jenpalex

jenpalex t1_jdqde6v wrote

My British Services brand wrist watch.

It was a present for my 14th birthday, which I wear every day, now well into my 71st year.

It runs from -1 to +1 minutes fast or slow. So that makes life just that little bit more exciting.

7

jenpalex t1_izbarjh wrote

Australian aborigines seem to have a greater tendency to problems with alcohol (sorry, I can’t back this up with scientific evidence, so great with caution).

I wonder what a similar study here, would reveal.

−7

jenpalex t1_iwhrt7s wrote

“ Since only one (at most) of these two cosmological theories can be correct, you might expect that only one of them (at most) manages to achieve correspondence with the facts in the preferred way. ”

What rules out the possibility that both effects could be operating?

Occam’s Razor is a guide to theory making, not a rule.

4

jenpalex t1_iwg7n3n wrote

“We’ve been working on advanced configurations for 20 years, but last time I went to the airport I didn’t see any of them flying around,” says Brent Cobleigh, NASA’s flight demonstrations and capabilities project manager.”

People have worked on heavier than air flight since Da Vinci. During all that time, people didn’t see them flying around.

1

jenpalex t1_iuvrow5 wrote

This thought experiment can be compared with a real world one.

The (White?) Rhino is an endangered species due to armed horn poachers. Armed Game Wardens, financed by foreign governments and NGO’s, try to stop them, with, I believe, loss of life on both sides.

In this case the humans are willing participants. It doesn’t ‘feel’ wrong to me: either to submit to the risk of death as a warden, or to kill poachers.

Why do we feel repelled by murder in the Panda case, but, somehow, it is justified in the Rhino case?

Is it due to the relative moral weights of Pandas, Rhinos and humans? I don’t think so. The Utilitarian stance of the protagonist seems to be undermined, as it so often is, when we try to justify another human’s murder “For the Greater Good.”

1