How we know what we know: utter denial in human beings

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Just an off hand guess based on the number of women I know who've had them (false neg.) I'd say, ohhh about most of them.

I do hope you have that backwards. If you know women who had false negatives, how did they find out?

[Clodfobble]

When the tumor grew large enough to detect by non-pap-smear methods, its size indicating it must have been there during previous pap smears?

[footfootfoot]

No, Maggie is on the Ball. I have that backwards. A lot of them had false positives. That's why I had to give up being an freelance groin ecologist.

[Rock Steady]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Surely a computer dude knows how to Google. :-)

Computer dudes know better than to "google". Clustered results are much better.

Do you actually believe that the G-Evil company provides better search results? There is no scientific evidence to show that, and several private studies (that I am privey to, being a search expert) that indicate otherwise.

Maggie, Google is a Silicon Valley company; all other Silicon Valley companies you distrust. Why the affinity for such an evil empire? I have met with Google on three seperate occasions and I know them well. They are very evil; you have no idea. Why do you like them?

[footfootfoot]

Can you give us a tib bit of their evil doings?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by BlueSky_TheMan

... and what the hell is a weltanschauung ?

It's what you check when you're trying to calculate your lebensraum.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Rock Steady

Do you actually believe that the G-Evil company provides better search results? There is no scientific evidence to show that, and several private studies (that I am privey to, being a search expert) that indicate otherwise.

Maggie, Google is a Silicon Valley company; all other Silicon Valley companies you distrust.

That's an unsupported sweeping generality...you're just cranked becuase I think your latest "WiFi NetZero" Kool-Ade smells of fish.

And "privey" sounds like where that objection belongs, too; finding the definition for a foreign word doesn't exactly require the best search engine on the planet...whatever you may believe that means. There are currently twelve engines in my search bar; I'm satisfied with Google for routine stuff such as the above. My sympathies if they compete with your advertising business.

Since you're a "search expert" you'd probably better get used to the fact that-like it or not-"google" has become a generic term for web search. (So much so that maybe they should scramble a little to protect the trademark.)
"It's not so much the verbing that wierds language, it's the renounification."

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

No, Maggie is on the Ball.

Not any more. :-)

[Rock Steady]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Can you give us a tib bit of their evil doings?

I had to sign NDAs a few times in my dealings with them. So, I am limited in what I can say. I offer the following public tid bit. I believe that Google is unfair to older workers even though they prevailed in this suit. It's very hard to prove especially with verbal comments in private.

(AP) A California judge has sided with Google Inc. in an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a former manager who alleged the online search engine leader had fired him because he didn't fit in with the company's youthful culture.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge William Elfving granted Google a summary judgment on all the case's key issues in a Sept. 21 ruling. The judge concluded that Brian Reid, formerly Google's director of operations, hadn't presented enough evidence to prove Google fired him in February 2004 because of his age.

Reid, who was 54 when he filed the suit more than 14 months ago, said one of Google's executives told him that he lost his job because he didn't fit into Google's youthful atmosphere. ...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1174574

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

Today I bent the truth to be kind, and I have no regret, for I am far surer of what is kind than I am of what is true. -Robert Brault, software developer, writer (1938- )

And why not?

Because sometimes being kind is the greatest disservice possible. When they find out they'd been making a fool of themselves and you could have prevented it, how will they feel about you?

[BlueSky_TheMan]

They will feel your kindness. They will feel your love. They will forget their embarrassment. Their life will be better off from feeling the joy brought by your compassion. Besides, most of the time sacrificing kindness for "truth" is lost as people will only believe what they are ready to believe.

I have NEVER regretted the situations in my life where kindness was chosen over truth.


EDIT: after posting the above I thought it was important to clarify my view by saying that kindness is the key in BigV's quote. Many times truth is the kindness . The intentions of what you express far outweigh the syntax of the words given.

Yes , kindness is beauty .

And, to quote Keats :

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all ye know on earth and all you need to know' .

... but , we cannot be poets all the time .

What is the line between true kindness and condescension ? I would not like anyone to hide the truth from me 'out of kindness' . I decide what is good for me , not other people . Mao probably thought he was being kind when he lied to the Chinese .

This is so common it is ridiculous, the example that confuses me the most is all the evidence of Mediterranean, Asian, North African and European presences in the Americas far before Columbus, yet American and European text books still contain that falsehood.
This is true of much of what we know of history, particularly of the move West in America, but a great deal more... it is sad and shameful.

Yes . Although we do mention Eric the Red .

There is also an old tradition of a pre-Columbus North American tribe being able to speak Welsh , but this is nonsense . Similarly , in New Zealand , some people of European stock like to claim that the Celts were there before the Maori . This theory tends to be put forward by uneducated racists .

Concerning the Chinese , yes , it seems to be respectable historical fact that they got around far more than was hitherto believed .