Adam: Bă Mihai.... Tragicul! Asta lipseste prieteniei noastre.


Un mic exerciţiu de imaginaţie: Gândeşte-te la un context viabil pentru replica asta.

Are you really just the shadow of a man that I once knew?

I, poster

Ig

Cercetări făcute de oameni serioşi pe teme mai puţin serioase:

Placebo-urile scumpe sunt mai eficiente decît placebo-urile ieftine sau la reducere. -oarecum intuitiv, iar eu sunt un mare susţinător al placebo-urilor; păcat de bani. 

 Muzica country trezeşte sentimente propice sinuciderilor în sectorul de oameni predispuşi către aşa ceva. Link

Ceva oarecum surprinzător - din punct de vedere biochimic a fi puternic îndrăgostit se aseamănă cu a suferi de o formă gravă a tulburării obsesiv-compulsivă.  Asta explică multe. Link

Oamenilor cărora corpul le respinge implanturi în cornee li se poate implanta un dinte propriu în ochi care să adăpostească o cornee artificială. Tehnica asta devine tot mai populară...

"De data asta stau cuminte si observ"...

E doar genială.

Ok. Sex between universes aside...

http://pauzadereclame.blogspot.com/2009/06/development-of-moral-reasoning.html

So we have the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you have others do unto you.

And the Supreme Cathegorical Imperative: Act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. (Even the name sounds cold! But Kant couldn't help it - he was german)

Both imply the idea that everyone is just as valuable as you and me and so all should be treated morally the same as you and me (particularly me). There is however a difference between them, illustrated in a simple one-liner:

"A sadist is a masochist who follows the golden rule."

Kant would say there's no way a masochist could claim inflicting pain on others could be a universal law for a livable world. Even a masochist would find that unreasonable.

Following this, G.B. Shaw rephrased the Golden Rule: Do not do unto others as you have others do unto you. They may have different taste. 

~~ Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein

The Inductive Argument from Analogy

Who created the Universe?

Some argue that because the Universe is like a clock, there must be a clock maker.

As David Hume pointed out: "This is a slippery argument because there is nothing that is really perfectly analogous to the Universe as a whole. Unless it's another universe. So we shouldn't try to pass off anything that is just a part of this Universe." Why a clock, anyhow? Why not say the Universe is analogous to a kangaroo? After all, both are organically interconnected systems but the kangaroo analogy would lead to a very different conclusion about the origin of the Universe. Namely - that it was born of another universe after that universe had sex with a third universe.

A fundamental problem with arguments from analogy is the assumption that because some aspects of A are similar to B other aspects of A are similar to B. Not necessarily so.

--- Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein