I think I’m misunderstanding. The node relabeling seems backwards.
He says start with the highest order, which makes me think the neighborhood with order 3 would get the smaller node labels, and the neighborhoods with order 0 would get the highest.
I’m more talking about the creation myths of science. One example being Copernicus having to break free from the suppression of the Church. The other being the Big Bang, which some claim usurps religion, when in fact it was originally devised by a Catholic priest.
What I’m driving at is that science is an awesome tool, not at all at odds with religion. It’s one, very effective method, but it’s not the end all be all for truth.
The scientism I’m driving at is people putting blind faith in science as a replacement for other forms of understanding. The argument is that religious or philosophical understanding come in when science has reached its absolute limit. The two are not competitive with each other.
How do you protect your fig trees in the winter? I used to pack leaves and straw around them and wrap in plastic, but I didn’t like the resulting mold in the spring.
Last year I just used bubble wrap and plastic, but a lot of the smaller branches died.
There’s a lot of tension over politics at the moment, I think people have been letting off steam here the past few days as a result, because I’ve noticed it too.
Good news is that a lot of us know how good the dialogue can be. Instead of despairing, why not jump in and raise the conversation?
If the evidence supports the claim, A is clearly easier. If there’s a lack of evidence, B is clearly easier to prove because level is “spectacular ness” has no clear definitions.
Of course someone could probably come up with a spectacularness metric, but at that point there’s so many assumptions you have to make it’s almost a circular argument.
This weakens the case in my opinion. First it was everything will get hotter, then it was the climate will change, now it’s weather events will get more spectacular.
Each claim is progressively harder to nail down and prove. If there’s one thing modern forms of media is good at, it’s make mundane things seem spectacular.
I took it in the spirit of climate change advocates who tend to argue for immediate radical change. Underlying those arguments is a belief that we will not be able to address problems as they arise in the future.
I think we will. I believe in the power of human ingenuity to respond to constraints of the environment. That’s what I took it to mean; the ability to solve unsolved problems when the need arises.
He says start with the highest order, which makes me think the neighborhood with order 3 would get the smaller node labels, and the neighborhoods with order 0 would get the highest.
It looks like the opposite was done.