Leaderboard

Ah, i see. I thought we had agreed to talk about this sensibly. Nevermind then. If you don't want to discuss something on a discussion forum, there is nothing that can be said, other than good day to you.

So it is option b) (you have an agenda). Thank you for clearing that out. I am going to give you my personal analysis and perhaps you can snap out of your mental lock. (I will use the term "religious belief" quite liberally. Try not to be too offended.) You seem to be in a state of cognitive dissonance : on the one hand, you hold a religious belief concerning the purpose of the human race, while on the other hand you resent religious beliefs (like me, you probably like feeling smug when watching Dawkins, which is hard if you hold such beliefs yourself). You found an answer to your dissonance in teleonomy, which you molded to suit your beliefs. That would explain why when I read about it, I draw different conclusions than you. You are correct that I hadn't heard about it prior to this thread, but I found the wiki article quite informative. Then the problem worsens as you make up apologetic nonsense, such as "apparent does not mean illusionary" thing or your entropy argument. Nature does not seek out ways to maximise entropy. In fact entropy maximisation isn't even a thing, only entropy increase, and that is a very stupid process. The only law related to this is dS/dt>=0. There is no law that says d^3S/dt^3=0 (maximisation of the increase in entropy) Anything life on Earth does is negligible in terms of entropy on a solar system scale anyway. To get to your agenda: I too think that we are heading towards an AI that is smarter than us, but I see no reason to draw in religious beliefs in purpose. I also doubt Dawkins would appreciate that you are using him as one of your profets.

So much for a civil discussion. Good luck with explaining your false premises to others.

Again, this time its in the title itself of what you linked: ”Is the sky really blue? Some hunter-gatherers don’t describe colors the same way most people do” I’m glad you took a deep breath, it will be easier for you to understand that your statement: is wrong. Color perception has to include the brain. The physics processes involved are the same for everybody but color perception happens in the brain.

No. Actually that popscience article states exactly the opposite of your claims that we all perceive the same colors. Try again.

There is a lot of research on this but it might be a difficult subject to fully grasp - color is only in your mind. It’s a sensation, just like touch is. Color doesn’t have any physical reality of it’s own, at least not outside your head. This might sound strange but its confirmed by research - Color is not a property of the thing that’s causing the sensation. So in fact grass is not green and the sky is not blue, rather they have physical properties that make you perceive green and blue, but even that’s true only sometimes.

On the top right of every post is a share icon. Click it and the URL for that post appears. Just copy and paste it to link a reader directly there. Here's the link you seek: And the seemingly relevant parts of the post from Eise:

Well, you can find copious peer-reviewed literature, courses and text books on taxonomy, the Linnaean system, cladistics, etc. If you look up most organisms on Wikipedia for example, you will find information on the species, genus, family, order, kingdom, etc. Is there the same level of scientific documentation on how to classify people by race? I think the answer is no (but am open to correction) which suggests it is not a [useful] biological category. (Note, there is no meaningful distinction between a useful category and a biological category, because biological categories only exist in as far as they are useful.) Really? There are Chinese people who look Middle Eastern, who look Mongolian, or Tibetan, or like Han Chinese or ... And of course, there are Chinese people who look like Northern Europeans or Afro-Carribeans. And ... That is a bizarrely diverse group to try and stereotype. Really? I mean, Really?? Time for the ignore list, I guess.

That article is about words for colour it has almost nothing to do with how colours are perceived.

@Mehmet Saygın, I got more than 10 downvotes from you in various threads in a timespan of a few minutes and you insulted me for no reason - please stop doing that. Behave. Edit: And the downvotes keep coming, this time presumably from a different account. I think 16 is the final count as of now.

! Moderator Note Locked pending staff review.

If we don't have any evidence either way, then why say "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag"? Surely you must have some evidence if you are going to make such a claim. You mean like pushing the idea that "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag."?

Sometimes war is inevitable, I just hope a timely kick in the balls is enough, but Putin seems to be wearing a box.

In short, you've joined with an obvious axe to grind and, regardless of the multiple valid counter points provided, you continue to proceed as if your original assertions have been unchallenged and you keep repeating points already debunked. Instead of addressing reasonable criticisms intelligently, you lash out like a troll and try to make things personal with respondants. Does that help clarify?

It's a classic slut versus virgin dichotomy and is not rooted in fact. It's much more rooted in stereotypes and objectification, desire to use broad labels to justify broad mistreatment. It ignores individual differences and suggests no books need reading, that all information needed can be found on their cover.

You repeatedly ignore the information. Genetic differences between individuals within the same population and all populations are as great. You have defined race as being ancestry then disregard that that we (Humans) are a continues interbreeding species and all have interconnected ancestry. You are attempting to argue that Blumenbach's measures of skull is the superior genetic research, it is nonsensical.

Any evidence for your claim ?

It is known that chlorine is produced when electrolysis of seawater or sodium chloride solution.My question, what is first produced, or in which form chlorine will be the first evolved; 1- as chlorine gas form that starts to dissolve in the salt solution? or; 2- as an aqueous form which will start to escape the solution after reaching saturation limit?all answers are very much appreciated. Thanks, Shadi

"longer"? Damn these dumb phones

I'm only representing myself. All i was saying is that the classifications sociologists make are as real as those biologists make in response to your claim that 'But the usual meaning of "social construct" is something created arbitrarily for human convenience'. The classification of species, and indeed genus, and in oncology, are all made for human convenience. One is not more 'real' than another. What we call things and how we classify them matters to how we make sense on the world but doesn't change the world. Given your little rant about AAA being racist was in direct response, and indeed quoted me, you can understand how made that association, no? But, yes it is ad hominem and so too are accusations of these 'social' race classifications being based on PC. It is nothing to do with the point, i'm just interested why you are so emotionally invested in this - and you must see that rant did display quite a bit of emotion. Thank you for at last agreeing to talk to me about this. First we would need to agree on whether classifying something, in this case a disease, based on only pragmatic considerations such as the distribution of resources within a hospital is social or biological. What would you say? But i don't deny this. By a definition that includes divisions by sport as biologically valid, i accept that so too race would be biologically valid.

That's your faith. Science has no say in how you conduct your belief systems. As I've said previously, you can choose to believe in science in a religious fashion, but that doesn't make science a religion. Newton's law gives correct answers, and deviations from that are systematic — it "fails" in a predictable way, under known conditions.

So that's the point of this thread, you just want a stick of your own.

In this context valid means useful. By valid i guess you mean 'really exists in nature'? If you performed the same analysis on people based on sport you may see similar clusterings. Are they then different categories? Yes, they are in the categories according to sport. If you want to call race a biological concept then you have to accept that the division by sport is a biological concept. We could even predict diseases based on sports based genetic clustering, just like race. I'm happy to call both of them biological concepts, or neither, but not cherry picking one over another. Others already have, but you dismissed them as irrelevant so probably haven't noticed that they have been discussed at length. Does it's relevance to your topic depend only on whether you think it supports your case or not? Yes, i see the 'off the top of my head' definition of a biological construct was too broad. What i usually had for breakfast 10 years ago is a topic in history not biology, don't you think? Psychology and sociology both attempt to measure living things and despite overlap we consider them separate disciplines. So then is race a biological or social construct? If that history really exists in the genes, as i'm sure it does, then why do you need to look into history books to make the traditional categories fit. Just perform an unsupervised clustering and divide it up as you see fit for the purpose you want. The purpose you want is usually a social construct - such as choosing to prioritise response to treatments. If you want to call that a biological concept rather than a social one, knock yourself out, it doesn't really change anything: we could just as well debate whether to call something an apple or a pingguo. Come now, you insisted on focusing on the OP to the exclusion of corollaries such as how classifications are made in oncology. If it's 'irrelevant' for me to bring in corollary examples, surely it is for you too. Answer my questions on oncology and i'll answer your questions on genus - that's only fair.

You are mistaken. Two healthy individuals will perceive color differently based on many factors including previous experiences, psychological factors, etc. Color perception is subjective and its not a myth, its a well known fact, we all see color differently. http://www.statlab.uni-heidelberg.de/projects/colour/colour.pdf

The probability is not the same for each isotope. If the probability of decay in time dt is L, and you start with N atoms, then in that time, the number of atoms undergoing decay is LN. L (often represented by lambda) is the constant of proportionality dN/dt = -LN

5. Use timelapse in camera to record slowly progressing event e.g. grow of plant. Then glue them together in compositing software to video file. 6. Measure and record solar energy on solar panels entire day. Plug voltmeter and ammeter to solar panels. And record data every e.g. 15 minutes or so (or better set up camera at multi-meters so you will have the all data on video, and then just read them from video file). Enter data to OpenOffice Calc/MS Office Excel, and show on graph with minutes/hour of day in X axis. 7. Make Cloud Chamber. 8. Make Van De Graaff generator.

1. Double slit experiment. Get your hands on a laser pointer and build the experiment. 2. Use a high fps camera, come up with some interesting experiment for ex film various display screens to show how they actually display an image (okd CRT, new OLED) you can combine that with a showing the construction of the various displays under a microscope. 3. GPS, how it works, whats needed for it to work, explain why relativity needs to be taken into account when bulding satelites and GPS systems. 4. Something involving LiOn batteries...you can build a small battery pack cspable of starting up a car engine. Show the energy density of the new technology LiOns, involve info about Tesla and Musks Giga Factory.

In order to determine anything about color you need a reference point. These refefence points are color models. So a certain color will have more lightness than another color only if you operate within a color model framework. If you do not use a color model it is impossible to determine anything about color besides subjective statements based onhuman perception which is different for everyone. So your statement that „yellow is the second lightest color” (what does that even mean) doesnt make sense without opersting within some color model. Your question how to explain that physically is null as a result. You need to be more specific, try rephrasing what your question is.

Hello again, Gee.I will try to be a little less prolix. ( https://www.thefreedictionary.com/prolix

Ok so this will be somewhat base , but go easy on my lack of complete knowledge as I'm a undergrad in mathematics and biochem and some genetic study is on some higher 300 and above level , waiting to learn more . my university does longevity genetic research since it was approved by the government recently . We also cater some interesting bacteria and algae modifications that allow ethanol products as a metabolic product . so it's a decent university for molecular biology studies . Ok to the point , Ray kurzweil makes some comments as to the computational powers of supercomputers In the near future 2023 or around this date computational powers are equivalent to a humans. With recent science pop media commentary from deceased Steven Hawkins last words predictions that machines will take over the apex , dominant species order of intelligence spotlight that we humans currently occupy , and against individuals like John searle who s philosophy maintains machines cannot "think". For the sake of topic , arguing machines may could through AI developments , "think for themselves " . And even if not . Could pursuits of increasing human intelligence and other modifications be of ethical demand if an itelligence competion be a forstalled reality . I know now a lot of the Romesberg x y nucleotide work is still pretty much in research areas but in a genetic operational era as we are certainly entering , would it be a fail safe to start areas of biological gmo studies to prepare for a possibility that could undermine current sociological world structure s? Again im aware I'm missing a lot of perspectives here , but I'm interested and learning and new to this study . I feel , ethically nothing would be rash against a Study to try and say Create a human genome allele that could express a say approximate 1000 iq equivalent . Please be kind to my lack of knowledge yet

550nm is perceived as a more vivid color because its right in the middle of the visible spectrum. Im not sure I understand your question but regardless of the color model used, that is the case. Obviously you will get differences in vividness of color depending on the technology used but when its around those 530nm-550nm green you’ll get apperance of higher brightness compared to other wavelenghts. If you have two identical power lasers one 530nm and the other some other color like blue or red, the green one will appear brighter to the eye (it actually isn’t brighter though) You get very different results of color perception in the subtractive color model...in theory a green paint on a car should appear brighter than blue paint but it depends on factors one of which is the most important - color perception is personal, we all see colors a little differently. Regardless of the color models or technologies used, the colors from the edges of the spectrum (blue on one side and red on the other) will be perceived as less vivid/bright than the colors more to the middle of the spectrum.

You are getting to the issue with ancestry here. Effectively using that as a racial system basically means that people are going to be grouped according to geography. The reason I mentioned these groups are that they have higher proportions of children with European groups, for example. So yes, using pinpoint genetics we can define groups and they will mostly follow geographic distributions. Using specific sets of markers one can, up to a certain point, trace ancestry of certain familial lineages.That is neither surprising, nor new. However, it is only useful in certain contexts (say, tracing population movements over long periods). Also, this usage is very different to what folks understand when they refer to "race" in common parlance. The same is the usage in non-human systems. Generally one only uses subgroups in order to study certain aspects. E.g. tracing populations that live in different locations. However, the amount of genetic flow determines how useful the boundaries that one can draw are. There are certain guidelines, but there are no strict scientific rules and according to most, if not all measures, the divergence in human population is one the lower end of the scale (i.e. we have high gene flux and/or have not been separated for long enough). This is consistent with the known fact that human populations have a wide range of habitat and mobility. Chimpanzees, for example appear to be more territorial, however, some of the observed differences in chimpanzee populations (which are larger than in humans) could be the resulted of human fractionation of their habitat, which essentially increase inbreeding. Again, the classifications are made for convenience and to facilitate certain analyses, not out of biological necessity. Or to put it succinct, it is a term of scientific utility, not biological reality. To some degree this is also true for the term "species", which has a far higher separation than sub-species. That, unfortunately, is in stark contrast to what most folks seems to think when the topic of race comes up. Now the grouping used in common usage (e.g. black, white, Hispanic, Asian or similar) these are indeed social constructs as they were derived and modified in a specific historic context and not based on biological data or research. It is a brain child of the age of enlightenment when systematics in science just started to gain traction and when these categories were produced based on the persisting world view. And this is not to say that they are entirely useless, as they e.g. allow a relatively quick assignment of visual features of individuals. Yet, they are also burdened with a ton of historic detritus that have been extremely difficult to shake off. As such I would always take care to clearly separate these elements. Yup. It is surprisingly difficult to use a definition that satisfy all known organisms. Especially when going down to unicellular or asexual organisms we cannot use the concept of interbreeding becomes meaningless, of course. Add horizontal gene transfer and the headache just gets worse. It is generally accepted that we use a system (or more precisely, different systems) that are just good enough. And even then there are a lot of inconsistencies that we just live with (e.g. even among bacteria the distance for certain genera as established vary markedly). There have been various pushes to replace the concept for e.g. bacteria completely. But obviously there is so much historic use that it would result in quite a lot of practical problems.

Never seen a bald Chinese person? Never seen one with grey hair? Never seen one who dyed their hair. And that's before we get to all the Chinese people whose ancestors are not Chinese. Why bother to say they were Chinese, rather than they were black haired ? On reflection, to a pretty good approximation for humanity as a whole, we all have black hair.

Tub; continuation: Agreed. If a person is looking for The Truth, they are going to come away empty handed or with a story that they can believe. Looking for singular truths is more like searching out information, and there is a lot of information in the Bible. One of the things that I noted, especially in the Old Testaments, is that they accepted and understood who and what we are psychologically. I found examples of this repeatedly, and not just in metaphor. They seemed to have a more honest evaluation of human nature, whereas we now seem to think that human nature is what we want it to be. (chuckle) Anyone who studies psychology would see this. Probably not surprising as psychology studies emotion and Religion studies emotion. Do I see some of Jung's ideas in your above paragraph? I am not sure about calling it an "undivided conscious mind" as I think there are divisions in the unconscious aspect and divisions in the conscious aspect of mind so I am not sure that any mind can be called "undivided". Possibly the Garden of Eden itself could symbolize a unified one-ness. But I agree that the ego or rational aspect is the development that allows us to lose innocence. It could be that the separation, or individualization, is what actually causes the loss of innocence. And causes the ability to recognize evil. As I stated before, this could be an explanation of the development of a person, but it could also be the evolutionary development of species, as both go through this procession. It is interesting that animal behaviorists study a specie's ability to deceive as an indicator of the development of their minds. I don't know the chorus and never studied copyright law, but I will bet that the Administrators of this forum know the laws. You know, I never questioned why truth was so important to me. Are you saying that we are trying to reconnect through truth? It is that internalizing philosophy that you use at work, so now I am going to have to analyze my feelings on this. Thanks a lot. You are making me work here. My take on this is a little different. Have you noticed that Religions always talk about "good vs evil"? The problem with this is that good and evil are not opposites, the opposite of good is bad. So what is the opposite of evil? Innocence. An earthquake that kills hundreds is not evil. A flood that washes away all you love is not evil. But a lion may be evil, and a human can definitely be evil. Why? Because evil requires intent, and an earthquake or flood does not have intent. But evil does not come from within. To understand my thoughts on this, think of a soldier in a war killing, mutilating, and crushing his enemies. He could very well appear to be evil. He might even think himself evil in the aftermath when he remembers what he has done. But that evil that he sees in himself would not come from him, it would be a reflection of how others view his actions. For himself, if he were honest, he would know that he was just reacting to the insanity of war as war is insane. For a man to be evil, there has to be some person outside of the man, who names the man as evil. We do not think of ourselves as evil, as evil is a second party designation. Someone else has to believe that we intended to do wrong and be evil. This is why innocent children never confront evil, because they do not recognize it. They can only be frightened or hurt, but they have not yet "eaten the fruit", have no ego, and can not read intent into another person's actions. So they can not name the other person as evil. If all are innocent, then there could be no evil in the Kingdom of Heaven. There could be no evil anywhere even if bad things happen. You have too many different ideas stuck in here together for me to give any response that would be less than a book. (chuckle) In the first paragraph, I should tell you that I am fairly certain that reincarnation happens, so I see things in that paragraph that are more than you have described. In the second paragraph, I am not sure what the "startling implications" are. If we are looking for truth in ourselves, my opinion is that it is in the unconscious aspect of mind, and the conscious (ego) is what we have to get around in order to find any truth. The conscious mind is the liar. The manipulator. I certainly don't think you are "bonkers", but if you are going to continue to be so interesting, maybe you should write shorter posts so I can answer them. (chuckle) Gee

! Moderator Note If you think a post should be moved to speculation, you should report it to the staff, rather than take it upon yourself to enforce rule. The post links to the source material, and asks followup questions. It is not personal subjective speculation. ! Moderator Note Try not to be obtuse And focus on the discussion at hand, rather than the people involved.

That is highly frustrating. Often I give up when such a thing occurs... These are of course not independent. And I think I do not know of a 'philosophical methodology' that is also not used in science: logic, valid proofs and argumentations, clarity of concepts, striving for consistency, for unifying theories etc. 1. 'Premises' in philosophy are found the way we think. That needs a kind introspection ("Why do I assume this is true? How did I come to the conclusion this is true? Was the way I got to this conclusion valid? etc. 2. If you own thinking (or the way you think others think...) is the starting point of philosophy, then the border between 'real' and 'imagining' becomes at least vague. 3. That is a philosophical question If you hive our ways of thinking (which includes erroneous thinking...) to the empirical, then you are right. But I think there is a distinction between thinking about the world, and thinking about thinking. But Spinoza did not compare modern scientific thought with Vedanta. But that is what (amongst others) Capra is doing in his 'Tao of physics'. But he takes a very esoteric stance on QM, that not many physicists share (e.g. consciousness determines what exists by observation). This is what you find in 'Quantum Enigma' too. See here (pdf) for a devastating critique on the book. That was my question. And you answer with 'consciousness'. Which I think is a bad example to make your ideas about facts, theory building and interpretation clear, because these 3 are highly intermingled in the topic of consciousness. Please give simpler example using established science, with theories that are accepted. What are there the facts, how did the theory building proceed, what was the role of interpretation (and maybe of philosophy)? Are truths different for different groups of people? And Russell himself describes his bon mot as 'with enough truth to justify a joke'. Justifying a joke needs less than justifying truth. ??? Can it be wrong and true??? Please explain. If you can present you ideas with clarity, we can start philosophising. I am trying to understand what you are saying. Until now I do not have a clear picture of how you see facts, theory building and interpretation in science. So I really hope you can clear this up. (1) Every academic should have a passion for truth. But in philosophy maybe not in the way you would like... (I am not sure if I need it to say here, but philosophy is not science...) (2) That would be great. But I am afraid I have to disappoint you... Philosophers should be trained thinkers, being able to understand complex texts, complex arguments, and on the other side be able to present his own ideas as clear as possible. But that is still not the 'ability to recognise truth'. But it can help. So you think we know what protons are, what neutrons are, what electrons are, but do not know how they come together to form atoms? Again, can you please give clear and unambiguous example? I think you view of science is a bit naive: science 'reorganises the bits' in theories. I suspect you call finding hypotheses that explain the facts philosophy. I think that is just part of scientific work. But that will become clearer if you can explain your ideas more precise.

Science and the scientific method are no persons, so they do not know of limitations. Scientists, and science fans however do not always. I wrote about scientism elsewhere, under a slightly different perspective, namely 'science as religion' : except point 1, it are different forms of scientism:

Scientific method is not set in stone. See the early discussions in QM, and the present day ones about string theory and multiverses. Saying this you reduce philosophy to scientific method only. Well, while a nice 'bon mot' I do not agree. There is also a lot we do not know in the area of physics, but that does not make it philosophy. Physics is concerned with nature, philosophy with clarifying our thinking. They are just different disciplines. But if course the study of how physicist think might be a topic of philosophy, which btw is mostly successfully done by the physicists themselves (but not always! Yes, Krauss...) No, I was just thinking about old-fashioned metaphysics, as a way to find out what is 'behind the scenes' of our physical world based on pure thinking. Well, that is highly speculative. I want to amend this: the only worthy answers on scientific questions are scientific answers. But I repeatedly stated there are other question that maybe just as relevant for our lives that are not scientific questions:

Feel free to open a new thread... I might participate.

I really intend to write as clear as possible. Maybe I do not succeed always, but just note that the length of a text is not a measure for its complexity. So, apology accepted. That would be another topic. I described academic philosophy, which I surely think is not useless, just because it is not aiming at enlightenment. My personal philosophy (take care, this is a slightly other meaning of 'philosophy', more in the direction of 'world view') is a bit different. E.g. I am practicing Zen meditation. But that is another story.

I don’t think you could get such fast transition times without an active system like liquid crystal or similar. 8ms is good quality monitor territory so a chemically based technology wouldn’t be capable to do the job. Im not an expert but to get such times you’d have to combine triggering the dimming with electrical current with some kind of a sensor array built into the material.

They make dimmable windows based on some kind of liquid crystal technology which requires electrical current to trigger. There are also these sheet like display systems, all the big mobile phone players are testing these. You’d need to provide more details on what exactly you are looking to build.

Well it seems people on this so-called science board are making a lot of "points" to try to dismiss the race concept. All of them easily dismissed failures of understanding of the very basics of taxonomy. Literally no groups of living things "spring up independently in separate locations". I'm truly dumbfounded by what you are writing. All living things have common ancestors. Very many subspecies exhibit gene flow and hybridisation. None of this impugns classification or utility.

Is this the "science" you're talking about John? What a joke. Listing all of the potential uses of race in humans is irrelevant to the question of whether it's a valid biological concept. Would you argue that subspecies was a useless and non-biological concept? You have to explain what makes race the exception. I'm not giving "non-specific answers" because I didn't get sidetracked by an irrelevant question.

This is the most common myth, Is the color I perceive same as the color you perceive ? The answer is absolutely "yes" if you don't have a color blindness or tetrachromacy, because we all have the same color perception. A normal trichromat human have S,M and L cones which detects short,medium and long wavelengths respectively. Color taste and color perception are different things. Color taste is subjective but color perception is not subjective. Let's be aware of this. The question is simple,there is no need to make it hard. "If we think about all possible color hues and these colors are saturated ( pure hues without lighter shades ), yellow is the second lightest color next to white and it is also the closest color to white. How can this situation be explained physically ?" No. It can be true for brightness or perceiving more bright the variations of green through yellow, but your answer is not related to lightness.

Lightness is related to reflection, brightness is related to how we perceive. These things are different concepts.

No,I am right, your thoughts are more emotional. If we have the same S,M,L cones (except colorblinds and tetrachromats) ,everyone see the same color. Your ideas are more about colors that people feel. My approach is physical, your approach is psychological. Everyone see the same, but feel about different because of own experiences. That is the key. If everyone see colors differently,the life will be not easy. (i.e. problems that color-blind people feel in the traffic)

That is completely what I said : http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120209-do-we-all-see-the-same-colours

I think you have a problem understanding your reading. I would take a deep breath and recommend reading it again calmly. I do you a favor and add another link http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/sky-really-blue-some-hunter-gatherers-don-t-describe-colors-same-way-most-people-do At the beginning of this debate, I said we see the color same, but feels or interprets differently because of own experiences. This two links also tell the parallel things what I said. When everyone look at an apple, we see a color signal between 620-730 nm reflected light wavelengths. Maybe this colored light feels different person by person,but it is the scientific fact that everyone see the same reflection range.

It is wrong for you, but truths for science.