Deconstruction

Fo_Shizzle_Ma_Nizzle · 2012-05-25T16:30:35.839321+00:00

The simplest way to explain Deconstruction is to say that there are no absolutes. Derrida, I believe, was especially concerned with language. The words we use to describe objects or phenomena are arbitrary and the relationship between a word, and image, or a thought and the "thing" in reality that it represents is only the result of consensus. This means that a word has no absolute definition but an infinite number of definitions depending on the perspective and the background of the individual using that word. While it originated in language this can be expanded to history, photography, science, and a number of other fields. You've probably heard the term "History is written by the victor." Also, science limits our understanding to what can be observed and falsified. It will always be incomplete. Art and photography are first limited by artist who chooses only a specific perspective to portray and the viewer who injects his own meaning when he views that art. In essence, bias is an inherent element in everything processed by the human brain, so it's impossible to have a complete or objective view of the Universe.

photolove8 · 2012-05-25T16:05:05.306654+00:00

RULES: No bias. Discussion of politics and other controversial topics is allowed and often necessary, but try to remain textbook-level fair to all sides, for both questions and answers.

kaka3 · 2012-05-25T15:43:38.738437+00:00

It used to be that you'd use a bomb calorimeter (an insulated vessel surrounded by water), in which the entire substance would be burned in the vessel and you'd use the change in temperature of the water to determine the amount of energy give off in the combustion. You'd need to put a serving of jambalaya into the calorimeter to get its energy value.

These days, the Atwater System is used, in which you take the sum of mass of each digestible energy-containing nutrient (fats, proteins, carbohydrates minus non-digestible fiber) multiplied by that nutrient's average caloric density.

G3m1nu5 · 2012-05-25T15:26:02.313784+00:00

Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill.

Is inertia quantifiable? Or does it just describe Newton's First Law?

es-335 · 2012-05-25T15:24:42.541424+00:00

Do gallup polls skew older since they rely mostly on landlines? I would expect most Americans to lean moderate-to-conservative on economic issues, especially in light of our current fiscal situation, but I'm a little surprised by how the social continuum turned out.

senecaguns · 2012-05-25T14:58:59.373882+00:00

Can a true programmer forget to close braces? Because I do that ALL THE TIME.

shadowinq · 2012-05-25T14:46:06.929943+00:00

Do you think that there are some people who are able overcome the physical and exist in pure logic and reason? Should that even ever be a goal?

I've typed and deleted about three paragraphs trying to come up with an answer, so I'm just going to say "no." I think that a lot of our animal instincts are informed by reason. Of course, we also all do things and enjoy them that are counter to our evolutionary imperative. I, for example, enjoy non-procreative sex and consuming ethanol. I watch horror movies because I find pleasure in engaging my fight-or-flight mechanism (I know that I'm not in danger, but my survival instincts still activate). I willingly trigger my animal responses because I enjoy them. I'm an animal. I'm a living, breathing thing. Someday I won't be. I guess it's a personal judgement call. So, I mean, sure. We could choose to live in such a way that every action results in some tangible societal and personal benefit. There would be less suffering, for sure. Should we though? I don't know. I don't really want to. We should let reason drive our actions to a large extent, especially in terms of creating public policy, but I see no reason not to compartmentalize our animal instincts and enjoy what it means to be eukaryotes, so long as we do so without harming others.

shadowinq · 2012-05-25T14:18:10.655570+00:00

I think that's exactly what happens. Those neuro-chemical responses are not unique to humans and they're our (animals') way of knowing that eating, fucking, surviving, etc. are what we're supposed to do to stay alive and pass on our genes. Our consciousness, our ability to develop a self and recognize that other members of our species do the same is one of our inborn tools for survival. We don't have claws, fangs, shells, camouflage, fur, etc. We're not all that fast, strong, or flexible. What we have, though, are massive brains capable of very easily detecting patterns, detecting and creating abstract concepts, and communicating those. We are very, very good at that (hell, you and I are doing it now!). We also have thumbs that make it very easy to create tools that allow us to compensate for our lack of innate physical abilities.

HollowSix · 2012-05-25T01:21:07.678492+00:00

FUUUUU I grew up on the other side of Charleston Harbor from Folly and dead whales, sharks, dolphins, etc. washed up all the time. It always freaked the crap out of me.

Ititchestoomuch · 2012-05-25T01:04:13.899867+00:00

2 fingers of whiskey and 5mg of diazepam. Works every time.

chrisis123 · 1 day

I wonder if bioengineering has or ever will have its own Richard Stallman who founds something like a "Free DNA Foundation."

evil6twin6 · 1 day

I love that Jezebel over sensationalizes an LA Times articles about how POM over-sensationalizes the benefits of pomegranate juice. That article was horribly written. Perhaps the this wouldn't have been buried if OP had posted a link to the LA Times article or the judge's ruling itself.

Daemonax · 1 day

"My father stabbed me in the chest daily. I may be projecting."

lovesthepants · 1 day

Intelligent design is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

Looking at DI's budget, I'd venture to say it's creationism in a fucking Gucci tuxedo. Thankfully, scientists don't let a fancy outfit influence them. Unfortunately, the more (and even some of the less) credulous members of the public do.

expectantyoke · 2 days

Here's the Math. I didn't get exactly that figure but sig figs aren't my strong suit.

Density of Sun = .160 kg/cm³

1 cubic inch = 16.387064 cm³

E = mass * C²

1J = 1 kg * m² / s²

E = 2.62 kg * (299792458 m/s)² = 235647338148666717.16814336 kg * m² / s²

E = 2.36 * 10¹⁷ J

EDIT: I used .160 as the density from here. iorgfeflkd used .150 from Wikipedia. If you multiply the speed of light squared by 2.45 (the mass at wiki's density) you get 2.2 *10¹⁷ J.

rancemo · 2 days

This makes me a sad Boilermaker.

es-335 · 2 days

Please understand that it's not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source for that number?

SheepNutz · 2 days

You're welcome.

ThatDamnGreaser · 2 days

I never said "Under God" when I was in high school, and I don't think anyone ever noticed. I did once get in trouble for not doing the sign of the cross during the school prayer when I when I was in Catholic school. Then my parents took me out of Catholic school.

SheepNutz · 2 days

I've had Guinness ice cream, and it's the closest I'll ever get to believing in supernatural phenomena.

EDIT: Since this is a skeptical forum, source

RodrigoAlves · 2 days

No, I can't scientifically prove them not to exist, or that historical Christianity is baseless. But [Magic 8-ball], all signs point to 'NO'

Yeah, that's basically what I mean. And I think you're absolutely correct.

Ultimately though, and I don't say this to mean that it's not an important discussion or worth being vetted through academic rigor, I just don't care if he existed or not, personally. It doesn't change change the probability that supernatural occurrences are real. There have been historically evident people who professed similar powers to Jesus they caused shit and were executed but, their followings just never hit a tipping point. It also doesn't change the fact that the majority of the members of my community believe and will continue to believe in his existence and divinity regardless of evidence (and pretty damning evidence, at that) to the contrary. If we find definitive proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed and started a cult, it won't influence my non-belief in the deity he purports to be. All it would mean is that some crazy hippy rabbi thought he was the Messiah, just like every other crazy hippy rabbi who thought he was the Messiah.

dzunravel · 2 days

Link to study - This is an open-source article too. It's rare that we get to see a full study that's not behind a pay wall, I don't see why the newspaper nor Duke Health didn't link directly to it.

dzunravel · 2 days

Almost every Catholic I know who has converted did so to please a potential spouse's family with a Catholic wedding, but I have known a few who were very gung-ho about converting to Catholicism from other mainstream Protestant faiths.

Also, I thought that in Catholicism, you're technically "born again" and rejuvenated every time you take communion. I'm probably wrong though.

mepper · 2 days

It depends on what you're treating. There's evidence that some mood disorders can be treated very effectively with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which is a psychotherapy approach. wiki. Psychoanalysis was kind of the root from which the more scientifically-sound psychological treatments, but a lot of what Freud and the early psychoanalysts theorized has been found to be incorrect.

danger_mcboom · 2 days

I spent $500 to sit in an aluminum tube for 2 hours. I'll do what I want.

hobbit6

TROPHY CASE

hobbit6

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login