Timeline for Do water molecules change when you talk to them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2021 at 6:17 | comment | added | Edwin Buck | @Aeronth For something to be universally deemed good, Ethical Realism (or Moral Realism) exists. It's a branch of Philosophy that states something can be inherently good. This idea was clearly considered as early as 480 BC (by Plato!) One of the big blows to this idea was by Mackie, who pointed out that moral truths (universal good) can offer no plausible explanation for cross-cultural moral differences, as universal good means everyone would have to eventually agree to the inherit goodness. 2500 years later, we still haven't found a universally good thing (or song). I doubt we will. | |
| Nov 15, 2021 at 18:57 | comment | added | Eiríkr Útlendi | +1 for your wonderfully innovative approach to water-heating technologies. 😄 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 1, 2015 at 14:55 | comment | added | MMM | @MrDosu: Because a plant does not understand what "rape" or "fluffy bunny" means. Again, it's the meaning. Moreover, we are talking about psychology – never heard of "plant psychology"? | |
| Mar 31, 2015 at 15:09 | comment | added | MrDosu | That is exactly what I said. Some sound wave patterns lead to a negative psychological association and reaction and others to a positive one. Why could the plant not act in the same way? | |
| Mar 31, 2015 at 15:04 | comment | added | MMM | @MrDosu: Simple psychological association and reaction. The meaning of the word affects you, not its sound. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 19:17 | comment | added | MrDosu | But why do words have a "bad" or "good" impact on me physically (as in sweat/tears/involuntary muscle reactions) as an individuum depending on how I rate them? | |
| Mar 27, 2015 at 15:10 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 18 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2014 at 18:00 | comment | added | Bobson | @Aeronth - Nothing. There is no such thing as objectively nice. I can't stand the Beatles, for instance, but I'll certainly admit that they were a huge success and many people liked (and still like) them, with a huge impact. But I wouldn't call their music "nice". | |
| Mar 29, 2014 at 12:22 | vote | accept | Mohammad | ||
| Mar 29, 2014 at 12:22 | vote | accept | Mohammad | ||
| Mar 29, 2014 at 12:22 | |||||
| Mar 27, 2014 at 22:16 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Explanation of causing isomerization through sound waves
|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 4:11 | comment | added | Aeronth | @MMM Then what would? | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 15:05 | comment | added | MMM | @Aeronth: I strongly disagree, an artist can be "impactful" and "influential" but that doesn't make him or his work objectively "nice". | |
| S Mar 26, 2014 at 14:55 | history | suggested | Piskvor left the building | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo fixes
|
| Mar 26, 2014 at 14:33 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 26, 2014 at 14:55 | |||||
| Mar 26, 2014 at 14:11 | comment | added | nico | You can't have HHO: true, although someone claimed they did en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen#Fringe_science_and_fraud | |
| Mar 26, 2014 at 2:17 | comment | added | Aeronth | I disagree with both of you. In any kind of art there can be artists or works with such influence and critical acclaim that we may consider that they are "nice" no matter what we personally think about them. Still, their importance is only relative to human culture, not nature or laws of physics. | |
| Mar 25, 2014 at 23:04 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improving translation
|
| Mar 25, 2014 at 22:55 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Adding link to dictionary
|
| Mar 24, 2014 at 21:56 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 872 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2014 at 20:20 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 504 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2014 at 20:03 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Explaining more about bonds
|
| Mar 24, 2014 at 19:58 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 533 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2014 at 19:40 | comment | added | theGreenCabbage | Also, a "nice" song to one person is not a "nice" song to another person. | |
| Mar 24, 2014 at 19:40 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
formatting
|
| Mar 24, 2014 at 19:30 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 273 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2014 at 19:27 | comment | added | MMM | @JanDvorak: Music can be categories and grouped, but it's "niceness" will still be opinion based. You can prove that a particular song can make you relax, or agitated, but "nice" is too much of a broad an opinion-based term to make me agree with you. Even not too long ago "nice" Beatles songs that we find "nice" and "light" today were considered mad and crazy 50 years ago. | |
| Mar 24, 2014 at 19:21 | history | edited | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Adding Wikipedia info
|
| Mar 24, 2014 at 19:20 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 24, 2014 at 23:06 | |||||
| Mar 24, 2014 at 19:16 | comment | added | John Dvorak | "nice music" can be objectivised - beat, frequency spectrum, loudness dynamics... | |
| Mar 24, 2014 at 19:02 | history | answered | MMM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |