u/Exciting_Ad_6837

This, assuming that no revealed scripture is to be trusted on this matter.

I was thinking it's quite conceivable that He is disgusted at being worshipped.

This, assuming that no revealed scripture is to be trusted on this matter.

I was thinking it's quite conceivable that He is disgusted at being worshipped.

This, assuming that no revealed scripture is to be trusted on this matter.

I was thinking it's quite conceivable that He is disgusted at being worshipped.

... so as to prevent the number from actually reaching zero.

My channel has about 20 videos, and I gave up on the idea of making it a side gig but decided to treat it only as an occasional hobby.

Whenever my channel gets close to 0 view over the 48-hr window (like after ~45 hours of no view), I see a tiny boost in impressions and then 2-5 views as a result. So I never got to see 0 view in my 48-hr analytics, and YT seems to be teasing me into not giving up entirely, lol!

Here are some examples of operational definitions.

\- Fear: as an increase in heart rate of more than 20 beats per minute and pupillary dilation of 3+ millimeters when shown a scary image

\- Tantrum: any instance of a child falling to the floor, kicking, and screaming for longer than 3 seconds in response to being denied a request

\- (Raw) Intelligence: what IQ tests measure

\- Academic ability: GPA

\- Happiness: the state of being able to get what you want (Kant) -- regardless of whether you're possessing or enjoying it at the moment

When, if ever, are operational definitions important or useful in philosophy? If they're never so, do we always have to go by the colloquial uses of the terms?

Here are some examples of operational definitions.

- Fear: as an increase in heart rate of more than 20 beats per minute and pupillary dilation of 3+ millimeters when shown a scary image

- Tantrum: any instance of a child falling to the floor, kicking, and screaming for longer than 3 seconds in response to being denied a request

- (Raw) Intelligence: what IQ tests measure

- Academic ability: GPA

- Happiness: the state of being able to get what you want (Kant) -- regardless of whether you're possessing or enjoying it at the moment

When, if ever, are operational definitions important or useful in philosophy? If they're never so, do we always have to go by the colloquial uses of the terms?

He famously said, "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." According to him then, paleontology, taxonomy, meteorology e.g. would definitely be science.

What domains of information gathering would Rutherford or you NOT classify as science, even if we're talking about objective information (from objective data)?

PS: Would geography of planets be science?

Quite a few acquaintances of mine claim to seek wisdom or at least to welcome pieces of wisdom. But when I share my knowledge of humanities & philosophy that would make for wisdom, they pretty much go "Meh". But when they hear a priest (especially Buddhist, Catholic) make the same point, they act as if they are so impressed & got "wised up" (even when the priest wasn't there, like from watching a YouTube video). This is so, even when I had explained it (no jargon) way better than the priest, without imposing my views, just introducing what past great minds argued for. If anything, the priests are way more condescending & dogmatic than the philosophers, who walk you thru reasons.

Quite a few acquaintances of mine claim to seek wisdom or at least to welcome pieces of wisdom. But when I share my knowledge of humanities & philosophy that would make for wisdom, they pretty much go "Meh". But when they hear a priest (especially Buddhist) make the same point, they act as if they are so impressed & got "wised up" (even when the priest wasn't there, like from watching a YouTube video). This is so, even when I had explained it way better than the priest.

Quite a few acquaintances of mine claim to seek wisdom or at least to welcome pieces of wisdom. But when I share my knowledge of humanities & philosophy that would make for wisdom, they pretty much go "Meh" & don't really appreciate it. But when they hear a priest (especially Buddhist) make the same point, they act as if they are so impressed & got "wised up" (even when the priest wasn't there, like from watching a YouTube video). This is so, even when I had explained it way better than the priest.

Quite a few acquaintances of mine claim to seek wisdom or at least to welcome pieces of wisdom. But when I share my knowledge of humanities & philosophy that would make for wisdom, they pretty much go "Meh" & don't really appreciate it. But when they hear a priest (especially Buddhist) make the same point, they act as if they are so impressed & got "wised up" (even when the priest wasn't there, like from watching a YouTube video). This is so, even when I had explained it way better than the priest.

Is he contradicting himself?

Also, a related question (maybe): If there's no free will, could there still be a meaning to (human/my) life?

If there's no free will, could there still be a meaning to (human/my) life?

If there's no free will, could there still be a meaning to (human/my) life?

The irony I felt got me ask: If there's no free will, could there still be a meaning to (human/my) life?