Peter Gallic

Warren, NJ, United States

About Peter

I'm passionate about

understanding nature

Comments & conversations

Noface
Peter Gallic
Posted over 4 years ago
Has religion outlived it's usefulness?
I think that this whole question is irrational. Politics has caused many more wars and turmoil than religion. Politics assumes that ones party can dictate right and wrong. It assigns power to persuasive people. So why, if you find religion so threatening do you not see the same threat in politics? And how many so called religiously motivated actions are really political cloaked in religion. In my experience religious belief is a lot more rationale than non-religious belief. IN fact religion is responsible for more of the creativity that has lead to breakthroughs in art and science than non religious activity. The more rational question is why people are threatened by religion. One the non-religious are a very arrogant group, believing that their perceptions and their logic is far superior to the 98% of humanity that has believed in some form of Deity. Rather than raise a question about whether or not they have missed the the boat they attack the majority. Oh and btw the way there have been many wars and conflicts that were started and encouraged by atheists. Communism was atheistic in principal. Should we talk about the 50 million or so people that were killed in Communist conflicts. Oh, thats right religious people condemned those activities. How irrational of them. So it seems to me the real question is why are you attacking religion? What is so threatening to you that you have to attack religion? Is it guilt, or some unexpressed desire? Or is there really some truth to the argument?
Noface
Peter Gallic
Posted over 4 years ago
Can people who deny science be educated? How?
1. Clean water, antibiotics, clothes made from rayon, exercise techniques, electricity, etc etc. these are all in most peoples 'experience', they are the fruit of scientific research. So the questioner needs to understand their own question, it would seem. 2. of course they are. As knowledge expands our ability to interpret results will hone our findings. Some aspect of our life are more mature than others. Certain scientific results are closer to fixed than others. The temperature that water boils at is fairly fixed, we have a long way to go to understand the brain. 3. Each person has his own perception of the truth. By definition their is only one Truth. I believe that you have to teach people how to think. If they can think clearly most of them tend to gravitate to the right answer. Thinking does not come naturally to most people. They would rather believe that the Earth is flat. Recent examples.... We all know how a plane flies. The wings create lift as it pushes forward and the plane flies through the air. This is a very common belief. It is accepted. So then how does a plane fly upside down? Once you ask that question it shakes apart the belief and encourages listeners to investigate. Here is another one. The world has time zones. So what time is it at the North Pole, and if I were to walk 50 feet off of the pole and walk clockwise in a circle would I have to turn my watch back an hour with each step? Simple question. When you take something that is very commonly believed and start a conversation you encourage people to think differently. Is Violet a color? Its in the rainbow but is it really a color. Recently BBC has an article about a boy thought to have cerebral palsy. When they sent hi for an MRI he turned out to be missing his cerebellum. Look it up, now thats a conversation starter and something that starts people thinking. Pique their interest, engage their curiosity, change their thinking
Noface
Peter Gallic
Posted over 4 years ago
Hanna Rosin: New data on the rise of women
The problem is that you are looking at datasets concerning past periods that are mature. The data you are looking at currently is not. You easily point out that women flocked to jobs during the War years and the Depression and then left. The same could be happening right now. You constantly point out that mean are being replaced by technology. This is a very sexist point of view. Jobs are replaced by technology. The fact that the job may be dominated by workers of a certain sex because of traditional societal boundaries may be the cause of a study. If the job had not been replaced by technology would there have been a shift in the gender of the job. You can say that in the future more men will stay home to take care of kids. But men cannot give birth. So during a period of time both spouses will be home, maybe this will cause financial strain and result in a change in the pattern when it is more widespread. Who knows? I am not trying to attack your point of view, only highlight what I see as elements of it which preclude the possibility of other answers which could make sense. Now for your last comment. Since you would not consider any women who has 51 grandchildren to be a 'weak woman' would you be open to using her as a definition of what a strong woman should be like? Are you wiling to say that one type of strong woman is a religious, hardworking, child bearing woman who believes in the view of a woman of the , say 1950's, but not the 1800's.
Noface
Peter Gallic
Posted over 4 years ago
Why do so many think that population growth is an important issue for the environment? Don't they know the facts of demographics?
100 years ago scientist made bold predictions about the world and where it would go based on what they knew at the time. They were mostly wrong. Most of the comments on tis blog assume a level of knowledge that far surpasses what we actually have. We don't know what causes climate change, we just learned why lead acid batteries work, we don't understand how the brain works, we are only beginning to understand materials and even our knowledge of biology is being radically challenged by breakthroughs in research. The one thing we could definitely say is we seem to have lost none of the arrogance of the past. So to the dire predictions of those the 'know' I say, people that 'knew' believed the earth was flat, that the planets orbited the Earth and that certain people were inferior. Admitting that we don't know would be a better start to a better tomorrow.
Noface
Peter Gallic
Posted over 4 years ago
We spend 3 billion hours a week as a planet playing videogames. Is it worth it? How could it be MORE worth it?
Didn't Nero fiddle while Rome burned. Video-games are entertainment and there is a social advantage to having entertainment. But you wouldn't watch TV all day, you wouldn't Jump Rope all day and still say its healthy. Video-game playing resemble addictive behavior, where player will forgo healthy habits to continue to play, more than they resemble entertainment. Using the medium of a video-game to to aid in education is a great alternative use of the technology. In doing so you are reclassifying the activity. Physical Therapy is exercise but it is very different than jogging. Rather than try and attribute some social benefit to gaming, let's look at what could be done with that time. Technology has given us a lot of free time, wouldn't it be better to use that time to make our world better. Maybe by helping the poor or beautifying a park, or just picking up litter. I believe that a true look at video-gaming will find more negative's in its current state than positives. As for whether they are fun, you bet they are, so are a lot of other things that we shouldn't be doing all the time.
Noface
Peter Gallic
Posted over 4 years ago
Hanna Rosin: New data on the rise of women
Now after listening to this talk i listened to. Ali Carr-Chellman: Gaming to re-engage boys in learning Same basic data about education, completely different conclusion. Love to hear what everyone else thinks.
Noface
Peter Gallic
Posted over 4 years ago
Hanna Rosin: New data on the rise of women
I don't think they are being sensitive to gender roles. I think they are mostly commenting on poor logic and very weak conclusions. Coming from either sex, they would still both be judged as poor. The problem lies in making, as she does, some very big leaps to get to a conclusion. For example, more women go to college... in her estimation that is a good thing. Well in reality it could lead to more women being in substantial debt than men at the same age. Is that good or bad? Or single women being the number one homebuyers? In an economy with a massively high foreclosure rate and a difficult mortgage market how would you get that datapoint and believe it to be accurate. A survey that shows that single women would be looking to buy something versus men who are not looking to buy may be more of an indication or how men and women approach shopping for major items. Men may not bother to look until they know they are ready to buy, women may like to window shop. Again its another conclusion you could make from the data. More single women, does that include divorcees who are re-enterring the job place? As for male dominated jobs requiring physical strength etc etc. Technology has made physical strength kind of a moot point. It more like being able to deal with the job environment. Not a lot of women entering into the garbage hauling business, not because they aren't strong enough, its just a smelly dirty job and lets face it, men can deal with filth easier than women. Oil rigs, fishing, etc. the truth is that single sex workforces are easier to manage in some situations. Why, because you cannot breed the sexual urges out of men and women. As an employer who deals with this I can tell you that I wouldn't mind fielding all women teams, bet they are harder to put together. Its a decision not based on strength but getting a job done worth the least amount of liability. The presentation was a conversation piece but it was hardly well researched.
Noface
Peter Gallic
Posted over 4 years ago
Hanna Rosin: New data on the rise of women
I am new to your argument but I think that you may want to start at a different point. In modern society ( 1900's to now) the role of the woman has been determined more by economics than any other point. Women joined the job force en masse during the Great Depression and during the World Wars. The family needed the income. During the baby boom, women moved out of the job place. Children of baby boomers made going to college a priority. Even the presentation showed more women than men currently in college. That meant that women were more in debt at the age of 25 and needed to get a job to pay for college. Curiously the motivation for going to college came when banks began including the wifes income on mortgage application. They lent money based on both incomes resulting in tight times if the women left the job place for any reason. So most girls heard there mother encourage them to get better jobs, one which they needed to go to college to get. Technology, jobs, and economics have really nothing to do with how men look at women. If women have come so far, why is the porn industry bigger than ever, employing many more women than men ironically. Why is most advertising aimed at appealing to less desirable traits of women, encouraging them to smell better, dress sexier, get thinner, be in better moods. My mother didn't work out of the house and has 51 grandchildren that she helps nurture on a daily basis. She refuses to wear pants, makes her 'boys' open her door, and is pretty close to being what feminists decry as a weak woman. But she is very content, very confident and can hold her own in any conversation. Women were never replaced by technology anymore than men are today. Technology made everyones life easier. Gave them more time to do other things. Have you noticed that there is much better landscaping today than 20 years ago and people can cook much better. Both men and women. There are always other ways to look at things.