An example of "translatese" for the phrase:
"An appeal of the principles" or an appeal of the premises". Neither of these are real English but just stand as word for word translations of the Latin while preserving word class and case. Hence why a non-literal translation like "begging the question" is far superior: translations don't have to show that you know Latin grammar perfectly, unless you're doing them for an undergraduate course.
"It's called "begging the question" because the one who makes the fallacy petitions the opponent to accept the premise that's in question."
Where do you people get these etymologies from?
It's called "begging the question" because that's just the translation of the Latin, "petitio principii". The word "beg" has had more than one usage and certainly the word "question" still has more than one usage. So where does this story about it referring to petitioning some opponent even come from? It's unnecessary. "Begging the question" is plainly just a perfectly fine translation of "petitio principii". If you tried to make a very literal translation you would just end up with Latin-English "translatese".
"as the GP explained, carb rich foods will cause your body to store the extra energy as fat."
The "explanation" he gives is straight from Taubes. Taubes' insulin-carbohydrate theory is a fringe theory among obesity scientists. Increases in caloric consumption can be adequately explained by the increases in the reward value of available food. That is, food is in general more palatable, more calorically dense, less toxic, and more easily accessed than in the past. What is known about the food reward systems in the brain allows this to be completely adequate for explaining why we eat so much such that obesity levels are increasing. Taubes' theory about insulin action is just completely unnecessary for explaining anything, and it has problems on its own. So the vast majority of researchers see no need for it.
" if you are hungry, you should eat, and if you are not, you should not eat."
How is this claim at all a scientific fact? How do you prove such a claim? It seems to me whether you should eat or not completely depends on your goals. If your goals don't align with eating at some time, then don't eat. If your goals don't align with fasting at some time, then don't fast.
What you're saying is not correct.
First of all this, this study does not confirm that "dieting and increasing exercise is not effective for some people". No where does it say that. It looked at a large number of obese people who did not receive bariatric surgery and tabulated the number and percentage of them that became normal weight. It doesn't say what percentage of them actually conformed to a diet and exercise regimen on which weight loss down to a normal weight would be predicted. It may be that the number who conformed were the exact number that became normal weight (1 in 124 for women and 1 in 210 for men). Indeed, if the population of obese people were at all likely to conform to effective weight loss regimens, then it is unlikely they would have become obese in the first place. So the result is not surprising.
Second of all, official HAES principles are posted online. Number 4 is "Promote flexible, individualized eating based on hunger, satiety, nutritional needs, and pleasure, rather than any externally regulated eating plan focused on weight control."
No where does this say it is just against "binge diets". It's against any diet that is intended for weight loss, or weight gain, or weight maintenance even; any "weight control". Mainstream, scientifically-based dietitians, nutrition scientists and medical doctors advise diets for weight control all the time. The standard treatment for anorexia nervosa is to first and foremost enforce a diet which brings weight back up to healthy levels. The standard treatment for an obese woman showing Pseudotumor cerebri is to lose weight. Etc.
For HAES to reject these practices is pseudoscientific.
That doesn't seem right. If the coin is biased toward heads, then what you describe as "Heads-Tails" would be more likely. If it's biased towards tails, then "Tails-Heads" would be more likely.
Then obviously Gert would argue that those people who say those things are moral, are wrong. It's irrelevant as an objection to say what some people think is moral, because it's entirely possible that people can be wrong.
Gert defines morality in the normative sense as: "a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
That actually gives a basic outline to your first question, and also your second question when you think that acting rational is beneficial.
Projectors at music venues and clubs still regularly run VGA. Even if the projector has hdmi dp or whatever it'll often be only the VGA that has a long cable available for the distance required in many of these places.
Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions is the most common in my experience, particularly inverse errors. Even people who are relatively intelligent.
Take the following example:
If he tried to flee first, then he had right to use lethal force in self-defense.
He did not try to flee first.
Therefore, he did not have the right to use lethal force in self-defense.
People think arguments of this form are valid, but it is a logical fallacy known as an inverse error. Even when you point it out to them, they still think it is a valid argument!
Thin women are considered more attractive generally, even in countries with low food security.
https://peerj.com/articles/115...
"Participants from three Caucasian populations (Austria, Lithuania and the UK), three Asian populations (China, Iran and Mauritius) and four African populations (Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria and Senegal) rated attractiveness of a series of female images varying in fatness (BMI) and waist to hip ratio (WHR). There was an inverse linear relationship between physical attractiveness and body fatness or BMI in all populations. Lower body fat was more attractive, down to at least BMI = 19. There was no peak in the relationship over the range we studied in any population"
Also:
"For example, the BMIs of Playboy centerfolds and glamour models over the last 50 years are almost all in the range 17 to 20 (Katzmarzyk & Davis, 2001; Tovee et al., 1999; Voracek & Fisher, 2002). Women and men asked to manipulate female 3D computer models to make them maximally attractive make them have BMIs of 18.9 and 18.8 respectively (Crossley, Cornelissen & Tovee, 2012). The biggest outlier in previous studies of attractiveness at low BMI was the observation that in Poland the highest rated attractiveness was at a BMI of 15 (Koscinski, 2013), and potentially lower as this was the smallest stimulus in the set presented."
The past is often misunderstood.
A major reason for this is selection bias. The perspectives that generally survive from the past, are the perspectives of the elites. Impoverished people could not afford to create stories, literature, artifacts which represented their points of view.
So, it is not surprising if one's intuitions about the past, when past on the surviving material, give a very biased view: It can create the impression that people lived relatively well, when really it was just the elites' lives that you're imagining.
The Quran is from Late Antiquity. Some later sources are from the Middle Ages. Some of the sources repeat stories from earlier, perhaps back to the Iron Age, but never as early as the Bronze Age.
How do you come to that conclusion?
What about the Constitution of Medina do you find to be "very liberal" for example? It seems to be entirely theocratic, which is antithetical to liberalism.
The person who puts the <a></a> tags around it? Or the person who chooses to interpret (or chooses to use an interpreter that interprets) those tags as a hyperlink?
If you live in Toronto then you know that the number of motorists who break the law is pretty is pretty much all of them. I cannot recall every seeing a motorist consistently drive 100 or under on the 400 series. Virtually everyone goes over 100 at some point. So virtually every motorist breaks the law.
Statistics means never having to say you're certain.
