Best food science books according to redditors
We found 46 Reddit comments discussing the best food science books. We ranked the 17 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 46 Reddit comments discussing the best food science books. We ranked the 17 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
The bizarre effects of Relativity come about from three cosmic facts: The speed of light in a vacuum is always measured to be the same value by everyone, at all times, no matter your state of motion. And the laws of physics are the same everywhere. From that comes all these bizarre effects on time and space -- things you learn in the first two weeks of Intro Relativity. A favorite (classic) book I can recommend on this subject is "The ABC of Relativity" by Bertrand Russell
http://www.amazon.com/ABC-Relativity-Bertrand-Russell-Paperbacks/dp/0415154294
A good book to read on that: The Sexual Politics of Meat. Long story short, it's all tied to the idea of masculine dominance. Same reasons why men are allowed to be more violent, men are (historically) allowed to get away with lewd comments and such, and bodily commodification.
I drew a lot of ties between meat, strip clubs, and sheep shows after I read this book.
I never really used to understand how intersectionality would work when it came to veganism/animal rights issues, but I've been reading this book and it's really interesting, and has got me thinking about other areas as well. It's definitely worth a read for anyone interested in the topic.
She's an author that has written a lot about the intersections of the feminist movement and the animal rights movement:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1501312839/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1350040207/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KYLGFWC/
There's a good book on the subject of sexual politics of meat
https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-Meat-Feminist-Vegetarian-Revelations/dp/1501312839
> They should not have a place at the table, building a free, open, and tolerant society
I think you may stumble on the interpretation of Popper's paradox, as it is often given as reason to infringe upon the first amendment rights of those with repugnant viewpoints.
Popper insists that intolerance must not be tolerated, but our evaluation of ideas that are intolerant, repugnant, or otherwise must continue. See Popper's Conjectures & Refutations. Without getting too philosophical, ideas don't die, and people can arrive upon incorrect, intolerant, and repugnant values independently of extremist fringe movements.
Back on topic, whether or not you feel they should, Neo-Nazis do have a seat at the table. They vote. They can run for office and be elected to lead. And as citizens of the United States, Neo-Nazis share in all the protections they want to deprive of others.
Popper's "rational" society does not tolerate intolerance but accounts for the irrational members within it.
The way to mitigate the effect of these irrational members is to permit the irrational to expose themselves, espouse their irrational conjectures, and rebuke them with society's refutation. Protesters and Antifa, the hotel canceling the event space, 4channers identifying the torch-bearers and notifying their employers, and their employers firing them, are each examples of society's refutations of the Nazi march in Charlottesville.
Being 100% serious here, try reading this book if intersectionality is actually of interest to you:
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B016N2QTU8/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3EDD7G28V04EC&coliid=I2EV7MNE2HLTWR
All right. Just went through my library and the following stood out to me:
Desert Solitaire (1968) by Edward Abbey: One of the best American voices for conservation spent some seasons as a park ranger in the desert southwest. Here are some brilliant, funny, and soundly critical musings inspired by his time there.
A Continuous Harmony (1972) & The Unsettling of America (1977) by Wendell Berry: In my opinion, Wendell Berry is the best cultural critic we've ever had. He's 86 now and still a powerful voice of reason in a chaotic society. Dismissed mistakenly by fools as someone who just wants to go back to the old days, he offers much-needed critiques on our decomposing relationship to the land and what it's been doing to our culture.
Night Comes to the Cumberlands (1962) by Harry M. Caudill: This Kentucky native saw what the predatory and morally bankrupt coal industry had done to the people and land (and the relationship between the two) in Appalachia and outlined how it all happened in powerful inarguable detail. This book serves as a stern warning about what chaos and destruction industries can bring forth when profit is their only concern. Anyone wondering why Appalachia is full of depressed drug addicts can find the roots of those issues in this book, which inspired The War on Poverty.
The Big Sky (1947) by A.B. Guthrie Jr. : A classic novel about a young kid who runs away to join the fur trade in the frontier days. It tells a very believable story, rather than chasing the overblown myths of the West like most novels dealing with that subject.
Shantyboat (1977) & Payne Hollow by Harlan Hubbard: He and his wife Anna built a truly rewarding and pleasant life together almost entirely independent of modern industrial society in the 1940s and 50s, first floating down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers on a shantyboat they built, living from temporary gardens and trading with people they met along the river, and then settling into Payne Hollow where they lived a realer-than-Thoreau existence together for decades. True love, and true meaningful living.
Of Wolves and Men (1978) by Barry Lopez: Rogan seems to think he's some kind of authority on wolves and I cringe every time I hear him start talking about them. It doesn't begin and end with "These are savage fucking predators that need to be controlled!" He seriously needs to read this book, which is a beautifully-written and exhaustive look at the history of the relationship between human and wolves. Like most interesting things, it is a complex issue.
My Life With The Eskimo (1909?) by Vilhjalmur Stefansson: The accounts of an ethnologist traveling through the arctic before much contact had been made between Europeans and Natives. Incredible stories of survival and the inevitable interesting situations that occur when two vastly different cultures meet.
The Marsh Arabs (1964) & Arabian Sands (1959) by Wilfred Thesiger: This dude went deep. Deep into the marshes of Southern Iraq and deep into the Empty Quarter of Arabia. Both books are amazing accounts of voyages through incredible parts of the world whose geography and people have since been changed forever.
The Mountain People (1972) by Colin M. Turnbull: This anthropologist lived with the Ik in Uganda as they went through a complete cultural disintegration brought on by starvation during a drought. Reading this, one sees how quickly complete tragic anarchy takes hold when basic resources are in desperate need. Humanity went out the window.
Let me know if you ever read any of these, and how you like them. I would bet they provide anyone with good food for thought and discussion.
Here are mine..
Five works by Karl Popper, who IMHO is the greatest skeptical thinker who ever lived:
And two books by Nicholas Nassim Taleb, who may be the greatest skeptical thinker currently living:
Taleb has also just come out with another book The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms, which is funny and has an important message, but doesn't really go deep into his ideas as the earlier books. Personally I am looking forward to his next book on the subject of "Anti-Fragility", a concept coined by Taleb himself.
Any serious reader of /r/skeptic should be familiar with the ideas put forward by both of these men.
Edit: Formatting.
A good start is this short article. Key paragraphs:
>Gramsci saw the capitalist state as being made up of two overlapping spheres, a ‘political society’ (which rules through force) and a ‘civil society’ (which rules through consent). This is a different meaning of civil society from the ‘associational’ view common today, which defines civil society as a ‘sector’ of voluntary organisations and NGOs. Gramsci saw civil society as the public sphere where trade unions and political parties gained concessions from the bourgeois state, and the sphere in which ideas and beliefs were shaped, where bourgeois ‘hegemony’ was reproduced in cultural life through the media, universities and religious institutions to ‘manufacture consent’ and legitimacy (Heywood 1994: 100-101).
>The political and practical implications of Gramsci’s ideas were far-reaching because he warned of the limited possibilities of direct revolutionary struggle for control of the means of production; this ‘war of attack’ could only succeed with a prior ‘war of position’ in the form of struggle over ideas and beliefs, to create a new hegemony (Gramsci 1971). This idea of a ‘counter-hegemonic’ struggle – advancing alternatives to dominant ideas of what is normal and legitimate – has had broad appeal in social and political movements. It has also contributed to the idea that ‘knowledge’ is a social construct that serves to legitimate social structures (Heywood 1994: 101).
Gramsci's ideas were devised with the exploitation of the worker in mind, but it works just as well when you substitute this for the exploitation of animals.
You can read Selections from the Prison Notebooks here
This is also an interesting book on the strategies of animal liberation and veganism which explores some of those ideas in a very practical way.
For two of the most well know (albeit conflicting) looks at how science changes over time, you can check out Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge by Karl Popper and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Khun.
See also the Philosophy of Science, Science Studies, and the History of Science.
And there are also subreddits devoted to /r/PhilosophyofScience, this is a good introductory post
Also, this comic
The Sexual Politics of Meat convinced me to stop eating meat, and Gary Yourofsky convinced me to go vegan a few months later. And, while I had already stopped consuming dairy, The Herd viscerally shows why dairy is atrocious.
Are you asking for flavor creation from scratch or are you looking for guidance how to blend premade flavors? I think both has a lot to do with trial and error and to have a good picture of all the things you are mixing together.
Here are some books, although I think this probably too much information and it's questionable how much reading them helps you:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1932633723/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470551305/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3527314067/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/364208043X/
Llama Keeping Raising Llamas – Step by Step Guide Book… farming, care, diet, health and breeding
Paging Carol Adams (really good read, btw, on language, gender, and food politics)
I'm actually English, and so wasn't really introduced to Mormonism properly until I moved to Denver Colorado many years ago. Over the years, looking at modern America, it amazes me how much of American culture is influenced by Mormonism, despite their status as something of a marginalized group.
I love pointing out to 'prepper' types how most of their doctrine comes from Mormon self-sufficiency doctrine (a good example of this: one of my favorite books on post-apocalyptic food self-sufficiency: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394492285)
Tl;Dr when it comes to the post-apocalypse, the Mormons have always been front-and-center in terms of practicality.
Yes, there are radicals that want total animal liberation, and they do have a particular hatred of sex with animals. A couple of them, Carol J. Adams and Piers Beirne, have written long, detailed arguments on their positions, including why they think sex with animals should always be considered sexual assault. Their reasons pretty much boil down to treating all cases the same as rapes resulting in physical injury and treating pet ownership as similar to slavery, invalidating any claim of consent due to inherent differences in societal power.
The first one depends on ignorance of the issue, while the second depends on a form of feminism that ties individual consent to societal power structures which are difficult to demonstrate at best. Their ideas are cookie cutter Marxism applied to animals, and like all Marxism, they dismiss the rights of individuals in favor of winning an idealized class struggle, resulting in even more suffering by almost everyone they claim to be helping.
In short, their view of the world is fundamentally warped by ideology, and as a result does not have the mass appeal needed to effect real change. They cannot succeed without becoming totalitarian rulers, and while things have been getting more chaotic politically in the Western world, they have not fallen apart to that extent, nor will they as long as people continue to call out their stupidity and cruelty.
Ti consiglio la lettura di Pane e Bugie di Dario Bressanini, in particolare tutta la parte intitolata «Il mito del mangiar sano e "giusto"». Nel mio caso, mi ha fatto cambiare radicalmente opinione sul biologico. Ora, se posso scegliere, prediligo assolutamente i prodotti non biologici.
I wrote my thesis on this. Here are a few of my sources and some new works:
The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery
Eternal Treblinka
The Sexual Politics of Meat
Aphro-ism: Essays on Pop Culture, Feminism, and Black Veganism from Two Sisters
Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation
There’s a book for you. I’d strongly recommend a read, it covers the exact topic that you’re discussing, but with sources and peer-reviewed material.
> What is 'scientific anti-realism?'
This is from "Understanding Philosophy of Science" by James Ladyman. Hopefully it will give you the flavour of what it means. Thomas (admittedly, a bit of a patronising git) is explaining the anti-realist position.
Alice: So now you’re saying that science might give us knowledge up to a point but it only tells us about what we can
observe?
Thomas: Maybe so. It seems possible.
Alice: Yes, well, it’s possible that the table we are sitting at is a
figment of our imaginations or that it disappears when
nobody is looking at it but so what? You can’t prove anything beyond doubt but that doesn’t mean we don’t know
anything. If all you are saying is that I have as much right
to believe atoms are real as I do to believe the table is real
then I agree with you.
Thomas: Slow down. When you claim to
know there’s a table there, you aren’t claiming to know
about ultimate reality or the hidden nature of things, just
about how things seem.
Alice: Well, I am claiming that the table exists even when I am
not looking at it and that it is the same table you see, and
that it will still be here if we go away for a minute and
then come back and . . .
Thomas: Yes, but at least sometimes we can observe the table. The
point about atoms and the like is that they are purely
theoretical. For all we know there could be quite different
things causing what we see.
Alice: You might as well say that it just looks as if I am sitting
here but I’m not really.
Thomas: I don’t think it’s the same thing, and anyway, as far as
science is concerned, all that matters when it comes down
to it is getting the predictions right for what we observe.
Lots of different theories that disagree about what the
unobservable world is like could still agree in what they
predict about the results of experiments.
Note: I don't think Taleb is the kind of anti-realist who would question the existence of the table but he probably questions the existence of quarks and any properties physicists infer from their existence which go beyond what has been observed and measured.
While these are not all specifically about religion, here are a few things that I think everyone should read at some point in their lives.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (this is where the term 'paradigm shift' came from).
Karl Popper on politics
Karl Popper on science
Get some historical perspective on the philosophy of science
The Power of Myth
A History of God
(1) On Inborn Knowledge
If we're going to talk seriously, inborn knowledge is part and parcel of evolutionary epistemology - objective knowledge uncovered through trial and error. I recommend that you pick up either 'Behind the Mirror', by Konrad Lorenz or 'Conjectures and Refutations', by Karl Popper. The long and short of it is that inborn knowledge such as breast-feeding or universal grammar were both discovered through investigation - trial and error - through blind evolution.
(2) On Revelation
Even if revelation were true, one cannot test for it, just as one cannot test for a miracle or other single, non-repeatable event. No once can tell the difference between one that has had a true revelation and one who is mad.
(3) On Reason
So, what's the point of the bulk of your post supposed to say? Yes, reason and investigation are almost always wrong. There are an infinite possible theories to anything, and we've been very lucky we've been almost-right at all. But I'm not asking for certainty at all; I'm a falliblist. We can never know if our theories are true or false, but that doesn't mean that there are then alternatives to reason and investigation.
We do choose what we believe, but to be intellectually honest, we ought not to believe in things that have the same metaphysical nature as unicorns or Santa Claus; we ought to believe in the theories that survived the most criticism at present.
Looking for:
Thanks!
Fire, you won't need it.
Having to leave your home for a gas leak or perhaps a train derailment with hazardous chemicals. You won't need it.
Earthquake, maybe.
Flood, maybe if it's epic.
Buy a book instead, buy this one and learn to cook with a solar oven, maybe sign up for a defensive shooting class. But take survival slow, do lots of reading and you'll be far better prepared. Most of all allocate resources as you would with insurance premium. A little every month, remember you may never needs this.
Another tip, avoid miltary backpacks. Most are designed for your average dude. Invest in a good hiking backpack, try rei if you have one near you. Gender in backpacks and sleeping bags are specific.
Before rolling out personal definitions, consider reading a book.
> So what is your definition of science
"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
> And don't tell me data mining is not seeking to explain the material universe better, that is the entire point.
Please tell me you were joking.
And no, what you describe there is not science. The theory part is just applied mathematics, rest is engineering. The heuristics used are educated guesses about the model at best.
A few kids trying to infer what kind of video I'd like to watch next, they're not doing science either.
Ok, so before I get into everything I have to preface this with some details about me.
I debated for 4 years in college and have been a debate judge ever since, this means I have 7 years of continued debate experience and most of my friends are debaters. The type of debate I did was called British Parliamentary which is perfectly tuned to train you to do well on the writing portion of the GRE. It was all about encountering impromptu topics and being able to make well structured and well sourced arguments while having no physical evidence at your disposal. This taught me to think of very complex and detailed arguments very quickly, I think this is the key to getting a six on the exam.
So, look up BP debate online or on youtube and watch some of the debates and you'll get an understanding on how people like me think about arguments. If you expose yourself to these ideas/habits you'll be fine. I did about 45 minutes of preparation for the test in total not including the 3-4 practice essays I wrote in the practice tests I took leading up to the test.
You can also go to intelligencesquaredus.org and they have a bunch of great debates with experts that also think in the same fashion.
Now to the pointers. First, if you want to learn how to use the Toulmin model to structure your arguments, cut down on fluff and bring your salient points to the table feel free to PM me since it's an entirely different post all by it self.
Before you even get to the test, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with some science philosophy because questions about scientific institutions or fields of inquiry or business come up all of the time and the lessons taught in these books teach you content you can use in the argumentative section, and things to look out for in the assumption/logic section. I based the bulk of my argument section on "The Structure of Scientific revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. I would also highly suggest checking out [The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by Karl Popper] (https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474048437&sr=1-3&keywords=karl+popper). Both of these texts not only give you a great picture of how science functions, they also give you substantial insight into the reasoning behind science and other ventures. This is crucial to pull from in the logic/assumption section.
Before we go on, I'll give you the essay topic that I recently encountered, I'll refer back to it throughout the post: "In regards to fields of inquiry, younger professionals are more likely to make massive contributions to their fields than older professionals".
Before I start actually writing the essay, I take scratch paper and outline my argument. I give myself about 7-8 minutes for this (we used to get 15 minutes to make a 7 minute argument in BP, which includes getting to your room, you can practice this ability by looking up BP topics. If you can't find some, PM me and I'll send you some). I don't put together all of my arguments in full form, I just write "tag lines" pertaining to the gist of my argument. For example, in my essay I would write:
I: Kuhn, structure of sci revs: Paradigm. How young=better
A. What is paradigm
B. Young scientists unique to push paradigm
a. Older scientists base livelihood on old assumption/paradigm
This is more words than you need. You're not going to refer back to this word for word, instead it's a mental exercise to keep you organized. You came up with the ideas, so you're not going to forget why you put something in the linear order if it is linearized. I wouldn't forget what I was going to talk about in regards to assumptions/paradigms if I put down old scis base livelihood on old stuff.
This model helps organize your thoughts so you don't have to waste time thinking of what's coming next, you can just throw a narrative down on the page. I think I wrote about 1000 words per essay this way. Most guides say you need to write above 600 words to get above a 5.
When I'm thinking of arguments, I put myself in the shoes of the people I'm being asked to discuss. I think about the obstacles that an old or young professor or business owner confronts when trying to make a massive contribution. I think about what their crisis is, along with what their strengths are. I balance the strengths and weaknesses of the competing parties. I also think about the people in their environments, how are they going to treat the people in question. Will their peers respect them, not respect them, will they engage with them or let the researchers show that they should be paid attention to first. There's a lot to think about with this, but if you put yourself in their shoes, all of these characteristics play themselves out in front of you very quickly. This is why practicing those debate topics are so important, it trains your mind to think quickly about these alternatives.
At the top, I used a phrase to begin that was relevant to the topic at hand. I probably started off saying something along the lines of "the life of a researcher is chaotic, the notion of publish or perish lies in wait, hovering over everything you do". This is preferable to simply restating the prompt. Remember that graders only spend a couple minutes on each essay, and if you seem boiler-plate from the get go, you're going to get a boiler-plate grade.
Like many debaters, I like to do an overview at the top of my essay. Once I get my introduction finished with a hint of where I'm going to go with my arguments, I then make just the claims of my arguments and perhaps the impacts/solvency (check out Toulmin) in the second paragraph. This provides the reader with a clear line of what he/she expects to see in my essay and it makes the arguments seem more clear to them because they know what to expect.
This was something along the lines of: "The arguments present in this paper will consist of analysis of the notion of the paradigm and how it contributes to advancement of the entire pursuit of science. Following this, the ramifications of tenure on a scientists career will be expressed and critiqued. Finally, the idea on how infrastructure access could hamstring younger scientists and thus, allowing for older researchers to take command will be discussed." This takes very little time to write, but it's very helpful for the grader because now they know where to look for, for development of arguments and the power of your reasoning. If you don't do this, it's possible that the grader will overlook some of your points and you may get a worse grade by human error.
The rest of the paper writes itself if you have a solid outline. You just need to make sure that all of your points have a "why" to them. Why is your claim (assumption at the beginning of your argument) correct, you should use reason and substance to make these seem true. Don't leave anything as an assumption.
Furthermore, I think the single most important characteristic in making a great argument is establishing what we call uniqueness. This is establishing why the thing you say is happening is actually CAUSING the thing to happen. You make it clear through your arguments that there are no other justifications for what your saying is true is actually true. I have a couple arguments on this one. First that older scientists have built their livelihood and careers on the assumptions and paradigms that they helped create/maintain, so they have developed a unique myopia to other alternatives that younger scientists haven't yet developed. Furthermore, young scientists are in a unique position to need to see things differently so they can make the contributions that lead to tenure. My entire second argument is about how tenure forces younger scientists to make big contributions and how it makes older scientists lazy because I ground the discussion in terms of publish or perish, up until you get tenure. The emphasis here is on mutual exclusivity, if "this" happens "that" can't happen. If a person doesn't have tenure, they're not safe and they have to publish exciting new things. If a person has developed or instilled a paradigm, they (I would argue) can't find another paradigm because it threatens everything they've worked for so they develop a selective myopia. Now this may not be the objective truth, but it comes across as a solid argument.
If you have debunked the fact and theory of Evolution it would be a huge event, no? When will you be getting your Nobel Prize in Biology?
Perhaps you should read Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery"
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415278449
> For the next two years, I delved into the literature on Venezuela with renewed interest. Javier Corrales and Michael Penfold’s book, A Dragon in the Tropics, it turned out, was particularly well-researched and compelling. Since I could no longer get my writing published in any of the outlets for which I’d previously written, I redirected my energies into making a new film entitled In the Shadow of the Revolution with the help of a Venezuelan filmmaker and friend, Arturo Albarrán, and I wrote my political memoir for an adventurous anarchist publisher. But what preoccupied me more and more were the larger questions of socialism versus capitalism, and the meaning of liberalism.
>
> I’d visited Cuba twice—in 1994 and again in 2010—and now, with my experience of Venezuela, I felt I’d seen the best socialism could offer. Not only was that offering pathetically meagre, but it had been disastrously destructive. It became increasingly clear to me that nothing that went under that rubric functioned nearly as well on any level as the system under which I had been fortunate enough to live in the US. Why then, did so many decent people, whose ethics and intelligence and good intentions I greatly respected, continue to insist that the capitalist system needed to be eliminated and replaced with what had historically proven to be the inferior system of socialism?
>
> The strongest argument against state control of the means of production and distribution is that it simply didn’t—and doesn’t—work. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding—and in this case, there was no pudding at all. In my own lifetime, I’ve seen socialism fail in China, fail in the Soviet Union, fail in Eastern Europe, fail on the island of Cuba, and fail in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. And now the world is watching it fail in Venezuela, where it burned through billions of petro-dollars of financing, only to leave the nation worse off than it was before. And still people like me had insisted on this supposed alternative to capitalism, stubbornly refusing to recognize that it is based on a faulty premise and a false epistemology.
>
> As long ago as the early 1940s, F.A. Hayek had identified the impossibility of centralized social planning and its catastrophic consequences in his classic The Road to Serfdom. Hayek’s writings convinced the Hungarian economist, János Kornai, to dedicate an entire volume entitled The Socialist System to demonstrating the validity of his claims. The “synoptic delusion”—the belief that any small group of people could hold and manage all the information spread out over millions of actors in a market economy—Kornai argued, leads the nomenklatura to make disastrous decisions that disrupt production and distribution. Attempts to “correct” these errors only exacerbate the problems for the same reasons, leading to a whole series of disasters that result, at last, in a completely dysfunctional economy, and then gulags, torture chambers, and mass executions as the nomenklatura hunt for “saboteurs” and scapegoats.
>
> The synoptic delusion—compounded by immense waste, runaway corruption, and populist authoritarianism—is what led to the mayhem engulfing Venezuela today, just as it explains why socialism is no longer a viable ideology to anyone but the kind of true believer I used to be. For such people, utopian ideologies might bring happiness into their own lives, and even into the lives of those around them who also delight in their dreams and fantasies. But when they gain control over nations and peoples, their harmless dreams become the nightmares of multitudes.
>
> Capitalism, meanwhile, has dramatically raised the standard of living wherever it has been allowed to arise over the past two centuries. It is not, however, anything like a perfect or flawless system. Globalization has left many behind, even if their lives are far better than those of their ancestors just two hundred years ago, and vast wealth creation has produced vast inequalities which have, in turn, bred resentment. Here in California, the city of Los Angeles, “with a population of four million, has 53,000 homeless.” Foreign policy misadventures and the economic crash of 2008 opened the door to demagogues of the Left and the Right eager to exploit people’s hopes and fears so that they could offer themselves as the solution their troubled nations sought to the dystopian woe into which liberal societies had fallen. In his fascinating recent jeremiad Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen itemizes liberal democracy’s many shortcomings and, whether or not one accepts his stark prognosis, his criticisms merit careful thought and attention.
>
> Nevertheless, markets do work for the majority, and so does liberal democracy, as dysfunctional as it often is. That is because capitalism provides the space for ingenuity and innovation, while liberal democracy provides room for free inquiry and self-correction. Progress and reform can seem maddeningly sluggish under such circumstances, particularly when attempting to redress grave injustice or to meet slow-moving existential threats like climate change. But I have learned to be wary of those who insist that the perfect must be the enemy of the good, and who appeal to our impatience with extravagant promises of utopia. If, as Deneen contends, liberalism has become a victim of its own success, it should be noted that socialism has no successes to which it can fall victim. Liberalism’s foundations may be capable of being shored up, but socialism is built on sand, and from sand. Failures, most sensible people realize, should be abandoned.
>
> That is probably why Karl Popper advocated cautious, piecemeal reform of markets and societies because, like any other experiment, one can only accurately isolate problems and make corrections by changing one variable at a time. As Popper observed in his essay “Utopia and Violence”:
>
> > The appeal of Utopianism arises from the failure to realize that we cannot make heaven on earth. What I believe we can do instead is to make life a little less terrible and a little less unjust in each generation. A good deal can be achieved in this way. Much has been achieved in the last hundred years. More could be achieved by our own generation. There are many pressing problems which we might solve, at least partially, such as helping the weak and the sick, and those who suffer under oppression and injustice; stamping out unemployment; equalizing opportunities; and preventing international crime, such as blackmail and war instigated by men like gods, by omnipotent and omniscient leaders. All this we might achieve if only we could give up dreaming about distant ideals and fighting over our Utopian blueprints for a new world and a new man.
>
> Losing faith in a belief system that once gave my life meaning was extremely painful. But the experience also reawakened my dormant intellectual curiosity and allowed me to think about the world anew, unencumbered by the circumscriptions of doctrine. I have met new people, read new writers and thinkers, and explored new ideas I had previously taken care to avoid. After reading an interview I had given to one of my publishers a year ago, I was forwarded an email by the poet David Chorlton. What I’d said in that interview, he wrote, “goes beyond our current disease of taking sides and inflexible non-thinking. I’m reading Havel speeches again, all in the light of the collective failure to live up to the post-communist opportunities. We’re suffering from a lack of objectivity—is that because everyone wants an identity more than a solution to problems?”
>
> Clifton Ross writes occasionally for Caracas Chronicles, sporadically blogs at his website, [www.cliftonross.com](http://www.cliftonross.com/) and sometimes even tweets @Clifross
>
> Note:
>
> 1 Considerable confusion surrounds the definitions of “socialism” and “capitalism.” Here, I am using “socialism” to mean a system in which the state destroys the market and takes control of all capital, as well as the production and distribution of goods and services. I am using “capitalism” here to refer to a market economy in which the state, as a disinterested party, or a “referee,” sets guidelines for markets but allows private actors to own and use capital to produce and distribute goods and services.
> (continues in next comment)
You should study epistemology! There's a funny thing about Truth: it is impossible to find it unless you know what it looks like. If you did happen to stumble upon some absolute, undefiled Truth, how would you know that's what it really was? You'd have to recognize that it matches what you already know is True.
That's why it's impossible to logic anyone to faith. God is Truth, and He reveals Himself to whom He will. If He hasn't revealed Himself to someone, the Truth is not in them, and when they do get hit upside the head with a little bit of truth by an apologist, they can't recognize it as Truth--it's logically impossible.
But there's a very sobering flip side: if you do not know (with absolute certainty) what is True, you cannot say for certain that anything is true or false. How could you? That means that if you do not know God, it is impossible to know anything.
That's about three years worth of part-time study condensed into 10 sentences so it probably doesn't read that well, but I guarantee you that the more you study it the more glorious it will become.
Read it for all of us!
Let me just give some broad strokes.
​
A feminist programming language: https://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/feminism-and-programming-languages
​
Attempting to start a feminist framework for climate change: https://reason.com/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-study-on-femin/
​
Calling light speed sexist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray#Criticism
​
Selling bad science to push agendas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair (original sokal affair is better at touching on this core problem)
​
Jargon: https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-Meat-Feminist-Vegetarian-Revelations/dp/1501312839
​
Chomsky on Feminism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNJX64cBOE
​
Wage gap myth, peddled as recently as the 2016 Presidential election by all Democratic candidates. Weird!
I'm talking about feminism (as a dude) that is about respecting females and not taking advantage of them using any means. I wouldn't want to kill or rape a human and I wouldn't want that for animals either. It's the same argument about killing taken to it's logical conclusion - that is violence at any level (physical, emotional, sexual) is not good.
A less loaded word than feminism would be sexism.
There is a well-reviewed book on the topic too.
I'm not an expert on the nuances, but there are many discussions on this over at r/vegan if you search for feminism/feminist. Here's one.
> science is the scientific method
Application of the scientific method does not happen in a vacuum. Academia is one context within which science is conducted; there are others. These contexts alter what scientific research is undertaken, how that research is undertaken, what results are produced, and how those results are promulgated.
There is actually quite a lively epistemological debate about whether science is entirely a social construct. I'm not much of a post-structuralist myself, but there is a large literature that takes this question very seriously. Here are two good books to get you started:
But simply saying "science is the scientific method" is a childish tautology that simply reveals your ignorance of the real research world.
> So where have you observed Darwinian evolution taking place, or replicated it through experiment?
Seriously? You actually think the "where has evolution been observed?" argument flies? Do you live under a Creationist rock, or are you just clinically retarded?
etc, etc
And then, of course, there is artificial selection which applies to all domesticated plants and animals on Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection
A particularly spectacular example of artificial selection is Dmitri Belyaev's silver fox breeding project that began in the 1950s in Russia, which turned foxes into dogs, complete with motley coats and floppy ears, in just 40 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Edit:
Poking through your comment history, there is so much absurdity in there that it's possible you're just trolling, in which case bravo sir.
But if your comments are genuine, it's clear you're not a stupid person. You are, however, a profoundly ignorant person. The good news is that this is simply a problem of Garbage In, Garbage Out. You're working with bad information, and you're only going to get bad results if that's what you keep using. The solution is simple: start working with good information.
Good information is not produced by Fox News, or by bloggers, or by your pals at the bar, or by your local preacher, or by politicians. Good information is produced in universities by people with PhDs: people who write books about facts instead of opinions, and who win awards for being smart. You need to stop watching your fucking TV and start reading real books, or no matter how naturally bright you may be you're never going to be anything but the ignorant, bitter, selfish, racist fool who has been posting comments with your username.
https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-Meat-Feminist-Vegetarian-Revelations/dp/1501312839
This is why, folks.
It's just an Omax. I forget which model, but nothing overly fancy. And yeah just a drop of blood on a slide with a slip. Sealed around the edges with oil to slow oxidation. The "vacuoles" appear outside the objects as well. In fact that's where i first noticed them, but i just thought them to be debris until i saw them clustered inside the structure.
I'm not really sure what causes them to grow larger. One of the problems with these sorts of morphologies is that they vary widely from one species to the next and take on so many intermediary forms i really can't keep up with it. That's why when i couldn't find a WBC that looked like it and remembered the "fried egg" description i had to wonder about it. They can be triggered by some natural compounds like lysozyme as well as their own autolysins. I think the typical view is that they're mere laboratory curiosities caused by things like penicillin but this has been challenged and they probably represent various naturally occurring developmental paths a microorganism takes in response to environmental conditions. https://www.amazon.com/Cell-Wall-Deficient-Forms-Third/dp/0849387671 Also, i should state my blood is loaded with antibacterials though they are all derived from complex plant mixtures so i couldn't tell you the mechanism of action.
I do think you're probably right though. It's probably just a WBC and due to the nature of my health the presentation is not typical. The size is pretty consistent from one object to the next which probably wouldn't be expected of organisms growing independently. I still have to wonder what those orbs are though. I wish i had switched my major to microbiology when i knew what was good for me, ha. I feel like an absolute dunce on this scope.
You should check out George Ritzer's The McDonaldization of Society. Not a bad little book. http://www.amazon.com/The-McDonaldization-Society-Anniversary-Edition/dp/1452226695
I'm not a sjw so that wouldn't really work out. "All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though" This is obviously a loaded observation that is meant only to offend and make 13yr ratheists blow a load in their trench-coat. The Nobel Prize is a western institution that has been around barely over a hundred years and the recipients chosen based as much on politics as on contributions... so as a measure of anything it is wholly useless. I'm not going to tediously deconstruct why, if you interested http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1376206740&sr=8-2&keywords=karl+popper is a good place to start.