|
The grasvitational center is within the sun, but is not the center of the sun - because the planets pull it away from center.Galileo and Copernicus were concerned with the observational center (ie. plotting where planets would be).
The point is going to make is that stating where the center is has symbollic meaning (cultural metanarrative) as well as scientific meaning and it's quite possible for each (science and symbol) to be quite plastic to meet the needs of the other.
OK, that's true and I understand why you brought it up now.
|
|
Btw, I realize I've been curt to some of you. Many of you have advanced education in a field (math, biology, physics, whatever) and have come across people who fervently argue something that you consider pretty basic to the fielld. I'm sure you can relate to the impulse to get irritated and snippy.
But, that doesn't make acting on that impulse right. I've acted on that impulse and I want to apologize for that. I'm displacing anger. My doctor didn't refill my pain pill prescription before going on holiday. I've spent most of my time since Wednesday evening laying on my back trying to keep the pain down and getting half as much sleep as normal. I've tried to compensate with a Tylenol/Ibuprofein mix, but the Ibuprofein has tore up my stomach. And my tv is out. I'm a bundle of raw nerves and I apologize for displacing it on this thread.
No hard feelings, I'm sure, from any of us: we banter each other all the time.
Hope you feel better.
I'm talking about the fact that anything in space can be treated as the still point around which everything else moves.
That is not a fact.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You MIGHT be entitled to your own interpretations, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts.
Jupiter is not in any way shape or form moving around the earth. The moons of Jupiter are not moving around the earth. This is not advanced knowledge, this is second grade astronomy.
The heliocentric model didn't replace the geocentric one out of some idea of cultural imperialism, it replaced it because its right. With a geocentric model you have the other planets violating the laws of inertia and going backwards or revolving around absolutely nothing for no reasonl
http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/retro/retro.html
And no problem with the snapiness (i don't want to throw rocks). Been there too. My family's Irish so we have a built in tolerance for foreign substances. Fun thing about popping awake on the operating table is you get to learn some fun swears in persian from the anesthesiologist.
|
but the Ibuprofein has tore up my stomach. And my tv is out. I'm a bundle of raw nerves and I apologize for displacing it on this thread.
Sorry to hear that. How much are you taking? Motrin and Tylenol should be fine together, but motrin will eat away at the stomach lining without taking it with food & water. Thats actually a specific contraindication for it, even though it's OTC. I want to say of the top of my head 3,200 mg/day, max.
We eventually go on to learn, in college, that anything can be chosen as the stationary reference point
Cite this. Choosing the earth as a stationary reference point doesn't work. You get planet motions that are utterly nonsensical
How is venus going around the earth?
Visualize the solar system working just the way you learned it in 2nd grade. Everything's position is kept in relation to everything else. Now, reach out and grab the planet Earth and hold it still. Because everything is kept in relation to everything else, the Sun starts moving around the Earth. As the Sun is moving around the Earth, Mercury and Venus are circling the Sun like moons. This means that Mercury and Venus are circling the Earth are in circles as well.
Now visualize your high school physics. What you see by that model is jupiter STOPPING in the sky and then going BACKWARDS for absolutely no reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just goes to show what I have always maintained: I am the center of the universe.
And hell is other people!
|
|
800mg of Ibuprofein every 6 hours. It's not Motrin, though.
Same thing. You do mean Ibuprofen, right, (just to clarify its the same med). The other thing with it is that it needs to be in your system continueously. It's an antiinflamitory, (not a pain killer) so if you are only taking it to reduce pain (a secondary effect) it is not working the way it is intended to.
As I said, the orbits aren't nonsensical, but they are complicated
Malarky, horse pucky, nonsense, blatherskite, complete, total and utter inanity.
The relative positions of the planet are NOT subjective. They are not up for debate. They are not your opinion, they are not your feelings, they are not as validated as you "feel" they are. It is not some western imperialist thought that places the sun at the center of the solar system: it is true and objective reality.
I don't know what rabbit hole of epistemic nihilism or freshmen philosophy class you fell down but you have officially hit rock bottom and then proceeded to dig a tunnel system goblins would find confusing.
Religion is easy. Spirituality is easy. Science is HARD. You have to think, you have to do work, and in the end all of your hard work you still have to worry about your findings earning a big fat F from natures big scary red pen.
People can be wrong. It doesn't make them bad or stupid. It doesn't take away from their amazing achievements. It doesn't mean that the culture that was right about one thing is right about everything else (particularly non related subjects) But if you insist on tying them together you're making the very argument you're trying to refute.
Same thing. You do mean Ibuprofen, right, (just to clarify its the same med). The other thing with it is that it needs to be in your system continuously. It's an anti-inflammatory, (not a pain killer) so if you are only taking it to reduce pain (a secondary effect) it is not working the way it is intended to.
Whoa! I hope you're an M.D. or biochemist to be discussing the efficacy of ibuprofen! And also a PhD in philosophy, lest you haplessly use an imprecise definition of "intended."
You'd better leave this conversations to the professionals. You can recognize them by name...starts with "Darkwing," ends with "Duck."
Give it up. It's not worth the argument. He'll pick one irrelevant statement in your response and nitpick it to death.
No offense, but welcome to two days ago. :P
The only way we stop this crap is for everyone to call him on it -- or better yet, ignore him completely. He is clearly in it for the attention.
Give it up. It's not worth the argument. He'll pick one irrelevant statement in your response and nitpick it to death.No offense, but welcome to two days ago. :P
The only way we stop this crap is for everyone to call him on it -- or better yet, ignore him completely. He is clearly in it for the attention.
I should have learned to ignore Darkwing last time I was in conversation with him, and he tried to claim that sociobiology meant that genes couldn't determine behaviour, when actually explaining how behaviour can evolve as a result of selection at the level of the gene, rather than the individual is almost the entire point of sociobiology.
I laughed myself to stand still, gave up the thread for lost and had a rest from his head ache causing madness. If only I where a faster learner.
Given that almost every argument he either shifts the goal posts, raises irrelevance as though they are counter arguments and argues in circles for hours.
On the specific point thats been being dealt with over the last few posts.
Darkwing: The fact you can treat any static point as 'the centre', and generate laws which describe the motion of other bodies is entirely irrelevant to Galileo and Copernicus. They where out to provide a scientific explanation for the observed motion of the planets.
Galileo was punished for publishing his findings, because it contradicted religious dogma, while Copernicus was reluctant to publish, because of feared reprisals.
That is the truth of it, that is one of the great harms of religion, at work. Deal with that issue, rather than playing semantic games.
A famous quote by E.O. Wilson goes as follows, "Just because you have legs doesn't mean you run all the time". In other words, to take an example, our genetic gifts give us the ability to be tool builders, but whether we make bows or screwdrivers is not all genetically determined. In his book, On Human Nature, he makes...Give it up. It's not worth the argument. He'll pick one irrelevant statement in your response and nitpick it to death.No offense, but welcome to two days ago. :P
The only way we stop this crap is for everyone to call him on it -- or better yet, ignore him completely. He is clearly in it for the attention.
I should have learned to ignore Darkwing last time I was in conversation with him, and he tried to claim that sociobiology meant that genes couldn't determine behaviour, when actually explaining how behaviour can evolve as a result of selection at the level of the gene, rather than the individual is almost the entire point of sociobiology.
I laughed myself to stand still, gave up the thread for lost and had a rest from his head ache causing madness. If only I where a faster learner.
Given that almost every argument he either shifts the goal posts, raises irrelevance as though they are counter arguments and argues in circles for hours.
On the specific point thats been being dealt with over the last few posts.
Darkwing: The fact you can treat any static point as 'the centre', and generate laws which describe the motion of other bodies is entirely irrelevant to Galileo and Copernicus. They where out to provide a scientific explanation for the observed motion of the planets.
Galileo was punished for publishing his findings, because it contradicted religious dogma, while Copernicus was reluctant to publish, because of feared reprisals.
That is the truth of it, that is one of the great harms of religion, at work. Deal with that issue, rather than playing semantic games.
Your cherry picking.
One of the fundamental, underpinning principles of sociobiology is that there are heritable behavioural traits.
Biology is one of the determining factors of behaviour.
Unless, you are absent a fairly significant reward pathway, when you see this picture your response will very likely be an intense feeling of 'ah cute'. Almost every one here will do the same, as the reward pathways in our brain are hijacked by the paedomorphic characteristic of the kitten. This reward pathway measurably alters behaviour.
Your argument had been that outcomes are largely the result of "choice", but the fact is that there are a whole range of biological, environmental and psychological factors, that alter the way in which we make 'choices' and are ability to actualises a decision once made.
...A famous quote by E.O. Wilson goes as follows, "Just because you have legs doesn't mean you run all the time". In other words, to take an example, our genetic gifts give us the ability to be tool builders, but whether we make bows or screwdrivers is not all geneticallyGive it up. It's not worth the argument. He'll pick one irrelevant statement in your response and nitpick it to death.No offense, but welcome to two days ago. :P
The only way we stop this crap is for everyone to call him on it -- or better yet, ignore him completely. He is clearly in it for the attention.
I should have learned to ignore Darkwing last time I was in conversation with him, and he tried to claim that sociobiology meant that genes couldn't determine behaviour, when actually explaining how behaviour can evolve as a result of selection at the level of the gene, rather than the individual is almost the entire point of sociobiology.
I laughed myself to stand still, gave up the thread for lost and had a rest from his head ache causing madness. If only I where a faster learner.
Given that almost every argument he either shifts the goal posts, raises irrelevance as though they are counter arguments and argues in circles for hours.
On the specific point thats been being dealt with over the last few posts.
Darkwing: The fact you can treat any static point as 'the centre', and generate laws which describe the motion of other bodies is entirely irrelevant to Galileo and Copernicus. They where out to provide a scientific explanation for the observed motion of the planets.
Galileo was punished for publishing his findings, because it contradicted religious dogma, while Copernicus was reluctant to publish, because of feared reprisals.
That is the truth of it, that is one of the great harms of religion, at work. Deal with that issue, rather than playing semantic games.
Darkwing, your doing it again.
You had argued prior to that comment that 'choice' was the primary factor in success or failure, and went so far as to say "...as if these people were somehow born different.
They weren't born different. They -chose- to be different."
Perhaps. A lot of that is down to education, not necessarily class. Social mobility in the UK declined after the implementation of the comprehensive education system. That made the relative differences worse, and gave the rich an advantage in educating their kids in that they could pay for better (when before, kids from poorer backgrounds could get a good academic education in a grammar school). The US is quite well known for poor public schools and militant unions. Just saying "class" doesn't really address the causes, it's more a description than an analysis.Educational prospects and opportunities are very tightly tied to income inequality. If your rich you can get into good schools
One of the reasons that introduction of comprehensive schools may have effected Social mobility, is that for a small, highly motivate and talented portion of the population whom could not afford private education, it provided opportunities on an educational(if not social) par with private education, at the expense of every one else. The effect of this very small group however biased the figures.
The argument goes that while comprehensive education improved the lot of everyone else, it removed that pathway for that small portion of the population. The answer of cause is to provide education on the same standards as the Grammars, to all students. Of cause that would be expensive.
I call bs on the idea that there is a "small, highly motivated, and talented portion of the population" who biased the figures as if these people were somehow born different.
They weren't born different. They -chose- to be different.
I was stuck in a school (elementary, middle school, and high school) in which most of the teachers didn't have a college degree. Between 7:30 and 3:30 Monday through Friday, I had to go to this joke of a school and get taught crap. On Fridays, we weren't even allowed to eat. After school, I'd take books from the library and study on my own (when I wasn't working at my McJob). I ended up being a National Merit Scholarship award recipient. I did it because I -chose- to do it.
But life outcomes are not only a result of choice. A individual can work as hard as you did, and not achieve the same outcomes, because their barriers to success are higher.
Biological differences can be amongst those barriers, as can socio-economic, environmental, cultural and psychological factors. You need to choose to work hard to successed(unless your family is very wealthy, in which case it is genuinely possible to bimble your way to limited success), but choosing to work hard does not ensure success.
The physical neurological traits that influence our abilities to learn and perform well within an educational environment are set down by our genetics, enviromental factors ( both physical and psychological). Even our ability to 'choose' as you put it, is not determined by our decisions alone.
Form learning disabilities to behavioural disorders that impair concentration, there are plenty of ways in which biology alone can lead to an individual who worked just as hard as you did, to not become a national merit scholar. But it goes deeper than that because Biology can even alter our decision making processes, so it is possible for some one to want to succeed and be willing to work just as hard as you did, but not achieve because they made bad choices along the way, based on their biology, not their intentions.
I was hardly alone in pointing this lot out to you. You raised sociobiology, as though it where a counter to this argument.
You misunderstand sociobiology. It doesn't claim that our actions are mandated by our biology, only that our biology makes our actions possible. I -chose-my actions just as slackers choose theirs.
But as I have pointed out, sociobiology is exactly about ways in which heritable characteristics form a major factor in shaping behaviour, and more interesting, how selective pressures work on the genes for behavioural traits.
So when you say...
Go ahead and laugh all you want about that, it just shows a misguided sense of expertise on your part.
My simple answer is yes, I think I will, and suggest that we leave this side tract there. It might also be worth you stopping with the dancing around subjects.
It's a good thing I didn't say that the relative positions of the planets are subjective then, isn't it? In fact, what I said JUST a few posts ago is "everything is kept in relation to everything else". What I said is subjective is the reference point around which everything else moves.
Whatever you're trying to say about reference points you need to say it. As it is I'm tempted to start referring to your defense of heliocentrism as western imperialism as a joke.
If you try to launch a rocket to mars with the idea that the earth is still and the stars are spinning around it every 24 hours you are going to miss horribly because the rocket is going to keep the momentum of the spinning earth as it leaves orbit.
The earth is actually spinning. That actually matters. The reference points are not created equal. There is more to reality than arbitrarily chosen "ways of looking at things"
I -did- say it, many times.
What you said is a conflicting mass of epistemic nihilism ,freshman philosophy and badly out of context quantum mechanics. Its so horrible in fact that it looks like you're TRYING to equate science with an arbitrary, subjective choice, which is a very common tacit in apologetics to discredit science because science keeps beating up religion and taking its lunch money.
And, yes, there is a velocity differential between Earth and the surrounding space. I believe the physics affect of that will be the same whether we attribute that velocity difference to the surrounding space or to the Earth (much the same as it doesn't matter whether we stick our heads out of a moving car's window and feel the stationary air as wind or we are standing still in the wind).
It won't work. If you assume that the earth is still and the universe is moving around it then you have to assume that all the stars are equidistant.
If you shoot a rocket at the sky to the place where mars will be you would miss because earths rotation isn't taken into account in your relativistic model.
If we needed more evidence, this is exactly why religion shouldn't be allowed at the same table as science, much less allowed to dictate terms to it.
I have absolutely no idea why you think I'm advocating epistemic nihilism. I'm not. I'm pointing out that, for example, when using the DIKW model, there are multiple ways to go from I to K. That doesn't mean that any way to combine I leads to K, so it's not epistemic nihilism.
What you're refusing to recognize is that some models are more accurate compared to an existing external reality than others. In other words some models are GASP.. BETTER than others.
If any model is just as good as any other model then no model has any value.
I'm going to assume that you've got at least a freshman level of epistemology, which means that this is the second time on this page alone that I said something and then you posted that I said the opposite of what I actually said. It looks to me like you're grasping for straws.
Or i really have no idea what point you're trying to make anymore and you've rudely rebuffed everyone that's asked for an explanation of what the heck you're talking about. If you're not arguing for the equality of a geocentric model on your point with the Polynesians exactly WHAT point are you trying to make?
...A famous quote by E.O. Wilson goes as follows, "Just because you have legs doesn't mean you run all the time". In other words, to take an example, our genetic gifts give us the ability to be tool builders, but whether we makeGive it up. It's not worth the argument. He'll pick one irrelevant statement in your response and nitpick it to death.No offense, but welcome to two days ago. :P
The only way we stop this crap is for everyone to call him on it -- or better yet, ignore him completely. He is clearly in it for the attention.
I should have learned to ignore Darkwing last time I was in conversation with him, and he tried to claim that sociobiology meant that genes couldn't determine behaviour, when actually explaining how behaviour can evolve as a result of selection at the level of the gene, rather than the individual is almost the entire point of sociobiology.
I laughed myself to stand still, gave up the thread for lost and had a rest from his head ache causing madness. If only I where a faster learner.
Given that almost every argument he either shifts the goal posts, raises irrelevance as though they are counter arguments and argues in circles for hours.
On the specific point thats been being dealt with over the last few posts.
Darkwing: The fact you can treat any static point as 'the centre', and generate laws which describe the motion of other bodies is entirely irrelevant to Galileo and Copernicus. They where out to provide a scientific explanation for the observed motion of the planets.
Galileo was punished for publishing his findings, because it contradicted religious dogma, while Copernicus was reluctant to publish, because of feared reprisals.
That is the truth of it, that is one of the great harms of religion, at work. Deal with that issue, rather than playing semantic games.
Corner cases hu? 1 in 6 UK citizens has some form of diagnosable mental health problem at any one time, 1 in 4 diagnosable mental health problem each year (The Office for National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity report, 2001).
Dyslexia: some where between 1 in 20, and 1 in 10 people.
Yes, an individual can 'overcome' both to varying degrees, but individual cases are just that. When we look at the question at the level of the population, what you discover is that mental illness, just for one example has a significant impact on life chances.
This is the point you have failed to grasp at every turn. Luck played a part in you doing well for your self. There where people in your class who worked every bit as hard as you, but for reasons of biology or environment did not achieve as you did.
Nor did I say that I wasn't arguing for the equality of the geocentric model (depending on how one measures "equality" - I did say that the heliocentric model is a good math trick).
And now we're back to epistemic nihlism and the denigration of science.
Heliocentrism isn't just a good model. Its not a good math trick. Its an accurate description of reality. When you refuse to acknowledge that that's what science gives us you're selling it short.
the difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism"
There really isn't a standardized and agreed difference between these two concepts for you to complain that someone doesn't "know". They describe different but very related things and the lines between the two get kind of blurry. The thing is that they disagree with you over the definitions that are still plastic. A different expert, book, or course would likely have slightly different definitions than the ones you know. You're taking the argument to a level of pedantry that simply doesn't exist.
This is how i break it down.
Hard atheist: There is no god. (hello!)
Soft atheist: I don't think god exists
epistemic agnostic: God has as much evidence as the tooth fairy, but i don't want to try to prove a negative.
I think anything above here probably qualifies as an atheist.
Militant agnostic: I don't know and you don't either
Genuine agnostic (very rare) I'm not sure if god exists or not.
These two are agnostics
Questioning believer: I think there's a god
Moderate beleiver: there's a god, just be a good person and you'll be fine. God either made the world and let it go or gave evolution a little push
True believer tm: Its jesus or hell.
Creationist (light): The earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Creationist (heavy): The earth is about 6,000 years old (possible Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC,)
That depends. When I'm talking about something (like the DIKW model or the difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism") and people don't know what that stuff is, I'm not expecting them to just act like they know or talk about how "well read" they are. I expect them, first, to scroll back to see if I already described the concept, then, if they still don't understand, I expect them to tell me they scrolled back, but are still confused.Nor did I say that I wasn't arguing for the equality of the geocentric model (depending on how one measures "equality" - I did say that the heliocentric model is a good math trick).
I, also, posted quite awhile back what the point was - that science and cultural metanarrative are quite plastic to one another.
When I first posted about the geocentric model in this thread, I certainly didn't anticipate having to spend so much time defending the incredibly simple to understand point that I made.
Maybe that's because you explained it poorly? Or it wasn't as simple or possibly as relevant as you thought?
In general when everyone else involved doesn't understand (or accept) your point the problem isn't with them.
Atheism: Lack of a positive belief in one or more gods, which actively affect the universe.
Antitheism: A statement of opposition to a god or gods, ussually coupled with atheism. example: "I do not believe in their is reason to believe the christian god exists, but even if he did, I would stand against him, because what we know of 'him', makes it clear he is a capricious, monsterously vain and spiteful creature, unworthy of the worship it demands."
Theism: Positive belief in one or more gods, which actively affect the universe.
Deism: Positive belief in one or more gods, which do not actively affect the universe.
Agnostic: A statement that you do not know.
Gnostic: A statement that you do know
A statement of Agnostic Atheism would be "I do not know if their is a gods, but in the absence of compelling and extraordinary evidence for the their existence, I do not believe in their existence."
I am by these definitions; a Antitheistic(with regards to Yahweh, but this lessens with other gods and their religions), agnostic atheist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding helio/geocentrism, I'm not arguing -for- either. I'm just saying that, given the right context in our shared body of knowledge, either one works.
This is wrong. We understand that objects do not simply stop for no reason, turn around and go the other way. Geocentrism does not explain why entire planets appear to do this. So no, it is not a case where "either one works" no matter what context or sophistry you want to work for the "context".
You have been told this repeatedly. You have no right to berate others, or tell others to study more to read up on some crack pot sociology when your science is 500 years behind the times.
This also completely ignores the fact that the planets actually are somewhere in reality. You have gotten your epistemology twisted around your reality and completely forgotten that an external reality does exist for us to compare our ideas too.
And people wonder why I think philosophy is nuttier than squirrel poo.
Wow. I had never met a geocentrist before. Any flat-earth believer out there? No one to contest gravity?
I already knew about the creationists, the global flood believers and the global warming refuzniks (aka oil companies shareholders), but that one is new for me. Amazing.
More seriously, heliocentrism isn't a 'math trick' with no more value than geocentrism. One is a belief, long held for reasons of faith; the other is a demonstrated truth. Newsflash : the earth DO turn around the sun, whatever the polynesians think (or rather thought : they have got schools and scientific tuition now). The reverse can SEEM to be true for an observer on Earth, but that doesn't makes it true (the same way that your guy driving a car and popping his head out could believe the wind is blowing and the ground rolling under his wheels, while everyone else outside the car would see that he is in fact moving).
Facts and scientific truths AREN'T subjectives. That the main strenght of science : one experiment can be reproduced with the same results anywhere by anyone (within the same experimental parameters, of course).
It's geocentrism that is a math trick: just look at the circonvoluted formulas Tycho Brahe had to make up to account for the crazy trajectories of the planets, as seen from earth. Headache guaranteed. Heliocentrist formulas are an order of magnitude simpler, because they don't have to compensate for a skewed point of reference.
On the matter of the social usefulness of religion : as a matter of fact, in France, the catholic church has been consistently and for centuries opposing all social progress, betting again and again on the wrong horse : for the king against the republic, for monarchy against democracy, for patriarchal authority against women rights, for slavery against emancipation, etc. Society dragged it forward, not the other way around. We have also centuries of religion-motivated bloodbaths to show as evidence, too.
Making a difference between "religion" on one hand and "people practicing it" on the other, to absolve the former from the bad things made by the later, is absolutely fallacious. They is no such thing as a religion without people, who are by definition imperfect, full of hidden motives, prone to heinous things in the name of God. We are not talking about fancy hypothetical models here, but of real religions, with real people in it.
At least, we didn't get a civil war, so priests didn't bless the firing squads before mass executions of republicans, like they did in Spain.
The church finally understood that it would be wiser to stay away from the political arena and got a much better track record since WW2, at the point that the french church got more liberal that Rome (and earned for that offense the nomination of traditional minded cardinals to snuff out this "rebellion"). So yes, seen from here, religion is seen more like a reactionnary force than a progressive one (provided that you aren't speaking of a progression back to previous centuries, of course).
You can't just make up any meaning you want - not if you expect to have a discussion.
Atheism from atheos[\I] (Greek) meaning "without god, godless, denying the gods" ("a-" meaning "against, without, not" and "theos" meaning "a god") an atheist is someone who denies the gods, who is godless
Agnostic from [I]agnostic (Greek) coined by TH Huxley (1870) to mean "belief that the first cause cannot be known" ( "a-" means "against, without, not"gnostic" means "(to be) known")
I think we should take a moment to pity the poor agnostics who lived before 1870 and thought they were atheists because T.H. Huxley and Citizen Duck weren't around to correct them.
I think we should take a moment to pity the poor agnostics who lived before 1870 and thought they were atheists because T.H. Huxley and Citizen Duck weren't around to correct them.You can't just make up any meaning you want - not if you expect to have a discussion.
Atheism from atheos[\I] (Greek) meaning "without god, godless, denying the gods" ("a-" meaning "against, without, not" and "theos" meaning "a god") an atheist is someone who denies the gods, who is godless
Agnostic from [I]agnostic (Greek) coined by TH Huxley (1870) to mean "belief that the first cause cannot be known" ( "a-" means "against, without, not"gnostic" means "(to be) known")
Dark ages, indeed.
(lovely goggles, btw!)
Thank you. I just hope I don't get accused of making fun of the wall-eyed, but the avatar did seem appropriate.