<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_0034238</id>
	<title>The Perils of Pop Philosophy</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243934400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://blog.seliger.com/" rel="nofollow">ThousandStars</a> tips a new piece by Julian Sanchez, the guy who, in case you missed it, brought us a succinct definition of the <a href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/climate-change-and-argumentative-fallacies/">one-way hash argument</a> (of the type often employed in the US culture wars). This one is about the <a href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/06/01/perils-of-pop-philosophy/">dangers of a certain kind of oversimplifying</a>, as practiced routinely by journalists and bloggers. <i>"This brings us around to some of my longstanding ambivalence about blogging and journalism more generally.  On the one hand, while it's probably not enormously important whether most people have a handle on the mind-body problem, a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics. On the other hand, I look at the online public sphere and too often tend to find myself thinking: 'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.' This is, needless to say, not a problem limited to philosophy."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ThousandStars tips a new piece by Julian Sanchez , the guy who , in case you missed it , brought us a succinct definition of the one-way hash argument ( of the type often employed in the US culture wars ) .
This one is about the dangers of a certain kind of oversimplifying , as practiced routinely by journalists and bloggers .
" This brings us around to some of my longstanding ambivalence about blogging and journalism more generally .
On the one hand , while it 's probably not enormously important whether most people have a handle on the mind-body problem , a democracy ca n't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics .
On the other hand , I look at the online public sphere and too often tend to find myself thinking : 'Discourse at this level ca n't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place .
' This is , needless to say , not a problem limited to philosophy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ThousandStars tips a new piece by Julian Sanchez, the guy who, in case you missed it, brought us a succinct definition of the one-way hash argument (of the type often employed in the US culture wars).
This one is about the dangers of a certain kind of oversimplifying, as practiced routinely by journalists and bloggers.
"This brings us around to some of my longstanding ambivalence about blogging and journalism more generally.
On the one hand, while it's probably not enormously important whether most people have a handle on the mind-body problem, a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics.
On the other hand, I look at the online public sphere and too often tend to find myself thinking: 'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.
' This is, needless to say, not a problem limited to philosophy.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179681</id>
	<title>Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Might I make an observation at this point?" inquired Deep Thought.</p><p>"We'll go on strike!" yelled Vroomfondel.</p><p>"That's right!" agreed Majikthise. "You'll have a national Philosopher's strike on your hands!"</p><p>The hum level in the room suddenly increased as several ancillary bass driver units, mounted in sedately carved and varnished cabinet speakers around the room, cut in to give Deep Thought's voice a little more power.</p><p>"All I wanted to say," bellowed the computer, "is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to calculating the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything -" he paused and satisfied himself that he now had everyone's attention, before continuing more quietly, "but the programme will take me a little while to run."</p><p>Fook glanced impatiently at his watch.</p><p>"How long?" he said.</p><p>"Seven and a half million years," said Deep Thought.</p><p>Lunkwill and Fook blinked at each other.</p><p>"Seven and a half million years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...!" they cried in chorus.</p><p>"Yes," declaimed Deep Thought, "I said I'd have to think about it, didn't I? And it occurs to me that running a programme like this is bound to create an enormous amount of popular publicity for the whole area of philosophy in general. Everyone's going to have their own theories about what answer I'm eventually to come up with, and who better to capitalize on that media market than you yourself? So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life. How does that sound?"</p><p>The two philosophers gaped at him.</p><p>"Bloody hell," said Majikthise, "now that is what I call thinking. Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?" "Dunno," said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, "think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Might I make an observation at this point ?
" inquired Deep Thought .
" We 'll go on strike !
" yelled Vroomfondel .
" That 's right !
" agreed Majikthise .
" You 'll have a national Philosopher 's strike on your hands !
" The hum level in the room suddenly increased as several ancillary bass driver units , mounted in sedately carved and varnished cabinet speakers around the room , cut in to give Deep Thought 's voice a little more power .
" All I wanted to say , " bellowed the computer , " is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to calculating the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life , the Universe , and Everything - " he paused and satisfied himself that he now had everyone 's attention , before continuing more quietly , " but the programme will take me a little while to run .
" Fook glanced impatiently at his watch .
" How long ?
" he said .
" Seven and a half million years , " said Deep Thought.Lunkwill and Fook blinked at each other .
" Seven and a half million years ... !
" they cried in chorus .
" Yes , " declaimed Deep Thought , " I said I 'd have to think about it , did n't I ?
And it occurs to me that running a programme like this is bound to create an enormous amount of popular publicity for the whole area of philosophy in general .
Everyone 's going to have their own theories about what answer I 'm eventually to come up with , and who better to capitalize on that media market than you yourself ?
So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press , you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life .
How does that sound ?
" The two philosophers gaped at him .
" Bloody hell , " said Majikthise , " now that is what I call thinking .
Here Vroomfondel , why do we never think of things like that ?
" " Dunno , " said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper , " think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Might I make an observation at this point?
" inquired Deep Thought.
"We'll go on strike!
" yelled Vroomfondel.
"That's right!
" agreed Majikthise.
"You'll have a national Philosopher's strike on your hands!
"The hum level in the room suddenly increased as several ancillary bass driver units, mounted in sedately carved and varnished cabinet speakers around the room, cut in to give Deep Thought's voice a little more power.
"All I wanted to say," bellowed the computer, "is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to calculating the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything -" he paused and satisfied himself that he now had everyone's attention, before continuing more quietly, "but the programme will take me a little while to run.
"Fook glanced impatiently at his watch.
"How long?
" he said.
"Seven and a half million years," said Deep Thought.Lunkwill and Fook blinked at each other.
"Seven and a half million years ...!
" they cried in chorus.
"Yes," declaimed Deep Thought, "I said I'd have to think about it, didn't I?
And it occurs to me that running a programme like this is bound to create an enormous amount of popular publicity for the whole area of philosophy in general.
Everyone's going to have their own theories about what answer I'm eventually to come up with, and who better to capitalize on that media market than you yourself?
So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life.
How does that sound?
"The two philosophers gaped at him.
"Bloody hell," said Majikthise, "now that is what I call thinking.
Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?
" "Dunno," said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, "think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186477</id>
	<title>Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Noam Chomsky (some random guy, don't worry about it) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media.</p></div><p> He of all people. If anyone's guilty of populism in science it's Chomsky. That he's not an expert in what he usually writes about doesn't excuse him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Noam Chomsky ( some random guy , do n't worry about it ) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media .
He of all people .
If anyone 's guilty of populism in science it 's Chomsky .
That he 's not an expert in what he usually writes about does n't excuse him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noam Chomsky (some random guy, don't worry about it) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media.
He of all people.
If anyone's guilty of populism in science it's Chomsky.
That he's not an expert in what he usually writes about doesn't excuse him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179921</id>
	<title>I've heard this before...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243945140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we know , There are known knowns .
There are things we know we know .
We also know There are known unknowns .
That is to say We know there are some things We do not know .
But there are also unknown unknowns , The ones we do n't know We do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179911</id>
	<title>Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand.</title>
	<author>diablovision</author>
	<datestamp>1243945080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This time, the grammarian's are with you's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This time , the grammarian 's are with you 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This time, the grammarian's are with you's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185265</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Change is a classic appeal to authority</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1243969440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should post this in every article about global warming.  It is what everyone should understand about the topic!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should post this in every article about global warming .
It is what everyone should understand about the topic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should post this in every article about global warming.
It is what everyone should understand about the topic!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179449</id>
	<title>I know better</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1243940220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guy reckons that people who know least about a complex subject generally think that its simple and that they know a lot about it, whereas experts know that there are many complexities and know that their knowledge is limited. <br> <br>Bah, rubbish - what does he know about it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy reckons that people who know least about a complex subject generally think that its simple and that they know a lot about it , whereas experts know that there are many complexities and know that their knowledge is limited .
Bah , rubbish - what does he know about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy reckons that people who know least about a complex subject generally think that its simple and that they know a lot about it, whereas experts know that there are many complexities and know that their knowledge is limited.
Bah, rubbish - what does he know about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182269</id>
	<title>Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand.</title>
	<author>paazin</author>
	<datestamp>1243957620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let's have an international philosophers strike to protest. Let's bring this planet to it's knees!</p></div></blockquote><p>
Oh no!  How am I going to get my take out delivered now?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's have an international philosophers strike to protest .
Let 's bring this planet to it 's knees !
Oh no !
How am I going to get my take out delivered now ?
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's have an international philosophers strike to protest.
Let's bring this planet to it's knees!
Oh no!
How am I going to get my take out delivered now?
:(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181751</id>
	<title>Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation</title>
	<author>dgriff</author>
	<datestamp>1243956000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The fact is, some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study. It is OK to have elites.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Phew, that's ok then. I was beginning to worry that investment bankers might not have actually known what they were doing in the run up to the credit crunch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is , some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study .
It is OK to have elites .
Phew , that 's ok then .
I was beginning to worry that investment bankers might not have actually known what they were doing in the run up to the credit crunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is, some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study.
It is OK to have elites.
Phew, that's ok then.
I was beginning to worry that investment bankers might not have actually known what they were doing in the run up to the credit crunch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188191</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>mgabrys\_sf</author>
	<datestamp>1243938600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, is this still "troll tuesday" (whatever the fuck that means to your tiny nerd brain) or are you still trying to get the last word in like a person who hasn't seen a woman naked?</p><p>I'm guessing the latter of the two - but please - prove me right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is this still " troll tuesday " ( whatever the fuck that means to your tiny nerd brain ) or are you still trying to get the last word in like a person who has n't seen a woman naked ? I 'm guessing the latter of the two - but please - prove me right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is this still "troll tuesday" (whatever the fuck that means to your tiny nerd brain) or are you still trying to get the last word in like a person who hasn't seen a woman naked?I'm guessing the latter of the two - but please - prove me right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183863</id>
	<title>From the one-way hash argument</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243963500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Thanks to the perverse phenomenon psychologists have dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect,  those who are least competent tend to have the most wildly inflated estimates of their own knowledge and competence. They don't know enough to know that they don't know, as it were.</i> <br> <br>
This is the best short summary of the level of discourse on slashdot I've ever seen.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to the perverse phenomenon psychologists have dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect , those who are least competent tend to have the most wildly inflated estimates of their own knowledge and competence .
They do n't know enough to know that they do n't know , as it were .
This is the best short summary of the level of discourse on slashdot I 've ever seen .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to the perverse phenomenon psychologists have dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect,  those who are least competent tend to have the most wildly inflated estimates of their own knowledge and competence.
They don't know enough to know that they don't know, as it were.
This is the best short summary of the level of discourse on slashdot I've ever seen.
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179977</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1243945680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ignorance more freely begets confidence<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... than does knowledge.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think you're on the right track. I think that knowledge begets wisdom, which begets caution. In the process of gaining rigorous knowledge, most people's horizons are inevitably challenged, and their intuition is inevitably proved fallible. This is a facet of wisdom, if ancient pop philosopher Aristotle is to be believed.</p><p>And Fizzl's comment is pretty damn funny after hearing about ignorance from atheists.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignorance more freely begets confidence ... than does knowledge.I think you 're on the right track .
I think that knowledge begets wisdom , which begets caution .
In the process of gaining rigorous knowledge , most people 's horizons are inevitably challenged , and their intuition is inevitably proved fallible .
This is a facet of wisdom , if ancient pop philosopher Aristotle is to be believed.And Fizzl 's comment is pretty damn funny after hearing about ignorance from atheists .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignorance more freely begets confidence ... than does knowledge.I think you're on the right track.
I think that knowledge begets wisdom, which begets caution.
In the process of gaining rigorous knowledge, most people's horizons are inevitably challenged, and their intuition is inevitably proved fallible.
This is a facet of wisdom, if ancient pop philosopher Aristotle is to be believed.And Fizzl's comment is pretty damn funny after hearing about ignorance from atheists.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180541</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Phreakiture</author>
	<datestamp>1243949760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What?</p></div></blockquote><p>He said that the sort of debate that often takes place in public forums is useless, because it grossly oversimplifies things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? He said that the sort of debate that often takes place in public forums is useless , because it grossly oversimplifies things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?He said that the sort of debate that often takes place in public forums is useless, because it grossly oversimplifies things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179251</id>
	<title>Troll penis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243938180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got a troll penis in your mouth.</p><p>FP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got a troll penis in your mouth.FP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got a troll penis in your mouth.FP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179807</id>
	<title>Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand.</title>
	<author>andy.ruddock</author>
	<datestamp>1243944180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And just who will that inconvenience?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And just who will that inconvenience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And just who will that inconvenience?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184017</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243964220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you please illustrate that point with a car analogy? Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please illustrate that point with a car analogy ?
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please illustrate that point with a car analogy?
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180023</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>shadow349</author>
	<datestamp>1243946100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What?</p></div></blockquote><p>Blogging; never before have so many people with so little to say said so much to so few.</p><p>(Apologies to <a href="http://despair.com/blogging.html" title="despair.com" rel="nofollow">Despair</a> [despair.com]).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? Blogging ; never before have so many people with so little to say said so much to so few .
( Apologies to Despair [ despair.com ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?Blogging; never before have so many people with so little to say said so much to so few.
(Apologies to Despair [despair.com]).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185587</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1243970820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Plato argued in the Republic (through Socrates) that only philosophers were suited to be rulers.</p></div><p>Sorry, but I feel the need to interject something here.  If you're reading Plato and thinking that Plato is making clear positive arguments through Socrates, you might want to go back and reread with a more critical eye.  There's a lot of evidence all around to suggest that, not only did Plato not agree with a lot of things that he had Socrates saying in the dialogs, but also, within the dialogs, Socrates didn't even believe a lot of things that Socrates was saying.  The whole thing makes a lot more sense if you consider Plato's dialogs to be almost like plays, in which Socrates is a very sarcastic and tricky character.
</p><p>In this particular case, it's not clear that Socrates actually believes that only philosophers are set to be rulers.  He's setting up a sort of perfect/utopian society that a philosopher might dream up, and then following through on the logical conclusions and reducing the whole thing to absurdity.  In many ways, what he's showing is that dreams of utopian societies eventually lead to horrific situations.
</p><p>I think the whole "one way hash" argument in the blog post is a little too clever and glib, but it is pointing at a very old and troublesome philosophical question: When a bad/false argument is more seductive than the truth, how do you convince a mass of people of the truth?
</p><p>Of course that raises other questions about truth and its value.  Elsewhere in the Republic, this sort of question proposes the idea that leaders should be willing to lie in such a way so as to lead their people to a good end, at least in those cases where the truth is not persuasive enough.  However, this proposition is also shown to be problematic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plato argued in the Republic ( through Socrates ) that only philosophers were suited to be rulers.Sorry , but I feel the need to interject something here .
If you 're reading Plato and thinking that Plato is making clear positive arguments through Socrates , you might want to go back and reread with a more critical eye .
There 's a lot of evidence all around to suggest that , not only did Plato not agree with a lot of things that he had Socrates saying in the dialogs , but also , within the dialogs , Socrates did n't even believe a lot of things that Socrates was saying .
The whole thing makes a lot more sense if you consider Plato 's dialogs to be almost like plays , in which Socrates is a very sarcastic and tricky character .
In this particular case , it 's not clear that Socrates actually believes that only philosophers are set to be rulers .
He 's setting up a sort of perfect/utopian society that a philosopher might dream up , and then following through on the logical conclusions and reducing the whole thing to absurdity .
In many ways , what he 's showing is that dreams of utopian societies eventually lead to horrific situations .
I think the whole " one way hash " argument in the blog post is a little too clever and glib , but it is pointing at a very old and troublesome philosophical question : When a bad/false argument is more seductive than the truth , how do you convince a mass of people of the truth ?
Of course that raises other questions about truth and its value .
Elsewhere in the Republic , this sort of question proposes the idea that leaders should be willing to lie in such a way so as to lead their people to a good end , at least in those cases where the truth is not persuasive enough .
However , this proposition is also shown to be problematic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Plato argued in the Republic (through Socrates) that only philosophers were suited to be rulers.Sorry, but I feel the need to interject something here.
If you're reading Plato and thinking that Plato is making clear positive arguments through Socrates, you might want to go back and reread with a more critical eye.
There's a lot of evidence all around to suggest that, not only did Plato not agree with a lot of things that he had Socrates saying in the dialogs, but also, within the dialogs, Socrates didn't even believe a lot of things that Socrates was saying.
The whole thing makes a lot more sense if you consider Plato's dialogs to be almost like plays, in which Socrates is a very sarcastic and tricky character.
In this particular case, it's not clear that Socrates actually believes that only philosophers are set to be rulers.
He's setting up a sort of perfect/utopian society that a philosopher might dream up, and then following through on the logical conclusions and reducing the whole thing to absurdity.
In many ways, what he's showing is that dreams of utopian societies eventually lead to horrific situations.
I think the whole "one way hash" argument in the blog post is a little too clever and glib, but it is pointing at a very old and troublesome philosophical question: When a bad/false argument is more seductive than the truth, how do you convince a mass of people of the truth?
Of course that raises other questions about truth and its value.
Elsewhere in the Republic, this sort of question proposes the idea that leaders should be willing to lie in such a way so as to lead their people to a good end, at least in those cases where the truth is not persuasive enough.
However, this proposition is also shown to be problematic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180091</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy of Mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243946700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may want to be more specific. I don't think anyone really argues against (3). The issue isn't whether the brain is a mass of cells, but whether (3a) the mind is anything over and above that mass of cells. Both the physicalist and the dualist can accept (3), but they would vehemently disagree over (3a).</p><p>I'm not sure why you think philosophers think too highly of functionalism. It is a philosophy that works for many areas of interest. I personally don't think that functionalism fully captures all the relevant issues in the philosophy of mind, but there is still a coherent and compelling argument from that side. Functionalism can help the physicalist account for subjective experiences like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia" title="wikipedia.org">qualia</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>I also don't think that it's fair to say that only religious people have a problem with (3) (or more precisely, my revised version, (3a); also, I'm aware you didn't say "only", but given the context, one would likely imply as such). I'm non-religious, but I tend to lean more towards the dualist position. Furthermore, the great empiricist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_Hume" title="wikipedia.org">David Hume</a> [wikipedia.org] may have argued against a substantivalist immaterial mind, but given his other philosophical works, I think he would not necessarily disagree with a property dualist position.</p><p>I guess what I'm trying to say is that your post shows exactly the problem with which the article is concerned. Incomplete oversimplifications of the matters at hand will tend not to be very substantially rich. I'm sure you have arguments to support your positions, and I have little doubt that they will probably be good arguments, but because you have oversimplified your position, the arguments become weak and insubstantial. In fact, in previewing my own post, my own briefly extended arguments are very philosophically weak as well. The important questions are as follows: Is it possible to reduce philosophically (and perhaps scientifically) complex arguments to newspaper- or blog-sized articles without undermining the sophistication and nuances of such arguments? Is it possible to do so keeping in mind that the readers or consumers of such articles have little to no background information about the matters at hand?</p><p>I'm currently working on a side project about the ethics of information dissemination and this is exactly the type of question in which I am interested. Is it ethical for a journalist or blogger or what-have-you (hereafter collectively known as "journalist" for ease) to provide incomplete information? This question is somewhat less controversial, because a journalist's job is, basically, to summarize and disseminate. But is it ethical for a journalist to disseminate incomplete information in a way that disproportionately favours one set of arguments over others? For example, if a study shows that a certain compound that is richly found in food xyz is good for you but other studies show that food xyz taken as a whole is bad for you, is it ethical for the journalist just to mention the first study without mentioning the latter studies? We hear about such stories all the time in headlines such as "Red wine may increase your life span!" or "One aspirin a day may reduce risks of heart attacks!"</p><p>To tie it back to your post, was it ethical for you to simplify the issues so much so that it seems to disproportionately favour your conclusion? The article's worries are not unfounded, and your short and succinct post shows exactly why that is so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may want to be more specific .
I do n't think anyone really argues against ( 3 ) .
The issue is n't whether the brain is a mass of cells , but whether ( 3a ) the mind is anything over and above that mass of cells .
Both the physicalist and the dualist can accept ( 3 ) , but they would vehemently disagree over ( 3a ) .I 'm not sure why you think philosophers think too highly of functionalism .
It is a philosophy that works for many areas of interest .
I personally do n't think that functionalism fully captures all the relevant issues in the philosophy of mind , but there is still a coherent and compelling argument from that side .
Functionalism can help the physicalist account for subjective experiences like qualia [ wikipedia.org ] .I also do n't think that it 's fair to say that only religious people have a problem with ( 3 ) ( or more precisely , my revised version , ( 3a ) ; also , I 'm aware you did n't say " only " , but given the context , one would likely imply as such ) .
I 'm non-religious , but I tend to lean more towards the dualist position .
Furthermore , the great empiricist David Hume [ wikipedia.org ] may have argued against a substantivalist immaterial mind , but given his other philosophical works , I think he would not necessarily disagree with a property dualist position.I guess what I 'm trying to say is that your post shows exactly the problem with which the article is concerned .
Incomplete oversimplifications of the matters at hand will tend not to be very substantially rich .
I 'm sure you have arguments to support your positions , and I have little doubt that they will probably be good arguments , but because you have oversimplified your position , the arguments become weak and insubstantial .
In fact , in previewing my own post , my own briefly extended arguments are very philosophically weak as well .
The important questions are as follows : Is it possible to reduce philosophically ( and perhaps scientifically ) complex arguments to newspaper- or blog-sized articles without undermining the sophistication and nuances of such arguments ?
Is it possible to do so keeping in mind that the readers or consumers of such articles have little to no background information about the matters at hand ? I 'm currently working on a side project about the ethics of information dissemination and this is exactly the type of question in which I am interested .
Is it ethical for a journalist or blogger or what-have-you ( hereafter collectively known as " journalist " for ease ) to provide incomplete information ?
This question is somewhat less controversial , because a journalist 's job is , basically , to summarize and disseminate .
But is it ethical for a journalist to disseminate incomplete information in a way that disproportionately favours one set of arguments over others ?
For example , if a study shows that a certain compound that is richly found in food xyz is good for you but other studies show that food xyz taken as a whole is bad for you , is it ethical for the journalist just to mention the first study without mentioning the latter studies ?
We hear about such stories all the time in headlines such as " Red wine may increase your life span !
" or " One aspirin a day may reduce risks of heart attacks !
" To tie it back to your post , was it ethical for you to simplify the issues so much so that it seems to disproportionately favour your conclusion ?
The article 's worries are not unfounded , and your short and succinct post shows exactly why that is so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may want to be more specific.
I don't think anyone really argues against (3).
The issue isn't whether the brain is a mass of cells, but whether (3a) the mind is anything over and above that mass of cells.
Both the physicalist and the dualist can accept (3), but they would vehemently disagree over (3a).I'm not sure why you think philosophers think too highly of functionalism.
It is a philosophy that works for many areas of interest.
I personally don't think that functionalism fully captures all the relevant issues in the philosophy of mind, but there is still a coherent and compelling argument from that side.
Functionalism can help the physicalist account for subjective experiences like qualia [wikipedia.org].I also don't think that it's fair to say that only religious people have a problem with (3) (or more precisely, my revised version, (3a); also, I'm aware you didn't say "only", but given the context, one would likely imply as such).
I'm non-religious, but I tend to lean more towards the dualist position.
Furthermore, the great empiricist David Hume [wikipedia.org] may have argued against a substantivalist immaterial mind, but given his other philosophical works, I think he would not necessarily disagree with a property dualist position.I guess what I'm trying to say is that your post shows exactly the problem with which the article is concerned.
Incomplete oversimplifications of the matters at hand will tend not to be very substantially rich.
I'm sure you have arguments to support your positions, and I have little doubt that they will probably be good arguments, but because you have oversimplified your position, the arguments become weak and insubstantial.
In fact, in previewing my own post, my own briefly extended arguments are very philosophically weak as well.
The important questions are as follows: Is it possible to reduce philosophically (and perhaps scientifically) complex arguments to newspaper- or blog-sized articles without undermining the sophistication and nuances of such arguments?
Is it possible to do so keeping in mind that the readers or consumers of such articles have little to no background information about the matters at hand?I'm currently working on a side project about the ethics of information dissemination and this is exactly the type of question in which I am interested.
Is it ethical for a journalist or blogger or what-have-you (hereafter collectively known as "journalist" for ease) to provide incomplete information?
This question is somewhat less controversial, because a journalist's job is, basically, to summarize and disseminate.
But is it ethical for a journalist to disseminate incomplete information in a way that disproportionately favours one set of arguments over others?
For example, if a study shows that a certain compound that is richly found in food xyz is good for you but other studies show that food xyz taken as a whole is bad for you, is it ethical for the journalist just to mention the first study without mentioning the latter studies?
We hear about such stories all the time in headlines such as "Red wine may increase your life span!
" or "One aspirin a day may reduce risks of heart attacks!
"To tie it back to your post, was it ethical for you to simplify the issues so much so that it seems to disproportionately favour your conclusion?
The article's worries are not unfounded, and your short and succinct post shows exactly why that is so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183511</id>
	<title>Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1243961880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that Compsky's beef with the media comes from the fact that he talks slow, and doesn't keep track of how long he is talking for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  He also tends to take the Juggernaut stance in a debate and keep right on talking no matter what else is going on.  I think every interview that I have ever seen with him, they had to end it by cutting him off mid-sentence.</p><p>He's got some great things to say, and is damn good at saying it, but from what I have seen, he doesn't seem to be the best at having symmetric conversation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that Compsky 's beef with the media comes from the fact that he talks slow , and does n't keep track of how long he is talking for : - ) He also tends to take the Juggernaut stance in a debate and keep right on talking no matter what else is going on .
I think every interview that I have ever seen with him , they had to end it by cutting him off mid-sentence.He 's got some great things to say , and is damn good at saying it , but from what I have seen , he does n't seem to be the best at having symmetric conversation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that Compsky's beef with the media comes from the fact that he talks slow, and doesn't keep track of how long he is talking for :-)  He also tends to take the Juggernaut stance in a debate and keep right on talking no matter what else is going on.
I think every interview that I have ever seen with him, they had to end it by cutting him off mid-sentence.He's got some great things to say, and is damn good at saying it, but from what I have seen, he doesn't seem to be the best at having symmetric conversation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28187463</id>
	<title>Bigger Lunchbox?</title>
	<author>h3llfish</author>
	<datestamp>1243935660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I noticed that this story got tagged "biggerlunchbox".  I've scoured the internets, but I can't find anything but people complaining about actual lunchboxes.  I'd be much obliged if someone could clue me in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed that this story got tagged " biggerlunchbox " .
I 've scoured the internets , but I ca n't find anything but people complaining about actual lunchboxes .
I 'd be much obliged if someone could clue me in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed that this story got tagged "biggerlunchbox".
I've scoured the internets, but I can't find anything but people complaining about actual lunchboxes.
I'd be much obliged if someone could clue me in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183837</id>
	<title>Awwwe I thought it said "Pope Philosophy"</title>
	<author>Christmas</author>
	<datestamp>1243963380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I'm heart broken.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( Are there ever any articles about Our Holy Father ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'm heart broken .
: ( Are there ever any articles about Our Holy Father ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'm heart broken.
:( Are there ever any articles about Our Holy Father ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183981</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243964100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly the philosophers and the academics are both wrong; the best judges and leaders could only come from a background of rabid computer enthusiasts that live in their mom's basement and have never gotten past first base in sports or with the opposite sex... Because WE don't have any of these silly biases!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly the philosophers and the academics are both wrong ; the best judges and leaders could only come from a background of rabid computer enthusiasts that live in their mom 's basement and have never gotten past first base in sports or with the opposite sex... Because WE do n't have any of these silly biases !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly the philosophers and the academics are both wrong; the best judges and leaders could only come from a background of rabid computer enthusiasts that live in their mom's basement and have never gotten past first base in sports or with the opposite sex... Because WE don't have any of these silly biases!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183827</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1243963320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective</i> </p><p>
The first time I had this idea offered up to me was many years ago as an undergraduate. The problem I found was that the patently obvious idea that human beings cannot be 100\% unbiased about <i>anything</i> is then frequently extended by an altogether unsupported idea. This usually goes something like "I can't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias." Then "teachers" in polisci/anthropology/sociology turn their courses into soapboxes to promote their own personal agendas.</p><p>
I agree, academic departments are highly politicised environments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I 've seen against " bias " were usually written by scholars who just did n't realize their OWN bias .
There is no such thing as an " unbiased " argument or perspective The first time I had this idea offered up to me was many years ago as an undergraduate .
The problem I found was that the patently obvious idea that human beings can not be 100 \ % unbiased about anything is then frequently extended by an altogether unsupported idea .
This usually goes something like " I ca n't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I 'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias .
" Then " teachers " in polisci/anthropology/sociology turn their courses into soapboxes to promote their own personal agendas .
I agree , academic departments are highly politicised environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias.
There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective 
The first time I had this idea offered up to me was many years ago as an undergraduate.
The problem I found was that the patently obvious idea that human beings cannot be 100\% unbiased about anything is then frequently extended by an altogether unsupported idea.
This usually goes something like "I can't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias.
" Then "teachers" in polisci/anthropology/sociology turn their courses into soapboxes to promote their own personal agendas.
I agree, academic departments are highly politicised environments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28192693</id>
	<title>Re:There is a way to be unbiased</title>
	<author>metacell</author>
	<datestamp>1244060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only way to be unbiased in your writing is if you are sincerely trying to discover the truth.</p></div><p>No... the important thing to realise is that we're always biased, even if we're completely honest to ourselves and others. Limitations in our knowledge give us a particular perspective. For example, we may know several of the good arguments for one viewpoint, but have heard few of the good arguments for the other.<br>
We are also biased by things we take for granted because we have never even thought to question them, despite our sincerity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to be unbiased in your writing is if you are sincerely trying to discover the truth.No... the important thing to realise is that we 're always biased , even if we 're completely honest to ourselves and others .
Limitations in our knowledge give us a particular perspective .
For example , we may know several of the good arguments for one viewpoint , but have heard few of the good arguments for the other .
We are also biased by things we take for granted because we have never even thought to question them , despite our sincerity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to be unbiased in your writing is if you are sincerely trying to discover the truth.No... the important thing to realise is that we're always biased, even if we're completely honest to ourselves and others.
Limitations in our knowledge give us a particular perspective.
For example, we may know several of the good arguments for one viewpoint, but have heard few of the good arguments for the other.
We are also biased by things we take for granted because we have never even thought to question them, despite our sincerity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184777</id>
	<title>There is a way to be unbiased</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243967220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only way to be unbiased in your writing is if you are sincerely trying to discover the truth.  If you are saying, "at this moment, these are what I know the facts to be, and these facts indicate X to be true.  Of course, things may change as time passes."  This type of writing is more common among businessmen  like Warren Buffet, who has strong motivation to be unbiased (because being biased towards anything but the truth will blind you and make you lose money: you will feel the pain of your bias), or great chess players like Reuben Fine, who realizes that the facts on the chess board are more important than any personal desire they have to prove themselves right.  <br> <br>The greatest musicians <em>must</em> develop a certain level of objectivity: they must be able to understand what the notes they play are sounding like, and make adjustments in real time if they are not right.  They must understand what their music sounds like to the audience.  Of course not all musicians do this, but the closer they get the better they are.  This is sometimes called 'developing your ear.'<br> <br>
If you are willing to change your opinion immediately upon finding you are wrong, then you are on the road to unbiasedness.  The only way to be unbiased is to have a bias to the truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to be unbiased in your writing is if you are sincerely trying to discover the truth .
If you are saying , " at this moment , these are what I know the facts to be , and these facts indicate X to be true .
Of course , things may change as time passes .
" This type of writing is more common among businessmen like Warren Buffet , who has strong motivation to be unbiased ( because being biased towards anything but the truth will blind you and make you lose money : you will feel the pain of your bias ) , or great chess players like Reuben Fine , who realizes that the facts on the chess board are more important than any personal desire they have to prove themselves right .
The greatest musicians must develop a certain level of objectivity : they must be able to understand what the notes they play are sounding like , and make adjustments in real time if they are not right .
They must understand what their music sounds like to the audience .
Of course not all musicians do this , but the closer they get the better they are .
This is sometimes called 'developing your ear .
' If you are willing to change your opinion immediately upon finding you are wrong , then you are on the road to unbiasedness .
The only way to be unbiased is to have a bias to the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to be unbiased in your writing is if you are sincerely trying to discover the truth.
If you are saying, "at this moment, these are what I know the facts to be, and these facts indicate X to be true.
Of course, things may change as time passes.
"  This type of writing is more common among businessmen  like Warren Buffet, who has strong motivation to be unbiased (because being biased towards anything but the truth will blind you and make you lose money: you will feel the pain of your bias), or great chess players like Reuben Fine, who realizes that the facts on the chess board are more important than any personal desire they have to prove themselves right.
The greatest musicians must develop a certain level of objectivity: they must be able to understand what the notes they play are sounding like, and make adjustments in real time if they are not right.
They must understand what their music sounds like to the audience.
Of course not all musicians do this, but the closer they get the better they are.
This is sometimes called 'developing your ear.
' 
If you are willing to change your opinion immediately upon finding you are wrong, then you are on the road to unbiasedness.
The only way to be unbiased is to have a bias to the truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188887</id>
	<title>Re:I know better</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1243941660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The guy reckons that people who know least about a complex subject generally think that its simple and that they know a lot about it, whereas experts know that there are many complexities and know that their knowledge is limited.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Sounds like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">Dunning-Kruger effect</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>A good way to spot it is when you explain why something won't work, or can't be done, or can't be done the way they (in their utter ignorance) suggest or (in their utter arrogance) insist; their eloquent counterargument invariably begins with "But can't you just...".</p><p>Just do what?  Appeal against the laws of thermodynamics.  To whom?  Abolish gravity.  I'll start a petition, shall I?</p><p>I find "liberal arts" types are the worst offenders.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy reckons that people who know least about a complex subject generally think that its simple and that they know a lot about it , whereas experts know that there are many complexities and know that their knowledge is limited .
Sounds like the Dunning-Kruger effect [ wikipedia.org ] .A good way to spot it is when you explain why something wo n't work , or ca n't be done , or ca n't be done the way they ( in their utter ignorance ) suggest or ( in their utter arrogance ) insist ; their eloquent counterargument invariably begins with " But ca n't you just... " .Just do what ?
Appeal against the laws of thermodynamics .
To whom ?
Abolish gravity .
I 'll start a petition , shall I ? I find " liberal arts " types are the worst offenders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy reckons that people who know least about a complex subject generally think that its simple and that they know a lot about it, whereas experts know that there are many complexities and know that their knowledge is limited.
Sounds like the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org].A good way to spot it is when you explain why something won't work, or can't be done, or can't be done the way they (in their utter ignorance) suggest or (in their utter arrogance) insist; their eloquent counterargument invariably begins with "But can't you just...".Just do what?
Appeal against the laws of thermodynamics.
To whom?
Abolish gravity.
I'll start a petition, shall I?I find "liberal arts" types are the worst offenders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179633</id>
	<title>Simplify</title>
	<author>Fizzl</author>
	<datestamp>1243942320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the summary itself is filled with enough verbal "simulation" for all ages, I hereby simply declare this article total "wank".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the summary itself is filled with enough verbal " simulation " for all ages , I hereby simply declare this article total " wank " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the summary itself is filled with enough verbal "simulation" for all ages, I hereby simply declare this article total "wank".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186279</id>
	<title>The truth is too complicated to win an argument?</title>
	<author>nv5</author>
	<datestamp>1243973880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>whoa - I think the parent poster took quite a leap there.  At least I read TFA (apologies for actually reading it) as saying: <br> <br>

a) it's impractical/unrealistic that a good argument can be separated from the motivation and credibility of who puts it forth.  <br>

b) debunking a falsehood is inherently more complicated than expressing it, especially in the case of arguments being made for and amongst people and groups with limited domain expertise. Or to simplify it: TFA posits, that the truth is too complicated to win an argument. <br> <br>

Quite depressing actually. <br> <br>

And I did not read a conclusion into TFA. But I might come to my own, and it would be quite different than the one suggested by the parent poster:  The standard bearers for the truth need to simplify (and thus falsify) their arguments to carry the day in public debate. i.e. in the best case the "right" things end up being done for the "wrong" reasons. And I would further argue that scholars and scientists are actually not the best people to craft and lead that kind of debate. Maybe that would be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... marketers and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... (gasp!) politicians?</htmltext>
<tokenext>whoa - I think the parent poster took quite a leap there .
At least I read TFA ( apologies for actually reading it ) as saying : a ) it 's impractical/unrealistic that a good argument can be separated from the motivation and credibility of who puts it forth .
b ) debunking a falsehood is inherently more complicated than expressing it , especially in the case of arguments being made for and amongst people and groups with limited domain expertise .
Or to simplify it : TFA posits , that the truth is too complicated to win an argument .
Quite depressing actually .
And I did not read a conclusion into TFA .
But I might come to my own , and it would be quite different than the one suggested by the parent poster : The standard bearers for the truth need to simplify ( and thus falsify ) their arguments to carry the day in public debate .
i.e. in the best case the " right " things end up being done for the " wrong " reasons .
And I would further argue that scholars and scientists are actually not the best people to craft and lead that kind of debate .
Maybe that would be ... marketers and .. .
( gasp ! ) politicians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whoa - I think the parent poster took quite a leap there.
At least I read TFA (apologies for actually reading it) as saying:  

a) it's impractical/unrealistic that a good argument can be separated from the motivation and credibility of who puts it forth.
b) debunking a falsehood is inherently more complicated than expressing it, especially in the case of arguments being made for and amongst people and groups with limited domain expertise.
Or to simplify it: TFA posits, that the truth is too complicated to win an argument.
Quite depressing actually.
And I did not read a conclusion into TFA.
But I might come to my own, and it would be quite different than the one suggested by the parent poster:  The standard bearers for the truth need to simplify (and thus falsify) their arguments to carry the day in public debate.
i.e. in the best case the "right" things end up being done for the "wrong" reasons.
And I would further argue that scholars and scientists are actually not the best people to craft and lead that kind of debate.
Maybe that would be ... marketers and ...
(gasp!) politicians?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180901</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence...</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1243951860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does one be laughably ignorant of a pursuit which is itself laughable?</p><p>And you are confusing complexity with rigor. It isn't that the "soft" sciences aren't complex, it is that the subject matter is so complex it leaves the practitioners grasping at straws. That leaves a lot of room for the incompetently confident, so the fields are dominated by people who divorce their theories from physical reality and reduce everything to an ideology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does one be laughably ignorant of a pursuit which is itself laughable ? And you are confusing complexity with rigor .
It is n't that the " soft " sciences are n't complex , it is that the subject matter is so complex it leaves the practitioners grasping at straws .
That leaves a lot of room for the incompetently confident , so the fields are dominated by people who divorce their theories from physical reality and reduce everything to an ideology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does one be laughably ignorant of a pursuit which is itself laughable?And you are confusing complexity with rigor.
It isn't that the "soft" sciences aren't complex, it is that the subject matter is so complex it leaves the practitioners grasping at straws.
That leaves a lot of room for the incompetently confident, so the fields are dominated by people who divorce their theories from physical reality and reduce everything to an ideology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182207</id>
	<title>I disagree in principle.</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1243957380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I simplify, but basically he is saying that anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about.

<p>No.   Wrong.  </p><p>
The things we argue about tend to be very very simple.  It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex.
</p><p>Take abortion for example.  The real question is "When do we get a soul?"
</p><p>The standard arguments make it more complex.  You only need to get that complex if you are trying to deal with the real world and counter examples.  But the heart of the matter is a simple question, that anyone can hold an opinion on, and can try to prove or dis-prove.
</p><p>Another great example is say the rule of the law vs a case by case situation.   Do we care about the minutia of legal proceedings more than the right/wrongness of the actual actions.   Yes, you can get very very specific about whether or not the fact that a man was convicted on an illegal wire tap, should he go free, or variably, a man convicted but later another man proven to have done the crime.   But we really are arguing about a basic concept, not the evidence that people cook up to support their viewpoints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I simplify , but basically he is saying that anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about .
No. Wrong .
The things we argue about tend to be very very simple .
It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex .
Take abortion for example .
The real question is " When do we get a soul ?
" The standard arguments make it more complex .
You only need to get that complex if you are trying to deal with the real world and counter examples .
But the heart of the matter is a simple question , that anyone can hold an opinion on , and can try to prove or dis-prove .
Another great example is say the rule of the law vs a case by case situation .
Do we care about the minutia of legal proceedings more than the right/wrongness of the actual actions .
Yes , you can get very very specific about whether or not the fact that a man was convicted on an illegal wire tap , should he go free , or variably , a man convicted but later another man proven to have done the crime .
But we really are arguing about a basic concept , not the evidence that people cook up to support their viewpoints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I simplify, but basically he is saying that anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about.
No.   Wrong.
The things we argue about tend to be very very simple.
It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex.
Take abortion for example.
The real question is "When do we get a soul?
"
The standard arguments make it more complex.
You only need to get that complex if you are trying to deal with the real world and counter examples.
But the heart of the matter is a simple question, that anyone can hold an opinion on, and can try to prove or dis-prove.
Another great example is say the rule of the law vs a case by case situation.
Do we care about the minutia of legal proceedings more than the right/wrongness of the actual actions.
Yes, you can get very very specific about whether or not the fact that a man was convicted on an illegal wire tap, should he go free, or variably, a man convicted but later another man proven to have done the crime.
But we really are arguing about a basic concept, not the evidence that people cook up to support their viewpoints.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181527</id>
	<title>there's a quote</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1243955160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i don't know who:</p><p>"ideas are like assholes, everyone has one, but most of them stink"</p><p>99\% of the people in your life are full of shit ideas. 99\% of what you yourself say is incomplete and ill thought out</p><p>the whole point is, only through communication do we develop better ideas. in this sense, the internet is not a step backwards, but a step forwards. that it exposes exactly how awful people's ideas are, this is nothing new or different, its always been this way, probably worse, the quality of people's ideas. what's new and different is that so many people can now work through their philosophical shortcomings on the internet and, if they have an open mind and are not a brain dead partisan hack, they can grow ideologically into a better person</p><p>don't lament that so much of humanity, including yourself, is so unenlightened. rejoice that so many strive to be better. how do i know they strive to be better?</p><p>because they go online, and communicate. this is the first step towards becoming a better person</p><p>if i were 100\% certain of my beliefs, i would sit in smug condescension and talk to no one. what would be the point? i already supposedly know everything. only by venturing forth and exposing my beliefs to others are they challenged, and made stronger</p><p>as long as people are talking and arguing and being challenged by others, they are becoming better people</p><p>so, to paraphrase someone else: welcome to the intarwebs. let a thousand assholes bloom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't know who : " ideas are like assholes , everyone has one , but most of them stink " 99 \ % of the people in your life are full of shit ideas .
99 \ % of what you yourself say is incomplete and ill thought outthe whole point is , only through communication do we develop better ideas .
in this sense , the internet is not a step backwards , but a step forwards .
that it exposes exactly how awful people 's ideas are , this is nothing new or different , its always been this way , probably worse , the quality of people 's ideas .
what 's new and different is that so many people can now work through their philosophical shortcomings on the internet and , if they have an open mind and are not a brain dead partisan hack , they can grow ideologically into a better persondo n't lament that so much of humanity , including yourself , is so unenlightened .
rejoice that so many strive to be better .
how do i know they strive to be better ? because they go online , and communicate .
this is the first step towards becoming a better personif i were 100 \ % certain of my beliefs , i would sit in smug condescension and talk to no one .
what would be the point ?
i already supposedly know everything .
only by venturing forth and exposing my beliefs to others are they challenged , and made strongeras long as people are talking and arguing and being challenged by others , they are becoming better peopleso , to paraphrase someone else : welcome to the intarwebs .
let a thousand assholes bloom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't know who:"ideas are like assholes, everyone has one, but most of them stink"99\% of the people in your life are full of shit ideas.
99\% of what you yourself say is incomplete and ill thought outthe whole point is, only through communication do we develop better ideas.
in this sense, the internet is not a step backwards, but a step forwards.
that it exposes exactly how awful people's ideas are, this is nothing new or different, its always been this way, probably worse, the quality of people's ideas.
what's new and different is that so many people can now work through their philosophical shortcomings on the internet and, if they have an open mind and are not a brain dead partisan hack, they can grow ideologically into a better persondon't lament that so much of humanity, including yourself, is so unenlightened.
rejoice that so many strive to be better.
how do i know they strive to be better?because they go online, and communicate.
this is the first step towards becoming a better personif i were 100\% certain of my beliefs, i would sit in smug condescension and talk to no one.
what would be the point?
i already supposedly know everything.
only by venturing forth and exposing my beliefs to others are they challenged, and made strongeras long as people are talking and arguing and being challenged by others, they are becoming better peopleso, to paraphrase someone else: welcome to the intarwebs.
let a thousand assholes bloom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28218619</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence...</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1244138220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology.</p> </div><p>I would agree with this, if by theology you actually mean <i>philosophy</i> which religion can be considered to be an early form of.</p><p>Also, you talk about "atheists" in general, but of course, atheism only tells what a person <i>does not</i> believe. It could equally well describe an environmentalist terrorist, or Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman - two completely different types of people with different philosophies of life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology .
I would agree with this , if by theology you actually mean philosophy which religion can be considered to be an early form of.Also , you talk about " atheists " in general , but of course , atheism only tells what a person does not believe .
It could equally well describe an environmentalist terrorist , or Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman - two completely different types of people with different philosophies of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology.
I would agree with this, if by theology you actually mean philosophy which religion can be considered to be an early form of.Also, you talk about "atheists" in general, but of course, atheism only tells what a person does not believe.
It could equally well describe an environmentalist terrorist, or Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman - two completely different types of people with different philosophies of life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179853</id>
	<title>Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand.</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1243944600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Isn't it odd? When a politician or a movie star retires, we read front page stories about it. But when a philosopher retires, people do not even notice it."<br><a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atlas\_Shrugged" title="wikiquote.org">"They do, eventually."</a> [wikiquote.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is n't it odd ?
When a politician or a movie star retires , we read front page stories about it .
But when a philosopher retires , people do not even notice it .
" " They do , eventually .
" [ wikiquote.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Isn't it odd?
When a politician or a movie star retires, we read front page stories about it.
But when a philosopher retires, people do not even notice it.
""They do, eventually.
" [wikiquote.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180831</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy of Mind</title>
	<author>CraftyJack</author>
	<datestamp>1243951500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there is a difference between hardware and software...anyone trying to conflate the two is either a con man or an idiot.</p></div><p>So then what do you make of: "My favorite programming language is solder."?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is a difference between hardware and software...anyone trying to conflate the two is either a con man or an idiot.So then what do you make of : " My favorite programming language is solder .
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is a difference between hardware and software...anyone trying to conflate the two is either a con man or an idiot.So then what do you make of: "My favorite programming language is solder.
"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28229843</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree in principle.</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1244218560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot in this post.  I'm going to go through it point-by-point</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I simplify, but basically he is saying that anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about.</p><p>No.   Wrong.  </p></div><p>You're correct.  It's vital for all people to take part in philisophical debates, and to form and express their own opinions.  A society has no way of improving itself without this sort of discourse.</p><p>However, we seem to have a growing tendency (largely thanks to the internet) to extend our arguements into areas in which we might not be so knowledgable.  Slashdot can at times be an excellent example of this problem.  Lately, this sort of thought has begun to penetrate politics, science, and medicine -- the fact that the vaccine/autism hypothesis is a contentious issue, much less discussed at all is an outright embarrasment to all forms rational thought.  Quite simply put, there is absolutely no supporting evidence supporting the hypothesis, and mountains of data against it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The things we argue about tend to be very very simple.  It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex.</p><p>Take abortion for example.  The real question is "When do we get a soul?"</p></div><p>I'll pose another question: Does that matter?  Is it better to live in squalor than it is to have never lived at all?<br>(There is a conveniently simple answer to this one, though: Use protection, and make sure to follow the directions, lest we end up breeding a society of individuals who are genetically predisposed to incorrectly use contraceptives)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Another great example is say the rule of the law vs a case by case situation.   Do we care about the minutia of legal proceedings more than the right/wrongness of the actual actions.   Yes, you can get very very specific about whether or not the fact that a man was convicted on an illegal wire tap, should he go free, or variably, a man convicted but later another man proven to have done the crime.   But we really are arguing about a basic concept, not the evidence that people cook up to support their viewpoints.</p></div><p>Another interesting argument, although I wouldn't argue that it's an either/or situation.  Without rule of law, I would argue that society is left with no reliable means of determining the right/wrongness of actions.  For every "benevolent dictatorship," there are twenty others that are rotten to the core.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot in this post .
I 'm going to go through it point-by-pointI simplify , but basically he is saying that anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about.No .
Wrong. You 're correct .
It 's vital for all people to take part in philisophical debates , and to form and express their own opinions .
A society has no way of improving itself without this sort of discourse.However , we seem to have a growing tendency ( largely thanks to the internet ) to extend our arguements into areas in which we might not be so knowledgable .
Slashdot can at times be an excellent example of this problem .
Lately , this sort of thought has begun to penetrate politics , science , and medicine -- the fact that the vaccine/autism hypothesis is a contentious issue , much less discussed at all is an outright embarrasment to all forms rational thought .
Quite simply put , there is absolutely no supporting evidence supporting the hypothesis , and mountains of data against it.The things we argue about tend to be very very simple .
It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex.Take abortion for example .
The real question is " When do we get a soul ?
" I 'll pose another question : Does that matter ?
Is it better to live in squalor than it is to have never lived at all ?
( There is a conveniently simple answer to this one , though : Use protection , and make sure to follow the directions , lest we end up breeding a society of individuals who are genetically predisposed to incorrectly use contraceptives ) Another great example is say the rule of the law vs a case by case situation .
Do we care about the minutia of legal proceedings more than the right/wrongness of the actual actions .
Yes , you can get very very specific about whether or not the fact that a man was convicted on an illegal wire tap , should he go free , or variably , a man convicted but later another man proven to have done the crime .
But we really are arguing about a basic concept , not the evidence that people cook up to support their viewpoints.Another interesting argument , although I would n't argue that it 's an either/or situation .
Without rule of law , I would argue that society is left with no reliable means of determining the right/wrongness of actions .
For every " benevolent dictatorship , " there are twenty others that are rotten to the core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot in this post.
I'm going to go through it point-by-pointI simplify, but basically he is saying that anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about.No.
Wrong.  You're correct.
It's vital for all people to take part in philisophical debates, and to form and express their own opinions.
A society has no way of improving itself without this sort of discourse.However, we seem to have a growing tendency (largely thanks to the internet) to extend our arguements into areas in which we might not be so knowledgable.
Slashdot can at times be an excellent example of this problem.
Lately, this sort of thought has begun to penetrate politics, science, and medicine -- the fact that the vaccine/autism hypothesis is a contentious issue, much less discussed at all is an outright embarrasment to all forms rational thought.
Quite simply put, there is absolutely no supporting evidence supporting the hypothesis, and mountains of data against it.The things we argue about tend to be very very simple.
It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex.Take abortion for example.
The real question is "When do we get a soul?
"I'll pose another question: Does that matter?
Is it better to live in squalor than it is to have never lived at all?
(There is a conveniently simple answer to this one, though: Use protection, and make sure to follow the directions, lest we end up breeding a society of individuals who are genetically predisposed to incorrectly use contraceptives)Another great example is say the rule of the law vs a case by case situation.
Do we care about the minutia of legal proceedings more than the right/wrongness of the actual actions.
Yes, you can get very very specific about whether or not the fact that a man was convicted on an illegal wire tap, should he go free, or variably, a man convicted but later another man proven to have done the crime.
But we really are arguing about a basic concept, not the evidence that people cook up to support their viewpoints.Another interesting argument, although I wouldn't argue that it's an either/or situation.
Without rule of law, I would argue that society is left with no reliable means of determining the right/wrongness of actions.
For every "benevolent dictatorship," there are twenty others that are rotten to the core.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184555</id>
	<title>Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation</title>
	<author>superwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1243966440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is, however, that the media needs to be brief.</p></div><p>The media needs to be critical of the government.  It's the very reason it is given the power to be uncensored.  It's meant to be the natural predator on the power structure.  It doesn't matter if it is brief or lengthy.  Sometimes the problems are complicated and might take a while to explain.  That's ok.  As long as the media is both critical and accurate, it is doing its job.  In its current form it acts as a cheerleader for the power structures.  As such, it does not fulfill its mandate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , however , that the media needs to be brief.The media needs to be critical of the government .
It 's the very reason it is given the power to be uncensored .
It 's meant to be the natural predator on the power structure .
It does n't matter if it is brief or lengthy .
Sometimes the problems are complicated and might take a while to explain .
That 's ok. As long as the media is both critical and accurate , it is doing its job .
In its current form it acts as a cheerleader for the power structures .
As such , it does not fulfill its mandate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, however, that the media needs to be brief.The media needs to be critical of the government.
It's the very reason it is given the power to be uncensored.
It's meant to be the natural predator on the power structure.
It doesn't matter if it is brief or lengthy.
Sometimes the problems are complicated and might take a while to explain.
That's ok.  As long as the media is both critical and accurate, it is doing its job.
In its current form it acts as a cheerleader for the power structures.
As such, it does not fulfill its mandate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28189163</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1243943220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would suggest taking philosophy courses for social science electives if they allow you.... Philosophy and a sense of direction, often errant is all you got at the borders of any field.</p>  </div><p>I agree with you that delving into a philosophy course or two is not a bad thing for any of us but I always found it amusing comparing myself (an engineer) to the philosophy majors.  It was a knowledge and mind course, essentially, how can we be sure that what we know is true and justified.  They would spend whole lectures debating over whether or not our physical senses were lying to us and I'm sitting there thinking, that's not important, it's what I can do with those sense that's important.  It's just like in my field, science isn't what I concern myself with, but what I can do with what others have found in science is what matters to me.  Not that science isn't important but taking that philosophy course really showed me that deep down I really am an engineer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would suggest taking philosophy courses for social science electives if they allow you.... Philosophy and a sense of direction , often errant is all you got at the borders of any field .
I agree with you that delving into a philosophy course or two is not a bad thing for any of us but I always found it amusing comparing myself ( an engineer ) to the philosophy majors .
It was a knowledge and mind course , essentially , how can we be sure that what we know is true and justified .
They would spend whole lectures debating over whether or not our physical senses were lying to us and I 'm sitting there thinking , that 's not important , it 's what I can do with those sense that 's important .
It 's just like in my field , science is n't what I concern myself with , but what I can do with what others have found in science is what matters to me .
Not that science is n't important but taking that philosophy course really showed me that deep down I really am an engineer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would suggest taking philosophy courses for social science electives if they allow you.... Philosophy and a sense of direction, often errant is all you got at the borders of any field.
I agree with you that delving into a philosophy course or two is not a bad thing for any of us but I always found it amusing comparing myself (an engineer) to the philosophy majors.
It was a knowledge and mind course, essentially, how can we be sure that what we know is true and justified.
They would spend whole lectures debating over whether or not our physical senses were lying to us and I'm sitting there thinking, that's not important, it's what I can do with those sense that's important.
It's just like in my field, science isn't what I concern myself with, but what I can do with what others have found in science is what matters to me.
Not that science isn't important but taking that philosophy course really showed me that deep down I really am an engineer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180059</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243946400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.</p></div></blockquote><p>
--H. L. Mencken</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses .
He usually proves it , and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself .
--H. L. Mencken</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses.
He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
--H. L. Mencken
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339</id>
	<title>Philosophy of Mind</title>
	<author>etymxris</author>
	<datestamp>1243939140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cutting through the needless walls of text by both Sanchez and Brady, let me summarize the current state of the philosophy of mind:</p><p>1) We are little closer to reading off "beliefs" from human brains than we were 30 years ago.<br>2) Media often overgeneralizes the results of neuroscientists.<br>3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.<br>4) Religious people have a problem with (3).<br>5) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against (3).<br>6) More specifically, philosophers think too highly of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism\_(philosophy\_of\_mind)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">functionalism</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>I say this as a philosopher and not a scientist, but having studied these topics for a while, I have more respect for the scientists than the philosophers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cutting through the needless walls of text by both Sanchez and Brady , let me summarize the current state of the philosophy of mind : 1 ) We are little closer to reading off " beliefs " from human brains than we were 30 years ago.2 ) Media often overgeneralizes the results of neuroscientists.3 ) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.4 ) Religious people have a problem with ( 3 ) .5 ) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against ( 3 ) .6 ) More specifically , philosophers think too highly of functionalism [ wikipedia.org ] .I say this as a philosopher and not a scientist , but having studied these topics for a while , I have more respect for the scientists than the philosophers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cutting through the needless walls of text by both Sanchez and Brady, let me summarize the current state of the philosophy of mind:1) We are little closer to reading off "beliefs" from human brains than we were 30 years ago.2) Media often overgeneralizes the results of neuroscientists.3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.4) Religious people have a problem with (3).5) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against (3).6) More specifically, philosophers think too highly of functionalism [wikipedia.org].I say this as a philosopher and not a scientist, but having studied these topics for a while, I have more respect for the scientists than the philosophers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179375</id>
	<title>I don't see the point in discussing this article.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving us some simulation of justification for what we wanted to believe in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Discourse at this level ca n't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving us some simulation of justification for what we wanted to believe in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving us some simulation of justification for what we wanted to believe in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181647</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to see the opposite. All of the atheists that I personally know were formerly religious, many of them studied theology and religion. Ironically, it was often this study that brought them to the realizations that fundamentally changed their beliefs. This is, at this point, one anecdote against another but I still get the feeling that you're presenting a false equivocation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to see the opposite .
All of the atheists that I personally know were formerly religious , many of them studied theology and religion .
Ironically , it was often this study that brought them to the realizations that fundamentally changed their beliefs .
This is , at this point , one anecdote against another but I still get the feeling that you 're presenting a false equivocation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to see the opposite.
All of the atheists that I personally know were formerly religious, many of them studied theology and religion.
Ironically, it was often this study that brought them to the realizations that fundamentally changed their beliefs.
This is, at this point, one anecdote against another but I still get the feeling that you're presenting a false equivocation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181109</id>
	<title>Not much better</title>
	<author>wigle</author>
	<datestamp>1243953060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until metaphysics and prescriptive ethics are generally rejected, I think there are more than enough perils in <i>academic philosophy</i> already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until metaphysics and prescriptive ethics are generally rejected , I think there are more than enough perils in academic philosophy already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until metaphysics and prescriptive ethics are generally rejected, I think there are more than enough perils in academic philosophy already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186105</id>
	<title>How Long, O Lord?</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1243973040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" 'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.' "</p><p>Stated 100 years ago as "Most people think they are thinking when what they really are doing is rearranging their prejudices." (William James)</p><p>The observation, thus the problem, persists without solution or probably in hope thereof. The addition of modern technology 'doesn't mean shit to a tree' (Saint Gracie of Slick, "Eskimo Blue Day").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'Discourse at this level ca n't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place .
' " Stated 100 years ago as " Most people think they are thinking when what they really are doing is rearranging their prejudices .
" ( William James ) The observation , thus the problem , persists without solution or probably in hope thereof .
The addition of modern technology 'does n't mean shit to a tree ' ( Saint Gracie of Slick , " Eskimo Blue Day " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" 'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.
' "Stated 100 years ago as "Most people think they are thinking when what they really are doing is rearranging their prejudices.
" (William James)The observation, thus the problem, persists without solution or probably in hope thereof.
The addition of modern technology 'doesn't mean shit to a tree' (Saint Gracie of Slick, "Eskimo Blue Day").</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180147</id>
	<title>Hey, man...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243947060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Y'know, like... I didn't read the whole article or nothin' but, like... I gotta say that my best philosophical arguments happen while smoking hash, man. So, like... I don't know what this guy's got against hash, be it "one-way" or another but like... oh wait. I forgot what I was saying. Oh well... now where the hell did I put the Doritos?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'know , like... I did n't read the whole article or nothin ' but , like... I got ta say that my best philosophical arguments happen while smoking hash , man .
So , like... I do n't know what this guy 's got against hash , be it " one-way " or another but like... oh wait .
I forgot what I was saying .
Oh well... now where the hell did I put the Doritos ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'know, like... I didn't read the whole article or nothin' but, like... I gotta say that my best philosophical arguments happen while smoking hash, man.
So, like... I don't know what this guy's got against hash, be it "one-way" or another but like... oh wait.
I forgot what I was saying.
Oh well... now where the hell did I put the Doritos?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721</id>
	<title>Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he can't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others, while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text can't be understood unless by a marginally small &amp; elite portion of society.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Thanks for mashing your fists on the keyboard. It was a valuable contribution that makes us all intellectually richer.</p><p>The expression of ideas in the media IS a big problem. Noam Chomsky (some random guy, don't worry about it) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media. I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute. It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.</p><p>The fact is, some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study. It is OK to have elites. As someone with no medical training, I am very grateful that there are elite surgeons around to perform any procedures on me I might need in the future, rather than some bloke with 'common sense' who saw an episode of Casualty and reckons he can have a go at it.</p><blockquote><div><p>But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!</p></div></blockquote><p>

Being able to spell 'sophisticated' is not a sign of being an intellectual elitist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he ca n't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others , while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text ca n't be understood unless by a marginally small &amp; elite portion of society .
Thanks for mashing your fists on the keyboard .
It was a valuable contribution that makes us all intellectually richer.The expression of ideas in the media IS a big problem .
Noam Chomsky ( some random guy , do n't worry about it ) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media .
I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists , in a limited time frame , when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute .
It is a widely recognised problem which , to date , has n't found a satisfactory solution.The fact is , some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study .
It is OK to have elites .
As someone with no medical training , I am very grateful that there are elite surgeons around to perform any procedures on me I might need in the future , rather than some bloke with 'common sense ' who saw an episode of Casualty and reckons he can have a go at it.But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words !
Being able to spell 'sophisticated ' is not a sign of being an intellectual elitist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he can't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others, while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text can't be understood unless by a marginally small &amp; elite portion of society.
Thanks for mashing your fists on the keyboard.
It was a valuable contribution that makes us all intellectually richer.The expression of ideas in the media IS a big problem.
Noam Chomsky (some random guy, don't worry about it) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media.
I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute.
It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.The fact is, some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study.
It is OK to have elites.
As someone with no medical training, I am very grateful that there are elite surgeons around to perform any procedures on me I might need in the future, rather than some bloke with 'common sense' who saw an episode of Casualty and reckons he can have a go at it.But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!
Being able to spell 'sophisticated' is not a sign of being an intellectual elitist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185379</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence...</title>
	<author>Rycross</author>
	<datestamp>1243969860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't say that most atheists have a shallow understanding of theology.  A lot of the evangelical atheists (the ones who go on about how "terrible" religion is) have a shallow understanding of basic human psychology.  If you ever come across an atheist who parrots the old "Religion has caused more death and destruction in the world than all other causes," line, or the "Theists are inherently irrational while atheists are inherently rational" line, ask him to try to quantify those statement.  Usually, they can't without going through mental gymnastics or redefining their terms (i.e., "But nationalism and racism are kind-of religions!", "Emotional outbursts aren't signs of irrationality!").</p><p>Of course, the point is that we're all human.  We're all irrational and biased.  We all have a shallow understanding of things we don't think to often about.  We all try to turn opposing arguments into one-dimensional simplifications that are easy to counter.  Hell, you can see all of this in <strong>my post above</strong>.  Its hard to have a real, honest debate because its hard to fight our instincts.  It essentially requires us to be inhuman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say that most atheists have a shallow understanding of theology .
A lot of the evangelical atheists ( the ones who go on about how " terrible " religion is ) have a shallow understanding of basic human psychology .
If you ever come across an atheist who parrots the old " Religion has caused more death and destruction in the world than all other causes , " line , or the " Theists are inherently irrational while atheists are inherently rational " line , ask him to try to quantify those statement .
Usually , they ca n't without going through mental gymnastics or redefining their terms ( i.e. , " But nationalism and racism are kind-of religions !
" , " Emotional outbursts are n't signs of irrationality !
" ) .Of course , the point is that we 're all human .
We 're all irrational and biased .
We all have a shallow understanding of things we do n't think to often about .
We all try to turn opposing arguments into one-dimensional simplifications that are easy to counter .
Hell , you can see all of this in my post above .
Its hard to have a real , honest debate because its hard to fight our instincts .
It essentially requires us to be inhuman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say that most atheists have a shallow understanding of theology.
A lot of the evangelical atheists (the ones who go on about how "terrible" religion is) have a shallow understanding of basic human psychology.
If you ever come across an atheist who parrots the old "Religion has caused more death and destruction in the world than all other causes," line, or the "Theists are inherently irrational while atheists are inherently rational" line, ask him to try to quantify those statement.
Usually, they can't without going through mental gymnastics or redefining their terms (i.e., "But nationalism and racism are kind-of religions!
", "Emotional outbursts aren't signs of irrationality!
").Of course, the point is that we're all human.
We're all irrational and biased.
We all have a shallow understanding of things we don't think to often about.
We all try to turn opposing arguments into one-dimensional simplifications that are easy to counter.
Hell, you can see all of this in my post above.
Its hard to have a real, honest debate because its hard to fight our instincts.
It essentially requires us to be inhuman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186009</id>
	<title>Re:Cowards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243972560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is good, bar, right, and wrong in this world.</p></div><p> I know that one. I always choose "bar".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is good , bar , right , and wrong in this world .
I know that one .
I always choose " bar " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is good, bar, right, and wrong in this world.
I know that one.
I always choose "bar".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181293</id>
	<title>Re:Cowards</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1243954020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when you're a little confused about what's the good or the right or the wrong, you can always drown your sorrows at the bar, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when you 're a little confused about what 's the good or the right or the wrong , you can always drown your sorrows at the bar , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when you're a little confused about what's the good or the right or the wrong, you can always drown your sorrows at the bar, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182675</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1243959000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, we read that differently. I understood him to mean, "<i>if it wants to be successful</i> a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics," The one way hash argument isn't elitist, it says it is <i>hard</i> to explain certain things, and when those things are simplified, they aren't being explained. Sanchez is not saying that philosophers would make better leaders, in fact, you've flown off on an anti-elitist tangent that simply does not relate to the arguments being presented, while ignoring the gist of what the author is trying to say.</p><p>I'm interested in discerning the bias behind this tangent. What is your position on mind-brain dualism and identity? Is it, perhaps, contrary to the author's view of same?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , we read that differently .
I understood him to mean , " if it wants to be successful a democracy ca n't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics , " The one way hash argument is n't elitist , it says it is hard to explain certain things , and when those things are simplified , they are n't being explained .
Sanchez is not saying that philosophers would make better leaders , in fact , you 've flown off on an anti-elitist tangent that simply does not relate to the arguments being presented , while ignoring the gist of what the author is trying to say.I 'm interested in discerning the bias behind this tangent .
What is your position on mind-brain dualism and identity ?
Is it , perhaps , contrary to the author 's view of same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, we read that differently.
I understood him to mean, "if it wants to be successful a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics," The one way hash argument isn't elitist, it says it is hard to explain certain things, and when those things are simplified, they aren't being explained.
Sanchez is not saying that philosophers would make better leaders, in fact, you've flown off on an anti-elitist tangent that simply does not relate to the arguments being presented, while ignoring the gist of what the author is trying to say.I'm interested in discerning the bias behind this tangent.
What is your position on mind-brain dualism and identity?
Is it, perhaps, contrary to the author's view of same?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182765</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Change is a classic appeal to authority</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243959240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>arrhenius knew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>arrhenius knew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arrhenius knew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28191199</id>
	<title>Re:He talks too much. That's what.</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1243957980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Basically he's saying "appeal to authority is valid in an informal discussion between an eminent scientist and a layperson". Which I agree with - when talking to another professional, I'd never debate the merits of various algorithms (for example) based on who proposed them rather than on their performance,  but when I'm telling a non-technical highschool friend why he'd be better off spending his money on a bigger screen and more RAM rather than the very top-shelf processor, it's much quicker to just say "trust me, I'm right".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically he 's saying " appeal to authority is valid in an informal discussion between an eminent scientist and a layperson " .
Which I agree with - when talking to another professional , I 'd never debate the merits of various algorithms ( for example ) based on who proposed them rather than on their performance , but when I 'm telling a non-technical highschool friend why he 'd be better off spending his money on a bigger screen and more RAM rather than the very top-shelf processor , it 's much quicker to just say " trust me , I 'm right " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically he's saying "appeal to authority is valid in an informal discussion between an eminent scientist and a layperson".
Which I agree with - when talking to another professional, I'd never debate the merits of various algorithms (for example) based on who proposed them rather than on their performance,  but when I'm telling a non-technical highschool friend why he'd be better off spending his money on a bigger screen and more RAM rather than the very top-shelf processor, it's much quicker to just say "trust me, I'm right".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181515</id>
	<title>Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1243955100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree about the problem of brevity in the media.  The problem is, however, that the media needs to be brief.</p><p>If you really look at every policy, regulation and law that the government handles and every issue that society faces these days, there's absolutely no way one person can grasp enough of it to even pretend to make an informed choice on 99.9\% of them.  Only the gloss of the media gives us even the barest possibility that we can make any sort of decision using experience that is not our own or hearsay.</p><p>The media is really the only way most of us get any idea of what the issues might be.  We all know it's overly brief, and frequently biased, but there's really nothing else out there.  People don't have the time to sit around and read Foreign Affairs, The Economist, and a host of other periodicals that go into more depth.  They get maybe an hour a day at best to absorb the news.</p><p>I probably spend a lot more time than most reading as much as possible about whatever I can get my hands on, and I can tell you I still can do little better than gloss over extremely important topics that I vote on very couple of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree about the problem of brevity in the media .
The problem is , however , that the media needs to be brief.If you really look at every policy , regulation and law that the government handles and every issue that society faces these days , there 's absolutely no way one person can grasp enough of it to even pretend to make an informed choice on 99.9 \ % of them .
Only the gloss of the media gives us even the barest possibility that we can make any sort of decision using experience that is not our own or hearsay.The media is really the only way most of us get any idea of what the issues might be .
We all know it 's overly brief , and frequently biased , but there 's really nothing else out there .
People do n't have the time to sit around and read Foreign Affairs , The Economist , and a host of other periodicals that go into more depth .
They get maybe an hour a day at best to absorb the news.I probably spend a lot more time than most reading as much as possible about whatever I can get my hands on , and I can tell you I still can do little better than gloss over extremely important topics that I vote on very couple of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree about the problem of brevity in the media.
The problem is, however, that the media needs to be brief.If you really look at every policy, regulation and law that the government handles and every issue that society faces these days, there's absolutely no way one person can grasp enough of it to even pretend to make an informed choice on 99.9\% of them.
Only the gloss of the media gives us even the barest possibility that we can make any sort of decision using experience that is not our own or hearsay.The media is really the only way most of us get any idea of what the issues might be.
We all know it's overly brief, and frequently biased, but there's really nothing else out there.
People don't have the time to sit around and read Foreign Affairs, The Economist, and a host of other periodicals that go into more depth.
They get maybe an hour a day at best to absorb the news.I probably spend a lot more time than most reading as much as possible about whatever I can get my hands on, and I can tell you I still can do little better than gloss over extremely important topics that I vote on very couple of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583</id>
	<title>Ignorance more freely begets confidence...</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1243941720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>than does knowledge.</p><p>Speaking of science, I've noticed for a while now that it's certainly true that many, probably most, religious non-scientists get their facts wrong about scientific theories, but it's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology. In fact, I'm being charitable on that point, as most atheists I've met are either laughably ignorant of even the most basic theology or will refuse to discuss theology on a level more complex than one dumbed down for a small child or a person with Down's Syndrome.</p><p>At the same time, however, we need to be careful of high falutin arguments in a lot of fields. Occam's razor often becomes "Occam's chainsaw" in Philosophy, Political Science and Sociology. The real sciences are necessarily complex because they are dealing with an inherently complex subject that is only specialized because that is convenient for humans. In most fields, when you get into equal levels of complexity, you often find that that complexity is man-made, not inherent to the issue(s).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>than does knowledge.Speaking of science , I 've noticed for a while now that it 's certainly true that many , probably most , religious non-scientists get their facts wrong about scientific theories , but it 's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology .
In fact , I 'm being charitable on that point , as most atheists I 've met are either laughably ignorant of even the most basic theology or will refuse to discuss theology on a level more complex than one dumbed down for a small child or a person with Down 's Syndrome.At the same time , however , we need to be careful of high falutin arguments in a lot of fields .
Occam 's razor often becomes " Occam 's chainsaw " in Philosophy , Political Science and Sociology .
The real sciences are necessarily complex because they are dealing with an inherently complex subject that is only specialized because that is convenient for humans .
In most fields , when you get into equal levels of complexity , you often find that that complexity is man-made , not inherent to the issue ( s ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>than does knowledge.Speaking of science, I've noticed for a while now that it's certainly true that many, probably most, religious non-scientists get their facts wrong about scientific theories, but it's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology.
In fact, I'm being charitable on that point, as most atheists I've met are either laughably ignorant of even the most basic theology or will refuse to discuss theology on a level more complex than one dumbed down for a small child or a person with Down's Syndrome.At the same time, however, we need to be careful of high falutin arguments in a lot of fields.
Occam's razor often becomes "Occam's chainsaw" in Philosophy, Political Science and Sociology.
The real sciences are necessarily complex because they are dealing with an inherently complex subject that is only specialized because that is convenient for humans.
In most fields, when you get into equal levels of complexity, you often find that that complexity is man-made, not inherent to the issue(s).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a philosophy minor and even I find these arguments to be silly. Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective--even in hard science (much less something as "soft" as politics). In history, we used to call the pursuit of objectivity "the noble dream" (after Peter Novick's excellent critique <a href="http://www.amazon.com/That-Noble-Dream-Objectivity-Historical/dp/0521357454/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1243948200&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">That Noble Dream</a> [amazon.com]).
</p><p>As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time. In the field of philosophy, this whole argument reminds me of one of the great masters himself, Plato. Plato argued in the Republic (through Socrates) that only philosophers were suited to be rulers. This was, of course, a very convenient argument for Plato and his fellow academy members. And it was also evidence that his own arrogance had clouded his vision of his OWN biases (though he could still clearly enunciate in great detail the biases of the tyrant, democrat, oligarch, and monarch).
</p><p>When he almost laments that "a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics," Sanchez seems to critique democracy in the same way that Plato does. But anyone who has ever been a part of an academic department can damn well tell you that the politics among scholars is every bit as silly and immature as the politics of the rest of the world (perhaps more so). Sanchez's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a philosophy minor and even I find these arguments to be silly .
Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I 've seen against " bias " were usually written by scholars who just did n't realize their OWN bias .
There is no such thing as an " unbiased " argument or perspective--even in hard science ( much less something as " soft " as politics ) .
In history , we used to call the pursuit of objectivity " the noble dream " ( after Peter Novick 's excellent critique That Noble Dream [ amazon.com ] ) .
As for the " one way hash " argument : while it 's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials ( pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances , layman or not ) , the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism ( really more a kind of paternalism ) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time .
In the field of philosophy , this whole argument reminds me of one of the great masters himself , Plato .
Plato argued in the Republic ( through Socrates ) that only philosophers were suited to be rulers .
This was , of course , a very convenient argument for Plato and his fellow academy members .
And it was also evidence that his own arrogance had clouded his vision of his OWN biases ( though he could still clearly enunciate in great detail the biases of the tyrant , democrat , oligarch , and monarch ) .
When he almost laments that " a democracy ca n't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics , " Sanchez seems to critique democracy in the same way that Plato does .
But anyone who has ever been a part of an academic department can damn well tell you that the politics among scholars is every bit as silly and immature as the politics of the rest of the world ( perhaps more so ) .
Sanchez 's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato 's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a philosophy minor and even I find these arguments to be silly.
Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias.
There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective--even in hard science (much less something as "soft" as politics).
In history, we used to call the pursuit of objectivity "the noble dream" (after Peter Novick's excellent critique That Noble Dream [amazon.com]).
As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time.
In the field of philosophy, this whole argument reminds me of one of the great masters himself, Plato.
Plato argued in the Republic (through Socrates) that only philosophers were suited to be rulers.
This was, of course, a very convenient argument for Plato and his fellow academy members.
And it was also evidence that his own arrogance had clouded his vision of his OWN biases (though he could still clearly enunciate in great detail the biases of the tyrant, democrat, oligarch, and monarch).
When he almost laments that "a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics," Sanchez seems to critique democracy in the same way that Plato does.
But anyone who has ever been a part of an academic department can damn well tell you that the politics among scholars is every bit as silly and immature as the politics of the rest of the world (perhaps more so).
Sanchez's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180969</id>
	<title>I am stupid...</title>
	<author>bartwol</author>
	<datestamp>1243952280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and uninformed.</p><p>And I vote.</p><p>That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and uninformed.And I vote.That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and uninformed.And I vote.That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180145</id>
	<title>Slippery slopes</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1243947060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a good moment to mention. Doesn't the slippery slope deserves more respect?</p><p>I mean, I understand that logically it does not follow that taking some steps towards an undesirable result necessarily mean we will go all the way to that undesirable result. But wouldn't you say that, under some conditions, it can be useful as an heuristic criteria?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good moment to mention .
Does n't the slippery slope deserves more respect ? I mean , I understand that logically it does not follow that taking some steps towards an undesirable result necessarily mean we will go all the way to that undesirable result .
But would n't you say that , under some conditions , it can be useful as an heuristic criteria ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good moment to mention.
Doesn't the slippery slope deserves more respect?I mean, I understand that logically it does not follow that taking some steps towards an undesirable result necessarily mean we will go all the way to that undesirable result.
But wouldn't you say that, under some conditions, it can be useful as an heuristic criteria?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183237</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>gier</author>
	<datestamp>1243960860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I would like to echo the parent, in reply to you:</p><p>What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I would like to echo the parent , in reply to you : What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I would like to echo the parent, in reply to you:What?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179765</id>
	<title>He talks too much. That's what.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>blah blah without philosophical background blah blah you won't understand any of this blah blah blah takes thousands of words and dozens of paragraphs blah blah</i>" I mean, get to the point already, man!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" blah blah without philosophical background blah blah you wo n't understand any of this blah blah blah takes thousands of words and dozens of paragraphs blah blah " I mean , get to the point already , man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"blah blah without philosophical background blah blah you won't understand any of this blah blah blah takes thousands of words and dozens of paragraphs blah blah" I mean, get to the point already, man!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181425</id>
	<title>Re:And this is all that is required anyway</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1243954680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Certainly people can be persuaded.  It happens all the time.</p><p>I used to be a death penalty supporter.  Now, I'm not.  Of course, I can't put my finger on any one thing that changed my mind, but the arguments were certainly there.</p><p>I also used to be significantly more inclined to see offensive war as a legitimate tool of policy, now I don't.  Believe it or not, the Iraq war had nothing to do with that, as I honestly expected that a Mideast war was inevitable anyway.  I just wish we had been a lot more justified and a lot better at managing the aftermath.</p><p>So, yes, people can change their mind.  It just doesn't happen suddenly, so you might get the idea that no one is listening.  They certainly are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly people can be persuaded .
It happens all the time.I used to be a death penalty supporter .
Now , I 'm not .
Of course , I ca n't put my finger on any one thing that changed my mind , but the arguments were certainly there.I also used to be significantly more inclined to see offensive war as a legitimate tool of policy , now I do n't .
Believe it or not , the Iraq war had nothing to do with that , as I honestly expected that a Mideast war was inevitable anyway .
I just wish we had been a lot more justified and a lot better at managing the aftermath.So , yes , people can change their mind .
It just does n't happen suddenly , so you might get the idea that no one is listening .
They certainly are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly people can be persuaded.
It happens all the time.I used to be a death penalty supporter.
Now, I'm not.
Of course, I can't put my finger on any one thing that changed my mind, but the arguments were certainly there.I also used to be significantly more inclined to see offensive war as a legitimate tool of policy, now I don't.
Believe it or not, the Iraq war had nothing to do with that, as I honestly expected that a Mideast war was inevitable anyway.
I just wish we had been a lot more justified and a lot better at managing the aftermath.So, yes, people can change their mind.
It just doesn't happen suddenly, so you might get the idea that no one is listening.
They certainly are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179737</id>
	<title>Colour yourself lucky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the time it's actually the philosophers who try obscure things that are plain as day to normal people in layers of obscurantism, obfuscation and sometimes downright lying. But you have it easy, because at least you can scoff at those people because they are barbarians without degrees whereas they have no such recourse. So I don't see what you are complaining about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the time it 's actually the philosophers who try obscure things that are plain as day to normal people in layers of obscurantism , obfuscation and sometimes downright lying .
But you have it easy , because at least you can scoff at those people because they are barbarians without degrees whereas they have no such recourse .
So I do n't see what you are complaining about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the time it's actually the philosophers who try obscure things that are plain as day to normal people in layers of obscurantism, obfuscation and sometimes downright lying.
But you have it easy, because at least you can scoff at those people because they are barbarians without degrees whereas they have no such recourse.
So I don't see what you are complaining about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188487</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1243939860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This usually goes something like "I can't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias."</p></div><p>And that's where things fall apart.  It's not the idea that we can't be unbiased, it's the conclusion that follows that becomes a problem.
</p><p>If you want to get into it on a real philosophic level (which I suppose is what's going on in some posts here) you'd first have to eliminate the ambiguity around what we mean when we say "bias", what an "unbiased opinion" would be, and what the value of being "unbiased" is.  For example, you might argue that you can't be 99\% unbiased any more than you could be 99\% unique.  You're either unique or you're not, biased or not.
</p><p>But to sidestep some of that: there's no necessary connection between, "I can't be unbiased," and "I shouldn't bother trying to be reasonable, so instead I'll go off the deep end voicing all of my opinions no matter how unfounded they may be."  Maybe none of us can be unbiased, none of us can recognize our own bias, and maybe we shouldn't even try to be unbiased.  But even if so, there may still be such a thing as being right or wrong, smart or stupid, reasonable or irrational, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This usually goes something like " I ca n't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I 'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias .
" And that 's where things fall apart .
It 's not the idea that we ca n't be unbiased , it 's the conclusion that follows that becomes a problem .
If you want to get into it on a real philosophic level ( which I suppose is what 's going on in some posts here ) you 'd first have to eliminate the ambiguity around what we mean when we say " bias " , what an " unbiased opinion " would be , and what the value of being " unbiased " is .
For example , you might argue that you ca n't be 99 \ % unbiased any more than you could be 99 \ % unique .
You 're either unique or you 're not , biased or not .
But to sidestep some of that : there 's no necessary connection between , " I ca n't be unbiased , " and " I should n't bother trying to be reasonable , so instead I 'll go off the deep end voicing all of my opinions no matter how unfounded they may be .
" Maybe none of us can be unbiased , none of us can recognize our own bias , and maybe we should n't even try to be unbiased .
But even if so , there may still be such a thing as being right or wrong , smart or stupid , reasonable or irrational , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This usually goes something like "I can't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias.
"And that's where things fall apart.
It's not the idea that we can't be unbiased, it's the conclusion that follows that becomes a problem.
If you want to get into it on a real philosophic level (which I suppose is what's going on in some posts here) you'd first have to eliminate the ambiguity around what we mean when we say "bias", what an "unbiased opinion" would be, and what the value of being "unbiased" is.
For example, you might argue that you can't be 99\% unbiased any more than you could be 99\% unique.
You're either unique or you're not, biased or not.
But to sidestep some of that: there's no necessary connection between, "I can't be unbiased," and "I shouldn't bother trying to be reasonable, so instead I'll go off the deep end voicing all of my opinions no matter how unfounded they may be.
"  Maybe none of us can be unbiased, none of us can recognize our own bias, and maybe we shouldn't even try to be unbiased.
But even if so, there may still be such a thing as being right or wrong, smart or stupid, reasonable or irrational, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180011</id>
	<title>Nope, you don't</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1243945920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed out "The Fuck?"</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed out " The Fuck ?
"  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed out "The Fuck?
"
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180029</id>
	<title>And this is all that is required anyway</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1243946100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever seen anyone persuaded they are wrong? Bollocks. People only ever listen to reinforcing arguments.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever seen anyone persuaded they are wrong ?
Bollocks. People only ever listen to reinforcing arguments .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever seen anyone persuaded they are wrong?
Bollocks. People only ever listen to reinforcing arguments.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179813</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy of Mind</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1243944240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; 3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.</p><p>As a programmer, I must point out the obvious analogy: "the computer is still nothing more than a collection of transistors", and reply that if that were so, nobody would have to argue whether it is better to run Linux or Vista. Philosophers would do much better once they explicitly state that there is a difference between hardware and software, that they are, respectively, the brain and the mind, and that anyone trying to conflate the two is either a con man or an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 3 ) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.As a programmer , I must point out the obvious analogy : " the computer is still nothing more than a collection of transistors " , and reply that if that were so , nobody would have to argue whether it is better to run Linux or Vista .
Philosophers would do much better once they explicitly state that there is a difference between hardware and software , that they are , respectively , the brain and the mind , and that anyone trying to conflate the two is either a con man or an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; 3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.As a programmer, I must point out the obvious analogy: "the computer is still nothing more than a collection of transistors", and reply that if that were so, nobody would have to argue whether it is better to run Linux or Vista.
Philosophers would do much better once they explicitly state that there is a difference between hardware and software, that they are, respectively, the brain and the mind, and that anyone trying to conflate the two is either a con man or an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28194553</id>
	<title>Fallacy Alert!! Fallacy Alert!!</title>
	<author>Buddy the WIld Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1244038500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I teach philosophy at a state college.  My favorite section is a hefty compilation of material fallacies, which are different from logical fallacies.  Material fallacies are misuses of content and logical fallacies redirect the flow of argument like a bug in a logic tree chewing on the limbs, to mix metaphors.  The book I use which treats this well is Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic.  Unlike most academic books, this one is only about $40, last I heard.  Worth getting and reading just for fun.
I actually thought about doing some presidential campaign work using every single material fallacy Kreeft lists.  I stopped when it was clear that no one would be able to tell the difference between the ironic exercise and an actual campaign.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I teach philosophy at a state college .
My favorite section is a hefty compilation of material fallacies , which are different from logical fallacies .
Material fallacies are misuses of content and logical fallacies redirect the flow of argument like a bug in a logic tree chewing on the limbs , to mix metaphors .
The book I use which treats this well is Peter Kreeft 's Socratic Logic .
Unlike most academic books , this one is only about $ 40 , last I heard .
Worth getting and reading just for fun .
I actually thought about doing some presidential campaign work using every single material fallacy Kreeft lists .
I stopped when it was clear that no one would be able to tell the difference between the ironic exercise and an actual campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I teach philosophy at a state college.
My favorite section is a hefty compilation of material fallacies, which are different from logical fallacies.
Material fallacies are misuses of content and logical fallacies redirect the flow of argument like a bug in a logic tree chewing on the limbs, to mix metaphors.
The book I use which treats this well is Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic.
Unlike most academic books, this one is only about $40, last I heard.
Worth getting and reading just for fun.
I actually thought about doing some presidential campaign work using every single material fallacy Kreeft lists.
I stopped when it was clear that no one would be able to tell the difference between the ironic exercise and an actual campaign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179625</id>
	<title>What has this got to do with IT ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was holding off, giving slashdot the benefit of the doubt, but what does this story really have to do with IT ? Because he mentions blogs ? I don't get it. I've been seeing an increasing amount of stories with a political / sociological bent. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't seem to belong on slashdot.</p><p>Is it just me ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was holding off , giving slashdot the benefit of the doubt , but what does this story really have to do with IT ?
Because he mentions blogs ?
I do n't get it .
I 've been seeing an increasing amount of stories with a political / sociological bent .
Nothing wrong with that , but they do n't seem to belong on slashdot.Is it just me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was holding off, giving slashdot the benefit of the doubt, but what does this story really have to do with IT ?
Because he mentions blogs ?
I don't get it.
I've been seeing an increasing amount of stories with a political / sociological bent.
Nothing wrong with that, but they don't seem to belong on slashdot.Is it just me ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182441</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1243958160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He said that the sort of debate that often takes place in public forums is useless, because it grossly oversimplifies things.</p></div><p>To a large part this is undoubtedly true. However public forums (as internet forums) does carry the potential to accommodate good debate; if the coding side of the forums is designed and evolved to facilitate such. Of course the overall quality of the debate, the fading of trolls and flameposts, and the quality of the fact checking; all rely on the people posting. One could argue that one of the ideals of a good educational system should not only teach certain basic information about the world and various fields of study; but also impart the knowledge and desire for people to contribute, hopefully constructively, to a public debate about a wide range of issues of interest to a citizen of a democratic society. Good leaders requires vigilant citizens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He said that the sort of debate that often takes place in public forums is useless , because it grossly oversimplifies things.To a large part this is undoubtedly true .
However public forums ( as internet forums ) does carry the potential to accommodate good debate ; if the coding side of the forums is designed and evolved to facilitate such .
Of course the overall quality of the debate , the fading of trolls and flameposts , and the quality of the fact checking ; all rely on the people posting .
One could argue that one of the ideals of a good educational system should not only teach certain basic information about the world and various fields of study ; but also impart the knowledge and desire for people to contribute , hopefully constructively , to a public debate about a wide range of issues of interest to a citizen of a democratic society .
Good leaders requires vigilant citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said that the sort of debate that often takes place in public forums is useless, because it grossly oversimplifies things.To a large part this is undoubtedly true.
However public forums (as internet forums) does carry the potential to accommodate good debate; if the coding side of the forums is designed and evolved to facilitate such.
Of course the overall quality of the debate, the fading of trolls and flameposts, and the quality of the fact checking; all rely on the people posting.
One could argue that one of the ideals of a good educational system should not only teach certain basic information about the world and various fields of study; but also impart the knowledge and desire for people to contribute, hopefully constructively, to a public debate about a wide range of issues of interest to a citizen of a democratic society.
Good leaders requires vigilant citizens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184431</id>
	<title>Re:As a side note</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243966020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only 10\%?!? From my personal experience, I can tell you that EVERYBODY on slashdot is a crank except for me!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 10 \ % ? ! ?
From my personal experience , I can tell you that EVERYBODY on slashdot is a crank except for me !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 10\%?!?
From my personal experience, I can tell you that EVERYBODY on slashdot is a crank except for me!
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184623</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>cain</author>
	<datestamp>1243966740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism...</p></div><p>
I don't think the "one way hash" argument argument references authority at all. I understood the "one way hash" is a point or line of reasoning which sounds solid and pithy when stated, but under the surface is deeply flawed. This forces the counter argument to have to explain a more complicated line of reasoning - which doesn't convince as easily as the 'one way hash' line of reasoning.
</p><p>
A simple example is "it was very cold last winter, therefore global warming is false". On the surface this makes sense - "yeah, it was really cold last winter, this argument must be correct." The counter argument to this involves graphs and things like "yeah, it was cold last winter - but look at this graph based on ice samples from Greenland for the last thousand years. You'll see that it means that blah blah blah...". Many anti-science arguments are 'one way hashes'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for the " one way hash " argument : while it 's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials ( pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances , layman or not ) , the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism.. . I do n't think the " one way hash " argument argument references authority at all .
I understood the " one way hash " is a point or line of reasoning which sounds solid and pithy when stated , but under the surface is deeply flawed .
This forces the counter argument to have to explain a more complicated line of reasoning - which does n't convince as easily as the 'one way hash ' line of reasoning .
A simple example is " it was very cold last winter , therefore global warming is false " .
On the surface this makes sense - " yeah , it was really cold last winter , this argument must be correct .
" The counter argument to this involves graphs and things like " yeah , it was cold last winter - but look at this graph based on ice samples from Greenland for the last thousand years .
You 'll see that it means that blah blah blah... " .
Many anti-science arguments are 'one way hashes' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism...
I don't think the "one way hash" argument argument references authority at all.
I understood the "one way hash" is a point or line of reasoning which sounds solid and pithy when stated, but under the surface is deeply flawed.
This forces the counter argument to have to explain a more complicated line of reasoning - which doesn't convince as easily as the 'one way hash' line of reasoning.
A simple example is "it was very cold last winter, therefore global warming is false".
On the surface this makes sense - "yeah, it was really cold last winter, this argument must be correct.
" The counter argument to this involves graphs and things like "yeah, it was cold last winter - but look at this graph based on ice samples from Greenland for the last thousand years.
You'll see that it means that blah blah blah...".
Many anti-science arguments are 'one way hashes'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311</id>
	<title>Time for philosophers to take a stand.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243938720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's have an international philosophers strike to protest. Let's bring this planet to it's knees!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's have an international philosophers strike to protest .
Let 's bring this planet to it 's knees !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's have an international philosophers strike to protest.
Let's bring this planet to it's knees!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675</id>
	<title>Cowards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he wants see some over simplification here it is.</p><p>There is good, bar, right, and wrong in this world. While not everything is that simply, perhaps not even most things people like him to see nothing but shades of gray everywhere even when their are none.  Usually this is because they are afraid to stand up and do the right thing because it might make someone mad, start a war, or God forbid make them appear <i>intolerant</i>.</p><p>I for am sick of people like this guy who bring us all this <i>Politically Correct</i> nonsense, which does nothing other than serve to confuse otherwise good people and prevent us from making the choices, which might be hard ones, but we are ultimately required if we care about living in a just world and possibly even our very survival.</p><p>Their language may not be classy and they might want for some temperance and timing but at least the unruly mob of bloggers shows a little courage.  I would much much rather many of those be our leaders than the lot of sycophants and manikins we have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he wants see some over simplification here it is.There is good , bar , right , and wrong in this world .
While not everything is that simply , perhaps not even most things people like him to see nothing but shades of gray everywhere even when their are none .
Usually this is because they are afraid to stand up and do the right thing because it might make someone mad , start a war , or God forbid make them appear intolerant.I for am sick of people like this guy who bring us all this Politically Correct nonsense , which does nothing other than serve to confuse otherwise good people and prevent us from making the choices , which might be hard ones , but we are ultimately required if we care about living in a just world and possibly even our very survival.Their language may not be classy and they might want for some temperance and timing but at least the unruly mob of bloggers shows a little courage .
I would much much rather many of those be our leaders than the lot of sycophants and manikins we have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he wants see some over simplification here it is.There is good, bar, right, and wrong in this world.
While not everything is that simply, perhaps not even most things people like him to see nothing but shades of gray everywhere even when their are none.
Usually this is because they are afraid to stand up and do the right thing because it might make someone mad, start a war, or God forbid make them appear intolerant.I for am sick of people like this guy who bring us all this Politically Correct nonsense, which does nothing other than serve to confuse otherwise good people and prevent us from making the choices, which might be hard ones, but we are ultimately required if we care about living in a just world and possibly even our very survival.Their language may not be classy and they might want for some temperance and timing but at least the unruly mob of bloggers shows a little courage.
I would much much rather many of those be our leaders than the lot of sycophants and manikins we have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185245</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1243969260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time.</i></p><p>Well, while that's a lovely sentiment, it doesn't actually qualify as a counterargument.  Would you care to actually provide one?</p><p><i>Sanchez's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings.</i></p><p>Funny, I don't see how he actually said that (although, I like how you assume all academics are "cloistered"... bigoted much?).  He simple put forth the following:</p><p>The less educated in a subject you are, the more likely you are to over-estimate your knowledge in that subject area.  Combine that with his one-way hash argument (that it's easy to manipulate someone when explaining a complex concept, because truly explaining said concept would require a level of knowledge and detail that's impenetrable to the layman), and it's clear that a layman can be very easily duped.</p><p>Therefore, a new type of discussion is needed, one where, rather than arguing a solution to a problem, you discuss all the issues underpinning the problem, and why selecting a solution is hard, thus disabusing said layman of their notion that they are, in fact, educated in the subject area.  That way, the layman may be less easy to dupe, as they will be more aware of their own ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As for the " one way hash " argument : while it 's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials ( pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances , layman or not ) , the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism ( really more a kind of paternalism ) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time.Well , while that 's a lovely sentiment , it does n't actually qualify as a counterargument .
Would you care to actually provide one ? Sanchez 's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato 's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings.Funny , I do n't see how he actually said that ( although , I like how you assume all academics are " cloistered " ... bigoted much ? ) .
He simple put forth the following : The less educated in a subject you are , the more likely you are to over-estimate your knowledge in that subject area .
Combine that with his one-way hash argument ( that it 's easy to manipulate someone when explaining a complex concept , because truly explaining said concept would require a level of knowledge and detail that 's impenetrable to the layman ) , and it 's clear that a layman can be very easily duped.Therefore , a new type of discussion is needed , one where , rather than arguing a solution to a problem , you discuss all the issues underpinning the problem , and why selecting a solution is hard , thus disabusing said layman of their notion that they are , in fact , educated in the subject area .
That way , the layman may be less easy to dupe , as they will be more aware of their own ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time.Well, while that's a lovely sentiment, it doesn't actually qualify as a counterargument.
Would you care to actually provide one?Sanchez's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings.Funny, I don't see how he actually said that (although, I like how you assume all academics are "cloistered"... bigoted much?).
He simple put forth the following:The less educated in a subject you are, the more likely you are to over-estimate your knowledge in that subject area.
Combine that with his one-way hash argument (that it's easy to manipulate someone when explaining a complex concept, because truly explaining said concept would require a level of knowledge and detail that's impenetrable to the layman), and it's clear that a layman can be very easily duped.Therefore, a new type of discussion is needed, one where, rather than arguing a solution to a problem, you discuss all the issues underpinning the problem, and why selecting a solution is hard, thus disabusing said layman of their notion that they are, in fact, educated in the subject area.
That way, the layman may be less easy to dupe, as they will be more aware of their own ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181251</id>
	<title>Re:Cowards</title>
	<author>tygerstripes</author>
	<datestamp>1243953780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?
</p><p>Did you even read the article? It was about the problems of publicly debating complex <i>scientifically</i> contentious issues when even well-educated people don't have the knowledge or patience to properly understand clear but complex debunking arguments. If anything, your ill-informed attempt at dragging it down without even <i>trying</i> to understand the points being made have served to <i>reinforce</i> them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Did you even read the article ?
It was about the problems of publicly debating complex scientifically contentious issues when even well-educated people do n't have the knowledge or patience to properly understand clear but complex debunking arguments .
If anything , your ill-informed attempt at dragging it down without even trying to understand the points being made have served to reinforce them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Did you even read the article?
It was about the problems of publicly debating complex scientifically contentious issues when even well-educated people don't have the knowledge or patience to properly understand clear but complex debunking arguments.
If anything, your ill-informed attempt at dragging it down without even trying to understand the points being made have served to reinforce them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243944480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those still in school; or people like me who never left, I would suggest taking philosophy courses for social science electives if they allow you.  A nascent Philosophy of Computer Science is developing and <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=2&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.cse.buffalo.edu\%2F~rapaport\%2FPapers\%2Frapaport\_phics.pdf&amp;ei=nQUlSrqDA5a4sgO1wISTBg&amp;usg=AFQjCNHSZHBvN2LGyBtIiCX7hGRVs4Ps-w&amp;sig2=\_uO1jEaOdOarEfYY4Ih2Sg" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">looking for help with the foundations</a> [google.com] (PDF File).</p><p>Philosophy and a sense of direction, often errant is all you got at the borders of any field.  WV Quine and Popper have become interlocutors that after many readings I have access to when working on an intellectual task.  Reading philosophy for me has brought great minds into contact with my own and given me a bit of humility and a shared sense of purpose I wish I had in my 20's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those still in school ; or people like me who never left , I would suggest taking philosophy courses for social science electives if they allow you .
A nascent Philosophy of Computer Science is developing and looking for help with the foundations [ google.com ] ( PDF File ) .Philosophy and a sense of direction , often errant is all you got at the borders of any field .
WV Quine and Popper have become interlocutors that after many readings I have access to when working on an intellectual task .
Reading philosophy for me has brought great minds into contact with my own and given me a bit of humility and a shared sense of purpose I wish I had in my 20 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those still in school; or people like me who never left, I would suggest taking philosophy courses for social science electives if they allow you.
A nascent Philosophy of Computer Science is developing and looking for help with the foundations [google.com] (PDF File).Philosophy and a sense of direction, often errant is all you got at the borders of any field.
WV Quine and Popper have become interlocutors that after many readings I have access to when working on an intellectual task.
Reading philosophy for me has brought great minds into contact with my own and given me a bit of humility and a shared sense of purpose I wish I had in my 20's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188951</id>
	<title>Starting a sentence in the header and continuing i</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1243942020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>t in the body is extremely irritating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>t in the body is extremely irritating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>t in the body is extremely irritating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180545</id>
	<title>Where are the libs screaming about Fascism now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243949760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obongo just seized GM and raided your retirement portfolio to prop up the benefits of UAW retirees.  GM bondholders got soaked to the tune of 70\% (90\% if you accept a more reasonable valuation of the new GM than what the Obongo camp pulled out of their ass), while UAW retirees will only see a 25\% reduction in benefits.  As we saw with Chrysler, an implied threat was made against the bondholders so that they would give up more than what they were entitled to receive in bankruptcy court, presumably because the bondholders are invested in a broad portfolio and can afford to absorb the losses.  In other words, the bill just got passed on to you, the non-UAW retiree taxpayer.  The US and Canadian governments now own about 72\% of GM because they strong-armed the debt-holders of that company.  Also, the legal claims of people injured by defective GM products were wiped out (as was done for Chrysler).  And the company won't be profitable selling their new government-mandated environmentally-friendly putt-putt cars unless gas goes up in price by 2x.  But have no fear, Team Obama is coming to the rescue on that front as well.  What you're seeing here is the largest Democrat union vote-buying effort in history.  Next up - "Free" health care for "all."  I expect by the time Team Obongo finishes demolishing the US health care system and distributing the pieces to his cronies, I'll have to fly to India if I ever need a major operation that won't bankrupt me.  Welcome to Hugo Chavez's America - where only a select few government sycophants are allowed to possess personal wealth and the rest of you are content to beg for scraps from their table like the family dog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obongo just seized GM and raided your retirement portfolio to prop up the benefits of UAW retirees .
GM bondholders got soaked to the tune of 70 \ % ( 90 \ % if you accept a more reasonable valuation of the new GM than what the Obongo camp pulled out of their ass ) , while UAW retirees will only see a 25 \ % reduction in benefits .
As we saw with Chrysler , an implied threat was made against the bondholders so that they would give up more than what they were entitled to receive in bankruptcy court , presumably because the bondholders are invested in a broad portfolio and can afford to absorb the losses .
In other words , the bill just got passed on to you , the non-UAW retiree taxpayer .
The US and Canadian governments now own about 72 \ % of GM because they strong-armed the debt-holders of that company .
Also , the legal claims of people injured by defective GM products were wiped out ( as was done for Chrysler ) .
And the company wo n't be profitable selling their new government-mandated environmentally-friendly putt-putt cars unless gas goes up in price by 2x .
But have no fear , Team Obama is coming to the rescue on that front as well .
What you 're seeing here is the largest Democrat union vote-buying effort in history .
Next up - " Free " health care for " all .
" I expect by the time Team Obongo finishes demolishing the US health care system and distributing the pieces to his cronies , I 'll have to fly to India if I ever need a major operation that wo n't bankrupt me .
Welcome to Hugo Chavez 's America - where only a select few government sycophants are allowed to possess personal wealth and the rest of you are content to beg for scraps from their table like the family dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obongo just seized GM and raided your retirement portfolio to prop up the benefits of UAW retirees.
GM bondholders got soaked to the tune of 70\% (90\% if you accept a more reasonable valuation of the new GM than what the Obongo camp pulled out of their ass), while UAW retirees will only see a 25\% reduction in benefits.
As we saw with Chrysler, an implied threat was made against the bondholders so that they would give up more than what they were entitled to receive in bankruptcy court, presumably because the bondholders are invested in a broad portfolio and can afford to absorb the losses.
In other words, the bill just got passed on to you, the non-UAW retiree taxpayer.
The US and Canadian governments now own about 72\% of GM because they strong-armed the debt-holders of that company.
Also, the legal claims of people injured by defective GM products were wiped out (as was done for Chrysler).
And the company won't be profitable selling their new government-mandated environmentally-friendly putt-putt cars unless gas goes up in price by 2x.
But have no fear, Team Obama is coming to the rescue on that front as well.
What you're seeing here is the largest Democrat union vote-buying effort in history.
Next up - "Free" health care for "all.
"  I expect by the time Team Obongo finishes demolishing the US health care system and distributing the pieces to his cronies, I'll have to fly to India if I ever need a major operation that won't bankrupt me.
Welcome to Hugo Chavez's America - where only a select few government sycophants are allowed to possess personal wealth and the rest of you are content to beg for scraps from their table like the family dog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179441</id>
	<title>Short summary</title>
	<author>oneplus999</author>
	<datestamp>1243940100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What might be more helpful, at least in some instances, is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...[n]ot &#226;oethe case for policy A&#226; vs &#226;oethe case for policy B&#226; but &#226;oethe epistemic problems that make it hard to choose between A and B,&#226; as though (I know, it&#226;(TM)s crazy) the search for truth were more than a punch-up between mutually exclusive, preestablished conclusions. The message is not (to coin a phrase) &#226;oewe report, you decide&#226; but &#226;oewe report on why you&#226;(TM)re not actually competent to decide, unless you&#226;(TM)re prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time, energy, and thought to it.&#226;</p></div><p>Thought I'd do a short summary of his argument by just presenting the results... now you have everything you need to know to discuss this subject!  No need to rtfa.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What might be more helpful , at least in some instances , is ... [ n ] ot   oethe case for policy A   vs   oethe case for policy B   but   oethe epistemic problems that make it hard to choose between A and B ,   as though ( I know , it   ( TM ) s crazy ) the search for truth were more than a punch-up between mutually exclusive , preestablished conclusions .
The message is not ( to coin a phrase )   oewe report , you decide   but   oewe report on why you   ( TM ) re not actually competent to decide , unless you   ( TM ) re prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time , energy , and thought to it.   Thought I 'd do a short summary of his argument by just presenting the results... now you have everything you need to know to discuss this subject !
No need to rtfa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What might be more helpful, at least in some instances, is ...[n]ot âoethe case for policy Aâ vs âoethe case for policy Bâ but âoethe epistemic problems that make it hard to choose between A and B,â as though (I know, itâ(TM)s crazy) the search for truth were more than a punch-up between mutually exclusive, preestablished conclusions.
The message is not (to coin a phrase) âoewe report, you decideâ but âoewe report on why youâ(TM)re not actually competent to decide, unless youâ(TM)re prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time, energy, and thought to it.âThought I'd do a short summary of his argument by just presenting the results... now you have everything you need to know to discuss this subject!
No need to rtfa.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185647</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1243971120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials..., the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time</p></div></blockquote><p>The "one way hash" argument refers to the often true fact that it's difficult to explain something correctly and completely.  Therefore, an argument that glosses over, rather than takes advantage of, nuance is easier to understand.  Otherwise, so many counter-intuitive things have to be learned that most people give up.</p><p>While I suppose it is similar to a strawman argument, it seems to advance by mischaracterizing the background knowledge that drives an argument, rather than the point being made.</p><p>It's hardly elitist to note that most people are unwilling to fully educate themselves in a subject, and hence can be convinced of something that superficially seems correct.  After all, if you were to tell the average person that there is absolutely no conflict between the scientific and biblical accounts of creation because time is determined by the observer, and hence 24 days can map easily onto the big bang account, for some position and speed of the narrator (which may have to change from day to day), they would get confused.</p><p>It's somewhat ironic that your "one way hash" of the argument was modded Informative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for the " one way hash " argument : while it 's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials... , the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism ( really more a kind of paternalism ) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long timeThe " one way hash " argument refers to the often true fact that it 's difficult to explain something correctly and completely .
Therefore , an argument that glosses over , rather than takes advantage of , nuance is easier to understand .
Otherwise , so many counter-intuitive things have to be learned that most people give up.While I suppose it is similar to a strawman argument , it seems to advance by mischaracterizing the background knowledge that drives an argument , rather than the point being made.It 's hardly elitist to note that most people are unwilling to fully educate themselves in a subject , and hence can be convinced of something that superficially seems correct .
After all , if you were to tell the average person that there is absolutely no conflict between the scientific and biblical accounts of creation because time is determined by the observer , and hence 24 days can map easily onto the big bang account , for some position and speed of the narrator ( which may have to change from day to day ) , they would get confused.It 's somewhat ironic that your " one way hash " of the argument was modded Informative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials..., the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long timeThe "one way hash" argument refers to the often true fact that it's difficult to explain something correctly and completely.
Therefore, an argument that glosses over, rather than takes advantage of, nuance is easier to understand.
Otherwise, so many counter-intuitive things have to be learned that most people give up.While I suppose it is similar to a strawman argument, it seems to advance by mischaracterizing the background knowledge that drives an argument, rather than the point being made.It's hardly elitist to note that most people are unwilling to fully educate themselves in a subject, and hence can be convinced of something that superficially seems correct.
After all, if you were to tell the average person that there is absolutely no conflict between the scientific and biblical accounts of creation because time is determined by the observer, and hence 24 days can map easily onto the big bang account, for some position and speed of the narrator (which may have to change from day to day), they would get confused.It's somewhat ironic that your "one way hash" of the argument was modded Informative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184715</id>
	<title>kdawson is a troll</title>
	<author>superwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1243967040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The conclusion of the article is that every argument must inevitably come down to ad hominems:<p><div class="quote"><p>The message is not (to coin a phrase) "we report, you decide" but "we report on why you're not actually competent to decide, unless you're prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time, energy, and thought to it.</p></div><p>This type of inflammatory nonsense pervades through all kdawson posts.  I suspect slashdot keeps him around for the very reason that he is able to rose people up (more commenting=more ad revenue).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The conclusion of the article is that every argument must inevitably come down to ad hominems : The message is not ( to coin a phrase ) " we report , you decide " but " we report on why you 're not actually competent to decide , unless you 're prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time , energy , and thought to it.This type of inflammatory nonsense pervades through all kdawson posts .
I suspect slashdot keeps him around for the very reason that he is able to rose people up ( more commenting = more ad revenue ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The conclusion of the article is that every argument must inevitably come down to ad hominems:The message is not (to coin a phrase) "we report, you decide" but "we report on why you're not actually competent to decide, unless you're prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time, energy, and thought to it.This type of inflammatory nonsense pervades through all kdawson posts.
I suspect slashdot keeps him around for the very reason that he is able to rose people up (more commenting=more ad revenue).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28187331</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1243935240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a statistician, I claim that it *IS* possible to be unbiased.  Of course, you've got to accept my definition of bias.  (I.e., having an unbiased viewpoint would be equivalent to having a viewpoint the same as that of the mean viewpoint of your population sample.)</p><p>Do you have a different definition of bias?</p><p>N.B.:  What I object to is that belief that an unbiased viewpoint is necessarily better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a statistician , I claim that it * IS * possible to be unbiased .
Of course , you 've got to accept my definition of bias .
( I.e. , having an unbiased viewpoint would be equivalent to having a viewpoint the same as that of the mean viewpoint of your population sample .
) Do you have a different definition of bias ? N.B .
: What I object to is that belief that an unbiased viewpoint is necessarily better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a statistician, I claim that it *IS* possible to be unbiased.
Of course, you've got to accept my definition of bias.
(I.e., having an unbiased viewpoint would be equivalent to having a viewpoint the same as that of the mean viewpoint of your population sample.
)Do you have a different definition of bias?N.B.
:  What I object to is that belief that an unbiased viewpoint is necessarily better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180095</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1243946760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you throw out divinity as a premise, what theological concepts demand subtlety?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you throw out divinity as a premise , what theological concepts demand subtlety ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you throw out divinity as a premise, what theological concepts demand subtlety?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180261</id>
	<title>Climate Change is a classic appeal to authority</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243948020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a Physicist but essentially I have to demure to the Climate Modelling experts too.</p><p>At first glance it appears that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere will make very little difference to the global temperature.</p><p>Why? Well the best models predict an effective increase of 1-2 watts per/m^2 of energy directed back to Eath from the addition CO2.</p><p>On the other hand the amount of power radiated into space from the Earth is to first approximation, given by the Steffan-Boltzmann equation.</p><p>Power = sigma*T^4</p><p>Where T is the Earth's temperature in Kelvin ~ 283 C.</p><p>The T^4 means you get a lot of extra radiated power for a very little increase in temperature. Roughly a 0.3 degree increase in temperature for a doubling of the CO2 levels.</p><p>To get the 3 - 7 degree increases predicted, you need a really big positive feedback effect from additional water vapour. But additional water vapour also provides clouds which either increase the amount of power reflected back into space or increase the greenhouse effect, depending on where they form.</p><p>It's a really complicated problem.</p><p>So one can only hope that the authorities have got it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Physicist but essentially I have to demure to the Climate Modelling experts too.At first glance it appears that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere will make very little difference to the global temperature.Why ?
Well the best models predict an effective increase of 1-2 watts per/m ^ 2 of energy directed back to Eath from the addition CO2.On the other hand the amount of power radiated into space from the Earth is to first approximation , given by the Steffan-Boltzmann equation.Power = sigma * T ^ 4Where T is the Earth 's temperature in Kelvin ~ 283 C.The T ^ 4 means you get a lot of extra radiated power for a very little increase in temperature .
Roughly a 0.3 degree increase in temperature for a doubling of the CO2 levels.To get the 3 - 7 degree increases predicted , you need a really big positive feedback effect from additional water vapour .
But additional water vapour also provides clouds which either increase the amount of power reflected back into space or increase the greenhouse effect , depending on where they form.It 's a really complicated problem.So one can only hope that the authorities have got it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Physicist but essentially I have to demure to the Climate Modelling experts too.At first glance it appears that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere will make very little difference to the global temperature.Why?
Well the best models predict an effective increase of 1-2 watts per/m^2 of energy directed back to Eath from the addition CO2.On the other hand the amount of power radiated into space from the Earth is to first approximation, given by the Steffan-Boltzmann equation.Power = sigma*T^4Where T is the Earth's temperature in Kelvin ~ 283 C.The T^4 means you get a lot of extra radiated power for a very little increase in temperature.
Roughly a 0.3 degree increase in temperature for a doubling of the CO2 levels.To get the 3 - 7 degree increases predicted, you need a really big positive feedback effect from additional water vapour.
But additional water vapour also provides clouds which either increase the amount of power reflected back into space or increase the greenhouse effect, depending on where they form.It's a really complicated problem.So one can only hope that the authorities have got it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28187267</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1243934940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But philosophers ARE the ones most suited to be kings (well, most of them) because they are the ones least interested in power.  This isn't a claim that they are suited, merely that they are somewhat less unsuited.  (Programmers are up there too.  And abstract mathematicians.  And some applied mathematicians.  And several sorts of artist.  But not engineers.  Nobody involved in the experimental sciences.  They're too connected to achieving their ends in the physical universe.  So they would want power as a tool.)</p><p>The real problem with an average philosopher as king is that he wouldn't be even interested enough to do a decent job.  But being interested for the power is a true disqualifier.  (Not for being a king, but for being a good one.)</p><p>My real feeling is that given the nature of people, the best way to choose executives and legislators would be by random choice among high school graduates.  This makes it impossible to bribe them before they take the office.  And it means that there aren't any re-election campaigns to take bribes to pay for.  (If there were significant chance of this being implemented there are various "fine-tuning" tweaks I'd apply, but as there's no chance, why bother.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But philosophers ARE the ones most suited to be kings ( well , most of them ) because they are the ones least interested in power .
This is n't a claim that they are suited , merely that they are somewhat less unsuited .
( Programmers are up there too .
And abstract mathematicians .
And some applied mathematicians .
And several sorts of artist .
But not engineers .
Nobody involved in the experimental sciences .
They 're too connected to achieving their ends in the physical universe .
So they would want power as a tool .
) The real problem with an average philosopher as king is that he would n't be even interested enough to do a decent job .
But being interested for the power is a true disqualifier .
( Not for being a king , but for being a good one .
) My real feeling is that given the nature of people , the best way to choose executives and legislators would be by random choice among high school graduates .
This makes it impossible to bribe them before they take the office .
And it means that there are n't any re-election campaigns to take bribes to pay for .
( If there were significant chance of this being implemented there are various " fine-tuning " tweaks I 'd apply , but as there 's no chance , why bother .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But philosophers ARE the ones most suited to be kings (well, most of them) because they are the ones least interested in power.
This isn't a claim that they are suited, merely that they are somewhat less unsuited.
(Programmers are up there too.
And abstract mathematicians.
And some applied mathematicians.
And several sorts of artist.
But not engineers.
Nobody involved in the experimental sciences.
They're too connected to achieving their ends in the physical universe.
So they would want power as a tool.
)The real problem with an average philosopher as king is that he wouldn't be even interested enough to do a decent job.
But being interested for the power is a true disqualifier.
(Not for being a king, but for being a good one.
)My real feeling is that given the nature of people, the best way to choose executives and legislators would be by random choice among high school graduates.
This makes it impossible to bribe them before they take the office.
And it means that there aren't any re-election campaigns to take bribes to pay for.
(If there were significant chance of this being implemented there are various "fine-tuning" tweaks I'd apply, but as there's no chance, why bother.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267</id>
	<title>I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243938360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179357</id>
	<title>Re:The web gives us all a voice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>the fact that PP was founded in order to control the population of undesirables, and Sanger, the founder of PP, was especially eager to label non-whites as undesirable.</i> </p><p>Can't you come up with something that's actually <b>true</b> to push your political agenda?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the fact that PP was founded in order to control the population of undesirables , and Sanger , the founder of PP , was especially eager to label non-whites as undesirable .
Ca n't you come up with something that 's actually true to push your political agenda ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the fact that PP was founded in order to control the population of undesirables, and Sanger, the founder of PP, was especially eager to label non-whites as undesirable.
Can't you come up with something that's actually true to push your political agenda?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179683</id>
	<title>As a side note</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1243942800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's something interesting:</p><p>Following a link from the first article we get:</p><p>The Dunning-Kruger Effect: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger\_effect</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>which in turn leads us to:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank\_(person)#The\_psychology\_of\_cranks" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank\_(person)#The\_psychology\_of\_cranks</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>which pretty much explains the logic behind at least 10\% of the posts here in Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something interesting : Following a link from the first article we get : The Dunning-Kruger Effect : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger \ _effect [ wikipedia.org ] which in turn leads us to : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank \ _ ( person ) # The \ _psychology \ _of \ _cranks [ wikipedia.org ] which pretty much explains the logic behind at least 10 \ % of the posts here in Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something interesting:Following a link from the first article we get:The Dunning-Kruger Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger\_effect [wikipedia.org]which in turn leads us to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank\_(person)#The\_psychology\_of\_cranks [wikipedia.org]which pretty much explains the logic behind at least 10\% of the posts here in Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181945</id>
	<title>natural philosophy?</title>
	<author>rlseaman</author>
	<datestamp>1243956540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.' This is, needless to say, not a problem limited to philosophy."</i> </p><p>Or perhaps this is a problem limited to philosophy?  Perhaps this non-linear and recursive characteristic defines philosophy?  The difference between science and philosophy is that science is ineluctably rooted in physical reality, in the natural world.  Indeed the original name for science was natural philosophy.</p><p>On the other hand philosophy - or its varied analogues of religion, politics and economics - is rooted in extremely shallow real world soil.  Every word that has ever been spoken on these topics has been thrashed and pounded, mashed and strained through some pedagogue's fevered ontological imagination.</p><p>Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments.  The basis of the argument here is that absolutely no concepts of philosophy can be conveyed so directly.  Doesn't this say more about philosophy than it does about communication?</p><p>Much of science is immediately graspable and usable with a brief explanation from a good teacher.  It is the aggregate that is a challenge to fathom - the aggregate and the startling quantum and relativistic foundations underneath it all.  These are true mysteries.</p><p>Even <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Know-Learned-Kindergarten/dp/080410526X" title="amazon.com">kindergarten philosophy</a> [amazon.com] presents challenges, however, because the systems being modeled - us and a putative deity - are inherently complex.  Rather than suggesting that we need to spend more time wrestling with these ponderous issues, how about simply spending our time more productively by engaging with more tractable material?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'Discourse at this level ca n't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place .
' This is , needless to say , not a problem limited to philosophy .
" Or perhaps this is a problem limited to philosophy ?
Perhaps this non-linear and recursive characteristic defines philosophy ?
The difference between science and philosophy is that science is ineluctably rooted in physical reality , in the natural world .
Indeed the original name for science was natural philosophy.On the other hand philosophy - or its varied analogues of religion , politics and economics - is rooted in extremely shallow real world soil .
Every word that has ever been spoken on these topics has been thrashed and pounded , mashed and strained through some pedagogue 's fevered ontological imagination.Ohm 's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school ( high school or college ) with 19th century instruments .
The basis of the argument here is that absolutely no concepts of philosophy can be conveyed so directly .
Does n't this say more about philosophy than it does about communication ? Much of science is immediately graspable and usable with a brief explanation from a good teacher .
It is the aggregate that is a challenge to fathom - the aggregate and the startling quantum and relativistic foundations underneath it all .
These are true mysteries.Even kindergarten philosophy [ amazon.com ] presents challenges , however , because the systems being modeled - us and a putative deity - are inherently complex .
Rather than suggesting that we need to spend more time wrestling with these ponderous issues , how about simply spending our time more productively by engaging with more tractable material ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.
' This is, needless to say, not a problem limited to philosophy.
" Or perhaps this is a problem limited to philosophy?
Perhaps this non-linear and recursive characteristic defines philosophy?
The difference between science and philosophy is that science is ineluctably rooted in physical reality, in the natural world.
Indeed the original name for science was natural philosophy.On the other hand philosophy - or its varied analogues of religion, politics and economics - is rooted in extremely shallow real world soil.
Every word that has ever been spoken on these topics has been thrashed and pounded, mashed and strained through some pedagogue's fevered ontological imagination.Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments.
The basis of the argument here is that absolutely no concepts of philosophy can be conveyed so directly.
Doesn't this say more about philosophy than it does about communication?Much of science is immediately graspable and usable with a brief explanation from a good teacher.
It is the aggregate that is a challenge to fathom - the aggregate and the startling quantum and relativistic foundations underneath it all.
These are true mysteries.Even kindergarten philosophy [amazon.com] presents challenges, however, because the systems being modeled - us and a putative deity - are inherently complex.
Rather than suggesting that we need to spend more time wrestling with these ponderous issues, how about simply spending our time more productively by engaging with more tractable material?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28218761</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy of Mind</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1244140080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>5) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against (3).</p></div><p>That is a real sad state of affairs: at a time in the world when people are in the most desperate need for a philosophy that can conceptualize, integrate, and concretize the knowledge we need to survive and flourish as a species, instead we are inundated by the disintegrated quibbling over fragmented minutia.</p><p>In my opinion, philosophers are solely responsible for the unrelenting rise of religion, by virtue of the abdication their intellectual responsibility.  Whereas the enlightenment philosophers gave us the (re)birth of reason, industrialism, individual liberty, Capitalism, and the general increase in prosperity across the globe, subsequent philosophers have largely worked to dismantle their tenuous work, leaving people to choose between the unknowability of a secular world or  blind faith in a mystical world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.5 ) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against ( 3 ) .That is a real sad state of affairs : at a time in the world when people are in the most desperate need for a philosophy that can conceptualize , integrate , and concretize the knowledge we need to survive and flourish as a species , instead we are inundated by the disintegrated quibbling over fragmented minutia.In my opinion , philosophers are solely responsible for the unrelenting rise of religion , by virtue of the abdication their intellectual responsibility .
Whereas the enlightenment philosophers gave us the ( re ) birth of reason , industrialism , individual liberty , Capitalism , and the general increase in prosperity across the globe , subsequent philosophers have largely worked to dismantle their tenuous work , leaving people to choose between the unknowability of a secular world or blind faith in a mystical world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.5) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against (3).That is a real sad state of affairs: at a time in the world when people are in the most desperate need for a philosophy that can conceptualize, integrate, and concretize the knowledge we need to survive and flourish as a species, instead we are inundated by the disintegrated quibbling over fragmented minutia.In my opinion, philosophers are solely responsible for the unrelenting rise of religion, by virtue of the abdication their intellectual responsibility.
Whereas the enlightenment philosophers gave us the (re)birth of reason, industrialism, individual liberty, Capitalism, and the general increase in prosperity across the globe, subsequent philosophers have largely worked to dismantle their tenuous work, leaving people to choose between the unknowability of a secular world or  blind faith in a mystical world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188957</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy of Mind</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1243942080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As a programmer, I must point out the obvious analogy: "the computer is still nothing more than a collection of transistors", and reply that if that were so, nobody would have to argue whether it is better to run Linux or Vista."</p><p>Huh?</p><p>See, this is why I am not a philosopher. That statement is trivially refutable, verging on nonsense, to me.</p><p>1. A computer - or at least its CPU - IS nothing more than a collection of transistors.<br>2. And yet, the software it runs DOES determine how it operates.<br>3. These are the foundations of computer science.</p><p>Obviously, the defined behaviour of 'transistor' implies 'a thing which stores electric current and modifies its behaviour based on both its 'hard' interconnections and its 'soft' electrical state. Therefore, the existence of such a thing as a single 'transistor' implies the existence of both 'hard' wiring and 'soft' state - memory. Memory implies storage, and from knowing the wiring of those transistors, the initial state of the storage, and the rules governing how each transistor changes state, we can deduce everything about how they operate together and how they behave as a unit.</p><p>We call these 'circuit diagrams' in the biz, you know.</p><p>Also trivially obviously, 'software' is very much a product of the physical computing platform it runs on. Any actually existing computer as 'a collection of transistors' - bearing in mind that it is THE NATURE OF THAT CONNECTION which is extremelly important, it's not just a 'bag' of transistors but a 'graph' - but you know the importance of precise logical connection because you''ve done philosophy right? - has certain very obvious properties - discrete voltage levels, which imply a binary code, which imply registers, which plus decoding logic imply opcodes, which plus a sequencer imply a von Neumann machine</p><p>I really truly do not understand this argument that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts'. No, it's not. At least not in this example. The whole literally *is* the sum of its parts. That's the definition of 'whole'. Understand the parts of a computer, and you understand - at least in theory - everything about it. Your understanding may be limited by your capacity for observation and memory and deduction, but not the system *itself*.</p><p>Let me say that again. The behaviour of a system does not 'emerge' in some mysterious manner from its configuration. ITS BEHAVIOUR IS ITS CONFIGURATION seen in spacetime.</p><p>Now. Difficulties come in because real computers are actually only approximated by their circuit diagrams and real programs are only approximated by the statements we make about what they *should* do and are *attempting* to do. The state space of a computer if you include the atomic-level (not even quantum-level) interconnections of all its bits is pretty darn big so in practice we don't look at it, we make simplified models and look at those models instead.</p><p>And 'computer science' as a discipline is less about what *actual* computers do and more about what people think idealised *representations* of computers 'ought' to do. About formal models of functions and computability, etc.</p><p>So perhaps in that sense you could say that the *formal model* of an idealised computer is somehow 'different' from *the actual computer* - but to say that there's a difference between hardware and software *themselves* makes no sense to me.</p><p>Software (electrical state) is a subset of the properties of hardware. That's how come we can *execute* it on hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As a programmer , I must point out the obvious analogy : " the computer is still nothing more than a collection of transistors " , and reply that if that were so , nobody would have to argue whether it is better to run Linux or Vista .
" Huh ? See , this is why I am not a philosopher .
That statement is trivially refutable , verging on nonsense , to me.1 .
A computer - or at least its CPU - IS nothing more than a collection of transistors.2 .
And yet , the software it runs DOES determine how it operates.3 .
These are the foundations of computer science.Obviously , the defined behaviour of 'transistor ' implies 'a thing which stores electric current and modifies its behaviour based on both its 'hard ' interconnections and its 'soft ' electrical state .
Therefore , the existence of such a thing as a single 'transistor ' implies the existence of both 'hard ' wiring and 'soft ' state - memory .
Memory implies storage , and from knowing the wiring of those transistors , the initial state of the storage , and the rules governing how each transistor changes state , we can deduce everything about how they operate together and how they behave as a unit.We call these 'circuit diagrams ' in the biz , you know.Also trivially obviously , 'software ' is very much a product of the physical computing platform it runs on .
Any actually existing computer as 'a collection of transistors ' - bearing in mind that it is THE NATURE OF THAT CONNECTION which is extremelly important , it 's not just a 'bag ' of transistors but a 'graph ' - but you know the importance of precise logical connection because you ' 've done philosophy right ?
- has certain very obvious properties - discrete voltage levels , which imply a binary code , which imply registers , which plus decoding logic imply opcodes , which plus a sequencer imply a von Neumann machineI really truly do not understand this argument that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts' .
No , it 's not .
At least not in this example .
The whole literally * is * the sum of its parts .
That 's the definition of 'whole' .
Understand the parts of a computer , and you understand - at least in theory - everything about it .
Your understanding may be limited by your capacity for observation and memory and deduction , but not the system * itself * .Let me say that again .
The behaviour of a system does not 'emerge ' in some mysterious manner from its configuration .
ITS BEHAVIOUR IS ITS CONFIGURATION seen in spacetime.Now .
Difficulties come in because real computers are actually only approximated by their circuit diagrams and real programs are only approximated by the statements we make about what they * should * do and are * attempting * to do .
The state space of a computer if you include the atomic-level ( not even quantum-level ) interconnections of all its bits is pretty darn big so in practice we do n't look at it , we make simplified models and look at those models instead.And 'computer science ' as a discipline is less about what * actual * computers do and more about what people think idealised * representations * of computers 'ought ' to do .
About formal models of functions and computability , etc.So perhaps in that sense you could say that the * formal model * of an idealised computer is somehow 'different ' from * the actual computer * - but to say that there 's a difference between hardware and software * themselves * makes no sense to me.Software ( electrical state ) is a subset of the properties of hardware .
That 's how come we can * execute * it on hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As a programmer, I must point out the obvious analogy: "the computer is still nothing more than a collection of transistors", and reply that if that were so, nobody would have to argue whether it is better to run Linux or Vista.
"Huh?See, this is why I am not a philosopher.
That statement is trivially refutable, verging on nonsense, to me.1.
A computer - or at least its CPU - IS nothing more than a collection of transistors.2.
And yet, the software it runs DOES determine how it operates.3.
These are the foundations of computer science.Obviously, the defined behaviour of 'transistor' implies 'a thing which stores electric current and modifies its behaviour based on both its 'hard' interconnections and its 'soft' electrical state.
Therefore, the existence of such a thing as a single 'transistor' implies the existence of both 'hard' wiring and 'soft' state - memory.
Memory implies storage, and from knowing the wiring of those transistors, the initial state of the storage, and the rules governing how each transistor changes state, we can deduce everything about how they operate together and how they behave as a unit.We call these 'circuit diagrams' in the biz, you know.Also trivially obviously, 'software' is very much a product of the physical computing platform it runs on.
Any actually existing computer as 'a collection of transistors' - bearing in mind that it is THE NATURE OF THAT CONNECTION which is extremelly important, it's not just a 'bag' of transistors but a 'graph' - but you know the importance of precise logical connection because you''ve done philosophy right?
- has certain very obvious properties - discrete voltage levels, which imply a binary code, which imply registers, which plus decoding logic imply opcodes, which plus a sequencer imply a von Neumann machineI really truly do not understand this argument that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts'.
No, it's not.
At least not in this example.
The whole literally *is* the sum of its parts.
That's the definition of 'whole'.
Understand the parts of a computer, and you understand - at least in theory - everything about it.
Your understanding may be limited by your capacity for observation and memory and deduction, but not the system *itself*.Let me say that again.
The behaviour of a system does not 'emerge' in some mysterious manner from its configuration.
ITS BEHAVIOUR IS ITS CONFIGURATION seen in spacetime.Now.
Difficulties come in because real computers are actually only approximated by their circuit diagrams and real programs are only approximated by the statements we make about what they *should* do and are *attempting* to do.
The state space of a computer if you include the atomic-level (not even quantum-level) interconnections of all its bits is pretty darn big so in practice we don't look at it, we make simplified models and look at those models instead.And 'computer science' as a discipline is less about what *actual* computers do and more about what people think idealised *representations* of computers 'ought' to do.
About formal models of functions and computability, etc.So perhaps in that sense you could say that the *formal model* of an idealised computer is somehow 'different' from *the actual computer* - but to say that there's a difference between hardware and software *themselves* makes no sense to me.Software (electrical state) is a subset of the properties of hardware.
That's how come we can *execute* it on hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183321</id>
	<title>Re:Cowards</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1243961160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is so terrible about political correctness?  It is simply a list of terms that have become derogatory to certain people in certain areas.  If you don't give a shit about offending people, then you have no obligation to stay informed, but there is no need to deride those that are making the effort.</p><p>Of course you can't please everyone all the time (I personally have no intention of pleasing the feminists that go into a pseudo uproar when you call them Mrs because the letter "r" implies ownership etc), but it might be a good idea to hold off on the cancer jokes at the next board meeting or cocktail party.</p><p>Funny that even the term "politically correct" has become derogatory.  Every time I flip through fox news, they seem to be in an uproar about someone being "politically correct".  I believe "politically correct" prefers to call itself "tact" these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is so terrible about political correctness ?
It is simply a list of terms that have become derogatory to certain people in certain areas .
If you do n't give a shit about offending people , then you have no obligation to stay informed , but there is no need to deride those that are making the effort.Of course you ca n't please everyone all the time ( I personally have no intention of pleasing the feminists that go into a pseudo uproar when you call them Mrs because the letter " r " implies ownership etc ) , but it might be a good idea to hold off on the cancer jokes at the next board meeting or cocktail party.Funny that even the term " politically correct " has become derogatory .
Every time I flip through fox news , they seem to be in an uproar about someone being " politically correct " .
I believe " politically correct " prefers to call itself " tact " these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is so terrible about political correctness?
It is simply a list of terms that have become derogatory to certain people in certain areas.
If you don't give a shit about offending people, then you have no obligation to stay informed, but there is no need to deride those that are making the effort.Of course you can't please everyone all the time (I personally have no intention of pleasing the feminists that go into a pseudo uproar when you call them Mrs because the letter "r" implies ownership etc), but it might be a good idea to hold off on the cancer jokes at the next board meeting or cocktail party.Funny that even the term "politically correct" has become derogatory.
Every time I flip through fox news, they seem to be in an uproar about someone being "politically correct".
I believe "politically correct" prefers to call itself "tact" these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184247</id>
	<title>Re:Cowards</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243965180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There is good, bar, right, and wrong in this world.</i> <br> <br>
I don't believe there is any such thing as absolute right or wrong in this world, but if you know of an absolutely good bar, please tell us where it is!</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is good , bar , right , and wrong in this world .
I do n't believe there is any such thing as absolute right or wrong in this world , but if you know of an absolutely good bar , please tell us where it is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is good, bar, right, and wrong in this world.
I don't believe there is any such thing as absolute right or wrong in this world, but if you know of an absolutely good bar, please tell us where it is!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181103</id>
	<title>Wrong Perspective</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1243953060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the exclusive province of cloistered academics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the online public sphere</i></p><p>You're thinking of it wrong. You're stuck on your belief that there is some dramatic difference between one human mind and a collection of human minds. Not so -- they are just different scales of the thinking machine we call "Earth", "Humanity", or "The Hive Mind." To ask whether academics or commoners should discourse about advanced topics is to suggest a belief that they are not part of the same network.</p><p>I could just as easily say, "This cluster of neurons is the smart cluster, and does a better job of processing information than this other cluster."</p><p>The networking of human minds through blogs, podcasts, and tweets is like increasing the connectivity of neurons or moving a computer network closer to being fully connected. Enabling more nodes of the hive mind to participate through more connections is like connecting more neurons to the math section of your brain. They may not be "math" neurons, but they get better and better at contributing through reinforcement. Same thing with commoners talking about advanced subjects, they may contribute little at first but they get better and better at it over time, and the hive mind is stronger for having their signal available. This is true even if it rejects that signal most of the time, particularly at first.</p><p>The hive mind is the thing. The more of us we have connected, and the greater the connection density, the smarter Earth gets. Some of the neurons may seem to always get the wrong answer, but the increased connection density that they imply is a very good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the exclusive province of cloistered academics ... the online public sphereYou 're thinking of it wrong .
You 're stuck on your belief that there is some dramatic difference between one human mind and a collection of human minds .
Not so -- they are just different scales of the thinking machine we call " Earth " , " Humanity " , or " The Hive Mind .
" To ask whether academics or commoners should discourse about advanced topics is to suggest a belief that they are not part of the same network.I could just as easily say , " This cluster of neurons is the smart cluster , and does a better job of processing information than this other cluster .
" The networking of human minds through blogs , podcasts , and tweets is like increasing the connectivity of neurons or moving a computer network closer to being fully connected .
Enabling more nodes of the hive mind to participate through more connections is like connecting more neurons to the math section of your brain .
They may not be " math " neurons , but they get better and better at contributing through reinforcement .
Same thing with commoners talking about advanced subjects , they may contribute little at first but they get better and better at it over time , and the hive mind is stronger for having their signal available .
This is true even if it rejects that signal most of the time , particularly at first.The hive mind is the thing .
The more of us we have connected , and the greater the connection density , the smarter Earth gets .
Some of the neurons may seem to always get the wrong answer , but the increased connection density that they imply is a very good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the exclusive province of cloistered academics ... the online public sphereYou're thinking of it wrong.
You're stuck on your belief that there is some dramatic difference between one human mind and a collection of human minds.
Not so -- they are just different scales of the thinking machine we call "Earth", "Humanity", or "The Hive Mind.
" To ask whether academics or commoners should discourse about advanced topics is to suggest a belief that they are not part of the same network.I could just as easily say, "This cluster of neurons is the smart cluster, and does a better job of processing information than this other cluster.
"The networking of human minds through blogs, podcasts, and tweets is like increasing the connectivity of neurons or moving a computer network closer to being fully connected.
Enabling more nodes of the hive mind to participate through more connections is like connecting more neurons to the math section of your brain.
They may not be "math" neurons, but they get better and better at contributing through reinforcement.
Same thing with commoners talking about advanced subjects, they may contribute little at first but they get better and better at it over time, and the hive mind is stronger for having their signal available.
This is true even if it rejects that signal most of the time, particularly at first.The hive mind is the thing.
The more of us we have connected, and the greater the connection density, the smarter Earth gets.
Some of the neurons may seem to always get the wrong answer, but the increased connection density that they imply is a very good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183255</id>
	<title>Re:Cowards</title>
	<author>ImOnlySleeping</author>
	<datestamp>1243960920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're wrong of course and don't worry I'll skip classy words.  But for the sake of argument, I will assume that you always know what is right (or in a topic where you are unsure you keep your trap shut until you receive clarification) and do what is right, otherwise you're a huge asshole and why would anyone follow your opinion if that were the case.  That being true, please clarify why if right and wrong exist, and you know what the right solution is 100\% of the time, why are there so many people that do the wrong thing?  How can you be sure that the other opinion is wrong and not your own, in particular when you are in a minority?   If my original assumption is false and you don't do the right thing 100\% of the time, do all people do the wrong thing consistently? If not, then it would appear that a myriad of solutions (or shades of gray) are prevalent.
So to recap, either a) you are all knowing, but not all powerful or b) you're wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're wrong of course and do n't worry I 'll skip classy words .
But for the sake of argument , I will assume that you always know what is right ( or in a topic where you are unsure you keep your trap shut until you receive clarification ) and do what is right , otherwise you 're a huge asshole and why would anyone follow your opinion if that were the case .
That being true , please clarify why if right and wrong exist , and you know what the right solution is 100 \ % of the time , why are there so many people that do the wrong thing ?
How can you be sure that the other opinion is wrong and not your own , in particular when you are in a minority ?
If my original assumption is false and you do n't do the right thing 100 \ % of the time , do all people do the wrong thing consistently ?
If not , then it would appear that a myriad of solutions ( or shades of gray ) are prevalent .
So to recap , either a ) you are all knowing , but not all powerful or b ) you 're wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're wrong of course and don't worry I'll skip classy words.
But for the sake of argument, I will assume that you always know what is right (or in a topic where you are unsure you keep your trap shut until you receive clarification) and do what is right, otherwise you're a huge asshole and why would anyone follow your opinion if that were the case.
That being true, please clarify why if right and wrong exist, and you know what the right solution is 100\% of the time, why are there so many people that do the wrong thing?
How can you be sure that the other opinion is wrong and not your own, in particular when you are in a minority?
If my original assumption is false and you don't do the right thing 100\% of the time, do all people do the wrong thing consistently?
If not, then it would appear that a myriad of solutions (or shades of gray) are prevalent.
So to recap, either a) you are all knowing, but not all powerful or b) you're wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186271</id>
	<title>Re:The web gives us all a voice</title>
	<author>dontPanik</author>
	<datestamp>1243973820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that you live up to your name, because I don't think your analogy of planned parenthood is very relevant. Sanchez doesn't talk about an argument between actions and speech as you do.<br> <br>
Also, weren't the sophists looked down upon by Socrates because the sophists would simply use ill-formed logic to make people believe in a point (here is the wikipedia article on Sophists <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophists" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophists</a> [wikipedia.org])? You say that debate brings out the truth, but a sophist's debate wouldn't if they just argued one way and didn't use logic.<br> <br>
I don't think that truth can be gained from a debate. All you do in a debate is yell and chest-pound. Truth is obtained by thoughtful discussion between people who know what they are talking about.<br>
Sanchez makes the point that we have too much chest-pounding and <b>Column A Opinion vs. Column B Opinion: Choose one!</b> and I agree with him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that you live up to your name , because I do n't think your analogy of planned parenthood is very relevant .
Sanchez does n't talk about an argument between actions and speech as you do .
Also , were n't the sophists looked down upon by Socrates because the sophists would simply use ill-formed logic to make people believe in a point ( here is the wikipedia article on Sophists http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophists [ wikipedia.org ] ) ?
You say that debate brings out the truth , but a sophist 's debate would n't if they just argued one way and did n't use logic .
I do n't think that truth can be gained from a debate .
All you do in a debate is yell and chest-pound .
Truth is obtained by thoughtful discussion between people who know what they are talking about .
Sanchez makes the point that we have too much chest-pounding and Column A Opinion vs. Column B Opinion : Choose one !
and I agree with him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that you live up to your name, because I don't think your analogy of planned parenthood is very relevant.
Sanchez doesn't talk about an argument between actions and speech as you do.
Also, weren't the sophists looked down upon by Socrates because the sophists would simply use ill-formed logic to make people believe in a point (here is the wikipedia article on Sophists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophists [wikipedia.org])?
You say that debate brings out the truth, but a sophist's debate wouldn't if they just argued one way and didn't use logic.
I don't think that truth can be gained from a debate.
All you do in a debate is yell and chest-pound.
Truth is obtained by thoughtful discussion between people who know what they are talking about.
Sanchez makes the point that we have too much chest-pounding and Column A Opinion vs. Column B Opinion: Choose one!
and I agree with him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186175</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy of Mind</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1243973340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.</p></div><p>Careful.</p><p>I realize that you're probably speaking colloquially here, but you are taking abstraction too far.  If the brain is nothing more than a mass of cells, you should have no problem with me scooping yours out of your skull and replacing it with a head of lettuce, which is also nothing more than a mass of cells and therefore equivalent by that standard.</p><p>The cells of the brain (and the entire human body) have characteristics that differ significantly from other kinds of cells, and the structure in which brain (and body) cells are organized is important as well.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a philosopher arguing for (3) as it stands.  Too much abstraction and generalization leads to absurd conclusions like mine in the paragraph above.</p><p>In fact, that is one of the issues discussed in the article.  What I wrote above in the absence of common sense sounds perfectly plausible given your assertion.  When people in advanced fields do the same thing we can't rely on common sense to show readers the possible flaws of logic, yet in the majority of cases they <em>aren't given enough space</em> to elaborate the concepts upon which they rely instead of glossing over them.</p><p>This answers all the posts above decrying that the article is BS because "you should be able to explain it to an interested party."  Well, nobody is saying they couldn't if they were given sufficient time or space, but they're not.  We should understand this well given the many, many, many instructions to RTFA instead of basing statements or arguments on the summary--the summary does not and often cannot tackle the subject with the same depth as the full article.  In the same way, a one- or two-page writeup on global warming, for example, likely cannot convey enough information to inform the reader on which side of the debate has more supporting evidence.  (And the fact that I was compelled to write "likely" shows that it is difficult for a layman to even determine the level of detail needed for a good analysis.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.Careful.I realize that you 're probably speaking colloquially here , but you are taking abstraction too far .
If the brain is nothing more than a mass of cells , you should have no problem with me scooping yours out of your skull and replacing it with a head of lettuce , which is also nothing more than a mass of cells and therefore equivalent by that standard.The cells of the brain ( and the entire human body ) have characteristics that differ significantly from other kinds of cells , and the structure in which brain ( and body ) cells are organized is important as well .
I think you 'd be hard-pressed to find a philosopher arguing for ( 3 ) as it stands .
Too much abstraction and generalization leads to absurd conclusions like mine in the paragraph above.In fact , that is one of the issues discussed in the article .
What I wrote above in the absence of common sense sounds perfectly plausible given your assertion .
When people in advanced fields do the same thing we ca n't rely on common sense to show readers the possible flaws of logic , yet in the majority of cases they are n't given enough space to elaborate the concepts upon which they rely instead of glossing over them.This answers all the posts above decrying that the article is BS because " you should be able to explain it to an interested party .
" Well , nobody is saying they could n't if they were given sufficient time or space , but they 're not .
We should understand this well given the many , many , many instructions to RTFA instead of basing statements or arguments on the summary--the summary does not and often can not tackle the subject with the same depth as the full article .
In the same way , a one- or two-page writeup on global warming , for example , likely can not convey enough information to inform the reader on which side of the debate has more supporting evidence .
( And the fact that I was compelled to write " likely " shows that it is difficult for a layman to even determine the level of detail needed for a good analysis .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.Careful.I realize that you're probably speaking colloquially here, but you are taking abstraction too far.
If the brain is nothing more than a mass of cells, you should have no problem with me scooping yours out of your skull and replacing it with a head of lettuce, which is also nothing more than a mass of cells and therefore equivalent by that standard.The cells of the brain (and the entire human body) have characteristics that differ significantly from other kinds of cells, and the structure in which brain (and body) cells are organized is important as well.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a philosopher arguing for (3) as it stands.
Too much abstraction and generalization leads to absurd conclusions like mine in the paragraph above.In fact, that is one of the issues discussed in the article.
What I wrote above in the absence of common sense sounds perfectly plausible given your assertion.
When people in advanced fields do the same thing we can't rely on common sense to show readers the possible flaws of logic, yet in the majority of cases they aren't given enough space to elaborate the concepts upon which they rely instead of glossing over them.This answers all the posts above decrying that the article is BS because "you should be able to explain it to an interested party.
"  Well, nobody is saying they couldn't if they were given sufficient time or space, but they're not.
We should understand this well given the many, many, many instructions to RTFA instead of basing statements or arguments on the summary--the summary does not and often cannot tackle the subject with the same depth as the full article.
In the same way, a one- or two-page writeup on global warming, for example, likely cannot convey enough information to inform the reader on which side of the debate has more supporting evidence.
(And the fact that I was compelled to write "likely" shows that it is difficult for a layman to even determine the level of detail needed for a good analysis.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181589</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Speaking of science, I've noticed for a while now that it's certainly true that many, probably most, religious non-scientists get their facts wrong about scientific theories, but it's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology."</p><p>That's a complicated way of saying that most laymen have a shallow understanding of science.</p><p>Also, most atheists don't care very much for religion or anything related to it, and certainly theology is a bit of a niche science - even many religious people have a shallow understanding of theology.</p><p>On the other hand, at least superficially it seems that a certain type of religious people do have a very strong interest in certain fields of science...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Speaking of science , I 've noticed for a while now that it 's certainly true that many , probably most , religious non-scientists get their facts wrong about scientific theories , but it 's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology .
" That 's a complicated way of saying that most laymen have a shallow understanding of science.Also , most atheists do n't care very much for religion or anything related to it , and certainly theology is a bit of a niche science - even many religious people have a shallow understanding of theology.On the other hand , at least superficially it seems that a certain type of religious people do have a very strong interest in certain fields of science.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Speaking of science, I've noticed for a while now that it's certainly true that many, probably most, religious non-scientists get their facts wrong about scientific theories, but it's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology.
"That's a complicated way of saying that most laymen have a shallow understanding of science.Also, most atheists don't care very much for religion or anything related to it, and certainly theology is a bit of a niche science - even many religious people have a shallow understanding of theology.On the other hand, at least superficially it seems that a certain type of religious people do have a very strong interest in certain fields of science...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179299</id>
	<title>The web gives us all a voice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243938660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Planned Parenthood was founded, many people were disgusted at the thought of an agency dedicated to abortion. Worse, though, was the fact that PP was founded in order to control the population of undesirables, and Sanger, the founder of PP, was especially eager to label non-whites as undesirable.</p><p>Now, here's the dilemma. If we take the position that speech itself is relatively useless since anyone can do it, and that only actions are important since only those willing to act will effect true change, then how do we reconcile the good which PP has brought while taking into consideration the completely immoral basis upon which it was founded?</p><p>Sanchez is wrong in his supposition that speech itself is wrong. Speech leads to debate, and debate can bring out the truth. The ancient Greek sophists knew this, and thus we have the practice of oratory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Planned Parenthood was founded , many people were disgusted at the thought of an agency dedicated to abortion .
Worse , though , was the fact that PP was founded in order to control the population of undesirables , and Sanger , the founder of PP , was especially eager to label non-whites as undesirable.Now , here 's the dilemma .
If we take the position that speech itself is relatively useless since anyone can do it , and that only actions are important since only those willing to act will effect true change , then how do we reconcile the good which PP has brought while taking into consideration the completely immoral basis upon which it was founded ? Sanchez is wrong in his supposition that speech itself is wrong .
Speech leads to debate , and debate can bring out the truth .
The ancient Greek sophists knew this , and thus we have the practice of oratory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Planned Parenthood was founded, many people were disgusted at the thought of an agency dedicated to abortion.
Worse, though, was the fact that PP was founded in order to control the population of undesirables, and Sanger, the founder of PP, was especially eager to label non-whites as undesirable.Now, here's the dilemma.
If we take the position that speech itself is relatively useless since anyone can do it, and that only actions are important since only those willing to act will effect true change, then how do we reconcile the good which PP has brought while taking into consideration the completely immoral basis upon which it was founded?Sanchez is wrong in his supposition that speech itself is wrong.
Speech leads to debate, and debate can bring out the truth.
The ancient Greek sophists knew this, and thus we have the practice of oratory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183337</id>
	<title>Re:Slippery slopes</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1243961160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Doesn't the slippery slope deserves more respect?</p></div><p>Ooh, that would set a terrible precedent. Where would it all end?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't the slippery slope deserves more respect ? Ooh , that would set a terrible precedent .
Where would it all end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't the slippery slope deserves more respect?Ooh, that would set a terrible precedent.
Where would it all end?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185227</id>
	<title>Wot?</title>
	<author>ab\_iron</author>
	<datestamp>1243969200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a (are) whole religion(s) based on this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a ( are ) whole religion ( s ) based on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a (are) whole religion(s) based on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179401</id>
	<title>new tag needed: verbalmasturbation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he can't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others, while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text can't be understood unless by a marginally small &amp; elite portion of society. But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he ca n't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others , while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text ca n't be understood unless by a marginally small &amp; elite portion of society .
But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he can't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others, while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text can't be understood unless by a marginally small &amp; elite portion of society.
But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28189907</id>
	<title>Re:natural philosophy?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1243947480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments. The basis of the argument here is that absolutely no concepts of philosophy can be conveyed so directly. Doesn't this say more about philosophy than it does about communication?"</p><p>Yes, that assertion worries me too. If the material is so complex (or self-contradictory) that it can't even be expressed as a succinct thought by someone skilled in the art... then how does the philosopher know that it's true? I don't buy it.</p><p>And that's coming from a Reason Magazine blogger too, therefore presumably an admirer of Ayn Rand, who famously did summarise her whole philosophy in four sentences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ohm 's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school ( high school or college ) with 19th century instruments .
The basis of the argument here is that absolutely no concepts of philosophy can be conveyed so directly .
Does n't this say more about philosophy than it does about communication ?
" Yes , that assertion worries me too .
If the material is so complex ( or self-contradictory ) that it ca n't even be expressed as a succinct thought by someone skilled in the art... then how does the philosopher know that it 's true ?
I do n't buy it.And that 's coming from a Reason Magazine blogger too , therefore presumably an admirer of Ayn Rand , who famously did summarise her whole philosophy in four sentences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments.
The basis of the argument here is that absolutely no concepts of philosophy can be conveyed so directly.
Doesn't this say more about philosophy than it does about communication?
"Yes, that assertion worries me too.
If the material is so complex (or self-contradictory) that it can't even be expressed as a succinct thought by someone skilled in the art... then how does the philosopher know that it's true?
I don't buy it.And that's coming from a Reason Magazine blogger too, therefore presumably an admirer of Ayn Rand, who famously did summarise her whole philosophy in four sentences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28229747</id>
	<title>Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1244217000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective--even in hard science (much less something as "soft" as politics)</p></div><p>Tsk, tsk.  Using a straw man argument in a conversation <b>about</b> philosophy?</p><p>The Plato example is nice, although you're missing the point.  The <i>Republic</i>, <i>Symposium</i>, and the other socratic dialogues are philosophical parables, and were never intended to be used as an expression of the author's own views/opinions.  In fact, they seem to have accomplished their task quite well, as you were able to spot the logical fallacy used by Plato in the <i>Republic</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I 've seen against " bias " were usually written by scholars who just did n't realize their OWN bias .
There is no such thing as an " unbiased " argument or perspective--even in hard science ( much less something as " soft " as politics ) Tsk , tsk .
Using a straw man argument in a conversation about philosophy ? The Plato example is nice , although you 're missing the point .
The Republic , Symposium , and the other socratic dialogues are philosophical parables , and were never intended to be used as an expression of the author 's own views/opinions .
In fact , they seem to have accomplished their task quite well , as you were able to spot the logical fallacy used by Plato in the Republic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias.
There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective--even in hard science (much less something as "soft" as politics)Tsk, tsk.
Using a straw man argument in a conversation about philosophy?The Plato example is nice, although you're missing the point.
The Republic, Symposium, and the other socratic dialogues are philosophical parables, and were never intended to be used as an expression of the author's own views/opinions.
In fact, they seem to have accomplished their task quite well, as you were able to spot the logical fallacy used by Plato in the Republic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185485</id>
	<title>Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation</title>
	<author>droptone</author>
	<datestamp>1243970340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute. It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.</p></div></blockquote><p>Massimo Pigliucci made a similar point on one of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcasts; I believe it is <a href="http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&amp;pid=3" title="theskepticsguide.org">this one</a> [theskepticsguide.org]. Basically, each side is allotted X minutes. The creationist, since they seem to be disinterested in actual research before formulating a question, will bring up Y number of objections to evolution. The advocate for evolution must then rebut each point if they want to be viewed as competent by the audience. As you pointed out, explaining why some creationist objection is worthless takes a bit of time because the real world is complicated. Explaining why the human eye is not an example of a miracle takes a while. So Pigliucci and the like have steadfastly refused to debate creationists since they thought that the creationists were being unfair.<br> <br>
The only solution that I have seen offered is that you need to be very discriminating in who you debate with. You need to pick people who have a history of a) playing fair and b) being genuinely insightful. This same process needs to occur in people's personal lives as well. We all have some friends where it is blatantly obvious that they are more concerned with defending their idea than approaching the truth. This requires a level of trust that can be rare, since you have to be willing to possibly a) be extremely wrong about something and b) say something that some would find offensive (regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong). These friends (and debaters) need a level of intellectual honesty that is rarely found, and which I think philosophy can help people achieve. They need to be able to take quite seriously the pros and cons of all their views, and any complex idea <b>will</b> have pros and cons. We all have many beliefs that we cannot sufficiently justify (What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty by John Brockman has columns by leading intellectuals discussing what they believe to be true but do not have adequate evidence for). We need to understand what those ideas are and be comfortable with challenges, but as I mentioned before, this requires a level of intellectual honesty that is rare.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists , in a limited time frame , when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute .
It is a widely recognised problem which , to date , has n't found a satisfactory solution.Massimo Pigliucci made a similar point on one of the Skeptics ' Guide to the Universe podcasts ; I believe it is this one [ theskepticsguide.org ] .
Basically , each side is allotted X minutes .
The creationist , since they seem to be disinterested in actual research before formulating a question , will bring up Y number of objections to evolution .
The advocate for evolution must then rebut each point if they want to be viewed as competent by the audience .
As you pointed out , explaining why some creationist objection is worthless takes a bit of time because the real world is complicated .
Explaining why the human eye is not an example of a miracle takes a while .
So Pigliucci and the like have steadfastly refused to debate creationists since they thought that the creationists were being unfair .
The only solution that I have seen offered is that you need to be very discriminating in who you debate with .
You need to pick people who have a history of a ) playing fair and b ) being genuinely insightful .
This same process needs to occur in people 's personal lives as well .
We all have some friends where it is blatantly obvious that they are more concerned with defending their idea than approaching the truth .
This requires a level of trust that can be rare , since you have to be willing to possibly a ) be extremely wrong about something and b ) say something that some would find offensive ( regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong ) .
These friends ( and debaters ) need a level of intellectual honesty that is rarely found , and which I think philosophy can help people achieve .
They need to be able to take quite seriously the pros and cons of all their views , and any complex idea will have pros and cons .
We all have many beliefs that we can not sufficiently justify ( What We Believe but Can not Prove : Today 's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty by John Brockman has columns by leading intellectuals discussing what they believe to be true but do not have adequate evidence for ) .
We need to understand what those ideas are and be comfortable with challenges , but as I mentioned before , this requires a level of intellectual honesty that is rare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute.
It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.Massimo Pigliucci made a similar point on one of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcasts; I believe it is this one [theskepticsguide.org].
Basically, each side is allotted X minutes.
The creationist, since they seem to be disinterested in actual research before formulating a question, will bring up Y number of objections to evolution.
The advocate for evolution must then rebut each point if they want to be viewed as competent by the audience.
As you pointed out, explaining why some creationist objection is worthless takes a bit of time because the real world is complicated.
Explaining why the human eye is not an example of a miracle takes a while.
So Pigliucci and the like have steadfastly refused to debate creationists since they thought that the creationists were being unfair.
The only solution that I have seen offered is that you need to be very discriminating in who you debate with.
You need to pick people who have a history of a) playing fair and b) being genuinely insightful.
This same process needs to occur in people's personal lives as well.
We all have some friends where it is blatantly obvious that they are more concerned with defending their idea than approaching the truth.
This requires a level of trust that can be rare, since you have to be willing to possibly a) be extremely wrong about something and b) say something that some would find offensive (regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong).
These friends (and debaters) need a level of intellectual honesty that is rarely found, and which I think philosophy can help people achieve.
They need to be able to take quite seriously the pros and cons of all their views, and any complex idea will have pros and cons.
We all have many beliefs that we cannot sufficiently justify (What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty by John Brockman has columns by leading intellectuals discussing what they believe to be true but do not have adequate evidence for).
We need to understand what those ideas are and be comfortable with challenges, but as I mentioned before, this requires a level of intellectual honesty that is rare.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186601</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree in principle.</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1243975200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Take abortion for example. The real question is "When do we get a soul?" </i></p><p>Sure, let's pretend that's the question.  So, good for you, you just stated it.</p><p>Now what?</p><p>The article isn't about how hard it is to state the question.  Hell, that's relatively easy, presuming you can get everyone to agree.  The article is about how hard it is to debate the question and come to a conclusion.  Because debating the question is precisely the act of applying it "to the real world", as you put it.</p><p>Let's take another example: the origin of species on earth.  The question itself is dead simple to state:  "Was life on earth created, or did it evolve?"  But debating that question requires understanding basic biology, including natural selection and genetics, as well as a grasp of fundamental mathematics and statistics.  And that's Sanchez's whole point.  If you really want to hold an *informed* opinion about a topic, you need to understand it in depth.  And that depth can be so extensive that your average reader will simply be overwhelmed by the detail.  Meanwhile, if someone comes along and gives them a nice, glossed over version that *sounds* right, then they'll happily internalize it, even if it's wrong.</p><p>And this brings us back to your original statement: that you disagree that "anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about."  And my answer to you is that, no, you're wrong.  You believe that holding an *opinion* is something a layman can do.  Great.  You're absolutely right, anyone can hold an opinion.  Hell, they may even know how to phrase the question properly.  But actually *arguing* their position while actually understanding the issues at hand?  Sorry, that's something else entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take abortion for example .
The real question is " When do we get a soul ?
" Sure , let 's pretend that 's the question .
So , good for you , you just stated it.Now what ? The article is n't about how hard it is to state the question .
Hell , that 's relatively easy , presuming you can get everyone to agree .
The article is about how hard it is to debate the question and come to a conclusion .
Because debating the question is precisely the act of applying it " to the real world " , as you put it.Let 's take another example : the origin of species on earth .
The question itself is dead simple to state : " Was life on earth created , or did it evolve ?
" But debating that question requires understanding basic biology , including natural selection and genetics , as well as a grasp of fundamental mathematics and statistics .
And that 's Sanchez 's whole point .
If you really want to hold an * informed * opinion about a topic , you need to understand it in depth .
And that depth can be so extensive that your average reader will simply be overwhelmed by the detail .
Meanwhile , if someone comes along and gives them a nice , glossed over version that * sounds * right , then they 'll happily internalize it , even if it 's wrong.And this brings us back to your original statement : that you disagree that " anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about .
" And my answer to you is that , no , you 're wrong .
You believe that holding an * opinion * is something a layman can do .
Great. You 're absolutely right , anyone can hold an opinion .
Hell , they may even know how to phrase the question properly .
But actually * arguing * their position while actually understanding the issues at hand ?
Sorry , that 's something else entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take abortion for example.
The real question is "When do we get a soul?
" Sure, let's pretend that's the question.
So, good for you, you just stated it.Now what?The article isn't about how hard it is to state the question.
Hell, that's relatively easy, presuming you can get everyone to agree.
The article is about how hard it is to debate the question and come to a conclusion.
Because debating the question is precisely the act of applying it "to the real world", as you put it.Let's take another example: the origin of species on earth.
The question itself is dead simple to state:  "Was life on earth created, or did it evolve?
"  But debating that question requires understanding basic biology, including natural selection and genetics, as well as a grasp of fundamental mathematics and statistics.
And that's Sanchez's whole point.
If you really want to hold an *informed* opinion about a topic, you need to understand it in depth.
And that depth can be so extensive that your average reader will simply be overwhelmed by the detail.
Meanwhile, if someone comes along and gives them a nice, glossed over version that *sounds* right, then they'll happily internalize it, even if it's wrong.And this brings us back to your original statement: that you disagree that "anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about.
"  And my answer to you is that, no, you're wrong.
You believe that holding an *opinion* is something a layman can do.
Great.  You're absolutely right, anyone can hold an opinion.
Hell, they may even know how to phrase the question properly.
But actually *arguing* their position while actually understanding the issues at hand?
Sorry, that's something else entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182207</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28192693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28187331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28189907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28187267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28229747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28229843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28218619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28189163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28191199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28218761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_0034238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28229843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28189907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28218761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28218619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181515
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28191199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28179845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28181205
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185647
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28182675
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188191
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28184777
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28192693
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183827
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28187331
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28188487
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185245
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183981
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28185587
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28186279
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28187267
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28229747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28189163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_0034238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28180145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_0034238.28183337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
