All of indexador2's Comments + Replies

The thing that brings my attention is the phrase "without any initial relative velocity against the planet". They might not move relative to the planet, but Earth is not an inertial reference frame and is rotating, so bodies in different latitudes would have different speeds in relation to an inertial referential.

0Thomas
This might give some ideas to someone. But not very directly, I think.

Being poorly calibrated can also mean you're inconsistent between being overconfident and underconfident.

A high school student would say no, because by definition a molecule has more than one atom.

8Silver_Swift
That depends entirely on your definition (which is the point of the quote I guess), I've heard people use it both ways.

If evolution is untrue, it changes everything.

Just by reading this phrase, I can conclude that everything else is probably useless.

8Viliam
Here is a shortened version: Darwin’s grandfather believed in something similar to abiogenesis. Later in Darwin’s life, scientists found something that appeared to be the first proto-cell, but later they found a progenitor to this in oceanic mud. Darwin believed that the discovery of the first life form would occur soon, but it didn't happen. Organisms that reproduce, metabolize energy, and create a cell wall, require at least a hundred proteins, each of which has approximately 300 amino acids, and all need to be able to work with each other. To reach this level of sophistication via chemical evolution defies explanation. The experiments in 1953 created some of the amino acids found in all life forms, but this is a far cry from creating proteins. The origin of life is one of those puzzles that has been right around the corner, for the past two centuries. Imagining something is not a scientific argument, but simply speculation. Many present all evolution as similar to how wolves changed to sheepdogs, or the way in which bacteria develop resistance to penicillin, but such change will not create radically new protein complexes or new species. If evolution is untrue, it changes everything. After I accepted that a creator exists, I found myself attending church, engaging in Bible study, and reading Christian authors. Various facts all began to make much more sense.
4username2
Well, to understand rationality we should read about both successes and failures of human reasoning.
3Transfuturist
The equivocation of 'created' in those four points are enough to ignore it entirely.
2ChristianKl
It does happen to be a bit frightening to see an economics PHD doubt evolution. I think it would be good if someone like Scott Alexander writes a basic "here's why evolution is true"-post.

If you also want a datapoint on the time necessary to complete the test, I took 15 minutes. Most of the time when I didn't know the correct answer I simply guessed.

0raydora
16 minutes here. Also guessed frequently.

I don't think the comparison is valid, if anything it's the opposite; the Pearl Harbor attack was intended as a devastating blow, to crush the American naval capability on the Pacific. The United States then did the opposite of what the Japanese intended, rebuilt the fleet and committed fully to the war.

I don't think that was the implication. What I took from it is that you shouldn't be a dick.

What would insulting/infuriating the person with whom you're discussing possibly accomplish, besides making them less likely to cooperate?

-14hoofwall