41–50 of 51 posts
I found this interesting - How many people today use a meal as a reward for a hard day’s work? How many use it as a “festival” to enjoy with friends and/or family? How many take the time after the meal to relax and let the body digest what they have eaten?
I found this interesting - How many people today use a meal as a reward for a hard day’s work? How many use it as a “festival” to enjoy with friends and/or family? How many take the time after the meal to relax and let the body digest what they have eaten?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it's just very well ingrained bullshit - the idea that the stars you were born under define your personality and fate is as old as time and still practiced today.
I don't know about the stars defining your personality and fate in absolute terms, but I also cannot dismiss altogether. To prove my point, circadian rhythm is mostly in synch with day/night rhythm. Are there any proof to dismiss that other planets don't have any kind of effect on human psyche and body? Let me explain, maybe the period of effect of other planets is not measured in hours, but years or decades. Hell, l…
That's not how this works - I don't need to prove it doesn't, you need to prove it does. The null hypothesis is that they don't. Russell's Teapot is a great thought experiment for this - just because I can't prove it's not true doesn't mean I should accept it. Alternatively, would you accept that the moon is what defines digestion and makes us poop just because you can't disprove it might have some effect?
I don't think your arguments hold much weight - SAD is a problem with vitamin D. Menstrual cycle and lunar cycle, while sharing similar lengths (though not for many women), is by all evidence a coincidence to the best of my knowledge (again, unless you can prove otherwise). You need to provide a mechanism for why Neptune being in the seventh house can effect someone biologically before I'll consider it. If you have examples I'm all ears.
> It baffles me, how many people in tech dismiss astrology even though there are no proof to acknowledge or deny their effect on human psyche and body.
Again, if there is no proof by default most scientifically minded people tend to assume it's not true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it's just very well ingrained bullshit - the idea that the stars you were born under define your personality and fate is as old as time and still practiced today.
You're wrong here, it's bullshit that was regularly updated with new astronomic findings. :P Isn't it miraculous how astrology was just as accurate before its charts included Neptune?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seconding this. How can one historian put such emphasis on this "only eat after the day's work is done and you can leisure to digest" and the other puts the major meal in the middle of the day?
There is no contradiction. When does the days work end in Mediterranean countries? Eat before the afternoon siesta.
But how to tell the difference between old wisdom and old bullshit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it is an article implying we should get our dietary advice from 400 year old proverbs and historical texts about Rome so it might not be airtight.
I disagree, I take most of my programming advice from lays of Ancient Rome!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about the stars defining your personality and fate in absolute terms, but I also cannot dismiss altogether. To prove my point, circadian rhythm is mostly in synch with day/night rhythm. Are there any proof to dismiss that other planets don't have any kind of effect on human psyche and body? Let me explain, maybe the period of effect of other planets is not measured in hours, but years or decades. Hell, l…
> Are there any proof to dismiss that other planets don't have any kind of effect on human psyche and body? That's not how this works - I don't need to prove it doesn't, you need to prove it does. The null hypothesis is that they don't. Russell's Teapot is a great thought experiment for this - just because I can't prove it's not true doesn't mean I should accept it. Alternatively, would you accept that the moon is wh…
In my mind, a scientific-minded person comes up with a hypothesis, models with explaining power, and then thinks "how could I devise an (ideally repeatable) experiment that could help me distinguish between this hypothesis and another (likely null) hypothesis?" The fundamental mindset isn't "accept only proven claims", it's formulating hypotheses and then evaluating them via testing.
I'd guess many astrological hypotheses aren't especially likely to fare well, and to the extent that would-be scientists have the same intuition we probably won't get a lot of tested astrology. But I think it's also an interesting question where that intuition comes from; generating & exploring hypotheses are pretty fuzzy parts of the process.
And how you formulate them matters. If the hypothesis is that Neptune's position is causal, well, there's not a lot of mechanisms we're aware of to build around. OTOH, if the hypothesis is that Neptune's position is correlated with some other variable, still could be a waste of time but there's a lot more mechanisms one could look into. "SAD is a problem with vitamin D" is an acknowledgement that there are these kind of correlations in play.
How likely are they to bear fruit? My gut says not super likely, but at some level that's back in that field of intuition. In some ways the ultimate measure of whether something is "scientific" and included/excluded from scientific inquiry is basically a declaration about how interesting or uninteresting it is to scientists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are there any proof to dismiss that other planets don't have any kind of effect on human psyche and body? That's not how this works - I don't need to prove it doesn't, you need to prove it does. The null hypothesis is that they don't. Russell's Teapot is a great thought experiment for this - just because I can't prove it's not true doesn't mean I should accept it. Alternatively, would you accept that the moon is wh…
A skeptic would likely assume it's not true. In my mind, a scientific-minded person comes up with a hypothesis, models with explaining power, and then thinks "how could I devise an (ideally repeatable) experiment that could help me distinguish between this hypothesis and another (likely null) hypothesis?" The fundamental mindset isn't "accept only proven claims", it's formulating hypotheses and then evaluating them v…