the fisherman of halicarnassus

the chaos theory is a branch of mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamic systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, also known as the butterfly effect. this means that small differences in initial conditions can lead to significantly different outcomes over time.

one example of the chaos theory in action is the behavior of a pendulum. if a pendulum is set in motion, it will swing back and forth in a predictable pattern. however, if the initial push is slightly off, the pendulum will start to swing in a slightly different pattern. as time goes on, the differences in the swing become more and more pronounced, eventually leading to completely different behaviors.

another example of the chaos theory is the prediction of weather patterns. small differences in temperature and air pressure can lead to significantly different weather patterns, making it difficult to accurately predict the weather more than a few days in advance.

overall, the chaos theory helps to explain why it is often difficult to predict the long-term behavior of complex systems, even when we have a good understanding of the individual components of the system.

pooh-pooh is a term that refers to the act of dismissing or belittling something as being unworthy of serious consideration or attention. it can also refer to the act of expressing contempt or disdain for something.

for example, someone might pooh-pooh an idea or suggestion by saying "that's a ridiculous idea" or "that's not worth considering." this can be done in a dismissive or contemptuous tone of voice, and it conveys the idea that the person believes the idea or suggestion is not worth considering or discussing.

another example of pooh-pooh might be someone who dismisses a concern or issue as being insignificant or unimportant. for example, someone might pooh-pooh a concern about climate change by saying "it's just a natural cycle" or "it's not a big deal." this can be done in a dismissive or contemptuous tone of voice, and it conveys the idea that the person believes the concern is not worth considering or addressing.

in order to avoid pooh-poohing something, it is important to consider all ideas, concerns, and issues with an open and respectful mindset, rather than dismissing or belittling them without careful consideration. this can help to create a more open and respectful dialogue, and it can encourage people to consider a wide range of perspectives and viewpoints.

a concern troll is a type of online troll (someone who posts inflammatory or provocative content online with the intention of causing disruption or distress) who pretends to be concerned about a particular issue or community, while secretly working to undermine or disrupt it. concern trolls often use fake accounts or anonymous profiles to hide their true identity and motivations, and they may present themselves as allies or supporters of the issue or community they are targeting.

concern trolls often use fake or misleading arguments, or they may present distorted or incomplete information in order to mislead or deceive their audience. they may also engage in inflammatory or disruptive behavior, such as posting inflammatory or offensive content, starting arguments, or engaging in personal attacks.

here is an example of a concern troll:

imagine that you are part of an online community that is discussing issues related to climate change. a concern troll might join the community and pretend to be concerned about climate change, while secretly working to undermine the discussion or sow discord among the members. they might do this by posting false or misleading information about climate change, or by starting arguments or engaging in personal attacks against other members of the community.

another example of a concern troll might be someone who pretends to be a supporter of a particular political party, while secretly working to undermine the party or its candidates. they might do this by posting false or misleading information about the party or its candidates, or by starting arguments or engaging in personal attacks against other members of the party or its supporters.

in order to identify and protect against concern trolls, it is important to be aware of their tactics and to be cautious of anyone who seems to be trying to disrupt or undermine a particular issue or community. it is also important to verify the accuracy and reliability of information before sharing it, and to be respectful and civil in online discussions and debates.

cherry picking is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument relies on the selective use of evidence or examples in order to support a particular conclusion, while ignoring or dismissing evidence or examples that contradict or weaken the argument. this can create a misleading or distorted view of the subject being discussed, as it presents a biased or incomplete picture of the available evidence.

here is an example of an argument that relies on cherry picking:

premise: all democrats are socialists.
example: bernie sanders is a socialist and a democrat.
conclusion: all democrats are socialists.

in this argument, the premise is supported by the example of bernie sanders, who is both a socialist and a democrat. however, this example ignores the fact that there are many other democrats who are not socialists, and therefore does not provide a complete or accurate picture of the relationship between democrats and socialism. as a result, the conclusion of the argument is based on a biased or incomplete view of the evidence.

another example of cherry picking might be:

premise: vaccines are dangerous.
example: some people who have received vaccines have experienced serious side effects.
conclusion: vaccines are dangerous.

in this argument, the premise is supported by the example of some people who have experienced serious side effects after receiving vaccines. however, this example ignores the vast majority of people who have received vaccines without experiencing any serious side effects, and therefore does not provide a complete or accurate picture of the risks and benefits of vaccines. as a result, the conclusion of the argument is based on a biased or incomplete view of the evidence.

in order to avoid cherry picking, it is important to consider all of the available evidence and examples, rather than selectively choosing only those that support a particular conclusion. this can help to ensure that the argument is based on a balanced and accurate view of the evidence, rather than relying on a biased or incomplete picture of the subject being discussed.

steelmanning is a critical thinking technique that involves trying to understand and present the strongest possible version of an argument or position, even if it is one that you disagree with or find flawed. the goal of steelmanning is not to defend or advocate for the argument, but rather to understand it more deeply and to better understand why someone might hold that position. this can be useful in a variety of contexts, such as when you are trying to have a productive conversation or debate with someone who holds a different perspective, when you are trying to anticipate objections to your own argument, or when you are trying to identify the underlying assumptions or values that inform someone's argument.

here are a few examples of how steelmanning might be applied in different contexts:

imagine that you are trying to have a conversation with a friend about the value of wearing masks to prevent the spread of covid-19. your friend argues that masks are unnecessary because they don't provide complete protection and can make it harder to breathe. to steelman their argument, you might try to understand why they might hold this view, even if you disagree with it. you might ask questions like: "what do you think are the main reasons that people might believe masks are unnecessary?" "what kinds of experiences or evidence might lead someone to conclude that masks don't provide enough protection?" by asking these questions, you are trying to understand the strongest version of your friend's argument, rather than simply dismissing it as misguided or wrong.
suppose that you are writing an essay in which you argue that the government should invest more in renewable energy sources. one of the objections to your argument might be that renewable energy is too expensive and that it is not feasible to rely on it as our primary source of energy. to steelman this objection, you might try to understand the underlying assumptions and values that inform it. for example, you might ask yourself: "what do people who believe that renewable energy is too expensive think are the main costs associated with it?" "what do they see as the main benefits of non-renewable energy sources, and how do they weigh those benefits against the costs?" by answering these questions, you can better understand the perspective of those who disagree with you and anticipate their objections more effectively.

imagine that you are trying to have a productive conversation with someone who holds a very different political perspective from your own. one way to approach this conversation might be to try to steelman the other person's arguments. for example, if they argue that the government should not provide social services because it is not the government's role to take care of people, you might try to understand why they might hold this view, even if you disagree with it. you might ask questions like: "what do you think are the main reasons that people might believe that the government should not provide social services?" "what kinds of experiences or evidence might lead someone to conclude that it is not the government's role to take care of people?" by asking these questions, you are trying to understand the strongest version of the other person's argument and to identify any common ground you might have, rather than simply dismissing their perspective as misguided or wrong.

this is an argument that introduces a new topic in order to distract from the original issue being discussed. for example, "yes, i know i'm late for work again, but have you seen how bad the traffic is this morning?"

the slippery slope is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument suggests that a small initial action or event will inevitably lead to a chain of other events, culminating in a significant, negative consequence. this type of argument suggests that if the initial action is allowed to happen, it will set off a chain reaction that cannot be stopped, ultimately leading to an undesirable outcome.

for example, consider the following argument:

"if we allow students to use their phones in class, it will lead to students being constantly distracted and unable to pay attention. this will result in lower grades and a decrease in overall academic performance. therefore, we should not allow students to use their phones in class."

in this argument, the initial action of allowing students to use their phones in class is presented as the first step in a chain of events that will ultimately lead to negative consequences. however, this argument does not take into account the possibility that students might be able to use their phones responsibly or that other measures could be put in place to prevent distractions.

one key problem with the slippery slope fallacy is that it often relies on exaggerated or unrealistic assumptions about the consequences of an action. it is important to carefully evaluate the evidence and consider alternative explanations when confronted with this type of argument.

in critical thinking, it is important to be aware of the slippery slope fallacy and to carefully consider the evidence and logic behind an argument, rather than simply accepting it because it seems to follow a logical sequence of events. it is also important to consider alternative explanations and to be open to the possibility that the initial action or event may not necessarily lead to the negative consequences that are being predicted.

the concept of zero as a number has a long and interesting history. it is thought to have originated in ancient civilizations in mesopotamia, india, and the maya civilization in central america.

in ancient mesopotamia, the sumerians used a symbol for a placeholder in their system of base 60, which is still used in time measurement today (e.g. 60 seconds in a minute). this placeholder symbol was later adopted by the ancient babylonians and is thought to be the earliest recorded use of a placeholder symbol in a positional number system.

in ancient india, the concept of zero as a number was developed independently by the ancient indian mathematicians. they used the sanskrit word "shunya," which means "void," to represent the concept of nothingness. the ancient indian mathematician brahmagupta was the first to write about the rules for arithmetic with zero, including the concept of negative numbers.

the maya civilization in central america also had a concept of zero, which they represented with a shell-shaped symbol. the mayan number system was based on a base 20 system and included a symbol for zero, which was used in the same way that we use zero today.

the concept of zero as a number was later transmitted to the islamic world, where it was further developed by mathematicians like al-khwarizmi and later spread to europe through the work of scholars like fibonacci. today, zero is an integral part of the modern decimal number system, which is used worldwide.

(see: god complex)

chernobyl's new spin off documentary that will be coming to hbo and hbo max later june 2022.

catharsis (meaning "purification" or "cleansing" or "clarification") is the purification and purgation of emotions through dramatic art, or it may be any extreme emotional state that results in renewal and restoration. in its literal medical sense, it refers to the evacuation of the catamenia—the menstrual fluid or other reproductive material from the patient. but as a metaphor it was originally used by aristotle in the poetics, comparing the effects of tragedy on the mind of a spectator to the effect of catharsis on the body.

in psychology, the term is associated with freudian psychoanalysis and specifically relates to the expression of buried trauma, bringing it into consciousness and thereby releasing it permanently. however, there is considerable debate as to its therapeutic usefulness. social catharsis may be regarded as the collective expression of extreme emotion, when groups gather together, such as in large crowds at sporting events.

catharsis in platonism

in platonism, catharsis is part of the soul's progressive ascent to knowledge. it is a means to go beyond the senses and embrace the pure world of the intelligible. specifically for the neoplatonists plotinus and porphyry, catharsis is the elimination of passions. this leads to a clear distinction in the virtues. in the second tractate of the first ennead, plotinus lays out the difference between the civic virtues and the cathartic virtues and explains that the civic, or political, virtues are inferior. they are a principle of order and beauty and concern material existence. although they maintain a trace of the absolute good, they do not lead to the unification of the soul with the divinity. as porphyry makes clear, their function is to moderate individual passions and allow for peaceful coexistence with others. the purificatory, or cathartic, virtues are a condition for assimilation to the divinity. they separate the soul from the sensible, from everything that is not its true self, enabling it to contemplate the mind.

group a: qatar (hosts), netherlands, senegal, ecuador
group b: england, united states, iran, wales/scotland/ukraine
group c: argentina, mexico, poland, saudi arabia
group d: france, denmark, tunisia, peru/australia/uae
group e: spain, germany, japan, costa rica/new zealand
group f: belgium, croatia, morocco, canada
group g: brazil, switzerland, serbia, cameroon

love doesn't just sit there, like a stone, it has to be made, like bread; remade all the time, made new.

after awhile you could get used to anything.

cratylism is the belief that the words or names that we use for things accurately reflect the true nature of those things. this belief is based on the idea that words have an inherent meaning that is intrinsic to the things they represent, and that this meaning is somehow encoded in the structure or sound of the word itself.

one example of cratylism might be the belief that the word "dog" accurately reflects the true nature of dogs, because the word itself contains some inherent meaning that corresponds to the characteristics of dogs. for example, some proponents of cratylism might argue that the word "dog" contains the sound "d-o-g," which represents the barking sound that dogs make, or that the word "dog" is derived from an ancient word that means "protector" or "guardian," which reflects the role that dogs often play as protective companions.

another example of cratylism might be the belief that the word "tree" accurately reflects the true nature of trees, because the word itself contains some inherent meaning that corresponds to the characteristics of trees. for example, some proponents of cratylism might argue that the word "tree" is derived from an ancient word that means "life," which reflects the role that trees play in supporting and sustaining life on earth.

in practice, however, cratylism is generally considered to be a flawed or unscientific approach to understanding the meaning and use of words. most modern linguists and philosophers reject the idea that words have an inherent meaning that is intrinsic to the things they represent, and instead view the meaning of words as a social or cultural construct that is shaped by the way that they are used and understood by speakers of a particular language.