Interesting that he is notable for these two separate subjects. They're not subjects I expect to see together.

The remainder of the entry provides a more in-depth examination of the following topics:

• The uses (continued examination of definition)
• Historical evolution of the topic
• Contemporary issues

The initial definition continues with an overview of the essential topics and additional keywords most closely associated with in-depth study of rhetoric.

Most Wikipedia entries start with basic definition. You'll note these significant features:

• 1st sentence describes the class of thing ("ancient arts of discourse") and its common members (grammar, logic, and rhetoric)
• 2nd sentence offers a list of specific concerns, or the distinguishing characteristics of rhetoric: "techniques ... to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audience in specific situations."
• 3rd sentence provides a direct reference to an credible source and authoritative perspective from the Greek philosopher Aristotle that further situates the definition by emphasizing the point of focus for its exercise and application.

public test note

Useful in the near future for Middle and Old Welsh...

*COLORS杂志：每季出版一次，以世界各地的年轻人为对象，分为三种版本，通过四种语言在40个国家发刊。COLORS最初构想由Luciano Benetton 与 Oliviero Toscani提出，1991年由Tibor Kalman负责创立，编辑方针上尊重文化歧异、所有文化价值均等。该杂志于2015年停刊。

Correct posture towards an issue substituting for responsibility of doing something

Not all sets can be ascribed with the attribute of length on the real line.

• #Question What's the difference between the length in the measure sense as compared to in the metric sense?

The largest possible subset of $$E$$ is always the [[power set]]

What are integral on the functions?

将策略定为从当前观测到动作的映射是不合适的，因为观测序列不是markov的，最优动作不能仅由当前观测所确定。 正确的说，应该是从观测历史到动作的映射，或者说是内部状态到动作的映射

Thanks, @ChrisAldrich!

I would love to read more about how wells were talked about -- holy, poisoned...

Does bone mean literal bone here?

By the late sixth century is early enough for me!

homeless incarcerated refugees

spoilage?

size of a trial

Heath Robinson 1872 年出生于英国伦敦一个艺术家世家，经历了两次世界大战，看着科技如何急速改变世界。他父亲及兄长都从事美术和插画工作，在耳濡目染下，他在皇家艺术学院主修美术，希望成为风景画家 ，不过现实是他在出版社当插画家展开了一生事业。

刚开始是为爱伦坡诗集、安徒生童话、一千零一夜和莎士比亚的著作绘制插画。在1902年他开始为他自己的第一本儿童读物《鲁宾叔叔历险记》作画，故事里这位与他同名的英雄的任务是照顾他的侄子彼得，一天侄子被一只大鸟带走了。随后，鲁宾开始了一系列机器辅助的冒险，他自行建造了一系列飞艇和潜水船来寻找他：开始了成为“小玩意儿人”的旅程。

从这里开始，Heath Robinson 打开了一个真正属于他的世界，开始“发明”一系列复杂的机械装置来“解决”普通生活中的日常问题，比如不妨碍楼下睡觉的“静音party”，把人直接打造成形的“减肥引擎”，向前一步往外扩展的折叠花园……

SvalSat卫星站是一个巨大的白色圆形球体，外表面又被切割成一个又一个神秘的三角形，顶部的红色小灯一直闪烁，每一秒，它都在接收距地面约840公里的轨道上的卫星传来的数据。这些卫星被称为“极轨卫星”，它们的轨道与太阳同步，每天，会两次飞越地球表面上的同一个点，而且总在同一个时刻。

建筑师巴克敏斯特·富勒 (Buckminster Fuller) 在自己的作品“曼哈顿上空的穹顶”（Dome over Manhattan）中构建了乌托邦——一个将部分城市置于网格穹顶之下的计划。虽然该方案仍旧停留在纸上，但富勒的结构却被广泛应用于温室，以提供植物生长繁衍所需要的人工性气候。

Donald Shoup在其《The High Cost of Free Parking》一书中指出，表面上“免费”的停车——想想杂货店、购物中心、公寓楼和其他地方——只是以其他方式转嫁了无形的成本，让整个社区，包括司机，都肩负重担。

在当年出版的The Digger Papers上，有这样的描述：

“‘挖掘者’认定免费商店是为了解放人性。首先是释放空间、商品和服务。让经济学理论遵循社会事实。一旦免费商店被证实有用，人类想要的和给予的，需要的和接受的，都会向即兴转变。”

Noting that there is a published article arguing that it's dark matter an not a black hole in the center of the Milky Way.

G is divided into crystalized versus fluid intelligence according to Cottrell.

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Jeet Heer</span> in Freedom to Teach in North Carolina - The Time of Monsters (<time class='dt-published'>06/17/2021 09:41:33</time>)</cite></small>

"irony is a dangerous freight to carry" —Paul Barker

a great aphorism

Meritocracy was coined to describe and ridicule a society and its selective education system.

• No beliefs can be conclusively justified
• Knowledge does not require certainty
• Almost no basic (that is, non-inferred) beliefs are certain or conclusively justified

I also am still not completly sure what metropolitan area is.

They could only control them by making them alliances with them, which guarenteed them freedom for military

Ive never heard of "cimarrons" before.

So Panama actually was a huge part to spain, because of how big Panama's transships were.

What exactly did the spanish authorities have control over?

Whats the spanish rule?

I never knew that the isthmus was used to ship gold and silver

first European to explore the isthmus of Panama.

Scholars believe that infectious disease was the primary cause of the population decline of American natives.

I looked up some pictures of the sculptures, and they look really intresting.

I didnt know that Panama was one of the first to start pottery making.

I would like to know what polychrome pottery is.

a narrow piece of land connecting two larger areas across an expanse of water by which they are otherwise separated.[

Does this mean that the actual orgin of the name is still unknown, and they all agreed to a end agreement?

In 1519, Pedrarias Dávila decided to establish the Spanish Empire's Pacific port at the site.

It seems that many things in the history, have missing puzzle peices, and a lot is unkown.

Overall the name Panama has no solid orgin, but there are many theories people have came up with. Some say it has something to do with A tree, or when the butterflies are abundant, or it can be apart of indigenous Amerindian languages that were spoken in the territory prior to Spanish colonizatio

Im curious on how the name Panama is unknown. Does this meansthat the name "panama" has no history?

inhabited by indigenous tribes before Spanish colonists arrived in the 16th century. It broke away from Spain in 1821 and joined the Republic of Gran Colombia,

What kind of plants are in Panama's jungles that aren't anywhere else?

I didn't even know that the world had a ranking to "Human Development" but i find it intresting that Panama ranked 57 in the world.

I would like to know more about the Panama canal since its a huge part of Panama but i dont know much about it.

I have never heard transcontinental country before, until i looked up the definition.

this is an annotation

More history here on the page than I would have thought.

Definitely worth digging into some of the older examples going back to [[Conrad Gessner]] and [[Johann Jacob Moser]].

Cato did this with both Pompey and now Caesar.

vow

Cato killed himself because of Caesar. His son-in-law kills Caesar. Wow.

Dutch Certificate Authority gets hacked.

福柯曾在1976年3月17日于法兰西科学院的一次演讲中，提出过一个概念，叫“生物政治”（biopolitics）。福柯说，在生物政治的时代，统治者不再像是过去的君王或大革命后的共和国，它并不关心改变某个特殊的现象，或者惩罚某个具体的人，而是关注作为统计数字的“人口”：调节寿命、出生率、死亡率等一系列指标，优化生活状态。在“生物政治”思路的指引下，人命必须是要经过准确和细致衡量的，必要时该付的代价是必须的，只是我们要尽可能通过计算，让代价最小化。

1919年，一位加利福尼亚工程师威廉·亨利·史密斯（William Henry Smyth）就提出了“技术统治”（Technocracy）这个术语。他写了一篇《“技术统治”——实现工业民主的道路与方法》（“Tchnocracy” — Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy）的文章，认为只有让人民从科学家和工程师中选举代表治理国家，才能有效实现民主统治。

nativeName in https://gist.github.com/piraveen/fafd0d984b2236e809d03a0e306c8a4d is the endonym for the language.

Differential topology take a more global view and studies structures on manifolds that have no interesting local structure while differential geometry studies structures on manifolds that have interesting local structures.

What happened?

2014 is the shift change

hmm

《Aniara》是诺贝尔奖得主Harry Mattinson在1956年完成的小说，同时也是电影《安尼亚拉号（Aniara）》的原著。这部小成本科幻作品，在释放出人类通过高科技逃离生存危机的欣喜之后，又一点点将其剥夺，最终把极低的生存希望拉长到了天文数字般的年限后才能达成——这时我们大概才会如梦初醒：所谓的时间，原来只不过是神用来把玩人类的道具罢了。

从工业机器诞生之日开始，我们就已经幻想这些非碳基生物有一天会成为人类的精神主宰了：1909 年，英国作家E.M.福斯特的科幻短篇《大机器停止（The Machine Stops）》，就已经描述了一个人类被机器控制甚至拜机器为神的极端工业化时代。

.

.

.

.

Can a user really unknowingly send an HTTP request? Or would it be more accurate to say the browser (user agent) sends the HTTP request, unknown to its (supposed) operator (user)?

seems to have nothing to do with tainted data, more about trusting frames from other domains?!

.

is-a hyponym

explains how

.

.

tangled code

programming paradigm

explanation interspersed with snippets of source code

.

Pr(s' | b,a,o) proportional to Pr(o | b,a,s') x Pr(s'|b,a)

s'的先验概率可以由我的belief和我的动作和环境状态转移算出。 在观测到o 之后的后验概率可以由贝叶斯定理算出。就这么简单

Polemics is distinct from most academic writing in that academic writing does not focus on conflict between parties, but rather distinct and controlled contributions to a problem. It would be incorrect, however, to suggest academics do not engage in polemics. Perhaps the communicative mode or medium might be worth focus here.

Contentious people, contentious issues. The connection is important to understand as we seldom come to clear and easy answers with such topics.

Unlike philosophical or some political argumentation, the polemicist's goal is assert the dominant argument. Most polemists assume they have arrived at the best informed argument.

Almost but not quite past, present and future.

Notice the word 'should' here, as well as the following content on reliability. Coding text often demands correspondence and scrutiny, as we are discussing language and culture. Answers and interpretations aren't always simple, but differences can contribute to more refined understanding.

Understanding what either approach tells us is important for critical consideration. For example, what would a frequency count tell us about one category's presence in text?

When we see content analysis applied in non-fiction writing, we obviously have a different expectation for this than with research writing. For example, sample data might be cherry picked to make a point, or little information in method is presented.

Let's understand that "text" can have many definitions:

• “Text” can be the content of language, that which is communicated.
• “Text” can be the whole repository of information in a transmissive form, like a book.
• “Text” can be any sampling of content, such as one word or many sentences.
• “Text” can come in many types (written, oral, iconic, audio-visual, and hypertext)

It's amazing how they avoid interpreting the text accurately. They think these various numbers were just appended onto the text when the previous predictions failed. Their commentary is quite useless, because if they took the text seriously they would see that the numbers are referring to different events.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, what's the conclusion from this review of this Wiki article? If you want to get a better understanding of something biblical, do not read Wikipedia. It is overtly anti-Christian and will deceive and mislead the reader to achieve its end. Go to one of the good, reputed bible commentaries. https://biblehub.com/ is a great place to start.

I haven't addressed damaging claims in other Wikipedia articles, such as:

• Darius the Mede was fictitious
• Belshazzar was fictitious

These probably come up in other Wikipedia articles, though they are easily answerable.

Again, another anti-divine claim made as a lone statement, alleging to be a fact. The atheistic agenda is apparent, so there's little reason to take all its claims at face value without getting the other side of the story from a bible-affirming source.

First of all, according to the text in Daniel itself, it was written around 530 BCE. That is a far cry from the 165 BCE date claimed by this article. Whilst there are good reasons for landing on the earlier date, scholars who don't actually believe the bible prefer the later date for Daniel. That is because it would put Daniel's book after the main events it prophesies about. That means Daniel was not writing prophecy, but simply recording history, pretending it was originally a prophecy. Many modern scholars like this because it removes the supernatural element from Daniel.

The Wiki author says this view is the 'consensus of modern scholarship'. Understand that 'modern scholarship' is not referring primarily to bible-believing scholars, but those who study the bible as a piece of ancient literature, usually saying it is a mixture of myths and history. They are secular scholars, often not even believing that God exists. They study the bible and other ancient texts for their literary and cultural value. It is therefore not surprising that the later date for Daniel -- the date that essentially makes the book out to be fake -- finds a lot of acceptance amongst 'modern scholars'.

Regarding the apparently failed prophecies of Daniel mentioned here, those prophecies have not failed. As you might know, when it comes to biblical prophecy, there are often different interpretive theories (the book of Revelation is a prime example). In this case, this article has chosen an interpretation that does not fit the data in Daniel.

This is where the intentions of the author (that is, of 'modern scholars') shines through. Instead of presenting other options which do work for Daniel's prophecy, the Wiki author sticks to this failed interpretation, and leverages it to claim support for his erroneous dating of Daniel.

The author's argument is false. Daniel's prophecy was referring to the Roman Emperor, not the Syrians, and in this the prophecy works simply. Daniel spoke the plain truth, and there's no reason to doubt that the book was written when it says it was, in the 6th century BCE. That, of course, would not be discussed or admitted in an article on Wikipedia, because it gives too much legitimacy to the bible, and particularly to Divine realities.

Their selective analysis makes one laugh and cry at the same time. Yes, if we insist on interpreting Jeremiah's prophecy only through the lens of the Maccabean era, then it is wrong. But why would you do that? The Maccabean era has nothing to do with Jeremiah's prophecy. If we interpret it instead through the lens that Jeremiah gives us -- the exile of Judah -- then the prophecy is spot on. The Wiki author has no real interest in the facts, only in pushing their worldview, regardless of how dishonest they must be with the facts along the way. There is no reason, from Jeremiah's words, to bring in the Maccabeans.

There are actually two options to see the 70 years fulfilled:

1. The temple of Solomon was destroyed by Babylon in 587 BC. The Second temple was completed and dedicated in 517 B.C., which is exactly 70 years. Notice that Daniel prayed in Daniel 9: "Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary," suggesting a prophetic focus on the temple.

2. Calculate the date from the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C. to the laying of the foundation of the Second Temple in 536 B.C. That was exactly 70 years (to the very day, apparently).

(Source: https://www.robertjmorgan.com/uncategorized/jeremiahs-seventy-years/ )

Notice how this article's author (i.e. 'modern (secular) scholars') bypass data that doesn't fit their narrative? Then they pretend that's all the data there is to see. They simply cannot allow the possibility that Scripture is divine, that prophecy is real, and that God reigns over the earth.

The author is suggesting that Daniel supposedly noticed that Jeremiah's 70-years prophecy (about the exile of Judah) was supposedly wrong, so Daniel decided to 'reinterpret' Jeremiah's prophecy, turning it into a new 70-week (490 year) prophecy (which is found in Daniel 9), hoping that by extending the timeline of the prophecy by 490 years, it might eventually come to pass. Thankfully that is not what biblical prophecy is like!

This line of reasoning would never be entertained by a Christian scholar, only by someone who has interest in dismantling the accuracy of Scripture. Needless to say, they are wrong. Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy was fulfilled quite nicely.

Yes, which is why the name 'El' is used of God Most High in the bible (https://hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html ). It is an ancient term for God. It is not surprising that other people's also understood that El reigns over the divine council. This is simply the truth. It doesn't mean Daniel borrowed the concept from anyone.

However, for an atheist who does not believe that God exists, then they would see the same idea in other literature and think that Daniel got this 'mythical' idea from there. Thus this Wiki author's reasoning is wrong, but it makes sense in light of their disbelief in God to start with.

This is an extremely loose correlation. Look up Hosea 13:7-8 and see if you can find Daniel's vision reflected there. One would not in the least think of Daniel's vision of four kingdoms reading these two verses.

By writing that Daniel "reflects Hosea 13:7-8", this article is attempting to build up the narrative that the book of Daniel is not an authentic work on its own, but that it largely borrowed and embellished other people's works a long later in the 2nd century BCE.

To conclude that an entire vision in Daniel is actually just reflecting a brief passing comment in Hosea, even though the two passages have no contextual correlation or relevance at all, is poor scholarship, and it shows the Wiki author is grasping at straws to delegitimise Daniel.

This is truly laughable. Again, looking at the source material (Niskanan, 2004, pp.27,31, see URL below), we see that two Persian texts are of interest here. They are 'Zand-i Wahman yasn (Bhaman Yasht)' and 'Denkard'. There is only one problem though... the former text is from the medieval period, and the latter is from the 9th century CE. The author there (Niskanan) even states explicitly that they came after Daniel. So unless Daniel could time-travel to many centuries into the future, then guess who got the idea from whom? The Persians got it from Daniel, not the other way around.

The willful aberration of facts by Wikipedia to peddle their own narrative is shocking and truly unscholarly. It's no wonder that their conclusions differ so much from genuine biblical scholarship.

Niskanan, 2004: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G0YFSrClQOkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false

Not true if Daniel was written when the book says it was written, in the 6th century BCE. That's too early for there to have been any Greek influence. Of course, the Wiki article cannot accept that date because it would legitimise Daniel's prophecies, so they go with the 2nd century BCE, which would theoretically allow the possibility of Greek influence.

However, even then, the correlation with Greek thought is barely there, and certainly not to the extent that this article intimates. If one refers to the source cited in this Wiki article (Niskanan, 2004, pp.27,31, see URL below), then it is seen that the concept in Greek thought was not specifically four successive world empires as in Daniel's vision, but simply the general notion that empires will routinely come and go in succession throughout history, instead of one empire ruling the world forever. This basic idea was, apparently, a particularly Greek perspective on world history. That is a very small correlation. Suffice to say, if anything, it is the Greeks who got the idea from Daniel, for his vision predates them by a couple of centuries.

Niskanan, 2004: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G0YFSrClQOkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is an assumption. You see, the Wiki author would like to attribute as much of Daniel as they can to 'other sources'. This would delegitimise Daniel as an authentic, divine revelation, which is what the Wiki author wants. However, as we shall see, the 'other sources' that this article mentions are not so compelling. Daniel remains unique and authoritative in its own right, not simply a mish-mash rehash of other people's ideas.

This is not of concern to us. Some books of the bible had anonymous input or authorship, though what these anonymous authors recorded was accurate history. For example, we say Moses wrote Deuteronomy, but the end of Deuteronomy includes Moses' death and the events immediately afterwards. Moses would have provided the primary source material, and scribes after him would have filled in the missing details. It would appear that a scribe after Daniel compiled some of Daniel's history with Daniel's own records of his visions, and put them together into one book, the book of Daniel today. This is fine. It is not an issue for Scripture.

Wikipedia is not the place I would go to for anything related to the interpretation or critique of Scripture. The simple reason is that Wikipedia is moderated by the culture at large, and our culture has an active interest in de-affirming Scripture. The desired (and intended) outcome is to downplay the authenticity of Scripture, and remove all its divine/supernatural realities.

Removing the divine is done by:

1. Ignoring the historical fulfillment of prophecies, re-casting prophecies as incorrect/unfulfilled, and thus claiming the prophecies were not divinely sourced but merely guesswork.
2. Revising timelines to ensure the prophecies were written after the events, and thus explaining away their great accuracy.
3. For all other supernatural elements, they simply get re-cast as myths and tales.

For an example of all this, look at Wikipedia's treatment of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Historicity_and_origin_of_the_resurrection_of_Jesus). Note how brief the section is for such an immense topic, and note the absence of any suggestion that there is actually a logical, evidenced-based case for the resurrection.

Taking Wikipedia as an authority on Scriptural matters is like taking Richard Dawkins as an authority on biblical creation. It's shooting yourself in the foot.

We should therefore approach the claims of this article with due skepticism.

I have started my comments in the section, 'Historical Background', and they continue sporadically for nearly the rest of the article. So head down there now and click on the highlight texts to read my comments. I have not commented on everything that is questionable, only what particularly caught my attention.

So because they deviously apply Daniel's 70-week prophecy to the exile, instead of to the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Dan 9:25), they think the 'anointed one' in the 70th week is Onias III. I'm sure Onias III would be quite chuffed that he gets a mention here, but he'd be scratching his head at their logic. Their intent to avoid the obvious conclusion of Daniel's prophecy is quite shocking.

If we don't say that Daniel was 'reinterpreting' Jeremiah's prophecy, and we just let Daniel's 70-week prophecy stand on its own merits, applying it to the inter-testimental period as it is supposed to be, then guess who the anointed one in the 70th week turns out to be who? The date lands right in the lap of the Messiah, Jesus, in the very week of his death in fact, when he is 'cut off' as Daniel says.

In fact, this 70-week prophecy is possibly the most amazing prophecy in all Scripture, for it accurately predicted when the Messiah would die, yet the prophecy itself spans nearly five centuries of history (70 weeks of years = 490 years). Again, secular scholars would not go anywhere near admitting all that, so they prefer to come up with really odd ideas instead.

See again how secular their view is? They say that Daniel was merely attempting, of his own ability, to predict how long until 'the end'. There is no room for the Holy Spirit in their view. We should not be surprised, then, that their conclusions drift so far from any true biblical scholarship. They don't even think Daniel was talking to a real angel (for it was the angel telling Daniel when the end would come, not 'Daniel attempting' it by himself). They essentially think Daniel was making all this up about the angel, etc.

Notice which part of Daniel they call 'real prophecy' (i.e. a real prediction of the future) -- only the last part of chapter 12, supposedly about the death of Antiochus. That's because the rest of what Daniel prophesied before that is so unavoidably historically accurate that they are forced to say, "It can't be prophecy, there is no God, and no human can predict things that accurately, so it must have been written after the events." So for the Wiki author, the only bit they would concede as an attempt at prophecy is a bit that they explain away as wrong. (As I said at the start, they either reinterpret a prophecy to make it look wrong, or they will change the date of writing to be after the events, not before.)

Since they interpret last part of chapter 12 wrongly, they escape its real fulfillment and claim Daniel was just guessing.

That is the only form of biblical prophecy which they will allow... just people taking a human-minded guess at what might happen in the future, with no divine input.

A misleading statement. Yes, the Sirach was written in the 2nd century BCE as claimed, however the Sirach omits other key figures like Ezra. Does that mean Ezra wasn't written until after the Sirach as well? No, not according to Wikipedia. This time, Wikipedia accepts the biblical view that Ezra was written about 450 BCE, a very long time before Sirach. So why does Daniel's omission from Sirach mean it was written after Sirach? That's only because Daniel contains prophecies, and the atheistic scholar can't allow the Divine. Ezra does not contain prophecies, it is just historical narrative, so there is no problem accepting its textual date of ~450 BCE, despite the Sirach not referencing it.

Again, keep in mind that we're reading an atheist's opinion on the book of Daniel where their agenda is to support their own worldview, not the facts. I see the same thing in evolutionary literature regularly -- contradictory reasoning, dubious reinterpretation of data, and selective omission of unwanted data.

Yes, the canonicity of the Nevi'im was settled around 200 BCE, but this is a moot point since Daniel was not grouped with the Nevi'im writings, but with the Ketuvim writings (which was also part of the Hebrew canon). It does not matter when the Nevi'im was closed. What matters is when the Ketuvim was closed (but the author won't discuss this, because it does not support their agenda).

Regarding the Ketuvim, it is actually hard to get data on when its canonicity was settled, but the general consensus appears to be that it was anywhere from the 6th to the 2nd centuries BCE. That means Daniel was written anywhere in or before that time (which is consistent with the text of Daniel), not strictly in the 2nd century BCE as this Wiki author claims.

As with the other dating claims made in this article, there is a clear bias away from a plain and reasonable assessment of the information at hand. There is, instead, a clear priority to only permit discussion on what fits the atheistic worldview.

This statement is misleading and is worded as a deliberate attack on the authenticity of Daniel. It sounds like the Hebrew people EXCLUDED Daniel from their original canon of Scripture.

Note that the text mentions not 'the canon', but 'the canon OF THE PROPHETS'. That is just one section of the Hebrew canon. It's just like we divide the Old Testament into the Pentateuch, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, etc. It's just categories, but it's all Scripture.

Daniel was not EXCLUDED from the Hebrew canon in any sense. Using that word 'excluded', as if there was an active renunciation of the book of Daniel by the Hebrews, is not only factually false, but it is designed to lead the reader against accepting Daniel as legitimate.

The truth is that Daniel was in the Hebrew canon, but just classified in the section called the Ketuvim ('Writings'), along with Ezra, Nehemiah and 10 other books of the Old Testament (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuvim). Daniel was no doubt classified there because so much of his book is historical narrative (like Ezra and Nehemiah), not primarily prophetic like Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. Daniel was in the canon, and was not excluded from it at all.

Again, it is clear this Wiki author has an agenda and will deceptively present his ideas accordingly.

Note that the author claims they're citing "evidence of the book's date", in a general sense. The unsuspecting reader would assume that what they are about to read is a good summary of all the data pertaining to the book's date. In reality, however, the author is only going to cite (loose) evidence of the date that THEY want to support, which is the 2nd century BCE. Why do they want this date, and what other dates might we consider?

They want (need) this date because then Daniel's amazingly accurate prophecies are not prophecies at all, and were actually just someone writing known history well after the events, and PRETENDING it was originally a prophecy. Thus this Wiki author avoids the notion of divine prophecy in Daniel and attempts to refute the inspiration of Scripture.

This would put the book in the inter-testimental period (that period of silence between the close of the Old Testament and Jesus' birth). But this is in contrast with the actual text of the book, which says it was penned in the 6th century BCE.

Normally, the actual text of the book would be considered primary evidence of when it was penned, but in this case it's ignored entirely because that would mean accepting that divine prophecy is real. Their materialistic worldview cannot tolerate a Divine essence. In the words of evolutionary Professor Richard Lewontin, "Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Notice that the claim that Daniel is essentially 'court tales' is made as a statement of fact, not an opinion, and to the exclusion of all other perspectives. The author's mind is already made up -- the book of Daniel is false -- and they write in a way to condition the reader to not consider or be aware of other possibilities. That's the definition of propaganda (https://www.wordnik.com/words/propaganda). This article is not a scholarly investigation. We need to read it like propaganda, as it truly is.

(Wikipedia is framed as an Encyclopedia, yet it is often 'hijacked' for very biased and closed-minded reporting. It is thus often simply a propaganda tool, and I don't think many people realise this, wrongly treating it as an unbiased source of information. As I've said, it is decidedly atheistic and I would not use it for serious biblical analysis. There are plenty of good bible websites for that.)

Their way of assessing the date of composition is very deviant. If they can't explain away the fulfillment of a prophecy, they it wasn't a prophecy, it was written after the events and only recounting known history. If they can explain away the fulfillment and make the prophecy out to be wrong, then they say, "Aha, that was when the biblical author was trying to predict the future, and he got it wrong, so the book must have been written before those events."

If they weren't so intent on distorting the text to try and diminish the bible's authority, then they would see that these prophecies were comfortably fulfilled.

Another baseless claim instead of reviewing the evidence.

This is wrong, but they say it is because Daniel's prophecies are so precise. It was written about 540-530 BCE, not in the second century BCE as they say here. For more discussion on Wikipedia's treatment of the date of Daniel, see my annotations at: https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBook_of_Daniel&group=__world__

《星际火狐》1993年宫本茂访谈

left pic

Key sentence

what the exact difference between derivatives and differentiation???

Glossary of terms

• from : https://twitter.com/chutjetweet/status/1395088072124125184

• for : intent

The definition of "cogent" is "clear, logical and convincing." If any premises turn out to be untrue, the argument becomes strong yet not cogent. For example, the argument that Earhart safely landed and lived out her days on a deserted island is strong (there are such islands out there; as a pilot she'd logically look for one) yet not cogent (she had limited time flying over a near landless ocean).

The strength of an argument relies in its ability to resist dispute or skepticism. While there are many theories on how pilot Amelia Earhart disappeared and died, these are usually based in what could have probably happened in the region where we lost contact with her.

Deductive reasoning can help us define what has been and what exists in the moment, while inductive reasoning can help us define what might have been or may exist in the moment.

Inductive reasoning can go into the future in ways deductive reasoning cannot. If we say something like "the sun will rise and set tomorrow," that is still inductive reasoning because it assumes circumstances or conditionals (i.e., the sun doesn't suddenly go supernova, or get blown up by an alien fleet).

Good inductive arguments are one that are hard to dispute, but the difficulty is based on agreeable and logical premises.

For example, consider the following arguments:

• Alien life exists on other planets.
• We will someday discover alien life on other planets.
• Aliens from other planets have already discovered and communicated with us.

None of these conclusions can be supported by deductive reasoning, but can be supported by varying qualities of inductive reasoning.

Deductive arguments must be valid before they are sound. We declare an argument sound when we cannot deny any of the presented premises.

Here are some examples to help.

• "Treason is wrong" works if we understand "treason is a crime" and "treason puts our country at risk."
• It's true that treason is a crime, because laws made it so. Risk, however, is open to interpretation and context, but generally this second premise is still assumed
• If one premise is a fact and another is largely agreeable, we have validity.

In other worlds, deductive arguments help us cut to where we can all agree. They provide a foundation on which to establish more deductive or inductive arguments.

Understand that truth is not the same as facts. Truth is sometimes agreed upon, and certainly based on perception. Consider, for instance, how the sun is portrayed as yellow and red in different parts of the world. Are some people wrong?

Case in point: Something like "murder is the most evil crime" will often serve as a premise for other arguments, like "murderers should get the death penalty."

This premise, however, is itself an argument. It is neither fact nor truth.

One (perhaps unfortunate) implication of this: You don't always have to worry about the logic of your argument, if you have found an argument that works.

Consider your positionality in political argumentation. Maybe you are arguing about health care because you have an important medical concern. Maybe you are sharing an argument because a politician respect influenced you, but you yourself have not further investigated the issue. We all can potentially take part in someone else's strategy.

We accept political arguments as having practical goals (like convincing you to vote), but these can of course be philosophical or (as we see on the Internet) intensely personal.

Another way of looking at it: Propaganda exists to discourage or eliminate debate. You believe or you don't, and that's all that matters, with propaganda.

Emphasis on logic. If we cannot rely on agreeable truths or facts, we cannot argue. For example, consider the difference between these religious arguments:

• "We should teach the Bible in school because this is a Christian nation."
• We should teach the Bible in school because God exists and demands it."

Notice what can be argued (the first) and not (the latter).

You'll only reach this point if a rebuttal was required, and sometimes qualifications can be as simple as using some hedging to allow for remote possibilities.

Not every claim requires a rebuttal, but it's imperative you consider it. Also, think of rebuttals as 'checks' against your work. If checks are necessary, that's where qualifiers come in.

We cannot expect readers to immediately respect our grounds or warrants, and the backing therefore may be necessary to guide them to our viewpoint.

Think of the warrant as an 'invisible bridge' between claim and grounds. It's the thing you don't necessarily have to say because the reader will understand it once the other two are established.

This is the backbone or impetus of your claim. Without this you are just stating a preference or generic belief.

In your own essays, you'll make many claims. There will be the thesis, of course, but all sorts of other claims within your writing.

What's the best approach for a problem we're looking at: theoretical or practical? Circumstances often dictate this. If I look at college rankings and think 'that doesn't look useful,' I consider a practical approach to making sure I'm right.

Toulmin is not the only source when it comes to argumentation theory, but he's a great reference. We will practice with the Toulmin Model for class.

Though note how different that may be in a monolinguistic circumstances. In essays, writers do what they can to before putting together these ideas, and attempt to coax you into their way of thinking after the fact.

Note how different this is from simply opinions. Many people can tell you their favorite color and never articulate the reason why.

Another useful item to consider. For example, what if the op-ed writer stands to profit from his advocation?

This should suggest the idea of op-eds being a source of pride for the NYT.

Among other things, op-eds are important for a media publisher's credibility. By entertaining input from non-affiliated persons, the media allows for multiple informative and persuasive perspectives.

We should also consider this in the context of opportunity cost. If a political figure publishes an op-ed on a controversial topic, there will likely be some kind of backlash that impacts their career.

This can be quite different in the American context.

If an American publisher shares an anonymous piece that details outstanding criminal activity, it can become a major court issue of freedom of the press vs. protecting criminals.

For op-eds, we are right to speculate at the choice of anonymous submissions, though such skepticism should be supported by logic.