reliv3 @ reliv3 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

55

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not exactly germ theory, but the early concepts of contamination which ultimately led to germ theory.

The Native Americans at the time did not postulate the concept of bacteria and viruses, but they understood that sickness was not supernatural and that it was important to sterilize in order to prevent further sickness.

Native American medicine was in many ways more advanced when compared to European medicine at the time. They also introduced things like sun screen, painkillers, and dental hygiene to Europeans.

Some Major Issues:

1. The industrial revolution started almost a century and a half after 1600 (in 1760) which was well after European colonization.
2. You are assuming that Europe would have developed the same way if they remained isolated. For example, the fundamental ideas which ultimately led to the modern concept of disease (bacteria and virus causing infection) was introduced to Europeans via the Native Americans. Beforehand, Europeans thought sickness was caused by religious superstition. This is why sterilization between surgeries wasn't really a thing in Europe beforehand. European medicine involved reusing bloody knives to perform surgerys on different people because they didn't understand the concept of cross contamination.

The knowledge today is not purely the result of European thinkers. Your prediction grossly discounts the contributions to science and technology from other cultures in world.

BeliefPropagator posted a link above which possibly verifies the screenshot: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/

I get that we need to be wary of AI slop, I really do; but If speaking academic English with decent grammar becomes associated with talking "like a bot", then we are cooked.

This is a good point to bring up, but this correlation is still being debated: the causal connection between the IQ test and the correlation is unclear, and there is debate on whether the correlation is being constructed through bad data or analysis techniques. Because of this, no one can confidently claim whether IQ tests predicts good job performance, employment, etc.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4557354/

[Skip to the conclusion at the end to get the tldr, since this is a long scientific publication]

Good point. Ultimately this leads me to question the existence of some fixed quality of intelligence. People are growing, adapting, and learning through their lives, so a fixed number defining general intelligence is likely a moot concept.

On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.

This being said, It is likely impossible to test all forms of intelligence in one test; and even if we could create this test, how would this test handle differently abled people. For example, a completely blind person would fail the visual intelligence portion every time (for obvious reasons).

You are a waste of time

I used the higher level 3-dimensional definition of work, and you told my I was wrong and provided my the high school level 1-dimensional definition of work. Then you hang it over my head and try to correct me as if my definition is incorrect.

The fact is your knowledge of physics is so low that you didn't even know this nuance; and you are not arguing in good faith because this is something you easily could have looked up and realized if all you cared about wasn't "being right".

It's very apparent that you are not a good faith discusser and your knowledge of physics is very low.

I'm checking out of this discussion

Not AI. I'm in academia, so I write academically.

I specify "physics work" to mean physic's definition of work (dot product between Force and Displacement).

And to not connect the importance between the electric and magnetic field as it pertains to the the electrostatic force and magnetic force reveals your basic understanding of the physics. Hence, why your prior comment was so problematic...

Oh boy, this is very incorrect, because it sounds like you are attempting to explain magnetism with electrostatic forces. Here is a basic model which separates the difference between the two:

1. Electrostatic forces are caused by the electric field. Something produces an electric field simply by having an unbalanced charge. Positive attracts negative, negative repels negative, positive repels positive.
2. Magnetic forces are caused by the magnetic field. Something produces a magnetic field by having an unbalanced charge AND is moving.

This is why when trying to explain how solid magnets work, we focus on the electrons because electrons are charged particles that are always moving. So they produce both an electric field (being charged) and a magnetic field (being a moving charged system).

Rhaedas is sorta correct. Any solid system has the capability of being a magnet, but this takes an incredible amount of physics work where iron is special. Iron's electrons are able to easily maintain a synchronous orbit with each other which results in magnetic forces being observable at a macroscopic scale (seeing iron magnets pull on each other). In most other materials, the electrons orbits are chaotic, so even though magnetic fields are still being produced by their electrons, the lack of order results in no magnetic force being observable on the macroscopic scale; but if you place this non-iron material within a very strong magnetic field, you may be able to align their electrons orbits so that it becomes magnetic on the macroscopic scale (like iron).

Open desmos. Graph y = x^{2. Then graph y = (x)}2. Recognize that both graphs are identical. Realize the flaw in your argument.

Oops, that's my fault on messing up the context. Nevertheless, my point still stands.

This is a major L take. Your argument is to compare bad behavior performed by a 5 year old child and a grown adult, and say "they are basically equivalent". The Internet is trying to point out to you how ridiculous it is to hold a 5 year old and professional adult to the same standards.

The teacher is hands down "the asshole" in this scenario, and I am saying this as a professional public school teacher. Yes, the five year old was wrong to steal, but the kid is five and is in the process of learning what society considers right and wrong. The teacher escalated the scenario due to her bigotry and then expected the father to be susceptive to her concerns about the child stealing stuff. She should have professionally address the behavior to the child's parents and admin (especially if it was repeated behavior) so that the team can help the child understand why what they are doing is incorrect.

Head over to Norfolk, Virginia and tell them that they are to ignore the years of racism that they experienced and fight a class war. This is the divide racism creates. If all sides can't come to terms, then asking them to join and fight a class war will be extremely difficult; and a big part of this is white america finally coming to terms with their privilege and actively destroying the caste system.

Hence, why the bosses have been actively demonizing DEI and CRT to maintain white america's denial of their privilege so that it continues to stoke the divide between the castes.

But you make a point, perspective is everything. Folks in middle america do not see their privilege as much because a lot of them live in towns full of other white people. This means they are largely of the same caste. Nevertheless, they are essentially being convinced that their grievances are due to dangerous people of color elsewhere in America.

That is frankly false, and also my biggest gripe about the modern communist movement. Racism is basically America's caste system. If the caste system isn't destroyed either before or during the class warfare, then it will either reform after a revolution or prevent people from banding together to form a revolution in the first place.

Telling people that racism is a distraction to be ignored is a major mistake. If the modern communist movement wants their class revolution, then this would be far easier (or actually possible) in a America without racism. Hence, why bosses have been perpetuating Racism in America for hundreds of years.

It's actually a bit ironic, because CRT is viewed by many White Americans as a theory which demonizes them; but CRT also defines how racism has harmed poor white people in the past and continues to do so today.

CRT defines the biggest winners of Racism in America as being wealthy white folks. According to CRT, Racism as we know it today, was created as a means to take advantage of poor whites. Rich plantation owners recognized slavery caused great economic harm to poorer whites who did not own slaves. So a solution to stop revolt was to create this system of Race so that poor whites would remain divided from black slaves, and not work together to retaliate.

CRT also claims that this is still occuring today. Racism continues to divide poor white people from poor people of color so that they don't work together to fight against Injustice.

I am not entirely certain what point you're making here. Is the premise that conclusions based on evidence that involves literally seeing the thing are stronger than any conclusions where we haven't directly seen the thing? If so, then we better throw out a majority of our scientific hypotheses, since most of them have not are not based on evidence where we have directly seen the thing (most of quantum mechanics, most of general relativity, most of astronomy, etc.)

Human sight is a very restrictive window into observing our universe. We can only see a sliver of the light spectrum (visible light). We can expand this window slightly by using other senses to observe our universe (sound, taste, touch, scent). Where science shines is the practitioners ability to use abstract models and thought processes to draw conclusions about things we cannot observe. This expands our window into understanding our universe far more than leaning only on concrete models (things we can directly observed).

In simpler terms, most of science's conclusions involve ones that are closer to Planet X rather than directly seeing an exoplanet. Therefore, we cannot cheapen these type of conclusions.

All science requires is models that make accurate predictions. For example, atoms. We have never seen an atom before, but we have used this model of the atom to accurately predict outcomes of experiments. Because of this, the atom still exists as a working hypothesis in science.

Sort of. It's kinda similar to science's conclusion about the existence of intelligent alien life. Have we directly observed evidence of intelligent alien life? No. Are we pretty confident that intelligent alien life exists? Yes. It's a probability thing. If we can exist in this massive universe, then it's almost insane to think that we could be the only intelligent life that exists: the principle of mediocrity.

When it comes to the standard cosmological model, it allows for universes with different shaped space-time continuums, different masses of elementary particles, etc. So, if it allows for all of these variables to be different, then it's almost insane to think that our universe is the only universe that exists: principle of mediocrity again.

In the BBT, the multiverse hypothesis comes in during the inflation epoch. At some point our universe bubble expanded faster than the speed of light. This creates a sorta localized boundary. Since we observe light with our eyes and we cannot go FTL, then we cannot observe or go places beyond this localized bubble which exists within our localized space. The BBT posits that other localized universe bubbles were also created during the epoch of inflation: the multiverse. Of course, to get to another localized bubble, one would have to travel faster than the speed of light and transverse through literal nothing (no space or time) to get there.

Now keep in mind that the multiverse hypothesis is pretty cutting edge, so yes, there is still a lot of argument regarding its validity. One argument is that it is not a scientific hypothesis because there is no feasible way to observe outside our own localized bubble. Nevertheless there are scientists who are designing tests. For example, some physicists posit that if our localized bubble collided with another localized bubble, then it could result in an observable effect on the cosmic background radiation.

You are correct. But this doesn't restrict the big bang theory's ability to conclude that other universes would have been created during the event.

Imagine analyzing a moving ball while simultaneously not knowing what caused the ball to move in the first place. We can still say a lot about this ball without the knowledge of how it started moving in the first place..

As Hawkings once said, asking questions about what caused the big bang is fruitless. Cause and Effect assumes a timeline, and there was no timeline before the big bang, therefore, asking what caused the big bang is actually a useless question. Therefore, it's only fruitful to analyze the effect of the big bang, and through analyzing it's effect, we conclude that other universes were likely created during the event.

A lot of this is based on the theoretical mathematics which define the big bang, but it's also based on the standard cosmological model of our universe. The fact is cosmological theories already suggest the possibility of different universes which have different initial parameters. Our universe isn't special, therefore it makes sense that other universes with different initial parameters could exist. The big bang theory aligns with this idea and suggests that different universes with different initial parameters could have also been created during the event, therefore, the multiverse.