Wikipedia, 3.5 Million Articles & Counting: Using and Assessing the People's ...

The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy

The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the ...

The Home Book of Quotations, Classical and Modern, Volume 1

Pope's Homer. The Iliad, Volume 1

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality:

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory

There is no scientific evidence supporting the concept of adrenal fatigue and it is not recognized as a diagnosis by the medical community.[1][2] A systematic review found no substantiative evidence for the term adrenal fatigue, confirming the general consensus among endocrinological societies that it is a myth.

If the world looks weird to you and me

It is, of course, also not truth-seeking.

“soft” uses of language and thought: to relate, to bond, to politick. Doing that feels good and intuitive and healthy. It feels “human”

 We are built for

being totally wrong about how the world works is a threat to survival.

it is a sign that we are probably badly wrong about lots of things.

A lot of things people say and write are not really what they think is true about the world. They’re expressions of emotion or identity or solidarity.

“Democracy needs people to be in the habit of thinking about the merits of the other view, and it’s truly a habit,” he continued. “It’s a way of behaving. It’s not the kind of thing that you can just never do and then suddenly do with ease. Citizens in a democracy need to practice these skills, just like reading or playing an instrument. To do it well, you have to do it all the time.

the genetic fallacy

But if you devote yourself to the actual substantive disagreement – which is on the level of what meta-ethics to use or maybe even further back – then you can either change some minds or, at the very least “be confused on a higher level and about more important things”.

If you debate pro-lifers on the object-level issues like “Does a woman’s right to privacy outweigh a fetus’ right to life” or some other horrible muddled version of the question like that, then no, you will never be able to make progress.

It encourages the style of politics where your enemies are innately evil and so you don’t have to second-guess yourself or seek compromise with them.

doesn’t address the main point at hand – that is, whether the government should ban abortion. It makes the debate much nastier – instead of attacking opponents’ ideas, suddenly we’re launching personal attacks into their moral character while leaving their ideas alone.

if life is a "gift" then it must be easily returnable, right? If it's not easily and painlessly returnable, then life is not a gift rather it is an imposition