I think they also disagree on the choice of axioms, like are they too much or not enough and are they truly independent? See the criticism part of the article.
oce
joined 1 year ago
Depends on the kind of information, but I guess you mean politically sensitive? Then I would say from someone they personally trust, and if the information is contradicting their believes, then it should presented as a different point of view that doesn't directly try to contradict theirs, rather than the "truth", to prevent emotional rejection. Give them the bits of information while trying to not trigger blockers and let them make the connections by themselves.
My experience is mostly discussing about my rational skepticism views with religious/superstitious people without creating personal conflicts.
This article says 8 to 11k yearly. https://horserookie.com/average-horse-cost-by-state/
While cost of owning a car is between 3k and 9k yearly according to https://www.move.org/average-cost-owning-a-car/.
I would have thought that a horse would be much more expensive, like 10 times a car cost.
When you are not an expert of the domain, it is easy to get mislead by arguments such as the one you gave, maybe you're correct, maybe you're misleading, I don't have the knowledge to verify by myself. That's why I need to rely on reputable source, and it's hard to do more reputable than a meta-analysis in Science. If you are correct, the rebuttal will eventually be published in a peer reviewed journal, I'll will be happy to read the conclusions then.
I am skeptical that researchers and reviewers of Science wouldn't have accounted for that. I made some research about rebuttal to this study, so far the only ones I have found are from farmer related or anti-vegan communities, which are likely more biased than a scientific journal. I will need at least a contradictory peer reviewed article to convince me this meta analysis is incorrect.
I don't have the current knowledge nor the time to reach the level of researchers in the domain to make my own meta analysis. Where can I read a reputable rebuttal to this meta analysis?
Do you have a source more reputable than the Science journal and the Oxford university?
He's supporting this change, he's part of the local government developing it. So he's saying that to illustrate the change of mindset.
Yes, I think you're not getting the point, it's about making the default for bikes and pedestrians now, and treating cars as secondary users, that have their smaller delimited special lane.
Le Monde Group is mainly owned by various rich people, but 25% is owned by employees, and they have specific rights that are not common for billionaire-owned journals, like voting for their own newspaper managing editor and approving changes of shareholders.
Yes, I said it is paywalled a couple of worlds before the link. I was just giving a source for the quote, it's not really the point of the article.
No, Le Monde (The World) is center left, which in France means close to Socialist party, which is close to Bernie Sanders in the USA. It's probably the most well respected newspaper from France.
It's also true in many tertiary jobs too, communication of what you made matters at least as much as what you made.