<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_24_2332234</id>
	<title>Beliefs Conform To Cultural Identities</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267027620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>DallasMay writes <i>"This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124008307&amp;ft=1&amp;f=1007&amp;sc=YahooNews">people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief</a> about how the world is supposed to work. From the article: 'In one experiment, Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology &mdash; new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products. "These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says. The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous. Both groups made their decisions <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/">based on the same information</a>. "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DallasMay writes " This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people do n't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work .
From the article : 'In one experiment , Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them : nanotechnology    new research into tiny , molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products .
" These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms , " Braman says .
The individualists tended to like nanotechnology .
The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous .
Both groups made their decisions based on the same information .
" It does n't matter whether you show them negative or positive information , they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe , and they glom onto the positive information , " Braman says .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DallasMay writes "This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.
From the article: 'In one experiment, Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology — new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products.
"These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says.
The individualists tended to like nanotechnology.
The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous.
Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.
"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269106</id>
	<title>Re:The Irony</title>
	<author>bm\_luethke</author>
	<datestamp>1265138580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If done truly there is hardly "scientific consensus" - to start with anyone claiming that is simply wrong.</p><p>Scientific process is *supposed* to weed ideas like that out. Wide peer review, open data/procedures, specific and exacting processes - these are what should stop that. However, science has morphed into more of a pseudo-scientific religion. It stands on Dogma instead of suspicion and questioning and replaces use of math and scientific sounding with correct processes. Scientific consensus is that even laws may one day be broken/wrong let alone theories (and much of what we call "scientific consensus" isn't anything more than a hypothesis due to poor processes).</p><p>I see people responding to you immediately jumped into Anthropogenic Global Warming and, yes I do meant that too (I'll focus on it largely because it is a *really* good example and is current). However the sad fact is that so much of our body of knowledge is that way that it allowed something done that poorly to be "consensus". I was working at Oak Ridge National Labs when they got in trouble for bad research on Cold Fusion and made a great sounding report on having done it. They didn't and if they had done a proper peer review it would have been caught. So, while I think that AGW is a highly visible one I am not really dismayed with it, it tends to be more or less non-scientists or the soft-sciences that didn't see it coming a mile away. It does, however, greatly distress me when things like the Cold Fusion thing happens at ORNL, I saw with my own eyes how institutionalized some of that was, the shakeup of it (including some well deserved gloating and vindication of the old timers who ranted in general about the relaxing of standards and processes and what will occur), and the difficulty younger scientists had with the whole idea.</p><p>Richard Feynman books for the semi-layman are great, while the really are not directly focused on it there is a common thread in most of them of what science is. IIRC it was him that told what science was (may be wrong, but it sounds like a story he would use so I'll run with it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)). That is researchers go out and look at geese and note there are no black ones so they make a hypothesis that there are no black geese. They then go and try everything they can do to find a black one or figure out how a black one can exists. As they rule different things out the make note of it and also note supporting reasons for no black geese. It doesn't matter how many white geese they see or how logical it is that you can't have a black one - you have to look for one. Science is finding out what *isn't* true and that is really the only thing you truly know. For highly modeled theories - say much of Einstein's work this was true - you then have to look both at what it predicts will happen and what it predicts will *not* happen. If something predicts, well, everything then it is worthless. There have been more than a few times when some of the harder to measure predictions of his theories has become testable and it's a big thing - if it fails to accurately predict that then a lot of ideas are going to go down the drain, they may have very well appeared to be correct up till this point, but if it isn't right here then something is missed (to harp back on AGW - mainly because it is *really* bad in this case and is my primary complaint - every weather pattern we can see is predicted in one of the models - it *can't* be wrong as they can adjust their model to fit anything and predict anything).</p><p>The reason why all that means there is nothing such as "scientific consensus" (which implies that the debate is over, as is said for a myriad of different mathematical models) is that the only thing they can truly create that level of certainty on is what isn't. For instance - one that many roll their eyes at but is a simple illustration of the idea: the ceolacanth (sadly it is used not to show that you can't truly say "doesn't exists" but is usually used to show that it is likely Bigfoot is around). A fish though extinc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If done truly there is hardly " scientific consensus " - to start with anyone claiming that is simply wrong.Scientific process is * supposed * to weed ideas like that out .
Wide peer review , open data/procedures , specific and exacting processes - these are what should stop that .
However , science has morphed into more of a pseudo-scientific religion .
It stands on Dogma instead of suspicion and questioning and replaces use of math and scientific sounding with correct processes .
Scientific consensus is that even laws may one day be broken/wrong let alone theories ( and much of what we call " scientific consensus " is n't anything more than a hypothesis due to poor processes ) .I see people responding to you immediately jumped into Anthropogenic Global Warming and , yes I do meant that too ( I 'll focus on it largely because it is a * really * good example and is current ) .
However the sad fact is that so much of our body of knowledge is that way that it allowed something done that poorly to be " consensus " .
I was working at Oak Ridge National Labs when they got in trouble for bad research on Cold Fusion and made a great sounding report on having done it .
They did n't and if they had done a proper peer review it would have been caught .
So , while I think that AGW is a highly visible one I am not really dismayed with it , it tends to be more or less non-scientists or the soft-sciences that did n't see it coming a mile away .
It does , however , greatly distress me when things like the Cold Fusion thing happens at ORNL , I saw with my own eyes how institutionalized some of that was , the shakeup of it ( including some well deserved gloating and vindication of the old timers who ranted in general about the relaxing of standards and processes and what will occur ) , and the difficulty younger scientists had with the whole idea.Richard Feynman books for the semi-layman are great , while the really are not directly focused on it there is a common thread in most of them of what science is .
IIRC it was him that told what science was ( may be wrong , but it sounds like a story he would use so I 'll run with it : ) ) .
That is researchers go out and look at geese and note there are no black ones so they make a hypothesis that there are no black geese .
They then go and try everything they can do to find a black one or figure out how a black one can exists .
As they rule different things out the make note of it and also note supporting reasons for no black geese .
It does n't matter how many white geese they see or how logical it is that you ca n't have a black one - you have to look for one .
Science is finding out what * is n't * true and that is really the only thing you truly know .
For highly modeled theories - say much of Einstein 's work this was true - you then have to look both at what it predicts will happen and what it predicts will * not * happen .
If something predicts , well , everything then it is worthless .
There have been more than a few times when some of the harder to measure predictions of his theories has become testable and it 's a big thing - if it fails to accurately predict that then a lot of ideas are going to go down the drain , they may have very well appeared to be correct up till this point , but if it is n't right here then something is missed ( to harp back on AGW - mainly because it is * really * bad in this case and is my primary complaint - every weather pattern we can see is predicted in one of the models - it * ca n't * be wrong as they can adjust their model to fit anything and predict anything ) .The reason why all that means there is nothing such as " scientific consensus " ( which implies that the debate is over , as is said for a myriad of different mathematical models ) is that the only thing they can truly create that level of certainty on is what is n't .
For instance - one that many roll their eyes at but is a simple illustration of the idea : the ceolacanth ( sadly it is used not to show that you ca n't truly say " does n't exists " but is usually used to show that it is likely Bigfoot is around ) .
A fish though extinc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If done truly there is hardly "scientific consensus" - to start with anyone claiming that is simply wrong.Scientific process is *supposed* to weed ideas like that out.
Wide peer review, open data/procedures, specific and exacting processes - these are what should stop that.
However, science has morphed into more of a pseudo-scientific religion.
It stands on Dogma instead of suspicion and questioning and replaces use of math and scientific sounding with correct processes.
Scientific consensus is that even laws may one day be broken/wrong let alone theories (and much of what we call "scientific consensus" isn't anything more than a hypothesis due to poor processes).I see people responding to you immediately jumped into Anthropogenic Global Warming and, yes I do meant that too (I'll focus on it largely because it is a *really* good example and is current).
However the sad fact is that so much of our body of knowledge is that way that it allowed something done that poorly to be "consensus".
I was working at Oak Ridge National Labs when they got in trouble for bad research on Cold Fusion and made a great sounding report on having done it.
They didn't and if they had done a proper peer review it would have been caught.
So, while I think that AGW is a highly visible one I am not really dismayed with it, it tends to be more or less non-scientists or the soft-sciences that didn't see it coming a mile away.
It does, however, greatly distress me when things like the Cold Fusion thing happens at ORNL, I saw with my own eyes how institutionalized some of that was, the shakeup of it (including some well deserved gloating and vindication of the old timers who ranted in general about the relaxing of standards and processes and what will occur), and the difficulty younger scientists had with the whole idea.Richard Feynman books for the semi-layman are great, while the really are not directly focused on it there is a common thread in most of them of what science is.
IIRC it was him that told what science was (may be wrong, but it sounds like a story he would use so I'll run with it :)).
That is researchers go out and look at geese and note there are no black ones so they make a hypothesis that there are no black geese.
They then go and try everything they can do to find a black one or figure out how a black one can exists.
As they rule different things out the make note of it and also note supporting reasons for no black geese.
It doesn't matter how many white geese they see or how logical it is that you can't have a black one - you have to look for one.
Science is finding out what *isn't* true and that is really the only thing you truly know.
For highly modeled theories - say much of Einstein's work this was true - you then have to look both at what it predicts will happen and what it predicts will *not* happen.
If something predicts, well, everything then it is worthless.
There have been more than a few times when some of the harder to measure predictions of his theories has become testable and it's a big thing - if it fails to accurately predict that then a lot of ideas are going to go down the drain, they may have very well appeared to be correct up till this point, but if it isn't right here then something is missed (to harp back on AGW - mainly because it is *really* bad in this case and is my primary complaint - every weather pattern we can see is predicted in one of the models - it *can't* be wrong as they can adjust their model to fit anything and predict anything).The reason why all that means there is nothing such as "scientific consensus" (which implies that the debate is over, as is said for a myriad of different mathematical models) is that the only thing they can truly create that level of certainty on is what isn't.
For instance - one that many roll their eyes at but is a simple illustration of the idea: the ceolacanth (sadly it is used not to show that you can't truly say "doesn't exists" but is usually used to show that it is likely Bigfoot is around).
A fish though extinc</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271078</id>
	<title>The labels are odd...</title>
	<author>neuroklinik</author>
	<datestamp>1267107180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>Participants in these experiments are asked to describe their cultural beliefs. Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them "communitarians."</p></div></blockquote><p>This seems to miss a huge group of people who mistrust authority, but embrace new technology, commerce, free enterprise and industry. It's bizarre to label those who <i>embrace authority</i> <b>individualistic</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : Participants in these experiments are asked to describe their cultural beliefs .
Some embrace new technology , authority and free enterprise .
They are labeled the " individualistic " group .
Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry .
Braman calls them " communitarians .
" This seems to miss a huge group of people who mistrust authority , but embrace new technology , commerce , free enterprise and industry .
It 's bizarre to label those who embrace authority individualistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:Participants in these experiments are asked to describe their cultural beliefs.
Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise.
They are labeled the "individualistic" group.
Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry.
Braman calls them "communitarians.
"This seems to miss a huge group of people who mistrust authority, but embrace new technology, commerce, free enterprise and industry.
It's bizarre to label those who embrace authority individualistic.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270782</id>
	<title>Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267104240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?</p></div><p>Last year.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?</p></div><p>Not the latter, in part the former. The other part being the more important one and reflected by another alternative:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>OR because your self-image changed?</p></div><p>That happened first. I stopped seeing myself as an engineer and started to see myself as an entrepreneur. From a strong Linux/C++ background, I then delved into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET out of curiosity and judged it to be much more than a here-too-java-clone - which I always thought it to be. I now consider it to be genius. I changed from being a Microsoft hater to an admirer. People like Ballmer who always felt abhorrent became likable and funny. I reconsidered my previous reasoning and reflected myself. I, too, prided myself with obsessive self-reflection and objectivity, but I failed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?</p></div><p>Forth it seems to happen a lot and somewhat easily when above conditions are met. Back never happened so far. It seems to be the classical left-to-right movement that many people undergo in their biographies.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?</p></div><p>No, but I prefer to keep my opinions to myself to some extend to remain liked.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?</p></div><p>Apparently.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?</p></div><p>How can I tell?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant , foundational piece of data in your life ? Last year.Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity , reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit ? Not the latter , in part the former .
The other part being the more important one and reflected by another alternative : OR because your self-image changed ? That happened first .
I stopped seeing myself as an engineer and started to see myself as an entrepreneur .
From a strong Linux/C + + background , I then delved into .NET out of curiosity and judged it to be much more than a here-too-java-clone - which I always thought it to be .
I now consider it to be genius .
I changed from being a Microsoft hater to an admirer .
People like Ballmer who always felt abhorrent became likable and funny .
I reconsidered my previous reasoning and reflected myself .
I , too , prided myself with obsessive self-reflection and objectivity , but I failed.Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily ? Forth it seems to happen a lot and somewhat easily when above conditions are met .
Back never happened so far .
It seems to be the classical left-to-right movement that many people undergo in their biographies.Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded ? No , but I prefer to keep my opinions to myself to some extend to remain liked.Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths ? Apparently.Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions ? How can I tell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?Last year.Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?Not the latter, in part the former.
The other part being the more important one and reflected by another alternative:OR because your self-image changed?That happened first.
I stopped seeing myself as an engineer and started to see myself as an entrepreneur.
From a strong Linux/C++ background, I then delved into .NET out of curiosity and judged it to be much more than a here-too-java-clone - which I always thought it to be.
I now consider it to be genius.
I changed from being a Microsoft hater to an admirer.
People like Ballmer who always felt abhorrent became likable and funny.
I reconsidered my previous reasoning and reflected myself.
I, too, prided myself with obsessive self-reflection and objectivity, but I failed.Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?Forth it seems to happen a lot and somewhat easily when above conditions are met.
Back never happened so far.
It seems to be the classical left-to-right movement that many people undergo in their biographies.Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?No, but I prefer to keep my opinions to myself to some extend to remain liked.Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?Apparently.Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?How can I tell?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268508</id>
	<title>Really?!</title>
	<author>barfy</author>
	<datestamp>1265131680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are biases based on culture that appear in "non-biased" representations of unfamiliar information?</p><p>I am shocked, I tell you.  Shocked that there is gambling in the back room.</p><p>Next week a new study showing that sharpened pieces of metal make it easier to cut cheese!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are biases based on culture that appear in " non-biased " representations of unfamiliar information ? I am shocked , I tell you .
Shocked that there is gambling in the back room.Next week a new study showing that sharpened pieces of metal make it easier to cut cheese !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are biases based on culture that appear in "non-biased" representations of unfamiliar information?I am shocked, I tell you.
Shocked that there is gambling in the back room.Next week a new study showing that sharpened pieces of metal make it easier to cut cheese!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273862</id>
	<title>I'll have a go at it :-)</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1267121400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?</p></div><p>Purely empirical. From my conversion to atheism (more of a very stern agnosticism, perhaps) to my willful abandonment of "one size fits all" ideologies, it was all based on looking at the world and a voracious appetite for information... and after reading a couple books by John Douglas (famed FBI profiler), I realized that ideologues on the pundit shows sound *WAY* too much like the serial killers that Douglas interviewed when he as developing profiling techniques.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?</p></div><p>Define "easily". Do you mean wishy-washy and easily swayed by gentle breezes, or, once are there are sufficient facts to form a conclusion in a particular situation, a decision is made without hesitation?</p><p>I abandoned "beliefs" altogether. Every situation requires its own solution. The solutions may be labeled by others as "libertarian" here or "progressive" there, but all I give a damn about is what works. What others label it is their problem.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?</p></div><p>No. Don't give a gnat's fart what people think about it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?</p></div><p>No. Well, OK, I'm guilty of little things like "a couple more cookies won't hurt" or "I'll do an extra workout tomorrow".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) You gotta paper over the little things once in a while otherwise you katches teh crazies or you turn into Monk and start vacuuming your carpet diagonally.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?</p></div><p>I don't think so. Would I know if I was? Maybe I'm a really good liar.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity , reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit ? Purely empirical .
From my conversion to atheism ( more of a very stern agnosticism , perhaps ) to my willful abandonment of " one size fits all " ideologies , it was all based on looking at the world and a voracious appetite for information... and after reading a couple books by John Douglas ( famed FBI profiler ) , I realized that ideologues on the pundit shows sound * WAY * too much like the serial killers that Douglas interviewed when he as developing profiling techniques.Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily ? Define " easily " .
Do you mean wishy-washy and easily swayed by gentle breezes , or , once are there are sufficient facts to form a conclusion in a particular situation , a decision is made without hesitation ? I abandoned " beliefs " altogether .
Every situation requires its own solution .
The solutions may be labeled by others as " libertarian " here or " progressive " there , but all I give a damn about is what works .
What others label it is their problem.Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded ? No .
Do n't give a gnat 's fart what people think about it.Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths ? No .
Well , OK , I 'm guilty of little things like " a couple more cookies wo n't hurt " or " I 'll do an extra workout tomorrow " .
: - ) You got ta paper over the little things once in a while otherwise you katches teh crazies or you turn into Monk and start vacuuming your carpet diagonally.Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions ? I do n't think so .
Would I know if I was ?
Maybe I 'm a really good liar .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?Purely empirical.
From my conversion to atheism (more of a very stern agnosticism, perhaps) to my willful abandonment of "one size fits all" ideologies, it was all based on looking at the world and a voracious appetite for information... and after reading a couple books by John Douglas (famed FBI profiler), I realized that ideologues on the pundit shows sound *WAY* too much like the serial killers that Douglas interviewed when he as developing profiling techniques.Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?Define "easily".
Do you mean wishy-washy and easily swayed by gentle breezes, or, once are there are sufficient facts to form a conclusion in a particular situation, a decision is made without hesitation?I abandoned "beliefs" altogether.
Every situation requires its own solution.
The solutions may be labeled by others as "libertarian" here or "progressive" there, but all I give a damn about is what works.
What others label it is their problem.Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?No.
Don't give a gnat's fart what people think about it.Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?No.
Well, OK, I'm guilty of little things like "a couple more cookies won't hurt" or "I'll do an extra workout tomorrow".
:-) You gotta paper over the little things once in a while otherwise you katches teh crazies or you turn into Monk and start vacuuming your carpet diagonally.Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?I don't think so.
Would I know if I was?
Maybe I'm a really good liar.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269240</id>
	<title>Re:The Irony</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1265139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True irony would involve evaluating the bias represented by the strength of the researchers' belief in the validity of their conclusions/process, as it is a consequence of their inculcation in their niche (sociology) of the scientific culture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True irony would involve evaluating the bias represented by the strength of the researchers ' belief in the validity of their conclusions/process , as it is a consequence of their inculcation in their niche ( sociology ) of the scientific culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True irony would involve evaluating the bias represented by the strength of the researchers' belief in the validity of their conclusions/process, as it is a consequence of their inculcation in their niche (sociology) of the scientific culture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31274390</id>
	<title>This just in!</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1267123200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your opinions determine your opinions! Novel research guyz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your opinions determine your opinions !
Novel research guyz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your opinions determine your opinions!
Novel research guyz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268862</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>poopdeville</author>
	<datestamp>1265135700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, these are important ideas.  Mathematicians and philosophers have abstracted them out into "logic".  I don't mean to sound condescending.  A "theory" (in the sense of logic) is a set of mutually consistent sentences, closed under logical implication.  A "model" for the theory is a set of objects which "satisfy" the theory.  This is straightforward to explain, but there are some fiddly details that I won't go into.  Consider the theory generated by:</p><p>Every Blue thing is Strong.<br>Every Strong thing is Blue.</p><p>Models define truth.  We can construct a simple model for this theory:  The singleton set that contains that blue guy from the Watchmen.  We can construct another one:  the set that contains the Watchmen guy, and a nicely painted blue steel bar.  And so on and so forth.  The thing to note is that every object in the model needs to "satisfy" both the sentences.  This can happen "vacuously".  If we create a "subtheory" by adding a sentence to the theory, say, "Doctor Octagon is a rapper", a model for the new theory would contain Doctor Octagon, in addition to the strong blue stuff.  At least, under the assumption that Doctor Octagon is neither blue nor strong.  If the "real" Doctor Octagon is either, he must be both, in a model of the theory.</p><p>Data doesn't define models.  Data defines theories.  An observation that some blue things are strong gets generalized, via the scientific method, to the claim that every blue thing is strong.  Indeed, the point of the scientific method is that every observation has the "same" status -- assumed to be true, as long as it was recorded properly.  In this sense, the "record" is a sort of "unanalyzed" theory.  Human brains can (maybe, sometimes) work out generalizations from that data.  But, and here's the important part, <i>the model</i> is the real world.  But we don't have access to "the model".  We're a part of it.  All we can do is try to grope for "axioms" from which we can generate a "copy" of the real world, using the "model theoretic" construction I discussed.  But we run into undecidability very quickly.  If there is ANY models that satisfy an undecidable theory, there are infinitely many (extremely different) models that satisfy that theory.  And we can't even distinguish between them using scientific language. (This is a consequence of Godel's theorem, in very vague terms, and using a slight conceptual shift in logic of the last few decades. In particular, if you can prove a sentence in a theory, the sentence is "true" in every model for the theory.  If you can't prove a sentence, then it can be true OR false, depending on which model you decide to use to evaluate its truth.)</p><p>Superstring theory is an interesting case, given this discussion.  Physicists essentially took the "entire record" of physical theory, picked a few important equations, and <i>turned them into logical axioms</i>.  This was done without apology.  The superstring theorists are doing what I described above, explicitly.  It is "unscientific" because it doesn't predict anything new.  But, of course, that is because physics before superstring theory was already closed under logical implication (at least in broad strokes).  A nice formalization of a theory isn't going to add new proof (or falsifiable experiments) to a poor or disorganized formalization.  On the other hand, superstring theory is just as scientific as 100 year old science is now.  If an experiment proves Maxwell's equations wrong, it will disprove superstring theory too.  If an experiment proves superstring theory wrong, it will be proving <i>some</i> old physical theory wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , these are important ideas .
Mathematicians and philosophers have abstracted them out into " logic " .
I do n't mean to sound condescending .
A " theory " ( in the sense of logic ) is a set of mutually consistent sentences , closed under logical implication .
A " model " for the theory is a set of objects which " satisfy " the theory .
This is straightforward to explain , but there are some fiddly details that I wo n't go into .
Consider the theory generated by : Every Blue thing is Strong.Every Strong thing is Blue.Models define truth .
We can construct a simple model for this theory : The singleton set that contains that blue guy from the Watchmen .
We can construct another one : the set that contains the Watchmen guy , and a nicely painted blue steel bar .
And so on and so forth .
The thing to note is that every object in the model needs to " satisfy " both the sentences .
This can happen " vacuously " .
If we create a " subtheory " by adding a sentence to the theory , say , " Doctor Octagon is a rapper " , a model for the new theory would contain Doctor Octagon , in addition to the strong blue stuff .
At least , under the assumption that Doctor Octagon is neither blue nor strong .
If the " real " Doctor Octagon is either , he must be both , in a model of the theory.Data does n't define models .
Data defines theories .
An observation that some blue things are strong gets generalized , via the scientific method , to the claim that every blue thing is strong .
Indeed , the point of the scientific method is that every observation has the " same " status -- assumed to be true , as long as it was recorded properly .
In this sense , the " record " is a sort of " unanalyzed " theory .
Human brains can ( maybe , sometimes ) work out generalizations from that data .
But , and here 's the important part , the model is the real world .
But we do n't have access to " the model " .
We 're a part of it .
All we can do is try to grope for " axioms " from which we can generate a " copy " of the real world , using the " model theoretic " construction I discussed .
But we run into undecidability very quickly .
If there is ANY models that satisfy an undecidable theory , there are infinitely many ( extremely different ) models that satisfy that theory .
And we ca n't even distinguish between them using scientific language .
( This is a consequence of Godel 's theorem , in very vague terms , and using a slight conceptual shift in logic of the last few decades .
In particular , if you can prove a sentence in a theory , the sentence is " true " in every model for the theory .
If you ca n't prove a sentence , then it can be true OR false , depending on which model you decide to use to evaluate its truth .
) Superstring theory is an interesting case , given this discussion .
Physicists essentially took the " entire record " of physical theory , picked a few important equations , and turned them into logical axioms .
This was done without apology .
The superstring theorists are doing what I described above , explicitly .
It is " unscientific " because it does n't predict anything new .
But , of course , that is because physics before superstring theory was already closed under logical implication ( at least in broad strokes ) .
A nice formalization of a theory is n't going to add new proof ( or falsifiable experiments ) to a poor or disorganized formalization .
On the other hand , superstring theory is just as scientific as 100 year old science is now .
If an experiment proves Maxwell 's equations wrong , it will disprove superstring theory too .
If an experiment proves superstring theory wrong , it will be proving some old physical theory wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, these are important ideas.
Mathematicians and philosophers have abstracted them out into "logic".
I don't mean to sound condescending.
A "theory" (in the sense of logic) is a set of mutually consistent sentences, closed under logical implication.
A "model" for the theory is a set of objects which "satisfy" the theory.
This is straightforward to explain, but there are some fiddly details that I won't go into.
Consider the theory generated by:Every Blue thing is Strong.Every Strong thing is Blue.Models define truth.
We can construct a simple model for this theory:  The singleton set that contains that blue guy from the Watchmen.
We can construct another one:  the set that contains the Watchmen guy, and a nicely painted blue steel bar.
And so on and so forth.
The thing to note is that every object in the model needs to "satisfy" both the sentences.
This can happen "vacuously".
If we create a "subtheory" by adding a sentence to the theory, say, "Doctor Octagon is a rapper", a model for the new theory would contain Doctor Octagon, in addition to the strong blue stuff.
At least, under the assumption that Doctor Octagon is neither blue nor strong.
If the "real" Doctor Octagon is either, he must be both, in a model of the theory.Data doesn't define models.
Data defines theories.
An observation that some blue things are strong gets generalized, via the scientific method, to the claim that every blue thing is strong.
Indeed, the point of the scientific method is that every observation has the "same" status -- assumed to be true, as long as it was recorded properly.
In this sense, the "record" is a sort of "unanalyzed" theory.
Human brains can (maybe, sometimes) work out generalizations from that data.
But, and here's the important part, the model is the real world.
But we don't have access to "the model".
We're a part of it.
All we can do is try to grope for "axioms" from which we can generate a "copy" of the real world, using the "model theoretic" construction I discussed.
But we run into undecidability very quickly.
If there is ANY models that satisfy an undecidable theory, there are infinitely many (extremely different) models that satisfy that theory.
And we can't even distinguish between them using scientific language.
(This is a consequence of Godel's theorem, in very vague terms, and using a slight conceptual shift in logic of the last few decades.
In particular, if you can prove a sentence in a theory, the sentence is "true" in every model for the theory.
If you can't prove a sentence, then it can be true OR false, depending on which model you decide to use to evaluate its truth.
)Superstring theory is an interesting case, given this discussion.
Physicists essentially took the "entire record" of physical theory, picked a few important equations, and turned them into logical axioms.
This was done without apology.
The superstring theorists are doing what I described above, explicitly.
It is "unscientific" because it doesn't predict anything new.
But, of course, that is because physics before superstring theory was already closed under logical implication (at least in broad strokes).
A nice formalization of a theory isn't going to add new proof (or falsifiable experiments) to a poor or disorganized formalization.
On the other hand, superstring theory is just as scientific as 100 year old science is now.
If an experiment proves Maxwell's equations wrong, it will disprove superstring theory too.
If an experiment proves superstring theory wrong, it will be proving some old physical theory wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270866</id>
	<title>Re:'Cause it makes a lot of sense to look elsewher</title>
	<author>Anspen</author>
	<datestamp>1267105020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Seeing as when they compiled the bible, they packed together all of authoritative, trustworthy written documents that gave an account of Jesus' life or spoke of the man...</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>They didn't. They gathered together *all* stories they had and then picked the ones they liked. So at the very least there's a ton of writing which isn't in the bible. And academic researches generally assume that two of the gospels were written much later and were largely based on the other two (with some random additions).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as when they compiled the bible , they packed together all of authoritative , trustworthy written documents that gave an account of Jesus ' life or spoke of the man... They did n't .
They gathered together * all * stories they had and then picked the ones they liked .
So at the very least there 's a ton of writing which is n't in the bible .
And academic researches generally assume that two of the gospels were written much later and were largely based on the other two ( with some random additions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Seeing as when they compiled the bible, they packed together all of authoritative, trustworthy written documents that gave an account of Jesus' life or spoke of the man... They didn't.
They gathered together *all* stories they had and then picked the ones they liked.
So at the very least there's a ton of writing which isn't in the bible.
And academic researches generally assume that two of the gospels were written much later and were largely based on the other two (with some random additions).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268910</id>
	<title>discouraging research...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265136180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do find these kinds of results discouraging. They diminish my optimism that people actually have some measure of free will and therefore could learn to listen to information, think about it, and possibly Do The Right Thing even if it conflicted with their prejudices.

More and more, it comes down to neurobiology.  You don't think so? - How would you tell if it's really that you CAN'T think so?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do find these kinds of results discouraging .
They diminish my optimism that people actually have some measure of free will and therefore could learn to listen to information , think about it , and possibly Do The Right Thing even if it conflicted with their prejudices .
More and more , it comes down to neurobiology .
You do n't think so ?
- How would you tell if it 's really that you CA N'T think so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do find these kinds of results discouraging.
They diminish my optimism that people actually have some measure of free will and therefore could learn to listen to information, think about it, and possibly Do The Right Thing even if it conflicted with their prejudices.
More and more, it comes down to neurobiology.
You don't think so?
- How would you tell if it's really that you CAN'T think so?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268424</id>
	<title>One needs to look no further than religion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265130780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>to know that most people don't base their beliefs on facts.  Like there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>to know that most people do n't base their beliefs on facts .
Like there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to know that most people don't base their beliefs on facts.
Like there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269852</id>
	<title>I Believe I'll Have A Datum</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1267091940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief "</p><p>Facts don't require weight, they come with their own. Beliefs, having no solid anchor in reality, require the appearance of a basis in reality to remain believable.</p><p>Facts derive from data, they just 'are', beliefs are constructed a priori and adjusted as needed, the open ends of which are labeled and relabeled as needed as 'evidence' that supports the belief. The a priori belief is necessary so we can classify an observation, something far more necessary than getting it right the first time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" people do n't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief " Facts do n't require weight , they come with their own .
Beliefs , having no solid anchor in reality , require the appearance of a basis in reality to remain believable.Facts derive from data , they just 'are ' , beliefs are constructed a priori and adjusted as needed , the open ends of which are labeled and relabeled as needed as 'evidence ' that supports the belief .
The a priori belief is necessary so we can classify an observation , something far more necessary than getting it right the first time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief "Facts don't require weight, they come with their own.
Beliefs, having no solid anchor in reality, require the appearance of a basis in reality to remain believable.Facts derive from data, they just 'are', beliefs are constructed a priori and adjusted as needed, the open ends of which are labeled and relabeled as needed as 'evidence' that supports the belief.
The a priori belief is necessary so we can classify an observation, something far more necessary than getting it right the first time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270842</id>
	<title>Re:The Irony</title>
	<author>ThaReetLad</author>
	<datestamp>1267104900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270178</id>
	<title>As the late &amp; great Terence McKenna said...</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1267096380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>CULTURE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>CULTURE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CULTURE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269474</id>
	<title>Braman</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1267130160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that pronounced 'Brahman' by any chance?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that pronounced 'Brahman ' by any chance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that pronounced 'Brahman' by any chance?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268798</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Also, responding differently to the same facts can indicate plenty of things besides rejection of those facts. For example, optimists will respond differently than pessimists. And to use a modern example, libertarians don't think that drugs are entirely safe, or are good ideas, or are not addictive, in contradiction to the facts. On the contrary, all the ones I know believe that drugs are dangerous, addictive, terrible ideas. But they still differ from neoconservatives in the policy that they recommend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Also , responding differently to the same facts can indicate plenty of things besides rejection of those facts .
For example , optimists will respond differently than pessimists .
And to use a modern example , libertarians do n't think that drugs are entirely safe , or are good ideas , or are not addictive , in contradiction to the facts .
On the contrary , all the ones I know believe that drugs are dangerous , addictive , terrible ideas .
But they still differ from neoconservatives in the policy that they recommend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Also, responding differently to the same facts can indicate plenty of things besides rejection of those facts.
For example, optimists will respond differently than pessimists.
And to use a modern example, libertarians don't think that drugs are entirely safe, or are good ideas, or are not addictive, in contradiction to the facts.
On the contrary, all the ones I know believe that drugs are dangerous, addictive, terrible ideas.
But they still differ from neoconservatives in the policy that they recommend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31281698</id>
	<title>Re:Confirmation Bias Confirmed</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1267121580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you. Complete list of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_cognitive\_biases" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Cognitive biases</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
Complete list of Cognitive biases [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
Complete list of Cognitive biases [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269348</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267128420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others.</p><p>For example, some (but by no means all) of the "young earthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known". As for "homeopaths", a recent <a href="http://naturalfoodsmerchandiser.com/tabId/177/itemId/1351/PeerReviewed-Research-Backs-Homeopathy.aspx" title="naturalfoo...ndiser.com" rel="nofollow">peer-reviewed study</a> [naturalfoo...ndiser.com] showed that "the science behind homeopathy is piling up." Again, something that probably does not belong in your list. To compare these people with the moon-landing-deniers and astrologers is a mistake, since they are on a much more solid stance, evidence-wise. Further, while vaccinations may not cause autism, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with giving them to children.</p><p>Which is precisely the point, and even the point you make: people let biases influence them. Including you. (I say that based on the evidence that you lumped a whole bunch of things into your list of "bullshit", even though from the scientific evidence, some of them probably do not belong in the list.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your " examples " should not all be grouped together , since some of them are at vastly different levels of " known " , compared to the others.For example , some ( but by no means all ) of the " young earthers " ( a very derogatory phrase ) have some good evidence to cite .
This is hardly something an area that is " unequivocally known " .
As for " homeopaths " , a recent peer-reviewed study [ naturalfoo...ndiser.com ] showed that " the science behind homeopathy is piling up .
" Again , something that probably does not belong in your list .
To compare these people with the moon-landing-deniers and astrologers is a mistake , since they are on a much more solid stance , evidence-wise .
Further , while vaccinations may not cause autism , there are some very serious ethical issues involved with giving them to children.Which is precisely the point , and even the point you make : people let biases influence them .
Including you .
( I say that based on the evidence that you lumped a whole bunch of things into your list of " bullshit " , even though from the scientific evidence , some of them probably do not belong in the list .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others.For example, some (but by no means all) of the "young earthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite.
This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known".
As for "homeopaths", a recent peer-reviewed study [naturalfoo...ndiser.com] showed that "the science behind homeopathy is piling up.
" Again, something that probably does not belong in your list.
To compare these people with the moon-landing-deniers and astrologers is a mistake, since they are on a much more solid stance, evidence-wise.
Further, while vaccinations may not cause autism, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with giving them to children.Which is precisely the point, and even the point you make: people let biases influence them.
Including you.
(I say that based on the evidence that you lumped a whole bunch of things into your list of "bullshit", even though from the scientific evidence, some of them probably do not belong in the list.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268896</id>
	<title>Re:The Irony</title>
	<author>mathfeel</author>
	<datestamp>1265136000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a different. Scientists can have all the opinion they want (and many hold quite wacky ones in their own expertise). They can even be very vocal about it. But their results cannot get accepted without reaching certain level of consensus by peer review.  People argue that the whole system is bad because the community is conspiring to reject their idea. I call them sore losers.  They claim they cannot get their idea published because it challenge the norm and that's a big no no for the community. Bullshit! Scientists thrive on and have their reputation greatly enhanced by making break through that challenges the norms, but ONLY when doing so with good experiment and data and/or well argued theory/hypothesis.  I know all the paradigm-changing paper in the history of my fields are always first published in well established journal even though "the man" and "the process" is trying is keep people down.  While I can see flaws in this system, I'd say it works out pretty well in average.  Remember: an known patent clerk got published in Annalen der Physik when this guy can't even convince his professor to get him a university job.  Good scientist don't make claim for the sake of making a claim.  My favorite example is cold fusion where those guys held press conference way before they check their experiment and try to redo it at least once. Some people never accept the fact that they are just doing bad science (some probably deliberately) or their data are just not very valuable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a different .
Scientists can have all the opinion they want ( and many hold quite wacky ones in their own expertise ) .
They can even be very vocal about it .
But their results can not get accepted without reaching certain level of consensus by peer review .
People argue that the whole system is bad because the community is conspiring to reject their idea .
I call them sore losers .
They claim they can not get their idea published because it challenge the norm and that 's a big no no for the community .
Bullshit ! Scientists thrive on and have their reputation greatly enhanced by making break through that challenges the norms , but ONLY when doing so with good experiment and data and/or well argued theory/hypothesis .
I know all the paradigm-changing paper in the history of my fields are always first published in well established journal even though " the man " and " the process " is trying is keep people down .
While I can see flaws in this system , I 'd say it works out pretty well in average .
Remember : an known patent clerk got published in Annalen der Physik when this guy ca n't even convince his professor to get him a university job .
Good scientist do n't make claim for the sake of making a claim .
My favorite example is cold fusion where those guys held press conference way before they check their experiment and try to redo it at least once .
Some people never accept the fact that they are just doing bad science ( some probably deliberately ) or their data are just not very valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a different.
Scientists can have all the opinion they want (and many hold quite wacky ones in their own expertise).
They can even be very vocal about it.
But their results cannot get accepted without reaching certain level of consensus by peer review.
People argue that the whole system is bad because the community is conspiring to reject their idea.
I call them sore losers.
They claim they cannot get their idea published because it challenge the norm and that's a big no no for the community.
Bullshit! Scientists thrive on and have their reputation greatly enhanced by making break through that challenges the norms, but ONLY when doing so with good experiment and data and/or well argued theory/hypothesis.
I know all the paradigm-changing paper in the history of my fields are always first published in well established journal even though "the man" and "the process" is trying is keep people down.
While I can see flaws in this system, I'd say it works out pretty well in average.
Remember: an known patent clerk got published in Annalen der Physik when this guy can't even convince his professor to get him a university job.
Good scientist don't make claim for the sake of making a claim.
My favorite example is cold fusion where those guys held press conference way before they check their experiment and try to redo it at least once.
Some people never accept the fact that they are just doing bad science (some probably deliberately) or their data are just not very valuable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270136</id>
	<title>2nd Amendment/Gun Control</title>
	<author>jeko</author>
	<datestamp>1267096020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Penn Gillette turned me around on this issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Penn Gillette turned me around on this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Penn Gillette turned me around on this issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31272404</id>
	<title>I've dealt with this.</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1267115340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm always the one among my friends talking about nanotechnology and it's implications. I was even caught preaching while drunk about nanobots. The thing is, most people don't even believe that some things are possible through technology, or at least not in their lifetime at all. If they can get past this belief, however, I've noticed that they don't take that much interest and seem to shut down all potential thoughts they could've formulated about future technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always the one among my friends talking about nanotechnology and it 's implications .
I was even caught preaching while drunk about nanobots .
The thing is , most people do n't even believe that some things are possible through technology , or at least not in their lifetime at all .
If they can get past this belief , however , I 've noticed that they do n't take that much interest and seem to shut down all potential thoughts they could 've formulated about future technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always the one among my friends talking about nanotechnology and it's implications.
I was even caught preaching while drunk about nanobots.
The thing is, most people don't even believe that some things are possible through technology, or at least not in their lifetime at all.
If they can get past this belief, however, I've noticed that they don't take that much interest and seem to shut down all potential thoughts they could've formulated about future technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268628</id>
	<title>I didn't know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265133000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know Captain Obvious had enough money to fund studies!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know Captain Obvious had enough money to fund studies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know Captain Obvious had enough money to fund studies!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</id>
	<title>Hurr.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265130600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.</p><p>No they didn't.</p><p>They based their decisions on information gathered from outside the experiment - their own life experiences, and applied those experiences to their arguments.</p><p>This is surprising?</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.No they did n't.They based their decisions on information gathered from outside the experiment - their own life experiences , and applied those experiences to their arguments.This is surprising ? --BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.No they didn't.They based their decisions on information gathered from outside the experiment - their own life experiences, and applied those experiences to their arguments.This is surprising?--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31272730</id>
	<title>Resistance if futile?</title>
	<author>redmid17</author>
	<datestamp>1267116900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm getting really confused. If the communitarians dislike nanotechnology, how come the Borg rule the Delta Quadrant?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting really confused .
If the communitarians dislike nanotechnology , how come the Borg rule the Delta Quadrant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting really confused.
If the communitarians dislike nanotechnology, how come the Borg rule the Delta Quadrant?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270580</id>
	<title>Really!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267102140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269874</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, Sherlock.</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1267092360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.</p></div><p>A quick google brought me to a paper that said the chance of the shot being random noise was 0.037 or in other worlds 1:27. That's not much, but far away from a solid irrefutable proof that it was a real gunshot, especially considering that other evidence seems to be missing (shooter, bullet, bullethole,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...). Which would leave me to conclude that there is no solid evidence for more then three shots and that this is simply a case of <a href="http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=525" title="theness.com">anomaly hunting</a> [theness.com], i.e. when you search long enough, you are guaranteed to find something that is unlikely to have happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.A quick google brought me to a paper that said the chance of the shot being random noise was 0.037 or in other worlds 1 : 27 .
That 's not much , but far away from a solid irrefutable proof that it was a real gunshot , especially considering that other evidence seems to be missing ( shooter , bullet , bullethole , ... ) .
Which would leave me to conclude that there is no solid evidence for more then three shots and that this is simply a case of anomaly hunting [ theness.com ] , i.e .
when you search long enough , you are guaranteed to find something that is unlikely to have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.A quick google brought me to a paper that said the chance of the shot being random noise was 0.037 or in other worlds 1:27.
That's not much, but far away from a solid irrefutable proof that it was a real gunshot, especially considering that other evidence seems to be missing (shooter, bullet, bullethole, ...).
Which would leave me to conclude that there is no solid evidence for more then three shots and that this is simply a case of anomaly hunting [theness.com], i.e.
when you search long enough, you are guaranteed to find something that is unlikely to have happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271628</id>
	<title>Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1267110660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that most people in this world are very much unaware that they do belong to "tribes", how they have "authority figures" and how they influence one's behaviour.</p><p>In fact, i reckon that most Slashdoters have never looked at Slashdot as the tribe it is.</p><p>The problem with your argument is that it relies on the targets having the know-how and self awareness to understand it and recognize themselfs on it.</p><p>Countless sessions of friendly discussions with the local Jehovah's Witnesses that pop-up at my door (when I have the time and the passience) have taught me that those that believe the strongest and the truest are usually the most ignorant of their own compulsions, motivations and sorrounding social pressures.</p><p>In other words, your post was either like preaching to the converts or like pearls to pigs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that most people in this world are very much unaware that they do belong to " tribes " , how they have " authority figures " and how they influence one 's behaviour.In fact , i reckon that most Slashdoters have never looked at Slashdot as the tribe it is.The problem with your argument is that it relies on the targets having the know-how and self awareness to understand it and recognize themselfs on it.Countless sessions of friendly discussions with the local Jehovah 's Witnesses that pop-up at my door ( when I have the time and the passience ) have taught me that those that believe the strongest and the truest are usually the most ignorant of their own compulsions , motivations and sorrounding social pressures.In other words , your post was either like preaching to the converts or like pearls to pigs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that most people in this world are very much unaware that they do belong to "tribes", how they have "authority figures" and how they influence one's behaviour.In fact, i reckon that most Slashdoters have never looked at Slashdot as the tribe it is.The problem with your argument is that it relies on the targets having the know-how and self awareness to understand it and recognize themselfs on it.Countless sessions of friendly discussions with the local Jehovah's Witnesses that pop-up at my door (when I have the time and the passience) have taught me that those that believe the strongest and the truest are usually the most ignorant of their own compulsions, motivations and sorrounding social pressures.In other words, your post was either like preaching to the converts or like pearls to pigs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269206</id>
	<title>Re:More to the point...</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1265139480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>when we classified coin tosses into a "heads" group and a "tails" group, we found that the "heads" group contained 100\% heads results, no matter how many times the coin was tossed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ironically, that is not a bad conclusion given the evidence.  Don't ask me to explain, 'cause I won't.  But I agree, this study did not tell us anything new.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when we classified coin tosses into a " heads " group and a " tails " group , we found that the " heads " group contained 100 \ % heads results , no matter how many times the coin was tossed ... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.Ironically , that is not a bad conclusion given the evidence .
Do n't ask me to explain , 'cause I wo n't .
But I agree , this study did not tell us anything new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when we classified coin tosses into a "heads" group and a "tails" group, we found that the "heads" group contained 100\% heads results, no matter how many times the coin was tossed ... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.Ironically, that is not a bad conclusion given the evidence.
Don't ask me to explain, 'cause I won't.
But I agree, this study did not tell us anything new.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269560</id>
	<title>Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267131120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never, because I've been right all along. Suck on that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never , because I 've been right all along .
Suck on that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never, because I've been right all along.
Suck on that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268954</id>
	<title>Flamebait</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1265136600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tag the summary flamebait and be done with it.</p><p>Nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tag the summary flamebait and be done with it.Nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tag the summary flamebait and be done with it.Nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269496</id>
	<title>Re:More to the point...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267130460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In any case, the individualistic, techie ones were fans of authority? Nobody show them Slashdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In any case , the individualistic , techie ones were fans of authority ?
Nobody show them Slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In any case, the individualistic, techie ones were fans of authority?
Nobody show them Slashdot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268894</id>
	<title>No shit, Sherlock.</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1265136000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch a Christian complete phase out and stop processing info when you point out the the many similarities between Jesus and many other similar shepherd gods in other cultures of that same region of the Eastern Med.</p><p>Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch a Christian complete phase out and stop processing info when you point out the the many similarities between Jesus and many other similar shepherd gods in other cultures of that same region of the Eastern Med.Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch a Christian complete phase out and stop processing info when you point out the the many similarities between Jesus and many other similar shepherd gods in other cultures of that same region of the Eastern Med.Watch a so-called science-focus skeptic phase out the same way when you point out that a recording of Dallas police broadcast has scientifically proven there were more than 3 shots fired in Dealey Plaza.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269054</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their own life experiences about nanotechnology?  Exactly in what way do average people interact with nano tech these days?<br>Nanotechnology was obviously chosen because it was something these people did NOT have previous experience with, and their "own life experiences" have no actual bearing on whether nano tech will be dangerous or safe.  I'm sure he screened out everyone who already knew anything factual about it, so what is left is a bunch of people making decisions about a subject based on totally irrelevant, preconceived notions about how the world works.  The fact that they, and you apparently, felt that this irrelevant experience was applicable was the point of the entire study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their own life experiences about nanotechnology ?
Exactly in what way do average people interact with nano tech these days ? Nanotechnology was obviously chosen because it was something these people did NOT have previous experience with , and their " own life experiences " have no actual bearing on whether nano tech will be dangerous or safe .
I 'm sure he screened out everyone who already knew anything factual about it , so what is left is a bunch of people making decisions about a subject based on totally irrelevant , preconceived notions about how the world works .
The fact that they , and you apparently , felt that this irrelevant experience was applicable was the point of the entire study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their own life experiences about nanotechnology?
Exactly in what way do average people interact with nano tech these days?Nanotechnology was obviously chosen because it was something these people did NOT have previous experience with, and their "own life experiences" have no actual bearing on whether nano tech will be dangerous or safe.
I'm sure he screened out everyone who already knew anything factual about it, so what is left is a bunch of people making decisions about a subject based on totally irrelevant, preconceived notions about how the world works.
The fact that they, and you apparently, felt that this irrelevant experience was applicable was the point of the entire study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268398</id>
	<title>A partial solution:</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1265130480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary:<blockquote><div><p>"This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished. That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions.<br> <br>

The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae. That's healthy debate, and it's a sign that hummanity is capable of "moving on". But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than <i>thinking</i>.<br> <br>

Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary : " This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people do n't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work .
Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished .
That would reveal a big chunk of the world 's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions .
The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae .
That 's healthy debate , and it 's a sign that hummanity is capable of " moving on " .
But there still a large number of " my god is better than your god " nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who do n't agree with them rather than thinking .
Abolishment of religion wo n't solve all problems , but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary:"This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.
Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.
That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions.
The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae.
That's healthy debate, and it's a sign that hummanity is capable of "moving on".
But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking.
Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268552</id>
	<title>Da Fuck?1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>SanzunPus, did you swap shit with kdawson?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>SanzunPus , did you swap shit with kdawson ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SanzunPus, did you swap shit with kdawson?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268674</id>
	<title>Are my tax dollars supporting these "studies"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265133540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article just confirms the suspicions I've had about academia all along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article just confirms the suspicions I 've had about academia all along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article just confirms the suspicions I've had about academia all along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271210</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267108140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct. People who are critics of nanotechnology may simply remember Asbestos. The physical structure of materials matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
People who are critics of nanotechnology may simply remember Asbestos .
The physical structure of materials matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
People who are critics of nanotechnology may simply remember Asbestos.
The physical structure of materials matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31283688</id>
	<title>No Kidding/How Ironic</title>
	<author>rolandansgar</author>
	<datestamp>1267191000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author's observation belongs in the "No Shit, Sherlock" category. And the author, Christopher Joyce, uses himself as the prime example. The science behind human-initiated global warming has been shot to hell. Not that Sir Christopher should bother with this fact, rather than sailing about the Chesapeake Bay in his spare time. Phenomenal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author 's observation belongs in the " No Shit , Sherlock " category .
And the author , Christopher Joyce , uses himself as the prime example .
The science behind human-initiated global warming has been shot to hell .
Not that Sir Christopher should bother with this fact , rather than sailing about the Chesapeake Bay in his spare time .
Phenomenal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author's observation belongs in the "No Shit, Sherlock" category.
And the author, Christopher Joyce, uses himself as the prime example.
The science behind human-initiated global warming has been shot to hell.
Not that Sir Christopher should bother with this fact, rather than sailing about the Chesapeake Bay in his spare time.
Phenomenal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270222</id>
	<title>Confirmation Bias Exemplified</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1267096980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thanks for confirming confirmation bias [wikipedia.org] for me. It was pretty much what I expected anyway...</p></div><p>I know what you mean.  I believe in confirmation bias.  That's why I only acknowledge evidence <em>for</em> it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for confirming confirmation bias [ wikipedia.org ] for me .
It was pretty much what I expected anyway...I know what you mean .
I believe in confirmation bias .
That 's why I only acknowledge evidence for it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for confirming confirmation bias [wikipedia.org] for me.
It was pretty much what I expected anyway...I know what you mean.
I believe in confirmation bias.
That's why I only acknowledge evidence for it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31278290</id>
	<title>Re:One needs to look no further than religion</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267095000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Like there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible.<br></i><br>There's no evidence that life in any form exists anywhere but Earth, yet most slashdotters (myself included) believe that it's likely that there is life elsewhere (I do see the possibility that this may be life's only home, but not a probability).</p><p>But the Bible isn't the only place that documents Jesus' existance, as others have pointed out. But his teachings were revolutionary; SOMEBODY came up with those radical ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible.There 's no evidence that life in any form exists anywhere but Earth , yet most slashdotters ( myself included ) believe that it 's likely that there is life elsewhere ( I do see the possibility that this may be life 's only home , but not a probability ) .But the Bible is n't the only place that documents Jesus ' existance , as others have pointed out .
But his teachings were revolutionary ; SOMEBODY came up with those radical ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like there is no evidience for Jesus outside of the Bible.There's no evidence that life in any form exists anywhere but Earth, yet most slashdotters (myself included) believe that it's likely that there is life elsewhere (I do see the possibility that this may be life's only home, but not a probability).But the Bible isn't the only place that documents Jesus' existance, as others have pointed out.
But his teachings were revolutionary; SOMEBODY came up with those radical ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268518</id>
	<title>Confirmation Bias Confirmed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for confirming <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation\_bias" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">confirmation bias</a> [wikipedia.org] for me.  It was pretty much what I expected anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for confirming confirmation bias [ wikipedia.org ] for me .
It was pretty much what I expected anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for confirming confirmation bias [wikipedia.org] for me.
It was pretty much what I expected anyway...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269306</id>
	<title>'Cause it makes a lot of sense to look elsewhere.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing as when they compiled the bible, they packed together all of authoritative, trustworthy written documents that gave an account of Jesus' life or spoke of the man, I'd say it's probably going to be pretty hard to find a "authoritative" source which is not present in the Bible.  Of course, there are other written documents which mention then man.  If you are looking for physical evidence, what kind of evidence are you looking for?  He was a guy that lived 2000 years ago.  He didn't build or have built monuments in his name, and he spoke out against such things (not that it's stopped "Christians" from doing it since then, but that's another argument).  Literature is pretty much the only proof we have that any people in history really existed (we have bones in tombs, but how do we know they are who the literature says they are, and even if we did know, how would that verify other aspects of the literature).  If you want to throw out the Bible as proof, what's to stop you from throwing out other literature?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as when they compiled the bible , they packed together all of authoritative , trustworthy written documents that gave an account of Jesus ' life or spoke of the man , I 'd say it 's probably going to be pretty hard to find a " authoritative " source which is not present in the Bible .
Of course , there are other written documents which mention then man .
If you are looking for physical evidence , what kind of evidence are you looking for ?
He was a guy that lived 2000 years ago .
He did n't build or have built monuments in his name , and he spoke out against such things ( not that it 's stopped " Christians " from doing it since then , but that 's another argument ) .
Literature is pretty much the only proof we have that any people in history really existed ( we have bones in tombs , but how do we know they are who the literature says they are , and even if we did know , how would that verify other aspects of the literature ) .
If you want to throw out the Bible as proof , what 's to stop you from throwing out other literature ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as when they compiled the bible, they packed together all of authoritative, trustworthy written documents that gave an account of Jesus' life or spoke of the man, I'd say it's probably going to be pretty hard to find a "authoritative" source which is not present in the Bible.
Of course, there are other written documents which mention then man.
If you are looking for physical evidence, what kind of evidence are you looking for?
He was a guy that lived 2000 years ago.
He didn't build or have built monuments in his name, and he spoke out against such things (not that it's stopped "Christians" from doing it since then, but that's another argument).
Literature is pretty much the only proof we have that any people in history really existed (we have bones in tombs, but how do we know they are who the literature says they are, and even if we did know, how would that verify other aspects of the literature).
If you want to throw out the Bible as proof, what's to stop you from throwing out other literature?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269536</id>
	<title>Contrarian.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267130820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Both groups made their decisions based on the same information. "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.'"</p><p>PIRACY IS GOOD!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Both groups made their decisions based on the same information .
" It does n't matter whether you show them negative or positive information , they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe , and they glom onto the positive information , " Braman says .
' " PIRACY IS GOOD !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Both groups made their decisions based on the same information.
"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.
'"PIRACY IS GOOD!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268790</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1265134800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin\_Thompson\_Jaynes" title="wikipedia.org">Jaynes</a> [wikipedia.org] (if you haven't done so before). There's a free draft of his last book floating around the web.
<p>
The interaction between prior information and data interpretation is very well understood within the Bayesian framework. In particular, the divergence of
beliefs upon learning the exact same data can be demonstrated mathematically,
Jaynes does it in one of the examples in the aforementioned book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should read Jaynes [ wikipedia.org ] ( if you have n't done so before ) .
There 's a free draft of his last book floating around the web .
The interaction between prior information and data interpretation is very well understood within the Bayesian framework .
In particular , the divergence of beliefs upon learning the exact same data can be demonstrated mathematically , Jaynes does it in one of the examples in the aforementioned book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should read Jaynes [wikipedia.org] (if you haven't done so before).
There's a free draft of his last book floating around the web.
The interaction between prior information and data interpretation is very well understood within the Bayesian framework.
In particular, the divergence of
beliefs upon learning the exact same data can be demonstrated mathematically,
Jaynes does it in one of the examples in the aforementioned book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269018</id>
	<title>Cognitive dissonance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The behavioral phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance".</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_dissonance</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The behavioral phenomenon is called " cognitive dissonance " .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive \ _dissonance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The behavioral phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_dissonance</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31272938</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>RJHelms</author>
	<datestamp>1267117980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People's beliefs hinge on their world-view.<br> <br>

In other words, people's beliefs are determined by their beliefs.<br> <br>

How come I don't get paid the big bucks to do this research? I could've saved them a lot of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People 's beliefs hinge on their world-view .
In other words , people 's beliefs are determined by their beliefs .
How come I do n't get paid the big bucks to do this research ?
I could 've saved them a lot of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People's beliefs hinge on their world-view.
In other words, people's beliefs are determined by their beliefs.
How come I don't get paid the big bucks to do this research?
I could've saved them a lot of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269158</id>
	<title>Mythbuster's quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own" -- Adam Savage</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own " -- Adam Savage</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own" -- Adam Savage</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273604</id>
	<title>Negative or Positive?</title>
	<author>mikein08</author>
	<datestamp>1267120620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article states "<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... negative or positive information<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ".  Uh, people, information is
not negative or positive; the interpretation of
information is negative or positive (or maybe
neutral), depending only on the interpreter.
Ergo, we should not be surprised that different
people interpret the data data (information)
differently, depending solely on their frame
of reference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article states " ... negative or positive information ... " . Uh , people , information is not negative or positive ; the interpretation of information is negative or positive ( or maybe neutral ) , depending only on the interpreter .
Ergo , we should not be surprised that different people interpret the data data ( information ) differently , depending solely on their frame of reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article states " ... negative or positive information ... ".  Uh, people, information is
not negative or positive; the interpretation of
information is negative or positive (or maybe
neutral), depending only on the interpreter.
Ergo, we should not be surprised that different
people interpret the data data (information)
differently, depending solely on their frame
of reference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548</id>
	<title>The Irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not commenting on the debate, but I think it's interesting that in an article about cognitive biases (particularly group cognitive biases) that they don't ever bother to probe the question of how such biases affect things like "scientific consensus," they only view it from the perspective of how such biases affect the freshly germinated views of the uninitated.  You would think scientists, being human beings as well, would be in some way subject the same effects, and as long as questions are being raised about the human proclivity for certain viewpoints, someone might stop to wonder "in what ratio do people who go into the environmental sciences tend to be individualist or communitarian, and how is this likely to affect their judgment of related information?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not commenting on the debate , but I think it 's interesting that in an article about cognitive biases ( particularly group cognitive biases ) that they do n't ever bother to probe the question of how such biases affect things like " scientific consensus , " they only view it from the perspective of how such biases affect the freshly germinated views of the uninitated .
You would think scientists , being human beings as well , would be in some way subject the same effects , and as long as questions are being raised about the human proclivity for certain viewpoints , someone might stop to wonder " in what ratio do people who go into the environmental sciences tend to be individualist or communitarian , and how is this likely to affect their judgment of related information ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not commenting on the debate, but I think it's interesting that in an article about cognitive biases (particularly group cognitive biases) that they don't ever bother to probe the question of how such biases affect things like "scientific consensus," they only view it from the perspective of how such biases affect the freshly germinated views of the uninitated.
You would think scientists, being human beings as well, would be in some way subject the same effects, and as long as questions are being raised about the human proclivity for certain viewpoints, someone might stop to wonder "in what ratio do people who go into the environmental sciences tend to be individualist or communitarian, and how is this likely to affect their judgment of related information?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268742</id>
	<title>Diamond Age anyone?</title>
	<author>Fex303</author>
	<datestamp>1265134260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! They found differences between individualist and collectivist cultures in their acceptance of nanotechnology!</p><p>Someone could write a really cool piece of scifi based on this idea.</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Diamond\_Age" title="wikipedia.org">Oh wait...</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
They found differences between individualist and collectivist cultures in their acceptance of nanotechnology ! Someone could write a really cool piece of scifi based on this idea .
Oh wait... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
They found differences between individualist and collectivist cultures in their acceptance of nanotechnology!Someone could write a really cool piece of scifi based on this idea.
Oh wait... [wikipedia.org] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269110</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1265138580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>social experienments aren't what you could call an exact science. the reason is people aren't a variable they can control exactly no matter how much it might suit their experient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>social experienments are n't what you could call an exact science .
the reason is people are n't a variable they can control exactly no matter how much it might suit their experient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>social experienments aren't what you could call an exact science.
the reason is people aren't a variable they can control exactly no matter how much it might suit their experient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271228</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1267108200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't assume it was their life experiences; many personality traits are likely to be genetic.  In which case, they made their decisions based on genetic information...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't assume it was their life experiences ; many personality traits are likely to be genetic .
In which case , they made their decisions based on genetic information.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't assume it was their life experiences; many personality traits are likely to be genetic.
In which case, they made their decisions based on genetic information...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268868</id>
	<title>wrong description</title>
	<author>readin</author>
	<datestamp>1265135760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.</i>
<br> <br>
No, the article describes an experiment that shows that people don't necessarily trust scientists to get things right, and the degree of the trust varies by culture.  This is hardly surprising.  Scientists are people, and one's opinions about people tends to be a result of your interactions with people around you, most of whom are generally from your own culture.  Most of what culture is is the result of such interactions.  How could your culture <i>not</i> affect what you expect to see from a group of people?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people do n't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work .
No , the article describes an experiment that shows that people do n't necessarily trust scientists to get things right , and the degree of the trust varies by culture .
This is hardly surprising .
Scientists are people , and one 's opinions about people tends to be a result of your interactions with people around you , most of whom are generally from your own culture .
Most of what culture is is the result of such interactions .
How could your culture not affect what you expect to see from a group of people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.
No, the article describes an experiment that shows that people don't necessarily trust scientists to get things right, and the degree of the trust varies by culture.
This is hardly surprising.
Scientists are people, and one's opinions about people tends to be a result of your interactions with people around you, most of whom are generally from your own culture.
Most of what culture is is the result of such interactions.
How could your culture not affect what you expect to see from a group of people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268984</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1265137020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is surprising?"</p><p>I think the really important thing glossed over is that MOST people can't really fully grasp the reality of complex topics for which they have no direct background in the field.  Even educated people that like technology often time's have naive and magical views because they have no firsthand experience with the complexities, costs and downsides.  Especially with regards to the limits of technology and the complexity involved.</p><p>With all due respect to Ray kurzweil... most people underestimate how difficult many problems in science and technology are.  Like Kurzweil's forcast of life extension tech/immortality and things like artificial intelligence are likely at least 80-100 years away at best, since no one ever really talks about the \_COST\_.  Think of how long it takes to make certain software projects \_today\_ in say like the game/software industry (4-6 years for some game designs like Total war)</p><p>For example - we've had the ability to go into space for a long time but the COSTS associated with such are prohibitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is surprising ?
" I think the really important thing glossed over is that MOST people ca n't really fully grasp the reality of complex topics for which they have no direct background in the field .
Even educated people that like technology often time 's have naive and magical views because they have no firsthand experience with the complexities , costs and downsides .
Especially with regards to the limits of technology and the complexity involved.With all due respect to Ray kurzweil... most people underestimate how difficult many problems in science and technology are .
Like Kurzweil 's forcast of life extension tech/immortality and things like artificial intelligence are likely at least 80-100 years away at best , since no one ever really talks about the \ _COST \ _ .
Think of how long it takes to make certain software projects \ _today \ _ in say like the game/software industry ( 4-6 years for some game designs like Total war ) For example - we 've had the ability to go into space for a long time but the COSTS associated with such are prohibitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is surprising?
"I think the really important thing glossed over is that MOST people can't really fully grasp the reality of complex topics for which they have no direct background in the field.
Even educated people that like technology often time's have naive and magical views because they have no firsthand experience with the complexities, costs and downsides.
Especially with regards to the limits of technology and the complexity involved.With all due respect to Ray kurzweil... most people underestimate how difficult many problems in science and technology are.
Like Kurzweil's forcast of life extension tech/immortality and things like artificial intelligence are likely at least 80-100 years away at best, since no one ever really talks about the \_COST\_.
Think of how long it takes to make certain software projects \_today\_ in say like the game/software industry (4-6 years for some game designs like Total war)For example - we've had the ability to go into space for a long time but the COSTS associated with such are prohibitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269722</id>
	<title>Ultimate Acai Max</title>
	<author>reandryck</author>
	<datestamp>1267090260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I've witnessed in the passed 20 years there is far too much chaos and instability for nationalism. That place has always been volitile.
<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/ultimate-acai-max-review-risk-free-trial-1904682.html" title="articlesbase.com" rel="nofollow">Ultimate Acai Max</a> [articlesbase.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've witnessed in the passed 20 years there is far too much chaos and instability for nationalism .
That place has always been volitile .
Ultimate Acai Max [ articlesbase.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've witnessed in the passed 20 years there is far too much chaos and instability for nationalism.
That place has always been volitile.
Ultimate Acai Max [articlesbase.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268844</id>
	<title>Re:The Irony</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1265135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not that simple. While prior bias is highly problematic in the "soft" sciences,
that is not much of a problem in experimental sciences.
<p>
If you're trying for a theory to predict the evolution of a system, run the experiment, and collect the results. Either the theory fits or it doesn't. Every possible initial bias in beliefs will give the same result. Rince and repeat.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that simple .
While prior bias is highly problematic in the " soft " sciences , that is not much of a problem in experimental sciences .
If you 're trying for a theory to predict the evolution of a system , run the experiment , and collect the results .
Either the theory fits or it does n't .
Every possible initial bias in beliefs will give the same result .
Rince and repeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that simple.
While prior bias is highly problematic in the "soft" sciences,
that is not much of a problem in experimental sciences.
If you're trying for a theory to predict the evolution of a system, run the experiment, and collect the results.
Either the theory fits or it doesn't.
Every possible initial bias in beliefs will give the same result.
Rince and repeat.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271598</id>
	<title>Some people NEED religion</title>
	<author>Theovon</author>
	<datestamp>1267110600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been reading through a lot of the discussions on this article, and I see what I consider to be a blind knee-jerk reaction against the "evils" of religion.  Now, probably a lot of you are in the "kill all the stupid people" camp.  But for those of us who aren't in to mass murder, we believe that the world has a place for those who have lower IQs or just fundamentally must think about the world differently from those of us who understand what's going on when we compile a Linux kernel.  We "rational" people are able to do things like ponder two contradictory ideas at once (well, some of us are), change our minds in the face of new evidence (ditto), and not assume that unexplained things must be driven by supernatural forces (is Linus an incarnation of Vishnu?).  However, there are people who contribute meaningfully to our society that do not have the mental wetware to do these things.  They may annoy you because they have to come to more primitive conclusions, but they have value like any other human being.  And they have different intellectual needs.  They NEED to believe that fact==truth and to have the truth handed to them by an authority.  They cannot manage in the world in any other way.  The effect of ripping away their religion would be to ruin their ability to function in the world.  Some would just glom onto another religion.  Some would go into deep depression and/or go insane.  And some would just continue to believe in secret.  But they will NEVER be able to grasp your world view.  They simply cannot process the concepts, and you therefore cannot force them to.</p><p>If you want to have the right to believe in your "weird" way (face it, we geeks are a minority and most people don't understand us), then those "morons" should have the right to believe their weird stuff too.  And frankly, your attempt to "enlighten" them is just shortsighted and unethical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading through a lot of the discussions on this article , and I see what I consider to be a blind knee-jerk reaction against the " evils " of religion .
Now , probably a lot of you are in the " kill all the stupid people " camp .
But for those of us who are n't in to mass murder , we believe that the world has a place for those who have lower IQs or just fundamentally must think about the world differently from those of us who understand what 's going on when we compile a Linux kernel .
We " rational " people are able to do things like ponder two contradictory ideas at once ( well , some of us are ) , change our minds in the face of new evidence ( ditto ) , and not assume that unexplained things must be driven by supernatural forces ( is Linus an incarnation of Vishnu ? ) .
However , there are people who contribute meaningfully to our society that do not have the mental wetware to do these things .
They may annoy you because they have to come to more primitive conclusions , but they have value like any other human being .
And they have different intellectual needs .
They NEED to believe that fact = = truth and to have the truth handed to them by an authority .
They can not manage in the world in any other way .
The effect of ripping away their religion would be to ruin their ability to function in the world .
Some would just glom onto another religion .
Some would go into deep depression and/or go insane .
And some would just continue to believe in secret .
But they will NEVER be able to grasp your world view .
They simply can not process the concepts , and you therefore can not force them to.If you want to have the right to believe in your " weird " way ( face it , we geeks are a minority and most people do n't understand us ) , then those " morons " should have the right to believe their weird stuff too .
And frankly , your attempt to " enlighten " them is just shortsighted and unethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading through a lot of the discussions on this article, and I see what I consider to be a blind knee-jerk reaction against the "evils" of religion.
Now, probably a lot of you are in the "kill all the stupid people" camp.
But for those of us who aren't in to mass murder, we believe that the world has a place for those who have lower IQs or just fundamentally must think about the world differently from those of us who understand what's going on when we compile a Linux kernel.
We "rational" people are able to do things like ponder two contradictory ideas at once (well, some of us are), change our minds in the face of new evidence (ditto), and not assume that unexplained things must be driven by supernatural forces (is Linus an incarnation of Vishnu?).
However, there are people who contribute meaningfully to our society that do not have the mental wetware to do these things.
They may annoy you because they have to come to more primitive conclusions, but they have value like any other human being.
And they have different intellectual needs.
They NEED to believe that fact==truth and to have the truth handed to them by an authority.
They cannot manage in the world in any other way.
The effect of ripping away their religion would be to ruin their ability to function in the world.
Some would just glom onto another religion.
Some would go into deep depression and/or go insane.
And some would just continue to believe in secret.
But they will NEVER be able to grasp your world view.
They simply cannot process the concepts, and you therefore cannot force them to.If you want to have the right to believe in your "weird" way (face it, we geeks are a minority and most people don't understand us), then those "morons" should have the right to believe their weird stuff too.
And frankly, your attempt to "enlighten" them is just shortsighted and unethical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269074</id>
	<title>Misleading picture</title>
	<author>LoRdTAW</author>
	<datestamp>1265138160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how the Picture they show for the climate change article is a big scary looking cooling tower. What makes me laugh is the cloud of water vapor emanating from the stack would be mistaken by many as environmentally harmful smoke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how the Picture they show for the climate change article is a big scary looking cooling tower .
What makes me laugh is the cloud of water vapor emanating from the stack would be mistaken by many as environmentally harmful smoke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how the Picture they show for the climate change article is a big scary looking cooling tower.
What makes me laugh is the cloud of water vapor emanating from the stack would be mistaken by many as environmentally harmful smoke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270912</id>
	<title>Facts are not goals</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1267105560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facts are not goals. Thought and reasoning is driven by goals. The fact that people who have different goals make different decisions based on the same facts doesn't automatically mean they're *rejecting* those facts, it may mean that they are using those facts *correctly* to determine whether they approve of a development that supports or opposes their goals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facts are not goals .
Thought and reasoning is driven by goals .
The fact that people who have different goals make different decisions based on the same facts does n't automatically mean they 're * rejecting * those facts , it may mean that they are using those facts * correctly * to determine whether they approve of a development that supports or opposes their goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facts are not goals.
Thought and reasoning is driven by goals.
The fact that people who have different goals make different decisions based on the same facts doesn't automatically mean they're *rejecting* those facts, it may mean that they are using those facts *correctly* to determine whether they approve of a development that supports or opposes their goals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269050</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>SpaceLifeForm</author>
	<datestamp>1265137620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just made their point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just made their point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just made their point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268658</id>
	<title>I'm an Atheist damnit!</title>
	<author>arcite</author>
	<datestamp>1265133300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You Satan worshiping scientists!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You Satan worshiping scientists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Satan worshiping scientists!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269768</id>
	<title>effect of slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267090980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ also has any effect on your decisions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does reading ./ also has any effect on your decisions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does reading ./ also has any effect on your decisions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31272458</id>
	<title>You, Sir...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267115640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are excused from the jury panel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are excused from the jury panel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are excused from the jury panel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270206</id>
	<title>Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267096740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes I have changed my opinion on two rather major issues:</p><p>I used to be pro-capital punishment and anti-gun ownership.</p><p>I am now anti-capital punishment and pro-gun ownership.</p><p><b>I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.</b></p><p>That would be something like becoming a vegetarian or something?<br>Oh well I'll reply even though I don't fit the narrow definition.</p><p><b>Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?</b></p><p>Both changes were because of reasoning and data collection.</p><p><b>Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?</b></p><p>Not usually.</p><p><b>Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?</b></p><p>That depends entirely on the circumstances. I say no.</p><p><b>Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?</b></p><p>Now that's an interesting question. If I lie to myself I must be so good at it I don't notice.</p><p><b>Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?</b></p><p>No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I have changed my opinion on two rather major issues : I used to be pro-capital punishment and anti-gun ownership.I am now anti-capital punishment and pro-gun ownership.I 'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review , realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.That would be something like becoming a vegetarian or something ? Oh well I 'll reply even though I do n't fit the narrow definition.Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity , reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit ? Both changes were because of reasoning and data collection.Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily ? Not usually.Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded ? That depends entirely on the circumstances .
I say no.Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths ? Now that 's an interesting question .
If I lie to myself I must be so good at it I do n't notice.Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions ? No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I have changed my opinion on two rather major issues:I used to be pro-capital punishment and anti-gun ownership.I am now anti-capital punishment and pro-gun ownership.I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.That would be something like becoming a vegetarian or something?Oh well I'll reply even though I don't fit the narrow definition.Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?Both changes were because of reasoning and data collection.Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?Not usually.Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?That depends entirely on the circumstances.
I say no.Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?Now that's an interesting question.
If I lie to myself I must be so good at it I don't notice.Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269122</id>
	<title>Succinct summary of the study</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1265138820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/cultural-cognition-of-scientific-consensus.html" title="culturalcognition.net">Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus</a> [culturalcognition.net]"</p><p>ABSTRACT:</p><p>People tend not to listen to your message if they view it as threatening to their livelihood, their community, or their ego.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus [ culturalcognition.net ] " ABSTRACT : People tend not to listen to your message if they view it as threatening to their livelihood , their community , or their ego.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus [culturalcognition.net]"ABSTRACT:People tend not to listen to your message if they view it as threatening to their livelihood, their community, or their ego.--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269220</id>
	<title>Is this even news?</title>
	<author>Monty\_Lovering</author>
	<datestamp>1265139660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you mean people don't like ideas that threaten them?</p><p>Hoo wud hav thunk it...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p>Look, I grew up in a religious cult. Got ut, but do know shit a lot about the mechanics of belief. This is not news, although it may be verification of something caled "Milton's Demon", which is like an osmotic filter for thoughts and facts that do not fit your own world view.</p><p>This pattern of behaviour and associated topics like cognotive dissonance are as old as 'we' are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you mean people do n't like ideas that threaten them ? Hoo wud hav thunk it... : -PLook , I grew up in a religious cult .
Got ut , but do know shit a lot about the mechanics of belief .
This is not news , although it may be verification of something caled " Milton 's Demon " , which is like an osmotic filter for thoughts and facts that do not fit your own world view.This pattern of behaviour and associated topics like cognotive dissonance are as old as 'we ' are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you mean people don't like ideas that threaten them?Hoo wud hav thunk it... :-PLook, I grew up in a religious cult.
Got ut, but do know shit a lot about the mechanics of belief.
This is not news, although it may be verification of something caled "Milton's Demon", which is like an osmotic filter for thoughts and facts that do not fit your own world view.This pattern of behaviour and associated topics like cognotive dissonance are as old as 'we' are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268648</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1265133240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody reads Heisenberg anymore, I see....</p><p>One of the best books I have ever read on scientific epistemology was by him ("Physics and Philosophy"  Great book.)</p><p>Over and over in that book he writes about how people tend to think that data implies theory, as if there is only one true interpretation of the information before a scientist, but how that is a false assumption.  As he puts it (several times), "Data does not imply theory."  Instead he suggests that theories can only emerge when scientists put the pieces together based on pre-existing philosophical assumptions.</p><p>"Physics and Philosophy" is really one of those books that anyone interested in the sciences really should read.  It would help avoid the reactions to studies like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody reads Heisenberg anymore , I see....One of the best books I have ever read on scientific epistemology was by him ( " Physics and Philosophy " Great book .
) Over and over in that book he writes about how people tend to think that data implies theory , as if there is only one true interpretation of the information before a scientist , but how that is a false assumption .
As he puts it ( several times ) , " Data does not imply theory .
" Instead he suggests that theories can only emerge when scientists put the pieces together based on pre-existing philosophical assumptions .
" Physics and Philosophy " is really one of those books that anyone interested in the sciences really should read .
It would help avoid the reactions to studies like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody reads Heisenberg anymore, I see....One of the best books I have ever read on scientific epistemology was by him ("Physics and Philosophy"  Great book.
)Over and over in that book he writes about how people tend to think that data implies theory, as if there is only one true interpretation of the information before a scientist, but how that is a false assumption.
As he puts it (several times), "Data does not imply theory.
"  Instead he suggests that theories can only emerge when scientists put the pieces together based on pre-existing philosophical assumptions.
"Physics and Philosophy" is really one of those books that anyone interested in the sciences really should read.
It would help avoid the reactions to studies like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268982</id>
	<title>Re:The Irony</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1265136960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....they don't ever bother to probe the question of how such biases affect things like "scientific consensus,"....</p><p>Is there any human being alive whose worldview does not affect how such a person interprets incoming information? Here in our so-called technological, materialistic West, especially here on Slashdot, the "There is no God" and nothing beyond the physical natural dimension exists -- worldview colors everything. This has not always been so, and even today, the majority of the world population believes there are other dimensions beyond what science can deal with. Mankind needs a standard outside of himself. If man is the measure of all things, then anything by definition  of the majority is right.</p><p>If the majority or those in power decide that the murder of certain classes of human beings is acceptable, then by that definition it IS acceptable. The first step in classifying certain groups as non-human is the beginning of the slippery slope. The Nazis decided that the Jews and others were Untermenschen, subhuman, and therefore it was OK, in fact necessary, to exterminate them. In the USA and in Europe, the unborn are declared to be non-human, mere fetuses, biological tissue. Therefore it is no crime to murder unborn children. That same materialistic reasoning can be applied to other classes of human beings, such as for example the aged and infirm.</p><p>If on the other hand, the underlying worldview is that worldview upon which this country was founded, namely that there is a God, who gives inalienable rights but also responsibility, then ALL humans have great value, especially the helpless ones.</p><p>So it is no surprise then, that the underlying worldview, their belief system, is foundational to the outcome of this or any other study like this. Is it really necessary to spend a big pile of money on something that everybody knows or at least ought to know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....they do n't ever bother to probe the question of how such biases affect things like " scientific consensus , " ....Is there any human being alive whose worldview does not affect how such a person interprets incoming information ?
Here in our so-called technological , materialistic West , especially here on Slashdot , the " There is no God " and nothing beyond the physical natural dimension exists -- worldview colors everything .
This has not always been so , and even today , the majority of the world population believes there are other dimensions beyond what science can deal with .
Mankind needs a standard outside of himself .
If man is the measure of all things , then anything by definition of the majority is right.If the majority or those in power decide that the murder of certain classes of human beings is acceptable , then by that definition it IS acceptable .
The first step in classifying certain groups as non-human is the beginning of the slippery slope .
The Nazis decided that the Jews and others were Untermenschen , subhuman , and therefore it was OK , in fact necessary , to exterminate them .
In the USA and in Europe , the unborn are declared to be non-human , mere fetuses , biological tissue .
Therefore it is no crime to murder unborn children .
That same materialistic reasoning can be applied to other classes of human beings , such as for example the aged and infirm.If on the other hand , the underlying worldview is that worldview upon which this country was founded , namely that there is a God , who gives inalienable rights but also responsibility , then ALL humans have great value , especially the helpless ones.So it is no surprise then , that the underlying worldview , their belief system , is foundational to the outcome of this or any other study like this .
Is it really necessary to spend a big pile of money on something that everybody knows or at least ought to know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....they don't ever bother to probe the question of how such biases affect things like "scientific consensus,"....Is there any human being alive whose worldview does not affect how such a person interprets incoming information?
Here in our so-called technological, materialistic West, especially here on Slashdot, the "There is no God" and nothing beyond the physical natural dimension exists -- worldview colors everything.
This has not always been so, and even today, the majority of the world population believes there are other dimensions beyond what science can deal with.
Mankind needs a standard outside of himself.
If man is the measure of all things, then anything by definition  of the majority is right.If the majority or those in power decide that the murder of certain classes of human beings is acceptable, then by that definition it IS acceptable.
The first step in classifying certain groups as non-human is the beginning of the slippery slope.
The Nazis decided that the Jews and others were Untermenschen, subhuman, and therefore it was OK, in fact necessary, to exterminate them.
In the USA and in Europe, the unborn are declared to be non-human, mere fetuses, biological tissue.
Therefore it is no crime to murder unborn children.
That same materialistic reasoning can be applied to other classes of human beings, such as for example the aged and infirm.If on the other hand, the underlying worldview is that worldview upon which this country was founded, namely that there is a God, who gives inalienable rights but also responsibility, then ALL humans have great value, especially the helpless ones.So it is no surprise then, that the underlying worldview, their belief system, is foundational to the outcome of this or any other study like this.
Is it really necessary to spend a big pile of money on something that everybody knows or at least ought to know?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268842</id>
	<title>Re:Hurr.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is obvious that people let biases influence them.  I think a better question to answer is how many people will still hold on to their belief in the face of information.  There are a lot of weird  beliefs out there that are simply untrue, yet have very devoted followings (anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, the moon landing conspiracy crowd, the anti-GMO guys, homeopaths, astrologers, fluoride is a communist plot, ect. ad nauseum). How many people will still believe in falsehoods when presented with all the correct information they care to look at?  Something like this would require a good bit of time as rejection of incorrect yet dearly held ideas is not fun and will not happen overnight. As an ex-young earther, I'd know; you can check out my early<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments to see it in action (please don't).  Heck, I still have a hard time listing creationism in the list of wrong ideas, and I know the facts. Reevaluating and adjusting yourself to fit how things really are instead of how you think they are is difficult.  It would be telling to see what percent of people will put a belief over evidence.  I'd bet that a lot more would rather hang on to their belief and think themselves some sort of intellectual martyr that go through the effort of empirically evaluating their beliefs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is obvious that people let biases influence them .
I think a better question to answer is how many people will still hold on to their belief in the face of information .
There are a lot of weird beliefs out there that are simply untrue , yet have very devoted followings ( anti-vaxxers , 9/11 truthers , the moon landing conspiracy crowd , the anti-GMO guys , homeopaths , astrologers , fluoride is a communist plot , ect .
ad nauseum ) .
How many people will still believe in falsehoods when presented with all the correct information they care to look at ?
Something like this would require a good bit of time as rejection of incorrect yet dearly held ideas is not fun and will not happen overnight .
As an ex-young earther , I 'd know ; you can check out my early / .
comments to see it in action ( please do n't ) .
Heck , I still have a hard time listing creationism in the list of wrong ideas , and I know the facts .
Reevaluating and adjusting yourself to fit how things really are instead of how you think they are is difficult .
It would be telling to see what percent of people will put a belief over evidence .
I 'd bet that a lot more would rather hang on to their belief and think themselves some sort of intellectual martyr that go through the effort of empirically evaluating their beliefs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is obvious that people let biases influence them.
I think a better question to answer is how many people will still hold on to their belief in the face of information.
There are a lot of weird  beliefs out there that are simply untrue, yet have very devoted followings (anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, the moon landing conspiracy crowd, the anti-GMO guys, homeopaths, astrologers, fluoride is a communist plot, ect.
ad nauseum).
How many people will still believe in falsehoods when presented with all the correct information they care to look at?
Something like this would require a good bit of time as rejection of incorrect yet dearly held ideas is not fun and will not happen overnight.
As an ex-young earther, I'd know; you can check out my early /.
comments to see it in action (please don't).
Heck, I still have a hard time listing creationism in the list of wrong ideas, and I know the facts.
Reevaluating and adjusting yourself to fit how things really are instead of how you think they are is difficult.
It would be telling to see what percent of people will put a belief over evidence.
I'd bet that a lot more would rather hang on to their belief and think themselves some sort of intellectual martyr that go through the effort of empirically evaluating their beliefs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271334</id>
	<title>Broken logic</title>
	<author>evanh</author>
	<datestamp>1267109040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with that particular subject matter - Global Warming - is that people have already been convinced through a smear campaign that the facts were politically motivated.  Result is blinkered, heavy filtering of all input relating to global warming simply because they think it's all lies.  Not because of any standing beliefs or "cultural identities".</p><p>And part of that smear campaign has now convinced them that science in general is a political entity and should be treated as if it's just one little pesky politician that needs banished for good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with that particular subject matter - Global Warming - is that people have already been convinced through a smear campaign that the facts were politically motivated .
Result is blinkered , heavy filtering of all input relating to global warming simply because they think it 's all lies .
Not because of any standing beliefs or " cultural identities " .And part of that smear campaign has now convinced them that science in general is a political entity and should be treated as if it 's just one little pesky politician that needs banished for good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with that particular subject matter - Global Warming - is that people have already been convinced through a smear campaign that the facts were politically motivated.
Result is blinkered, heavy filtering of all input relating to global warming simply because they think it's all lies.
Not because of any standing beliefs or "cultural identities".And part of that smear campaign has now convinced them that science in general is a political entity and should be treated as if it's just one little pesky politician that needs banished for good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268926</id>
	<title>The Slashbot: Individualist or Communitarian?</title>
	<author>Cruxus</author>
	<datestamp>1265136360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see:</p><ul> <li> <b>Communitarian:</b> Suspicious of authority, particularly the government's and certain corporations in particular (e.g., Microsoft).</li><li> <b>Individualist:</b> Detests regulation of industry and commerce, strongly believes in free markets and unrestricted private-property rights.</li><li> <b>Individualist:</b> Tends to strongly support gun rights.</li><li> <b>Individualist:</b> Skeptical of the science behind global-warming studies.</li><li> <b>Individualist:</b> Enthusiastic about technology.</li><li> <b>Communitarian:</b> Tends to actively support or be sympathetic towards free software.</li><li> <b>Individualist:</b> Xenophobic and distrustful of immigrants (H1Bs).</li><li> <b>Individualist:</b> Anti-intellectual (outside the realms of technology and the physical sciences) bent.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see : Communitarian : Suspicious of authority , particularly the government 's and certain corporations in particular ( e.g. , Microsoft ) .
Individualist : Detests regulation of industry and commerce , strongly believes in free markets and unrestricted private-property rights .
Individualist : Tends to strongly support gun rights .
Individualist : Skeptical of the science behind global-warming studies .
Individualist : Enthusiastic about technology .
Communitarian : Tends to actively support or be sympathetic towards free software .
Individualist : Xenophobic and distrustful of immigrants ( H1Bs ) .
Individualist : Anti-intellectual ( outside the realms of technology and the physical sciences ) bent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see:  Communitarian: Suspicious of authority, particularly the government's and certain corporations in particular (e.g., Microsoft).
Individualist: Detests regulation of industry and commerce, strongly believes in free markets and unrestricted private-property rights.
Individualist: Tends to strongly support gun rights.
Individualist: Skeptical of the science behind global-warming studies.
Individualist: Enthusiastic about technology.
Communitarian: Tends to actively support or be sympathetic towards free software.
Individualist: Xenophobic and distrustful of immigrants (H1Bs).
Individualist: Anti-intellectual (outside the realms of technology and the physical sciences) bent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31276458</id>
	<title>Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267130580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how many folk read these questions and thought to themselves that one answer was better than another answer. For instance,<p><div class="quote"><p>Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?</p></div><p>
Can be effectively answered with a, "Yes, No, or Sometimes," (and probably a few more word-mincing in-between washy answers). I wonder how many folk thought, "Yes! and I am glad I am not one of those people that would answer no." Versus how many people thought, "No! and I am glad I am not one of those people that answered yes."
<br> <br>
I wonder, also, if you have any thoughts on whether one answers is, "better," than any other, for any particular question Fantastic Lad. It's always interesting to me read these types of threads and questions on slashdot because many folk here manage to abstract things at a higher level than the immediate quality judgments that are spun out reactionarily (I made a new word!) by various other communities. Furthermore, there is, at least to some extent, some value in the Slashdot culture that gets placed on thinking or responding in a way that is significantly different than other responses (Will this response fulfill that criterion? Who knows!). That said, I always find the, 'deep philosophical and/or introspective questions and responses addictive and intriguing on here. I also love the stubborn ol' fuckers that come out with the harsh realism. "Back in my day asking those kind of questions made you a commie! The only reason the truth would make you uncomfortable is if you're gay! Now get off my lawn I have some fortran to go debug!" (Such lovely passion and endless amusement).
<br> <br>
Yet all ramblings aside, I wonder how many people associated any of these questions with quality adjectives like better or worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many folk read these questions and thought to themselves that one answer was better than another answer .
For instance,Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths ?
Can be effectively answered with a , " Yes , No , or Sometimes , " ( and probably a few more word-mincing in-between washy answers ) .
I wonder how many folk thought , " Yes !
and I am glad I am not one of those people that would answer no .
" Versus how many people thought , " No !
and I am glad I am not one of those people that answered yes .
" I wonder , also , if you have any thoughts on whether one answers is , " better , " than any other , for any particular question Fantastic Lad .
It 's always interesting to me read these types of threads and questions on slashdot because many folk here manage to abstract things at a higher level than the immediate quality judgments that are spun out reactionarily ( I made a new word !
) by various other communities .
Furthermore , there is , at least to some extent , some value in the Slashdot culture that gets placed on thinking or responding in a way that is significantly different than other responses ( Will this response fulfill that criterion ?
Who knows ! ) .
That said , I always find the , 'deep philosophical and/or introspective questions and responses addictive and intriguing on here .
I also love the stubborn ol ' fuckers that come out with the harsh realism .
" Back in my day asking those kind of questions made you a commie !
The only reason the truth would make you uncomfortable is if you 're gay !
Now get off my lawn I have some fortran to go debug !
" ( Such lovely passion and endless amusement ) .
Yet all ramblings aside , I wonder how many people associated any of these questions with quality adjectives like better or worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many folk read these questions and thought to themselves that one answer was better than another answer.
For instance,Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?
Can be effectively answered with a, "Yes, No, or Sometimes," (and probably a few more word-mincing in-between washy answers).
I wonder how many folk thought, "Yes!
and I am glad I am not one of those people that would answer no.
" Versus how many people thought, "No!
and I am glad I am not one of those people that answered yes.
"
 
I wonder, also, if you have any thoughts on whether one answers is, "better," than any other, for any particular question Fantastic Lad.
It's always interesting to me read these types of threads and questions on slashdot because many folk here manage to abstract things at a higher level than the immediate quality judgments that are spun out reactionarily (I made a new word!
) by various other communities.
Furthermore, there is, at least to some extent, some value in the Slashdot culture that gets placed on thinking or responding in a way that is significantly different than other responses (Will this response fulfill that criterion?
Who knows!).
That said, I always find the, 'deep philosophical and/or introspective questions and responses addictive and intriguing on here.
I also love the stubborn ol' fuckers that come out with the harsh realism.
"Back in my day asking those kind of questions made you a commie!
The only reason the truth would make you uncomfortable is if you're gay!
Now get off my lawn I have some fortran to go debug!
" (Such lovely passion and endless amusement).
Yet all ramblings aside, I wonder how many people associated any of these questions with quality adjectives like better or worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268764</id>
	<title>Re:The Irony</title>
	<author>DevStar</author>
	<datestamp>1265134500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that's an orthogonal question, although not an uninteresting one.  Although its fundamentally the same thing that Republicans say about elite universities, which is why they tend to discount theories that come out of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc as being liberal.

I do think the study is more interesting than people give it credit for though.  I do think there is this belief in (liberal?) society that with increased education a lot of ideological "problems" disappear.  I think this study does push us further down the track that education may not be all that helpful.  And coupled with what we spoke of above -- self selection for getting education, our current system may simply exacerbate the perceived gap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's an orthogonal question , although not an uninteresting one .
Although its fundamentally the same thing that Republicans say about elite universities , which is why they tend to discount theories that come out of Harvard , Yale , Stanford , MIT , etc as being liberal .
I do think the study is more interesting than people give it credit for though .
I do think there is this belief in ( liberal ?
) society that with increased education a lot of ideological " problems " disappear .
I think this study does push us further down the track that education may not be all that helpful .
And coupled with what we spoke of above -- self selection for getting education , our current system may simply exacerbate the perceived gap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's an orthogonal question, although not an uninteresting one.
Although its fundamentally the same thing that Republicans say about elite universities, which is why they tend to discount theories that come out of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc as being liberal.
I do think the study is more interesting than people give it credit for though.
I do think there is this belief in (liberal?
) society that with increased education a lot of ideological "problems" disappear.
I think this study does push us further down the track that education may not be all that helpful.
And coupled with what we spoke of above -- self selection for getting education, our current system may simply exacerbate the perceived gap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273438</id>
	<title>Wow! Newsflash!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1267120020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm the only person left that I know willing to say "You know, I'm not sure" on a complicated issue. Everyone thinks they *have* to have a definite conclusion on every topic in the universe.</p><p>I also very rarely hear anyone else say "it depends" because not only do lots of folks think they need that definite conclusion, but that conclusion is invariable and must (MUST!) be applied to the letter in every possible set of circumstances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the only person left that I know willing to say " You know , I 'm not sure " on a complicated issue .
Everyone thinks they * have * to have a definite conclusion on every topic in the universe.I also very rarely hear anyone else say " it depends " because not only do lots of folks think they need that definite conclusion , but that conclusion is invariable and must ( MUST !
) be applied to the letter in every possible set of circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the only person left that I know willing to say "You know, I'm not sure" on a complicated issue.
Everyone thinks they *have* to have a definite conclusion on every topic in the universe.I also very rarely hear anyone else say "it depends" because not only do lots of folks think they need that definite conclusion, but that conclusion is invariable and must (MUST!
) be applied to the letter in every possible set of circumstances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270836</id>
	<title>Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .</title>
	<author>MadKeithV</author>
	<datestamp>1267104900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?</p></div><p>I thought I was wrong once, but it turns out I was mistaken.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant , foundational piece of data in your life ? I thought I was wrong once , but it turns out I was mistaken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?I thought I was wrong once, but it turns out I was mistaken.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268916</id>
	<title>We already knew why....</title>
	<author>Auckerman</author>
	<datestamp>1265136300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I was that guy in college who double majored in unrelated subjects.  Chemistry and Religion.  Then went on to a handful of jobs in unrelated fields.  I get bored easily and put a lot of thought into some esoteric things that no one cares about.</p><p>As you look very closely at how belief functions in society, it becomes extremely obvious that belief in and of itself is not rational.  It's a functional experience.  This is true for all people, even scientists (reason is accepted because it's useful way of achieving a goal)  Is a set of norms and beliefs useful for the person whom is called to believe?  If answer is no, then they won't accept the belief structure or they will chose to be willfully ignorant of the subject.  If answer is yes, they will accept it without question in so far as narrative can be used to explain any "apparent contradictions" between the belief and reality.  The core idea of something being actually true is completely and 100\% irrelevant to the evaluation.</p><p>As a side note, it appears the experiment cited in the article is useless for describing the problem.  You describe nano tech to some people, then it's uses.  They reject the tech, if they don't like the uses.  Doesn't mean they don't BELIEVE the tech is possible, they just don't like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I was that guy in college who double majored in unrelated subjects .
Chemistry and Religion .
Then went on to a handful of jobs in unrelated fields .
I get bored easily and put a lot of thought into some esoteric things that no one cares about.As you look very closely at how belief functions in society , it becomes extremely obvious that belief in and of itself is not rational .
It 's a functional experience .
This is true for all people , even scientists ( reason is accepted because it 's useful way of achieving a goal ) Is a set of norms and beliefs useful for the person whom is called to believe ?
If answer is no , then they wo n't accept the belief structure or they will chose to be willfully ignorant of the subject .
If answer is yes , they will accept it without question in so far as narrative can be used to explain any " apparent contradictions " between the belief and reality .
The core idea of something being actually true is completely and 100 \ % irrelevant to the evaluation.As a side note , it appears the experiment cited in the article is useless for describing the problem .
You describe nano tech to some people , then it 's uses .
They reject the tech , if they do n't like the uses .
Does n't mean they do n't BELIEVE the tech is possible , they just do n't like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I was that guy in college who double majored in unrelated subjects.
Chemistry and Religion.
Then went on to a handful of jobs in unrelated fields.
I get bored easily and put a lot of thought into some esoteric things that no one cares about.As you look very closely at how belief functions in society, it becomes extremely obvious that belief in and of itself is not rational.
It's a functional experience.
This is true for all people, even scientists (reason is accepted because it's useful way of achieving a goal)  Is a set of norms and beliefs useful for the person whom is called to believe?
If answer is no, then they won't accept the belief structure or they will chose to be willfully ignorant of the subject.
If answer is yes, they will accept it without question in so far as narrative can be used to explain any "apparent contradictions" between the belief and reality.
The core idea of something being actually true is completely and 100\% irrelevant to the evaluation.As a side note, it appears the experiment cited in the article is useless for describing the problem.
You describe nano tech to some people, then it's uses.
They reject the tech, if they don't like the uses.
Doesn't mean they don't BELIEVE the tech is possible, they just don't like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31278586</id>
	<title>Other types of bias and logical fallacy</title>
	<author>whyde</author>
	<datestamp>1267096140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bandwagon effect: n. The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same.  Related to Groupthink.</p><p>Bias blind spot: n. The tendency not to compensate for one's own cognitive biases.</p><p>Choice-supportive bias: n. The tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.</p><p>Confirmation bias: n. The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.</p><p>Congruence bias: n. The tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing.</p><p>Contrast effect: n. The enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object.</p><p>Disconfirmation bias: n. The tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior beliefs.</p><p>Endowment effect: n. The tendency for people to value something more as soon as they own it.</p><p>Focusing effect: n. Prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.</p><p>Hyperbolic discounting: n. The tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, the closer to the present both payoffs are.</p><p>Illusion of control: n. The tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly cannot.</p><p>Impact bias: n. The tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.</p><p>Information bias: n. The tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.</p><p>Loss aversion: n. The tendency for people to strongly prefer avoiding losses over acquiring gains.</p><p>Neglect of Probability: n. The tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.</p><p>Mere exposure effect: n. The tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.</p><p>Color psychology: n. The tendency for cultural symbolism of certain colors to affect affective reasoning.</p><p>Omission Bias: n. The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions (inactions).</p><p>Outcome Bias: n. The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.</p><p>Planning fallacy: n. The tendency to underestimate task-completion times.</p><p>Post-purchase rationalization: n. The tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was good value.</p><p>Pseudocertainty effect: n. The tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.</p><p>Rosy retrospection: n. The tendency to rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred.</p><p>Selective perception: n. The tendency for expectations to affect perception.</p><p>Status quo bias: n. The tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same.</p><p>Von Restorff effect: n. The tendency for an item that "stands out like a sore thumb" to be more likely to be remembered than other items.</p><p>Zeigarnik effect: n. The tendency for people to remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones.</p><p>Zero-risk bias: n. Preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.</p><p>Ambiguity effect: n. The avoidance of options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown".</p><p>Anchoring: n. The tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.</p><p>Anthropic bias: n. The tendency for one's evidence to be biased by observation selection effects.</p><p>Attentional bias: n. Neglect of relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.</p><p>Availability error: n. The distortion of on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bandwagon effect : n. The tendency to do ( or believe ) things because many other people do ( or believe ) the same .
Related to Groupthink.Bias blind spot : n. The tendency not to compensate for one 's own cognitive biases.Choice-supportive bias : n. The tendency to remember one 's choices as better than they actually were.Confirmation bias : n. The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one 's preconceptions.Congruence bias : n. The tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing.Contrast effect : n. The enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object.Disconfirmation bias : n. The tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior beliefs.Endowment effect : n. The tendency for people to value something more as soon as they own it.Focusing effect : n. Prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event ; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.Hyperbolic discounting : n. The tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs , the closer to the present both payoffs are.Illusion of control : n. The tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly can not.Impact bias : n. The tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.Information bias : n. The tendency to seek information even when it can not affect action.Loss aversion : n. The tendency for people to strongly prefer avoiding losses over acquiring gains.Neglect of Probability : n. The tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.Mere exposure effect : n. The tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.Color psychology : n. The tendency for cultural symbolism of certain colors to affect affective reasoning.Omission Bias : n. The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse , or less moral than equally harmful omissions ( inactions ) .Outcome Bias : n. The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.Planning fallacy : n. The tendency to underestimate task-completion times.Post-purchase rationalization : n. The tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was good value.Pseudocertainty effect : n. The tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive , but risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.Rosy retrospection : n. The tendency to rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred.Selective perception : n. The tendency for expectations to affect perception.Status quo bias : n. The tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same.Von Restorff effect : n. The tendency for an item that " stands out like a sore thumb " to be more likely to be remembered than other items.Zeigarnik effect : n. The tendency for people to remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones.Zero-risk bias : n. Preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.Ambiguity effect : n. The avoidance of options for which missing information makes the probability seem " unknown " .Anchoring : n. The tendency to rely too heavily , or " anchor , " on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.Anthropic bias : n. The tendency for one 's evidence to be biased by observation selection effects.Attentional bias : n. Neglect of relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.Availability error : n. The distortion of on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bandwagon effect: n. The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same.
Related to Groupthink.Bias blind spot: n. The tendency not to compensate for one's own cognitive biases.Choice-supportive bias: n. The tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.Confirmation bias: n. The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.Congruence bias: n. The tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing.Contrast effect: n. The enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object.Disconfirmation bias: n. The tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior beliefs.Endowment effect: n. The tendency for people to value something more as soon as they own it.Focusing effect: n. Prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.Hyperbolic discounting: n. The tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, the closer to the present both payoffs are.Illusion of control: n. The tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes which they clearly cannot.Impact bias: n. The tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.Information bias: n. The tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.Loss aversion: n. The tendency for people to strongly prefer avoiding losses over acquiring gains.Neglect of Probability: n. The tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.Mere exposure effect: n. The tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.Color psychology: n. The tendency for cultural symbolism of certain colors to affect affective reasoning.Omission Bias: n. The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions (inactions).Outcome Bias: n. The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.Planning fallacy: n. The tendency to underestimate task-completion times.Post-purchase rationalization: n. The tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was good value.Pseudocertainty effect: n. The tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.Rosy retrospection: n. The tendency to rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred.Selective perception: n. The tendency for expectations to affect perception.Status quo bias: n. The tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same.Von Restorff effect: n. The tendency for an item that "stands out like a sore thumb" to be more likely to be remembered than other items.Zeigarnik effect: n. The tendency for people to remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones.Zero-risk bias: n. Preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.Ambiguity effect: n. The avoidance of options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown".Anchoring: n. The tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.Anthropic bias: n. The tendency for one's evidence to be biased by observation selection effects.Attentional bias: n. Neglect of relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.Availability error: n. The distortion of on</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273224</id>
	<title>Air Conditioning Techs and the Ozone Layer</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1267119360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the late eighties, I was required to get an EPA certification that allowed me to work on refrigeration and air conditioning. The course and EPA test centered on the effects that refrigerants were having on the ozone layer and techniques to mitigate the problem. Out of a class of twenty or so, I was the only person taking the course who actually believed that CFC's might be having a real environmental impact. Everyone else there believed that CFC's destroying the ozone layer was a hoax masterminded by DuPont because their patents on old refrigerants had lapsed. AC techs typically follow procedures to capture old refrigerants and re-use them, thus reducing their release into the atmosphere. But they don't do this because they actually believe there's a real environmental problem. Most of them just do it because the price of new refrigerants was too high to waste them. So to apply this to today's concern over greenhouse gases, if you want the Dale Dribbles of the world to reduce their use of fossil fuels, you're going to have to raise the price of those fuels. You're not going to convince them that the science is anything other than a conspiracy theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the late eighties , I was required to get an EPA certification that allowed me to work on refrigeration and air conditioning .
The course and EPA test centered on the effects that refrigerants were having on the ozone layer and techniques to mitigate the problem .
Out of a class of twenty or so , I was the only person taking the course who actually believed that CFC 's might be having a real environmental impact .
Everyone else there believed that CFC 's destroying the ozone layer was a hoax masterminded by DuPont because their patents on old refrigerants had lapsed .
AC techs typically follow procedures to capture old refrigerants and re-use them , thus reducing their release into the atmosphere .
But they do n't do this because they actually believe there 's a real environmental problem .
Most of them just do it because the price of new refrigerants was too high to waste them .
So to apply this to today 's concern over greenhouse gases , if you want the Dale Dribbles of the world to reduce their use of fossil fuels , you 're going to have to raise the price of those fuels .
You 're not going to convince them that the science is anything other than a conspiracy theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the late eighties, I was required to get an EPA certification that allowed me to work on refrigeration and air conditioning.
The course and EPA test centered on the effects that refrigerants were having on the ozone layer and techniques to mitigate the problem.
Out of a class of twenty or so, I was the only person taking the course who actually believed that CFC's might be having a real environmental impact.
Everyone else there believed that CFC's destroying the ozone layer was a hoax masterminded by DuPont because their patents on old refrigerants had lapsed.
AC techs typically follow procedures to capture old refrigerants and re-use them, thus reducing their release into the atmosphere.
But they don't do this because they actually believe there's a real environmental problem.
Most of them just do it because the price of new refrigerants was too high to waste them.
So to apply this to today's concern over greenhouse gases, if you want the Dale Dribbles of the world to reduce their use of fossil fuels, you're going to have to raise the price of those fuels.
You're not going to convince them that the science is anything other than a conspiracy theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31276170</id>
	<title>Veeery old news.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267129560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought a lot about these things (like &ldquo;truth&rdquo; and beliefs), and here is what I came up with:</p><p>

&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;

</p><ul>
<li>You can not prove that anything, except for yourself, exists. It can only be deduced.</li><li>There is no absolute knowledge (aka facts / truth). Knowledge is relative to the the ingoing information that it&rsquo;s based on.</li><li>There is no &ldquo;neutral&ldquo; information. Information is defined trough being a difference from the neutral default, and then it&rsquo;s modulated by all the sources that it passed trough.</li><li>Every source has an associated trustworthiness factor for every point in time, that is calculated out of the consistency {{of the past experiences and the new experiences} from that source} with all the other knowledge. (I&rsquo;m unsure about the weighting though.) [= Network of trust]</li><li>There is always another source behind any source. [Causality]<ul>
  <li>That is why there is no &ldquo;guilt&rdquo; of a source.</li><li>The primordial original source is unascertainable. [What caused the big bang? &ldquo;God&rdquo; as a trick to protect the mind from getting stuck over this.]</li></ul></li></ul><p>

&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;

</p><ul>
<li>Every input (=information) changes us. (Physically mandatory.)</li><li>And we act (=react) solely on the basis of our state at a point in time.</li><li>Our state is defined by the <a href="http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Fold" title="haskell.org">folding</a> [haskell.org] (<a href="http://www.haskell.org/sitewiki/images/5/5a/Left-fold-transformation.png" title="haskell.org">foldl</a> [haskell.org] over t) of all earlier inputs.</li><li>Folding" in the sense of<ul>
  <li>the self-modulating superpositions of the learning effect of the neural network, in particular</li><li>and fundamentally of all changes of us (as matter) caused by that input, in general.</li></ul></li><li>Put simply: So the question is, what it makes out of you, and what you then make out of it. [=Causality]</li><li>Our mental existence is thus defined by a sequence of transformation of our inputs.</li></ul><p>

&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;

</p><p>We are only</p><ul>
  <li>expanding bio-mass ((self-)organizing matter/energy)</li><li>expanding ideas (in the sense of the input transformation)</li></ul><p>
fighting for available resources</p><ul>
  <li>Bio-mass: space-time, matter/energy,</li><li>Ideas: space-time, mental energy.</li></ul><p>

&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;

</p><p>I&rsquo;m obviously open for corrections. But beware that I blew my own mind, multiple times, while in the progress of understanding it. So your quick shot will most likely turn out to be only valid until you think a bit more about it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought a lot about these things ( like    truth    and beliefs ) , and here is what I came up with :                                                             You can not prove that anything , except for yourself , exists .
It can only be deduced.There is no absolute knowledge ( aka facts / truth ) .
Knowledge is relative to the the ingoing information that it    s based on.There is no    neutral    information .
Information is defined trough being a difference from the neutral default , and then it    s modulated by all the sources that it passed trough.Every source has an associated trustworthiness factor for every point in time , that is calculated out of the consistency { { of the past experiences and the new experiences } from that source } with all the other knowledge .
( I    m unsure about the weighting though .
) [ = Network of trust ] There is always another source behind any source .
[ Causality ] That is why there is no    guilt    of a source.The primordial original source is unascertainable .
[ What caused the big bang ?
   God    as a trick to protect the mind from getting stuck over this .
]                                                             Every input ( = information ) changes us .
( Physically mandatory .
) And we act ( = react ) solely on the basis of our state at a point in time.Our state is defined by the folding [ haskell.org ] ( foldl [ haskell.org ] over t ) of all earlier inputs.Folding " in the sense of the self-modulating superpositions of the learning effect of the neural network , in particularand fundamentally of all changes of us ( as matter ) caused by that input , in general.Put simply : So the question is , what it makes out of you , and what you then make out of it .
[ = Causality ] Our mental existence is thus defined by a sequence of transformation of our inputs .
                                                            We are only expanding bio-mass ( ( self- ) organizing matter/energy ) expanding ideas ( in the sense of the input transformation ) fighting for available resources Bio-mass : space-time , matter/energy,Ideas : space-time , mental energy .
                                                            I    m obviously open for corrections .
But beware that I blew my own mind , multiple times , while in the progress of understanding it .
So your quick shot will most likely turn out to be only valid until you think a bit more about it .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought a lot about these things (like “truth” and beliefs), and here is what I came up with:

————————————————————


You can not prove that anything, except for yourself, exists.
It can only be deduced.There is no absolute knowledge (aka facts / truth).
Knowledge is relative to the the ingoing information that it’s based on.There is no “neutral“ information.
Information is defined trough being a difference from the neutral default, and then it’s modulated by all the sources that it passed trough.Every source has an associated trustworthiness factor for every point in time, that is calculated out of the consistency {{of the past experiences and the new experiences} from that source} with all the other knowledge.
(I’m unsure about the weighting though.
) [= Network of trust]There is always another source behind any source.
[Causality]
  That is why there is no “guilt” of a source.The primordial original source is unascertainable.
[What caused the big bang?
“God” as a trick to protect the mind from getting stuck over this.
]

————————————————————


Every input (=information) changes us.
(Physically mandatory.
)And we act (=react) solely on the basis of our state at a point in time.Our state is defined by the folding [haskell.org] (foldl [haskell.org] over t) of all earlier inputs.Folding" in the sense of
  the self-modulating superpositions of the learning effect of the neural network, in particularand fundamentally of all changes of us (as matter) caused by that input, in general.Put simply: So the question is, what it makes out of you, and what you then make out of it.
[=Causality]Our mental existence is thus defined by a sequence of transformation of our inputs.
————————————————————

We are only
  expanding bio-mass ((self-)organizing matter/energy)expanding ideas (in the sense of the input transformation)
fighting for available resources
  Bio-mass: space-time, matter/energy,Ideas: space-time, mental energy.
————————————————————

I’m obviously open for corrections.
But beware that I blew my own mind, multiple times, while in the progress of understanding it.
So your quick shot will most likely turn out to be only valid until you think a bit more about it.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269986</id>
	<title>Re:The Irony</title>
	<author>zsau</author>
	<datestamp>1267094400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You will find that this particular piece of research is part of a larger body of research, which does address precisely your concern. The fact that it isn't explicitly mentioned (I haven't RTFMed) is because it gets boring (not to mention space-consuming) to say/read exactly the same points in every piece of research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will find that this particular piece of research is part of a larger body of research , which does address precisely your concern .
The fact that it is n't explicitly mentioned ( I have n't RTFMed ) is because it gets boring ( not to mention space-consuming ) to say/read exactly the same points in every piece of research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will find that this particular piece of research is part of a larger body of research, which does address precisely your concern.
The fact that it isn't explicitly mentioned (I haven't RTFMed) is because it gets boring (not to mention space-consuming) to say/read exactly the same points in every piece of research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271688</id>
	<title>duh</title>
	<author>McGiraf</author>
	<datestamp>1267111020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief "</p><p>pff. you do not need to tell me, i already knew that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" people do n't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief " pff .
you do not need to tell me , i already knew that ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief "pff.
you do not need to tell me, i already knew that ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31272896</id>
	<title>Experiment doesn't show what is claimed</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1267117740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work. From the article: 'In one experiment, Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology -- new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products. "These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says. The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous.</p></div></blockquote><p>That doesn't support the idea that people "don't put as much weight on facts as they do on their own belief about how the world is supposed to work", it instead suggests the much less interesting conclusion that what people subjectively <i>like</i> (rather than what they believe to be true in fact) is based not on facts alone but also on their personal priorities. This, of course, is true by definition, since you can't get to a conclusion about "X is good" without a premise of the same form.</p><p>What's odd is that the experiment that actually shows something closer to what is claimed -- conducted by the same group -- by showing that the perception of the existence of scientific consensus on various current issues, as well as the credence given by individuals to claims from particular scientists, is predicted vary strongly by where the subject stands on the "heirarchical individualist" vs. "egalitarian communitarian" scale isn't referenced here instead of this one, which shows nothing like what is claimed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people do n't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work .
From the article : 'In one experiment , Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them : nanotechnology -- new research into tiny , molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products .
" These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms , " Braman says .
The individualists tended to like nanotechnology .
The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous.That does n't support the idea that people " do n't put as much weight on facts as they do on their own belief about how the world is supposed to work " , it instead suggests the much less interesting conclusion that what people subjectively like ( rather than what they believe to be true in fact ) is based not on facts alone but also on their personal priorities .
This , of course , is true by definition , since you ca n't get to a conclusion about " X is good " without a premise of the same form.What 's odd is that the experiment that actually shows something closer to what is claimed -- conducted by the same group -- by showing that the perception of the existence of scientific consensus on various current issues , as well as the credence given by individuals to claims from particular scientists , is predicted vary strongly by where the subject stands on the " heirarchical individualist " vs. " egalitarian communitarian " scale is n't referenced here instead of this one , which shows nothing like what is claimed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.
From the article: 'In one experiment, Braman queried subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology -- new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products.
"These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says.
The individualists tended to like nanotechnology.
The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous.That doesn't support the idea that people "don't put as much weight on facts as they do on their own belief about how the world is supposed to work", it instead suggests the much less interesting conclusion that what people subjectively like (rather than what they believe to be true in fact) is based not on facts alone but also on their personal priorities.
This, of course, is true by definition, since you can't get to a conclusion about "X is good" without a premise of the same form.What's odd is that the experiment that actually shows something closer to what is claimed -- conducted by the same group -- by showing that the perception of the existence of scientific consensus on various current issues, as well as the credence given by individuals to claims from particular scientists, is predicted vary strongly by where the subject stands on the "heirarchical individualist" vs. "egalitarian communitarian" scale isn't referenced here instead of this one, which shows nothing like what is claimed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</id>
	<title>Mechanical Thinking. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?</p><p>I'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.</p><p>I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.</p><p>Now, if you have experienced that, ask yourself the following. . .</p><p>Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?</p><p>Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?</p><p>Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?</p><p>Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?</p><p>Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?</p><p>Just asking.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant , foundational piece of data in your life ? I 'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.I 'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review , realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.Now , if you have experienced that , ask yourself the following .
. .Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity , reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit ? Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily ? Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded ? Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths ? Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions ? Just asking.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?I'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.Now, if you have experienced that, ask yourself the following.
. .Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?Just asking.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268606</id>
	<title>More to the point...</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1265132820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA, one of the group is <b>defined</b> by:<i>"Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the 'individualistic' group."</i></p><p>Shock horror, the people who embrace new technology were more likely to embrace a new piece of technology...</p><p>This is almost a zero-information experiment.  The definitions classified the results that were then analysed against the classifications.   In other news, when we classified coin tosses into a "heads" group and a "tails" group, we found that the "heads" group contained 100\% heads results, no matter how many times the coin was tossed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.</p><p>The participants were not presented with "facts", they were presented with "claimed facts" which they had to both interpret and assess.  (A process called "reading" and "understanding".)  That the participants were able ahead-of-time to describe the foibles of their assessment strategies (that one group was able to say it was more amenable to new technology) merely shows that the participants were pretty good at reflecting on their own decision strategies.</p><p>Next...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA , one of the group is defined by : " Some embrace new technology , authority and free enterprise .
They are labeled the 'individualistic ' group .
" Shock horror , the people who embrace new technology were more likely to embrace a new piece of technology...This is almost a zero-information experiment .
The definitions classified the results that were then analysed against the classifications .
In other news , when we classified coin tosses into a " heads " group and a " tails " group , we found that the " heads " group contained 100 \ % heads results , no matter how many times the coin was tossed ... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.The participants were not presented with " facts " , they were presented with " claimed facts " which they had to both interpret and assess .
( A process called " reading " and " understanding " .
) That the participants were able ahead-of-time to describe the foibles of their assessment strategies ( that one group was able to say it was more amenable to new technology ) merely shows that the participants were pretty good at reflecting on their own decision strategies.Next.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA, one of the group is defined by:"Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise.
They are labeled the 'individualistic' group.
"Shock horror, the people who embrace new technology were more likely to embrace a new piece of technology...This is almost a zero-information experiment.
The definitions classified the results that were then analysed against the classifications.
In other news, when we classified coin tosses into a "heads" group and a "tails" group, we found that the "heads" group contained 100\% heads results, no matter how many times the coin was tossed ... we conclude therefore that randomness is an illusion.The participants were not presented with "facts", they were presented with "claimed facts" which they had to both interpret and assess.
(A process called "reading" and "understanding".
)  That the participants were able ahead-of-time to describe the foibles of their assessment strategies (that one group was able to say it was more amenable to new technology) merely shows that the participants were pretty good at reflecting on their own decision strategies.Next...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273012</id>
	<title>Yeeesh.</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1267118280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I clicked a lot of links looking for sufficient detail to back the article's claims, but didn't find it.  Based on the information I was able to find, I'd say this:</p><p>1) There is nothing new in the observation that people tend to favor information that confirms their already-established world view.  In decades past terms like "cognitive dissonance" were used to talk about this.</p><p>2) That said, it's very hard to take two people with different value systems and distinguish whether they're "rejecting" different subsets of those facts as TFA suggests, or applying different values to those facts and therefore reaching different conclusions at a summary level.  A person who oppostes embryonic stem cell reserach isn't necessarily "rejecting" information about how many lives could be saved or how much suffering could be stopped; they are, however, valuing those things less than the moral harm they ascribe to destruction of an embryo.  A supporter of such research, meanwhile, isn't necessarily rejecting the premise that embryos get destroyed; but rather puts less value on that loss than on the potential gains.</p><p>The people I know who are most prone to outright reject a fact are those who cannot confidently stand by a solid core value system.  That makes it very hard to say "I see that there are negatives to the solution I favor, but they are outweighed by the positives"; or to sacrifice convenience if it turns out that the pros and cons really do balance out to favor an inconvenient solution.</p><p>3) It's also nothing new that people put more trust in others who they perceive as similar to themselves.  Again, this has been observed for decades (often when takling about ethnic bias).</p><p>4) The article fails to provide a useful conclusion.  It talks about approaches they think won't work for getting people to think open-mindedly, but it doesn't offer any advice on what <i>will</i> work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I clicked a lot of links looking for sufficient detail to back the article 's claims , but did n't find it .
Based on the information I was able to find , I 'd say this : 1 ) There is nothing new in the observation that people tend to favor information that confirms their already-established world view .
In decades past terms like " cognitive dissonance " were used to talk about this.2 ) That said , it 's very hard to take two people with different value systems and distinguish whether they 're " rejecting " different subsets of those facts as TFA suggests , or applying different values to those facts and therefore reaching different conclusions at a summary level .
A person who oppostes embryonic stem cell reserach is n't necessarily " rejecting " information about how many lives could be saved or how much suffering could be stopped ; they are , however , valuing those things less than the moral harm they ascribe to destruction of an embryo .
A supporter of such research , meanwhile , is n't necessarily rejecting the premise that embryos get destroyed ; but rather puts less value on that loss than on the potential gains.The people I know who are most prone to outright reject a fact are those who can not confidently stand by a solid core value system .
That makes it very hard to say " I see that there are negatives to the solution I favor , but they are outweighed by the positives " ; or to sacrifice convenience if it turns out that the pros and cons really do balance out to favor an inconvenient solution.3 ) It 's also nothing new that people put more trust in others who they perceive as similar to themselves .
Again , this has been observed for decades ( often when takling about ethnic bias ) .4 ) The article fails to provide a useful conclusion .
It talks about approaches they think wo n't work for getting people to think open-mindedly , but it does n't offer any advice on what will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I clicked a lot of links looking for sufficient detail to back the article's claims, but didn't find it.
Based on the information I was able to find, I'd say this:1) There is nothing new in the observation that people tend to favor information that confirms their already-established world view.
In decades past terms like "cognitive dissonance" were used to talk about this.2) That said, it's very hard to take two people with different value systems and distinguish whether they're "rejecting" different subsets of those facts as TFA suggests, or applying different values to those facts and therefore reaching different conclusions at a summary level.
A person who oppostes embryonic stem cell reserach isn't necessarily "rejecting" information about how many lives could be saved or how much suffering could be stopped; they are, however, valuing those things less than the moral harm they ascribe to destruction of an embryo.
A supporter of such research, meanwhile, isn't necessarily rejecting the premise that embryos get destroyed; but rather puts less value on that loss than on the potential gains.The people I know who are most prone to outright reject a fact are those who cannot confidently stand by a solid core value system.
That makes it very hard to say "I see that there are negatives to the solution I favor, but they are outweighed by the positives"; or to sacrifice convenience if it turns out that the pros and cons really do balance out to favor an inconvenient solution.3) It's also nothing new that people put more trust in others who they perceive as similar to themselves.
Again, this has been observed for decades (often when takling about ethnic bias).4) The article fails to provide a useful conclusion.
It talks about approaches they think won't work for getting people to think open-mindedly, but it doesn't offer any advice on what will work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268980</id>
	<title>Well duh!</title>
	<author>PingXao</author>
	<datestamp>1265136960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years ago I was taught there are 3 takes on reality: the way you see it, the way you want it to be, and the way it really is.  TFA seems to be covering absoulutely nothing new in the world.  That this comes as a surprise to anyone is the only newsworthy aspect of the story.  It's how humans operate for the most part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago I was taught there are 3 takes on reality : the way you see it , the way you want it to be , and the way it really is .
TFA seems to be covering absoulutely nothing new in the world .
That this comes as a surprise to anyone is the only newsworthy aspect of the story .
It 's how humans operate for the most part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago I was taught there are 3 takes on reality: the way you see it, the way you want it to be, and the way it really is.
TFA seems to be covering absoulutely nothing new in the world.
That this comes as a surprise to anyone is the only newsworthy aspect of the story.
It's how humans operate for the most part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268718</id>
	<title>Established Patterns</title>
	<author>sharkbiter</author>
	<datestamp>1265133900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'all will probably kill my karma for this, but: Established dogma is more acceptable than a new theory. Hear me out! If it were proven that "god is in the machine" (ex deus machina) to a group of individuals that don't believe in god but rather; a higher belief in an ultimate creator (one who creates and steps back allowing the course of events to fall as they may), then said group would obviously reject any belief, theory or proof that god is alive and well and influences their daily lives. Think about it. If I were to raise you to believe that god exists but not as a deciding factor but rather as an observer of his experiment, would you not reject out of hand any other individual that came along and insisted that the very same guiding hand that created you is determining which way you should/will live your life?</p><p>This is what I believe the author of this article is premising. Sorry to ramble. I hope you can see what I'm attempting to hypothesize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'all will probably kill my karma for this , but : Established dogma is more acceptable than a new theory .
Hear me out !
If it were proven that " god is in the machine " ( ex deus machina ) to a group of individuals that do n't believe in god but rather ; a higher belief in an ultimate creator ( one who creates and steps back allowing the course of events to fall as they may ) , then said group would obviously reject any belief , theory or proof that god is alive and well and influences their daily lives .
Think about it .
If I were to raise you to believe that god exists but not as a deciding factor but rather as an observer of his experiment , would you not reject out of hand any other individual that came along and insisted that the very same guiding hand that created you is determining which way you should/will live your life ? This is what I believe the author of this article is premising .
Sorry to ramble .
I hope you can see what I 'm attempting to hypothesize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'all will probably kill my karma for this, but: Established dogma is more acceptable than a new theory.
Hear me out!
If it were proven that "god is in the machine" (ex deus machina) to a group of individuals that don't believe in god but rather; a higher belief in an ultimate creator (one who creates and steps back allowing the course of events to fall as they may), then said group would obviously reject any belief, theory or proof that god is alive and well and influences their daily lives.
Think about it.
If I were to raise you to believe that god exists but not as a deciding factor but rather as an observer of his experiment, would you not reject out of hand any other individual that came along and insisted that the very same guiding hand that created you is determining which way you should/will live your life?This is what I believe the author of this article is premising.
Sorry to ramble.
I hope you can see what I'm attempting to hypothesize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269432</id>
	<title>In other words . . .</title>
	<author>avilliers</author>
	<datestamp>1267129680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translated: "In a laboratory setting, we demonstrated we couldn't magically persuade people of whatever we wanted about hot-button issues by selectively presenting facts."
</p><p>
Good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translated : " In a laboratory setting , we demonstrated we could n't magically persuade people of whatever we wanted about hot-button issues by selectively presenting facts .
" Good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translated: "In a laboratory setting, we demonstrated we couldn't magically persuade people of whatever we wanted about hot-button issues by selectively presenting facts.
"

Good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31276642</id>
	<title>Re:Wow! Newsflash!</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1267131300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  There is also with that mindset the implicit belief that a solution or answer exists for every problem or question.  And not only is it sadly out of fashion to say "I'm not sure," but any tentative answer such as "I'm currently leaning toward this line of thought" usually results in an immediate endorsement or attempt to poke holes in the theory.  There is very little open dialogue with the goal of deepening understanding; it's all us versus them all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
There is also with that mindset the implicit belief that a solution or answer exists for every problem or question .
And not only is it sadly out of fashion to say " I 'm not sure , " but any tentative answer such as " I 'm currently leaning toward this line of thought " usually results in an immediate endorsement or attempt to poke holes in the theory .
There is very little open dialogue with the goal of deepening understanding ; it 's all us versus them all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
There is also with that mindset the implicit belief that a solution or answer exists for every problem or question.
And not only is it sadly out of fashion to say "I'm not sure," but any tentative answer such as "I'm currently leaning toward this line of thought" usually results in an immediate endorsement or attempt to poke holes in the theory.
There is very little open dialogue with the goal of deepening understanding; it's all us versus them all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268924</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1265136360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Social psychologists say no shit, thanks for finally hearing about our field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Social psychologists say no shit , thanks for finally hearing about our field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Social psychologists say no shit, thanks for finally hearing about our field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271180</id>
	<title>Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267107960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually have done this. I have had a lot of beliefs challenged and changed by going to war. The problem with this though, is that it creates an existential issue, that in turn can turn your life upside down. For example, If for all your life you have been religious, but have had some occurrence change your mind, what do you believe now? Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you know what you should, but only that you no longer believe what you did before. So you can either be ignorant and dumb and stubborn, and never change your mind, or you can be a wishy washy type of person who changes their mind all the time, or in between, each having its ups and downs. There is no easy answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually have done this .
I have had a lot of beliefs challenged and changed by going to war .
The problem with this though , is that it creates an existential issue , that in turn can turn your life upside down .
For example , If for all your life you have been religious , but have had some occurrence change your mind , what do you believe now ?
Just because you do n't believe in something does n't mean you know what you should , but only that you no longer believe what you did before .
So you can either be ignorant and dumb and stubborn , and never change your mind , or you can be a wishy washy type of person who changes their mind all the time , or in between , each having its ups and downs .
There is no easy answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually have done this.
I have had a lot of beliefs challenged and changed by going to war.
The problem with this though, is that it creates an existential issue, that in turn can turn your life upside down.
For example, If for all your life you have been religious, but have had some occurrence change your mind, what do you believe now?
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you know what you should, but only that you no longer believe what you did before.
So you can either be ignorant and dumb and stubborn, and never change your mind, or you can be a wishy washy type of person who changes their mind all the time, or in between, each having its ups and downs.
There is no easy answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271870</id>
	<title>many-many years ago, Immanuel Kant said...</title>
	<author>dogganos</author>
	<datestamp>1267112100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that there is no external reality, in the sense that we cannot ever know it. The only things that we know are the ones perceived by our senses, which actually translate the 'reality' through the brain, normalizing it to something brain-processable and understandable. Id est, we know shit, we understand shit!</p><p>Of course, the Greek philosophers also said that, a couple of thousand years back...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that there is no external reality , in the sense that we can not ever know it .
The only things that we know are the ones perceived by our senses , which actually translate the 'reality ' through the brain , normalizing it to something brain-processable and understandable .
Id est , we know shit , we understand shit ! Of course , the Greek philosophers also said that , a couple of thousand years back.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that there is no external reality, in the sense that we cannot ever know it.
The only things that we know are the ones perceived by our senses, which actually translate the 'reality' through the brain, normalizing it to something brain-processable and understandable.
Id est, we know shit, we understand shit!Of course, the Greek philosophers also said that, a couple of thousand years back...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269080</id>
	<title>The Consequences of Social "Science"</title>
	<author>catchblue22</author>
	<datestamp>1265138280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A premise of the social sciences is that human social behavior can be studied from outside, as if the person observing the social behavior is not part of society, an impartial alien observer.  I think that there is an important consequence of thinking like a social scientist that is often overlooked.  I believe that this type of thinking, where one observes society from the outside encourages <em>passivity</em> in the observer.  Specifically, in the case of TFA, it is found that people filter their scientific views through a political spectrum, that they don't use logic, reason, and observation to form their opinions, that in fact many of the participants in the study are quite irrational.  A person who views society from the outside, through the lens of social science might shrug their shoulders and think "hmmm....that's interesting.  I guess people aren't as rational as we believe them to be.".  And if enough of us think this way, a sense of profound apathy and passivity about our civilization becomes widespread.  </p><p>I however have a problem with this passive outside view.  In my opinion, if the participants in the study were behaving irrationally when forming opinions, <em>then they should be ashamed of themselves!</em>.  Our civilization, our democracy depends on rational and logical decision making on the part of the public.  If too many of us abandon logic and reason, then our democracy will begin to make increasingly bad and irrational decisions.  If too many of us start to believe that there are no facts, only opinions, then democratic dialog between citizens will become increasingly difficult.  Instead of debating based on a common set of facts, we will "debate" by shouting opinions back and forth at each other, with little reason and logic.  </p><p>I do believe that the social sciences have their place, and that <em>some</em> useful insights can be gained from them.  But I also believe that the ascendancy of the social sciences to the top of our academic pyramid has had damaging consequences, which if left unchecked could result in societal decay, intellectually, socially, and economically.  We must remember that we are all part of this civilization, and that the willful ignorance of our fellow citizens can and will affect us.  Though we are all free to think and believe whatever we want, there are some beliefs and ways of thinking that are worthy of shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A premise of the social sciences is that human social behavior can be studied from outside , as if the person observing the social behavior is not part of society , an impartial alien observer .
I think that there is an important consequence of thinking like a social scientist that is often overlooked .
I believe that this type of thinking , where one observes society from the outside encourages passivity in the observer .
Specifically , in the case of TFA , it is found that people filter their scientific views through a political spectrum , that they do n't use logic , reason , and observation to form their opinions , that in fact many of the participants in the study are quite irrational .
A person who views society from the outside , through the lens of social science might shrug their shoulders and think " hmmm....that 's interesting .
I guess people are n't as rational as we believe them to be. " .
And if enough of us think this way , a sense of profound apathy and passivity about our civilization becomes widespread .
I however have a problem with this passive outside view .
In my opinion , if the participants in the study were behaving irrationally when forming opinions , then they should be ashamed of themselves ! .
Our civilization , our democracy depends on rational and logical decision making on the part of the public .
If too many of us abandon logic and reason , then our democracy will begin to make increasingly bad and irrational decisions .
If too many of us start to believe that there are no facts , only opinions , then democratic dialog between citizens will become increasingly difficult .
Instead of debating based on a common set of facts , we will " debate " by shouting opinions back and forth at each other , with little reason and logic .
I do believe that the social sciences have their place , and that some useful insights can be gained from them .
But I also believe that the ascendancy of the social sciences to the top of our academic pyramid has had damaging consequences , which if left unchecked could result in societal decay , intellectually , socially , and economically .
We must remember that we are all part of this civilization , and that the willful ignorance of our fellow citizens can and will affect us .
Though we are all free to think and believe whatever we want , there are some beliefs and ways of thinking that are worthy of shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A premise of the social sciences is that human social behavior can be studied from outside, as if the person observing the social behavior is not part of society, an impartial alien observer.
I think that there is an important consequence of thinking like a social scientist that is often overlooked.
I believe that this type of thinking, where one observes society from the outside encourages passivity in the observer.
Specifically, in the case of TFA, it is found that people filter their scientific views through a political spectrum, that they don't use logic, reason, and observation to form their opinions, that in fact many of the participants in the study are quite irrational.
A person who views society from the outside, through the lens of social science might shrug their shoulders and think "hmmm....that's interesting.
I guess people aren't as rational as we believe them to be.".
And if enough of us think this way, a sense of profound apathy and passivity about our civilization becomes widespread.
I however have a problem with this passive outside view.
In my opinion, if the participants in the study were behaving irrationally when forming opinions, then they should be ashamed of themselves!.
Our civilization, our democracy depends on rational and logical decision making on the part of the public.
If too many of us abandon logic and reason, then our democracy will begin to make increasingly bad and irrational decisions.
If too many of us start to believe that there are no facts, only opinions, then democratic dialog between citizens will become increasingly difficult.
Instead of debating based on a common set of facts, we will "debate" by shouting opinions back and forth at each other, with little reason and logic.
I do believe that the social sciences have their place, and that some useful insights can be gained from them.
But I also believe that the ascendancy of the social sciences to the top of our academic pyramid has had damaging consequences, which if left unchecked could result in societal decay, intellectually, socially, and economically.
We must remember that we are all part of this civilization, and that the willful ignorance of our fellow citizens can and will affect us.
Though we are all free to think and believe whatever we want, there are some beliefs and ways of thinking that are worthy of shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271352</id>
	<title>Re:Mechanical Thinking. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?</p><p>I'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.</p><p>I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.</p></div></blockquote><p>Honestly, a couple of weeks ago.  I realized that a religious practice I had been following for over a decade wasn't justified (religiously speaking) the way I had thought it was.  Looking at the actual religious justification, I didn't agree with it.  So I changed my practices.  I'll admit that it took me a long time to actually make the change, though.  Momentum in beliefs can be a powerful force.</p><blockquote><div><p>Now, if you have experienced that, ask yourself the following. . .</p><p>Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?</p></div></blockquote><p>My rabbi would definitely disagree with my change, so no to that authority figure.  My wife (less religious than I am) liked the change but would probably prefer I changed much more.  In the end, I decided that I was going to set aside every's expectations of what I should do and only consider what *I* felt was right.  It was the only way to be true to my own self.  If, after arriving at my decision, people weren't happy with it, I'd deal with it afterwords.</p><blockquote><div><p>Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?</p></div></blockquote><p>Not at all.  Like many people, I'm susceptible to "belief momentum": The feeling that, since you've done things this way for a long time you've got to keep doing things this way.  Plus, I fear the slippery slope.  I'm afraid that if I change belief A that I'm ambivalent about, it'll lead to pressure to change belief B that I feel strongly about.  One big reason why I decided to not consider anyone else's opinion.  I wanted to arrive at my decision based purely on my own beliefs and not based on fears of what others would think/say/pressure me to do.</p><blockquote><div><p>Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd say no with qualifications.  It's not a fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded that held me back, but a fear that changing one belief would lead to pressure to change other beliefs.</p><blockquote><div><p>Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?<br>Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?</p></div></blockquote><p>No and no.  (Or, at least, not anymore than the average person lies to themselves.)  I prefer to confront these things head-on, even if the confrontation takes awhile to fully resolve.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant , foundational piece of data in your life ? I 'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.I 'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review , realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.Honestly , a couple of weeks ago .
I realized that a religious practice I had been following for over a decade was n't justified ( religiously speaking ) the way I had thought it was .
Looking at the actual religious justification , I did n't agree with it .
So I changed my practices .
I 'll admit that it took me a long time to actually make the change , though .
Momentum in beliefs can be a powerful force.Now , if you have experienced that , ask yourself the following .
. .Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity , reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit ? My rabbi would definitely disagree with my change , so no to that authority figure .
My wife ( less religious than I am ) liked the change but would probably prefer I changed much more .
In the end , I decided that I was going to set aside every 's expectations of what I should do and only consider what * I * felt was right .
It was the only way to be true to my own self .
If , after arriving at my decision , people were n't happy with it , I 'd deal with it afterwords.Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily ? Not at all .
Like many people , I 'm susceptible to " belief momentum " : The feeling that , since you 've done things this way for a long time you 've got to keep doing things this way .
Plus , I fear the slippery slope .
I 'm afraid that if I change belief A that I 'm ambivalent about , it 'll lead to pressure to change belief B that I feel strongly about .
One big reason why I decided to not consider anyone else 's opinion .
I wanted to arrive at my decision based purely on my own beliefs and not based on fears of what others would think/say/pressure me to do.Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded ? I 'd say no with qualifications .
It 's not a fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded that held me back , but a fear that changing one belief would lead to pressure to change other beliefs.Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths ? Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions ? No and no .
( Or , at least , not anymore than the average person lies to themselves .
) I prefer to confront these things head-on , even if the confrontation takes awhile to fully resolve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you changed your mind about a significant, foundational piece of data in your life?I'm not talking about an uncertainty being made resolute on one side of the fence or the other.I'm talking about a belief you once held to be true and around which you based your daily decision-making processes and then after review, realized that you were wrong and then took steps to alter your behavior accordingly.Honestly, a couple of weeks ago.
I realized that a religious practice I had been following for over a decade wasn't justified (religiously speaking) the way I had thought it was.
Looking at the actual religious justification, I didn't agree with it.
So I changed my practices.
I'll admit that it took me a long time to actually make the change, though.
Momentum in beliefs can be a powerful force.Now, if you have experienced that, ask yourself the following.
. .Did you change your mind because of your own curiosity, reasoning and data collection OR because your tribe and its associated authority figures changed their minds and you felt compelled to follow suit?My rabbi would definitely disagree with my change, so no to that authority figure.
My wife (less religious than I am) liked the change but would probably prefer I changed much more.
In the end, I decided that I was going to set aside every's expectations of what I should do and only consider what *I* felt was right.
It was the only way to be true to my own self.
If, after arriving at my decision, people weren't happy with it, I'd deal with it afterwords.Are you the sort of person who switches back and forth between beliefs easily?Not at all.
Like many people, I'm susceptible to "belief momentum": The feeling that, since you've done things this way for a long time you've got to keep doing things this way.
Plus, I fear the slippery slope.
I'm afraid that if I change belief A that I'm ambivalent about, it'll lead to pressure to change belief B that I feel strongly about.
One big reason why I decided to not consider anyone else's opinion.
I wanted to arrive at my decision based purely on my own beliefs and not based on fears of what others would think/say/pressure me to do.Are you the sort of person who refuses to change belief systems out of fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded?I'd say no with qualifications.
It's not a fear of appearing or feeling weak-minded that held me back, but a fear that changing one belief would lead to pressure to change other beliefs.Do you lie to yourself in order to take the edge off uncomfortable truths?Are you lying to yourself right now about any of the answers to these questions?No and no.
(Or, at least, not anymore than the average person lies to themselves.
)  I prefer to confront these things head-on, even if the confrontation takes awhile to fully resolve.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268542</id>
	<title>waiting for the discussion to devolve</title>
	<author>FalseModesty</author>
	<datestamp>1265132100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just sitting here, waiting for this discussion to get sidetracked onto the question of "is AGW true?" like it did on the NPR site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just sitting here , waiting for this discussion to get sidetracked onto the question of " is AGW true ?
" like it did on the NPR site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just sitting here, waiting for this discussion to get sidetracked onto the question of "is AGW true?
" like it did on the NPR site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31279896</id>
	<title>Re:The Irony</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267103580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Scientific consensus" is simply the modern term for what Popper called "The republic of science". It applies to all of science not just one particular corner of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Scientific consensus " is simply the modern term for what Popper called " The republic of science " .
It applies to all of science not just one particular corner of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Scientific consensus" is simply the modern term for what Popper called "The republic of science".
It applies to all of science not just one particular corner of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31276458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31281698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31278586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31276642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31278290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31272458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31279896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2332234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31278290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31276642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31272458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31281698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31278586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31279896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2332234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31268850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31269560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31273862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31276458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31271180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2332234.31270206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
