• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Random Comments

FollowingHim said:
I think, @Keith Martin and @Joleneakamama, that you are failing to appreciate the sheer joy of discovery, and the value of learning physiology through simple experiments like this. You're taking this all far too seriously.

I recall an experiment at university, where we either hyperventilated, or breathed pure oxygen, and then saw how long we could hold our breaths for afterwards. It was fascinating and taught us a lot about respiration. Did I, as a result, decide that I should always hyperventilate, or always breathe pure oxygen? Of course not, that would be daft. But by experimenting on myself and seeing my own body's reaction to different circumstances I came to understand respiration considerably better.

Blood sugar is important to know about, including its effect on appetite, diabetes, and many other things. Playing with food and considering the body's responses to it is of immense value. Would that mean we'd find that eating dessert before a meal had one specific effect so we'd suddenly decide to always do it every day? Of course not. But the idea that a sweet treat before a meal could depress appetite is fascinating - because to understand why it might have an effect, you'd need to understand the physiology of what is going on. And that opens the door for a massive discussion on biology, that now makes sense as it is tied to something tangible (and tasty).

And just the process of science - seeing how to figure out these things - is itself of enormous value to learn, and most enjoyable to learn when doing something that is simultaneously silly and relevant to life.

This sounds like an immensely enjoyable and very silly thing to do, which has the potential to spark an interest in physiology. Hence why I seriously think it's a fascinating idea for an unschooling homeschool project.
Click to expand...
I don't at all disagree -- I must admit at first I wasn't concentrating on the learning opportunities for your children in repeating experimental studies.
 
FollowingHim2 said:
Does having an abortion increase your chances of getting PCOS?
Click to expand...
Not going to compile the research here, but abortion pretty much correlates causally with every gynecological malady known to humankind.
 
I'm too lazy at the moment to research where I've written about this elsewhere, but I just ran across a stellar example of how intellectual elites initiate the generation of really dumb, impractical policy 'solutions;' my belief is that one of the necessary components of dumb ideas that flow from progressivism is that they must be the type of mental construct that (a) isn't part of previously-existing common sense, (b) would never be immediately obvious to a person when first presented with it, (c) qualifies as something that people who are in what's called the normal IQ range of 90-110 [the middle 50%] will have to initially struggle to comprehend but that once they grasp the concept they will become so unconsciously proud of themselves they become averse to questioning whether the concept is even valid, (d) those with IQs of 80-90 [another 16%] can potentially grasp the concept enough to believe it's true and understand what it is that they believe is true but are generally incapable of even questioning its validity [this is especially relevant in modern times, because the majority of people in that range go to college and thus become part of the societal strata that promotes such concepts], (e) those with IQs under 80 who, before political correctness started sneaking in, were labeled 'mentally retarded' [19% of population] will never even attempt mastering the concept [thus inspiring the epithet hurled at anyone who doesn't champion the concept as being 'retarded'], (f) those with IQs 110-120 [16%] will also not automatically grasp the concept but will do so with great ease, albeit with enough low-level skepticism to lead to the same relief upon 'getting it' that they lose much of any incentive to subsequently question the concept, (g) the vast majority of concepts that fall into this category are imagined into existence by people who comprise the remaining 19% with IQs above 120, and (h) the conformist principle combined with the human-nature need to be right tends to ensure that the 120+IQ people willing to challenge the concept will be far outnumbered and shouted down by those who resist allowing the concept they've championed to be questioned.

Pride drives all of this, making it easy to manipulate.

One of the best examples of a concept that fits in this category of being fairly easily debunked but that adherence to is considered a measure of brilliance is Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, which has never been anything but a theory and yet is treated as some type of loyalty oath to membership in sophisticated society. (The aspect of natural selection within it is actually empirically-settled science, which also accounts for much of the confusion, but Darwin's theory that natural selection is augmented by missing links, mutations and intervention by cosmic rays that support the notion that human beings gradually evolved from one-celled organisms has nothing but his pencil drawings to validate it.)

Today, though, I was watching episode #1022 of The Joe Rogan Experience with guest Eric Weinstein (June 19, 2018), and starting at 1:34:33 one can hear the emergence of one of the above type of concepts that (1) are inspired by generally-leftist motivations to re-create the world in a utopian image, (2) sound on the surface like they're both well-meaning and intended to fix something, and (3) if adopted by any significant amount of people will be propelled into implementation as policy prescriptions; in this case, it's a proposed intellectual solution to creating salary equity in order to erase the mythical gender pay gap. On the surface, what he says is, at first, incomprehensible, even to Joe Rogan, but as Weinstein explains it to him Joe begins to comprehend (as will you), but Mr. Weinstein fails to recognize that, even if most of what he says is true, it really only applies to really, really, really smart women and thus has no practical application to the bulk of human beings, our cultures or our economies. That, of course, doesn't mean that some AOC type won't in the future be attempting to cram it down our throats.

If you want to listen, download the Spotify app on your smartphone, join up (it's free) and search for JRE #1022, then either listen to the whole thing (most of it is quite interesting) or just skip to 1:34:33 and listen to 1:43:30, but Weinstein redeems himself to a degree just a little bit past that (and only a little bit, because later on he demonstrates that his goal is gender equity across the board) by asserting that there's just as much of a glass floor (under which women are not expected to participate -- the heavy-labor and dangerous occupational realms).
 
1660432762912.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top