Great comment! You raised many interesting points.

One important thing to note that the modern human mind is essentially like an advanced piece of software which runs on antiquated hardware (sort of like running Skyrim on an N64). As many as 7% (though I don't currently have a source for this at hand) of the general population are estimated to experience auditory hallucinations, and surprisingly enough, most of those people aren't psychotically structured. This is why auditory hallucinations are seen as a secondary, rather than primary, symptom of schizophrenia.

Rather, what is actually happening is that the antiquated hardware, for whatever reason, is showing its faults. The primitive responses which tend to stay dormant for most people are finding their way to the surface.

In other words, the truth of schizophrenia is that it isn't so much an illness as it is a regression to a more primitive version of the human mind. And as both you an Eleanor pointed out, this can have both pros and cons. Another example of a broken system which can produce contextually positive results is eidetic memory, which causes a person to be unable to forget.

And this is also something that I find to be quite interesting, because what it means is that mental illnesses are, in fact, contextual illnesses. A schizophrenic person is essentially "sick" because he/she has a bug in his/her software and as a result is unable to download patches from the rest of society. Go back 3000 years and it is entirely possible that auditory hallucination would have been the norm.

The reason for the stigma being so harmful is that it simply focuses on the wrong thing. It takes a secondary symptom, i.e. hearing voices, and makes it seem like the actual disease. In truth, the auditory hallucination is just an externalized version of a process which is actually internal. Where most of us simply have thoughts, the schizophrenic might instead hear a voice. To turn stigmatize those auditory hallucinations is to potentially cripple the sufferer's ability to perform basic maintenance on themselves.

So surreal to hear the lyrics "Everybody let's lose control" "Everybody let's hit the floor", ".. let's let it blow" "Scream and shout and let it all out" While there is flaming wreckage and secondary explosions going on.

Personally I would have turned off the dance music the second I saw the collision and stopped safely.

In general I agree a person should [for their own sake at the very least] shut the fuck up and do as instructed by police.

However, that is secondary to the well-being of the [real or fictional] fetus in the suspect's womb.

Many people, regardless of race, gender, or station in life, have little control over their temper and go ape-shit nuts ignoring the authority of law enforcement. In 99% of the cases, I'd say the officer is right to tase or use force against the offender to achieve compliance, however this is the 1% where I feel someone has to be concerned with the safety of the unborn child.

Even if the mother is too dipshit crazy to be able to put her baby's safety ahead of her outrage, at least the sanity of an officer should come into play and beat her up in a way that they won't be jeopardizing the safety of the fetus.

Don't obey an officer's orders repeatedly and dare to resist? Get tased. Get wrestled to the ground. Get kneed in the back. Hell, even get into a choke hold.

But pregnant, unarmed, and presenting no physical threat? Break her arm and punch her in the face if you have to, officers. Just avoid the taser and physical trauma to the uterus region in general.

(I know; radicals will say the baby doesn't deserve to be born into the world with a mother who is too dipshit to obey officers, but I think it deserves a fair chance at life [or at least not to be potentially murdered for its mother's disobedience].)

I'm not even sure it's related to herding people into stupidity, so much as the ultimate complicity of not being willing to offend anybody. I certainly learned during primary school that the climate was changing, and that we as individuals had a responsibility to help reverse that as a group.

Then, during secondary school, the messages stopped-- Everything was suddenly about money, and efficiency, presumably because everyone agrees on money, and nobody wants to offend anybody of "differing opinion".

I think the main emphasis is we need to stop allowing people to present opinion as fact without discourse, mass "stupefaction" as many people call it results largely from the unwillingness of people to speak up when somebody says something that's wrong. "It's their opinion, let them have it". Wrong. If it's conclusively inaccurate fact, don't! Somebody will listen, and they will repeat the misinformation-- and that's how it spreads.

^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

Are some of you really that blind? Rehabilitation don't work criminals are hard coded? Then why does it work on other countries then? Supporting death penalty? Who the hell gives you right to take a life, just like the murderer did to their victims?

Sentences are way too harsh in the USA, there are countless studies proving that longer and harsher penalties does nothing to curb crime. There are nations that hand out death penalties for petty crimes and still there are people who commit those crimes every year. If death penalty would work, there would be no murders. Countries with shorter sentences have fewer repeating offenders, how is that possible in your world where criminals are animals who can not change their ways.

I guess those who want death penalty and ridiculously long sentences have something sadistic in their personality. YOU MUST SUFFER SO I FEEL GOOD. Same goes for inequality supporters, same principle, other must suffer to make me feel good.

How many shootouts with cops could we avoid when there is still hope in the criminals mind that the mistake they made won't cost them their lives.

On the story, this is more and more common, specially in the States but happens all over the world. Victims are on secondary focus, they aren't as interesting as perpetrators: Why? Victims have their story told before the news, it happened already, they are weak = prey. The assailants, their story has just begun, they are strong = predator.

I definately wouldn't say that a taser is a "lazy cops" method. A taser prevents secondary targets from being affected (unlike pepper spray) and the cop in question definitely did not want to get into a wrestling match with the suspect while wearing a suit (where it would be unlikely that he would be able to control the situation). The suspect was warned and refused to back down.

As for cops in general being lazy, again I say no. I have two state police officers for friends and at lest with the Indiana state troopers the line is drawn when the possibility of injury to the officer would exceed the possibility of injury to the suspect from the taser. If its an old dude or someone who appears to have health issues they are obviously going to use more restraint than some young punk kid who will suffer some pain but will be back on his feet shortly.

You are an a-godzilla-ist and that is entirely a practical concession to the fact that you can't really afford giant monster insurance considering recent statistics for giant lizard attacks and indeed going through life avoiding Tokyo at all costs is just kinda a bummer - imagine all the fresh sushi you could miss out on.

You can't actually prove that there never was a Godzilla or that there never will be a Godzilla and you can only assume (not demonstrate) that there is not a Godzilla planet orbiting one of the stars a few galaxies down the way.

All you can really say is that Tokyo is still standing and that all the various accounts of Godzilla's antics across the myriad of B-movies and hollywood blockbusters that feature him as a character seem to have no basis in reality for various reasons. You move on with your day, smile a bit and never really bother to duck for cover.

And that's all we're saying about God. To my knowledge, that is the bleeding edge of audacious claims being made by anyone who is even vaguely respected - simply that we can't take religious claims seriously any more, so we are going to move on with our lives, only dealing with religion directly when it decides to be a bit too influential for our tastes.

But fine, based on the secondary predicate principle and a lengthy philosophy 101 essay with no shortage of verbal meandering through Descartes, et al., atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point.

And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?

More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:

Rapist rapes child, we'll start with that.

The child struggles through the resultant torturous anguish across a lifetime, starts a support group, mans a hotline, works in the community to support fellow victims, increases awareness and so on while loving his/her family and friends, making mistakes periodically and occasionally letting loose at a concert or something. The child (now an adult) is unfortunately just a minimally observant Jew and never really gave Jesus any consideration, so when he/she gets hit by a drunk driver at the unfortunate age of 34, he/she is tormented in hell for the rest of eternity.

The rapist, meanwhile, goes on with his (statistically probable) life, perhaps he rapes some more children (also statistically probable) and maybe he then stops at some point, realizing it is wrong and maybe even feels guilty about it. Ridden by guilt, the preaching of a wayward street preacher catch his ears one day. He ventures into church for the first time. He is moved. He proclaims his belief in Jesus and the resurrection. He feels his sins are forgiven and he can feel years of guilt being washed away. Maybe he even admits his history as a rapist to a sympathetic inner circle of confidants, spiritual advisors and friends. He dies of a heart attack, and spends eternity in heaven.

That is disgusting and a god that sets such a system up is disgusting.

Many compassionate people are blinded into thinking this is just and good in an effort to tenaciously preserve their own sense of eternal safety and cosmic worth at all costs. That is less disgusting just because it is an understandable impulse, but it is disgusting nonetheless.

What's with your inappropriate sarcasm? It didn't add to the discussion.

It may be semantics in your opinion but it's not like there is any confusion between the word "design" and "use". It's engineering. A firearm is designed to do something - and that something is not killing. We designed it to propel a projectile at high speed. We use it for multiple purposes - but mostly we use it for punching holes in paper or shooting clay pigeons. Yes, it is fantastic at killing animals/humans. We use it for that too. Yes, when it was first designed that was its primary purpose of use. But that does not mean it does not have secondary purposes. I'd guess that more rounds are fired at paper targets and for hunting animals than at people each year in the USA (and probably by several orders of magnitude).

Knives are fantastic at killing. A sword (which is a long knife) does a lot more vascular damage than a 7.62 mm NATO round (i.e. it is better at killing). Knives were superseded because they are not a ranged weapon.

You are suggesting that the tens of millions of sporting firearm users in the USA do not constitute a legitimate use of firearms. That is short sighted.

We accept the premature deaths of car crashs because it is a convenience we are not willing to live without. The collateral damage of people dying in vehicles is a cost we are happy to accept to continue using this convenience (we don't need cars to get around - they just make travelling easier). You'll find that the huge amount of legislation surrounding vehicles is to reduce deaths and the cost that crashes impose on the economy (which is billions).

The same for knives (humankind's most used murder weapon). We aren't giving it up as a kitchen tool just because someone used it for murder.

The same should of course apply to firearms.

America should have better legislation surrounding firearms (something I fully support). That's a no brainer. A full registration scheme for all firearms should be enacted. Firearm safes should be mandatory. Criminal and mental health background checks should be mandatory. For ownership of semi-automatic/automatic military style weapons you should need to be in a firearms club. This would both legitimise its ownership and use - so you can't just own one for the hell of it but it doesn't stop you from owning it in total (preserving the 2nd amendment). It would also force social contact - so other club members will recognise if a person should not be a club member and therefore a non-owner of these firearm types.

America could also implement a nationwide free mental health system. It basically has none. This is probably the most important thing it could do.

What are your suggestions for legislation?

(btw I'm not American - but I've closely followed this topic for years).

You're cherry-picking. That sentence isn't the key one. I'm not sure what is meant by that sentence (the use of "constraint" is ambiguous), but it would be utterly unscientific if it meant that the stratigraphic position pre-determined the outcome. Geology would be scientistic nonsense like ID, not science.

Yes, and that is the point. If Geology worked like that it would be scientific nonsense, and it does work like that. The stratigraphic position is determined by the index fossils and radiometric dating. The age of the index fossils is determined by the stratigraphic position and radiometric dating. Radiometric dating itself is "checked" by stratigraphic positioning. That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

On the other side the date is determined by the uniformitarian assumptions about radioactive decay rates in the past, and many other things. It assumes, among other things, that the rate will never change. As I showed in my reply the Bicyclerepairman, the rates can indeed change.

Even the next two sentences demonstrate this: "There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied."

Now this is the intellectually dishonest part. They say they can't choose where a fossil will be, but they have already the determined that the presence of certain fossils and radiometric dating igneous layers above and below it determines the age of that layer. They don't choose where a fossil is, but they do choose what the age of the layer is that contains the fossil based on their assumptions. So they are basically saying that radiometric dating and stratigraphy is validated by index fossils and radiometric dating, and vice-versa.

The date that is returned is indeed chosen by the scientists as it is based on uniformitarian assumptions that they've made about the past. Perhaps you don't understand how it works, but there is nothing about the rock which reveals its age. They use the secondary evidence of how much radioactive decay of certain elements they believe have occurred, but if the rates aren't always constant, the measurement is worthless. As I showed in my reply to Bicyclerepairman, even secular scientists have acknowledged the rates can change. Therefore it is unreliable on its own, and what is essentially happening is that they are propping up one unprovable assumption with the evidence interpreted through another unprovable assumption.

If geologists were in the habit of treating data this way, scientifically-minded people who entered the field would be disgusted and leave, and form their own new scientific discipline of the study of the earth. The fact that this hasn't happened means the geological method appears scientific to scientific-minded people, if not dogmatists.

It's far more likely that you, a dogmatist and a non-geologist, are cherry-picking information to come up with data that supports your dogma. Dogmatists, by definition, cannot be relied upon for unbiased information that either challenges or confirms their dogma. Their dogma pre-disposes them to coming to wrong conclusions far more than non-dogmatists.

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time. Most of the contention comes down to how fast or slow certain geological features take to form. Scientists have staked all of their modern research on the theory of deep time, and they interpret all of the evidence through that conclusion. In other words, it has become conventional wisdom..IE, dogma. Please read my reply to Bicyclerepairman to see how bias effects interpretation.

If you examine the history of science, you will see that scientists have had it wrong many times and wasted decades and decades of research on things ultimately proven to be false. The near universal agreement of scientists on any issue is not any indicator of truth.

I'll take 10 minutes to respond to your comments, but I'm not taking 1.5 hours to watch more non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms. If there were strong enough evidence that the Earth were a few thousand years old, there would be a branch of geologists studying it. And I'm excluding the dogmatic "creation geology". It is pseudoscience.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint. Your dismissal of the material as "non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms" flatly shows your intellectual incuriousity, not even having looked at it. Dr. Emil is an accomplished geologist and his discussion is framed in the terminology and methodology used in that field. If you want to debate this subject, you should at the bare minimum understand the basics of the position you are defending and the position you are arguing against. Also, the video is about 1 hour with 30 minutes of questions.

FWIW, according to Wikipedia: "Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy". Do you think you can knock all those scientific fields down as well? Have at it.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence. If you can show deep time is false, then all of it crumbles.

Also, "former atheist" means "current dogmatist". You don't find it astounding that his conversion happened to coincide with his discovery that the evidence didn't hold up? I do. Evidence of non-scientific thinking.

It's interesting you're still inventing reasons why you shouldn't watch the video. You don't know anything about the man but you make wrongheaded assumptions about him. Such as that he converted because he had doubts about the evidence in Geology not holding up. Yet, that isn't the reason he converted, and it had nothing to do with his work as a geologist. Your conclusions here are evidence of non-scientific thinking.

@BicycleRepairMan

Also vice versa. Which might sound circular, but isnt. Uniformitarianism is of course the simplest assumtion (occams razor) but it also correlates well with the available evidence. If natural laws acted differently in the past, we would presumably find EVIDENCE that it did. And correlating data is not a "hall of mirrors, it is evidence of correlation. This is basic statistics and empiri.

Thank you for your considered reply. Well see, here's the thing. Creationists and evolutionists are not looking at two sets of evidences. We are looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently. There isn't creationist evidence and evolutionist evidence, there is just evidence which we both interpret according to the assumptions we bring to it. We are both looking at the same geologic record and saying it happened much differently. The evidence yields different conclusions depending on what assumptions you bring to it.

Uniformitarian is only the first assumption scientists bring to the evidence. The secondary assumption is that the different layers represent vast amounts of time. They come to this conclusion because they observe the rates of these processes are very slow today, and since in uniformitarian, the present is the key to the past, they assume that present day geological features must have taken millions or billions of years to form because of present day rates. Because of this, the completely exclude the hypothesis that the features we see could form very quickly. Therefore, they are biased in their interpretation and will miss the evidence which actually points to rapid formation. I'll give you a good example:

"Previously geologists had thought that constant, rapid water flow prevented mud's constituents -- silts and clays -- from coalescing and gathering at the bottoms of rivers, lakes and oceans. This has led to a bias, Schieber explains, that wherever mudstones are encountered in the sedimentary rock record, they are generally interpreted as quiet water deposits."

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/7022.html

For a long time geologists believed that mudstones could only form a certain way, which is by slow moving water. They had completely ruled out that it could be formed rapidly. Therefore, whenever they saw mudstones the "story" the rocks told them was that of a slow process taking vast amounts of time. Yet, mudstones, they have found, can be deposited very rapidly. This is actually evidence for a global flood because mudstones make up 2/3s of the record for sedimentary rock. Yet they never saw that because of their assumptions of everything taking vast amounts of time to form. This is a classic example of how the assumptions you bring changes the interpretation of the data. Same mudstones, but the different assumptions yielded a different conclusion from the same evidence.

This is further complicated by the matter of evolution. Biostratigraphy has played a decisive role in determining the relative ages of rock layers around the world, which brings with it a whole other host of assumptions. Because evolution requires vast amounts of time, and they interpret a certain evolutionary progression through the fossil record, therefore they again make the assumption different layers must represent vast amounts of time, based on their evolutionary assumptions. They then use that assumption to validate their uniformitarian assumptions and call this evidence.

The main issue is the assumption of uniformitarian to explain the fossil record. It denies that a catastrophe like a global flood could have caused the features we see today. The geologists believe things happened very slowly, whereas creation geologists believe they have formed very quickly. There is a whole lot of evidence which shows that layers could be laid down rapidly, and canyons and other features could have been cut very quickly. Geologists do acknowledge this, which is why there is another branch of geology called Catastrophism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

They can not deny that many of the things they thought took millions of years "stalactites forming, fossilization, formation of oil and precious metals) can actually happen very quickly. They still deny, however, that a global catastrophe could have been responsible for all of it, despite the fact that the whole Earth is covered by sedimentary rock which is primarily laid down by water.

And this is where we are with fossils and dating. We dont just make wild guesses on the basis of 2 or 3 fossils and one shitty chemistry experiment involving half-lives; We have literally thousands of datapoints. If this is a hall of mirrors, then Satan is truly one crafty bastard making a pretty impressive one for us.

Again, it is the assumptions you bring to that data which colors the interpretation. I can also tell you that the assumption that decay rates never change is wrong:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5441/882.summary

Pressure and chemistry can alter decay rates according to that experiment. In that instance, they were able to alter the decay rate by 1.5 percent. In much more extreme conditions, however, the decay rate could change significantly. It shows that the uniformitarian assumptions of radiometric dating can and will produce unreliable data.

These are things that they don't teach you in science class. When it comes down to it, there is no actual proof for deep time in the fossil record, when we're talking about actual empirical evidence. We only have circumstantial evidence based on assumptions which I have shown to be faulty. That is where the hall of mirrors comes in, where everything you see is reflecting the assumptions you make. It is what is called a worldview, which is like a set of glasses you use to see the world. Everyone has a worldview. The apriori assumptions you make about reality constitutes your worldview. That is what is going on here..their worldview of the world forming from purely naturalistic processes, and that slowly over vast amounts of time, is a bias which skews all of their data to that direction, when as I showed previously with the mudstones that it could just as easily point in the other direction.

One would think with the resource they have, rather than building a giant robot with overly complicated controlling system, they would build something a lot cheaper and efficient like a fast moving projectile that has good penetration and cause a giant secondary explosion... just a thought.

No, he' s blowing alright. It's just he's covered the white tip with his tongue and is blowing into a secondary pipe, which is moving the wheel. The other guy just doesn't cover the white tip and gets the surprise.

Bollocks.

Not once has a scientist made a discovery and gone "shit the bible was right about this the whole time".

If there are theologians on the top of that mountain,
1. they got there on the backs of scientists
2. they refuse to believe they're not still in a field
3. they're so blinded by their faith that they're missing the awesome view all around them

The conception of being able to uncover the laws governing the Universe by investigating secondary causes is an idea advanced by Christian scientists. It was the belief that God created a lawfully ordered Universe that we could investigate with our reason which led to what is called the scientific method today. Every discovery we've ever made confirms the regularity of the Cosmos and the intelligibility (which is evidence for intelligent causation)

“The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

I remember encountering this exact thing with the model of the atom going from primary to secondary school and then university.

Considering how complex atoms are at the fundamental level it's no wonder kids aren't taught this stuff.