Closing in on how early life stress changes epigenetic markers

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 23, 2021

Epigenetics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The good news from this mouse study is that if epigenetic stress is recognized, it can be reversed. That means, presumably, that it won’t be passed on:

In a study published March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, researchers found that early-life stress in mice induces epigenetic changes in a particular type of neuron, which in turn make the animals more prone to stress later in life. Using a drug that inhibits an enzyme that adds epigenetic marks to histones, they also show that the latent effects of early-life stress can be reversed.
“It is a wonderful paper because it is really advancing our ability to understand how events that happen early in life leave enduring signatures in the brain so that they influence what we do as adults,” says Tallie Z. Baram, a child neurologist and developmental neurobiologist at the University of California, Irvine, who wasn’t involved with the study.
Asher Jones, “Early-Life Stress Exerts Long-Lasting Effects Via Epigenome” at The Scientist

All the more reason to blow clear of Darwinian determinism about genetics.

The paper is open access.

See also: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Comments

Just in case anyone is interested, the US DOMINION, INC. v. POWELL documents are here. FWIW, from the lawyers I've been following on twitter, I've got the impression that "actual malice" is the key issue that Dominion have to address to win, i.e. that a statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". My guess is that Dominion's lawyers will argue that reckless disregard would include making the statements without having evidence to back them up, after being asked repeatedly for the evidence. I've no idea (not being a lawyer) if this would be good enough.Bob O'H_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

About the Sidney Powell thing; There is a legal difference between a "claim of fact" and a claim that available evidence would support a conclusion. The filing distinguishes between these two different legal things because the "defamation" case can only be supported if Powell made a claim of fact, and was not expressing an opinion that available evidence clearly and overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Dominion committed widespread voter fraud. IOW, her attorneys rightfully make the case (for dismissing the defamation suit) that no reasonable person would think that Powell was making a claim of fact, but that any reasonable person would hold that Powell was expressing her professional opinion (however strongly) that the available evidence will prove, in court, and to any other reasonable person, that conclusion. From the document in question:
The Complaint comes nowhere close to meeting this daunting standard. It alleges no facts which, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, would show that Sidney Powell knew her statements were false (assuming that they were indeed false, which Defendants dispute). Nor have Plaintiffs alleged any facts showing that Powell “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of h[er] publication.” In fact, she believed the allegations then and she believes them now.
This is another case of fake news and lack of due diligence.William J Murray_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus. More of your outrageous dumping on subjectivity and emotions. I have paid attention to the issue of subjectivity, for years. The ideas of emotions and subjective opinion, are inherently creationist concepts. Materialism provides no room for emotions and subjectivity, at all. Materialism only validates facts, not subjective opinions. I presented the basic logic of creationism with the creationist conceptual scheme. What is ok is, disagreement on what the basic logic of creating something is. What is not ok is, people disregarding what the basic logic of creationism is. What I see is, you disregard the basic logic of creationism, with your dumping on subjectivity and emotion in general.mohammadnursyamsu_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

CC [attn VL et al, & Jerry], No, there is a world of difference between the subjectivity, group think, institutional relativism etc of people accept X and that in order to reason and argue with plausibility [even to ourselves] -- i.e. find rhetorical traction -- they find themselves inescapably appealing to certain duties X. In short, it seems the all too pervasive cult of relativism, subjectivism and emotivism [with its many self-referential fallacies] is acting as a crooked yardstick here. Of course, that was directly addressed many times but crooked yardsticks are self-reinforcing, indeed some can be led to reject naturally straight and upright plumb lines. The core challenge I have put on the table, is that when we reason and argue or even quarrel, there are some observable invariants that give rhetorical traction or plausibility or perceived credibility. Perhaps it is old fashioned now to look for invariants and to highlight them as pivots of thought and analysis -- laws of a focal area of analysis -- but I cannot help being a trained scientist looking for key intelligible patterns. It is in that context that Cicero tickled an itch and forced me to think, for years actually. That prudence is a law was easy to see, given that warrant is a key facet of prudence. Where also, knowledge is best seen as a weak sense claim (as we commonly speak of knowledge where the claims are defeatable, e.g. in science): warranted, credibly true [and so, reliable] belief. That automatically points to duty to truth as accurate description of reality and to right reason involving logical soundness and cautions as closely tied first duties. That is, built-in laws. For over forty years, the case of Epictetus [for years, I couldn't recall the name] tickled away, eventually bringing out the significance of inescapability:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
Inescapable entities antecedent to specific attempts to reason and as priors of warrant can be readily recognised as first truths, self evident by virtue of inescapability. That is, the attempt to hyperskeptically demand proof of truth [on pain of dismissal] or that to try to prove both inescapably use them points to truth on pain of self-defeating self-reference. So, first truths of duty, built in law coeval with our humanity i.e. responsible, rational freedom. Then, duty to voice of conscience resonates. Conscience can be distorted or can be suppressed so, sound conscience. Where, that voice is there, umpire-like in reasoning, thinking, doing. Pervasive, a clue. Bingo, if it is delusional, a pervasive mental phenomenon is delusional. So, on pain of grand delusion, sound conscience is indeed a first principle. One can escape it but only by warping or stifling it, plainly a self-inflicted serious damage to the right functioning of mind. And, even so, the testimony remains. Similarly, his "law is . . . highest reason" [the the dropped out in my reflections] prompted me to tie law with right reason pivoting on self evident first truths starting with distinct identity. Which, you will readily see I for cause hold as exceedingly powerful. That A is itself i/l/o its core characteristics that are constitutive and distinguish it from near neighbour A' thus all that is ~A, not only brings non-contradiction and excluded middle in but is a bridge to logic of being. Thus, for example, I used it to develop a drawing out of core math that answers to Wigner's wonder on the utility of mathematics. Looking at the other pivot, justice is best seen as due balance of rights, freedoms, responsibilities. Where, rights are binding morally rooted claims on others, they are legitimate duty claims that bind the other. So, it is but a step to see that one cannot legitimately bind another to do, say or uphold wrong or evil. That is, rights claims pivot on being in the right. Freedoms are of course close concomitants of rights. To exert right Y, one must be free to do y1, y2, y3, etc, regulated by one's own duties to the other of like rational, significantly free responsible nature. Thus, obviously, duty to neighbour who is as oneself. Cicero was right, and that corpus of core, built-in law coeval with our humanity clearly connects to our thriving as a social, cultural, community-based species with civilisation as main historical means to promote same. So, we have a frame of natural law which embeds duties of responsible reason. The seven have been highlighted through discussion, but this is not exhaustive so, etc. Where, as repeatedly highlighted, even objectors cannot evade their force. For striking example, CC, I clip your latest attempt to taint and dismiss me [not just to somehow overturn arguments without appealing to first duties]. Notice, the highlighted appeals to the very principles you would discard:
Pitiful [--> claimed failure of right reason and prudence, leading to unjust argument]. Truly pitiful. Again, you should just come clean [--> appeal to allegedly failed duty to truth, in fact a wholly unjustified slander, to be dealt with in a moment] and admit [--> confess, confess, confess Mr Smith, to what? the truth or at least the partyline presented as counterfeit] you’re driven by Roman Catholic dogma. [--> claimed fallacies of improper appeal to authority, with hints of Spanish Inquisition etc doubtless lurking, this in the teeth of open acknowledgement of my debt to a chain of thinkers: Cicero et al down to Locke and Blackstone, with a key text in Cicero cited ever so many times] That would be honest [--> appeal to duty to conscience, right reason, truth, prudence, fairness, neighbour . . . you are lying to deceive is directly implied]. And you might reclaim some respect. Maybe. [--> demanding ceding of moral high ground, again appeal to conscience, however, warped]
This set of assertions directly demonstrates my point about inescapability, pointing to self-evidence. CC, you cannot be ignorant of that by now so, this is confession by projection to the despised other by way of resolving your own cognitive dissonance. You cannot but appeal to the duties you are desperate not to acknowledge so you have tried to project guilt to me. Go look in a mirror. Also, it is high time that you please stop speaking with disregard to truth and constructing narratives that project accusations of dishonesty in ignorance of basic facts. You are dealing with someone who has put life and career on the line more than once over issues of truth and right. Where, in fact, I am anything but a Roman Catholic, though I have come to recognise that that Church is a remaining voice in our civilisation speaking up for built in law coeval with our nature. Here, I find that the distorted way such thought is presented fails to deal with Cicero and others antecedent to Aquinas. As to the notion that I am reciting indoctrination from Catechism, far from it. I did go to a Jesuit High School, and came to respect the priests as thinkers and as men; but, there simply was no catechising, especially on natural law. Frankly, I first learned of Aquinas by seeing a place called Aquinas Centre. In short, your narrative is grossly false to basic facts of my life. I have quite explicitly shown the actual intellectual roots of/sparks for the argument I have made, from Cicero's opening thoughts in his De Legibus, which became accessible to me by way of web search, leading to eye-opening reading, e.g.:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
The far better known parallel text in On The Republic, I only recently ran across. That should itself have been a clue to you. I have given my sources, pointed to chains of reflection, compressed years of thought to outline how I came to where I stand. And I am fully prepared to live up to my name and its regimental tie-in on this hill, in the teeth of an anticivilisational, manifestly misanthropic trend. Had you accused me of being a defender of Western Civilisation, I would proudly plead guilty as charged. And consider it an honour to be guilty of that crime in the eyes of year zero reset, ill advised radicalism yet again determined to mutiny and sail the ship of state as they please. Never mind, that as recently as the turn of the 90's such radicalism was yet again exposed for its bloody failure. KFkairosfocus_{April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

And still, after WJM has pulled down KF's pants over and over, the fact remains, that KF's "philosophy" has nothing to say beyond: 1. People accept premises. 2. They reason from them (sometimes better than others.) 3. People are self-interested. 4. People make commitments to premises. (The premises differ amongst humans quite a bit.) 5. They feel "guilty" when they violate those commitments. I.e, violate their "duty" to said premises. 6. Some people have no guilt (feeling of "duty") at all. (Sociopaths.) Nothing about KF's "philosophy" (no matter how many times he uses the term "duty" and no matter how many times, by golly, he wishes his word salad were rational or persuasive or informative to the human condition) it's not the least bit controversial, nor does it point to some transcendent morality. Moreover, he has shown himself a coward over and over, because when people put strong questions to his nonsense, he attacks character and deflects. As if the issues have be resolved. They haven't. It's just pure cowardice on KF's part to squarely address the issues. Massive fail, KF. Pitiful. Truly pitiful. Again, you should just come clean and admit you're driven by Roman Catholic dogma. That would be honest. And you might reclaim some respect. Maybe.Concealed Citizen_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Seversky “ IANAL either (nor is it a reference to sexual practices)” Those who have dealt with lawyers may disagree with you. :) :) :)Steve Alten2_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Steve Alten2/201
What I am not sure about is who has the burden of proof. Is the burden of proof on Powell to demonstrate that her claims are correct? Or on Dominion to demonstrate that they are false?
IANAL either (nor is it a reference to sexual practices) but, as I see it, Dominion will have to present evidence to the court that they have been harmed by Powell's comments which any reasonable person would have taken as statements of fact. The best defense against a charge of defamation is evidence that the claims complained about are true. The next best defense is that the statements were legitimate expressions of opinion which any reasonable person would have taken as such. That Powell is defending on the grounds of a permissible expression of opinion suggests she is unable to prove the statements were true. The problem for that strategy is that she claimed to have evidence - or that there existed evidence - to support her allegations of electoral fraud. That implies that she believed she was making statements of fact - capable of being proven true or false - at that time.Seversky_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Distinguishing Between Statements of Fact and Opinion In general, facts are statements that can be proven true or false; by contrast, opinions are matters of belief or ideas that cannot be proven one way or the other. For example, "Chris is a thief" can be proven false by showing that throughout his entire life Chris never stole anything. Compare that statement with "Chris is a complete moron." The latter is an opinion (or, technically, "a pure opinion"), as what constitutes a moron is a subjective view that varies with the person: one person's moron is not necessarily the next person's moron. Put another way, there would be no way to prove that Chris is not a moron. If a statement is a "pure opinion," it cannot be the basis for a defamation claim. Of course, it is not always easy to determine whether a statement is a pure opinion. As we noted above, opinions that imply false underlying facts will not be protected. For example, stating that "Chris is insane" could be both a fact and an opinion. It could mean Chris has been diagnosed with psychosis and needs to be hospitalized in a mental institution; this could be proven false. It could also mean that Chris has wacky ideas that one doesn't agree with, which is an opinion. In determining which meaning the statement should be given, courts often rely on context and common-sense logic (or to phrase it in legalese, the "totality of circumstances" of the publication). For example, if one called Chris insane in a forum post as part of a heated argument over politics, the statement would likely be interpreted as an opinion.
Seversky_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Hmmmm. I'll have to analyze that statement!Viola Lee_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

I also agree that “the no reasonable person” defence is a long shot at best as the evidence is clear that a lot of people believed the claims. And there is no doubt that these claims have caused significant financial damage to Dominion. What I am not sure about is who has the burden of proof. Is the burden of proof on Powell to demonstrate that her claims are correct? Or on Dominion to demonstrate that they are false? And i don’t think that a person’s belief in the accuracy of claims is a defence for defamation.
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
Viola Lee “ My 2 cents, but IANAL.” Don’t say “anal”, some people get upset when that word is mentioned. :)Steve Alten2_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Jerry quotes, " Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation." This is the part that would open up an investigation as to whether what Powell was saying was true or not, although her "unreasonable person" defense seems to imply that she (or at least her lawyers) knew they were false. I understand the opinion vs fact distinction, but I wonder if that gets Powell of the hook. If I go around saying "It's my opinion that you've been embezzling from the bank" when I know that is not true, and that my intention is to absolve some one else of wrongdoing by accusing you, does the fact that I've stated an "opinion" enough to excuse me from legal liability?Viola Lee_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Jerry “ Has Dominion arguing that no reasonable person could believe Powell was stating a fact reinforce she was stating an opinion? Isn’t it Powell’s lawyer that is saying this, not Dominion?Steve Alten2_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

she will be found guilty.
This is a defamation suit and certain things are necessary. One can not be found guilty for having an opinion? Has Dominion arguing that no reasonable person could believe Powell was stating a fact reinforce she was stating an opinion? If it is a statement of an opinion and not a statement of fact can there be grounds for a defamation action.
Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.
So what seems to many as an admission of guilt is just a legal argument that what she was stating was an opinion. There is a lot more in the Powell pleading than the narrative offered by the press and we will have to wait to see what happens. The main part of the pleading was to change the venue to Colorado.jerry_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Possibly. If she can prove that she herself was not a reasonable person, and believed the unsubstantiated statements she was making, she might not be. But if it can be shown that she knew what she was saying was false, and she was saying those things for political purposes anyway, then she might be held liable for the damage she caused. My 2 cents, but IANAL.Viola Lee_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

And if Powell can’t support the claims she made, she will be found guilty.Steve Alten2_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Dominion does welcome an investigation: notice they are the ones suing Powell and others. They are the ones asking for an investigation.Viola Lee_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Haha. Beat you to it. :)Steve Alten2_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Repeating part of your statement
Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.
This shows that these were not facts asserted but opinions made to be determined in a court ptoceeding. Apparently this is a major legal distinction. Dominion is asserting no reasonable person would believe them and that Powell was not making claims of fact. They should thus welcome an investigation.jerry_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

These are the words from the filing
Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump, Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims.' They are repeatedly labelled 'inherently improbable' and even 'impossible.' Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.
Steve Alten2_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Her lawyers did. There have been numerous news stories about this quoting the documents.
Did they? Did the news stories portray the legal documents accurately? Or are they fake news? Does she still believe her claims? Did she claim them as facts? Again far from epigenetic characteristics and their reversal.jerry_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Her lawyers did. There have been numerous news stories about this quoting the documents.Viola Lee_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

and now Sidney Powell herself says in court documents that no reasonable person would have believed her
Did she say this?jerry_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

does anything Kairosfocus said at 185 above make any sense to you?
Why don’t you ask for a point by point clarification. For example,
I should note that too often a dismissive argument on your part has not constituted actual warrant for the dismissal, leading to good reason to point to the yet unrefuted argument.
I don’t know the specifics but Kf says one or more of his arguments were not not actually refuted so they are left standing. Why not ask which ones. And then go from there. This might be a good start for understanding the comment.jerry_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Yes, Steve, a bit, but it don't think "engaged" means exactly the same thing to KF as it does to me. For instance, quoting Cicero, Plato, or Acts from the Bible dozens of times isn't my idea of engagement. I never have understood the "Reichstag fire incident", which seems to imply that the Jan 6 storming of the capitol was contrived, and the Benton thing was about the claim of electoral fraud. I didn't participate too much in those other than to point out that all the electoral fraud stuff was not born out in court (and now Sidney Powell herself says in court documents that no reasonable person would have believed her). The R R* stuff refers to the argument about an infinite past. KF did engage in that discussion, to my mind, and we just disagreed about some substantials issues. The possible worlds part refers, I think, to the nature of mathematics and to what extent, if any, it exists apart from the abstract concepts developed by human beings. Here he and I have different philosophical perspectives. He could have also mentioned the recent topic, of which the subthread on this post is concerned, as to whether there are objective moral standards–one plumb line by which the crookedness of all others can be measured. But I am referring more to how he engages: continually throwing repetitive rhetoric into posts rather than staying focused on specific points. For instance, you wrote a simple sentence at 180 "The type of sexual activity is not the problem. Multiple partners is. Many gay couples are monogamous. As such, their HIV risks are no higher than that of celibate priests." KF replied at 184, (as a P.S.), "PS: The claims commonly made about lack of promiscuity are dubious in a day when any sexual contact easily involves a decade of onward sexual networks, but that is just an opening to go more and more into what is best left as unmentionable." Notice, he didn't respond to your point, which was not about whether people are promiscuous or not, but about the fact that sex practices of all sorts are quite safe, from a disease standpoint, in a monogamous relationship in which multiple partners is not part of the situations. Also, the first part of his response is about all these other things that can be dangerous, but that is just a deflection from the point that you made. This is an example of what I mean by "not engaging."Viola Lee_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee, does anything Kairosfocus said at 185 above make any sense to you? The only thing I recognize is Kairosfocus' faulty insistence that Benford's is an effective tool for identifying possible election fraud, in spite of mathematicians saying that it isn't.Steve Alten2_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

VL, we could roll the tape any number of times that will show that I have substantially engaged you and others. I should note that too often a dismissive argument on your part has not constituted actual warrant for the dismissal, leading to good reason to point to the yet unrefuted argument. The currently playing out political chaos in the US amounting to a Reichstag fire incident stage of a 4th gen civil war in the shadows substantiates on one front. The reason to hold that we saw a good enough benford law distribution on one decade rather than several as a mere matter of empirical fact is another. As a third, it is clear that there is no good reason to truncate the span of numbers we consider at R, and once R* is on the table it is crystal clear as to why it becomes impossible to traverse a transfinite span in finite stage steps; which drastically undercuts worldviews that seem to demand that the causal-temporal succession we see from day to day or the comparable, extends to an actual past without limit -- an implicitly transfinite past. Similarly, it is manifest that once we have a distinct possible world W, we can use distinction from a near neighbour W' to develop N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc, and it is reasonable to hold that Mathematics as a discipline studies a substance of structure and quantity that in core parts is antecedent to axiomatisations. And more. KFkairosfocus_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

SA2, has it registered that enough has been said, including a point by point response on attempts to draw analogies to riding motor bicycles? Abuse of various bits and pieces of anatomy is problematic, promiscuity in a day of dozens of sexually transmissible diseases, is ill advised. Even kissing is a question when some diseases can be spread orally too, not helped by the incidence of various mouth based sexual acts in a context of promiscuity. Hand holding or shaking, if you didn't notice, is being actively discouraged, breathing is filtered through face masks and there have been long term public health measures in regards to foods, food preparation and consumption, especially where restaurants are involved. None of such successfully answer to the buried lead admitted in the Lancet article. KF PS: The claims commonly made about lack of promiscuity are dubious in a day when any sexual contact easily involves a decade of onward sexual networks, but that is just an opening to go more and more into what is best left as unmentionable.kairosfocus_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Back at 80, EDTA wrote, "Detractors seem to reject the words of folks like KF without actually engaging him at his level, point-by-point. Rather, they reject the ideas in sweeping generalities that never get down to details and points." I responded at 81, "I have engaged KF point by point a number of times, on a number of issues. He doesn’t engage back: he repeats and repeats, and dismisses any ideas not consistent with his" Post 180 by Steve is an example, where he points out that the type of sex practice, be it hetero or homosexual, is not the issue, promiscuity is. Monogamous couples of either type are similarly free from sexually transmitted disease, and lesbian couples, I believe, less prone to sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexual couples. This is an example of engaging him "point-by-point" with specific details. Similarly, back at 132, I wrote,
re 129, KF writes, “VL, SA2 et al, it is clear that you do not recognise the distance between genes, other molecular level phenomena and rational, responsible, significantly free behaviour. If you argue for molecular determinism or even exceedingly strong influence, you are undermining the rationality and duties that you appeal to in your own arguments” (The rest is just repetitive rhetoric.)
There are limits to what we can freely will. We are a complex biological organism in which billions of biochemical things happen all the time that are outside of our conscious awareness, much less control. When a girl starts puberty, she doesn’t freely choose to start growing breasts and body hair, and she doesn’t freely choose to start having sexual feelings, including the experience in some girls that those feelings are stimulated by other girls. Surely, KF, you recognize this difference “between genes, other molecular level phenomena and rational, responsible, significantly free behaviour”, and so do I. For all of us, what we freely choose takes places in the context of aspects of ourselves that we can not freely choose. I understand that difference.
I know KF is busy, and posts long pieces on various threads, but he did not respond engage to these points. I'd been wanting to respond to EDTA's point for a few days, and today I had some time and Steve's post seemed like an appropriate prompt for my thoughts. People do respond to KF's points, but often rather than re-responding to specifics, he just re-posts broad generalizations and dire warnings about the state of civilization.Viola Lee_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

But a positive outcome of a belief is not proof that the belief is based on fact.
Never said it was. There are thousands of different religious beliefs. Not all can be true beliefs. But proof that there is no God or a high probability that there is no God or only a slight probability that there is no God has no basis in rational thought. To use an expression commonly used here recently, such a conclusion has no basis in right reasoning. Hence any conclusion that all religions are meaningless is a baseless conclusion. But as I said every religions cannot be based on true beliefs. To mock or even just disdain a belief in God by another is an example of extreme ignorance and poor reasoning skills. Aside: if a belief is wrong but has a positive outcome, then is it wrong to have such a belief. Especially if there is no valid argument that the belief is wrong but just someone's false opinion.jerry_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Jerry@179, I don’t thing you will get much argument that people who are actively religious (ie, attend church, mosque, etc) are happier on average than others. But is it the faith or the social interactions that is most important? I suspect it is a combination of the two. But a positive outcome of a belief is not proof that the belief is based on fact. With regard to liberals and mental illness, they may have a higher recorded incidence of it simply because they might be more likely to seek help for a perceived mental illness than a conservative is. Just food for thought.Steve Alten2_{March 31, 2021
March
03
Mar
31
31
2021
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply