Wedgy Game -toss -sumo -sacro

crap quantum


Nella prima metà del ventesimo secolo, lo sviluppo della fisica quantistica ad opera di un gruppo di scienziati europei (Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Einstein, De Broglie, Schrödinger e altri yet) scored a break of the traditional image of the very largest of any previous scientific revolution. Although the discoveries of Galileo and Newton were counter-intuitive, than the physical "naive" Aristotle, but they were basically understandable and rational enough to be justified by Kant, in retrospect, as based on principles is absolutely necessary. Nor does the theory of relativity, Einstein was so deeply as the enigmatic behavior of the waves and elementary particle physics revealed by the early decades of the twentieth century.

Scientific revolutions bring with them, quite inevitable, a rethinking of the epistemological principles underlying them research. After initial confusion, the first reaction by some of the scientists involved was an interpretation of nature in an anti-realist, idealist, if not openly, clearly in conflict with the approach of "materialist" traditionally attributed to men of science. Array idealist is certainly the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, endorsed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. What made Einstein very wary of quantum mechanics all (even though she was one of the fathers) and that made him exclaim: "I can not believe that the moon is not there if you look at it."

While not actually a unique formulation, so that no clearly understand what it is exactly, I think the main feature of the Copenhagen interpretation is the importance given to the apparatus of measurement and the role played by the observer. One of the most surprising results of quantum mechanics is the fact that the behavior of some entities (elementary particles) is determined by the experiment itself with which you try to observe it, while their intrinsic nature is somehow "undetermined" when they are not observed. That experiment shows us the particle at a given location in space, but before they observed the particle's position was not merely unknown, is that just was not anywhere, or even better was all over (he was in a "superposition of states", say the physicists). A good introduction to the topic, by a true luminary, it can be found in this post.

So far nothing wrong, that is, it is surprising, but it is not even an interpretation, is what is actually observed, however strange. The idealism is apparent in the most extreme interpretations of this experimental fact, for example, when we begin to attribute not so much experimental apparatus, but the "conscious observation" of the investigator the power to transform reality. When that is attributed to the immaterial mind, rather than the machines, the collapse of the wave function (the mathematical function that describes the superposition of possible states of a particle or a group of particles).

This is not only a metaphysical bizarre (and as such would be harmless), but in fact also leads to contradictory experimental consequences, as we argued in Paul Musso this article. Paul Musso always kindly provide me the necessary references to show that this idealistic reading of the Copenhagen interpretation is not entirely an invention of mine, but that even if none of the scientists involved (except, apparently, von Neumann) had embraced with conviction , at least some of their words show a propensity toward idealism.

The normal separation of the world between subject and object, between inner and outer world, between body and soul, is no longer adequate. [...] All the opponents of the Copenhagen interpretation agree on one point. It would be desirable, according to them, return to the concept of reality of classical physics or, to use a philosophical term, the ontology of materialism. They prefer to return to the idea of \u200b\u200ban objective real world whose small particles exist objectively in the same sense in which there are rocks and trees, regardless of whether we observe them or not (Werner Heisenberg)

As might be useful in the life of every day to say that the world exists "Out there" independently of us, this view can not be held [...] Yes, the universe, without you I would not have been able to begin to exist. However you, great system, you are made of phenomena, and phenomena based on an act of observation. You could never even exist without acts as my primary recording (John Wheeler)

will remain significant, whatever the future development of our concepts, the same study of the outside world has led to the conclusion that the content of consciousness is a irreducible reality (Eugene Wigner)

Unfortunately not only the Copenhagen interpretation is often presented as se fosse l'unica dottrina ortodossa in materia di fisica quantistica (specie quando contrapposta alla teoria delle variabili nascoste, che si è dimostrata in effetti impraticabile), ma molti testi divulgativi la presentano proprio in termini simili a quelli citati sopra, di modo che una certa immagine si è diffusa anche a livello popolare, e che non è raro sentire o leggere frasi come "ormai la fisica quantistica ha dimostrato che non esiste una realtà oggettiva, ma che la realtà viene creata dalla nostra stessa mente".

Pura fuffa cui ha poi contribuito la letteratura new age, e tutti quei libri, a partire dal celebre Il Tao della fisica di Fritjof Capra, che si sono sforzati di intravedere connessioni fra Eastern mystical doctrines and the development of modern science. Connections striking because, on closer inspection, rather shallow (basically anything you like at all). Frankly, the idea that a Tibetan monaco a few years ago may have developed something like the conception of reality revealed by quantum physics simply "meditation" is rather offensive to those who do the work of the scientist, who knows that only required to submit his ideas to the court experience, but also that those ideas would not ever come without the work of all scientists who preceded him. No, say a vague and woolly nonsense like "everything is energy, everything is transformed" or other little thoughts by Perugina Bacio is not at all comparable to the inventor of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or to describe the structure of an atom.

even more dangerous when the speech is used by charlatans to sell their concoctions. It is not uncommon, unfortunately, that quantum physics is being invoked by members of the "holistic medicine" or chissacché, to justify their crazy proceedings. People who try to convince patients of the enormous power of their mind to affect the real transform, and thus to defeat any conceivable illness by sheer force of will ("does quantum physics!"). People who come to devise a scheme called " medicine quantistica " e che la presentano con stringhe di parole assolutamente senza senso alcuno, ad esempio:

L’uomo e la natura sono costituiti di energia e materia. La materia è frequenza elettromagnetica condensata, e quindi tutti i corpi emettono frequenze (energia) e possono anche riceverle. Tutte le cellule del corpo umano grazie al loro DNA che funziona come un trasmettitore-ricevitore sono in continua connessione elettrica e modificano sè stesse [sic] a seconda dei messaggi.
La medicina quantistica grazie a tecnologie basate sulla fisica quantistica (Plank-Borch) [sic] può decodificare le trasmissioni intercellulari ed effettuare una diagnosi e quindi una terapia corretta che può essere: omeopatica, acupuncture, herbal medicine, etc.. according to the direction of the physician.

All the "diseases" from the common cold to the effects of psoriasis are changes in perception of reality, which over months or years and in the case of children at birth, leading to a change in the electromagnetic frequencies of our "Unity "and then the malfunction of DNA prior to the composition of adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil [actually uracil is a component of RNA], is a propeller frequency crystal.
Depending on the type of personal imbalance, alteration frequency creates the "disease" of an organ (or more) instead of another.
All doctors working in the field of alternative medicine, they know that fear affects the kidneys and heart, the anger, the liver and gallbladder, to put the central nervous system, devaluation of self and the spine bones.

I appeal to all lovers of New Age doctrines, oriental religions, alternative medicine, pseudoscience, and any other business, is: "do well what you want, how you want to live well, be fooled by those who want, but please, let alone quantum physics and in general things that are bigger than you and the capabilities of your brain. It does not deserve you, was not concepita per essere abusata da voi e per diventare un giochino da astrologi della domenica, ma è una delle più grandi elaborazioni concettuali dell'umanità. Lasciatela stare, per piacere. Oppure buttatevi dal decimo piano di un palazzo e provate a modificare la realtà del marciapiede".

Maryland Electrician Test Study Guide In Spanish

idolatry of the facts and ecologists


"La lettura del giornale è la preghiera dell'uomo moderno", diceva Hegel. È anche la sua superstizione, aggiungo io. Hegel intendeva dire che il processo di secolarizzazione e immanentizzazione della religione era giunto al punto che per entrare in contatto con la divinità, in qualunque modo la si chiami (Spirito Assoluto, ad esempio) era sufficiente essere aggiornati su quel happens. The Spirit is made manifest not through miracles and works of the saints and prophets, but through the record, or through the unfolding of historical events (not quite the same thing, but some do not distinguish). The problem of a secular religion, however, is that it is still a religion.

Journalism and information (in whatever form, paper, television or electronic) with all the credit they have in order to form a "public opinion", a "social conscience" and the control of political power, are undoubtedly the largest source of non-knowledge we have today, and one of the most dangerous, the illusion of knowledge they produce, and dependence-inducing. Facts and factoids run daily before our eyes, drugged for information, often without them we can realize the extreme insignificance and temporary nature, not only on geological and cosmological scale, but precisely in relation to our lives and our interests even frivolous.

It's more fun to follow a football game in its development, that knowing only the result at the end (or so they say sports fans), but I do not think that the anxiety to know minute by minute, the performance of a stock exchange, or processing of a bill in Parliament, or consultations for the formation or the break-up of political alliances in anticipation of confidence in the Government, have much to do with the sporting spirit. The truth, we should recognize is that most of the information we receive from the newspapers is absolutely unnecessary and that we would live much better without.

Much of the information we receive from an online journal, updated in real time, may be given in block only once a day, so we can feel more relaxed (the prayer mentioned by Hegel was that morning, our modern idolatry urges us to pray compulsively at any time of day). Much of the information contained in a newspaper may be given by a weekly newspaper, and the function of a weekly could largely be done on a monthly basis. Some of informazioni contenute in tutti questi giornali potrebbero non essere date mai, naturalmente, perché mai serviranno a qualcuno (se non forse al giornale stesso per giustificare la sua esistenza).

Quando i giornalisti scioperano si comportano un po' come se dovesse crollare il mondo, come se la democrazia fosse destinata a cedere per un solo giorno di black out informativo, ma in fondo, a ben vedere, non è proprio come se scioperassero gli ospedali, e non se ne sente troppo la mancanza. Possiamo fare a meno della dichiarazione del politico di turno che sarà superata dalla dichiarazione di domani, di leggere quello che oggi ci sembra importante ma domani non lo sarà più (per una collezioni di altri giudizi sferzanti journalism, read Karl Kraus's aphorisms, or Taleb's books).

If the newspapers are the realm of the ephemeral and the transitory, the opposite of journalism is the study of what is eternal, that which stands beyond our earthly misery. The study of being as opposed to mere existence. Those who held a job as far as possible from that of the journalists are, therefore, mathematicians, scholars of the a priori forms of space and time, before all time and space to lived experience. What's less transient Pythagorean theorem? less ephemeral of "news" that there are infinitely many primes, or that there is no triplet of numbers x eyez such that x ^ n + y ^ n = z ^ n (for each n> 2)?

If these are the thesis and antithesis, synthesis Hegel has perhaps found an American mathematician and writer, John Allen Paulos, author of A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper , which describes precisely the paradoxical approach a mathematician to reading newspapers. This is basically nothing more than a work of popularization, which seeks to combat the widespread scientific illiteracy as a bit 'everywhere (and of course that goes beyond the knowledge of only mathematics), teaching at a critical and attentive to deep structures and essential that hide behind a story, the rationale that underlies the real. We therefore think a pars destruens , where you make fun of how some news and dates are similar, and a pars construens where you propose better alternatives (perhaps a little 'utopian).

Examples our own: if I read it, as has happened recently that "without a license and a Moroccan drug addict has hit and killed seven cyclists", I naturally wonder what on earth can add to the tragic news, the fact that the driver was Moroccan ( it does not say if it was left-handed or ambidextrous, or which team tifava, because these data are rightly considered to be insignificant.) So there is a problem now, filter the information to be reported the selected data. If we do not pay attention to these things we risk not so much enter into communication with the zeitgeist , "the spirit of time" but only with an editor's mood a bit 'fascist, we are not really informed about what is going on.

Every time you date a story like that, also would be nice to see a table that contains statistics on the incidence of road deaths to date, perhaps in relation to other phenomena. In this way the reader would perhaps be less inclined to attribute real significance to the events, proportional to their exposure in the newspapers. For example: "Sharm, a shark kills tourist" (on Republic yesterday). The fact that every time a shark killed someone ends up on the news paper, while not all deaths to fall off the bicycle have such prominence, the sharks might make it seem much more dangerous than bicycles, when of course it is not, and likely to be attacked by a shark, even diving in coral reefs, are lowly compared to conduct a two-wheeled vehicle. As, moreover, is unlikely to become a victim of a terrorist attack (many people at this point they look very smart with words and then you say "yes, but if it happens just to you?" As if it meant something).

Some ignorance is responsible for mathematical thought, attributed to the inhabitants of Brembate di Sopra (country where a girl who died recently) that "this has always been a peaceful country, was never anything like this happened." Well, with 7,746 inhabitants, does not surprise me. If the bloody facts of the news take place more frequently in large cities and populous towns in that tiny, there is a strictly mathematical reason that has nothing to do with the fact that the city would be more dangerous. In general, things tend to happen more often "elsewhere" (city or town that is), not in your little corner of the world. The thought that "this is a quiet place," reveals a rather 'limited and egocentric.

Very strange, from our point of view, the habit of journalists to go to "test" the mood of a population by collecting a couple of opinions from passersby. The polls are real things quite complicated: in this case the amount of information that is conveyed by such passages is not only scarce, but perhaps it is even a negative amount. It is not only unnecessary, it is misleading and potentially harmful, leads one to believe that you have knowledge that does not really have. Yet the fake polls are increasingly a key ingredient of online journals. It is true that there is usually a warning "this poll has no scientific value", but because there is this awareness into the habit is even more mysterious. It would be like to publish a story and then write in a note that in all likelihood it is an invention of the editor.

Speaking of polls, it would not hurt if journalists as well as the percentage from time to time gave the margin of error. Today I heard the director of the La 7 TV news commenting on the usual weekly poll on voting intentions of the Italians, which show that the Democratic Party has gained since last week, 0.2 percentage points. The problem is that if you are not given the margin of error, which are presumably above 0.2 per cent more or less, one might even mistake it for a good news for the Democratic Party, rather than a statistically insignificant difference (as indeed one might expect, in the space of one week in which things have not happened sensational). In reality, the consent of the PD may well be dropped.

Those involved in weather forecasting, however, should explain to the listeners that there is nothing strange if the temperatures are above or below the seasonal average: what is the meaning of "media", c ' is an average when there are deviations from the average, temperatures are not always constant. It should also deflate expressions such as "hot record" or "cold record" that have clearly lost all meaning. Maybe we will have some ecologist less but may be worth it, if we are still citizens more aware of the meaning of expressions such as sealed "media" and "record". After

need little and a little 'courage. It may be that the newspapers made correctly, who can find the right balance between the "daily show" and the eternity of the numbers, sell more. Perhaps it is worth trying.

Funny Things To Say At A Wedding

kamikaze


Human behavior is one of the materials (despite what some psychologists say) less malleable and more difficult to treat in existence. If you want to solve a problem with your car, take it by your mechanic, and chances are good that will fix it. If he loses the sink, call a plumber. It will cost you an arm and a leg, but the sink after work correctly. But if you have a problem to deal with a person, or even worse, with a mass of people, a community began to call all of you know, even those ever (you never know).

Not that it's impossible to make someone what you want, just that sometimes it is less easy than it seems, and there are often unforeseen consequences and repercussions of our "strategy", because human behavior is a very complex thing which does not correspond to strict mechanical laws. One of the most rich in examples is that of traffic, explored with some skill in the popular book by Tom Valberbilt Trafficologia .

Suppose a road as dangerous because it appears too narrow and busy and you decide to remedy doubling the track: the most likely outcome, although paradoxically, this remedy is an increase in the number of road accidents on that stretch street. And this is precisely the cause of the increased perception of security, which is too loose the attention of the driver, which then starts to run faster and do more accidents. In other words, a road is more secure, less the is.

Not only will the road more dangerous, but probably will not even solved the problem of congestion, because as soon as we will spread the voice of many more drivers will decide to take that route first, instead of making an alternative, and thus the number total machines running on that stretch will increase thwarting what was achieved by doubling the track. Not to mention that the new road can attract investment and real estate along its path (a citizen could decide, for example, that that road now that there might also be worth going to live twenty kilometers outside the center), and then again trafffico.

Per risolvere il problema del traffico, quindi, occorre un'altra strategia. Una potrebbe essere quella di convincere tutti a fare un uso maggiore di mezzi pubblici, o della bici, o addirittura andare a piedi, facendo appello alla responsabilità personale e al senso di sacrificio. È un approccio che ha scarse possibilità di successo, come si può immaginare. Le persone sono mediamente egoiste, e non sacrificano volentieri il loro interesse personale per il bene comune, a meno che non siano estremamente ben motivate, tipo i kamikaze giapponesi, che forse però non rappresentano un esempio troppo positivo. Il noto "dilemma del prigioniero", in teoria dei giochi, illustra come questa ricerca del proprio tornaconto possa ritorcersi against us, without persuading us to change our approach.

People respond to incentives, and then, since they tend to think for themselves, a way to force them to change their attitude would be to tax the road. This one could not even define an illiberal measure, because it would simply be to charge individuals in the common resource used by them to the detriment of the community. It is well-known problem of "externalities": some of our actions inevitably have costs (or sometimes even benefits) for others. If I decide to make an orgy at my house at night with six minor Cubist drunk, then maybe the neighbors complain for noise, not to mention traces of vomit and other organic debris on the landing. If I decide to take a road during rush hour, I understand that my action will contribute to general traffic congestion: the ideal would be that fewer people are circulated in order to keep the road clear for others, but who decides who move and those who do not? By introducing a toll (perhaps proportional to their level of congestion in a given time) we made sure that only those who most need to address that cost, however, and he will draw benefit from extra time.

But even this approach of incentives, although most sensible and rational in the previous, does not guarantee results sure, because we talked about the unpredictability, and may even have side effects. An example (taken from an actual case): In a primary school many parents have a tendency to occur later than the closing time to come and take the children, forcing staff to wait for them. The management decides to establish a minor penalty for arriving late, so as to encourage punctuality. Well, the likely outcome of such a strategy is an increase in delays. The introduction of fine parents free from guilt and incentive for the delay, in effect, to rub: after all, are paying to keep children in school over time. A small reminder of the fact that people are not automatons, and social engineering is not a simple science.

Or, better yet, someone could invent a new means of transport. A cheaper version of the reach of all the transporter of Star Trek, for example, would solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately the current state of science does not seem very close to a discovery like this, so we have hope in something less definitive (but do not despair into something that can improve the existing, at least).

As you know, there is a certain problem that keeps many people awake, which is that in recent decades, the global temperature of the planet seems to have raised a few tenths of a degree, which increases could be caused dall'attività umana, e dal rilascio nell'atmosfera di sostanze (i gas serra) che intrappolano il calore solare nell'atmosfera e non gli permette di disperdersi nel cosmo. Fino a qualche anno fa lo scetticismo su tali affermazioni aveva delle giustificazioni, ma oggi il consenso sulla realtà effettiva del riscaldamento è molto vasto, e anche quello sull'impatto dell'attività umana, mentre persiste, a mio avviso giustamente, una certa resistenza all'allarmismo, per non dire catastrofismo, di certi ambientalisti, e ai rimedi proposti da alcuni di loro.

Uno di essi, forse il più famoso di tutti, ovvero Al Gore, ha ricevuto anche un premio Nobel, quindi si potrebbe pensare che la soluzione che egli prospetta al problem is the most pragmatic and effective, and the one with the greatest chance of working. In fact, guess what Al Gore proposed solution? He says that we must all become better people, be more sensitive than the good of the planet, stop polluting and stop the race for progress and material prosperity. And maybe put a bandana on his head and shouting "Banzai!" as we sacrificed for the cause. A genius, of course.

The problem with global warming, which has not yet found an effective incentive system that promises real results, and that is both fair enough. In the sense that after having benefited for more than two centuries since the Industrial Revolution would be a bit ' inelegant by Western nations, claiming that countries like India and China will behave in a more virtuous and responsible (perhaps by threatening sanctions) and give up their economic growth. Not to mention that may be too late, and that even if we succeed with a titanic effort to reduce to almost zero emissions of greenhouse gas effects would be seen, perhaps, a few decades. It is difficult to commit an entire planet to a great sacrifice in view of the results by no means guaranteed, and long term. We can speak of selfishness as you want, but with the rationality that we should take.

Or we can invent the equivalent of teleportation and solve the problem of global warming globale (quasi) senza sforzo. È l'approccio della geo-ingegneria che, ahimè, non sembra molto ben visto da molti ecologisti. Per esempio, e secondo quanto prospettato, fra gli altri che se ne occupano, nell'ultimo capitolo di Superfreakonomics (il seguito del bestseller di Steven Levitt e Stephen Dubner), si potrebbe riempire la stratosfera con relativamente modeste quantità di biossido di zolfo (che avrebbe l'effetto di riflettere i raggi solari e quindi raffreddare il pianeta). Come? con un piccolo tubo, ovviamente il più leggero possibile, tenuto su con dei palloni. Di primo acchito sembra un po' fantascientifico, ma fra le soluzioni studiate potrebbe essere la più economica e pratica, e avrebbe un costo minimo, soprattutto se confrontato con gli enormi costi degli accordi di Kyoto. Oppure, se non piace, si potrebbe aumentare artificialmente la quantità di nuvole negli oceani sparando ad alta quota i nuclei di condensazione (il sale marino) adatti alla formazione delle nubi (che rifletterebbero, ancora una volta, i raggi solari).

Rimedi che sono visti come eresie da moltissima gente (compreso il genio premio Nobel di cui sopra, Al Gore) per il fatto che… non sta bene alterare il naturale equilibrio del pianeta. Ma perché, fino ad ora cos'abbiamo fatto? non è proprio perché (a quanto si dice) abbiamo immesso troppi gas serra in atmosfera che ci troviamo in questa situazione? si dice anche che the remedy may have, even in this case (as well as ecosystems are complex) effects of unplanned and potentially catastrophic. To which this objection does not take into account is that in a sense it is instead of remedies already tested. Sulfur dioxide gas is also not the most effective way to cool down the atmosphere but it is what is sometimes shooting into the stratosphere by volcanoes erupting, getting quite a cooling of global climate. The idea is simply to not wait for a fortuitous series of catastrophic eruptions, but ourselves to enter the required amount of sulfur dioxide (process control and stop at any time).

As for the other idea (increasing cloud cover over the oceans) is what is already happening, in part, thanks to the contrails of the aircraft, which seems to have just some anti-heating (chemtrails conspiracy theorists, here's a bone to gnaw) .

These remedies, again, that appear to cause an immediate movement of revulsion in most people (just do a search on "geoengineering" and read a bit 'comments to turn), and therefore could not fail because it is intrinsically unsuitable, but because politically unfeasible. Yet, I find it very amusing that the greater the degree of catastrophe against possible future scenarios, the more skepticism nei confronti di questo tipo di rimedi: "Moriremo tutti! ma non fate niente, perché sarebbe peggio, preghiamo e basta". Questa naturalmente non è scienza, è millenarismo. È una religione fondamentalista, non troppo diversa dal fanatismo dei kamikaze di una volta.

Polskie Biuro Ksiegowe, Cennik

magnificent and progressive



Nel 1950, la percentuale di americani occupati in professioni manageriali e tecniche era del 17%, mentre nel 2000 era quasi il doppio, cioè il 33,5%. Questo significa che nel 1950 certe professioni, sicuramente ambite, appartenevano solo all'élite, e che richiedevano capacità particolari per potervi approdare. Siccome esiste una forte correlazione fra quoziente d'intelligenza e posizione social we can be sure that in 1950 for belonging to that 17% of people needed an IQ less elitist, corresponding to an average score of 114.5, and a minimum of 104.

becomes higher the percentage of employees in these areas become less elitist (of course), which means but also significantly lowers the IQ required to participate. The percentage for the year 2000, in fact, corresponds to an average IQ of 110.5 and a minimum of 98. Four points per game fewer than in 1950. The question is whether today's managers are less intelligent on average than those of 1950, means that their jobs are worse?

In fact, this is a way to put the matter that makes us understand a little 'better than what we mean when we talk about "IQ" (a topic that I have covered ) and which makes a great introduction to the fascinating phenomenon that is " Flynn effect. " The score I get in an intelligence test is not an absolute measure of my intellectual ability, but he says just as I place myself in the population that has the same age as me, if you are in that 2% of people with high scores (and then I have right to be part of the Mensa club), or return to a more modest 50%, or even below the average.

People who have been tested in 2000 can not be compared with those tested in 1950, which is not possible to conclude that, having obtained lower scores, then they have less intelligence (this, of course, regardless of whether the intelligence tests are reliable measures of note that mysterious quality called "intelligence"). All I can conclude is that many more people than in 1950, have the qualities required to gain access to professional managerial tasks. In reality, this would not be possible if there had been an increase in the average intelligence of the population (otherwise, where they would be caught all those managers?).

In fact, if the subject of 2000 was presented with the same IQ test the subjects' of 1950, we have seen an amazing average score of even 130 points (approximately), which would have been geniuses, but, again, only compared to the population of 1950. The intelligence tests, in fact, are reviewed periodically just to keep account of these differences, and the fact that the population seems to grow from year to year, "smarter", with an increase of about 0.3% per year. Three points per decade, and thirty points higher than at the beginning of the century, which means that today those who have average intelligence would have been a genius in 1900, and who today be classified, according to the score, as a mentally retarded man, would have been perfectly normal one hundred years ago.

The thing also has unpleasant and tragic implications: the U.S. is considered unconstitutional to condemn to death a person suffering from mental retardation (with an IQ less than 70), but to be considered delayed or not may depend on the circumstances, chance, to what has updated the test to which he has undergone. If the test is obsolete, this may result in two or three points more, which does not make much difference in almost any area, except in the case, where exactly can mean the difference between life and death.

But where does all this general increase of intelligence, which is unlikely, in such a short period of time, can be attributed to genetic causes (which ever the case be against, as are the people with lower IQs to reproduce more often)? The answer, I think, is just the beginning of this post: the company requires it, simply. This also means that what is measured by tests, whatever it is, is much more sensitive to environmental stress than was thought possible. The IQ is not designed, in fact, be a measure of the cultural background of an individual, but in theory should measure mental qualities that are independent from education received.

But is not that difficult to understand, once we reflect on, as is the evolution of a society as a whole, leads to profound changes in cultural and anthropological going to affect even in measurements of IQ. Think of the living conditions of most people in the early twentieth century. People who rarely saw pieces of the world beyond their own country, and were hardly able to conceptualize an experience that went beyond their immediate experience. People, above all, very concrete and anchored to the present, and therefore might have difficulties in abstract, hypothetical reasoning, which is precisely what is required per superare brillantemente un test d'intelligenza. La maggior parte di noi non ha particolari problemi nel fare uso della logica al di là di referenti concreti e specifici e nell'intrattenersi, anche per puro divertimento, in ragionamenti estremamente ipotetici, ma non possiamo aspettarci davvero che un contadino dell'inizio del secolo scorso, per quanto sveglio, messo di fronte alla sequenza di immagini in apertura del post, sia in grado di, o anche semplicemente interessato a, indovinare quale figura sia "logicamente" la successiva (ah, io non l'ho saputo risolvere).

Lo psicologo sovietico Lurija negli anni '70 raccolse alcune interviste a contadini abitanti in remote zone della Russia, che ci fanno forse capire quanto certe abitudini mental not to give too much for granted (cited and translated the book by James Flynn, What is Intelligence? ):

D. Where there is snow all the bears are white, in Novaya Zemlya there is always snow, what color are the bears there?
A: I have only seen bears, blacks, and I do not speak of things that I have not seen.
Q: What does this mean what I say?
A: If a person was not there can not say anything based on the words.

Q: In Germany there are no camels in Germany is the city B, there are camels in the city B?
A: I do not know, I never saw a German village. If B is a large city, should esserci cammelli.
D: Ma se non ce ne fosse nessuno in tutta la Germania?
R: Se B è un villaggio, probabilmente non c'è posto per i cammelli.

Non è che i contadini intervistati da Lurija non riconoscano le implicazioni e non sappiano fare un sillogismo, è solo che il loro atteggiamento pragmatico gli impedisce di prendere in considerazione situazioni meramente ipotetiche e di raggiungere conclusioni sulla base di premesse inconsistenti. Un atteggiamento anche sensato, che però non aiuta ad ottenere buoni punteggi nei test d'intelligenza, e sicuramente non aiuterebbe neanche a superare brillantemente un colloquio di lavoro alla Microsoft (famosa per i suoi quiz assurdi ed estremamente impegnativi durante i talks, such as: "How long would it take to take away all the land of Mount Fuji, the rate of one truck per minute?").

What has freed our minds from the slavery of the concrete and the immediate present, in addition to mass education, were the new media, newspapers, radio, television and now computers, the Internet, and videogames . And then the cultural revolution that led to everything. Most of our peers have at least a smattering of scientific knowledge, and learned to look through the lens of rational and scientific thinking. It's not just the fact that everyone can read and write and do basic arithmetic operations (which already is no small thing) to having emancipated, but the fact that each of us can have an opinion, whether right or wrong, on things like the economic policy of our government, Obama on health care reform, foreign policy of Israel, and to form those opinions are forced to think about what they're saying newspapers and TV, and then see something of à tip of your nose.

And the fact, too, that each of us is forced to use tools that have some degree of cognitive complexity, and that in many cases these instruments are with us for life, instead of school education that is often forgotten . Those who learn to use a computer just to browse or use email, or playing Tetris, acquire the skills or habits of mind that hardly lose, and they are the ones that can help you have a good IQ, and find a job. And if the work environment, in turn, is cognitively challenging, the advantage gained will be preserved for a lifetime.

The question we must ask is whether this is true glory. Acquired empirical fact, it seems now established beyond any doubt that there have been these advances in IQ (and even if we now expect to be coming to a stop or reversal of the trend, because it is not reasonable that such progress last forever), we can truly speak of an increase in intelligence, in a non-trivial way (ie to the tautology that intelligence is what is measured by a test)?

I doubt it. Not because I was not happy about the fact that some cognitive tools are now more widespread and more affordable for many people who once were excluded, but simply for the fact that it is still a mere instrument, which can be used well or badly . In a sense, the same factors that lead many people to appreciate, I know, the beauty of the solar system and the physical laws that make existence possible, bring others to make the chemtrail conspiracy theories, or those that the Pentagon was never hit by a plane. Or makes viewers of Quark, but also those of Voyager. Produces the readers of Gödel, but also those of Derrida. About

formula or those who believe in some conspiracy theories are stupid, without appeal, but will not necessarily result in such an intelligence test. The advantage of ignorant peasants and pragmatic than once that they had not much time to waste on this crap, lucky them. It follows that, even beyond some moralizing, not enough to provide some tools in education, but it is also the case of worrying about how they can be used. Not enough to teach biology, but should perhaps find a way to prevent a student to be seduced by the creationist theories, or from homeopathy. Not enough to teach economics, but we must find a way in which our schools do not come out of seigniorage. Otherwise, we regret the stupidity of our ancestors.

Why Does D2nt Say Unhandled Excession

if the truth were female

that the relationship between the philosophers and women has always been problematic has been enshrined, among others, Nietzsche's famous aphorism with a content at the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil : "Place that truth is a woman, and why not? Is not well founded suspicion that all philosophers, as they were dogmatists are understood little of women? [...]. It is certain that it has not been seduced. "

Poor Nietzsche had perhaps his reasons to put it this way: we know that was not very lucky with women. He had the bad habit of falling in love with those of others, which is always a good recipe for unhappiness. As Lou Salome, or Cosima Wagner. Some biographers claim that his break with Wagner was due not so much a philosophical and theoretical reasons, or the musician to anti-Semitism, as some want, but a strictly personal reasons, and indeed a rather intimate. Wagner reveals the doctor to Nietzsche to be concerned about the excessive tendency of onanism his philosopher friend, habit certainly favored by the presence of Cosima. Gossip Nietzsche not particularly appreciated. Fate, carrion, then that would not only be impractical to seduce women, but rather unlucky in those occasions when he attended a fee, since the tragic circumstances of his death can be ultimately traced back to this (no, it was the giddiness of nihilistic thought to make him mad, was most probably syphilis).

His personal unhappiness made him still keen observation of other people's misery, like that of Socrates, the paradigmatic example of the conflicted relationship between the traditional philosophical thought, male, abstract, logo and phallocentric, and other people's sex. The greek philosopher, lost in his speculations, viene continuamente molestato dalla moglie Santippe, donna stupida, ignorante, ma soprattutto concreta e quindi insopportabile, ragion per cui non stupisce che Socrate, una volta compiuti i doveri coniugali legati alla mera riproduzione, preferisca la illuminata compagnia degli efebi, e si intrattenga con questi in profondi discorsi sulla natura del bene e del male. La nascita stessa della filosofia greca sarebbe quindi dovuta al brutto carattere delle donne, un riconoscimento non so quanto lusinghiero. Certo è che piacerebbe conoscere pure la versione di Santippe.

L'espressione "amore platonico", con la quale si designa appunto il particolare tipo di rapporto che Socrate e i suoi followers entertained not only against women but of eros in general, it is one of the most misunderstood of all time. Today we mean by "Platonic love" a bond of friendship and mutual affection that does not find relief in sex, but with great sacrifice is sublimated in other ways (something similar to what Nietzsche was, after all), while in a sense This is the exact opposite. Platonic love is love without sex (there may be), but a love that is not love, why does not understand the sacrifice, the giving to another, the real attachment to a person other than himself, but is a love where the other is seen only as a tool for their spiritual elevation. Platonic love is precisely where there is passion and it so possessed of the senses, because the other is only half a view of a personal view. But the philosopher loves

sometimes arise even in the guise of the deceiver, perhaps trying to disprove the stereotype niche, in fact failing. The storyteller, skillful juggler of words, one who tries circuit encircles the truth as women take them to bed and then download them, open the newspaper every day and invents a battle of civilizations in which to launch and to which give prestige with their intelligence, and no matter what cause so much because the words and arguments are (in fondo è per questo che viene pagato un filosofo), ben rappresenta certi vizi della nostra epoca. Quella dell'immagine, dove non conta la sostanza, ma l'apparire, dove l'estetica è la disciplina più influente e seguita, ben prima della teoretica e della morale, dove l'atteggiarsi è tutto, e la camicia bianca sbottonata vale più di mille concetti. La tristezza di tutto questo, di questa insostenibile leggerezza, questa finta disinvoltura, fa appunto rimpiangere la serietà di un Socrate, che almeno nutriva un disprezzo genuino per le cose mondane.

"Un filosofo sposato è un personaggio da commedia", sostiene dunque ancora Nietzsche. Di all the characters in the history of philosophy, I can think of only one who has had a relationship, it seems, happy and rewarding experience with women. This is Paul Feyerabend, philosopher of relativism, the author of Against Method , also famous for being quoted by Ratzinger about Galileo Galilei (the cunning of reason: the biggest opponent of relativism, citing its Feyerabend) . In his autobiography, written a few months before his death, and precisely during the illness that killed him, Feyerabend says among other things how he participated as a Nazi officer in World War II, suffering a leg injury that made it impossible, for the rest of his life, walking without the use of a stick. Another thing was impossible because of injury, and that is just a normal sexual activity, but this did not prevent him ever to fall in love and be loved.

The essence of the philosophy of Feyerabend, in a nutshell, was "anything goes". Meaning that there are no recipes to find out the truth, that no philosopher can ever lay claim to claim to speak to a scientist, or any ordinary person for that matter, as it should think. He called himself an "anarchist knowledge." I, actually, I never had great sympathy for the relativist thinking, but you might opine, in the first place, that Feyerabend was indeed a relativist (doubted very notion of truth, or routes traditionally struggled to try to achieve?), and second, that was serious. He had a carefree attitude towards all, and primarily directed against himself. Honestly, self-deprecating, like Socrates, most of Socrates, was fully aware of playing a character, to be a troll who enjoyed violating every taboo. Defended astrology, voodoo defended, defended the Church against Galileo and Bellarmine (conscious of giving scandal). He did not because I believe that Galileo was wrong or astrology really had some validity, but because he feared that science would take the place of religion, as a unique and privileged sistema di riferimento.

Un atteggiamento pragmatico, non assolutista, quindi, che alla fine non può che risolversi in una maggiore saggezza pratica, nel rapporto col mondo e soprattutto con gli altri. Feyerabend è uno dei pochi filosofi che stanno simpatici a mia moglie, forse perché nella sua autobiografia, e soprattutto negli ultimi capitoli, non parla altro che di sua moglie (una giovane studentessa italiana con la quale si era trasferito da Berkeley a Roma), con entusiasmo quasi infantile. Una persona cattiva potrebbe persino dire che si era un po' rincoglionito. E le sue ultime parole parlano di amore nei confronti dell'umanità, un'umanità che si intuisce fatta di persone in carne e ossa, e non assunta come valore abstract.

And then for a photo, which shows that the "philosopher at work" (what I should do a little 'more often, maybe).

Meagan Good's Hair Stylist

the truth and the law

In the famous novel by pseudo-science fiction Slaughterhouse 5 , Kurt Vonnegut, at some point is mentioned, among the scholars who wrote of the bombing of Dresden, none other than David Irving, the British historian best known today for his theories of Holocaust denial. For this reason, and the fact that in the novel accepts the estimate made by Irving on the number of victims of the bombing (135,000 people instead of the other charged 30-40000 scholars), I recently discovered that Vonnegut has been criticized by Deborah Lipstadt, a Jewish American scholar, in a post on his blog dating back to 2007.

Deborah Lipstadt, author of the essay Denying the Holocaust, but is most famous for the legal battle that saw the object, in an English court, just to David Irving, who had sued for defamation after pages dedicated to him in the book of Lipstadt (where it was described as one of the most dangerous Holocaust deniers). The process made a fuss of the fact that the historical truth about the Holocaust, for once, was not simply discharged from academics but enshrined in a courtroom. To win the libel Irving fact would prove that his "negatives" rather than more or less voluntary distortion of reality correspond to legitimate opinions supported by facts, something for which, however, should have had the support of some other authoritative historian, or very solid arguments. His defeat was so predictable.

However, and despite the triumphalism that followed the sentence, one might wonder whether the 'deliberately distort reality to fit his own ideological vision "is not a criticism that can be moved, in addition to Irving, thousands of academics otherwise considered more respectable but dealing with less controversial issues, or are lucky enough to have made the most correct opinion, and if not particularly well suited to the approach of the Holocaust against Lipstadt and talk to anyone, as I opinion is evidenced by his criticism of Vonnegut.

In some countries (eg Austria, France, Germany and Belgium), as noted, were adopted laws that define a crime publicly to deny the reality of the extermination of Jews. David Irving (still him) was arrested in Austria in 2005 and sentenced to three years in prison for his beliefs. Of course they are laws that are discussed, and the expediency of which is disputed by many (in honor of Lipstadt, For example, it must be said that it opposed the keeping of Irving, although for reasons of expediency and not so much in defense of freedom of expression). Also because the judge appear to leave too much room for interpretation, as to what should be considered "denial or Holocaust minimization" that fall under the censure of the law.

What exactly does it mean to be negative? The craft of the historian, by definition, a certain critical distance from the traditional story of the events. The historian is always a "revisionist." Of course, there is a limit, given by common sense, beyond which the legitimate suspicion and criticism of the "official" or the more commonly accepted become evident bad faith and ideological blindness. But the question is whether the law is to place some obstacles, and how it could do so without transforming the historical truths in dogmas and pollute the work and the serenity of the town.

A Holocaust denier is usually one of three things, often but not necessarily all at once: 1) scales the number of victims (they were not six million but only four, or two, or one hundred thousand), 2) deny voluntariness of the extermination and its realization through the medium of the gas chambers, or the millions of deaths, if there were (see 1) were just a side effect of war and the harsh conditions in the camps prison, 3) deny that Hitler was aware of the extermination, which was planned without his knowledge by his evil persons, to make him a sort of spite.

is clear that although all these things, especially when taken together, outline an approach indeed disturbing, but there are margins of ambiguity such that any serious historian is likely to be singled out as a Holocaust denier, if targeted, for example, with regard to point 1, the count of victims is a delicate and difficult matter, constantly subject to revision. To what, exactly, you can get before being considered negative (remember that Eric Hobsbawm, who is perhaps the most authoritative living history, in his repute The Short Century accepts the count of four million)? Regarding the second point, it is difficult to deny the reality of the gas chambers and the systematic extermination, but I think it still legitimate to ask what percentage of victims of the gas in relation to the total (in fact, when it turned out that the number of victims of Auschwitz had been overestimated, the total number was later revised upward again to include the victims of the raids of the Einsatzgruppen). Regarding point 3, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that Hitler did not know anything, but in the absence of clear documentation is a matter of debate what were the precise arrangements by which plans of extermination were communicated: there was an explicit order, delivered by the Fuhrer, or was more of a imply, or even let it happen, delegate to subordinates?

But there is another problem highlighted by the question I mentioned at the beginning Vonnegut: "resize the Holocaust" could also mean making statements that have nothing to do directly with the extermination of the Jews. Resize the Holocaust can also mean simply deny its uniqueness, in relative importance compared to other tragedies. It may even mean the mere mention or remember other tragedies. It really would be the end for any serious claim historical research on any topic, from the Persian Wars to September 11.

Deborah Lipstadt Vonnegut says, even if unintentionally, helped to propagate the "lies". The chosen term is indicative: it is not simply want to correct what was considered an error in Vonnegut's book (taken from what was then perhaps the most important source about the bombing of Dresden, and that is precisely the monograph by Irving), but it is denounced as a falsification with intent to minimize the Holocaust. This obviously has an attitude of blackmail that it is certainly fair to say that the figures provided by Irving has been challenged by other scholars, but because myself at least should not be granted to stay proceedings on who's right? Why should not I also believe Vonnegut quite reliable in a court case, considering that he was there, while Dresden burned? And above all, why should I think that the answer to these questions depends on my opinion towards the extermination? So what?

The ideological approach of Lipstadt is confirmed by the fact that Vonnegut's book is another mistake, another lack of historical accuracy but the Lipstadt does not feel the duty to correct, they speak in Slaughterhouse 5, soaps made with the fat of Jews, according to what is un mito assai diffuso riguardo alla atrocità naziste ma la cui veridicità viene oggi contestata da quasi tutti gli storici (casi isolati di sadismo vi furono senz'altro, ma non esiste alcuna prova o documentazione riguardo un uso industriale siffatto, che non è nemmeno plausibile da un punto di vista economico). Tra i due errori, la Lipstadt sente di dover denunciare solo il primo (e nemmeno in quanto errore, ma in quanto infame bugia), il che la dice lunga sulla sua obiettività.

Molti altri esempi di parzialità del genere si possono trovare sul web, la maggior parte dei quali, ahimè, provenienti da siti discutibili e dalle finalità a loro volta assai sospette. Dovessi essere costretto a fare una scelta di campo, I certainly deploy more willingly by the Jewish scholar from that of neo-Nazis, but the point is that I would not be forced to make such choices, as they would force me to do certain bills freedom. You even think that the "Holocaust industry " (the notorious pamphlet Finkelstein) and the denial two phenomena are in fact complementary and interdependent, that instead of denying mutually support each other (there asked such as how much emphasis would be given to some colorful characters were it not for the attention that is paid by their professional indignation).

I do not want the Holocaust to become, rather than a clearly established historical truth, but always subject to examination, an unquestionable dogma, and a pawn of political and ideological agenda. As a potential history teacher (qualified to waiting time and more favorable policies) I would one day be able to say that the Nazis systematically killed six million (or five, or four) of Jews, some of which in the gas chambers of death camps, only because it is true, and not as compelled by law to do so.

Gisele Kerozene Subtitles

symbols and people

A book is basically just an object made of paper, glue and ink. Has value (if it) for what is written in, but is often replicated in many identical copies, so that the loss of one copy can be said that rarely is a great damage both economically and culturally for humanity.

However, there is a huge symbolic value attached to the idea of \u200b\u200bburning books or damage them is a taboo in our culture in part on the culture shock of Nazism and its purifying fires, on the other heirs to a rich historical tradition. In fact, it is surprising how even this taboo is well established, given the spread of this practice until recently, practiced by various churches and various absolutist regimes.

We are at the point that if a library or any institution decided to be pulped copies of volumes that holds in excess, so you can continue to effectively carry out its mission, some protest, was outraged, organizing sit-ins and even starts to mention inappropriately Ray Bradbury ( who, in his dystopian novel envisioned a society where reading is forbidden and books are being systematically burned by the authorities).

And there's also the fact that the book is often a relic, a real sacred object, such as the flag of the nation or the shirt of the football team. Things, in fact, that should be branded as superstitions by any rational person, whatever the views on what lies behind the symbol: I being a fan of Manchester United, but frankly I do not care at all if you burn the purple shirt, I look up to with compassion.

not understand the crucial importance that newspapers have in recent days to the fact that an American evangelical pastor (same name of a Monty Python) had publicly declared their intention to burn the Koran, were it not for the known law that the mother of idiots is always pregnant. Pastor idiot, idiots who have become Muslims and threatened to cause havoc (as usual, giving the West a very backward image of Islam), rather stupid that the media have given prominence to the news.

The symbolic gesture of the pastor wanted be the answer to another symbolic event whose real importance in the material world is as nothing, or the possible presence of a mosque near Ground Zero, proving further that (which I personally have long advocated) that with good Marx peace of wars and conflicts are more easily triggered by the symbols and ideologies that material and economic reasons actually (after all it is easy to agree on money, while it is impossible to agree on the only true God).

A disrespectful gesture undoubtedly that of the shepherd, who comes from the way it gives the idea of \u200b\u200bnot having a great familiarity with any book and do not know even the content of what he wants to destroy. Although perhaps it should be noted that burning a sacred text, if certainly denotes a certain hostility to freedom of thought, can not always be associated with hostility toward a particular religion, but that the text can be burned to defend their religion .

Larger burners Korans were just Muslims, at the beginning of their history, which in an effort to arrive at one price reference sought to destroy all non-compliant versions. But Catholics are not joking at all, and not only about the gospels and apocryphal texts heretics. Perhaps not everyone knows that in ' Index of prohibited books were The Bible and the Gospels, at least those in the vernacular that could be read by people not too intelligent, and this until 1965 (or until Vatican II). In centuries past we need a special permit to take possession, or the books were likely to end up at the stake, and its owner with them.

Back to us, intolerance, superstition, obscurantism: the three forms of stupidity, all having the same outcome, but there is also a form of stupidity more pure, essential, which can lead to burn a Koran. Suppose, for example, that a journalist should do a feature on American fashion to burn Korans. Suppose further that this journalist has difficoltà a trovare del buon materiale video con cui confezionare il servizio. Che cosa dovrebbe fare il buon diavolo?

Non gli resta che entrare in una libreria, comprare una copia del Corano, e realizzare un filmino casalingo nel quale si vedono solo le sue mani che accendono un cerino e iniziano a dare fuoco al libro. Fatto, servizio realizzato e pubblicato su una delle principali testate online con grande soddisfazione di tutti. Benpensanti di sinistra indignati conto i fondamentalisti cristiani, islamici arrabbiati con l'Occidente tutto, malpensanti di destra indignati contro gli islamici violenti, e giornalisti che si arricchiscono su tutto questo.

Supponiamo però che io veda il filmato e me ne accorga, che sia certo al 99% that it is a tarot. What can I do? Basically it is a serious violation of professional ethics, and not just get away with that. Perhaps I might denounce everything Striscia la Notizia, or better still a catch-as Attivissimo buffaloes. Or I could write a post indignant and groped to raise the anger of the blogosphere against the poor. It would also be right.

But there is one though. Or the fact that the journalist is not hypothetical at all a symbol, but a person of flesh and blood, and I truly risks to harm him denouncing him. Some Muslim, you never know, might even get into his head to make him pay, and something like that I do not think that even merits a knife (basically he just did not throw the puppies in a river).

And because I respect people more symbols, and more people of abstract values \u200b\u200bsuch as truth and fair play, then I should stay silent. At best, the only compromise that I would get him to write a post using only hypothetical periods.

Casadanociocom Lesbicas

problems of conventional induction

In a well-known probabilistic riddle is asked to imagine that a certain Mr. Rossi by saying, "I have two children, one of them is male, and to calculate the probability that the ' Another son of Mr. Rossi is male.

This riddle book appeared in Martin Gardner sullo Scientific American dedicata ai giochi matematici, in un articolo sulle difficoltà concettuali della probabilità. Gardner infatti si meravigliava del fatto che molte persone intelligenti non solo davano la risposta sbagliata all'enigma (50%), ma non riuscivano ad accettare il fatto che fosse sbagliata nemmeno di fronte alla risposta corretta e alla sua spiegazione.

Infatti, secondo la sua spiegazione, le possibilità con due figli sono quattro in tutto: MM, MF, FM, FF. Escludendo la quarta possibilità in virtù dell'informazione che il signor Rossi ci ha dato, fra le tre rimanenti ne rimane una sola con due maschi, quindi la probabilità è 1/3. Ovvero, una volta presa la popolazione of all those who have two children, one male, only one third of these will have both boys.

Ironically, however, Martin Gardner would have to amend his statement in the next number in the phone book, after many letters of protest received. This is because the people who did not accept the answer presented as correct, it turned out after careful meditation, then they had a point.

inductive inference (probability) can be of two types: direct or reverse. The direct inference is one that tries to infer the characteristics of the sample to those of the population (we have an urn with 50 black balls and 50 white balls, what is the probability che estraendo una pallina essa risulti bianca?). L'inferenza inversa è quella che cerca di inferire le caratteristiche della popolazione da quella del campione: abbiamo un'urna con 100 palline di colore ignoto, se ne estraiamo dieci bianche, qual è la probabilità che tutte le palline nell'urna siano bianche?

Nell'indovinello del signor Rossi è presente un'ambiguità, per cui in realtà non sappiamo esattamente cosa ci viene chiesto. Non è affatto scontato che ci troviamo di fronte a un caso di inferenza diretta, nel quale ci viene chiesto di calcolare la probabilità richiesta semplicemente considerando le caratteristiche (già note) di una data popolazione. La difficoltà, invece, è proprio to understand what population should be considered part Mr. Rossi. At that all people with two children in a male, as suggested by Gardner's solution? And why should not we instead consider the population belonging to all people with two children, of any sex?

We do not know in what capacity Mr. Rossi has provided us with that information, if that is wanted us to calculate the relative frequency of a particular characteristic in a given population (that of fathers with two children in a male), or if he was asking us to provide an estimate of our confidence that the other child is male (ie, how much to bet on that possibility). And the two things, though on this there is some conspiracy of silence, are very different.

no inference is that the reverse is not mathematically calculable. In the example of the urn and balls (100 balls of unknown color, or extract ten white), there is a precise formula, which is given by Bayes' theorem . The problem is that this formula must be used to force use of arbitrary assumptions about the so-called "prior probability", not taken from any observation, but simply postulated (perhaps by using the Laplacian "principle of indifference").

must assume, for example, that all the different distributions of color in the urn are equally likely a priori (100 white and 0 black, 99 white and 1 black, 98 white and 2 black, etc.), then calculate, using Bayes' theorem, as these probabilities vary as a function of the extractions done. But some people might dispute this principle and believe that some distributions are more likely. For example, it is clear that in a series of coin tosses are the most likely combinations that provide a balance between heads and tails (50 heads and 50 crosses) to those involving cross or only one witness, and you do not see why a similar principle can not apply to the case of the urns and balls.

The riddle of Mr. Rossi serves to bring into the open a clash between two different philosophical views, that "objectivity" (or "frequentist") and "subjective" about the chances. For some, the probability is something that concerns only the direct inference, and can be applied only when we have some objective data (statistics on mortality among smokers, for example, can help us calculate the probability of getting cancer). The reverse inference is not legitimate to use instead of calculating the odds.

For others, however, the probability is something inherently subjective, it is not simply the degree of confidence that a certain person has nell'occorrere of a certain event. It is true, it can be modified by experience (I would be irrational if the continued take of certain events do not change my choice, even take their future), but the subjective element can never be completely eliminated from the data. The best-known spokesman for the subjectivist conception of probability, by the way, was a great Italian mathematician, Bruno De Finetti, one of the genes that have trod the soil of our homeland.

The fact, however, is that cases of induction in scientific reasoning, or at least as regards the formulation of theories and the discovery of new scientific laws, always about the negative inference. The direct inference is required in practice a calcolare le probabilità di uscita di una combinazione di numeri al superenalotto, o di azzeccare un numero alla roulette. Solo casi, cioè, di "probabilità addomesticata", nei quali la popolazione di riferimento è nota perché da noi decisa e posta sotto il nostro stretto controllo.

Per quella che Nassim Nicholas Taleb chiama " fallacia ludica " molti testi divulgativi di teoria della probabilità tendono a concentrarsi solo sui casi addomesticati, dando una visione parziale e fuorviante del ragionamento induttivo e probabilistico. È in questo modo che ci si espone, sempre secondo la terminologia di Taleb, ai "cigni neri", agli eventi inaspettati che non potevano essere previsti perché non was no way to predict them, within the assumptions adopted previously in which the forecasts were made.

Any scientific law is an example of reverse inference: after observing a number of white swans, I can formulate the hypothesis that all swans are white universe, exposing them to risk, however, inevitable and incalculable, the swan black. Inevitable because we can not be sure of the correctness of the assumptions on which we merge, what is the description of the universe that would allow us to make inferences direct and therefore very reliable. One is reminded also of the turkey Russell, convinced that on Christmas Day would bring him food because so had done all the other days of the year.

Taleb, however, despite all the hatred that spreads both hands, in his book , for philosophers and experts in probability for any reason, has not discovered or theorized him first the limits of induction (already explored by Hume, Goodman and others who find it unnecessary to mention). In summary, the problem of inductive-probabilistic assumptions ("almost certainly the next ball to remove the urn will be white") is that all are based, in turn, on assumptions ("urn there are 99 white balls and a black one "), whose reliability of which is subject to the calculation of probabilities, giving start a vicious circle.

vicious circle that can be broken, perhaps noting that the scientific hypotheses, natural laws and theories are by no means simple empirical generalizations that can be put under consideration in the calculation of probabilities, but something more. But that's another story.

Driver License Renewal Columbus, Ohio Locations

irony

The irony is one of the words that are used most inappropriately, by most people, attributing meanings to the word in question are very far from the correct one. The irony is, for example, a synonym of "strange and somewhat funny coincidence" ("hey, it's called Low family name and it's really low, how ironic! "). A coincidence could be considered ironic, at best, when there is some contrast between the two (my name down, are two meters high and twenty centimeters). It is not not even a word used to signify the genericissimo humor of any kind.

The irony is simply a figure of speech consisting in affirming one thing but meaning the opposite. For example, if I see on TV and say Monica Bellucci "Look at that process pedals" I'm doing irony, because I want to say is that Monica Bellucci is not an ugly woman.

But it's important to distinguish the irony of the lie, or deceit. If one asks me how I am on the phone and I say I'm bad, though in reality I feel good, maybe because I did not want to go out with him and see him, I'm not being ironic, but I'm just lying.

outside, the difference is hard to grasp, an ironic phrase and a lie are formally indistinguishable, except for a certain tone of voice that can help you grasp the meaning of the utterance. What matters, however, is the intention. Since irony is not will to deceive anyone, usually used in contexts where it is difficult to be a really misled.

For example, in the case of Monica Bellucci, it is obvious to anyone watching TV with me that Bellucci is a great piece of woman (to add the other wicked irony, I could also say "but at least you understand that when he speaks is very intelligent") and then he can understand that I can not be serious. Instead my other person on the phone can not know how I'm actually, so even if I wanted to do irony fail because he did not how to take it.

The irony is therefore a sophisticated epistemological stance, a fairly convoluted and complicated to say something. If I want to say that Monica Bellucci is beautiful, because I do not say directly that she is beautiful, but to say that it is a process, risking to be misunderstood and to be mistaken for someone who does not appreciate the beautiful women? Well, ignoring the poverty of the example, the goal is probably humorous, and although this leaves open the question even more complex, what is the humor.

However, the irony, though often aggressive, it's quite popular in society, and sometimes it is also a way to defuse tensions. If you say something that proved to be particularly annoying, you can always get away with saying "but I was ironic." "You're a filthy dickhead", "How dare you?", "I was ironic," "LOL". "I think I will vote the League," "I divorce, "" I was ironic, "I love you.

is also a way to pass himself off as intelligent people, especially in the version, particularly popular, called" irony ", which consists of assuming attitudes of contempt against it to signify that it is instead of the genes (or self-exaltation, said to be beautiful to signify that it was ugly, but always to make people understand to be ironic and then intellgent). That is to say ironically being silly, for some mysterious reason, increases the chances of being considered intelligent, much more than claiming to be intelligent enough (which is often even counterproductive).

authority suprema, in fatto di ironia e autoironia, è il filosofo greco Socrate, che ad esempio diceva spesso di essere ignorante, ma in realtà si considerava una persona molto saggia, e infatti proprio il suo "so di non sapere" è considerato un esempio di grande saggezza. Per questo, al posto del termine "ironia", si usa spesso anche "ironia socratica".

Però c'è un piccolo problema. Il fatto è che, sebbene il termine "ironia" sia attestato negli scritti platonici, e proprio in riferimento a Socrate, ai tempi di Socrate quel termine non significava affatto la stessa cosa che significa oggi. In effetti, εἰρωνεία significava proprio "falsità", "ipocrisia". Quindi Socrates' interlocutors, a careful reading, they were not complimenting him for his humor, but was giving the false and hypocritical.

Gregory Vlastos, in his fine essay on Socrates, argues that the term probably also had a secondary meaning, closer to that of today, and who would later become the most popular sense of the term, by obscuring the primary meaning, just with Socrates. Although it is true that Socrates' opponents accuse him of irony to be understood to mean something negative, and not exactly a compliment, it is also true that Socrates is not just deceiving them.

that of Socrates, however, Nor is irony in the modern sense of the word, because it is also true, as the discomfort felt by his audience shows, there is an element of concealment in her attitude. If that was irony in using a contemporary, would be a misuse of irony, because it constantly misunderstood and not understood. As one who wants to be funny but that is just continually forced to explain his jokes ("I'm sorry, I was ironic).

course, the irony of Socrates is more destabilizing than today, because they do not always understand. Vlastos calls it "complex irony." In essence, this is one thing to say, not understanding the exact opposite, but meaning just what it says, only in a sense other than the most literal and immediately understandable.

For example, when Socrates claims to be ignorant, asking his audience to enlighten him on some aspects of knowledge, it is not accurate to say that this is a figure of speech that Socrates is in fact claiming to be wise. Socrates is considered a very ignorant one who does not know. But his ignorance invites us to consider another point of view, positive, considering it a form of knowledge, deeper than the superficial knowledge of the sophists and notional.

Similarly, when in a famous passage from the Symposium (that of Xenophon, not the Platone), sostiene di poter vincere un concorso di bellezza con un avvenente giovanotto, nonostante avesse fama di essere bruttissimo, non è semplicemente perché faccia dell'umorismo, o della (argh) autoironia. Egli in realtà ci invita a riconsiderare i concetti di bellezza e bruttezza, e a vederli sotto nuove e inedite angolazioni. Ci sta dicendo, per chi vuole capirlo, che esiste un tipo di bellezza più importante di quella del corpo.

SOCRATE. Pensi forse che la bellezza si dia solo nell'uomo, o anche in qualche altro essere?

CRITOBULO. Io credo che la si possa trovare anche in un cavallo o in un bue ed in molte cose inanimate. Ad esempio io riconosco come bello uno scudo, una sword or a spear.

S. And how is it possible that so many different things can be beautiful and free from any relationship with each other?

C. Why, if these objects were made in a timely manner for the purposes for which we buy them, or are designed by nature to our needs, then these objects I call them beautiful in each case.

S. Well, then your eyes to what we need?

C. Of course, to see.

S. Then it is shown that ready-my eyes are more beautiful than yours. Why? Why do your see only what is in front of you, as my protruding out so that I can see is also what I alongside no less than what I faced.

C. You mean the crab is an animal that has the most beautiful eyes?

S. That's right, because from the point of view of efficiency, his eyes are better than those designed by nature.

C. All right, but which of our two noses is the best?

S. My, I would say it is true that the gods have given us the nostrils to catch the smells, since your are directed to the ground, while mine are pretty large so as to incorporate the smells from all sides.

C. But how does a snub nose Could be more beautiful than a right?

S. Why does not constitute an obstacle, but allowing the eyes to see what they want, while a higher back of the nose as it obstructs the view of spite.

C. The same will also apply to the mouth, I grant you right now, because if the mouth is made to bite, you can nip a lot bigger than mine.

S. Then, with my thick lips, do not think I can give much more soft kisses?

C. To give you listening, I would have a mouth ugliest asses.

S. This is not, then, another reason why I'm better looking than you? The Naiad, who are goddesses, Sileni generate those which resemble much more to me than to you.

C. I do not know how they react. It also put to the vote to decide now what should I do or I have to pay a fine.

Socrates, nowadays, if it made its appearance on a social network, would not be considered a person's ironic. The irony now is something harmless, non-disruptive, not angry and does not reflect. Socrates was so angry but his contemporaries who eventually had to kill to get rid of him. The right word for Socrates is not "ironic" but another. Socrates today would be a fake.

New York State Driver's License Template

falsehood

This picture is only marginally related to the article, but it is was taken especially for me by my friend Elisa Gianola (rights reserved), so if you do not like the article, but you like the photos please votarmi the same for the Macchianera Blog Award.

Waiting on the epidemiology of beliefs becomes a discipline truly believe that we can identify some fixed patterns, some common reasons behind the fascination with certain urban legends, of certain common myths often in academia.

Today I will talk about conspiracy theories, in their delusion that needs no explanation apart. The fact is that everyone (but especially, I have to recognize those who have to do with the humanities and philosophy) we have had experience of theories patently absurd but mysteriously become mainstream and almost universally accepted that the "conventional falsehood." I think the appeal of certain beliefs and why they spread lies precisely in this, in our love (often successful) to the paradoxes: it is hard to resist a theory that goes against our intuition, but is also extremely rich in implications, and then makes us see the world in a different light.

The clearest example that comes to mind is the psychoanalytic theory of Freud. Psychoanalysis has changed the world, there are no doubts about his great impact on contemporary culture, but there is only one small problem: it is empirically false, as each of us can testify that he never passed through the antechamber of the brain to make love to his mother. Freud of course, respond immediately that it was the revulsion we feel for incest is a sign of censorship by the superego on our unconscious desires, which is only one explanation ad hoc (a classic "heads I win, tails you lose") only with this simple move has already screwed, why not go for bigots we are forced to consider the idea, to explore all the implications: some blocks that make up our world view are moved to make some attempt, until at some point it snaps something in my head that says "hey, but this is pretty cool! would be crazy if it were really so, why did not I think of that before."

philosophers in particular, I said, like to impress others with paradoxical reasoning, acceptance of which more or less supine depends on the prestige of the philosopher or more generally by zeitgeist: we have not yet released at all, and maybe not ever free from Wittgenstein, people believe that even when we're on the toilet bowl what we do, in fact, is "language game", not to mention the deconstructionists, who believe that any text, including instructions for assembly of Ikea furniture, not actually speak of nothing but himself, negating any claim on its own to refer to nothing outside itself (which is why we serve there, no?).

What usually pushes the philosophers, however, is really the love of paradox for the sake of paradox when things get a bit 'more complicated as regards the ground of psychology or sociology, where ideological considerations, and sometimes the mere wishful thinking often cooperate to the distortion of reality. It is totally unrealistic to expect to find in the manuals for use by schools, a realistic description of the functioning of our societies or impulses that drive individuals to act in certain ways: it says only what people want to hear, have a largely comforting.

An example on which I've discussed recently is the phenomenon of bullying. Until recently the most common description of the phenomenon (still popular among non-specialists) described the figure of the bully, violent and aggressive, as motivated by a disregard of self, low self-esteem and a fragile and insecure personality. Recent research has highlighted that this theory lacks any empirical support (rather than the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion, namely that the bullies have un'alta considerazione di sé e pochissima per gli altri, e proprio per questo tendono ad essere violenti) ma quello che dovrebbe sorprendere, in primo luogo, è che qualcuno abbia mai potuto pensare una cosa del genere, e che sia stato pure ascoltato.

Perché mai chi sfrutta la propria superiorità fisica per vessare gli altri, avendo pure successo e traendo conferme dal proprio atteggiamento, dovrebbe sentirsi insicuro? Davvero si pensa che, fra carnefice e vittima, quello che sta male sia il carnefice? Ma la cura dell'autostima sembra essere diventata la panacea di tutti i mali, non solo del bullismo. Qualcuno forse è convinto che dare lezioni di autostima a Totò Riina aiuterebbe a risolvere il problema della criminalità organized.

gone on to another myth psycho-pedagogical, still taught the theory of Bowlby (the most popular on the mother-child relationship, after Freud). The first months of life, Bowlby argues, are critical because the future relational behaviors depend on the quality of attachment to the mother, which is depending on its sensitivity and availability. If the attachment is insecure all the relationships built in the future with other personalities will be characterized by emotional instability and fragility, but if you establish an appropriate attachment relationship (if the child gets enough protection, a sense of security and affection shown by reference ) we have a development ottimale della personalità. Per farla breve, è la teoria: "poveretto, si vede che ha i genitori separati".

Peccato che Bowlby non abbia pensato a verificare se il comportamento tenuto dai bambini nell'ambiente familiare avesse qualche correlazione con quello tenuto nell'ambiente scolastico o dei propri compagni di gioco, o controllare che tali modelli perdurassero nell'età adulta. Perché si dà il caso che, escludendo le variabili genetiche (i figli tendono ad assomigliare ai genitori) non vi sia alcuna correlazione. Ma per questo non c'era bisogno di fare delle ricerche, anche se è bene non fidarsi delle impressioni personali. Ad esempio, basta considerare a quanti è capitato di incontrare il classico angioletto well-bred which is the joy of the parents, which turns into a psychopathic creature Lovecraftian immense destructive power is not just out of reach. People adapt to their environment that they find, and do not have any meaning, for survival, slavishly copying the patterns of behavior learned in one context to play them anywhere. The theory has no other function than to easily identify those responsible for a bad outcome of education. Continuing

second Gregory Bateson, schizophrenia is a result of "double bind", or of ambiguous messages. That is, if you insist on giving conflicting messages to your kids, those at risk of becoming schizophrenic. Esempio (tratto dall' Enciclopedia multimediale delle scienze filosofiche ): "la madre torna a casa carica di pacchi della spesa […] il figlio di sei anni le si fa incontro, pronto ad abbracciarla. La madre gli dice: 'Abbracciami, perché non mi abbracci?', mentre invece questo evidentemente è impossibile, dato che ha in mano i pacchetti". Miseriaccia, l'avreste mai detto che un incidente così banale può portare a una cosa seria come la schizofrenia?

A proposito di Freud, oltre al complesso di Edipo, si potrebbero citare altre amenità, come l'invidia del pene, che fanno tanto arrabbiare le femministe, salvo che le femministe hanno poco da gioire perché are among the principal determinants of the spread of theories no less absurd than Freudian. One of my favorites is that of the diffusion front of matriarchal societies, the paleolithic era, this patriarchy and male oppression and of course responsible for all the wars and violence. Classic example of evidence that goes across from one side (you know many matriarchal societies, you?) And theory that goes in the opposite direction (the matriarchy is the true "natural" state of humanity).

Many feminists, then, are also convinced that our current Western society is "particularly" oppressive to them, and this, needless to say, goes against all evidence. Societies that oppress women, it's trivial but it is worth remembering, not the ones with advertising posters and naked women everywhere attacked, but those where naked women are not seen just never (want to give you any feedback on good taste certain images). And these are companies where you consume more often violence against women. I just do not want to hear you say, perhaps because this is how we would remove a scapegoat (which is not human nature) for the violence that still occur.

The review ends here because otherwise it becomes too controversial, and I do not have it with anyone. I reflected on the possible usefulness of certain theories, because the natural history also offers wonderful examples of completely counterintuitive theories proved right: the Copernican theory tells us that the Sun is stationary, against appearances, and the Earth is moving at high speed even though we do not notice anything. And even the continents are moving close to or far from each other, thanks to forces that we can scarcely imagine (what can move a continent?).

But Galileo and Wegener had not met immediately by the unconditional approval of the scientific community. On the contrary, as we know. This is not an evil, despite the petty rules with which he tried to silence Galileo: scientific theories must be innovative criticized, even at the cost of making the figure of the old conservative, so that we can understand what they really hope and what are simply crap. Today everyone wants to be revolutionaries, the problem of science is to protect you from Galileo, to embrace and avoid any nonsense just because it is inconsistent with the knowledge handed down and even with good sense (I think homeopathy, I think creationism). Or maybe because it is convenient from a political point of view.