background preloader

Mental_floss Blog » Debunking Grammar Myths

This week we're joined by a special guest blogger. Patricia T. O'Conner, a former editor at The New York Times Book Review, is the author of the national best-seller Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English, as well as other books about language. She is a regular monthly guest on public radio station WNYC in New York. When I think about the rules of grammar I sometimes recall the story—and it's a true one—about a lecture given in the 1950s by an eminent British philosopher of language. Don't we all sometimes feel like that voice from the back of the room? English is not so much a human invention as it is a force of nature, one that endures and flourishes despite our best attempts to ruin it. So when you think about the rules of grammar, try to think like that guy in the back of the room, and never be afraid to challenge what seems silly or useless. Myth #1: Don't Split an Infinitive. "Split" all you want, because this old superstition has never been legit.

What the Hell is Praxeology? Praxeology is the study of those aspects of human action that can be grasped a priori; in other words, it is concerned with the conceptual analysis and logical implications of preference, choice, means-end schemes, and so forth. The basic principles of praxeology were first discovered by the Greek philosophers, who used them as a foundation for a eudaimonistic ethics. This approach was further developed by the Scholastics, who extended praxeological analysis to the foundations of economics and social science as well. In the late nineteenth century, the praxeological approach to economics and social science was rediscovered by Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School. The term praxeology was first applied to this approach by the later Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (portrait at left). Along with his students (including Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard), Mises employed praxeological principles to show that much existing economic and social theory was conceptually incoherent.

Top 10 Thinking Traps Exposed Our minds set up many traps for us. Unless we’re aware of them, these traps can seriously hinder our ability to think rationally, leading us to bad reasoning and making stupid decisions. Features of our minds that are meant to help us may, eventually, get us into trouble. Here are the first 5 of the most harmful of these traps and how to avoid each one of them. 1. “Is the population of Turkey greater than 35 million? Lesson: Your starting point can heavily bias your thinking: initial impressions, ideas, estimates or data “anchor” subsequent thoughts. This trap is particularly dangerous as it’s deliberately used in many occasions, such as by experienced salesmen, who will show you a higher-priced item first, “anchoring” that price in your mind, for example. What can you do about it? Always view a problem from different perspectives. 2. In one experiment a group of people were randomly given one of two gifts — half received a decorated mug, the other half a large Swiss chocolate bar. 3. 4.

Leroy Hood Leroy Hood is an American biologist. He won the 2011 Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ Prize “for automating DNA sequencing that revolutionized biomedicine and forensic science” and the 2003 Lemelson-MIT Prize for inventing "four instruments that have unlocked much of the mystery of human biology" by helping decode the genome.[1] Hood also won the 2002 Kyoto Prize for Advanced Technology, and the 1987 Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research. The inventions developed under his leadership include the automated DNA sequencer and an automated tool for synthesizing DNA. Hood co-founded the Institute for Systems Biology. Background[edit] Leroy Hood, MD, PhD (born October 10, 1938 in Missoula, Montana) is a world-renowned scientist, inventor, entrepreneur and visionary. Education[edit] Hood received an M.D. from Johns Hopkins University in 1964 and a Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1968, where he was a faculty member for 22 years. Genomics and Proteomics[edit] Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr.

nootropics / smart-drugs DR. RICHARD P. FEYNMAN Physicists always have a habit of taking the simplest example of any phenomenon and calling it "physics," leaving the more complicated examples to become the concern of other fields... "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. " "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." "If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... "We cannot define anything precisely! "...far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. (On pseudoscience) "...there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in 'cargo cult science'... "I'd hate to die twice.

Society for Judgment and Decision Making

Related: