discovery. I'll need more details for context to fully understand.

2 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 0

I feel like it’s boring but I’m happy to talk about it…more than you want probably 😅

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Go off, I'd love to understand someone better.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

i accidentally posted elsewhere in the thread but its here!

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ok so the gist is that you can think of soil like a sponge, with pore spaces where water can sit. As you freeze the medium, you can make a thermodynamic argument that ice freezes from the centre of the pore outward. This has also been observed in laboratory settings. Its hard to prove in situ (in place, in the ground). Still, it’s accepted. I was doing borehole NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance, same physics as an MRI at the hospital), and the only way to observe the signals we saw…

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

was if ice was nucleating in the center and growing outward. To my knowledge, this was the first in situ observation of the phenomenon. It’s open access if you want to read

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well? We’re waiting…🙂

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

sorry 😅 holiday season. soon!

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

ok its here it the thread!

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0