text:
Where will climate change force animals to move, and how will they get there?
This new map from The Nature Conservancy shows not only how birds, amphibians, and mammals will track suitable habitats as they shift, but does so in visually stunning animation across all of North and South America. Using flow models from circuit theory and a foundation in previously graphed wind maps, Dan Majka from TNC created a map in motion that highlights the spatial patterns of the future.
Based on coarse 50 km data, the map reveals general key corridors across both continents, such as the Appalachian Mountains of the eastern U.S. and the northeastern corner of Canada. Many species in the Amazon will shift towards the higher elevations of Ecuador, and the tips of both continents can expect new migrations. The map creates a simple but powerful view of how climate change will impact the globe, and highlights how critical corridors will be to maintaining species diversity as the climate changes.
View the full map in high resolution at The Nature Conservancy
Predicting the future movement routes for 3000 species (July 2013)
Corridors as an effective means to achieve climate connectivity (June 2016)


text:
Sharyland ISD creating district-wide radio system
- Details
- Written by Jose de Leon III
The Sharyland school district is taking steps to strengthen security on campus thanks to a $166,000 federal grant the district is applying for.
At a board workshop last week, Sharyland district trustees were informed of the 2019-2021 School Safety and Security Grant which aids school districts in security improvement projects as they receive a cut of the $100 million total that makes up the grant.
The grant, district Technology Director David M. Culberson said, will help the district create a two-way radio system for the entire district to communicate with.
Read more: Sharyland ISD creating district-wide radio system

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In the past three weeks, I've been quite hectic trying to balance my life with two kids. With a new family addition, comes greetings, gifts and visitors. It's something I can't really control, a lot of people came to visit me and of course we are talking about family members, friends even neighbors. I'm grateful don't get me wrong but there are certain types of visitors that I cannot tolerate.
- The ones that shows up without a warning
I absolutely hate it when someone just shows up like that without letting me know, and it happened plenty of times while I was sleeping in my first week after giving birth. I'm really tired and barely sleeping from the baby crying along with the aches that comes after birth from stitches and back aches. I'm supposed to wake up and smile for them when I'm supposed to spend my time resting and healing ?
- The ones that come at wrong times
I hate when guests texts you that they are coming at a certain time because that's convenient for them only not for me, for example couple of guests came early in the morning. I'm supposed to bathe my baby and then feed her so she won't cry while I go to take a shower and be ready for those guests. Sometimes I can't be ready on time if my baby wants to feed longer or randomly cries because she needs cuddles and hugs, and that stresses me out.
- The ones that stay for too long
I'm already trying to manage my time in dealing with two kids, some guests don't understand that I cant sit with them for long and it gets awkward when I leave to feed my daughter and they just sit there in the living room apparently waiting for me. Keep your visit short and understand that I can't be with you for long when I'm needed by my child more.
- The ones that like to comment about your choice of the baby name
Mostly older people would do this, they'll comment about the name you chose for your baby like their opinion is very important. I feel names are more of a personal choice between the parents and others should understand that.
- The ones that keeps commenting about the baby
"oh the baby is crying, it must be because she's hungry"
Thanks for telling me, I didn't know that
Those know it all just irritates me, clearly stating the obvious. I know my child has colic, I know she's crying because she's either hungry or her diaper is dirty, or her tummy hurts. It may sound silly to others but it does irritates me for some reason.


text:
IPL 2017: Dominant Sunrisers Hyderabad Outclass Royal Challengers Bangalore By 35 Runs
April 06, 2017 12:10
Riding on Rashid Khan's 2/36 and fine batting by Yuvraj Singh, Sunrisers Hyderabad defeated Royal Challengers Bangalore by 35 runs in the event opener.
Defending champions Sunrisers Hyderabad registered their first win against Royal Challengers Bangalore by 35 runs
Afghanistan's Rashid Khan took 2 wickets on his IPL debut, conceding 36 runs in 2 overs
Bhuvneshwar Kumar bowled brilliantly in the death overs and took 2 wickets
Kedar Jadhav's run-out turned the match in Sunrisers Hyderabad's favour. He scored 31 off 16 balls
Riding on Yuvraj Singh's brilliant 62 from 27 balls, SRH scored 207 in 20 overs
Moises Henriques too contributed 52 runs in 37 balls. His innings included three fours and two sixes


text:
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Shadowboxing with a lepresean
"In spite of Hays' gross mischaracterization of Clark, you'll note that Clark clearly differentiates the three divine Persons simply because each Person does not think precisely the same set of thoughts. If Clark were a modalist, as Hays falsely charges, then all three Persons would think exactly the same thoughts simply because God would be numerically one Person. Each of the three 'Persons' would be different expressions of one Person."
This is inept on several grounds:
i) A modalist does distinguish the persons of the Trinity. Modalism doesn't deny the existence of personal distinctions in the Godhead.
What modalism denies, rather, is a distinction between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. Modalism distinguishes between appearance and reality. God is apparently Trinitarian, but really Unitarian.
ii) So the question at issue is not whether Clark differentiates the persons, but his principle of individuation. On Clark's model, what kind of distinguishing thoughts differentiate one Trinitarian person from another? Here are some of Clark's examples:
"Though they [the Persons of the Godhead] are equally omniscient, they do not all know the same truths. Neither the complex of truths we call the Farther nor those we call the Spirit, has the proposition, 'I was incarnated.' This proposition occurs only in the Son's complex. Other examples are implied. The Father cannot say, 'I walked from Jerusalem to Jericho."
Notice that these are propositions about the world, not propositions about God in himself. They involve God's economic relations. God's relation to the world.
That principle of individuation reduces the immanent Trinity to the economic Trinity–which is classic modalism.
iii) At this point, the only possible way to rescue Clark from modalism is to resort to pantheism. If you argue that God is identical with the world, then economic Trinitarian distinctions would be equivalent to immanent Trinitarian relations.
Either way you carve it up, Clark's position is heretical. It's just a choice of heresies: either pantheism or modalism.
"So much for Hays' charge that Clark was a modalist."
And so much for Gerety's countercharge that Clark was not.
"As far as Hays' even wilder charge that Clark is guilty of 'pantheistic idealism' for defining a person as a congeries of thoughts, I suppose Solomon was also guilty of 'pantheistic idealism' when he wrote; 'For as a man thinks within himself, so he is.' "
i) Notice that Gerety doesn't attempt to directly refute my charge. But my charge follows from a premise supplied by Clark. If a human being is reducible to a set of divine ideas, then a human being is consubstantial with the Godhead.
ii) Quoting Prov 31:7 is no counterargument to the charge of pantheistic idealism, for Clark and Gerety construe the passage idealistically. So you end up with a theistic version of objective idealism–a la Berkeley.
iii) It's also striking that Gerety is too incompetent to even exegete his prooftext. Here is the complete verse:
"For he is like one who is inwardly calculating. 'Eat and drink!' he says to you, but his heart is not with you" (ESV).
Notice that this verse sets up a contrast between what people say and what they actually think (to themselves). That involves a dualistic contrast between the spoken word and the private thought.
Yet idealism is monistic. So this is not a prooftext for idealism. Just the opposite.
"Of course, since no two people think precisely the same thoughts, no two people are the same person."
i) That doesn't rescue Clark from the charge of pantheistic idealism. One human being may have a different set of thoughts than another human being, but ultimately, in Clark's ontology, human thoughts are divine thoughts. God's concept of this or that human being.
ii) Moreover, how does Gerety even know about other people or other minds? What's his point of access?
"Obviously this last accomplishment is something intolerable to confused Vantilians like Hays where God is said to be one Person and three Persons at the same time."
i) I invite Gerety to quote me on that. Let him document where I ever said that.
ii) In addition, it's meaningless to say what a timeless God is like or unlike "at the same time."
What does Gerety's denial amount to? If he denies that God is one person and three persons "at the same time," does that stand in contrast to what God is like at different times? Is that Gerety's distinction?
"Indeed, no man can learn what the Bible teaches through the use of his senses. Contrary to Hays, this is not a view exclusive to Scripturalism. Paul said, 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Cor 2:14). The things of God are 'spiritually' and not, as Hays would have us believe, physically or sensually discerned. Hays seems to think men learn with they eyes in their heads and even come to Christ via his untenable and unbiblical theory of 'sense knowledge'."
The problems multiply for Sean's position:
i) The very paragraph I quoted is a sensory object. Sean typed this paragraph on a computer keyboard, the posted it on his blog. The Internet is a sensory mode of communication.
Sean had to type visible letters, composing visible words.
ii) Sean quotes 1 Cor 2:14. Hmm. That comes from a letter which Paul wrote (or dictated) to the Corinthians. The process involves the production of a visible text. Inscribing letters on papyrus. The letter was then read aloud to the Corinthians. The lector used his eyes to read Paul's letter while the audience uses their ears to hear the recitation.
iii) Sean also quotes from an English version of 1 Cor 2:14. In particular, the KJV.
How did Sean become acquainted with the KJV? Did he read it?
Of did the Holy Spirit upload the KJV of 1 Cor 2:14 directly into Gerety's mind? Is the Holy Spirit a KJV-Onlyist?
When a Catholic quotes from the NJB, or a feminist quotes from the TNIV, or a cultist quotes from the NWT, is the Holy Spirit uploading different translations?
iv) How did Sean acquire his knowledge of English? When the Holy Spirit uploads 1 Cor 2:14 directly into Gerety's mind, does the Holy Spirit also upload a working knowledge of Elizabethan English? Is this like "Spock's Brain," where McCoy acquires instant knowledge of brain transplant surgery through a neural interface?
v) Does the Holy Spirit upload the complete text of Scripture directly into the mind of every Christian?
vi) On a Scripturalist epistemology, how do English words correspond to Greek and Hebrew words? And how do Greek and Hebrew words correspond to concepts?
vii) Notice that Gerety doesn't actually bother to exegete his prooftext. He makes no effort to demonstrate that Paul is setting up a contrast between what is spiritual and what is physical.
The actual point of contrast is between the regenerate and the unregenerate, not between the material and the immaterial. Paul himself made use of physical materials to convey 1 Cor 2:14 to the Corinthians. He dictated written words, to be seen or heard.
"Notice, those who saw Jesus with their eyes, heard Him teach, witnessed His miracles, and who were perhaps even healed by the touch of His hand, all drew the wrong conclusion about who Jesus was with the exception of Peter."
But Jesus himself appeals to his words and works:
"I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me" (Jn 10:25).
"Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves" (Jn 14:11).
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin" (Jn 15:22).
And what about the folks who "drew the wrong conclusions" from his words and works? Are they culpable? Why would they be culpable if they can't learn about Jesus from his words and works?
To the contrary, it's because these sensory media convey genuine information about Jesus that his listeners (to his words) or eyewitnesses (to his works) are blameworthy if they respond in disbelief.
"Did Peter simply have better eyesight whereas the rest needed glasses? Were his auditory nerves more sensitive while the rest were in need of hearing aids? Of course not. Jesus said that God the Father had revealed the truth about Jesus immediately to Peter's mind and to the saving of his soul."
Of course, Peter was an apostle. We expect Peter to be a recipient of divine revelation.
Does Gerety take the position that every Christian is privately inspired? If doctrinal truths a directly revealed to every Christian, then the Bible is not the only source of knowledge.
Biblical knowledge is mediate knowledge, not immediate knowledge. Our knowledge of revealed truths is mediated by the instrumentality of the written word.
"Jesus said that Peter did not come to this knowledge by the means of 'flesh and blood,' which is just another way of saying Peter did not come to the truth of Christ through Hays' empirically discerned and oxymoronic 'sense knowledge'."
Didn't come to which truth about Christ? Didn't come to any truth about Christ?
Does Gerety take the position that Peter couldn't learn anything about the teaching of Christ by hearing him preach the Sermon on the Mount? Does Gerety take the position that Peter couldn't learn anything about the mission of the Holy Spirit by hearing Christ deliver the Upper Room discourse?
On Gerety's view, why did Jesus ever speak? Ever open his mouth? Why did Jesus ever perform a miracle?
To draw a distinction between sense knowledge and saving knowledge does nothing to salvage Gerety's position.
Did I ever equate the two? No. There's an elementary distinction between knowing the truth and responding appropriately. The devil is a very erudite theologian. The devil is not an unbeliever because his knowledge of theology is deficient.
Rather, the devil is simply defiant. He rebels against a known truth. Sins against the light.
"Besides, and according to Jonathan Edwards, 'light and knowledge is always spoken of [in Scripture] as immediately given of God,' and if immediately given, then it follows that 'light and knowledge' cannot be mediated through the senses."
i) If all knowledge is immediately given by God, then the Bible is not the only source of knowledge. Indeed, on that view, the Bible is not even a partial source of knowledge.
ii) Does Scripture always speak of knowledge as immediately given by God? The claim is self-refuting. If Edwards is appealing to Scripture, then he is dependent on Scripture rather than immediate knowledge.
"Edwards would have little in common with Hays."
Edwards is not my rule of faith. And claiming that Edwards says Scripture says something is not the same thing as documenting what Scripture actually says.
That's a claim about Scripture, not a claim from Scripture itself.
"The above is one of many pinaetas Hays has formed in his own mind and for his own destructive amusement. Too bad it has nothing to do with the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark. Nowhere have I said that we learn what the Bible teaches through 'innate knowledge'." Nowhere has Clark said that we learn what the Bible teaches through 'innate knowledge'."
For someone to prides himself on his logicality, it's ironic to see how clueless Gerety is. Was I imputing that position to Sean? No. Was I imputing that position to Clark? No.
Rather, I was using a standard form of argument: process of elimination.
How does a Scripturalist know Scripture? If he denies sense knowledge, then what remaining options are available to him?
"Clark did argue that all men possess the apriori or innate equipment that makes knowledge possible. For example, in his book, The Biblical Doctrine of Man, Clark makes an extended argument that the image of God in man is logic and the forms of logic make up the architecture of man's mind and which presupposes communication between God and man, man and man, and even righteousness and sin."
Notice that Sean is fudging. By his own admission, man does possess innate knowledge of logic.
But in that case, Scripture is not the only source of knowledge. And this is not a trivial exception.
"We also learn in Romans that men also have God's law written on their minds and that even apart from the revelation of the law given to Moses, their conscience bear witness to the Law as 'their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (Romans 2:15)'."
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is the correct interpretation of Rom 2:15 (pace Cranfield, Jewett, Wright), this would involve another major exception to Scripturalist epistemology.
That's a classic form of natural law theology. Thomas Aquinas would appreciate Gerety's concession.
According to Gerety, man enjoys innate knowledge of logic as well as innate knowledge of morality.
Gerety has now torpedoed his Scripturalist epistemology by two fatal concessions.
"Quite apart from the revelation of Scripture it would be impossible to know anything about the apriori in man."
That doesn't follow from what Gerety previously said. Quite the contrary. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Scripture vouches for man's innate knowledge of logic and morality, this doesn't mean it would be impossible to know about our a priori logical or morality apart from Scripture.
Indeed, if we possess an innate knowledge of logical and morality, then we don't need Scriptural revelation to that effect. That, at most, would be confirmatory.
Apart from Scripture we might not know their source of origin, but that doesn't mean we couldn't know the end-product. Even if we didn't know that our innate knowledge was innate, we'd still possess innate knowledge.
Knowing about knowledge is second-order knowledge. Not to be confused with the primary object of knowledge.
"I hardly think even Hays would want to replace the Biblical apriori for, say, Kant's categories?"
In what sense is innate knowledge a Biblical "a priori"? If it's innate, then it's not supplied by Scripture. At best, Scripture corroborates this phenomenon or identifies the source.
It's given in Scripture in the sense that Scripture (allegedly) mentions it, but it's not given by Scripture, as if Scripture were the source.
Sean is trying to play both sides of the fence. The result is to fall on one side, then the other side.
If Scripture is the only source of knowledge, then no knowledge can be innate. If some knowledge is innate, then Scripture cannot be the only source of knowledge. There is no middle ground.
"But, who knows? Perhaps Kant's categories are 'properly basic' and constitute 'knowledge' for Hays as well."
i) Sean hasn't shown that I subscribe to Reformed epistemology.
ii) And even if I did, properly basic beliefs are not equivalent to knowledge in Reformed epistemology.
One of Sean's many problems is that he can't deal with real live opponents. That would require him to think on his feet. And he has no capacity to do that.
Instead, Sean begins with a generic position like empiricism or Reformed theology–not that he even has an accurate grasp of the generic positions.
He then tries to pigeon hole his opponent into one of these generic positions, regardless of whether that's an accurate description of his opponent's position.
This makes it easier for Sean. Sean needs all the crutches he can reach for.
It has nothing to do with what I actually believe, or Manata, or Sudduth.
"I will say that somehow and somewhere Clark's critics seemed to have picked up the idea that Clark argued that all true propositions are innate in man and that coming to the truth in Scripture is merely a stimulus for recollection of propositions already present or residing within man. I don't know if that is the cause of Hays' error here, but I suspect it is."
Case in point. Notice that Sean isn't responding to anything I actually said. He can't point to anything I said to bear out this contention.
Sean keeps tilting at windmills because he's too incompetent to deal with a real live opponent. Sean can't think for himself. Sean can only regurgitate the arguments of Gordon Clark and John Robbins.
Unless something is written down on his cue cards, Sean is helpless to respond.
"What Clark denied is that knowledge is mediated through the senses and that so-called 'sense knowledge' is nothing more than an unsupported and giant petitio."
Consider that sentence. Sean typed that sentence on a computer keyboard, then posted it on the Internet. That sentence is, itself, a sensory object.
The sentence that "sense knowledge is nothing more than an unsupported and giant petitio," is, itself, a sensory object. Hence, Sean's assertion of a petitio is, itself a petitio.
For someone who fancies himself a Christian rationalist, you'd be hard put to find someone quite as obtuse as Sean Gerety. He's like a bird that keeps flying into the same window.
The bird hits a window. Is momentarily dazed. Then it flies back into the window a second time, and a third, and a fourth…
Poor little Gerety keeps banging his birdbrain against the same window. Thump, thump, thump. Bump, bump, bump. He can't kick the habit of typing self-refuting statements. That's because Scripturalism is incoherent. There's no consistent way to argue for Scrituralism.
He'd be safer in a cage. Barring that, perhaps we could buy him a helmet.
"We know the above saints existed and still exist because the Scriptures say so."
Which ducks the question of how Sean can know what the Scriptures say.
What is Sean going to do? Quote the King James Bible? Yeah, that's a great way to prove Scripturalism.
"The saints listed above are accounted for in accordance with the axiom of the Christian faith; the Scriptures."
But Sean can't know what the Scriptures say. Heck, Sean can't even know if the Scriptures exist. He can only opine, which is indistinguishable from sheer ignorance.
"Does Hays really believe the Scriptures are some kind of paper pope that he can parade around when he's pretending to do 'apologetics'?"
Scripture is my paper pope, while Robbins is his paper pope. I like my pope better than his.
"Rather than ink marks on the pages of a black book, the Scriptures are the eternal thoughts of God who alone is Truth."
And how do finite creatures access the eternal thoughts of God? Is Sean God? Is Sean's mind God's mind?
The Scriptures are not God's eternal thoughts. The Scriptures are a set of writings. That's why they're called "scriptures." They inscripturate revelation.
Moses wrote the Pentateuch (e.g. Exod 24:20). Luke wrote the gospel bearing his name (Lk 1:3). John wrote the gospel bearing his name (Jn 21:24). John wrote Revelation (e.g. Rev 1:11). Paul wrote Romans (Rom 15:15).
The Scriptures are a storage and retrieval mechanism. That's how we access God's revelation to Israel. That's how we access God's revelation to the church. That's why God inspired prophets and apostles to commit his revelations to writing.
"Hays seem to be under some delusion that if knowledge is not acquired through the senses then no knowledge is possible at all."
Which I never said or implied. But the Bible is a sensory object. If sense knowledge is impossible, then the Bible is unknowable.
"If Hays' arguments (or, better, assertions) were true, then God could also know nothing for the simple reason that God has no sense organs."
As usual, Sean is burning a straw man. Sean can't handle a real live opponent.
"Silly me."
For once, Sean says something I agree with. I commend his self-assessment. For a fleeting moment of lucidity, he nails his own position for what it is.
"First, Hays claims to know through observing 999 ravens that 999 ravens are black. The problem is, Hays' observations do not permit him to conclude anything true about ravens or anything else for that matter."
Of course it does. It permits me to conclude that 999 ravens are black. As a result of observing 999 black ravens, I know something true about ravens: to wit, at least 999 ravens are black.
That's something about ravens I would not have known apart from observation.
"The most he can say is that some ravens are black, but he can never know if the proposition 'ravens are black' pertains to all ravens that are now, were, or forever more will be."
Let's see. What did I originally say? Sean even quotes me. I said:
"That doesn't tell me that all ravens are black, or even that most ravens are black. But it does tell me that some ravens are black."
How does Sean respond to that statement? He says:
"The most he can say is that some ravens are black, but he can never know if the proposition 'ravens are black' pertains to all ravens that are now, were, or forever more will be."
Isn't that a paraphrase of what I originally said? Did I claim that enumerative induction can justify a universal inference? No. In fact, I explicitly said otherwise.
How does Sean respond? He objects to my statement by essentially paraphrasing my statement. Can you get any dumber than that?
But this is Sean's problem. Because he can't think for himself, he can't adapt to a novel argument. All he can do is recite his cue cards. If it's not in his cue cards, he's at a total loss.
Sean has his little set of scripted objections and pat answers. For example, he has some scripted objections to empiricism. And he's spoiling for a stereotypical empiricist to come along.
Sean's problem is that I departed from the script. But because Sean can't ad lib, he's at a loss. All he can do is to stick to his script, even if it's completely unresponsive to what his opponent actually said.
For someone who lauds the primacy of the intellect, Sean is a study in anti-intellectualism. He's a jukebox, programmed to play the greatest hits of Gordon Clark and John Robbins.
That's why you can't have a rational exchange with Gerety. It's like trying to debate a jukebox. All you can do is put in your nickels and dimes and quarters and listen to him replay the golden oldies of dead Scripturalists.
"Observing that 999 ravens are black isn't to arrive at any 'knowledge' at all and provides us with no final truth (pardon the redundancy), no knowledge about ravens, or anything else."
i) To the contrary, I arrive at knowledge about the pigmentation of 999 ravens. And that's a truth. It's not the only truth. But it's true about those 999 ravens, at the time I saw them.
ii) Sean keeps tacking on this disclaimer about "anything else." What's that supposed to mean? How is that relevant?
No, observing 999 ravens doesn't necessarily tell me about anything else. It doesn't tell me about swans. So what?
How is it a problem for observation to say that observing one sort of thing doesn't necessarily tell me anything about something else I didn't observe?
Suppose I break my arm falling off a horse. The doctor x-rays my arm. Observing the fracture doesn't tell him anything about the value of the Euro in relation to the yen, but what does that have to do with anything?
This is the kind of rank stupidity you get in dealing with a Scripturalist.
"Any conclusions that Hays might make about ravens from his multiple observations must remain tentative at best."
Tentative in relation to what? The 999 black ravens I saw? What's tentative about that? I saw 999 black ravens.
From observing 999 black ravens, I conclude that there are at least 999 black ravens. What's tentative about that conclusion?
That it's tentative to extrapolate from 999 ravens to every raven? Sure. But that's a different issue. That doesn't render the conclusion regarding the 999 ravens the least bit tentative. At best, it would only be tentative in relation to other ravens, outside the sample.
"His argument, provided we simply grant that it's true and that he even observed 999 ravens, is that some ravens are black."
Which would be true. It would be true that some ravens are black. That's true for 999 ravens. That's an object of knowledge.
Gerety can't bring himself to admit the obvious–even when it's staring him in the face–because his belief-system is too fragile to survive any internal adjustments.
"Some ravens might be brown, white or blue too."
Of course, we could only find that out through observation. So Sean's objection presupposes the value of observation to discover counterexamples. Thanks, Sean, for making my point!
"Knowledge, properly understood, is concerned with the truth, not whether something might be true, or may be true in 'some' cases, but that which is always true and in every case."
I see. So unless everyone is going to heaven, no one is going to heaven. Unless everyone is going to hell, no one is going to hell.
Unless everyone can change water into wine, no one can change water into wine.
According to Sean, the miracle at Cana is unknowable. According to Sean, unique events are unknowable. Even rare or frequent events are unknowable.
According to Sean, the only knowable events are events that happen in every single case.
And, of course, as a card-carrying Scripturalist, Sean learned that from the Bible. There are no unique events in Scripture. Or merely rare or frequent events.
So Sean denies the Virgin Birth. You see, knowledge, properly understood, is concerned with the truth, not whether something might be true, or may be true in 'some' cases, but that which is always true and in every case. Unless everyone is virgin-born, no one is virgin-born.
BTW, Sean Gerety's middle name is Troeltsch.
"Induction can never arrive at one universally true statement like 'all men are sinners'."
That's only a problem if all truths are universal truths. What if some truths are unique, unrepeatable truths?
"There is no 'all' in inductive arguments, there is only 'some' and 'maybe.' This is the real limitation of Hays' so-called 'sense knowledge.' It can never arrive at the knowledge of anything at all."
i) Statements about "something" or "someone" or 'sometime" or "somewhere" can't be true. Sean knows this because Sean, as a good Scripturalist, derives all his knowledge from Scripture, and Scripture itself never makes sortal statements like "They saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed" (Mk 7:2), or "There are some of you who do not believe" (Jn 6:64), or "In order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them" (Rom 11:14), or "The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later" (1 Tim 5:24).
ii) Incidentally, to say that sense-knowledge is limited is hardly an argument against the possibility of sense knowledge. That's a brazen non sequitur.
"Further, Hays simply begs the question when he claims to have observed 999 black ravens. He has never demonstrated his claim, he merely asserts it. He doesn't show how one can start with sensation and arrive at the true proposition that even 1 raven is black. Hays hasn't even defined what he means by sensation, nor has he shown that men have them, but I suspect it has something to do with his 'observations'."
i) Of course, this very paragraph, which involves a denial of sense knowledge is, itself, a sensory object. A string of visible letters, comprising visible words and sentences. So, if anything, the burden of proof lies squarely on Sean to demonstrate his empirical claim that no empirical claim is demonstrable. Sean keeps banging his own head against his own window–feathers flying every which ways.
ii) Gerety hasn't shown what it means to "show how one can start with sensation and arrive at the true proposition that even1 raven is black."
He hasn't even defined what it means to show it, much less shown it.
iii) For that matter, why do we have to define something to know something? Does a baby not know what a breast is unless he can define a breast?
Lion cubs and bear cubs seem to know a breast when they see it. Yet I doubt the average bear cub could define the term.
iv) Moreover, why is Sean raising philosophical objections to sense-knowledge? Why does he retreat to "vain philosophy"?
The so-called problem of induction is a philosophical problem. But Sean is a Scripturalist.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I can't formally justify sense-knowledge? So what? That's not a Scriptural objection, now is it?
And unless it's a Scriptural objection, it's not a knowledgeable objection. At best it's an opinionated objection, which is indistinguishable from an ignorant objection.
v) Speaking of Scripture, doesn't the Bible use color terms? You know, statements like, "And I looked, and behold, a white horse!…And out came another horse, bright red…And I looked, and behold, a black horse!…I looked, and behold, a pale horse!" (Rev 6:2-8).
John is using Greek color terms. These terms have their origin in secular Greek usage. Greek speakers coined certain words to distinguish one color from another. And that, in turn, is based on their observation of the world.
Or consider Jesus giving street directions: "Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters" (Lk 22:10); "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying" (Acts 9:11).
It takes sensory perception to follow these directions. To match a verbal description with a sensory counterpart.
Scripturalism is a giant fraud. Scripturalism is a philosophical position, not a Scriptural position. Scripturalism begins with schoolboy objections to empiricism. It didn't get any of that from Scripture. Rather, it got that from Sophism and Platonism and Neoplatonism and Hume.
It then proceeds to graft an essentially philosophical and secular theory of knowledge onto Scripture. But no one who took his cue from Scripture alone would advance such a skeptical view of sense-knowledge or induction.
"Notice what Hays does here in this long convoluted example. He has substituted his own pragmatic assumptions concerning the reliability of his keyboard with knowledge. He doesn't know that when he hits the symbol 'A' on his computer keyboard that an 'A' will appear on his desktop, he just assumes it will simply because he assumes his keyboard is 'functioning properly.'
Sean typed these sentences on a computer keyboard. What did he expect to happen when he depressed certain keys in a certain order?
If an artifact is designed to perform a particular function, and we've tested it, then we can expect it to function in the way it was designed. Sean himself operates with that expectation. Do you think Sean bought a computer with no expectation that it would perform according to specifications?
And that expectation isn't based on induction alone. Rather, it's based on design.
It's the same way with the natural world. God has designed the natural world to function in certain ways.
And we are to plan our lives accordingly. Seedtime and harvest (Gen 8:22).
"How this 'proper functionality' is supposed to equate to knowledge Hays doesn't say. Not only does he admit that it is possible that a 'random number of cases a keystroke won't yield the corresponding letter,' it only has to occur once to disprove his truth claim."
To begin with, God doesn't require us to know the future when he requires us to plan for the future. Only God has a detailed knowledge of the future. Yet the fool in Proverbs is reproved for his failure to think ahead. Failure to make provision for tomorrow.
So God often requires us to act on probabilities rather than certainties. And proper functionality is quite relevant to probabilities.
You can have a reasonable expectation, even if your expectation falls short of knowledge. Even if your expectations are sometimes mistaken.
ii) Moreover, a solitary exception doesn't disprove my claim, since there is no expectation that a keyboard will never malfunction. The expectation, rather, is that my keyboard will function properly often enough to get the job done.
That is how Sean himself proceeds. Does Sean think his keyboard is either totally reliable or totally unreliable? No.
iii) Moreover, malfunctions don't destroy the possibility of knowledge. They only destroy the possibility of knowledge in case of malfunction, not in all the other cases of proper function.
For example, people sometimes miscommunicate. Fail to understand each other. The message is garbled in transmission.
Does this mean that people never successfully communicate with each other? No.
Indeed, if successful communication were rendered impossible due to instances of miscommunication, it would be impossible to even detect instances of miscommunication.
"Could anything be more bankrupt or more paltry than Hays' 'knowledge' claims? He confuses his own 'well-placed confidence' in the reliability of his keyboard with knowledge."
i) Well-placed confidence can have a basis in knowledge. If I know an artifact was designed to perform a particular function, knowledge of its design undergirds my confidence. Likewise, if I have experience using the product, then I know that it's worked well in the past.
ii) Even if experience alone didn't warrant an extrapolation from the past to the future, experience is still a source of knowledge–knowledge of the past. Even if the future turned out to be completely dissimilar to the past, knowledge of the past doesn't cease to be knowledge just because it isn't a guide to the future.
Consider Sean's own behavior Sean talks like Clark, but acts like Butler. His lips say one thing, but his fingers tell another story.
"Hays talks about memories being "sufficiently reliable," but sufficiently reliable according to whom? "
i) Well, far starters, what about Sean Gerety? Does Gerety not rely on his own memory? Everyday and every waking hour of the day?
Does Sean think that his own memories are either totally reliable or totally unreliable?
Does Sean think that someone with a photographical memory is no better off than someone with senile dementia?
Does Sean remember his wife? Does Sean remember his neighbor's wife? Does Sean remember the difference?
Does Sean remember where to find his house? Does Sean remember how to type? Does Sean remember which key corresponds to which operation?
Does Sean remember the Bible? Does Sean remember where to find the Book of Isaiah or the Gospel of John? Does Sean remember Jn 3:16?
We don't have to have perfectly reliable senses or perfectly reliable memories. Rather, we have to rely on what God has given us. God, in his providence, makes use of our senses and memories–including our misperceptions and faulty recollections.
Has Sean ever forgotten anything? Has Sean every misremembered anything? Does Sean thereafter avoid any reliance on his senses or memories in case they ever let him down?
ii) As a Scripturalist, we can rest assure Sean developed his skepticism about our memories from reading Scripture. Unless our memories are infallible, the Bible would never admonish us to "Remember this day in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of slavery, for by a strong hand the Lord brought you out from this place" (Exod 13:3), or "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exod 20:8), or "Set the two stones on the shoulder pieces of the ephod, as stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel" (Exod 28:2), or "Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent." (Rev 3:3), or tell us, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19).
Commands like that would betray a "paltry" and "bankrupt" pragmatism.
i) As I've said before, Scripturalism doesn't derive from Scripture. Rather, it's a philosophical position. And it's based on a very one-sided reading of philosophy at that. Conventional objections to empiricism. No discussion of how empiricists respond to conventional objections. No discussion of the objections which empiricists level against rationalists.
ii) Sean hates the world God gave us. Sean is at war with God's handiwork. He doesn't trust God. He distrusts our God-given faculties–even though he himself can't avoid his utter and inescapable dependence on the very faculties he derides.
"Also, it would seem sense perception is synonymous to memory."
Which I never said or implied. Sean is so illiterate.
"Memory is notoriously UN-reliable along with eyewitness testimony (which, I would think, is another case of 'sense perception'). Perhaps Hays should spend some time on jury duty. But, even if he never enters a courtroom, he should at least spend some time considering the epistemic implications of the musical, Gigi."
And perhaps Gerety should spend some time considering the epistemic implications of testimonial evidence in Scripture.
"Even Hays admits that senses 'deceive us' and that 'memories sometimes fail,' yet he claims that through the deceptions and failures he can deduce 'natural patterns' and 'recognize design.' Hays says that we are to plan for the future based on these deceptive sensations and failed memories."
With Gerety, it's always hard to tell if he's quite as stupid as he sounds. Should we give him the benefit of the doubt?
i) There's a difference between the claim that a faculty, which is sometimes unreliable, is a source of knowledge–and the claim a faculty is a source of knowledge when it's unreliable. Is Gerety too dense to distinguish between these to very different propositions?
ii) Some animals have better daytime vision than nighttime vision, while other animals have better nighttime vision than daytime vision.
Poor nighttime vision doesn't cast doubt on good daytime vision. Poor daytime vision doesn't cast down on good nighttime vision.
Memory and sensory perception are modes of knowledge when they are functioning properly. They are not modes of knowledge when they malfunction.
Likewise, a car doesn't drive very well when it has a flat tire. This doesn't mean it makes no difference if you change the tire.
ii) Gerety cannot avoid the vicissitudes of fallible memory. Does Gerety have an infallible memory? No.
Yet everything he thinks he knows depends on memory. Short-term memory. Long-term memory.
iii) Unlike Gerety, I acknowledge the limitations of human finitude. But that's nothing to fret over as long as we are finite creatures of an infinite Creator. God sees to it that his people know what they need to know when they need to know it. And God can keep us in his will even when we don't know his will. Due to his all-embracing providence, we can do his will without knowing it–in advance of the fact. Indeed, at a decretive level, we cannot avoid doing his will. And those who consciously avoid God's will unconsciously fulfill his will.
"Yet, in contrast to Hays irrational trust in his failed memories and faulty 'sense perceptions' as he 'plans for the future,' James tells us that all such planning is sinful."
James doesn't say we should distrust our senses or memories. And James doesn't say we shouldn't make plans. Rather, James says we shouldn't act presumptuously. We could make allowance for the fact that our plans may not dovetail with God's plans.
We have the same balance in Proverbs. On the one hand, the wise make preparations for the future. Have contingency plans. On the other hand, the wise also realize that human beings are shortsighted. The disposition of the world ultimately lies in God's beneficent, but sometimes inscrutable, hands.
In context, James is addressing wealthy Christians. Rich people have more power than poor people. More resources. More options.
As a result, they have rather more control over their circumstances than poor people. If they don't like their situation, they can often change it. They're not at the mercy of circumstances to quite the same degree.
This, in turn, can lead to overconfidence. That's what James is warning against. (See the commentaries by Blomberg and Moo for detailed exegesis).
That isn't contrary to my stated position. That doesn't support Gerety's position. Quite the opposite: that corroborates my own position. According to James, planning for the future can't be based on certainty, and, as such, ought not be based, on certainty. For certainly lies in God's good hands, and not our own.
"Notice too the many weasel words Hays uses in order to get his 'divine design' theory past the uncritical reader. The past we are told is a 'generally' reliable guide. The world functions in a 'fairly' predictable way. Correlations of cause and effect 'generally' obtain."
Sean typed this paragraph on a computer. Doesn't he believe his computer was designed to function in a generally reliable and–therefore–fairly predictable way? Doesn't he think that depressing a particular key in a particular order generally yields a predictable effect?
Would he invest is a generally unreliable computer? Would he buy a keyboard with unpredictable keystrokes? Doesn't he count on computer technology to be a blogger?
"Cause and effect are ideas not derived from observation."
i) I never said they were. To the contrary, I grounded cause and effect in the Biblical doctrine of created kinds.
ii) But where does Scripture say that ideas of cause and effect are not derived from observation? Sean didn't get that from the Bible. He got that from Hume. Hume is his Bible.
His objections to induction are drawn, not from Scripture, but from philosophy. And just one particular strand of philosophy at that.
"The exceptions to the rule, miracles, completely vitiate Hays' belief in so-called 'sense knowledge'."
Is that what Scripture says? Many Biblical miracles are public events. Deliberately so. Take the plagues of Egypt. These were meant to be a visible, tangible manifestation of God's power and judgment.
Miracles are sensory events. Far from vitiating sense-knowledge, they presuppose it.
"Frankly, Hays' belief in the past, cause and effect, not to mention observation would lead one to conclude that when ax heads are dropped they always fall to the ground..."
Notice that Sean isn't responding to anything I actually said. Indeed, his objection runs counter to my qualified statements.
As always, Sean is helpless to rebut an opponent whose objections and arguments don't conform to pat answers that Robbins drilled into his dutiful mascot. In the pecking order of Scripturalism, Sean is a poor man's Robbins, while Robbins is a poor man's Clark.
"Can there be anything more paltry and pathetic than Hays' 'divine design' epistemology? Christians cannot draw 'a universal inference from enumerative induction,' they only draw tentative or 'general' inferences. Of course, the reason that the Christian, just like the atheist, cannot draw any universal inferences from their 'enumerative inductions' is because the form of the conclusion is not the same as the form of the premises. Or, to put it another way, the reason Christians do not draw universal inferences from 'enumerative inductions' is because all such conclusion are fallacious; they are false. Induction is just as fallacious for the Christian as it is for the atheist. Nothing in Hays' 'divine design' theory makes any conclusions he might draw from his observations any less fallacious."
i) The reason Gerety can't tell the difference between a Christian outlook and a godless outlook is that Gerety's own outlook is indistinguishable from a godless outlook. Gerety's mentor is Hume, not Scripture.
For Hume, enumerative inductions are all we have to go by. That's because Hume lacks a doctrine of divine creation or providence.
But Christians have a reason, above and beyond the past itself, to suppose the future will generally resemble the past. Take Gen 1, with its doctrine of natural kinds. Organisms reproduce after their kind.
Now, this doesn't preclude a miraculous conception. And, in a fallen world, it doesn't preclude birth defects. Freak mutations.
Things can malfunction. Or God can bypass the ordinary process.
But, as a rule, things reproduce according to their kind. And that's something we depend on. For selective breeding and agriculture. It's also something we depend on when we marry. Not in the sense that men can't be impotent or women can't be barren. But fertility is the default assumption. Moreover, we assume that men beget men, not kitten.
Likewise, crops can fail–due to drought or infestation. Do we therefore refrain from sowing seed? Would Gerety have us go on a hunger strike unless God guarantees a bumper crop?
Sean suffers from the same mentality as a psychic. He can't leave the outcome to God. No, he has to divine the outcome for himself. Play his Clarkian Tarot cards.
"As we have seen, Hays is not interested in knowledge."
This is from a man who says you can never trust your own memories. Well, as far as knowledge goes, once you eliminate memory, what is left?
Say the present moment is 7:55:48. Everything before that, beginning at 7:55:47, lies in the past. The remembered past. But according to Gerety, memory is not a source of knowledge. So what does Gerety know? At 7:55:48, he knows nothing that happened a second before. Nothing a minute ago, or ten minutes ago.
"Epistemology for him is simply a game of chance."
i) As long as God is the croupier, I'm game to play epistemological roulette. I roll the dice God's given me. After all, casting lots is a biblical practice. Does a Scripturalist disapprove of Scripture?
ii) Anyway, Gerety is just posturing. Imagine a world that operated according to Scripturalist principles.
Suppose that Gerety parks his car in a numbered slot on a numbered floor of a public garage, then returns an hour later. Keep in mind that, in Gerety's world, there's no presumption that the future bears any resemblance to the past. His car may vanish into thin air the moment his back is turned.
So, in Gerety's world, returning to the parking garage is fraught with adventure.
Does he remember where he parked his car? Yet memory is hopelessly unreliable. But even if he does remember, there's no expectation that his car will still be in the same slot, or even on the same floor. The floors may have changed places while he was away. Numbers on parking slots may have erased themselves and renumbered themselves.
Does he remember what his car looks like? Does he remember the color? Oh, but that would rely on sensation. Unless he can first define sensation, he doesn't have a clue whether his car is black or white or pink or purple or green or yellow or orange.
Suppose, by luck, he stumbles across his car. But he needs to double-check the serial number. The serial number may have added a digit or dropped a digit or reversed a digit from one hour to the next. After all, there's absolutely no presumption that the future ever resembles the past.
Suppose he checks the serial number. It's the same. Or it? For one thing, he can't trust his memory. Yes, he just checked in 30 seconds ago, but maybe he's already forgotten it. Or maybe he correctly remembers what he saw 30 seconds ago, but misremembers what it was an hour ago, when he parked the car. He can't compare one memory with another.
Or even if he remembers what it was, it may change by the time he leaves the parking garage. After all, there's no presumptive continuity between past and present.
For all he knows, his car may mutate into an enchilada while he's on the freeway. A speeding enchilada, fueled by hot tamales and unleaded Tabasco sauce.
Or what about the empty tomb? Sure, the body wasn't there was when Peter and John and Mary Magdalene were poking around. But maybe, in Gerety's discontinuous universe, the dead body appears and disappears and reappears. When someone's looking, it isn't there. When someone's not looking, it's there.
Maybe that's what "really" happens when we misplace our keys. Our keys are such mischievous entities. They were there in the drawer all along, but as soon as we open the drawer, they become invisible. After all, you can't even know of something's visible unless you first define "invisible."
And you can't define something unless you can define "define." And you can't define "define" before you give an account of defining "define."
What is more, you can't account for your definition of "define" until you define "account."
And then you have to account for your definition of "account."
And before you do that, you have to deduce "define" from Scripture. But you can't deduce "define" from Scripture until you can define "deduce." Assuming you can account for your definition of "deduce."
"He's not interested in a method for discovering what is true,"
Ah, yes, Gerety's methodology. Of course, Gerety has to define "methodology." And account for his definition. And deduce his definition. And define deduction. And account for deduction. And account for the English word. And deduce the English word.
So I guess his methodology goes something like this:
Define "define" before you define "deduce" before you define "account" before you account for "define" before you account for "deduce" before you account for "account" before you deduce "define" before you deduce "deduce" before you deduce "account."
Or is more like: Deduce "define" before you deduce "deduce" before you deduce "account" before you account for "deduce" before you account for "account" before you define "define" before you define "deduce" before you define "account"?
Or maybe it's really like: Account for "define" before you account for "deduce" before you account for "account" before you deduce "define" before you deduce "deduce" before you deduce "account" before you define "define" before you define "deduce" before you define "account"?
Unless, of course, it's truly like: Deduce "deduce" before you deduce "account" before you account for "account" before you deduce "define" before you define "define" before you define "deduce" before you define "account."
Good thing Sean's methodology isn't "convoluted" like my "paltry" alternative.
At the end of the day, Gerety is a cultist–like Valentinus, Swedenborg, and Mary Baker Eddy. He has a secular epistemology which he derives, not from Scripture, but from his favorite philosophers. He superimposes that secular, extrascriptural grid onto Scripture. It functions as a filter to screen out Scriptural propositions which conflict with his secular, extrascriptural epistemology.
15 comments:
No idea what this post was about, as I couldn't be bothered to read the page upon page upon page upon page.ReplyDelete
Have mercy on your readers. It's a blog. Keep the posts short. One should never need to page down more than once or twice.
And... consider who precisely will read these posts line by line, hmm?
The first duty of every author is to engage the interest of the reader.
I don't treat my readers like 5-year-olds with ADS.ReplyDelete
No one is forcing someone else to read a post. And there's no reason to suppose that every post has to be equally interesting to every reader.
The length of a post is dictated by the subject-matter and the requirements of the argument or counterargument.
It may be an exercise in futility to debate a man who can never know when he's been beaten. >;)
Sean Gerety Says:ReplyDelete
It's always a good sign when your opponents are reduced to an emotive, abusive ad hominem and hate-filled screed. It means that all they can do is shoot blanks.
As I've said elsewhere, Vantilianism is on the way out. It has been repeatedly shown to be untenable and dangerously unbiblical, and given the incredible vitriolic froth the boys at Triblogue have worked themselves into, I consider it just more evidence that their irrational ship is sinking.
It's a relief to realize that Sean would never stoop to vitriolic froth or emotive, abusive ad hominem hate-filled screeds.
Paul Manata is in attack mode and frothing at the mouth after he saw the little video I posted from Pastor Kielar…
Manata goes on with the usual Vantilian bilge about paradoxical for us…
While watching Vantilians Paul Manata and Steve Hays get punch-drunk as they continue to shadow box over at Triblogue and convince themselves that they have somehow scored some points against the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark,
As we have seen in Round One, while admittedly doing a considerable amount of footwork and plenty of swinging and sweating, the Vantilian tag-team of Manata and Hays have been punching nothing but air and have proved to be lightweights.
Manata, who is clearly the less capable and agile of the pair, turned out to be a one trick pony. Manata was quickly reduced to merely repeating the same tired objection in mantra like fashion (or would that be Manatra like fashion), I suppose in the vain hope that his many words would substitute for substance. As we've seen in the first round, Mananta's argument has no weight as he continues to blindly ignore the biblical imperatives against false witness and slander.
It's appears that after 2 rounds of shadow boxing, Paul Manata threw in the towel as he was unable to form any cogent arguments and was reduced to mindless assertions along the lines of, "The senses are a source of knowledge." Well, of course they are Paul. They must be. After all you said they are. Meanwhile, Manata's tag-team partner, Steve Hays, keeps punching away practicing his combinations and upper cuts and actually attempted to advance an occasional argument. However, and along the way, Hays slipped on his own sweat and made some colossal blunders exposing how little Clark he has actually read, much less understood.
Instead of Christians being the ones who know the truth and who can give a reason for the hope that is within them, Hays would have us adopt the epistemology of Pagans, who, Paul tells us, are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
- Anonymous5/15/2009 12:38 AM
Steve, have you addressed the issue of contraception on your blog? I've looked through the topical index, but haven't found it. Sorry this is off topic on this post.ReplyDelete
i like long explanation keep it up.ReplyDelete
OLALEWANDOWSKI SAID:ReplyDelete
"Steve, have you addressed the issue of contraception on your blog? I've looked through the topical index, but haven't found it. Sorry this is off topic on this post."
My own position, briefly stated, is that as long as a contraceptive isn't designed to function as an aborifacient, artificial contraception is morally permissible.
How can you hold to realism for sense knowledge, but scientific anti-realism?
Mark Pendray said...ReplyDelete
"Steve,__How can you hold to realism for sense knowledge, but scientific anti-realism?"
Let's begin with science. The aim of science, from the standpoint of a scientific realism, is to describe what the naturally world is really like, on its own terms. To furnish a public, third-person description of the world. To close the gap between appearance and reality.
To achieve this objective, the scientist takes natural objects apart. Examines natural objects at higher and lower scales of magnification. Examines natural objects under different wavelengths. That sort of thing.
The scientist is attempting to strip away the secondary qualities and discover what the object is like in itself. To uncover the primary qualities.
But I don't see how scientific investigation can ever succeed at that level. For a scientist has to use his senses to study the natural world. Even when he uses various sensory enhancements, this is still patched into his sensory processing system.
So, ultimately, observation, including refined forms of scientific observation, are self-referential. The subject of knowledge (scientist) has to make himself the object of knowledge. He can never close the gap between appearance and reality. It's appearances all the way down.
For the study of sensory input is mediated by the sensory processing system. Ultimately, then, study of the external stimulus is reducible to study of the sensory processing.
And, of course, scientific analysis of sensory processing is circular inasmuch as that, of itself, is still, irreducibly, the outcome of sensory processing. We don't know what it's like, in itself. We only know what it appears like by, to, and for ourselves.
On the other hand, this doesn't mean the senses can't convey knowledge. For one thing, we can use sound waves and light waves as carrier waves to convey ideas.
I have an idea. To transmit that idea to another mind, I encode my idea in a sensory medium. There very fact that communication between two minds is often successful goes to show that you successfully decrypted the sensory code language.
God can do the same thing. But with a difference. God's knowledge of the world is not mediated by the senses. God is the ideal scientist inasmuch God enjoys a public, third-person perspective on natural objects. God knows what natural objects are like in themselves because he made them. They originate in his exemplary idea of natural objects. It's not an idea that he derives from natural objects. Rather, natural objects derive from his idea.
When God speaks to us in Scripture, that furnishes an external check on our own impressions. An intersubjectival reference point.
To be sure, Scripture is expressed in the idiom of human language, which is, in turn, modeled on our sensory impressions.
But the Bible asserts various things to be true of the natural world. As such, we know there is something that stands behind our bare impressions. Something which corresponds to our perceptions.
And we also know something about what that is like. For Scripture asserts it to be the case.
Therefore, I think that, with the benefit of revelation, sensory input enjoys more positive epistemic warrant than would be the case if we were condemned to the privacy of our sensory receptors and internal processing alone.
If I read in a reliable textbook that a scientist dropped a heavy and a light weight from the top of a building, expecting one to fall faster, and they fell at the same speed, would that count as knowledge?ReplyDelete
MARK PENDRAY SAID:ReplyDelete
"If I read in a reliable textbook that a scientist dropped a heavy and a light weight from the top of a building, expecting one to fall faster, and they fell at the same speed, would that count as knowledge?"
i) To begin with, there's a difference between scientific observations and scientific theories. You're describing an observation, not a theory.
As Richard Feynman points out in his book on The Character of Physical Law, scientific theories outstrip the evidence. As such, scientific theories are underdetermined by the evidence.
ii) It also depends on whether or not your example takes into account the corroborative lens of divine revelation. If all we were stuck with is our own observations, then we couldn't distinguish between appearance and reality.
A human scientist is not in the same position as God.
Thanks for the reply.ReplyDelete
Do you think all theories don't count as knowledge, or only scientific theories?
When you learn "music theory" do you acquire knowledge?
History is partly scientific, are you a historical anti-realist?
The question at issue is whether sensory perception allows us to know what sensory objects are like in themselves. I don't see that that's relevant to historical claims. HIstorical claims aren't ordinarily concerned with the relationship between primary qualities and secondary qualities.ReplyDelete
And to the extent that historical claims deal with imperceptible properties like the inner motives of a historical figure, sensory perception could never discern the motives, even if you're a direct realist.
The discernment of motives turns on a different principle: since human beings share a common human nature, as well as a common fallen nature, we can use ourselves (as well as the Bible) as a point of analogy.
Moreover, since Biblical events are reported in sensory language, that's the level at which we're to believe them.
For example, the miracle at Cana would look different if, instead of being described in terms of human sensory perception, it was described in terms of how it would appear to a bat or a bumble-bee or x-ray machine.
But sensory perception (or a written record thereof) is sufficient to affirm the miracle at Cana.
Are you saying that an object may feel hard, but we can't tell if it has the property of being hard (independent of us)?ReplyDelete
I'm saying that we can't tell, from sensation alone, the degree to which our mental impression matches the external stimulus. For all we have is the mental impression.ReplyDelete
Take the relation between music and a music score. On the one hand, there's a close correspondence between the music and the notes on the page.
Yet a music score doesn't resemble the music it scores. A music score doesn't make a sound.
It's a symbolic representation rather than a descriptive representation.


text:
Circulation Tips For New Moms-To-Be
At some point during their pregnancy, many women notice bulky bluish veins popping up on their legs. As your uterus grows, more pressure is put on your veins and it becomes harder for the blood circulation to leave your legs. Cold weather and being on your feet all day could also contribute to poor circulation. Varicose veins particularly affect women where it runs in their family.
Dr. Luis Navarro, Director of The Vein Treatment Center, has provided us with a few tips for new moms-to-be to help optimize blood circulation during pregnancy.
Tips to prevent or decrease varicose veins:
Get regular exercise. Any type of exercise that strengthens the "second heart" - the muscles of the calf and foot – is beneficial. Exercise for at least 30 minutes a day, 3 times a week. Suggested activities for pregnant women include walking and swimming. After baby is born add running and bicycling to your exercise rotation.
Wear graduated compression stockings. Compression stockings act like an added layer of muscle, aiding the performance of the "second heart" and venous circulation.
Avoid prolonged periods of sitting and standing. Rotate your ankles and feet whenever possible, walk for at least 10 minutes every hour, and point and flex your toes to promote leg vein circulation. If you're on bed rest during a portion of your pregnancy, make sure to still occasionally move your feet to help circulation.
Elevate your feet. Raise your feet 6 to 12 inches above your heart whenever possible to assist circulation.
Eat a high fiber and low salt diet. Salt retains water and constipation (a common pregnancy symptom) puts pressure on the venous system.
Maintain an appropriate body weight for your frame. Obesity can strain the circulatory system. While loosing weight during pregnancy is not advised, work with your doctor to make sure you are gaining the appropriate amount of weight throughout the duration of your pregnancy.
Wear loose-fitting clothing. Tight garments can restrict the flow of blood to and from the legs. Most maternity clothes have some give and room to grow in the construction so you can find a stylish option that will still show off your shape without being too tight.
Avoid crossing your legs. Leg crossing constricts veins and increases venous pressure. As your belly continues to grow, this position might not be comfortable for you anyways.
After baby is born
Monitor hormone intake. Birth control pills and hormone replacement therapy constrict blood vessels and can weaken vein valves and vein walls.
Consider dietary supplements. Vitamins C and E act as antioxidants, which are good for circulation. Flavonoids, Butcher's Broom, and Horse Chestnut Seed Extract (HCE50) improve venous circulation and decrease symptoms of venous disease. Note: If breastfeeding, consult your doctor about any supplements you plan to take to make sure it is safe for baby. Not enough is known about the safety of using Butcher's Broom and Horse Chestnut Seed while breastfeeding.
More on pregnancy symptoms
Is your baby hiccuping in the womb?
Quickening: Feeling your baby move for the first time
Should you indulge your cravings during pregnancy?


text:
I hope that my story will help us all talk more openly with each other about challenging issues like the well-being of LGBT teenagers, especially in conservative and religious communities.
My experience with conversion therapy showed me two things. First, it does not work. Second, it harms not only the LGBT person sent to "change," but the whole family. Difficult questions face many parents who hope that their LGBT children will grow up and stay safely within their faith community. I hope my book will give individuals, families, and groups an opportunity to read, reflect, and discuss these difficult questions together.
If you would like to order bulk copies at a discounted rate for your reading group, church group, LGBT youth group, GSA, or organization, please contact HarperCollins: Danielle Kolodkin (firstname.lastname@example.com; 212-207-7959).
FOR DISCUSSION GROUPS, BOOK CLUBS, and FAITH GROUPS
- What did you learn from this book about growing up as an LGBTQ person? How did Alex's growing up and first falling in love experiences compare to your own? How did this book cause you to reflect on your own experience? What new insights did you gain about growing up LGBTQ?
- As devout Mormons, Alex's parents were very distressed when she came out to them as a lesbian. How do you understand the pressures they felt? Did you ever have to tell your family a truth about yourself that you knew would be difficult for them to hear? How did they react? How have you reacted when your family members have told you difficult truths about themselves?
- How is homosexuality viewed in your religious tradition, faith community or culture? Have these views changed over time? Have you accepted traditional teachings about homosexuality in your religion or culture, or have you modified or rejected them? If you are a person of faith, how have your tradition's teachings about homosexuality impacted your religious or spiritual life?
- In the book, Alex shares facts about the ways LGBTQ young people are especially vulnerable. "Thirteen to fifteen percent of the kids in the juvenile justice system identify as LGBT—that's almost twice the rate of LGBT people in the U.S. population at large. Why do so many of us end up in foster care or so-called treatment centers or state-run shelters or group homes or jail? Why are so many homeless kids LGBT? Twenty to forty percent of all homeless youth are gay." Why does being LGBTQ impact the likelihood a young person will end up in difficult circumstances?
- During Alex's time in conversion therapy, people in the local community saw her wearing the backpack, or even trying to escape, but almost no one responded to her. Why? What do you think made it difficult for them to respond to Alex? What needs or challenges in your community are visible but not really discussed or addressed?
- Alex credits a student Gay-Straight Alliance club at her high school with helping her find the strength she needed to come out and leave. Why do you think the GSA was so important to her? What resources are available for LGTBQ youth in your school, faith group, or local community? What could be done to make these spaces more welcoming for LGBTQ youth?
- During Alex's court battle, the state of Utah initially sided with parents who feel they have an obligation to oppose their children's homosexuality. Eventually, though, the courts ruled that her parents could not try to send her back to conversion therapy. What role should the courts or government play in telling parents how to parent? What protections should the courts or government offer to children?
- "Conversion therapy" is now illegal in four states and the District of Columbia, and legislation to ban it has been introduced in eleven additional states. Are there organized efforts to end conversion therapy in your state? What can you do to help? Visit the National Center for Lesbian Rights #bornperfect campaign website to learn more: http://www.nclrights.org/our-work/bornperfect/


text:
Scared Silly 3" Dunny Blind Box Mini Series Case of 24
Conjuring spirits of Halloween in a story told like never before, Kidrobot and The Bots team up to bring you an all new Dunny Series: Scared Silly. This unapologetically cute, but slightly morbid series features memories and musings of the Halloween season. From your first costume, to a cabbage night tradition, all the way down to the fright of your life, there is something for everyone. Created in the style that "SCREAMS" The Bots, this series mixes the cute with the creepy. Collect them all today and prepare to be Scared Silly!


text:
Here then, is he, hat and all:
Precious Things: Andrew J McKiernan
When I was a little kid, my grandparents on my mother's side were a huge influence on my early development as a reader. My grandmother was the night-cleaner for our local Public Library, and she would often take me with her when she worked. While she cleaned, I would wander the eerie half-darkness of the library shelves, allowed to choose whatever books I wanted to reader... even from the Adult or Reference Sections! And, at their home, my grandfather had an old set of Charles Dickens books in hardcover that he had been given as a young boy in the 1920s. I would spend hours at my grandparent's house just leafing through those books; first, when I was too young to read them, just looking at the illustrations, but later on delving deep into the strange Victorian worlds of David Copperfield and Oliver Twist.
I adored those books. I coveted them.
Released sometime in the early 1920s (they have no dates on them), the Charles Dickens books were printed in London by Collins Clear-Type Press. The books are small, almost palm-sized. Cloth-bound. Burgundy in colour with gold text and decoration on the spine. Each one is illustrated by artists as wonderful and diverse in style as AA Dixon, J Eyre, AH Buckland and WHC Groome (did illustrators only have initials intead of first names back then?). Oliver Twist is 'Illustrated throughout' with 'Ten Photographs in Character', with photographs by FW Burford of young urchins and grizzled old men in period costume, each one meticulously staged. It is an amazing and beautiful collection.


text:
Throughout the 2016-2017 year, we are turning the spotlight on "Success Builders" in our school district. Each article in the "Success Builders" series focuses on programs and people who help our students meet the Profile of the 21st Century Graduate.
Athletics, band, and JROTC programs have been staples of American school culture for over a century. But in recent years, as the state and national conversation about education has centered on accountability and results, some people ask: "How do these programs impact the educational bottom line?" Tommy Plumblee, the athletic director at Daniel High School recently researched a compelling answer to that question.
In Pickens County, we sometimes refer to athletics, JROTC, and band as "3-6 Programs." That stands for programs that engage students between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. This is a critical time of day for many students--after school dismisses, but before a parent gets off work to give their child structure for the rest of the day. It is also a time when attitudes about school are established.
"Boys who have zero interest in school will show up and keep their grades up if it means keeping a spot on the football team," Plumblee said. "That's something we've always believed based on anecdotal evidence. But now we have the numbers to really back it up."
Plumblee coordinated with his counterparts at all four SDPC high schools—Daniel, Easley, Liberty, and Pickens—to track the graduation rate of all of the students participating in 3-6 Programs. Here are the highlights of what their research revealed:
"Improving the graduation rate has been a school and district goal for years, and it's one of the most important parts of the new South Carolina School Report Card system," said Josh Young, Daniel High School principal. "More importantly, it's crucial to our mission. We expect every student who walks through our doors to leave with a diploma, but they have to earn it, and they have to be motivated to earn it. 3-6 Programs provide that motivation."
Plumblee has continued his research for the 2016-2017 school year, and the numbers are already encouraging. District-wide participation in athletics, band, and JROTC has stayed steady, and only four dropouts have been reported from that group.
"Athletics, band, and JROTC change students in huge ways, but sometimes that impact is hard to quantify. You don't see it on paper, but you see it in the way those activities transform their character in years to come," Plumblee said. "Sometimes it's nice to see that impact on paper too, though."


text:
This morning's topics provided great opportunities for listeners to weigh in on the President's response to Iran's public protests, and additional legal rights for Gays and Lesbians.
In our opening segment, I asked listeners to talk about whether they're happy with how the President has handled Gay rights. For the most part, callers were critical of Mr. Obama and thought he needed to speak out for overturning "don't ask, don't tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act." There wasn't much enthusiasm over his expected announcement this evening that the partners of Federal employees would be getting some of the same benefits as heterosexual spouses.
I asked two questions specifically of Iranian-American listeners: whether they were happy with the President's response to the Iranian government, and what their ideal Iranian governmental system would be. Unlike the Gay rights issues, the strong majority of callers supported Mr. Obama's actions. They largely praised his low-key response to the Iranian Presidential election, and every caller supported a secular, democratic, government for Iran.
On both of these topics, plus the contentious nuclear power issues we discussed, I'd appreciate reading your opinions on the "AirTalk" page. I'm really enjoying keeping the debate going long after our program is finished for the day.


text:
Location: Street: 4736-38 N Lincoln Ave City: Chicago, Province: Illinois Postal Code: 60625 Country: United States (added from IndieBound)
Courtesy of the NYPL Digital Gallery (image use requires permission from the New York Public Library)
Theodore Dreiser has 2 past events. (show)
Member ratingsAverage:
Author pictures (4)
Improve this author
There are links stranded on: Theodore Dreiser
Combine/separate works
Author division
Theodore Dreiser is currently considered a "single author." If one or more works are by a distinct, homonymous authors, go ahead and split the author.
Theodore Dreiser is composed of 13 names. You can examine and separate out names.
Combine with…


text:
In Jim Jarmusch's new motion picture, Only Lovers Left Alive, are Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston two vampires, who share a love that has lasted thousands of years, but with the arrival of her uncontrollable sister, their relationship is disrupted. At the beginning of the film, the two eternal lovers are living apart from each other. Swinton's Eve lives in Tangiers, where she walks the city at night to meet up with another vampire for bleed and Facetimes with Hiddleston's Adam in Detroit, who is an underground musician and depressed – again. He has grown tired of mankind and how they destroy the world they live in, and does not see a light at the end of the tunnel anymore. Eve decides she has to pull her vampire-husband out his downwards spiral and travels back to him. They continue their relationship as if they have never been apart, playing chess, enjoying some frozen blood on a stick and talking about music, the Latin names of plants and animals and very dead scientists. Unfortunately, Eve's uncontrollable little sister Ava, deliciously portrayed by Mia Wasikowska, pays them a visit and disrupts the fun.
Only Lovers Left Alive is about vampires, but in a good way. Eve and Adam are the most human vampires I have ever soon on screen. They breathe, their hearts beat, they do not sparkle in the sun (thank the Lord) and they have real personalities. Eve is the most outgoing of the two, showing initiative, taking care of everything and encouraging Adam to pursue his purpose in his very, very long life: music. Swinton gives Eve an otherworldly beauty, with softly but confidently spoken words and a silent intelligence. She is the yang to Adam's yin. Hiddleston portrays the melancholic, depressed, poetic and surprisingly funny vampire Adam fantastically. There is a certain emptiness in his dark view of the world when he is alone in Detroit, but when Eve comes back to him, Adam becomes whole again and that transformation is beautiful to watch.
What I really loved about Only Lovers Left Alive is the symbolism. In the entire film, the shape of a circle is integrated in the set or the costumes or the background. Wether it is the spinning vinyl on Adam's turntable in the opening scene, of the logo of a cab company in Tangiers, or the cut-outs in Adam's leather gloves or the full moon in Detroit's night sky: there are circles everywhere. Very subtly, they represent the idea of infinite lovers. Eve and Adam are continuously circling around each other, never breaking their path – and the entire film represents this idea.
The costumes also play a great part in representing the idea of the eternal love of Eve and Adam. I love how Eve's clothing is a representation of Adam's and the other way around, only hers are white and his are black. This contrast, but also compatibility, is made even more clear by the fact that Eve has long, silvery blond hair and Adam's manes are dark. They make a great vampire yin and yang, belonging together forever. It is just the two of them and when Eve's sister Ava arrives at their idyllic love nest, she clearly is the third wheel. Eve's and Adam's clothing is uniform, while Ava is a strange mix of colors, patterns, funny stockings and vintage heels – which sets her very much apart from the two lovers. Mia Wasikowska is funny, yet adorable, as the wild Ava, being both childlike and a thousand years old.
Jarmusch has succeeded in creating a strangely funny, sexy and artistic film about two eternal lovers, who happen to be vampires. He has a very original take on the vampire-love-genre, with two main characters who are as compatible as yin and yang. Only Lovers Left Alive is a magnificent piece of cinema and symbolism.


text:
Movies We Like
Straight Time
Edward Bunker is probably one of the most criminally (no pun intended) neglected writers in American history. Best known for his role as Mr. Blue in Reservoir Dogs, the character wasn't a huge stretch for him. He worked as a career criminal from the time he was a teenager up through his forties. He also wrote a slew of books that depict convict life with searing realism--real ball-kickers of stories that remain thrillingly authentic today. In the late '70s he helped adapt his novel, No Beast So Fierce, for the screen, which resulted in this somewhat shockingly little-known film starring Dustin Hoffman. Why such little fan-fare for it? My guess is that it was just a bit too real at the time.
Hoffman plays Max Dembo, a convict freshly released from prison for armed robbery. He meets with his sociopath of a parole officer (M. Emmet Walsh), who reminds him that just one step out of line will earn a one-way trip behind bars again. Max insists he's ready to play it straight in a newly reformed life--and we believe him. He speaks earnestly, and a few minutes later in screen time he lands a job at a recycling plant, and even scores a date with a sweet-natured secretary (Theresa Russell). But it doesn't take long for his chances at a normal life to crumble; a meeting with a buddy from the old days (played brilliantly by a doe-eyed Gary Busey) sets off a heart-breakingly unfair chain of events. I'll only mention a few keywords that should drum up some interest for the last two-thirds of the movie: "shotguns," "Harry Dean Stanton," "jewelry store heist," and "freeway nudity."
Straight Time humanizes convicts with more depth than most crime films are willing. These particular characters are basically good people who just can't hack it in normal society--non-conformists who were born flawed and get further damaged from a system that we gather never provided them much of a choice to begin with. I don't want to reveal what triggers Max's downward spiral, but it only happens out of caring too much for somebody. Bunker's story suggests that for anyone to walk a truly straight path after incarceration they must erase all emotional ties. It seems like a life few people could live, and it's precisely this feeling of hopelessness that will keep Straight Time in the realm of obscurity.
Stylistically the film is about as 1970s as it gets--long takes, muted colors, and subtle camera movement that never calls attention to itself. While mostly a character-driven piece, there's also a number of riveting action sequences that pretty much show viewers how, exactly, to perform a robbery. Bunker and co-writers Jeffrey Boam, Alvin Sargent, and an uncredited, pre-Heat Michael Mann know how these things actually work, and when Max breaks into a pawn-shop about half-way through the film, it's hard not to admire the ingenuity of it. Director Ulu Grosbard allows this scene to play out in real time, and creates effective suspense and tension by showing all the details. Straight Time is remarkable for not only delving into the psyche of convicts, but for also showing how--well--good some of these people are at their profession.
While currently out of print on DVD, it still turns up used at Amoeba pretty frequently. While not the most popular, upbeat, or written about, it's my opinion that anyone with an interest in '70s American cinema should know about this one.


text:
ALL CLASS INSTRUCTIONS - instant download :)
Here's the 3rd project I made for my Summer Splendor Online class. . I used the Bold Blossoms set which will be available as well in the Summer Mini along the Happy Greetings set (sneak peek) and the new SU! punch called Triple Layer Blossom punch (I think)
The colors I used are: baja breeze, rich razzleberry, certainly celery and whisper white.
More details about this class --> HERE
There are still few grab bags cards available --> HERE


text:
Whatever. Today I don't think they looked so good. I am not ready for elasticated slacks just yet. Now I am not exactly putting 'boyfriend jeans' into that category, but it made me think about why I wear stuff.
Put it this way, after an encounter with said changing room mirror, I came home and changed into a 'skinny' style. And incidentally how odd that when you are far from skinny, that such a style should seem to flatter more than a looser cut?!
Without further ado however - here are the pictures of what caught my eye:
*** Disclaimer ***
I did none of these items any favours today. If you click the links you will see how they are actually meant to look. But sometimes I think it's useful also to see how they look on a short tubby person having a bad day.


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
This necklace features 17,5 carat of black diamonds, which are in fact real, unprocessed and faceted cut. The high purity and the artistic touch of these precious gemstones let the necklace shine and sparkle in case of even the slightest movement. It draws everyone's attention to the neck of the wearer. The diamonds are arranged in a gradient; so that they grow from back to front. The high purity and quality of the gemstones, as well as the elaborate hue give this necklace a simple, understated elegance.
Diameter of stones: 0.08-0.087 inch, 2-2,2 mm
necklace, black diamond, elegant, delicate, timeless


text:
April 19, 2012
Give a gift of Original ART!
April 19, 2012
Video Sample of Caricature Entertainment!
April 18, 2012
A Happy Customer!
Here's a very nice thank-you note for my live caricature entertainment at the party after the film premier of "Keeper of the Keys." Thank you Lisa of grategy.com! It was so much fun!


text:
Celebrating 40 years of punk, LIMF announce full details of 76-16: From Eric's To Evol, Getintothis Craig MacDonald has all the details.
Liverpool International Music Festival has announced the full details for its special event 76-16: From Eric's To Evol as the festival looks back at 40 years of punk.
Manchester punk godfathers Buzzcocks, Liverpool art punks Clinic, Will Sergeant's psychedelic side project Poltergeist and Pete Bentham & The Dinner Ladies join Feral Love, Lying Bastards, Veyu, Organ Freeman and Queen Zee & The Sasstones at the first event taking place at Arts Club on Saturday July 23, while The Magnet plays host to the after show featuring DJ sets from Evol's DJ Revo, Jules Bennet, Chris W, Norman Killon, Marc Jones and Bernie Connor.
The second event finds LIMF 2014 headliners The Lightning Seeds, new wave heroes Pete Wylie & The Mighty Wah!, The Clang Group and Sugarmen hitting the O2 Academy as they celebrate the local Liverpool scene for 76-16: From Eric's To Evol on Sunday July 24.
With punk turning 40, has Rock n Roll struck its final chord?
Finally, District will hold The Story of Punk and Counterculture Panel which will see John Robb, Paul Du Noyer, Pete Wylie, Pauline Murray, Craig Pennington and Jayne Casey addressing the important issues and questions surrounding the punk movement on Wednesday July 20.
With the punk scene continuing to bear fruit, this will prove a popular addition to an already stellar lineup for this years festival.
- 76-16: From Eric's To Evol will take place at Arts Club, The Magnet & O2 Academy from Saturday July 23 to Sunday July 24.
- The Story of Punk and Counterculture Panel will take place at District on Wednesday July 20.


text:
Showing all 8 results
Sort by:
Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/chelse68/public_html/wp-content/plugins/woosalescountdown/woosalescountdown.php on line 2079
- All natural colon support formula for relief of occasional constipation
- Stimulates the colon's normal functions to enhance elimination without the use of harsh laxatives
- Helps to hydrate the colon by using the mineral magnesium hydroxide
- Stimulates peristalsis (muscle contraction of the colon) by using a combination of cape aloe leaf, rhubarb and triphala
- Contains no nuts, peanuts, seame seeds, mustard seeds, wheat, gluten, yeast, corn, egg, dairy, soy, crustaceans, shellfish, fish, animal products, artificial colour or preservatives, binders or fillers
- All ingredients are NON-GMO / GMO-free.
- Provides a total body cleanse in a 30-day program
- Promotes digestive regularity
- Helps eliminate waste & toxins
- Stimulates the detoxification process of the body
- Gluten and soy free
- Dietary Supplement
- No Artificial Ingredients
- Promotes liver rejuvenation
- Protects liver against damage with powerful anti-oxidants
- Promotes proper liver function
- Provides therapeutic liver protection
- Antioxidant protection
- Helps reduce elevated blood lipid levels
- Increases energy and overall vitality
- Lowers/stabilizing cholesterol levels
- 15 day, two-part herbal cleanse formulated specifically for the "first time" or "sensitive" cleanser
- Gently stimulates the cleansing and detoxification process of the body's 7 channels of elimination: the liver, lungs, colon, kidneys, blood, skin, and lymphatic system
- First Cleanse is strong enough to be effective but still gentle
- First Cleanse has a very gentle action on the colon
- Contains no laxative herbs such as casgara sagrada or senna
- Contains no magnesium hydroxide
- Includes FibreSMART as part of this cleansing program
- Please read product description for use and warnings
- 30 day, two-part cleansing program
- Designed to cleanse and detoxify the liver
- Supports and enhances normal liver function
- Part one contains herbs, amino acids, and anti-oxidants
- Part two contains a blend of ayurvedic herbs that help support optimal liver function
- Regulates and normalizes production of hormones, enzymes, and blood sugar levels
- Stimulates liver's production of bile
- 3 part cleanse to stimulate the body's 7 channels of elimination
- Enhances normal process of detoxification and cleansing
- Stimulates the liver's production of bile
- Contains diuretic herb artichoke to release water from the blood
- Stimulates elimination of toxins through the skin and lungs
- Fibre supplement
- Enhances elimination from the colon
- Regulates water into the bowel
- 30 day program with 3-parts, gluten, dairy, and soy free cleanse guaranteed for quality, purity, and potency through expiration
- Lung and respiratory cleanse
- Formulated to support the health of your lungs and respiratory system
- Urge suppressant, designed to soothe bronchial passages
- Help reduce desire to smoke
- Advanced herbal formula designed to restore regularity and promote digestive wellness
- Supports detoxification
- Uses acacia fiber to help with removal of digestive toxins
- Promotes healthy bowel elimination
- Helps to expel mucous and other material from the lungs, bronchi and trachea.
- Contains ingredients that help to heal, soothe, protect and strengthen the tissue of the respiratory system.
- Contains powdered herbs and amino acids.
- Helps with chronic lung ailments such as asthma
- Supports optimal respiratory health
- Good for smoker or ex-smokers that need extra lung support or cleansing
- All ingredients are NON-GMO / GMO-Free
- Contains no nuts, peanuts, sesame seeds, mustard seeds, wheat, gluten, yeast, corn, egg, dairy, soy, crustaceans, shellfish, fish, atificial colour or preservatives, binders or fillers.


text:
Thursday, 20 March 2014
A little less of the pretty products in today's post, and I'm putting a little more focus on the basics - the things we all use and own but don't actually talk about. It's about time to give them some loving.
The first is a compact mirror. Okay, I'll admit, this No7 one actually looks rather nice (and comes with a protective pouch too), but I do have another from Poundland which I use as well. Another thing is Bobby Pins/Hair Grips and hair bands. These are the guys that help you out on a windy day when your hair is in your face, and we really should appreciate them handing around in the bottom of our bags more often.
Nail Wheels. I bought mine in bulk from Amazon, coming in at a couple of pounds for some clear ones and some cream ones. Whether you have bought a new polish and want to test out the consistency and colour when your nails are already painted, or for swatches in blog posts - they really are helpful.
Hand gel is a must, and I love the Cuticura Passion Flower and Mango Gel which smells good and leaves your hands feeling clean. I like to use this once before and after I do my makeup to remove any dirt or excess, or if any of you use public transport, this may be a good one for you.
I went through packets of the Kleenex Blotting Sheets like water in the summer, as I was blotting my face when I was hot, as well as handing them out to friends so that they could blot their faces too. I have a stash of 6 packs of these so I will certainly not be running low anytime soon, but they are hard to find at times so I guess I'm in luck at the desperate times.
Finally, eye drops. A lot of people are scared of using them, as was I, but once I got contact lenses and they totally dried my eyes out, I had no choice but to use eye drops otherwise my lenses would be too drying for me to wear. I use either the Blink ones or the Optrex ones that are suitable for contacts.
What are your unheard of beauty essentials?
Posted by Lauren at 18:13
Labels: Back to Basics , Basics , Blotting Sheets , Essentials , Eyes , Favourites , Hair , Hand Gel , Loved , Mirror , Nail Wheels , Nails
6 comments :
This is such a great post lovely! :)ReplyDelete
I'm all about the nail wheels. Hehe. Really interesting read.
Ellis - Ellis Tuesday
Perfect picks that definitely do get neglected, and blotting powders are so necessary for Spring xxxReplyDelete
I love the nail wheels! :)ReplyDelete
Thank you for this lovely post is it possible you could talk more about the keenex sheets please or direct me to a earlier post thank you xxReplyDelete
kelseymisskfb.blogspot.co.uk/ and http://www.bloglovin.com/kelseymisskfb
Yes! what a great post. and those shine absorbing sheets are literally my life! what a lovely blog you have too :) xoxReplyDelete
Amira http://holychicxox.blogspot.co.uk/
Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )


text:
Where: The Springs | 608 Matteo Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021
When: 3-5 pm (parlerodermime)
Rohinton Mistry has 3 past events. (show)
Is this you?
Become a LibraryThing Author.
Member ratingsAverage:
Improve this author
Combine/separate works
Author division
Rohinton Mistry is currently considered a "single author." If one or more works are by a distinct, homonymous authors, go ahead and split the author.
Rohinton Mistry is composed of 5 names. You can examine and separate out names.
Combine with…