Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 92 (click to see context) from:
This revelation of Deep Time still provides every child with one of the first and perhaps the greatest experience...: when we learn that the world was once full of dinosaurs, and they all perished 65m years ago.\\
to:
This revelation of Deep Time still provides every child with one of the first and perhaps the the[ir] greatest experience...experience [...] : when we learn that the world was once full of dinosaurs, and they all perished 65m [65 million] years ago.\\
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 119 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Charles Lindbergh''', "The Miracle of Life." ''Life'' (December 22, 1967)
to:
-->--'''Charles Lindbergh''', "The Miracle Wisdom of Life.Wilderness." ''Life'' (December 22, 1967)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 115 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Ethan Siegel''' "[[https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/why-explore-universe/ Why bother exploring the Universe at all?]]." ''[[https://bigthink.com/ Big Think]]'' (July 29, 2022)
to:
-->--'''Ethan Siegel''' "[[https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/why-explore-universe/ Why bother exploring the Universe at all?]]." ''[[https://bigthink.com/ Big Think]]'' (July 29, 2022)2022)
->I have been forced to the conclusion that an overemphasis of science weakens human character and upsets life's essential balance. Science breeds technology. Technology leads to infinite complication. Examples are everywhere: in the intricacy of government and in that of business corporations: in automation and labor relations; in war, diplomacy, taxation, legislation, in almost every field of modern man's routine. From the growth of cities to that of military power, from medical requirements to social-welfare benefits, when progress is plotted against time, exponential curves result with which we cannot long conform. But what action should scientific man prescribe as a result of the curves he plots? How is their direction to be changed without another breakdown and return to wildness? Suppose technologists conclude theoretically that they are destroying their own culture. Are they capable of taking effective action to prevent such destruction?\\
The failures of previous civilizations, and the crises existing for our own, show that man has not evolved the ability to cope with limitless complication. He has not discovered how to control his sciences' parabolas. Here I believe the human intellect can learn from primitive nature, for nature was conceived in cosmic power and thrives on infinite complication. No problem has been too difficult for it to solve. From the dynamics of an atom, nature produces the tranquility of a flower, the joy of a porpoise, the intellect of man–the miracle of life.
-->--'''Charles Lindbergh''', "The Miracle of Life." ''Life'' (December 22, 1967)
->I have been forced to the conclusion that an overemphasis of science weakens human character and upsets life's essential balance. Science breeds technology. Technology leads to infinite complication. Examples are everywhere: in the intricacy of government and in that of business corporations: in automation and labor relations; in war, diplomacy, taxation, legislation, in almost every field of modern man's routine. From the growth of cities to that of military power, from medical requirements to social-welfare benefits, when progress is plotted against time, exponential curves result with which we cannot long conform. But what action should scientific man prescribe as a result of the curves he plots? How is their direction to be changed without another breakdown and return to wildness? Suppose technologists conclude theoretically that they are destroying their own culture. Are they capable of taking effective action to prevent such destruction?\\
The failures of previous civilizations, and the crises existing for our own, show that man has not evolved the ability to cope with limitless complication. He has not discovered how to control his sciences' parabolas. Here I believe the human intellect can learn from primitive nature, for nature was conceived in cosmic power and thrives on infinite complication. No problem has been too difficult for it to solve. From the dynamics of an atom, nature produces the tranquility of a flower, the joy of a porpoise, the intellect of man–the miracle of life.
-->--'''Charles Lindbergh''', "The Miracle of Life." ''Life'' (December 22, 1967)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term[?]... Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire to [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror the Twin Towers]], with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of TheTwentiethCentury alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
to:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term[?]... Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years [of written history] starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire to [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror the Twin Towers]], with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of TheTwentiethCentury alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term... that: “...we’re all dead?” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire to [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror the Twin Towers]], with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of TheTwentiethCentury alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
to:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term... that: “...we’re all dead?” long-term[?]... Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire to [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror the Twin Towers]], with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of TheTwentiethCentury alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
Changed line(s) 83 (click to see context) from:
Despite this cognitive set-back, we are surrounded by ginormous numbers every day and are expected to make sense of it. Be it the latest pandemic figures, budget proposals by your government, the latest news, scientific research and other things that we pretend to read and understand to sound smart.\\
to:
Despite this cognitive set-back, setback, we are surrounded by ginormous numbers every day and are expected to make sense of it. Be it the latest pandemic figures, budget proposals by your government, the latest news, scientific research and other things that we pretend to read and understand to sound smart.\\
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 115 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Ethan Siegel''' "[[https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/why-explore-universe/ Why bother exploring the Universe at all?]]''. ''[[https://bigthink.com/ Big Think]]'' (July 29, 2022)
to:
-->--'''Ethan Siegel''' "[[https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/why-explore-universe/ Why bother exploring the Universe at all?]]''. all?]]." ''[[https://bigthink.com/ Big Think]]'' (July 29, 2022)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 111 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Rostam Ferdowsi''', "[[https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limits-to-knowledge What Are the Limits to Human Knowledge]]" Answered in [[https://www.quora.com/ Quora]].
to:
-->--'''Rostam Ferdowsi''', "[[https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limits-to-knowledge What Are the Limits to Human Knowledge]]" Answered in [[https://www.quora.com/ Quora]].Quora]].
->It’s no secret that there is a seemingly endless string of problems to address in the world. You don’t have to look hard to find people suffering from all sorts of maladies: from illness to injustice, from war to famine, from poverty to pollution. There are some major problems facing humanity in the 21st century, and they’re all going to require an enormous investment of our collective resources if we want to solve them. From climate change to global pandemics to the energy and water crises and more, none of these problems are going to solve themselves. If they’re to be solved at all, it’s going to come down to humanity’s collective actions.\\
But where does that leave the scientific research that doesn’t directly relate to these crises? As beautiful and enlightening as the recent James Webb Space Telescope pictures are, astronomy and astrophysics aren’t going to keep the seas from rising.
-->--'''Ethan Siegel''' "[[https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/why-explore-universe/ Why bother exploring the Universe at all?]]''. ''[[https://bigthink.com/ Big Think]]'' (July 29, 2022)
->It’s no secret that there is a seemingly endless string of problems to address in the world. You don’t have to look hard to find people suffering from all sorts of maladies: from illness to injustice, from war to famine, from poverty to pollution. There are some major problems facing humanity in the 21st century, and they’re all going to require an enormous investment of our collective resources if we want to solve them. From climate change to global pandemics to the energy and water crises and more, none of these problems are going to solve themselves. If they’re to be solved at all, it’s going to come down to humanity’s collective actions.\\
But where does that leave the scientific research that doesn’t directly relate to these crises? As beautiful and enlightening as the recent James Webb Space Telescope pictures are, astronomy and astrophysics aren’t going to keep the seas from rising.
-->--'''Ethan Siegel''' "[[https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/why-explore-universe/ Why bother exploring the Universe at all?]]''. ''[[https://bigthink.com/ Big Think]]'' (July 29, 2022)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 108 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Michael M. Crow''' "[[https://issues.org/p_crow/ None Dare Call It Hubris: The Limits of Knowledge]]." ''Issues in Science and Technology'' 23, no. 2 (Winter 2007)
to:
-->--'''Michael M. Crow''' "[[https://issues.org/p_crow/ None Dare Call It Hubris: The Limits of Knowledge]]." ''Issues in Science and Technology'' 23, no. 2 (Winter 2007)2007)
->Human knowledge is limited to the rational/empirical evidence & it’s limited to the natural world.
-->--'''Rostam Ferdowsi''', "[[https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limits-to-knowledge What Are the Limits to Human Knowledge]]" Answered in [[https://www.quora.com/ Quora]].
->Human knowledge is limited to the rational/empirical evidence & it’s limited to the natural world.
-->--'''Rostam Ferdowsi''', "[[https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limits-to-knowledge What Are the Limits to Human Knowledge]]" Answered in [[https://www.quora.com/ Quora]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 102 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Maarten Boudry''', "[[https://theconversation.com/human-intelligence-have-we-reached-the-limit-of-knowledge-124819 Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?]]", ''The Conversation'' (October 11, 2019)
to:
-->--'''Maarten Boudry''', "[[https://theconversation.com/human-intelligence-have-we-reached-the-limit-of-knowledge-124819 Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?]]", ''The Conversation'' (October 11, 2019)2019)
->There is absolutely no a priori reason to expect that what we can know is what we most need to know. Science uses disciplinary organization to recognize and focus on questions that can be answered. Disciplines, in turn, are separated by methodology, terminology, sociology, and disparate bodies of fact that resist synthesis. Although disciplinary specialization has been the key to scientific success, such specialization simultaneously takes us away from any knowledge of the whole.\\
Today the whole encompasses six billion people with the collective capability of altering the biogeochemical cycles on which we depend for our survival. Can science generate the knowledge necessary to govern the world that science has made? Do we even know what such knowledge might be? Producing 70,000 synthetic chemicals is easy compared to the challenge of understanding and dealing with their effects. Despite the billions we have spent studying our interference with the planet’s biogeochemical cycles, we really do not have a clue about what the long-term result will be. And we have even less knowledge about how to organize and govern ourselves to confront this challenge.\\
The intrinsic difficulties of creating a transdisciplinary synthesis are compounded dramatically by a dangerous scientific and technological illiteracy among senior policy-makers and elected officials. An ironic effect of technology-created wealth is the growth of an affluent class that prizes individualism over civic engagement and that feels insulated from the need to understand and confront complex technology-related social issues.\\
The scientific and philosophical intellectuals of “the academy” remain focused on the relatively simple question of understanding nature. The much more complicated and challenging—and meaningful— quest is to understand nature with a purpose, with an objective, with an end. What is the purpose of our effort to understand nature: to learn how to live in harmony with nature or to exploit it more efficiently? For thousands of years, philosophical inquiry has been guided by such fundamental questions as “Why are we here?” and “How should we behave?” Such questions were difficult enough to confront meaningfully when our communities were small, our mobility limited, and our impact restricted. In today’s hyperkinetic world, how can we possibly hope to find meaning? The literal answers provided by science amount to mockery: We are here because an expanding cloud of gas some 15 billion years ago eventually led to the accretion of planets, the formation of primordial nucleotides and amino acids, the evolution of complex organisms, the growth of complex social structures in primates, and the dramatic expansion of cognitive and analytical capabilities made possible by the rapid evolution of neocortical brain structures. Such explanation is entirely insufficient to promote the commonality of purpose necessary for planetary stewardship. We lack a unified or unifiable metaphysical basis for action, just when we need it most.
-->--'''Michael M. Crow''' "[[https://issues.org/p_crow/ None Dare Call It Hubris: The Limits of Knowledge]]." ''Issues in Science and Technology'' 23, no. 2 (Winter 2007)
->There is absolutely no a priori reason to expect that what we can know is what we most need to know. Science uses disciplinary organization to recognize and focus on questions that can be answered. Disciplines, in turn, are separated by methodology, terminology, sociology, and disparate bodies of fact that resist synthesis. Although disciplinary specialization has been the key to scientific success, such specialization simultaneously takes us away from any knowledge of the whole.\\
Today the whole encompasses six billion people with the collective capability of altering the biogeochemical cycles on which we depend for our survival. Can science generate the knowledge necessary to govern the world that science has made? Do we even know what such knowledge might be? Producing 70,000 synthetic chemicals is easy compared to the challenge of understanding and dealing with their effects. Despite the billions we have spent studying our interference with the planet’s biogeochemical cycles, we really do not have a clue about what the long-term result will be. And we have even less knowledge about how to organize and govern ourselves to confront this challenge.\\
The intrinsic difficulties of creating a transdisciplinary synthesis are compounded dramatically by a dangerous scientific and technological illiteracy among senior policy-makers and elected officials. An ironic effect of technology-created wealth is the growth of an affluent class that prizes individualism over civic engagement and that feels insulated from the need to understand and confront complex technology-related social issues.\\
The scientific and philosophical intellectuals of “the academy” remain focused on the relatively simple question of understanding nature. The much more complicated and challenging—and meaningful— quest is to understand nature with a purpose, with an objective, with an end. What is the purpose of our effort to understand nature: to learn how to live in harmony with nature or to exploit it more efficiently? For thousands of years, philosophical inquiry has been guided by such fundamental questions as “Why are we here?” and “How should we behave?” Such questions were difficult enough to confront meaningfully when our communities were small, our mobility limited, and our impact restricted. In today’s hyperkinetic world, how can we possibly hope to find meaning? The literal answers provided by science amount to mockery: We are here because an expanding cloud of gas some 15 billion years ago eventually led to the accretion of planets, the formation of primordial nucleotides and amino acids, the evolution of complex organisms, the growth of complex social structures in primates, and the dramatic expansion of cognitive and analytical capabilities made possible by the rapid evolution of neocortical brain structures. Such explanation is entirely insufficient to promote the commonality of purpose necessary for planetary stewardship. We lack a unified or unifiable metaphysical basis for action, just when we need it most.
-->--'''Michael M. Crow''' "[[https://issues.org/p_crow/ None Dare Call It Hubris: The Limits of Knowledge]]." ''Issues in Science and Technology'' 23, no. 2 (Winter 2007)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 98 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Wes Jackson''', '''Robert Jensen''', ''An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity'' (2022)
to:
-->--'''Wes Jackson''', '''Robert Jensen''', ''An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity'' (2022)(2022)
->Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics – unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don’t know what the vast majority of the universe is made up of. The sought-after Theory of Everything continues to elude us. And there are other outstanding puzzles, too, such as how consciousness arises from mere matter.\\
Will science ever be able to provide all the answers? Human brains are the product of blind and unguided evolution. They were designed to solve practical problems impinging on our survival and reproduction, not to unravel the fabric of the universe. This realisation has led some philosophers to embrace a curious form of pessimism, arguing there are bound to be things we will never understand. Human science will therefore one day hit a hard limit – and may already have done so.
-->--'''Maarten Boudry''', "[[https://theconversation.com/human-intelligence-have-we-reached-the-limit-of-knowledge-124819 Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?]]", ''The Conversation'' (October 11, 2019)
->Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics – unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don’t know what the vast majority of the universe is made up of. The sought-after Theory of Everything continues to elude us. And there are other outstanding puzzles, too, such as how consciousness arises from mere matter.\\
Will science ever be able to provide all the answers? Human brains are the product of blind and unguided evolution. They were designed to solve practical problems impinging on our survival and reproduction, not to unravel the fabric of the universe. This realisation has led some philosophers to embrace a curious form of pessimism, arguing there are bound to be things we will never understand. Human science will therefore one day hit a hard limit – and may already have done so.
-->--'''Maarten Boudry''', "[[https://theconversation.com/human-intelligence-have-we-reached-the-limit-of-knowledge-124819 Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?]]", ''The Conversation'' (October 11, 2019)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 97 (click to see context) from:
->...the limits of human knowledge should curb our hubris. Human knowledge has expanded dramatically since the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, especially during the high-energy industrial era. Not all of that knowledge has been destructive, and much of it has enriched our lives. But what we don’t know still far outstrips what we do know, and always will.
to:
->...the limits of human knowledge should curb our hubris. Human knowledge has expanded dramatically since the Enlightenment UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, especially during the high-energy industrial era. Not all of that knowledge has been destructive, and much of it has enriched our lives. But what we don’t know still far outstrips what we do know, and always will.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term this and the long-term that: “Gentleman, in the long term we’re all dead.” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire to [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror the Twin Towers]], with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of TheTwentiethCentury alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
to:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term this and the long-term long-term... that: “Gentleman, in the long term “...we’re all dead.” dead?” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire to [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror the Twin Towers]], with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of TheTwentiethCentury alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 95 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Simon Barnes''', "[[https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/rooted-in-history-what-ancient-trees-tell-us-about-time-and-life/ Rooted in history: What ancient trees tell us about time and life]]", ''The New European'' (August 11, 2022)
to:
-->--'''Simon Barnes''', "[[https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/rooted-in-history-what-ancient-trees-tell-us-about-time-and-life/ Rooted in history: What ancient trees tell us about time and life]]", ''The New European'' (August 11, 2022)2022)
->...the limits of human knowledge should curb our hubris. Human knowledge has expanded dramatically since the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, especially during the high-energy industrial era. Not all of that knowledge has been destructive, and much of it has enriched our lives. But what we don’t know still far outstrips what we do know, and always will.
-->--'''Wes Jackson''', '''Robert Jensen''', ''An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity'' (2022)
->...the limits of human knowledge should curb our hubris. Human knowledge has expanded dramatically since the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, especially during the high-energy industrial era. Not all of that knowledge has been destructive, and much of it has enriched our lives. But what we don’t know still far outstrips what we do know, and always will.
-->--'''Wes Jackson''', '''Robert Jensen''', ''An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity'' (2022)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 90 (click to see context) from:
Freud claimed that science has provided three great breakthroughs in human understanding: when Copernicus showed us that the earth is not the centre of the universe but a planet orbiting the sun, when Darwin made clear our ancestry, and when Freud himself (the modesty of the man!) showed that we are not the rational beings we always thought.\\
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 92 (click to see context) from:
This revelation of Deep Time still provides every child with one of the first and perhaps the greatest experience of the FMF: when we learn that the world was once full of dinosaurs, and they all perished 65m years ago.\\
to:
This revelation of Deep Time still provides every child with one of the first and perhaps the greatest experience of the FMF: experience...: when we learn that the world was once full of dinosaurs, and they all perished 65m years ago.\\
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 91 (click to see context) from:
But he missed one. The paleontologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould claims that the fourth great breakthrough is the discovery of Deep Time. This was first spelt out in Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, published in three volumes between 1830 and 1833. The biblical age of the earth is around 6,000 years: Lyell replaced this with a calendar reckoned in hundreds of millions.\\
to:
But he missed one. The paleontologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould claims that the fourth great breakthrough is the discovery of Deep Time. This was first spelt out in Charles Lyell’s Principles ''Principles of Geology, Geology'', published in three volumes between 1830 and 1833. The biblical age of the earth is around 6,000 years: Lyell replaced this with a calendar reckoned in hundreds of millions.\\
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 87 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Shreyas Kamath''', "[[https://towardsdatascience.com/the-small-problem-with-big-numbers-4f3dad23ce01 A Small Problem With Big Numbers]]", ''[[https://towardsdatascience.com/ Towards Data Science]]'' (October 4, 2020)
to:
-->--'''Shreyas Kamath''', "[[https://towardsdatascience.com/the-small-problem-with-big-numbers-4f3dad23ce01 A Small Problem With Big Numbers]]", ''[[https://towardsdatascience.com/ Towards Data Science]]'' (October 4, 2020)2020)
->Certainly, we humans experience time subjectively: time flies when you’re having fun, a day of boredom seems an eternity, weeks flicker past in maturity while for a child the summer holidays last forever. Threescore and ten seems like several centuries to a teenager, but it’s a blink of an eye to those who have that figure in the rear-view mirror. It’s hard to get a handle on the real meaning of time.\\
Freud claimed that science has provided three great breakthroughs in human understanding: when Copernicus showed us that the earth is not the centre of the universe but a planet orbiting the sun, when Darwin made clear our ancestry, and when Freud himself (the modesty of the man!) showed that we are not the rational beings we always thought.\\
But he missed one. The paleontologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould claims that the fourth great breakthrough is the discovery of Deep Time. This was first spelt out in Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, published in three volumes between 1830 and 1833. The biblical age of the earth is around 6,000 years: Lyell replaced this with a calendar reckoned in hundreds of millions.\\
This revelation of Deep Time still provides every child with one of the first and perhaps the greatest experience of the FMF: when we learn that the world was once full of dinosaurs, and they all perished 65m years ago.\\
Our minds are not capable of grasping time on such a scale. We struggle even to grasp the extent of human history. We fall back on metaphor: comparing, say, the history of the earth to the old measure of the English yard: the distance from the king’s nose to the tip of his outstretched hand. Gould writes: “One stroke of a nail file on his middle finger erases human history.”\\
But that stroke of the nail file is what we humans think of as A Very Long Time. Agriculture began in several places and more or less simultaneously about 12,000 years ago and we have been modifying the planet for our convenience ever since. It was the biggest event in human history, and it was the biggest event in the history of the world since the meteor fell in the Gulf of Mexico and wiped out the dinosaurs.
-->--'''Simon Barnes''', "[[https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/rooted-in-history-what-ancient-trees-tell-us-about-time-and-life/ Rooted in history: What ancient trees tell us about time and life]]", ''The New European'' (August 11, 2022)
->Certainly, we humans experience time subjectively: time flies when you’re having fun, a day of boredom seems an eternity, weeks flicker past in maturity while for a child the summer holidays last forever. Threescore and ten seems like several centuries to a teenager, but it’s a blink of an eye to those who have that figure in the rear-view mirror. It’s hard to get a handle on the real meaning of time.\\
Freud claimed that science has provided three great breakthroughs in human understanding: when Copernicus showed us that the earth is not the centre of the universe but a planet orbiting the sun, when Darwin made clear our ancestry, and when Freud himself (the modesty of the man!) showed that we are not the rational beings we always thought.\\
But he missed one. The paleontologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould claims that the fourth great breakthrough is the discovery of Deep Time. This was first spelt out in Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, published in three volumes between 1830 and 1833. The biblical age of the earth is around 6,000 years: Lyell replaced this with a calendar reckoned in hundreds of millions.\\
This revelation of Deep Time still provides every child with one of the first and perhaps the greatest experience of the FMF: when we learn that the world was once full of dinosaurs, and they all perished 65m years ago.\\
Our minds are not capable of grasping time on such a scale. We struggle even to grasp the extent of human history. We fall back on metaphor: comparing, say, the history of the earth to the old measure of the English yard: the distance from the king’s nose to the tip of his outstretched hand. Gould writes: “One stroke of a nail file on his middle finger erases human history.”\\
But that stroke of the nail file is what we humans think of as A Very Long Time. Agriculture began in several places and more or less simultaneously about 12,000 years ago and we have been modifying the planet for our convenience ever since. It was the biggest event in human history, and it was the biggest event in the history of the world since the meteor fell in the Gulf of Mexico and wiped out the dinosaurs.
-->--'''Simon Barnes''', "[[https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/rooted-in-history-what-ancient-trees-tell-us-about-time-and-life/ Rooted in history: What ancient trees tell us about time and life]]", ''The New European'' (August 11, 2022)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 74,75 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Steven Earle''', ''[[https://opentextbc.ca/geology/ Physical Geology]]'' (2015)}
to:
-->--'''Steven Earle''', ''[[https://opentextbc.ca/geology/ Physical Geology]]'' (2015)}
(2015)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 73 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Steven Earle''', ''[[https://opentextbc.ca/geology/ Physical Geology]]'' (2015)
to:
-->--'''Steven Earle''', ''[[https://opentextbc.ca/geology/ Physical Geology]]'' (2015)(2015)}
Changed line(s) 75 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''David Zeigler''', "[[https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A252289599/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=6a9eedfe An incomprehensible universe: why the human brain is ill-equipped to grasp the true nature of nature]]." Skeptic [Altadena, CA], vol. 16, no. 2, winter 2011, pp. 31+.
to:
-->--'''David Zeigler''', "[[https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A252289599/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=6a9eedfe An incomprehensible universe: why the human brain is ill-equipped to grasp the true nature of nature]]." Skeptic ''Skeptic'' [Altadena, CA], vol. 16, no. 2, winter 2011, pp. 31+.31+.
Added DiffLines:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''Lindsey Hasak''', "[[https://theconversation.com/brains-are-bad-at-big-numbers-making-it-impossible-to-grasp-what-a-million-covid-19-deaths-really-means-179081 Brains are bad at big numbers, making it impossible to grasp what a million COVID-19 deaths really means]]", ''[[https://theconversation.com/ The Conversation]]'' (March 31, 2022)
to:
-->--'''Lindsey Hasak''', "[[https://theconversation.com/brains-are-bad-at-big-numbers-making-it-impossible-to-grasp-what-a-million-covid-19-deaths-really-means-179081 Brains are bad at big numbers, making it impossible to grasp what a million COVID-19 deaths really means]]", ''[[https://theconversation.com/ The Conversation]]'' (March 31, 2022)2022)
->We managed to get better at counting (again, shoutout to the people buying those watermelons, couldn’t have done it without you) but big numbers still baffle us.\\
Despite this cognitive set-back, we are surrounded by ginormous numbers every day and are expected to make sense of it. Be it the latest pandemic figures, budget proposals by your government, the latest news, scientific research and other things that we pretend to read and understand to sound smart.\\
Now, this would be a great and useful post if it was about how to really understand big numbers.\\
But it’s not.\\
It’s to help you realise how much you suck at understanding big numbers.
-->--'''Shreyas Kamath''', "[[https://towardsdatascience.com/the-small-problem-with-big-numbers-4f3dad23ce01 A Small Problem With Big Numbers]]", ''[[https://towardsdatascience.com/ Towards Data Science]]'' (October 4, 2020)
->We managed to get better at counting (again, shoutout to the people buying those watermelons, couldn’t have done it without you) but big numbers still baffle us.\\
Despite this cognitive set-back, we are surrounded by ginormous numbers every day and are expected to make sense of it. Be it the latest pandemic figures, budget proposals by your government, the latest news, scientific research and other things that we pretend to read and understand to sound smart.\\
Now, this would be a great and useful post if it was about how to really understand big numbers.\\
But it’s not.\\
It’s to help you realise how much you suck at understanding big numbers.
-->--'''Shreyas Kamath''', "[[https://towardsdatascience.com/the-small-problem-with-big-numbers-4f3dad23ce01 A Small Problem With Big Numbers]]", ''[[https://towardsdatascience.com/ Towards Data Science]]'' (October 4, 2020)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 75 (click to see context) from:
-->--'''David Zeigler''', "[[https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A252289599/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=6a9eedfe An incomprehensible universe: why the human brain is ill-equipped to grasp the true nature of nature]]." Skeptic [Altadena, CA], vol. 16, no. 2, winter 2011, pp. 31+.
to:
-->--'''David Zeigler''', "[[https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A252289599/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=6a9eedfe An incomprehensible universe: why the human brain is ill-equipped to grasp the true nature of nature]]." Skeptic [Altadena, CA], vol. 16, no. 2, winter 2011, pp. 31+.31+.
->One prominent theory proposes that the brain relies on an inexact method whereby it represents approximate quantities through a sort of mental number line. This line, imagined in our mind’s eye, organizes small to large numbers from left to right (though this orientation depends on cultural convention). People tend to make consistent errors when using this internal number line, often underestimating extremely large quantities and overestimating relatively smaller quantities. For example, research has shown that college students in geology and biology courses commonly underestimate the time between the appearance of the first life on Earth and the dinosaurs – which is billions of years – but overestimate how long dinosaurs actually lived on Earth – millions of years.
-->--'''Lindsey Hasak''', "[[https://theconversation.com/brains-are-bad-at-big-numbers-making-it-impossible-to-grasp-what-a-million-covid-19-deaths-really-means-179081 Brains are bad at big numbers, making it impossible to grasp what a million COVID-19 deaths really means]]", ''[[https://theconversation.com/ The Conversation]]'' (March 31, 2022)
->One prominent theory proposes that the brain relies on an inexact method whereby it represents approximate quantities through a sort of mental number line. This line, imagined in our mind’s eye, organizes small to large numbers from left to right (though this orientation depends on cultural convention). People tend to make consistent errors when using this internal number line, often underestimating extremely large quantities and overestimating relatively smaller quantities. For example, research has shown that college students in geology and biology courses commonly underestimate the time between the appearance of the first life on Earth and the dinosaurs – which is billions of years – but overestimate how long dinosaurs actually lived on Earth – millions of years.
-->--'''Lindsey Hasak''', "[[https://theconversation.com/brains-are-bad-at-big-numbers-making-it-impossible-to-grasp-what-a-million-covid-19-deaths-really-means-179081 Brains are bad at big numbers, making it impossible to grasp what a million COVID-19 deaths really means]]", ''[[https://theconversation.com/ The Conversation]]'' (March 31, 2022)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term this and the long-term that: “Gentleman, in the long term we’re all dead.” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire to [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror the Twin Towers]], with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of the twentieth century alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
to:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term this and the long-term that: “Gentleman, in the long term we’re all dead.” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire to [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror the Twin Towers]], with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of the twentieth century TheTwentiethCentury alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term this and the long-term that: “Gentleman, in the long term we’re all dead.” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from the Roman Empire to the Twin Towers, with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of the twentieth century alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
to:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term this and the long-term that: “Gentleman, in the long term we’re all dead.” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from the Roman Empire UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire to [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror the Twin Towers, Towers]], with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of the twentieth century alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 72 (click to see context) from:
----
to:
-->--'''Steven Earle''', ''[[https://opentextbc.ca/geology/ Physical Geology]]'' (2015)
->The "hard problem" in cognitive science of explaining how a brain can give rise to consciousness is largely a problem of comprehension. The understanding of brain function is now very great-though far from complete. The collection of all the data that would explain mechanistically how I decide which item to order from a lunch menu is as yet impossible to obtain at the level of knowing how many and which neurons were involved, which synapses were active, at what strength, and in what order from millisecond to millisecond, the direction of signal movement along those many different neuronal circuits, and how those signals were "summed" into the final decision. But even if we magically had all this information written down and charted in detail, it would be so lengthy and complicated that no one could take it in and exclaim "oh, now I comprehend how that process works." Some processes that can be understood in their details are still beyond human comprehension as a whole due to their sheer complexity. The human brain did not evolve to comprehend such vast numbers, distances, or complexities.
-->--'''David Zeigler''', "[[https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A252289599/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=6a9eedfe An incomprehensible universe: why the human brain is ill-equipped to grasp the true nature of nature]]." Skeptic [Altadena, CA], vol. 16, no. 2, winter 2011, pp. 31+.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term this and the long-term that: “Gentleman, in the long term we’re all dead.” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from the Roman Empire to the Twin Towers, with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of the twentieth century alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts, nor by the free eats, and even the liquor failed to lift me up because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
to:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term this and the long-term that: “Gentleman, in the long term we’re all dead.” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from the Roman Empire to the Twin Towers, with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of the twentieth century alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts, nor by the free eats, and even the liquor failed to lift me up thoughts... because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
->Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who famously remarked to a group of fellow economists dithering about the long-term this and the long-term that: “Gentleman, in the long term we’re all dead.” Our brains are really not equipped to process events on the geologic scale—at least in reference to how we choose to live, or what we choose to do in the here-and-now. Five hundred million years is a long time, but how about the mad rush of events in just the past 2,000 years starring the human race? Rather action-packed, wouldn’t you say? Everything from the Roman Empire to the Twin Towers, with a cast of billions—emperors, slaves, saviors, popes, kings, queens, armies, navies, rabbles, conquest, murder, famine, art, science, revolution, comedy, tragedy, genocide, and Music/MichaelJackson. Enough going on in a mere 2,000 years to divert anyone’s attention from the ultimate fate of the earth, you would think. Just reflecting on the events of the twentieth century alone could take your breath away, so why get bent out of shape about the ultimate fate of the earth? Yet I was not soothed by these thoughts, nor by the free eats, and even the liquor failed to lift me up because I couldn’t shake the recognition that in the short term we are in pretty serious trouble, too.
-->-- '''Creator/JamesHowardKunstler''', ''Literature/TheLongEmergency'' (2005), p. 148.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 65,67 (click to see context) from:
'''Guardian Entity:''' [[BrownNoteBeing My true form would make your human brain explode]].\\
'''Anne:''' [[TemptingFate I don't know.]] I've [[ConditionedToAcceptHorror seen]] some pretty crazy-\\
''(The entity momentarily transforms into its true form of a cosmic EnergyBeing, causing Anne to FreakOut)''
'''Anne:''' [[TemptingFate I don't know.]] I've [[ConditionedToAcceptHorror seen]] some pretty crazy-\\
''(The entity momentarily transforms into its true form of a cosmic EnergyBeing, causing Anne to FreakOut)''
to:
'''Anne:''' [[TemptingFate I don't
''(The
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 66 (click to see context) from:
'''Anne:''' [[TemptingFate I don't know.]] I've [[ConditionedToAcceptHorror seen some pretty]] craz-\\
to:
'''Anne:''' [[TemptingFate I don't know.]] I've [[ConditionedToAcceptHorror seen seen]] some pretty]] craz-\\pretty crazy-\\
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 64,65 (click to see context) from:
->'''Anne:''' And you look like my cat because...?\\
'''Guardian Entity:''' [[AFormYouAreComfortableWith My true form would make your human brain explode]].\\
'''Guardian Entity:''' [[AFormYouAreComfortableWith My true form would make your human brain explode]].\\
to:
->'''Anne:''' And [[AFormYouAreComfortableWith you look like my cat cat]] because...?\\
'''Guardian Entity:'''[[AFormYouAreComfortableWith [[BrownNoteBeing My true form would make your human brain explode]].\\
'''Guardian Entity:'''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
-->-- "[[Recap/AmphibiaS3E31TheHardestThing The Hardest Thing]]", ''WesternAnimation/{{Amphibia}}''
