He says start with the highest order, which makes me think the neighborhood with order 3 would get the smaller node labels, and the neighborhoods with order 0 would get the highest.

It looks like the opposite was done.

What I’m driving at is that science is an awesome tool, not at all at odds with religion. It’s one, very effective method, but it’s not the end all be all for truth.

The scientism I’m driving at is people putting blind faith in science as a replacement for other forms of understanding. The argument is that religious or philosophical understanding come in when science has reached its absolute limit. The two are not competitive with each other.

This idea is developed in depth by Bishop Robert Barron. Very interesting to consider.

It’s not a personal choice and I’m sure it will be enforced in short order.

If someone can’t distinguish in context that words mean different things, they need to change, not everyone else.

Last year I just used bubble wrap and plastic, but a lot of the smaller branches died.

Good news is that a lot of us know how good the dialogue can be. Instead of despairing, why not jump in and raise the conversation?

What do you think scientists are doing when writing grant proposals?

Good scientific claims hold up to skepticism.

A. The climate is getting hotter.

B. Weather events are more “spectacular”.

If the evidence supports the claim, A is clearly easier. If there’s a lack of evidence, B is clearly easier to prove because level is “spectacular ness” has no clear definitions.

Of course someone could probably come up with a spectacularness metric, but at that point there’s so many assumptions you have to make it’s almost a circular argument.

Each claim is progressively harder to nail down and prove. If there’s one thing modern forms of media is good at, it’s make mundane things seem spectacular.

Edit: Given your username, I’d expect more faith in humanity, not less.

I took it in the spirit of climate change advocates who tend to argue for immediate radical change. Underlying those arguments is a belief that we will not be able to address problems as they arise in the future.

I think we will. I believe in the power of human ingenuity to respond to constraints of the environment. That’s what I took it to mean; the ability to solve unsolved problems when the need arises.

What a way to box the entirety of human ingenuity into a pithy phrase.

Such a fiendish application of the dialectic knife.