Mrs. Columbo, later known as Kate Columbo, followed by Kate the Detective and then ultimately Kate Loves a Mystery is an American crime drama television series initially based on the wife of Lieutenant Columbo, the title character from the television series Columbo. It was created and produced by Richard Alan Simmons and Universal Television for NBC, and stars Kate Mulgrew as a news reporter helping to solve crimes while raising her daughter.
Katherine Kiernan Mulgrew (born April 29, 1955) is an American actress.
Lili Haydn (born 1969) … began her career as a child actress at the age of seven. She initially appeared in commercials and moved on to television and film roles. From 1979 to 1980, she played Jenny Columbo, daughter of Lt. Columbo and his ex-wife, Kate Columbo/Callahan (Kate Mulgrew) in the Columbo spin-off series Mrs. Columbo.
Peter Michael Falk (September 16, 1927 – June 23, 2011) was an American actor and comedian, known for his role as Lieutenant Columbo.
So Columbo knocked up a 14 year old when he was in his early 40’s?
One of the breakthroughs I had in the treatment of my depression was realizing that we aren’t supposed to be happy and most of the things I thought I needed/desired (which in turn drove my feelings of failure/worthlessness that were central to my depression) were created by the external world, they didn’t originate as part of some actual need or desire, rather they were there because that’s what the world I grew up in and interacted with told me I need/desire. Seems silly/obvious in retrospect, but it was a big deal for me at the time.
I love Chapo but their limitations are on full display with the WeWork episode. Matt somehow thinks the Saudis gave money to SoftBank to give to WeWork to prop up urban real estate values? They seem unaware that Amazon is profitable? Do some homework, fellas.
My main beef with them has always been that many of their takes are just lazy armchair homerism. Hot take: Although they are way smarter, more informed and entertaining, I think they are the closest thing the left has to Limbaugh.
It seems like they dance around legitimate and interesting topics (subtle encroachment into independent time by employers, the economic futility of work for millennials, the gullible nature of elites, etc.), but they almost always just opt for the easy, incomplete or wrong answer (capitalism: BAD).
I had something similar happen the first time I did ecstasy. I realized that if I can be the happiest I’ve ever been in my life just from the feeling of standing barefoot on warm pavement - then maybe I had some agency in my own happiness and it wasn’t just a function of the situation I’d been birthed into.
Or something like that. Basically it was the beginning of letting go of teen angst.
Also I know I’m lucky that I don’t have real depression - except when I do too much drugs - which at this point includes the serotonin crash from ecstasy hangovers. But man after that first time I was just glowing for a month.
Yeah, exactly. They have exposed me to many leftist people and ideas that I otherwise wouldn’t have heard of, but so often I’m left feeling like they didn’t do any kind of prep work or anything. I can’t remember who it was back before 2P2-pacalypse, I think maybe simpliticus, but someone put it best comparing Chapo to people like the Pod Save guys (or maybe it was the Weeds crew) as being the difference between C+ Brown students and A Harvard students.
Yeah when I look at the pyramid I don’t think “Well I’ve got level 4 solved, time to focus on level 5” - because as I mentioned, level 3 and 4 take constant work.
I look at it more as - well I’ve got my basic needs met, I’m not super stressed over money, so now I’m going to meander around in the top 3 levels (which are pretty similar to the 4 pillars you posted) like a worm burrowing through an apple.
Btw here’s the interview I was talking about. I didn’t know who Matt Berkey was before this Mike Postle thing, but I really like his POV and style - just complete no nonsense and always something illuminating.
On the first point, “learning it in school” is the same as “believing it because told”! 95% of school is literally sitting in a chair being told what things you are supposed to believe, then writing the things you were told back down to verify that you’ve internalized them appropriately. On science specifically, there’s also a lab component, but there are honestly not enough lols for the idea that more than maybe 1% of the population has done enough scientific lab work to have anything like an empirical basis for almost any scientific fact. My most advanced scientific work was a freshman orgo lab, where I demonstrated that IR spectroscopy produces a uniform flat line regardless of what compound you fed into it, proved that over-the-counter caffeine tablets contain far less caffeine than stated on the label, and conducted a series of experiments that cast grave doubt on the idea that any organic synthesis, however simple, can produce more than a trivial amount of the desired product.
On the simplicity point, are you conceding then that you do believe in the big bang solely on grounds of authority? That’s really enough for the point I wanted to make, which is that the psychological act of believing in religion and angels is not far different from the psychological act of believing in (at least some) science. People tell you it’s true, they have the right social credentials to be believed, so you believe them. The thing that’s remarkable about cranks is that they believe people who don’t have appropriate social credentials, which is why most people (correctly) view flat earthers and Qanon people as weirder than Episcopalians. And appropriately worry that Q and the alt-right and Trumpism are becoming socially credentialed so that normies will adopt them.
More importantly, you probably don’t really understand any science. IIRC, you’re some kind of engineer, so maybe you do, but it’s more likely that you’re familiar with a bunch of empirical facts and rules and understand how to apply them within a framework you take on faith. (Which is ultimately the only way to do it, so no reason to feel bad about it!) Speaking as an extremely knowledgeable non-scientist/non-engineers, I can say that none of us genuinely understand any scientific fact. For example, take simple Newtonian gravitation. F = M1M2G / r^2, right? I know (from books I view as authoritative!) that you can derive Kepler’s laws of orbital motion from this simple equation. Why, to demonstrate it, I’ll just derive the fact that a planet sweeps out an equal area per unit time throughout its orbit. Let’s see, dA/dt = d(pos)/dt * (formula for area of sector of an ellipse, which is… maybe something involving radians? Maybe theta plays a role? Well, that’s too much astronomy anyways. Obviously that equation can be used to show that objects on the earth’s surface experience a uniform force in the direction of the center of the earth. To show it, we simply look up a few constants, and then integrate the equation over the space occupied by the earth and its density as a function of three spatial variables to solve for the force of the … oh, wait, I can’t do any of that. (In fairness, I believe that this could be solved much more easily granted that density is symmetric around the earth’s center. Which you would need to take on authority.)
But even for people who get Newtonian mechanics, Newtonian mechanics is false. Not in the trivial sense that it doesn’t properly predict the orbit of Mercury, in the fundamental sense that it posits mysterious forces that act instantaneously across enormous distances in the vacuum of space. This was a conceptual roadblock to universal gravitation–how can the earth be pulling the moon downwards? They’re not in contact! It’s nuts. But more importantly, it’s NOT TRUE. In reality, as far as we understand it, there is no force between two massive objects. Instead, each object warps space-time such that other objects are deflected towards it in space as they move forward in time. Again ~no one understands this (and I’m only like 50/50 confident that there’s no some giant conceptual error there that I don’t understand). In that sense, Newtonian gravity is just a bit of folk wisdom, like Aristotelean gravity before that, and like my toddler’s awareness that if he trips, he falls towards the floor and should stick his hands in that direction and move his head the other way.
Now, as to your second point, you must be aware that religious people also see their faith work every day. Devotees of astrology and roulette betting systems see confirmation of the truth of their beliefs. Confirmation bias is a thing. Perhaps you observed the truth of some of those popular social-psych experiments (the marshmallow test, ego depletion, etc.) that turned out not to be true. Or maybe when a depressed person takes Prozac and gets better, you marvel at the power of Science, but if they don’t you chalk it up to treatment-resistant depression?
Again, I’m sure this will be misinterpreted, but the point is not that you should be skeptical of science. It’s that you need to understand science as a social system for advancing ~true knowledge by leveraging people’s facility for social learning. The beauty of science is that, to make it work, you don’t need to tear down people’s inherent confirmity and rebuild them as New Scientistic Man who processes everything rationally. You just need to tweak the social rules about what kind of dogmas become socially authoritative and let the system do its work.
We are not arguing two ends of a spectrum here. We basically agree. No doubt science is a social construct and some of what we believe is from authority. I simply take exception at the idea that scientific beliefs are the same as religious ones.
Religious faith is, by definition, belief is the face of counter evidence. Scientific belief is the exact opposite.
Of course it doesn’t always work this way. We have all read Thomas Khun.
I strongly disagree. What utter and total nonsense. Putting science on the same level as the Bible is lunacy of the highest order.
Science attempts to disprove and improve itself constantly. The recent replication crisis aside (really only applies to the soft sciences), the things we are taught are largely based on peer reviewed research presenting evidence towards a conclusion based on that evidence. The bible, or any religion for that matter, does not operate that way. Faith based belief does not operate that way.
Granted some may take science on good “faith” without doing all the vetting of evidence/research themselves but that is absolutely not the same thing as taking something taught in the Bible on faith. That may well be the biggest pile of garbage i’ve read in a while, sorry. Consume fewer fart sniffer pseudo intellectual podcasts or junk science or less joe rogan or something, I really don’t know what else to say to all of that.
I think you might be a little overly harsh. While I obviously agree with you I think the larger point he was making is an interesting one. It’s also been a major subject of the philosophy of science for decades.
If we are going to have an interesting discussion here let’s all remember this is not a black white discussion but a continuum one.
I don’t think you should see these two statements as contradictory. They’re both true. But I think the point bobman is making is underappreciated, particularly among a certain subset of atheists. Note that I am an atheist so I’m not trying to shoehorn in an argument for religious faith here. It’s also just, I think, illustrative of a general underappreciation for the role of sociological explanations.
