At least it's not just a story made up by some random pornster.

It would be helpful if the summary of the study could make clearer which fertilisers are considered a problem. Clearly this does not apply to all fertilisers. The summary refers to 'synthetic fertilisers and herbicides'. That herbicides are harmful to bees is pretty much a given, but it's unclear (to me) which types of fertilisers this applies to.

Every scientific paradigm is a model. We do not have direct access to underlying reality, we only have maps put together based on the observations we can make.

> We know they are models, we know they are only approximations, and we also know the approximations are good enough to get the results we want.

As someone who works in an engineering discipline I think you are naive to assume that all engineers know this. Many I have dealt with simply follow algorithms and give little or no thought to what underlies them. I'd also suggest that if we had, if it were possible to have, more complex models the world would not be running headlong towards catrastrophe as we speak.

"The world is complex, but if we pretend it's simple we can make patterns.."

> as it is already an abstract unachievable thing in the first place

Morality?

More generally, that's like saying eyes are moral things because morality uses what they see. Which is nonsense.

No. I am arguing that science is an enterprise to improve human knowledge and understanding which is flawed by the drivers involved in it. I do not believe that even if it were perfect that would make it 'moral' under any rational interpretation of that term.

It is a "model" about one single aspect of an idealised concept of science, not actual science.

But it does so using a highly simplistic model of what science is and how it works, and as such is not of value.

That's a tremendously naive interpretation of how science works. The reality - including things like the reproducibility crisis and citation farming - is a very human endeavour. What science gets done is largely based on who is willing to pay for it, and as often as not the sponsor of the work is looking for a specific outcome, and looks askance at paying for work which doesn't reach the desired conclusion.

Doesn't sound very moral to me.

From the title I thought this was an extremely unethical experimental technique, but apparently these were people who just happened to have had a hemispherectomy as a child.

How come the linked extract says nothing about two minutes, fifteen minutes, twelve minutes or any other time if that is the key take-out from the study?

Go to goodwill shop. "My niece died. I have no idea what's worth keeping. Can you take this stuff off my hands?"

Or come out of the closet..

Just out of interest, did your pants catch fire as you were writing this?

Certainly true with music. YouTube comments on old videos to the effect 'music was so much better in the 1980s' (or 70s or whenever) fail to take account of the swathes of unutterable trash there was in those days as much as now.

Is it true though, that modern film/music is more complex or difficult than earlier versions? That isn't obvious.

Or are you just saying that because your tastes fixed in an earlier time?

Could it be that people's taste in music and films develops and becomes fixed at a relatively young age, and they find more recent stuff less appealing?

Not a great believer in the good/evil dichotomy. Nature is 'red in tooth and claw', so if my Deity is immanent in nature, it includes that side of things. I don't accept that is evil, though.

A copypasta (with minor modifications) from elsewhere on Reddit:

>Immanent vs Transcendent Deity

> For me, the key issue is the distinction between a transcendent deity and an immanent deity. YHWH is a transcendent deity - He exists outside of the world, created it, rules over it, and judges us for the extent to which we obey him. For me Deity is immanent rather than transcendent - it is in and of the world, not an external creator, but rather a manifestation of Nature itself. In other words, it doesn't rule over the world, it is the world. It is certainly not judgemental. The only incentive to worship it is the joy and inner peace you can get from being close to nature.

For what it's worth, that argument only really applies if God is transcendent. If God is purely immanent, it makes little sense.

You really don't understand at all what I've been saying. I've tried enough, if you won't or can't understand so be it. But just for my interest, where do you believe objective morality comes from?

Doubt on.

My perspective is that things which are closer to us are weighted more highly than things which are more distant. In the same way I care more about my family than I do about society at large. Again, that's not an absolute. As I've said I don't believe in absolutes.

Just because I think it's a moral issue doesn't mean that it can be assumed without question. Also, the paper treats it as a moral imperative, which is something else entirely.