en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1068538 Comments by timefillmyeyes http://listverse.com/2011/01/03/15-science-factlets-you-dont-know#IDComment119382362 I knew all but 3, 4, and 7. Most of these were biology or chemistry related, and those are the main subjects I study in college. :) Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:13:32 +0000 http://listverse.com/2011/01/03/15-science-factlets-you-dont-know#IDComment119382362 http://listverse.com/2010/12/26/another-10-moral-dilemmas#IDComment118868732 Well, sometimes there's a third option. Captain Kirk does it all the time. :P Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:35:43 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/12/26/another-10-moral-dilemmas#IDComment118868732 http://listverse.com/2010/11/14/10-ancient-methods-of-birth-control#IDComment109713235 I wonder if any of these are used in modern pharmaceuticals. I imagine the more dangerous ones aren't, but it seems that maybe extracting the DNA that codes for the production of the active chemicals in these plants and inserting them into bacterial producers would be a cheap way to provide birth control and morning after pills. Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:01:16 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/11/14/10-ancient-methods-of-birth-control#IDComment109713235 http://listverse.com/2010/11/12/10-more-great-speeches-in-history#IDComment109487495 He hilariously bluffed the USSR with the Star Wars Defense system. I think that counts for something. :P Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:44:29 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/11/12/10-more-great-speeches-in-history#IDComment109487495 http://listverse.com/2010/11/12/10-more-great-speeches-in-history#IDComment109372188 I really liked this list. I got chills reading some of the entries. I thought that it sort of petered out towards the end, though; the speeches that were most goosebump-inducing for me were 10, 9, 8, 6, and 5. Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:14:20 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/11/12/10-more-great-speeches-in-history#IDComment109372188 http://listverse.com/2010/11/05/top-10-unusual-hotels#IDComment107992821 I totally want to stay in the library hotel! I love rooms full of books. :) Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:13:34 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/11/05/top-10-unusual-hotels#IDComment107992821 http://listverse.com/2010/10/23/top-10-important-blunders-of-ancient-science#IDComment106257415 I certainly don't view the ancient sages as cavemen. In fact, I am in awe of the atomists for discovering empirical truth through reason alone, though they were not right about everything, of course. I find it very interesting and uplifting to observe that humans are such rational creatures even in the absence of scientific knowledge. I do realize that they saw the world differently. It is difficult for me to view the world through the same eyes they viewed it through because I have been trained to view the world a certain way, I have knowledge that contradicts their worldview, and I think that my personality simply isn't very fanciful. I do attempt to view their ideas from a logical standpoint, though, and they often were more justified in believing wrong things that we have since found evidence to contradict. I think that was one of the main points that this article conveys. I simply don't see the logic in viewing the world in a spiritual manner. I don't see any evidence for the existence of souls, so I'm inclined to think that we don't have them. I can understand the emotion associated with transcendent experience, as all people are capable of experiencing that emotion, so I can understand what emotion many of the ancient philosophers were feeling when they talked about celestial fire or the apeiron, but I don't think that spirituality in the sense of attributing great significance to faith-based claims is a necessary part of what it is to be human. Many humans make it a part of themselves, but that in itself does not mean that it must be so. I suppose on that last point we will simply have to agree to disagree. I don't expect to sway you. In my experience, philosophical and spiritual discussions rarely come to a consensus. :) Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:57:26 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/10/23/top-10-important-blunders-of-ancient-science#IDComment106257415 http://listverse.com/2010/10/23/top-10-important-blunders-of-ancient-science#IDComment106040970 1) I would argue (and have argued in a paper) that Anaximenes is primarily an empiricist. He isn't listed here, but he is a presocratic philosopher and a descendant of Thales' ideology. Thales seems to be using his own observations when he states that the principle of all things is water. He notices that water tends to come from things and that things tend to come from water. He does not have the tools to examine much more deeply than that. I would say that most of them, particularly those interested in "saving appearances", as my teachers put it, are more concerned, or at least equally as concerned, with the physical world than/as with the spiritual. Some certainly have spirituality mixed into their ideas, such as Heraclitus (if I remember correctly), who talked about celestial fire. Others, like Parmenides, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Zeno, etc. tend to operate more in the vein of rationalism. Their methodology might be something like meditation. Not all of the Presocratics think the same, though. 2) I may be reading into it too far, as I am taking two classes this semester that look at the Presocratics. I probably saw the hint of what my teachers went into greater depth about and then immediately thought that the author was doing the same. 3/4) I don't tend to think in spiritual terms, so maybe that's part of why I don't really see anything wrong with this. I can think in terms of philosophy and science, and the combination of the two, but I'm not a spiritual person, so I'm not very good at incorporating it into my thoughts. Frankly, some of the Presocratics don't seem particularly spiritual, either. Thales is hard to tell, but he seems more interested in explaining physical reality than spiritual transcendence. While Melissus is a rationalist and his views do not line up with the appearance of reality (being essentially the same as Parmenides' views), he does not seem to inject a lot of spiritualism into his philosophy. 5) I suppose to repeat and clarify what I have said above, I would say that some of them are scientists and philosophers and mystics, while some are missing one or two of those. I'm not an expert on Presocratics by any means, but some of them seemed to focus more on science and philosophy, while others are philosophers and mystics. Some are a mixture of the three. I personally would also argue that whether they are mystics or not does not have any bearing on the importance of their ideas. Using mysticism to come to "truth" tends to not work very well. There is no justification through mysticism, and justification is a central idea in both science and philosophy. Even Thales attempted to justify his ideas, though, like most men of the time, his justifications were not very sound. I think the point of all this should be that our knowledge of science was minimal and our grasp on logic still maturing in early Ancient Greece, so things that seemed logical were in fact good starting points, but were bound to be superseded by clearer rational formulations and better empirical evidence. Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:28:19 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/10/23/top-10-important-blunders-of-ancient-science#IDComment106040970 http://listverse.com/2010/10/23/top-10-important-blunders-of-ancient-science#IDComment106000852 Actually, that idea didn't catch on until it was suggested by Semmelweiss, in the 1800's. Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:12:32 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/10/23/top-10-important-blunders-of-ancient-science#IDComment106000852 http://listverse.com/2010/10/23/top-10-important-blunders-of-ancient-science#IDComment106000579 The list addresses the fact that they based their theories on their observations, but that their observations were limited/flawed, which I think is an important point to make. I would say that that provision does a good job of avoiding the modern interpretation, as the list writer attempts to address the ideas as people would view them in that time. The fact that there are some flaws in the ideas is important, though, as truth is important. As to the spirituality of the men on the list, it isn't strongly emphasized, but particularly in the entry on Pythagoras, his view that "all is number" is given a spiritual cast. I don't know if I'd consider the spiritual aspects of the ideas important to the context of the list. The list is focused on scientific ideas. Insofar as these men are scientists, they made flawed hypotheses based on flawed observations. Also, spirituality does not preclude philosophy. I study philosophy and not only is the department combined with the religious studies department, but religion is an oft-mentioned topic in classes and club meetings. Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:10:19 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/10/23/top-10-important-blunders-of-ancient-science#IDComment106000579 http://listverse.com/2010/10/13/10-theories-on-the-sun-space-and-2012#IDComment103874252 Too many of these rely on government cover-ups. The idea of a government cover-up is pretty laughable when it comes to astronomical and geological events because there are private organizations that can also monitor these things, and I doubt that all of the governments of the world, or even just all of the governments of the developed world, would work together to cover up massively important things. Different governments have different philosophies about what people should be told, so there's bound to be some disagreement on matters such as this. Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:31:11 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/10/13/10-theories-on-the-sun-space-and-2012#IDComment103874252 http://listverse.com/2010/09/24/top-10-greatest-violinists-of-all-time#IDComment100830977 Someone should do a list like this for cello. I don't really know much about who the good cello players are, but I absolutely love the cello, so I'd love to see a list of good cello music. :) Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:42:28 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/09/24/top-10-greatest-violinists-of-all-time#IDComment100830977 http://listverse.com/2010/09/15/top-10-misconceptions-we-want-to-believe#IDComment99167395 In quantum mechanics, it isn't that your body is likely to go through a wall, it is that it is possible to go through a wall, but the likelihood is very minute. The oddities of quantum mechanics don't seem to express themselves at a macroscopic level in any case. The analogy I have read is that it is like the pixels of a digital image. If you look closely at a digital image, zooming in on it, you get a strange jumble of pixels that don't look like anything. If you back up and look at the big picture, however, it makes sense. Similarly, when observing tiny microscopic particles, things don't fully make sense, but when observing the larger visible world, things come together and do make sense. Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:24:39 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/09/15/top-10-misconceptions-we-want-to-believe#IDComment99167395 http://listverse.com/2010/09/15/top-10-misconceptions-we-want-to-believe#IDComment99166489 Actually, not so much. Hume pointed out that we cannot directly and empirically observe causality, yet science is peppered with scientific laws stating causality. Science has its dose of rationalism. It is really rather difficult for our minds to work solely in empirical or rational things, so we rely on a mixture of the two. Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:18:24 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/09/15/top-10-misconceptions-we-want-to-believe#IDComment99166489 http://listverse.com/2010/09/12/10-creepy-mysteries-you-havent-heard-of#IDComment98474940 My point is that sometimes the people closest to the event can't provide an explanation because the event is made up. Our minds work in funny ways, and sometimes we see things that simply aren't there. Other times people consciously make something up just to have an interesting story to tell. If the story seems sketchy, sometimes the most rational explanation *is* to call it a hoax. It may not be as interesting as attributing it to the unknown, but it has increased odds of being the truth. Assuming that the people closest to the event are most qualified to explain it is a rather bizarre position. For example, I was able to point out that it is very likely that carbon monoxide explains the mystery about the Ourang Medan, while those who were there probably did not possess the scientific background to be able to make that explanation. It still may be that my explanation is incorrect, but it is a far more rational explanation than "a ghost did it". Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:34:42 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/09/12/10-creepy-mysteries-you-havent-heard-of#IDComment98474940 http://listverse.com/2010/09/12/10-creepy-mysteries-you-havent-heard-of#IDComment98423111 Do you truly believe everything you're told? It is legitimate to state that something may be a hoax, it just makes it hard to have a discussion. It means that the only comeback is to provide solid evidence, which can be rather difficult to do, but it is generally better to be more skeptical than accepting when it comes to stories like these. If the believer can manage to find enough evidence to support something, it is still often better to say that we simply don't know why it is than to attribute it to ghosts and other supernatural elements. Sun, 12 Sep 2010 20:45:24 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/09/12/10-creepy-mysteries-you-havent-heard-of#IDComment98423111 http://listverse.com/2010/09/12/10-creepy-mysteries-you-havent-heard-of#IDComment98386619 I haven't read the other comments, so I may be repeating, but: 7: Probably a scent or image of some sort that is only detectable at that particular point (possibly only at dog height) that is particularly attractive to the dogs. 4: Zombies were made using a neurotoxin to make the person appear dead, digging up the body after the burial, and drugging the person into submission. She was probably made to appear dead and came back later when her captors let her go or she escaped. Long term drugging can seriously screw up a person mentally, so that it probably what caused the psychological oddities. 2: Most likely carbon monoxide poisoning, followed by the explosion of the flammable gas. It is possible that it might have been some other form of gas poisoning, though carbon monoxide jumps out at me because most engines, whether for ships, cars, etc. will produce carbon monoxide by nature of the reaction used to power the engine. If the carbon monoxide is not properly vented, it can build up inside the ship. Carbon monoxide is highly toxic as it bonds to hemoglobin in the blood and prevents oxygen from bonding to the hemoglobin. It is also highly flammable, and difficult to detect. The people who went on the ship before it exploded may not have been there long enough to get a bad enough dose to kill them. Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:27:33 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/09/12/10-creepy-mysteries-you-havent-heard-of#IDComment98386619 http://listverse.com/2010/06/07/top-10-difficult-literary-works#IDComment79041683 It's philosophy, rather than fiction, but I think Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant is a difficult read. He argues around his points rather than stating them and then supporting them, so you don't know what it is he's trying to say until you get to the end of the paragraph, at which point you need to re-read the paragraph to understand it fully. Tue, 8 Jun 2010 02:09:30 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/06/07/top-10-difficult-literary-works#IDComment79041683 http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name#IDComment78870808 The only thing that separates agnostics from atheists is that if you twist an agnostic's arm hard enough, they'll admit that there might possibly be a God. I'm agnostic, but I don't behave in any way as if there is a God. I am essentially the same as an atheist, but I simply don't think that there is unshakable proof for or against God. I search for answers in science and philosophy the same way an atheist might. Mon, 7 Jun 2010 05:49:55 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name#IDComment78870808 http://listverse.com/2010/05/22/10-kids-franchises-with-an-adult-fanbase#IDComment76672597 If you walk into a comic shop now, about 95% of the stock is aimed at older readers. There will usually be one little shelf with kid's comics, but the rest of it is aimed at teens or older. Sat, 22 May 2010 17:03:29 +0000 http://listverse.com/2010/05/22/10-kids-franchises-with-an-adult-fanbase#IDComment76672597