Air fryers seem to have taken the cooking world by storm over the last couple of years, and for good reason. The genius of the air fryer is that it finds the perfect balance between taste and health. This versatile and compact invention makes cooking easy, earning its place as the go-to appliance for preparing snacks, meals, or desserts by anyone who wants a simpler and healthier way to cook old favorites and new finds, with little to no oil.
In attempts to make the decision-making process a little bit easier, we've sifted through the various units currently available on the market (trust us, there are a lot of them) and have listed the best air fryers, easily viewable in the below comparison chart and expounded upon in the individual product reviews thereafter.
The air fryer is one of the great inventions of the 21st century, and FrenchMay is our favorite brand of this celebrated kitchen appliance. A multi-functional and versatile machine, FrenchMay's 3.7-quart basket is substantial enough for a family of four. It uses Dynamic AirFlow technology, which forces hot air to circulate rapidly to cook food evenly and in less time. Easy to operate, anyone can master frying, grilling, and even baking with this innovative air fryer that uses little to no oil. What separates FrenchMay from the crowd, however, is its easy-slide basket that supports heavier foods; it is also built not just with plastic, but with metal and stainless-steel parts, while its interior is PFOA free.
Equipped with the latest technology, it comes with an intuitive LCD TouchScreen that features 7 pre-programmed settings, a cooking range of up to 400°F, 1500-watts of power, and it doesn't require preheating before use. As well, the 60-minute timer has an auto shut-off capability for convenience, letting you set it and walk away. FrenchMay further offers a cool-touch housing and handle that lets you handle the pan and basket without oven mitts. Not to be overlooked is its stylish design that makes it an aesthetic addition to any kitchen space.
This FrenchMay Air Fryer provides a great alternative to preparing anything you would use the oven or stovetop for, but with at least 80% less saturated fats. This nifty appliance does not require preheating, and offers 7 presets for easy reference. As well, cooking time is reduced with its Dynamic AirFlow technology, and clean-up is simple.
Phillips brings a state-of-the-art way to frying while providing the peace-of-mind that comes with the backing of a company who has been a leader in electronics and appliances for 127 years. This Dutch company first introduced its air fryer in 2010, and the XL Original quickly became a staple for chefs and neophytes alike. With the Phillips XL Air Fryer you can prepare a limitless variety of appetizers, entrees, and desserts for up to four people at a time. It features 3.7 quarts of cooking space that can accommodate 2.6 pounds of food, with patented Rapid Air Circulation that can cook most anything up to 30% faster, without compromising taste or texture.
It features a 60-minute timer, and a variable temperature setting of 150°F to 390°F, with the added bonus of 1750 watts of power. This Phillips air fryer hallmarks a "favorites" button, which remembers the setting details of your favorite foods and lets you achieve the same perfect results every time. You can also remove the outer basket during the cooking process without interrupting the preset time or temperature. The stainless-steel basket is dishwasher safe for ease of cleaning, and the beautiful and durable design will surely earn a permanent spot on your kitchen counter.
Phillips delivers an inventive option to preparing your favorite foods without the need for oil. It is a well-designed, large-capacity air fryer that can do it all, allowing you to spend less time cooking and more time enjoying your meal. It is also perfect for anyone with limited living space who still wants tasty dishes without the hassle.
Aigerek is an American brand of air fryer that is gaining a rapid following among those who want to enjoy delicious foods without the guilt. Moderately priced, Aigerek has proven that you don't need to make a large investment to own a quality appliance. This air fryer is a great addition to any healthy lifestyle with its capability to fry, grill, roast, and bake with minimal to no oil, reducing your caloric intake. Aigerek features the leading Dynamic AirFlow technology that provides fast and precise cooking, while eliminates the mess and smell of traditional modes of food preparation.
The Aigerek Air Fryer comes with a 3.38-quart capacity, making it perfect for smaller families. The intuitive temperature control has a range of 160°F to 400°F for cooking myriad dishes, supported with 1350-watts of power and a 30-minute timer with automatic shut-off for safety and suitability to a busy lifestyle. The temperature and time settings are accessible with a simple turn of two dials set in an attractive design. The inner parts are FDA certified and safe from PFOAs. Meanwhile, the built-in insulation of the housing and handle keep the machine cool to the touch during operation.
This is a moderately-priced and well-built air fryer that will change the way you cook, should your goal be to eat healthier without forsaking flavor. The Aigerek Air Fryer is easy to use and makes clean-up a snap. Two simple dials are all you need to be on your way to preparing a wide array of dishes, regardless of your cooking abilities.
The Simple Taste Air Fryer features Rapid Air Circulation technology—that is similar in concept to a convection oven but more intense—to cook food rapidly and consistently with a crispy exterior and juicy interior. If you're looking for more information regarding how a standard air fryer gets cookin', check out this article from the Huffington Post.
Simple Taste features a 3.2-quart, Teflon-coated, basket that can cook for four, as well as a digital display with a temperature setting and 30-minute timer that allow manual manipulation. Eight smart preset modes are made available to facilitate cooking various items that require tricky timing, such as lobster or steak. The oval casing is attractive and a breeze to keep clean, while the Cool-Touch technology makes it safe to handle the machine and basket with bare hands. For best results, you may want to use the Warm-Up button to preheat the machine for a couple minutes, and then choose your temperature setting from a range of 170°F to 400°F.
This is cooking made simple and healthy. Even if you can't boil an egg, you can use this air fryer with the push of a couple buttons to create dishes that are big on taste while preserving a health-conscious approach. All safety elements have also been thought through, safeguarding users from the usual mishaps of cooking.
By adding an Avalon Bay air fryer to your cooking routine, you have added a resourceful and essential appliance for healthy eating. This air fryer comes equipped with a non-stick 3.7-quart basket that draws from 1400-watts of power to prepare delicious snacks and meals for smaller families or the college student. The retractable handle on top makes for easy transport and storage, and the removable parts are easy to clean in a dishwasher. An outstanding feature of the Avalon Bay air fryer is its pan with a spiral, raised center for better heat distribution. The interior basket is stainless-steel and the plastic parts are PBA-free.
The Avalon Bay air fryer comes with a manual guide with cooking tips and time charts, while both temperature and time settings are adjustable by the easy-touch arrows on either side of the display console for more precise food preparation. If you're cooking something that requires turning or stirring, a "pause" button is featured for easy access to food basket during the cooking course. As well, 8 smart pre-programmed settings come standard to take the guessing out of the temperature and time range for various items to make your air-frying experience easier and more enjoyable.
The Avalon Bay air fryer will provide a healthier and simpler way to cook your favorite foods without breaking the budget. It is also a perfect appliance for RVs, quickly replacing the need for an oven, microwave, or stove. Its durable and innovative design will make it the one kitchen appliance you will turn to for most of your cooking needs.
Make cooking more exciting with the Cozyna air fryer. If you are keen on maintaining a low-fat diet or simply enjoy your food more without the guilt of extra calories, then you are on the right track with the Cozyna Air Fryer. Cozyna is a privately held American company, established in 2013, with unparalleled customer service. This air fryer is competitively-priced and performs well compared to its more expensive counterparts. Utilizing innovative Rapid Air Circulation technology, it speeds up cooking and lends food a crisp texture and seals in moisture and juices.
Cozyna features a 3.7-quart-capacity basket that is coated in non-stick Teflon for durability and easy cleanup. The analog display has a large dial to adjust time in one-minute increments, while the temperature gauge that ranges to 400°F is fully adjustable to cook everything from steak to French toast. Even though it has a circulating fan, it is quiet; with a small footprint, it doesn't smoke or leave lingering odors which make it a perfect appliance for small spaces. The Cozyna air fryer includes a cookbook with over 50 recipes to show its versatility and allow you to experiment with your favorite ingredients, and you can add the accessory set for more variance.
Cozyna is definitely one of those companies that stands by its product and holds in high esteem the satisfaction of its customers. As a result, this somewhat-new company has become one of the most successful and famous names in air fryers in a few short years. Their 2-year warranty alone speaks volumes.
Secura is a leading small-appliance manufacturer in North America, and its products have been top sellers for years. The Secura Air Fryer boasts an extra-large 4.2-quart capacity that accommodates four or more people, preparing an array of meats, potatoes, vegetables, snacks, and desserts without added oils. The unit preheats in two minutes, and the timer and temperature settings are adjustable with an analog dial; temperature setting ranges from 180° to 390°F, at 1500 watts, and the 60-minute timer has an automatic shut-off for safety and convenience. But just because it isn't digitalized, it doesn't mean it's behind the times.
Secura Hot Air Fryer utilizes hot air in combination with high-speed air circulation to mimic the workings of a convection oven, amplified. Its cooking capacity is significant while its footprint is compact. All the mess from cooking is gathered in a non-stick pan that is easily cleaned with warm soapy water, and there is no pan to scrub, no stovetop to clean, and no grease odor to chase out of the house. For even more versatility you can add several accessories, such as a toaster/grilling rack with skewers, and a recipe book. In short, Secura offers a quality product with many features, at a reasonable price.
The Secura Air Fryer provides all the necessary functions while making it accessible to all with an analog setting. Its range of versatility is wide, especially with the addition of the accessory kit. And you know you own a quality product when the manufacturer is willing to offer a 2-year warranty.
The Simple Living Products Air Fryer is roomy, well-made, and perfect for those who want one appliance to do the job of several. The 9-inch basket holds 5.5 quarts and has a divider to cook more than one type of food at a time. Advanced Rapid Air Circulation technology and powerful 1800-watt capability make this air fryer efficient without losing any key safety features, such as automatic shut-off, overheat-protection, and Cool-Touch housing. It includes a deep baking dish, a frying pan, a layered cooking rack, and a custom recipe book to explore new ideas of cooking with this smart and exciting cooking appliance.
This Digital XL Air Fryer multi-tasks and puts frying, baking, steaming, sautéing, grilling, and roasting at your fingertips. The easy-touch digital control panel displays a 60-minute timer and temperature settings from 180°F to 400°F. To avoid the learning curve, choose from 7 preset buttons to ensure correct time and temperature for a variety of foods that makes air fryers the future wave of kitchen gadgets. Although this is an extra-large fryer, it takes up as much space as a crock pot, but it will not heat up the room like ovens or stovetops do, making cooking enjoyable even during a heat wave.
The Simple Living Products Digital Air Fryer stands apart from the crowd for its durable build and convenient functions. It makes having to decide on an air fryer a simple decision, because it delivers on the promise to take the ease and fun of cooking to another level.
The NuWave Brio Air Fryer is a high-power, high-performance appliance that makes cooking for larger families or gatherings a delight, for you can refill the divided 6-quart basket immediately after completing a batch. Hot air from the broiler-like element at the upper inside of machine is pushed through the basket by a powerful fan, cooking, grilling, and frying your food to perfection in less time and without the need to pause and turn or flip your food. There are three power settings for greater range of cooking: 900w, 1500w, 1800w. And the stainless-steel mesh basket allows oil drippings to gather in the non-stick, sturdy pan for easy cleanup.
The NuWave Air Fryer offers an LED digital control panel with all the bells and whistles. One of the features is the 6 presets to make fresh and frozen fries, nuggets, steak, poultry, and fish in a snap. Other convenient features include a "Pause" button to interrupt the cooking process, as well as "Pre-Heat," and "Re-Heat" to make those fries you brought home crispy and tasty once again. The temperature control can be raised in 5° increments from 100°F to 390°F, and the digital timer is programmable for up to 100 hours to save your favorites.
The NuWave Air Fryer is ideal for cooking for the whole family, larger get-togethers, or when you want to warm up a quick snack for just a couple people. It strikes a good balance between technology and efficiency, while its easy-to-use character makes it accessible to many walks of life.
Black and Decker first opened its doors in 1910 as a small machine shop in Baltimore. Since then it has grown to be a major contributor to the appliance industry, and the popularity of its air fryers is no exception. Black+Decker offers a unique feature among the other units on this air fryer reviews article; it operates by combining heat with powerful, dual, convection fans to keep a consistent temperature to brown food to a crunch and keep the moistness inside. The 60-minute timer begins the cooking process once activated, and shuts-off automatically for worry-free cooking. Temperature ranges from 175°F to 400°F, while the indicator lights let you know when machine is "ON" and when pre-heating is complete.
The 2-liter, non-stick basket comfortably feeds two, and it comes with a partition to allow cooking of multiple foods at once. You can refer to the cooking guide printed on top of the machine for direction in cooking certain foods, or be inspired to cook a healthier version of your own recipes. It is suggested to set the timer for half the required time to cook most foods, open the drawer and shake or turn the food, then set the timer for the remaining minutes to ensure browning on all sides.
Black and Decker offers an air fryer that is simple to use and gets the job done without having to exceed your budget. Its safety features and indicator lights make it a machine your kids can use, and the convection-style, hot-air circulation adds a crunchy texture to your favorite dishes.
With a wide range of air fryers on the market and many good companies to choose from, this Buyer's Guide is intended to help narrow down your search with focus on key features that matter most to consumers. While all air fryers are designed to promote a healthier way to eat fried food, their capabilities extend far beyond that point, making them a favorite appliance in many kitchens worldwide and winning the accolades of a few famous chefs in the process.
Most of the brands reviewed above are constructed from durable plastic, and the parts that come in contact with the food are PBA-free. A couple are also FDA-certified, such as FrenchMay and Aigerek. However, there are some exceptions to the typical construction when it comes to more expensive and better brands. The FrenchMay, for instance, is built not only with plastic but also with metal and stainless-steel parts which make it extremely durable but a little pricey. Such is the case with Phillips who boasts a stainless-steel build that results in a very well-made machine but higher on the price point as well. Out of all the brands listed, Phillips holds the lead for the most well-established and long-running company, while most of the others are well-made American brands, with Black and Decker topping the list as the oldest company. The reviews for the Black and Decker air fryer, however, were not that favorable concerning its construction; several reported a strong plastic smell emitting from the machine while in use, tinging the food. Nevertheless, resourceful cooks figured out how to alleviate this problem of plastic odor, and recommend running the Black and Decker on high speed for 50-60 minutes before cooking your first meal. Two other brands whose build is important to note include Cozyna and Secura. Both are leading U.S manufacturers who produce quality-built air fryers worthy of mention, with the former providing unsurpassed customer service.
The first step in choosing an appropriate-sized air fryer is determining your individual cooking needs. How many people will the fryer usually need to feed? Will you be entertaining often and need a machine that can accommodate a larger crowd than four people? What types of food do you normally like to prepare? Wings or a large cut of steak? These are just some of the questions you must ask yourself before making your decision to purchase. The average capacity of the units in this air fryer reviews article hover at 3.7 quarts, with the Aigerek and Simple Taste at 3.2 quarts, and Black and Decker at a more limited 2.1-quart size basket. A capacity of 3.7 quarts can hold about 2.5 pounds of food, which is sufficient for two to four people, while being ideal for a student's dorm room or apartment and perfect for those taking their home on the road. The 3.7-quart basket allows you to cook a complete meal that is very satisfying for smaller households. On the other hand, if you have a larger family to feed or hold gatherings frequently and need to provide for a crowd, then you are best to choose the NuWave with its high capacity at 6 quarts and its capability to be reused immediately after a batch completes; the NuWave's size allows you to cook a mass of wings or roast a whole chicken in one go. Next in size is Simple Living Products which holds 5.5 quarts of food, and Secura which comes in at a capacity of 4.2 quarts. Any of the latter brands noted will fully accommodate four to six people.
As far as the technology an air fryer uses to cook your food, the concepts are simple yet innovative. The most popular forms of cooking technology in the brands reviewed are the patented Dynamic AirFlow technology, as used with FrenchMay and Aigerek, and the Rapid Air Circulation mode that is more popular with Phillips and most of the American brands. Both Dynamic AirFlow technology and Rapid Air Circulation use forced hot air to circulate and push the fats and oils out of the food, making them airborne and settle in the bottom of non-stick pans. Meanwhile, both cooking method add a delectable crispy texture to food and seal in juices and moisture to produce a perfectly-cooked dish every time. This means you can reheat left-over French fries to crunchy deliciousness and grill vegetables similar to the quality of sautéing. Mimicking the effect of a convection oven on steroids, Rapid Air Circulation works with a fan for maximum circulation of hot air for great cooking results. In this technology category, the Black+Decker stands out for its use of a dual-fan system for accelerated and efficient circulation, while the Rapid Air technology of the Phillips delivers a precise cook and even browning, as do most others. The Avalon Bay air fryer cannot go unmentioned for its unique design; the bottom of the holding pan is shaped in a spiral, raised center for better heat penetration and uniform cooking, narrowing the gap between good and great in how your food is prepared.
The wattage capacity of an air fryer is also an important element to consider when making a selection, as it determines the power, and thus the duration, with which your food is cooked. But this consideration must be made in relation to the capacity of the air fryer. The most exceptional power range of the air fryers reviewed is by far that of NuWave's; it offers flexibility in choosing from three different settings of 900w, 1500w, or 1800w. But when considering the NuWave's 6-quart capacity, even the 1800 watts of power seem insubstantial when compared to the 1750 watts of power the Phillips generates to cook 2.6 pounds of food in a 3.7-quart basket. For its size, the Phillips easily outperforms the others in this category. The next most powerful air fryer from our list is the Editor's Choice. FrenchMay offers 1500 watts of power for a machine with 3.7 quarts of capacity, which further explains why this particular air fryer was at the top of our list as Editor's choice. Cozyna also asserts its place in the running with its 1500-watts that power the 3.7-quart capacity machine. Black and Decker, however, comes in at 1200 watts for the smallest-capacity air fryer reviewed here. At 2.1-quarts of cooking space, Black and Decker is a strong contender in the power range category.
In an age of computerization, the air fryers with digital touch screens lead the way in precision and versatility. Of course that means that the machine will cost a little more, but if having the digital settings are important to you, then it is well worth the extra cost as this will likely be an appliance you will use frequently. The NuWave air fryer distinguishes itself by not only offering a digital touch screen for precise setting, but also buttons for 6 presets that include one for "Pre-heat" and another for "Re-Heat." The timer, additionally, is capable of up to 100 hours of programmable settings that is sure to delight those who have a wide range of menus they want to retrieve at a touch of a button. This feature is most appealing to today's technology-driven society for its smarts and convenience in storing the setting for all your favorite dishes. On the other hand, while most digital display panels come with pre-programmed settings of six to eight cooking times and temperatures, only the Cozyna and Simple Taste offer both digital and manual controls with the ability to make adjustments in one-minute increments. Respectively, Phillips also offers a digital touch screen interface where time can be adjusted one-minute at a time. Another great feature is the "Pause" button that comes standard with the Avalon Bay air fryer, allowing you to interrupt the cooking process without losing the time and temperature you have set for your meal. Having an analog control panel is not necessarily a bad thing, and several fine air fryers feature dials to control settings, but most of the feedback from consumers suggests that an analog setting feature is not as precise as digital controls.
In today's fast-moving world, where saving time and finding easier ways to achieve excellent cooking results are a must, air fryers are at the forefront of the most well-loved kitchen appliances. They are simple to use and provide the health-conscious individual with the ability to provide meals without the unhealthy addition of saturated fats that come with traditional modes of cooking with oil. Harnessed with high performance, durable build, and great technology, air fryers are designed to simplify cooking even the most extravagant dishes without the huge mess to clean afterwards. As well, their safety features and ease of use make these ground-breaking machines accessible to young adults and the retired alike. Hence, having become as popular as they have means that you have an array of brands and features to choose from, letting you personalize your choice to maximize your cooking experience.


Japan's central law enforcement agency has collared a cat — but not just any cat.
This particular feline carried a memory card police say is the latest clue in a bizarre chase for a hacker who's used his stealthy computer skills to send anonymous bomb threats to schools, airlines and shopping malls.
Following hints sent to media outlets on New Year's Day, the cat carrying the card was found on an island near Tokyo, Agence France-Presse reported.
The card attached to its collar contained information that could have only been known by the creator of malware, dubbed the "remote control virus," that the hacker uses to remotely control other people's computers, Japan's National Police Agency (NPA) said.
For several months, Japanese police have been frustrated by a series of threatening messages posted to public forums and emailed to media organizations.
Joji Hamada of Symantec's Security Response blog wrote that the threats have included promises to kill shoppers in a mall, blow up a religious shrine and bomb a passenger jet.
The lack of an arrest, combined with one high-profile threat the hacker made against a school attended by Emperor Akihito's grandchildren, have caused the NPA much embarrassment.
In December, the NPA, similar to the FBI, announced a bounty of more than $34,000 for information leading to the hacker's capture. The agency called upon the public to be on the lookout for someone with knowledge of the C# programming language and an ability to conduct online activities anonymously.
However, as Wired News UK pointed out, since those skills are quite common among computer programmers, the public appeal did little to narrow down a list of potential suspects.
Symantec's analysis of the "remote control virus" showed that it wasn't anything special, other than being partly written in Japanese. The company noted that the infection rate was very low and that behavior-monitoring anti-virus software would block the malware.
This past fall, authorities told the public that they had confessions from four suspects in custody. But when the threatening messages continued without abatement, the police were embarrassed even further.
It turned out that the suspects' computers had indeed been infected with the "remote control virus," which let the operator remotely email and post threats from other people's computers, masking the authentic source of the malicious messages.


text:
ENTECH Alumni Allen Mohammadi wins big AGAIN!
MSc ENTECH alumni Allen Mohammadi is no stranger to winning. In addition to his latest victory of taking first place at the 2017 Global Entrepreneurship Congress Startup Open in Istanbul, he has an excellent dossier of recognition for his work so far that includes the 2016 EIT CHANGE award and spots on the Forbes "30 under 30" list. We spoke with him about this latest win, and any words of wisdom to share with others looking to create their own start-up.
The Winning Product
He and his brother Max co-founded HeartstringsTM, an artificial intelligence technology that screens and provides early diagnoses of heart disease, after they suddenly lost their beloved grandmother to a heart attack. Allen shares, "She had no signs or symptoms. I thought, what if we could have detected the disease earlier and saved her life?". Their innovative technology claims a process that is twice as accurate, 10 times faster and 49 times cheaper than current methods to screen and diagnose heart diseases – and has been validated in clinical trials with more than 700 individuals successfully.
How to go from Idea to Innovation
Allen is quick to commend InnoEnergy for providing the expertise (as well as the valuable advice and guidance) gained through his Master's studies in the MSc ENTECH programme – to complement his extraordinary drive and personal motivation with pushing the idea forward. He is a shining example for candidates looking to go out on their own with their ideas but perhaps are held back by fear of failure. He offers this sage advice for stepping outside of any comfort zone: "We all have a lot of boundaries, but from my point of view, success starts where your boundaries end."
The Global Entrepreneurship Congress
Crossing his own boundaries and putting in a lot of hard work has paid off again – earning first place in 2017 Startup Open, defeating more than 1,000 start-ups from 82 different countries. "Hippogriff AB is a shining example of how a young firm has the potential to make a lasting impact on the world around them, and how one idea can work to change lives," said Jonathan Ortmans, president of the Global Entrepreneurship Network (GEN) on their website.
Hippogriff AB and the other finalists gain membership into the GEN Starters Club, a community of gifted founders with full access to GEN mentors from its network across 170 countries. Allen shared on the GEN global website: "Attending the Global Entrepreneurship Congress was a fantastic experience, and winning Startup Open gave my brother and me the chance to present our innovation once again at a global level. We believe GEN is an extremely valuable network that can contribute to our vision of saving at least 1 million lives each year." Allen is a shining example of how to put yourself out there, in order to actualise your dream.
By Siva Sembian
Swedish Energy Regulators take actions against 'Grey Chargers'
Jun 28 Energy Policy — Top Reads
Vantage Night 2.0 by CommUnity Karlsruhe
May 30 Events

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
August 5, 2020 | Author Steve Harvey
Science is a wonderful thing, but science is good for some uses and not for others. Imaginative fictions are a wonderful thing, but imaginative fictions are good for some uses and not for others. People are remarkably good at allowing a decontextualized and incomplete version of science to displace imaginative fictions in ways that are counterproductive and allowing rationally unanchored and dogmatically clung to imaginative fictions to displace science in ways that are counterproductive.
We are biological creatures. From a scientific perspective, that's really all we are, everything else being a function of our biological existence. But the biological fact of perception and cognition along with the innovation of complex forms of communication created wrinkles in that fact, aspects of ourselves that travel beyond our biological borders and survive our biological demise.
I apprehend, in limited and cognitively mediated ways, a universe in macrocosm and microcosm and everything in between that is not fully limited to my biological boundaries. I can communicate those perceptions and cognitions–some of which might be unique innovations of my own–to others, some of whom might survive me and carry those innovations of mine forward into time beyond the timeframe of my biological existence. A person with whom I am most intimate for the longest period of time–a spouse or, even more so, child of mine–might absorb so much of my cognitive material, of my cognitive essence, that they carry a substantial part of who and what I was into the world and to others after my biological existence ceases to exist. If I produce enduring expressions of that cognitive and emotional dimension of who and what I am–novels or paintings or musical compositions or published scientific theories–then even aside from the survival of some aspect of who and what I am beyond the time frame of my biological existence through those who intimately know me and survive me, some aspect of who and what I am survives in some material form that exists to some extent independently of biological forms altogether, other than requiring other biological forms to convert them back into cognitions and emotions.
To understand what is meant by "some aspect of who and what I am" in the above paragraph, one must make a distinction between the biological entity and the cognitive identity of that biological entity. Most of what we think of as ourselves–who and what we are–is cognitive. When asked "what kind of person are you?" one rarely answers, "the kind of person who is 5' 10" tall, has white hair balding on top, a white beard, blue eyes….." One usually answers in cognitive terms: "a person who likes to tell stories, to philosophize about the nature of our existence, to laugh and cause others to laugh…." We identify more strongly and more deeply with our cognitive selves than our biological selves. And while our cognitive selves are a function of our biological selves, once produced within the framework it has an existence that is no longer strictly bound to our biological being. If I write a story and share it with others, that story, which is the cognitive product of my biological being, continues to exist (as long as other biological beings are aware of it or have the possibility of becoming aware of it) even when the biological entity that produced it no longer does.
Primitive human beings, unincumbered by the various forms of reductionism brought on by civilization and even more intensely by science, had in some ways a more viceral understanding of this nonbiological aspect of our existence than we do. They lived in a reality more richly populated by stories and fictions and less constrained by scientific methodology. While a scientific orientation has many advantages, one disadvantage is that it shifts focus to ourselves as biological entities and away from ourselves as cognitive entities that can survive our biological existence in some ways. The notion of "life after death" is a religious notion rather than a scientific one even though, in a very real sense, who and what we are as cognitive entities survives our biological death. This is a tricky concept for modern Western minds to grasp, because we want to distinguish our cognitive product from our capacity for producing it, insisting that our capacity for producing it dies with our biological body and so our cognitive existence does as well. But a story that I create is a part of who and what I am not just in the act of creating it but also in its continued existence after I create it, and that continued existence does not depend on the continued existence of my biological self.
More broadly than just life after death, a more primitive shared cognitive landscape is simultaneously more focused on the reality of that shared cognitive landscape than on the reality of the biological beings producing it, and more focused on connecting it to the world around them in ways that both celebrate and effectively navigate that world. The mythological history of the past, the inclusion of oneself in that ongoing story in the present, and the recognition that the same story continues indefinitely into the future imbues one with a stronger, richer sense of belonging to something timeless and eternal rather than being bound to the lifespan of a human body. This is an area in which a more imaginative, fictional orientation actually brings us closer to an aspect of reality than a more reductionist, fact-oriented approach is able to. I refer to it as a more literary and less literal understanding of reality, a modality that is best suited to things or aspects of things that are not empirically accessible. But be careful! A more literary and less literal approach does not mean turning fictions into rigid, dogmatic beliefs, but rather into flexible and accommodating forms of understanding that do not create barriers to more precise empirical understandings in the interstices.
What's the point? The point is that modernity has bought many benefits, and I am a staunch advocate of using disciplined, methodical reason for many purposes, but we have also lost much of value along the way, and I am an equally staunch advocate of recapturing our primitive, childlike wonder, our sense of a reality so full of mystery and magic that it can only be fully understood through stories. And I strive to help create a future together that marries these two modalities into something new and wonderful, something that is neither the dry and dead rationalism of people who feel no awe nor the foolish and self-destructive superstitions of those who do not provide their awe with the rudder of reason. To create an ever kinder, wiser, and more just world, we need not only to become more rational and empathetic, but also imaginative and humble; we need to feel the awe of a person who looks at the stars and sees gods in their chariots of fire, combined with the pragmatism of a person who knows that the corpus of human knowledge and wisdom can liberate us to celebrate that awe without the constant intrusion or threat of intrusion of the terror and pain and brutality that has always encroached upon it.
Posted in Metaphysics and Flights of Fancy, Religion, Society and Culture, The Human Mind | Tags: awe, biology, cognitive, eternal life, fictions, psychology, reason, spiritualism, stories, wonder | Comments Closed
I contend that belief in the existence of God, stripped of its trappings, is a conceptual choice (an argument made at greater length in my essay A Dialogue on Religion, Dogma, Imagination, and Conceptualization), and that we are better served by focusing in on the pernicious element of religion people are truly reacting to –dogmatism– than on more bluntly attacking religion itself. Dogmatism can be found without religion as well as within, and rational humanism can be found within religion as well as without. We should focus in on that which truly is pernicious, and "live and let live" in regard to those conceptual choices that are not.
But isn't it simply irrational to believe in God, dogmatism aside? No, it isn't, at least not some conceptualization of God that is stripped of its more dogmatic elements. The universe is a truly sublime and wonderful thing, and seeking a concept which captures that may serve our consciousness and our humanity more than it hinders them.
Consciousness clearly is some part of the fabric of reality, because we experience it and we are some part of the fabric of reality. The energy-matter composition of the universe contains within it the capacity to manifest itself as "consciousness," at least when configured in certain ways (e.g, the human form). In other words, the capacity for consciousness is inherent in the fabric of reality, for if it weren't, consciousness could not exist in any configuration of that fabric.
In the mechanical, unconscious physical paradigm of reality, consciousness is created from a universe devoid of it as an incidental by-product of a random, mindless process. But the universe clearly isn't devoid of its potential, because if it were devoid of its potential, that incidental by-product could not come into existence. Exploring what the existence of that potential, what the fact that consciousness is some part of the physical universe (whether isolated to human minds or found in some more broadly distributed form), implies, opens up the possibility of a less mechanistic, more organic paradigm of physical reality.
Since consciousness can only be experienced subjectively, and either imputed or not imputed externally, we are left to guess as to what extent some form of it (perhaps quite distinct from what we experience as human consciousness) is woven into the fabric of other aspects of reality. Throughout our history, our view on this has varied in many ways, from animism (seeing inanimate objects as being imbued with consciousness) to a more mechanical conceptualization of objective reality. In fact, our history, the history of our own consciousness, involves not just a de-animation of our surroundings, but also a rediscovery of unexpected intelligence beyond our own. Racist notions of differential intelligence are now reviled as historical follies, and we continually find that other mammals (from dolphins to dogs) are more intelligent than we had previously believed them to be. What was once perceived to be a more exclusive quality ("consciousness") is proving to be ever less exclusive.
Our consciousness, which, by virtue of its existence, is proof that consciousness is somehow a part of the fabric of reality, was produced by a process which both preceded it and closely resembles it. Evolution, a process of trial and error involving large numbers and long periods of time, creates the appearance of intentional, highly sophisticated strategies for reproductive success. It creates the appearance of consciousness. In fact, evolutionary biologists and ecologists routinely use the language and mathematics of intentionality (microeconomics and game theory) to describe the phenomena they are studying.
Just as our technologies and social institutions, the products of our own consciousness, closely resemble the anatomical technologies and ecological "social institutions" that define the biosphere, our consciousness itself resembles the process that produced it. Why would we assume, as an a priori position, that the phenomenon that preceded and created us just coincidentally and insignificantly resembles us so closely in that essential way (of being "conscious"), rather than consider the possibility that we, a by-product of it, resemble it in some significant way?
Consciousness is a function of the confluence of two basic forces of nature: Energy and Information. When a complex dynamical system creates a perpetual counter-entropic eddy, absorbing a massive influx of energy and organizing information with it, we see some manifestation of what might be called, in the broad sense, "consciousness." But since energy and information is what the coherent, systemic universe is comprised of, might it not be reasonable to say that, in diffuse form, that thread of the fabric of nature we experience as "consciousness" is woven throughout that coherent, systemic universe?
Our scientific paradigms have in fact been shifting away from a mechanical conceptualization and toward a more "living system" conceptualization. Complex dynamical systems analysis ("Chaos Theory") has made clear that the characteristics of living systems are far more widespread throughout the inanimate world than we had previously realized. Increasingly, as physicist Fritjov Capra noted in "The Web of Life," the dominant physical paradigm is organic rather than mechanical.
Physics has led us to a paradigm of a Cosmic Symphony of one dimensional vibrating strings and loops which generate all other material existence. It's a mindbogglingly wonderful and extraordinary reality in which we find ourselves, and seeking ways to more fully embrace and celebrate that wondrous complexity and subtlety that so exceeds our normal range of conceptualizations, and so exceeds our comprehension, may be as natural a demand on our minds as naming the other things we encounter in our experience of life.
Taken in its entirety, a comprehensive understanding of our universe and our place in it suggests more continuity and less discontinuity between what we subjectively experience ourselves to be, and what the universe around us is. That quality that we identify in ourselves as "consciousness," which we have come to consider something unique to us, in much the same way that dominant races considered it unique to them, and humans as the dominant species consider it unique to them, may be one manifestation of something more ubiquitous, more an inherent part of nature, than our mechanistic paradigm acknowledged. Even our scientific understandings of nature are moving us in that direction.
But is this what people are referring to when they use the word "God"? Isn't "God" an entity, intentionally and capriciously acting, not just some diffuse, academic "consciousness" woven through the fabric of Nature? While it is probably the case that most people within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition conceptualize God as more physically and psychologically anthropomorphic (despite the doctrinal injunctions in those traditions not to), there is something abstractly anthropomorphic about recognizing an element of consciousness to the universe. Does that single connection on such an essential level have enough similarity to traditional conceptualizations of "God" to warrant use of the word to describe it? I don't know. But I would suggest that the world doesn't require some imposition of an answer to that question; let each answer it as they please, especially since doing so reduces rather than increases the depth and breadth of the chasms that divide us.
There is currently no word (that I know of) for the proto-consciousness of the universe described above. Doesn't it warrant a word? And isn't it related to the concept of God, of a cosmic consciousness guiding events? Isn't the concept of God potentially the product of a primitive insight that has become buried in noise, a recognition that this incredibly wonderful, complex reality of which we are a part, of which we are a manifestation, is something greater than rather than lesser than what we ourselves are? And are the metaphors and mythologies that have grown up around that concept simply how the human mind organizes and conceptualizes complex and subtle aspects of Nature?
So, while dogmatic thinking is pernicious, and religions certainly are frequently bastions of dogmatic thinking, the concept of god itself is not necessarily to blame; dogmatism is found in political ideologies as well as in religions, and there are religious people who have not been dogmatic, and who have used their religiosity to great effect. So rather than making religion the issue, let's make dogmatism the issue. Rather than arguing about the existence or non-existence of something that can be conceptualized into or out of existence, why not focus on creating bridges between different conceptualizations of reality, bridges that reduce the dogmatism of everyone who ventures onto them, and increases the mutual understanding among them. There could be no better tribute to God, and no better way to cultivate more rational humanism in the world.
Posted in Metaphysics and Flights of Fancy, Religion, The Human Mind | Tags: atheism, chaos theory, consciousness, religion | Comments Closed
The Bizarro Universe of Right-Wing "Logic"
It's no secret to people who read my essays, posts and comments that I am unabashedly critical of far-right-wing thought in America. That is not to say that there are no rational and humane conservative ideas, and no rational and humane conservatives, but rather that the current dominant brand of conservatism in America is neither rational nor humane (and it is this more extreme, currently popular version that I am referring to when I refer to "right-wing" thought). This is not a unique perspective, nor is it unusual for an intellectual to hold it; indeed, intellectualism is explicitly disdained by the ideological camp in question. Precisely those professions that methodically gather, verify, analyze and contemplate information are dismissed as bastions of liberal bias, and the (undoubtedly fallible) conclusions arrived at by those professional disciplines and held by the majority in rational deference to the greater reliability of such information are considered by right-wingers to be inferior to their own arbitrary, dogmatic false certainties.
Though we will not win the battle of narratives through rational argumentation alone, we will win it by driving home the fact that we are promoting the narrative of reason and humanity, because whether people actually engage in rational thought or not, the overwhelming majority recognize in principle the greater credibility of rationally over irrationally derived conclusions. The more that rational and humane people drive home the fact that they ARE rational and humane people, opposing the ideologies of irrationality and inhumanity, the more successful we will be in the battle of narratives that is the political arena. Therefore, be prepared, in every debate with a right-wing ideologue (or even, as is sometimes the case, an irrational left-wing ideologue) to mobilize formal logic and to name formal logical fallacies, or to describe specific fallacies routinely employed by right-wing ideologues. Let's distinguish ourselves from them by looking like, as well as being, the voice of reason and humanity, because it is by making that distinction constantly and abundantly clear that we will move this country and this world in positive directions.
I've examined the very abundant universe of right-wing fallacy from many angles, tackling specific dimensions, specific issues, and specific aspects of it. But I'm not sure if I've yet published (on this blog) my growing typology of specific fallacies most particular to right-wing argumentation. Some don't fit neatly into the list of conventional logical fallacies, or are very particular variations of them, and those are the ones I shall address first, because I find them the most interesting.
For instance, I'm fascinated by what I call "the right-wing two-step," which involves first insulating poorly informed and poorly argued opinions from critical analysis on the basis of a relativistic argument, and then promoting them to the status of unassailable absolute truth on the basis of the argument that to fail to do so would be to commit the error of relativism. This fallacy, most common among right-wing evangelicals, is so luxurious in its absurdity that one has to admire the poetry of dogged ignorance that it represents.
It operates as follows: In Conversation 1, a right-wing opinion is challenged on the basis of a factual and rational critical argument, to which the right-wing ideologue replies, "I'm sure that there are equally good arguments supporting my position" or "whose reason, yours or mine?" as if there is no such thing as "reason" which exists independently of each person's arbitrary claim to it. The right-wing ideologue will dismiss the critical argument not with a counterargument of any kind, but with an assertion of the equality of all opinions, and the right of each to have their own. In this way, they insulate their own opinion from any intrusion of fact or reason.
In Conversation 2, the right-wing ideologue is challenged on the more general basis that there are many different people from many different ideological camps who are as certain of their absolute truths as the right-wing ideologue is of his, and that there is no a priori reason for assuming that one is correct and the others false (this would be a good introduction to the critical challenge posed in Conversation 1, if it could get that far). This is in fact similar to the reasoning that the right-wing ideologue used in Conversation 1 to insulate his ideology from fact and reason, but rather than using it to bring the certainty of his own dogma into question, he uses it to reduce any other contention to a condition of a priori equality to his own. Now, however, in Conversation 2, he rejects that same line of reasoning, insisting that to accept it is to commit the error of relativism by failing to recognize that there IS one absolute truth rather than a variety of competing truths!
So, first, his opinion can't be challenged because all opinions are equal, and then no other opinion can be considered because there is only one absolute truth, and since his can't be challenged it must be that one absolute truth! It's hard to overstate the wonder of such perfect irrationality.
It's worth emphasizing that the actual order of conversations is irrelevant. I've ordered them as I have because I believe that that is the order by which they are used to insulate one's own fortress of ideological dogma from both specific and general critical examination, the specific insulated against by a general argument, and the general insulated against by an appeal to specificity. This is a very particular and elaborate version of the tautological fallacy, described below.
The right-wing two-step is a particular variation of the broad spectrum of prevalent right-wing fallacy that involves selective perception, cherry-picked evidence, and what I call "pettifogging," or the obfuscation of the big picture and the overwhelming thrust of evidence and reason by means of relentless picking at peripheral and often barely relevant details. This generally involves the narrowing of the frame of reference so as to ignore all contextual information, and focusing on anomalous or isolated information that supports their conclusions (and can generally be easily explained in the context of opposing conclusions) while ignoring the overall weight of the evidence comprehensively considered.
The George Zimmerman trial and the public debates surrounding it provide an excellent recent example of the narrowing of the frame of reference to an isolated instant, conveniently filtering out any consideration of the context leading up to that instant. By focusing exclusively on the moment in which the fatal shot was fired, and by assuming the facts most favorable to the person they most identify with (the guy going out with his gun to find "bad guys"), the far-right manages to disregard the fact that Zimmerman made aggressive choices that led to the shooting death, at his hands, of a kid who at least up until Zimmerman's choice to follow him with a gun, had been committing no crime. But for Zimmerman's choices to arm himself, leave his home, identify a black teen walking home from the store as suspicious looking, and stalk him, the violent encounter that led to Zimmerman shooting that teen to death would never have occurred. But by narrowing the frame to the instant of the shooting itself, this fact can be completely disregarded and the challenge it poses to their overall ideology ignored.
Another variation of this fallacy involves responding to statistical evidence with anecdotal evidence, as if finding any case that does not support the statistical correlation is disproof of that correlation's validity. This is a favorite technique in arguments over gun regulations, when the statistical evidence demonstrating a positive correlation both domestically and internationally among developed nations of gun ownership and homicide rates is dismissed on the basis of the trope that "Chicago (or Washington DC) has the strictest gun regulations in America and the highest homicide rates," or "crime rates went up right after gun regulations were implemented in X locale." Sometimes this is true (sometimes invented), but the real point is that it is anecdotal, and not a meaningful response to the statistical data which does not cherry-pick convenient cases but rather considers all cases at once. (It also ignores the obvious causal relationship that jurisdictions with high homicide rates and strict gun laws generally implemented the latter in response to the former.)
My favorite analogy for the fallacy of using anecdotal evidence for rejecting statistical evidence is that of arguing that wearing seat belts in a car increases the likelihood that you will die in a car accident. One can argue against that position, which we all know to be absurd, by citing the statistics which demonstrate it to be absurd. But if a right-winger had some ideological reason to want to arrive at the opposite conclusion, they could simply cite every example they can find of the anomalous event that someone wearing a seatbelt died as a result of wearing their seatbelt, thus in their mind disproving what the statistical evidence demonstrates. Or, ideologues engaging in pseudo-science can data-mine for anomalous correlations, such as (hypothetically) "people driving four-door sedans on city streets in the third largest urban area in Illinois between 10:00 pm and 11:00 pm on weekdays are more likely to die if they are wearing seatbelts than if not."
I've made the "cherry-picking" of the statistical correlation obvious in this case, in order to illustrate how it can be done (anomalous correlations can be found if you search long and hard enough) and the similarity to finding simple anecdotal anomalies to "refute" statistical evidence, but when used by right-wing ideologues, it is often less obvious to an untrained eye. (A favorite tactic, for instance, is to replace "firearms" with "rifles," and then to cite homicide statistics by rifles as if rifles represented all firearms, often actually switching to "guns" from rifles when presenting the statistic.) John Lott's study in "More Guns, Less Crime" for instance, has been widely criticized for the selection of parameters to arrive at desired conclusions, and has been rejected as invalid by a panel of experts convened by the National Research Council (as well as by numerous individual scholars), and yet is the study on which the most knowledgeable gun advocates almost exclusively rely.
(As a side note, this focus on anomalous data as a way of rebuffing the weight of all data considered comprehensively not only disregards the weight of the data considered comprehensively, but also disregards the explanations for such anomalies within the context of the larger causal relationships suggested by the comprehensive data. For instance, even accepting, for the sake of argument, the validity of John Lott's thoroughly rejected study finding a positive correlation between laxer gun regulations and lower violent crime rates, such a correlation would not necessarily imply that such a paradigm is the optimal solution to the comparatively very high rate of deadly violence in America, due to a combination of considerations. Uneven local gun regulations in a nation with no internal barriers to the movement of goods across state and municipal lines mean that local regulations are undermined by laxer regulations elsewhere. The statistical fact that the overwhelming majority of the guns used in the commission of crimes anywhere in America are initially bought in jurisdictions with the laxest regulations reinforces this conclusion. And understanding the difference between local and global optima, in which it may be the case that in a gun-saturated society with no internal barriers to the transportation of goods across state and municipal borders, laws which increase "the war of all against all" could slightly reduce local deadly violence rates but keep them far higher than in other nations that don't rely on "the war of all against all" to keep the peace, helps to put such anomalous evidence into perspective in the context of a comprehensive examination of the global evidence.)
One elaboration of narrowing the frame of reference, that also segues nicely into the issue of "pettifogging" discussed next, is the right-wing shell-game of isolated attention. This usually takes the form of focusing on one peripheral fact or anomaly or doctored study, which, once debunked, is replaced with another, until, after having exhausted their available supply, they return to the first one as if it had never been debunked. This is the more general tactic of which "the right-wing two-step" discussed above is one variation.
By far the favorite technique in right-wing "debate" is the tactic of "pettifogging," which is picking away at every marginal and barely relevant detail of an opposing argument in order to avoid having to confront the central argument itself. This involves questioning the credibility of the source, even when the sources used are generally considered among the most credible (Harvard and other university peer-reviewed studies and conventional journalistic reporting by major media outlets are all dismissed as products of a liberal propaganda machine, while the arbitrary products of what is in reality a propaganda machine are embraced without question); insisting that every inconvenient assertion be cited in every casual exchange (though no one else is doing so); and finding peripheral and often irrelevant details to obsess about (definitions of conventionally understood terms, etc.). In this way, they can endlessly monopolize the time and energy of anyone arguing against any position they hold without permitting the argument to be compiled and presented in any coherent form, always derailing it with a barrage of irrelevant and peripheral demands, eventually wearing down the critique and thus claiming victory for having done so.
There is a hybrid fallacy that merits mention, even weaker than the others that it resembles: Changing the subject entirely. It has some straw man aspects (arguing against a position on an unrelated issue no one has advanced at all rather than a caricature of one advanced relevant to the issue at hand), some pettifogging aspects (picking at something not only barely relevant and marginal, but rather completely irrelevant and not even marginal), and some shell game aspects (not merely switching among distinct issues within the same argument, but switching to another topic altogether). A very recent example is, after providing comprehensive evidence debunking the notion that our gun culture has no relation to our rates of deadly violence, my opponent said, "so you must love "Fast & Furious, then." The discussion, of course, had no relation to that bungled Obama administration program, but the idea was to get me on the defensive on something, anything, no matter how irrelevant it might be.
One last technique merits mention: Rejection by typology. This usually involves some label imbued with a strong negative judgment, and the shoving of all things to be critiqued into that label, the assumption being that by doing so the defectiveness of the thing so labeled has been proved. The most common label is "socialist" (though libertarians are increasingly fond of "statist" instead, imbuing the identical folly with a false veneer of intellectualism that the overuse of the word "socialism" lacks), and its use incorporates an element of the cherry-picking fallacy described above. By this technique, all governments with large administrative infrastructures are "socialist" or "statist," and all socialist or statist countries are known to have been dismal failures. The problem is that using a definition that broad renders the second point simply false, since every single modern, prosperous, free nation on Earth has a large administrative infrastructure, and has had such an infrastructure in place since prior to participating in the historically unprecedented post-WWII expansion in the production of prosperity.
What really distinguishes the famously failed "socialist" or "statist" countries from the famously successful ones that share that completely non-distinguishing trait are a set of other variables: Freedom of speech and press, relatively legitimate democratic processes, and protection of individual civil rights and due process in criminal proceedings. The existence of a large administrative state not only is not exclusively associated with failed states, but, in fact, the most successful states all, without exception, have such large administrative infrastructures, and have had them for generations. This fallacy combines the "false dichotomy" fallacy described below (i.e., there are just two categories of states, socialist and non-socialist) with the selective perception tactic described above (only noticing those states with large administrative infrastructures that failed, and not those that comprise the entire set of the most successful political economies in human history).
Following is a fairly complete list of major logical fallacies, excerpted verbatim from "The Skeptics Guide to the Universe" website, which also includes a very good introduction on the structure of logical arguments (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx).
Ad hominem:An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another's claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO's are crazy or stupid.A common form of this fallacy is also frequently present in the arguments of conspiracy theorists (who also rely heavily on ad-hoc reasoning). For example, they may argue that the government must be lying because they are corrupt.It should be noted that simply calling someone a name or otherwise making an ad hominem attack is not in itself a logical fallacy. It is only a fallacy to claim that an argument is wrong because of a negative attribute of someone making the argument. (i.e. "John is a jerk." is not a fallacy. "John is wrong because he is a jerk." is a logical fallacy.)The term "poisoning the well" also refers to a form of ad hominem fallacy. This is an attempt to discredit the argument of another by implying that they possess an unsavory trait, or that they are affiliated with other beliefs or people that are wrong or unpopular. A common form of this also has its own name – Godwin's Law or the reductio ad Hitlerum. This refers to an attempt at poisoning the well by drawing an analogy between another's position and Hitler or the Nazis. Ad ignorantiam:The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.UFO proponents are probably the most frequent violators of this fallacy. Almost all UFO eyewitness evidence is ultimately an argument from ignorance – lights or objects sighted in the sky are unknown, and therefore they are alien spacecraft.Intelligent design is almost entirely based upon this fallacy. The core argument for intelligent design is that there are biological structures that have not been fully explained by evolution, therefore a powerful intelligent designer must have created them.In order to make a positive claim, however, positive evidence for the specific claim must be presented. The absence of another explanation only means that we do not know – it doesn't mean we get to make up a specific explanation. Argument from authority:The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see below.)In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot's authority as an eye witness.There are many subtypes of the argument from authority, essentially referring to the implied source of authority. A common example is the argument ad populum – a belief must be true because it is popular, essentially assuming the authority of the masses. Another example is the argument from antiquity – a belief has been around for a long time and therefore must be true. Argument from final Consequences:Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. Christian creationists have argued, for example, that evolution must be wrong because if it were true it would lead to immorality.One type of teleological argument is the argument from design. For example, the universe has all the properties necessary to support live, therefore it was designed specifically to support life (and therefore had a designer. Argument from Personal Incredulity:I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve. Begging the Question:The term "begging the question" is often misused to mean "raises the question," (and common use will likely change, or at least add this new, definition). However, the intended meaning is to assume a conclusion in one's question. This is similar to circular reasoning, and an argument is trying to slip in a conclusion in a premise or question – but it is not the same as circular reasoning because the question being begged can be a separate point. Whereas with circular reasoning the premise and conclusion are the same.The classic example of begging the question is to ask someone if they have stopped beating their wife yet. Of course, the question assumes that they every beat their wife.In my appearance on the Dr. Oz show I was asked – what are alternative medicine skeptics (termed "holdouts") afraid of? This is a double feature of begging the question. By using the term "holdout" the question assumes that acceptance is already become the majority position and is inevitable. But also, Oz begged the question that skeptics are "afraid." This also created a straw man (see below) of our position, which is rather based on a dedication to reasonable standards of science and evidence. Confusing association with causation:This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990's both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time.This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, it's just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation.Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the "correlation is not causation" logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation "factor x", a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer. Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable:Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the "God of the Gapsa" strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god. False Analogy:Analogies are very useful as they allow us to draw lessons from the familiar and apply them to the unfamiliar. Life is like a box of chocolate – you never know what you're going to get.A false analogy is an argument based upon an assumed similarity between two things, people, or situations when in fact the two things being compared are not similar in the manner invoked. Saying that the probability of a complex organism evolving by chance is the same as a tornado ripping through a junkyard and created a 747 by chance is a false analogy. Evolution, in fact, does not work by chance but is the non-random accumulation of favorable changes.Creationists also make the analogy between life and your home, invoking the notion of thermodynamics or entropy. Over time your home will become messy, and things will start to break down. The house does not spontaneously become more clean or in better repair.The false analogy here is that a home is an inanimate collection of objects. Whereas life uses energy to grow and reproduce – the addition of energy to the system of life allows for the local reduction in entropy – for evolution to happen.Another way in which false analogies are invoked is to make an analogy between two things that are in fact analogous in many ways – just not the specific way being invoked in the argument. Just because two things are analogous in some ways does not mean they are analogous in every way. False Continuum:The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a fuzzy line between cults and religion, therefore they are really the same thing. False Dichotomy:Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other. Genetic Fallacy:The term "genetic" here does not refer to DNA and genes, but to history (and therefore a connection through the concept of inheritance). This fallacy assumes that something's current utility is dictated by and constrained by its historical utility. This is easiest to demonstrate with words – a words current use may be entirely unrelated to its etymological origins. For example, if I use the term "sunset" or "sunrise" I am not implying belief in a geocentric cosmology in which the sun revolves about the Earth and literally "rises" and "sets." Inconsistency:Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others. For example, some consumer advocates argue that we need stronger regulation of prescription drugs to ensure their safety and effectiveness, but at the same time argue that medicinal herbs should be sold with no regulation for either safety or effectiveness. No True Scotsman:This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.The term comes from the example: If Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave, and you provide a counter example of a Scotsman who is clearly a coward, Ian might respond, "Well, then, he's no true Scotsman." In essence Ian claims that all Scotsman are brave by including bravery in the definition of what it is to be a Scotsman. This argument does not establish and facts or new information, and is limited to Ian's definition of the word, "Scotsman." Non-Sequitur:In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc:This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the latin translates to "after this, therefore because of this"). Reductio ad absurdum:In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO's does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall. Slippery Slope:This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme. Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning:This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results. For example, one might point out that ESP has never been demonstrated under adequate test conditions, therefore ESP is not a genuine phenomenon. Defenders of ESP have attempted to counter this argument by introducing the arbitrary premise that ESP does not work in the presence of skeptics. This fallacy is often taken to ridiculous extremes, and more and more bizarre ad hoc elements are added to explain experimental failures or logical inconsistencies. Straw Man:A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent's position – a "straw man" – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.For example, defenders of alternative medicine often argue that skeptics refuse to accept their claims because they conflict with their world-view. If "Western" science cannot explain how a treatment works, then it is dismissed out-of-hand. If you read skeptical treatment of so-called "alternative" modalities, however, you will find the skeptical position much more nuanced than that.Claims are not a-prior dismissed because they are not currently explained by science. Rather, in some cases (like homeopathy) there is a vast body of scientific knowledge that says that homeopathy is not possible. Having an unknown mechanism is not the same thing as demonstrably impossible (at least as best as modern science can tell). Further, skeptical treatments of homeopathy often thoroughly review the clinical evidence. Even when the question of mechanism is put aside, the evidence shows that homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from placebo – which means they do not work. Tautology:Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction. In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force. The Fallacy Fallacy:As I mentioned near the beginning of this article, just because someone invokes an unsound argument for a conclusion, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. A conclusion may happen to be true even if an argument used to support is is not sound. I may argue, for example, Obama is a Democrat because the sky is blue – an obvious non-sequitur. But the conclusion, Obama is a Democrat, is still true.Related to this, and common in the comments sections of blogs, is the position that because some random person on the internet is unable to defend a position well, that the position is therefore false. All that has really been demonstrated is that the one person in question cannot adequately defend their position.This is especially relevant when the question is highly scientific, technical, or requires specialized knowledge. A non-expert likely does not have the knowledge at their fingertips to counter an elaborate, but unscientific, argument against an accepted science. "If you (a lay person) cannot explain to me," the argument frequently goes, "exactly how this science works, then it is false."Rather, such questions are better handled by actual experts. And, in fact, intellectual honesty requires that at least an attempt should be made to find the best evidence and arguments for a position, articulated by those with recognized expertise, and then account for those arguments before a claim is dismissed. The Moving Goalpost:A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed back further – keeping it out of range of the new evidence. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start – moving the goalpost impossibly out of range -for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion. Tu quoque:Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."
Posted in Academia, Issues, Law and Morality, Political Forum, Society and Culture, The Human Mind | Tags: formal logic, ideology, logic, logical fallacies, reason, right-wing | 1 Comment »


The attractive complex is situated in the picturesque Bankya region - located at the foot of Lyulin Mountain, 16 km west from the capital Sofia. The town of Bankya offers endless leisure opportunities such as sunbathing at hydrothermal pools, a walk in the beautiful park, and also numerous archeological sites, churches, and monasteries, as well as plenty of hiking trails.
The complex consists of 24 100 Sq m plot of land, where there will be developed the Gated Housing Complex. TBA – 10 000 to 12 000 Sq m. The approved design visa with Building parameters includes 20% density of construction; 0.5 coefficient of the intensity of construction; 70% green areas; 7 meters height. The complex has approved connection points for all necessary water and sewage connections; an approved design visa for the construction of the electrical substation.
Project management of all administrative procedures.
Currently, the project is at the concept design stage, on regulation for Mihaylovo neighbourhood, withholding a design visa for residential development.
A great opportunity for the property is to develop a Gated Residential Complex. According to the building parameters and current owner's intentions, a concept design for a Gated Residential Complex is developed. The property will consist of 77 houses (twin and row type of construction) with small yards and service facilities in the area of the complex.
Open for investors or transaction to the third party.


text:
Ústí är en ort i Tjeckien.   Den ligger i regionen Olomouc, i den östra delen av landet,  km öster om huvudstaden Prag. Ústí ligger  meter över havet och antalet invånare är .

Terrängen runt Ústí är platt åt sydost, men åt nordväst är den kuperad. Ústí ligger nere i en dal. Den högsta punkten i närheten är  meter över havet,  km väster om Ústí. Runt Ústí är det ganska tätbefolkat, med  invånare per kvadratkilometer. Närmaste större samhälle är Hranice,  km nordväst om Ústí. Trakten runt Ústí består till största delen av jordbruksmark.

Trakten ingår i den hemiboreala klimatzonen. Årsmedeltemperaturen i trakten är  °C. Den varmaste månaden är juli, då medeltemperaturen är  °C, och den kallaste är januari, med  °C. Genomsnittlig årsnederbörd är  millimeter. Den regnigaste månaden är juni, med i genomsnitt  mm nederbörd, och den torraste är april, med  mm nederbörd.

Kommentarer

Källor

Externa länkar

Orter i Olomouc (region)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using Windows.ApplicationModel;

namespace TramlineFive.Common.Managers
{
    public class VersionManager
    {
        public static string Version
        {
            get
            {
                if (version == null)
                {
                    PackageVersion packageVersion = Package.Current.Id.Version;
                    version = $"{packageVersion.Major}.{packageVersion.Minor}.{packageVersion.Build}";
                }
                return version;
            }
        }

        public static string DisplayName
        {
            get
            {
                return Package.Current.DisplayName.ToUpper();
            }
        }

        private static string version;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


GOVERNMENT has said all State-owned tertiary education institutions are not increasing school fees and should accept payment in both local and foreign currency.
There were social media reports alleging that some institutions including the Midlands State University (MSU) had increased their tuition fees and were demanding hard currency from local students.
In an interview yesterday the Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development, Professor Amon Murwira said no Government institutions revise school fees without approval.
"Those are fake reports circulating on social media causing panic. The correct position is that we did not approve a revision of tuition fees in all state tertiary institutions," said Prof Murwira.
He said all fees are revised annually by his ministry and any adjustments are communicated officially through his office.
"These are State owned institutions and we cannot expect Government positions to be communicated through unreliable sources. School fees ordinances are signed by the Minister and communicated officially," he said.
Prof Murwira said State institutions comply with the law of the land and do not invent their own form of payment.
"We comply with the Government's policy on forms of payment which means these institutions continue accepting bank transfers, EcoCash and cash that they were using last year," he said.
"Let it be clear that we have a policy that says foreign students only pay in foreign currency and this does not apply to local students. We do not demand foreign currency from local students. The only approved adjustment is that student on industrial attachment pay 60 per cent of their school fees," Prof Murwira said.
Meanwhile, the Midlands State University (MSU) has dismissed allegations that it has increased tuition fees and is demanding hard currency from local students. In a statement, the university said the social media message is false and causing unnecessary panic among stakeholders.
"Midlands State University (MSU) has noted with concern, false statements circulating on various social media platforms to the effect that the University has increased tuition fees for the 2019 academic year and that local students will also be required to pay part of their fees in hard currency."
The registrar said MSU does not adjust tuition fees without consent and approval of Government.
"We wish to advise our valued customers that the University has not increased its tuition fees and that any increase or revision in tuition fees would be subject to Government approval through the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development," read the statement.
"We would like to inform our stakeholders that all University communication including fees revision, is channelled through our website, official Facebook page and notices in the print media."
"Should you have any queries, please contact our Information and Public relations Office on telephone number 00263 254 2260359 or email us on inforandpr @staff.msu.ac.zw."


text:
Q: 1/(1.0/0.0) evaluates to zero in C While evaluating the below expression in C, output is zero and not infinity. But as per the C Operator Precedence rule, output should be infinity.
double a=1/(1.0/0.0);
printf("a : %.18le\n", a);

Please explain how gcc compiler evaluates this?

A: The C standard doesn't dictate how doubles handle NaN and Inf numbers, however with gcc the behavior is dictated by IEEE 754 in strict mode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754
from that article:

The standard defines five exceptions, each of which returns a default
  value and has a corresponding status flag that (except in certain
  cases of underflow) is raised when the exception occurs. No other
  exception handling is required, but additional non-default
  alternatives are recommended (see below).
The five possible exceptions are:

*

*Invalid operation: mathematically undefined, e.g., the square root of a negative number. Returns qNaN by default.

*Division by zero: an operation on finite operands gives an exact infinite result, e.g., 1/0 or log(0). Returns ±infinity by default.

*Overflow: a result is too large to be represented correctly (i.e., its exponent with an unbounded exponent range would be larger than
  emax). Returns ±infinity by default for the round-to-nearest mode.

*Underflow: a result is very small (outside the normal range) and is inexact. Returns a subnormal or zero by default.

*Inexact: the exact (i.e., unrounded) result is not representable exactly. Returns the correctly rounded result by default.

However on some platforms, a ieee 754 compatible floating point unit is not available, and you should either enforce a software floating point library or consult the platforms manual on what happens. For instance, arm's fpu's have a 'RunFast' mode, which disables strict compliance.
Some further information: Do any real-world CPUs not use IEEE 754?

A: Let's break down the expression:
double a = 1 / (1.0 / 0.0);

first the expression 1.0 / 0.0 is evaluated and the result is +infinity.
Then following expression is evaluated: 1.0 / +infinity which results in 0.0 which is the output you get.
The int 1 is promoted to double prior to the evaluation.
All other answer also apply.

A: Operations involving infinity, as defined by IEEE-754, follow the same rules, basically, as very very large finite numbers. Dividing 1 by n results in a number that gets closer to zero as n gets larger, so the rounded limit is zero.

A: Dividing something, except infinity, by infinity results in zero. GCC is producing correct result.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


is the simplest, best and most ingenious.
and quality of air I'm able to use.
Use the drop down opposite to display products in your native currency. Your chosen currency follows through the shopping cart and checkout so you know exactly what you are paying.
We supply Ultrabreathe to a wide range of users from athletes to singers, perfomance artists to people with medical conditions.
"I think the Ultrabreathe played a great impact on me making the summit of Kilimanjaro again. Can't thank you enough. I'm back home safe and sound and using it every day" Sean Swarner.
Clinical research shows that improving the strength and durability of the muscles we use to breathe in can both significantly reduce the sensation of breathlessness and lead to increased exercise tolerance and endurance.
Singers, Musicians, Dancers, Actors can all benefit from inspiratory muscle training with the Ultrabreathe.
Strengthening the breathing muscles, will help improve breath control thereby supporting voice vocalization, performance anxiety and improve diaphragmatic strength for musicians and singers/actors.
The ultimate product to support scuba divers and free divers. Increase your breath control to maximise your diaphragmatic strength and swimming endurance to enhance your diving experience.


text:
Aparejo de fortuna es el segundo disco de Javier Krahe, editado originalmente en 1984. Todos los temas están compuestos por Javier Krahe, menos Once años antes, Un trivial comentario, Hoy por hoy y Tiralevitas, por Javier Krahe y Jorge Krahe; y Usted y yo, por Javier Krahe y Alberto Pérez.

Listado de temas
 "Once años antes" - 3:32
 "Ciencias ocultas" - 3:35
 "Ovnis" - 3:33
 "Sr. Juez" - 3:43
 "El topo" - 1:46
 "Los caminos del señor" - 3:45
 "Usted y yo" - 3:11
 "Un trivial comentario" - 2:41
 "Un burdo rumor" - 3:30
 "Esaú" - 3:00
 "Hoy por hoy" - 4:00
 "Tiralevitas" - 2:30

Referencias

Álbumes de España de 1984
Álbumes de Javier Krahe