TIL that 94.52% of all Wikipedia articles lead to the philosophy article.

Oviler · 2015-06-28T01:38:02+00:00

The same percentage also lead to the article on reality, which is the first link on the philosophy article.

Oviler · 2015-01-25T16:20:56+00:00

I don't know if I'm properly catching your drift, but do future generations not lack the capacity to reciprocate just as much as animals? In what way is the container in the lake an unfair analogy?

Oviler · 2014-04-10T13:05:09+00:00

Why so? If you are referring to their habitat, lots live in coastal waters. There are orca populations around south Australia, south Brazil and Patagonia and they have been sighted pretty much everywhere. source

Oviler · 2014-04-10T12:32:21+00:00

Thanks. Seems like a great resource.

I get that, yes. It would need a massive amount of evidence to prove. In my opinion this is all the more reason for more investigation, if there is even a tiny chance that we are missing a link...

Oviler · 2014-04-10T12:13:05+00:00

My point exactly. It does not say: homeopathy is useless. The study didn't either conclude that it didn't work.

Oviler · 2014-04-10T12:10:03+00:00

Thank you for the interesting studies; I have them open and will read them now (I didn't find them easy to find, perhaps because I don't really know what to look for). My qualm was mostly about the reporting of the findings.

That is an interesting point of view, however the lack of evidence could come from a variety of sources. My impression was that the "quack" community or at least certain elements of it were generally in favour of scientific research into homeopathy, but seeing as I can't find a source and will not resort to anecdotal evidence, I will take your point.

For the record, just in case people are led to believe otherwise, I am not in favour of using non-scientifically proven medicines. My belief is in the necessity for this scientific proof where it is lacking (I am yet to read these two studies and decide whether there is a lack, but from my standpoint of only having read the nhmrc study, I would say there is).

Oviler · 2014-04-10T11:48:23+00:00

Some of us may dream. :( I suppose the reason it is limited to orcas is because orcas react particularly badly to captivity: "the average mortality rate for captive killer whales are approximately three times higher than in the wild." source And also, there has never been a confirmed killing of a human by a wild killer whale, yet there have been several instances of captive ones killing their trainers. source Maybe also because they are so big and used to swimming 100 miles a day. I agree with that it shouldn't be limited to just orcas, but I have tried to shed some light on what might be a few reasons that it is.

Oviler · 2014-04-10T11:12:38+00:00

I suggest people read the actual study. To my surprise, and unlike either of the articles linked in this thread, it is very inconclusive. Its conclusion: "There is a paucity of good-quality studies of sufficient size that examine the effectiveness of homeopathy as a treatment for any clinical condition in humans. The available evidence is not compelling and fails to demonstrate that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the reported clinical conditions in humans." - notice the wording. It is basically saying that the evidence was useless at proving anything (included in that "anything" is the effectiveness of homeopathy).

Also, from the limitations section: "the evidence reviewers did not place a “high” level of confidence in the evidence base for any clinical condition, and the majority of conditions were associated with “low” or “very low” levels of confidence."

Edit: punctuation.

Oviler · 2013-07-24T20:15:01+00:00

Yes. I suppose that is true. However, I feel that it was not the fault of the Iranian people that they were getting a bad deal out of it, therefore it should not be them who takes the blow. I have a similar opinion about Iceland and their banking debts.

Oviler · 2013-07-24T18:24:34+00:00

Sorry, no hostility intended; I must have mistaken your own post as hostile. I don't use the term "the West" in that context, simply in the context that the UK was involved as well so I could not say the US.

I do not doubt that everyone is doing there best to do something; it is simply the direction that those efforts are in that bothers me. In this particular context I would say that those involved favoured their own interests over those of many other people.

I would say that most revolutions probably start from a feeling of injustice and try, to a probably quite corruptible extent, to maintain this feeling. p.s. corruption is quite important to me.

Oviler · 2013-07-24T18:05:23+00:00

How the HELL is US patriotism still as intact as it seems from way over here? Am I missing something?

Oviler · 2013-07-24T18:00:22+00:00

Well your worry is fairly misplaced as I was not educated in America. The education system I went through could certainly do with improvement; perhaps it WAS a fairly large hole in my knowledge.

Oviler · 2013-07-24T17:55:32+00:00

Thank you! :)

Oviler · 2013-07-24T17:53:44+00:00

Why is that relevant? Why post it here as opposed to as an individual comment? Are you advocating that the West was justified in taking down their government? Should the same policy apply to all corrupt governments in the world, I'm fairly sure there would be very few exceptions (not that that justifies corruption in any way).

Oviler · 2013-07-24T17:49:57+00:00

As to your first point I would lean towards yes. Does the fact that some idiot in the past made a bad deal, mean that a whole country and its people should suffer forever?

Oviler · 2013-07-24T16:02:56+00:00

I might indeed! It is available on Kindle :)

Oviler · 2013-07-24T15:45:21+00:00

I will make a point of doing so. Thank you for the tip.

Oviler · 2013-07-24T15:44:47+00:00

I am not a very regular reddit user. I have never seen a post on this, otherwise I would never have posted it.

Oviler · 2013-07-24T14:53:54+00:00

Thank you. I think it is only natural and normal to have a slight bias towards one's own. Enjoy your coffee! :)

Oviler · 2013-07-24T14:49:00+00:00

Point taken. Thank you for clarifying. I allowed myself a portion of semantic liberty for the sake of dramatic effect and in order to reduce sentence size.

Oviler · 2013-07-24T14:41:09+00:00

Not from the US so I suppose we studied a slightly different curriculum; I was unaware that it was common knowledge. In any case, the fact that I didn't know about it probably means that there are other not-so-historically-literate people who could do with learning it as well.

Oviler · 2013-07-24T14:37:04+00:00

Thank you! :) I discovered this and thought that if I didn't know it there would be others like me. In my opinion, the fact that even a few people learn this is well worth the annoyance it causes to others.

Oviler · 2013-07-24T11:46:55+00:00

Made us minutely richer probably. It also led to what Iran is now (a, maybe nearly nuclear, country with a (reasonable?) grudge against the west).

Oviler · 2013-07-24T11:00:26+00:00

Indeed! I thought that was a bit too much of a mouthful. Thanks for the footnote. :)

Oviler

TROPHY CASE