17 Mio. https://de.statista.com/infografik/23994/geschaetzte-zahl-der-nazi-opfer/
Davon waren 6 Mio. Juden, es wurden aber auch andere Menschengruppen gezielt ermordet. Ich sehe diese Zahl oft miszitiert, daher der Einwurf. https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/23994.jpeg
Wisst ihr noch wo er sich losgerissen hat? Bringt da seine Schüssel mit Wasser hin (kein Futter, denn das kann andere Tiere anlocken, die er dann meidet). Außerdem ein Kleidungsstück von euch dort hinlegen. Das gibt dem Hund Grund dort zu warten. Hoffentlich findet ihr euch wieder!
The story turns out to be an act of revenge by the co-author, who donated 10 million pound to Cameron’s party in hopes of being given a cabinet position. After Cameron refused to give him such, Ashcroft co-wrote an unauthorized “biography” of Cameron.
With this in mind, I wouldn’t give this story any second thought other than the realization that Ashcroft is an utter tool.
What you are citing, that willpower is being used up over the day by decisions, is called ego depletion and it is wrong! There are experiments where two groups were either told that this is a thing or the opposite, that willpower is strengthened by every decision instead, and it turns out, that both groups had different willpower self assessments at the end of the trial in accordance with the theory of willpower they were told in the beginning, meaning it’s just a placebo in the end. Neither ego depletion nor the opposite exist, but people feel as strong in willpower in accordance with their belief of how willpower works.
Why?
Inventors of those patents are Robert L. Sweet and Alan B. Densky. Those names mean anything? I don’t know them and I don’t get the point you are trying to make…
- After WW1 and the Ottomans were defeated, it passed onto the Turkish (Islamic).
- After WW2 the Turkish were defeated and they lost it to Britain. In the same war the surviving Jews were displaced worldwide and had no country to live, so the League of Nations (U.S, Britain, Canada, France mainly) decided to give Jews a new home and call this new place the State of Israel. They put Israel right in the middle of the British controlled Palestine, which no Islamic nation could object to because they were all defeated in war.
Turkey never fought in ww2. Turkey was already after ww1 completely stripped of territory in the Levant. There also was no league of nations after ww2 anymore, but the UN was founded. No Arabic nations were defeated in ww2. Some of 4. happened after ww1 not 2. The creation of Israel was heavily objected by the neighboring Arabic nations, see 6-Day-War.
They are talking about dark matter not dark energy.
No, nobody can be fired for whatever gender, sexual orientation, religion or beliefs they have. The focus on LGBTQ+ or certain religious beliefs is due to the media focus and because of the countless instances where such terminations, both legal or illegally, have taken place. These legislations give these groups the same rights everybody else already enjoys, and are usually formulated in such a way that any discrimination in regards to gender, etc. are forbidden, this includes white, straight cis-men.
What kind of researcher posts a five-question-questionnaire on Lemmy?
Who are you and who employs you? What is your agenda?
Is this an undergraduate thesis?
Where else did you post your questionnaire? Are you accounting for selection bias?
Why do you not use a questionnaire service like survey monkey?
These are all yes/no questions and no questions regarding background, sex, age, income, etc. What kind of conclusions do you think you will be able to draw from that?
fuck Lysander
Do you mean Lysanderoth ;)
/s I don’t know this book, can you give a short outline what it’s about?
You raise a very good point. I think there are several ways this can be caused, some of which you already mentioned yourself:
Our definition of knowledge is itself subject to the trilemma. Every statement we make about not-knowing is just as much in need of a dogmatic assumption, an infinite regress or a circular reasoning as statements about knowing. If we take apart the statement “We do not know anything”, we will find that multiple of its parts are based on the assumption, that something exists, which itself is a textbook example for the trilemma. Thus we can not know that we do not know anything, while at the same time knowing, that we can not know anything.
The subject matter of paradoxes is imaginary. Does the sentence “This sentence is a lie” really exists, if it is entirely located in a latent space of common understanding? What makes it be a thing that can be referred to? Our reference can only be made into this latent space of linguistics and common understanding, but this applies to every piece of knowledge.
Logic theory doesn’t hold up when faced with self-reference, which would be better dealt with using unconventional logic systems like Paraconsistent Logic.
There are probably more…
I would really appreciate it if you could recommend me some resources(book, video, podcast, anything…) on cognitive closure.
Difficult. There are many different concepts of cognitive closure and some may be more to your liking than others. I personally like Kant’s approach in Critique of Pure Reason. He introduced “categories”, which are mental frameworks that shape our understanding of reality, and argued that certain aspects of reality may be inaccessible to us, because we lack the categorical framework for those.
On linguistic relativity, I highly recommend Guy Deutscher’s Through the Language Glass: why the world looks different in other languages. It’s an overview of the entire research within this field, which challenges every linguistic theory regarding how language shapes our understanding of the world and thus debunks “common” linguistic myths.
You really put effort in this, I don’t know how to thank. Simply put, you are awesome.
Thanks for mentioning about “The Münchhausen trilemma”, it is exactly what I was thinking about the knowledge. I will certainly do further reading about it.
You are welcome!
Why don’t you just leave the companies out, where you got let go and worked at for only a short time? How does leaving them in add value, if you think that recruiters think that you are flaking? Maybe a more minimalist resume (education+last job) would do you better? Let’s be honest here for a moment. Everybody stretches the truth on their resume a little bit. Why not extend the periods of your prior work experience to make them seem less spotty?
What do you usually tell recruiters, when they ask, why you left those companies? I hope you don’t mention your untreated ADHD. Firstly recruiters want to know, that you add value and that you are loyal. How do you communicate these qualities?
As a suggestion, you could communicate the first by phrasing your time there as the completion of a project/product and a subsequent move on. Additionally you could be honest about the companies not being a good fit, which makes the decision to leave after a completed project seem mature and reasonable. Playing a misfit with start-up-spirit when interviewing at conventional companies and vice versa could help too.
Regarding the coding challenges. It’s never about the solution, but all about the way to get there. They want to see how you think, how you approach a problem. Go from broad to detailed, from raw to refined, start simple, and talk with them, explain what you do and why you do it.
Another thing I feel that needs to be addressed are your sicknesses and disorders. Would a compensation really help? What would you need, to be compensated for your disadvantage? How much time is that compared to the base time you would be given?
Can you elaborate? I’m interested to understand this better, both what neoclassical economics exactly is what characteristics make it a cult.
Thanks for the suggestion. I had never heard of him before. Which of his works would you recommend as a starter?
Schools of Skepticism seem to fall into two camps: Soft Skepticism, which acknowledges that some knowledge might exist and is attainable for humans, and Hard Skepticism, which either negates the existence of true knowledge or the human capacity to grasp true knowledge. Thus Soft Skepticism would by default allow for at least this one piece of knowledge, namely that we know that we know nothing. Hard Skepticism would even doubt this and state instead, that we know nothing, not even that we know nothing.
I’ve had similar experiences as the ones that you described, when bringing up epistemological nihilism/skepticism in an argument. The common response being to attack skeptic arguments by applying them to themselves - “If you can not know anything, then you can not know that you know nothing. Therefore your claim refutes itself. Reductio ad absurdum”.
The reductio ad absurdum attack however reveals the circular reasoning of its speaker, which you already pointed out as well. The beliefs that a “non-epistemological-skeptic” has are based on assumption whose trueness is in turn in some way or another derived from those very beliefs - e.g. The Bible is true, because it is God’s word, and God exists, because the Bible says so. This is what I would refer to as (positive) circular reasoning, because the arguments posit each other. The ad absurdum fallacy against skepticism seems to be part of a type of (negative) circular reasoning, because the arguments negate each other. This is the same problem with a lot of paradoxes and it seems to be caused by self-reference. Self-reference thus seems to be an area where our logic breaks, which gives some credence to the idea, that our theory of logic is not yet complete or fundamentally flawed. Thus even the one area of human wisdom pointed to as a counter argument for hard skepticism seems to fail.
The Münchhausen trilemma or Agrippa’s trilemma addresses this issue by positing that every proof falls into this or two other categories:
… and thus, that true (objective/un-assumptive) knowledge is unattainable.
Even if we assume that knowledge might be attainable, there may be limits to what we can know. This is called Cognitive closure and it posits that biological or physical limitations exist regarding what thoughts we can conceive and what we are capable of knowing. We are for example incapable of visually imagining four or higher dimensional space - Although the case could be made, that we do not even perceive three dimensional in the first place, but that our perception is entirely two dimensional.
You already mentioned a similar limitation: Linguistic relativity. Our language does to some extent influence how we perceive the world and what thoughts we can formulate. Studies have however shown that this extent is not near as strong as Whorf originally claimed - A language missing temporal conjugation does not mean that a speaker of that language has no concept of time. There are however strong indicators that language shapes how we perceive/think about color, spatial relations, social relations… like a cognitive framework for processing our perceptual input. This does not however mean that language is an actual limitation, since language gives us the ability to conceptualize abstract thought in the first place. It is more akin to an enabler with some languages being better tools for certain cognitive processes than others. I would even argue, that all languages are perfect to process the environments of their corresponding speakers, shaping their perceptions and in turn being shaped by their cultural interactions based on their perceptions.
In summary: No knowledge can be inferred without an assumption. Skepticism does not refute itself, but the assumption that it would seems to point to a flaw in our theory of logic. There seem to exist biological and physical limits on what humans can think and our perception of our world is shaped to some extent by our language.
I hope this answers some of your questions and provides you with a good basis for further research - even though nothing can truly be known ;) - and I would love to hear your further thoughts and ideas on the matter!
Did you hold your phone sideways while posting it?
:D