Zum Seitenende Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum
First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
***
As far as I can tell the results derived by Krupenye et al. and concisely explained by de Waal are meaningless and tell us nothing. I do not have semantic accessible knowledge of what someone else may or may not have seen. Instead I extract that knowledge from accessing the events as I remember them from my episodic memory and replaying them in my mind’s eye. It is just this activity that is recorded by Krupenye et al.’s eye tracking and of course the shared observation is the one coming first.
***
Undoubtedly wind and solar can supply energy but not power, or energy at the rate and time it is needed. Gies does not spend a single sentence on the question of how to supply a stable and working grid on renewables alone or nearly alone.
***
Berger et al. and Marahrens et al. (same authors, different order) once again reiterate the obvious: you can’t provenance tin by its isotopes. There is no geological or radiogenic source for isotope differences in tin, any that are present come from fractionation effects alone. All currently known sources have an identical or at least widely overlapping signature and later processing introduces a much stronger signal anyway. There is no reason whatever to expect the hitherto unexamined secondary sources to yield anything different.
***
van Eyghen is another one who does not get the point. Religion is a cultural construct, Durkheim was right about that. But it needed a substrate of belief in the supernatural to build on, and this, not the later überbau, is what cognitive science is trying to explain.
Zum Anfang Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum