I don't do Math | Emily Calandrelli | TEDxOregonStateU 

He was both. I love me some Steve hating, but the man was an incredible force and changed a lot about the world of technology. for better and for worse

Einstein wasn't a nerd he was a fukin genius. The scientist promoting gmo and other fucked up shyt are nerds trying to get back at society for their fucked up childhoods

that is your justification for being dumb. :))

Riken Maharjan His favourite book was "Autobigraphy of a Yogi" which is about an indian fraud who has magical powers so yeah, not a genius....

+Titan Army Well said.

yeah I totally agree. As a teenager I don't know if its always been like this, but there are just so many people who brag about how they don't read. And its not even just in academically behind people (unlike maths, I find that people who have high level of education tend to recognise maths as an important skill) but those who are perfectly doing well in school does it too.

Good question. Steve Jobs was ok.

+Raylet2 (I do not use a single Apple product). Steve Jobs helped bridge the gap between the tech and human. It was his guidance and leadership that helped highly educated (and not) people from many backgrounds use retail tech in a way that fitted the people and not the programmer. That's why they use his face when it comes to tech.

+Raylet2 Excellent point. Not only did Steve Jobs didn't create jack squat, he just took credit for people's creations.

+Caleb knott Einstein didn´t do much? like you have done anything better than him for humanity (or ever will) not even your sons or their´s will do anything compared to what he did. You would prefer your picture instead of his in the presentation?

+Raylet2 As far as I know it's a misconception that Einstein wasn't good at mathematics. I want to leave this with an important name in computer science, Dennis Ritchie.

WalterLiddy Amen!

WalterLiddy Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself. She is far from STEM literate, herself; she demonstrated that to me in her presentation in this video, numerous times. You're right when you say that she's preaching compliance. It's unfortunate and frustrating to see this sort of thing even happens.

WalterLiddy While what you say is strictly true, what she is really discussing is people who *deny* science, not those who are skeptical. And they deny because they are not 'STEM literate'. In her definition, STEM literate does *not* mean you have done the research and come to your own conclusions - because in order to do that for virtually every possible subject would be impossible for a single human being to do. You, for example, cannot possibly verify the research and conclusions (theories) in cosmology, physics (all of its branches), anthropology, physiology, biology, computer science, etc., etc,, etc. So, what she is *REALLY* saying is that if you are STEM literate (you have critical thinking skills and a rudimentary understanding of the Scientific Method), you can *presume* that when the majority of those who specialize in a particular scientific discipline agree - that they are most likely correct, and you should probably listen to them. She is *not* saying 'blind acceptance'. In fact, considering that there is likely much more money to be gained (through grants, awards and talks) for someone who is able to *disprove* an existing widely accepted theory, there is great likelihood that at least one individual who has a great deal of knowledge in the field is working very hard to disprove at least one or more of the accepted theories. After all, this is precisely why knowledge and technology has advanced so fast over the past few hundred years. Seriously - think about it. Now, I understand what you are trying to say - but the problem is that those who are actually not* STEM literate will almost certainly interpret your 'well said' statement as 'proof' that their denial is actually just 'healthy skepticism' and it is the 98% of climate scientists (for example) who need to work harder to prove their theory.

+WalterLiddy I agree. Though she's preaching 'Science', what comes out of her mouth is anti-science. Science doesn't care what conclusions you come to. Often there are only more questions, but with it comes more understanding, especially in complex systems like the ones she mentioned. There just isn't a simple answer to those questions, so why reduce the science into an agreement with some forced opinions of a majority? She's confusing science with politics. There's plenty of room for individual freedom of thought in science. She's so cute, though, I can't be mad. I like her gumption, just not what she's saying.

ooopaulo I wish I could give you more than 1 TU for the completeness of that post: - she's unscientific... check! - better explanation of the scientific process... check! - acknowledgement that she's cute anyway... check!

100%...i am with u.....

+M Jones And how many logical fallacies are there? lol

M Jones Can't detect logical fallacies? Hmm. Then I guess you could call those people "illogical phalluses."

@M Jones. Who do I know that is STEM illiterate? Hmmm? Oh yeah, that's right, the flat Earth dummies all over RU-vid.

I am currently studying advanced maths and physics and completely disagree with her. She believes in global warming, I do not let's think logically. If anyone is going to know global warming is false it's the ones who run NASA, why would they donate money to something which does not exist it's a simple waste of money! Think more openly if I wanted to create something false which many do not understand due to the lack of those in stem fields, all I must do is pay top scientists to fabricate data and "presto".

Ask your math teacher why her sister is a propagandist

Jasraj Sekhon you don't get what she said... don't you?

What if I don't get it

yeah i cant comprehend it so no 💀

Shut up maths is a human concept, just like how u can be one an artist and see the beauty of the universe

You there?

I don't understand why this makes you sad? Less competition for jobs down the line....

I'd be passed out before the end of the video.

I lost all patience when she used Einstein and Jobs in context of theoretic excellency, but I forced myself keep watching motivated by imagine I was fing her face. I help out with her stupidity until she poited out how many republicans denying significant man made rise in temperature, but she "forgot" the decency to explain by the fact this is the only way to fight climate hysteria. It is not politically possible (it will be later) to fight Status Quo religion, thus you have to deny significant man made rise in temperature to stop leakage of tax money into green nonsense. Some decades from now when this knew religion is no longer popular people will see how great five degrees rise of temperature is. Specially in context of the otherwise upcoming ace age which already is put on hold. Now try to imagine how helplessly stupid this girl is.

+MrOperettalover Where's your TED Talk?

+Darcy Whyte Why would I deliberately assosiate myself with morons?

+MrOperettalover You can learn from morons. No one knows everything. People with low IQ know how to treat people better many times. They also have life skills we can all learn from.

I have a sister-in-law who has a PhD in science. She is blonde, beautiful and plays a full harp, not the zither autoharp that I do.

well put my friend

You're not even literate. You need to learn how to use a comma and when to use their, there and they're.

In any case, context matters. We don't need the general public to be scientists. We need them to understand the basics of what science is, why extensive studies are important, why scientific consensus is a positive thing, what peer review is, why even peer reviewed papers can contradict each other and why the mainstream media are shit at reporting science. They don't need to "question theories". They have neither the training or time to do that effectively. STEM literacy in this context means exactly what she put forward.

2LegHumanist: You are an douche for defaming others.

vishwanathstorm You mean in my response to the douche who was demeaning others?

Aneesh Sompalli why is that? i see no value in it

+RU-vid Aneesh First Ted Talk I have stopped before the end. Propaganda not Education. Even if I agree with some of what she says.

+RU-vid Aneesh First Ted Talk I have stopped before the end. Propaganda not Education. Even if I agree with some of what she says.

+edmartian Totally with you on this one!

+PBrofaith That says a lot about you.

+CHAPI929292 :D

evenly spreading that knowledge

Deipatrous Oh but I can ;)

nice. lol

Lol

she's HOT! I want her to be MY math teacher ;)

+TheVictorious98 There are people who believe evolution happened after creation. The best of both worlds!

Oh you'd be surprised lmao, it's crazy.

Any fact, however blatantly obvious, will be denied by someone. See flat earthers, perpetual motion cranks, ect. (Actually there are plenty of facts that noone denies, because they are obscure enough that the cranks haven't heard them)

Ajay Ramachandran Yea, the title is a bit misleading. Sorry about that!

Emily Calandrelli that being said , it was indeed a great speach & an idea worth sharing :).Its Good to know that you're using your clear voice & percise words to lighten up the concept of stem literacy among people. keep up the good work & all the very best 👍

Well ur still stem literate bro. But I love both. Maths more 😂

That's really nice of you Ananda! Thank you, it means a lot - especially from someone with your background! And Oregon State is awesome! Loved visiting.

Hodgepodge Mama I think this is an important point. There are certainly many areas where there is not an "overwhelming body of scientific evidence" as I put it. And you're right, funding is a huge bottle neck for these issues.

Actually "personal experience" is the single greatest thing anyone should be skeptical of.. especially your own. For example, someone suffers from some non-specific "achy-painy" type of medical symptom that comes and goes. Their primary care physician can't quite pinpoint yet what it might be, but needs to try to make sure it's not a beginning symptom of something worse. So while doing a series of test, the person also starts trying every alt-medicine claim from every one of their friends, family, coworkers that "Worked for them" in trying to get some relief. They try herbal teas, homeopathy, acupuncture, crystals, etc. One after one, their "personal experience" shows them that each of these in fact DON'T work. Until, suddenly, one day they try some magnetic wrist band.. and then suddenly the next day the "achy-pains" they had been experiencing are gone (again.. assuming it's not the symptom of a deeper chronic problem). Did the magnetic wrist band actually work? No.. there's no evidence that magnetism effects your health (good or bad) in any way. What happened is the person experienced "regression to the mean". They had been suffering from these non-specific aches and pains which are very difficult to nail down the cause. However if it's not a chronic symptom of something that will keep getting worse.. the pains will go away. You don't have a headache forever unless it's a symptom of something much worse.. your headache will go away on it's own. They experience some aches and pains, then it gets better, then it gets worse, then it gets better. So what happened, is in desperation when they were experiencing the pain at it's worst, the last thing they try before it naturally gets better, they attribute through their own "personal experience" that it worked. When in fact it was just the last thing they tried before it got better on it's own. But now they have it in their head that magnetic wrist bands "work", and every time they get an "achy painy" type of non-specific symptom.. they will again try the magnetic wrist bands. Now here is the interesting part. From here on out, every time the wrist bands DON'T work, they will forget that it didn't work. But every time their body regresses to the mean and the aches and pains go away, that will further confirm to them that magnetic wrist bands work. They now have a personal experience that magnetic wrist bands work, and will further have continued confirmation bias to reinforce that it works. Once a person goes down this line of thinking, it's almost impossible to convince them otherwise. Because their line of thinking basically goes "I don't care about your double blinded placebo controlled peer reviewed replicated studies that show it doesn't work.. I know from personal experience that IT WORKED FOR ME!" And this is dangerous because what now if it IS a symptom of a much worse chronic condition so they don't go get the tests the doctor wanted, that would have found the root problem at an earlier, more easily treated stage. Now it might not be found until it's too late, and what once was treatable, is now terminal. It's important for us all to learn how our brains work, and how they can be fooled. We all need to learn what is good evidence, and what is not. We need to learn about logical fallacies and biases. We need to learn to follow logic, reason and evidence to their natural conclusion, and be humble and realize that anything one thinks they know, could be wrong, even one's most closely held beliefs. We need to learn to change our minds, when presented with new evidence. We need to learn that in order to find the truth, we need to try everything we can to prove anything we believe FALSE, because only when we CAN NOT prove our beliefs false, can we say that we are getting closer and closer to a firm understanding of what is actually true and real.

Misha H "Personal experience is one of the worst ways of telling truth from fiction." I beg to differ. Pain and comfort are strictly personal experiences, and only I know if something makes me feel better or worse. Objective medicine may claim that something is supposed to make me feel a certain way, but only I can confirm if it does or doesn't. And this is just one example. Why are there ever exceptions to scientific expectations? So-called "miraculous" cures? Subjectivity has gotten a bad rap, but I believe both objectivity and subjectivity have their place in medicine.

Misha H What is truth? What is real? Interesting that you mention herbal tea and acupuncture - both "alternative medicine" that I have used with great success. Perhaps the placebo affect is at play, but that's the point - it doesn't matter why or how something works, only that it does.

Hodgepodge Mama It doesn't matter why or how something works, only that it does??? Well.. except when it doesn't work. You may "think" that acupuncture "works".. and yet you admit that it may jsut be placebo. Let me tell you that any benefit that you got from acupuncture is purely placebo. The best controlled double blinded studies of acupuncture showed that it didn't matter who was giving the patient the acupuncture (an "acupuncturist" or just a joe off the street), it didn't matter where the needles were placed, and it didn't even matter if they were actually needles at all.. or just toothpicks poking the skin. So let's see. Doesn't matter if it's a trained "acupuncturist" or your 80 year old grandma. Doesn't matter where they stick you at. And it doesn't even matter if it's a needle piercing the skin or just a toothpick poking at you.. the effect was the same in all situations... which was minimal. I would say that's pretty clear that any minor effect at all is pure placebo. And doesn't matter huh? Well.. what about those that think that ground up rhino horns has some type of "magical" healing properties? Which it doesn't. But because people "believe" that it works, poachers are hunting them towards extinction. What about shark fins (same thing)? Oh.. and I'm sure that acupuncture was charging you money? I don't know about you, but I sure would like to know that whatever I'm paying for.. is actually going to do something.. beyond just placebo. Oh.. and then what about people who forgo science based medicine treatments that are proven to work and in stead try some flaky "alt medicine" instead? I'm sure Steve Jobs would have preferred to use the actual proven medical treatment where he would have had a high percentage chance of still being alive, rather than the "alt medicine" herbal tea type garbage he "read off the internet". Ever wonder why alternative medicine pretty much always claims to treat the loosy-goosy-ache-and-pain kind of aliments? It's because those are the symptoms that are very hard to pin down, they usually come and go, and so forth.. and are very subjective in what the person claims. IE.. there's no easy way to measure how much "achy-painy" someone is feeling accept asking them to "self-report". "Self-reported" feelings is not data. And achy-pains tend to come and go on their own... which is why alt-medicine prays on that feature to persuade people that the alt-treatment "works". At best.. you are getting placebo, most of the time you are getting nothing, and at worse you are getting something that will cause more harm. Unless one understands "regression to the mean", one is always at risk for confirmation bias that some alt-medicine "works". Again.. there is only two types of medicine/treatments. Those that have been proven to work, and those that have been proven not to work. Do you know that they call "alt-medicine" that has been proven to work? It's called medicine. Also ever wonder why we don't have "alt-physics"? Or "alt-math"? Or "western" vs "eastern" physics? Then why is there an "alt-medicine"? Shouldn't there just be medicine that has been proven to work? And "it worked for me" personal experience is not evidence. But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. However, I know you can find tons of "personal experience" that acupuncture (or whatever alt-medicine claim) "worked" for someone. I could probably find 100 people who claim (and honestly believe) that they were abducted by aliens last night. But I would wager that you wouldn't actually believe them. You can also find the entities trying to sell you the stuff that claiming that it works. And you can read all that and go.. "See.. it works!". No.. you actually have to read the information on the OTHER side. You have to read all of the published and peer reviewed papers on acupuncture. Not one.. not two.. but several. If any report a possible benefit, then read the peer-reviewed comments on that study. Read Science Based Medicene blog... find other sources that conflict with your belief and actually read the information and studies and papers and such that conflict with your belief. Then decide if you still believe that "it works". And if so.. then do your own double blinded placebo controlled study, get it published, then peer reviewed and replicated. Then we will see if you can actually prove that it works.

no, actually if the majority of independant studies says the same thing, then it is most likely true, if we had tour way of thinking none of the technologies we have today would exist, becausem you see, if the majority said that quantum mechanics was true, but we pushed them to not believe this, then you wouldn't have the internet nor a computer

Yep. And if you haven't gone through the specialized training for the discipline under discussion--EVEN IF YOU'RE IN ANOTHER STEM FIELD--you don't even get a seat at the table. Simple as that. I wish politicians understood this or even cared.

John Carr Yes you do get get to sit at this table if you are schooled in any one discipline, I won't pretend to "know" what a chemist, or a physicist, etc knows. Thus, it is a very big table...with many many chairs.

Except you are missing the point of the scientific method, we trust a theory because it works, not because someone tells us to believe it. If you are scientifically literate you could read papers on a specific subject and see if the predictions are bore out by the experiment. As most experiments are repeated by numerous different groups, if they are by the majority getting the same results, we can have a justifiable expectation that our understanding is correct.

Regarding the original comment by lots-of-tater-tots: I couldn't agree more! Spot on analysis.

LOL

Tru

Exactly !

+Sonny Zheng Maybe try noticing that she has more to offer than being aesthetically pleasing for you.

then only listen... ;)

+nidkidwonderboy Then read the transcript. If you cannot function mentally, figure out how to be smarter.

it doesn't make him bad. He didn't say anything rude, relax.

These are clear cut scientific issues, and the only reason they are political issues as well is politically motivated denial of the evidence.

her point is, I think, that if you are not STEM literate, you will fall prey to snake oil salesmen. If you are stem literate, you won't buy into homeopathy, superfoods, climate change denial, moon landing hoax theories, detox diets and so on.

No it equals 237732881

Omfg

it is not a fireball but Ok

Thank you so much!

DCARA06 evolution was proven and there are thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence, read books about it, visit a science museum (not the creationist museum in Kentucky)...

David Caplette Thanks I have a science degree major in Biology. I have read many books, journals, etc. on evolution and no it is not proven, not by a very long shot.....long as in eternally long shot.

DCARA06 good, I will not argue with you here, but I definitely think that you are absolutely wrong.

David Caplette not proven - it has only been stated as a theory, and it does (for the most part) make sense. Even the popes have acknowledged evolution may be a valid theory. Saying it's proven implies that the results have been reproduced (which, obviously, would take millions of years, according to the theory). There is some supporting evidence, but no definitive proof, and more importantly, no way of predicting what comes next. Think, if you will, about another example: the Newtonian model of gravity and the solar system. The theory of gravity - as proposed by Newton - was good and explained many things. But it had flaws. It could predict *most* planetary motions, but there were some that it couldn't explain (e.g., the precession of Mercury). That's why it's called the "theory" of gravity: it wasn't perfect, it wasn't proven definitively, and nobody understood how or why it worked. Then Einstein came along with his theory of General Relativity, and that not only encompassed Newton's theory of gravity, but also gave an explanation for the flaws in Newton's theory. And Einstein was able to predict what would happen by observing light bending around the Sun during a solar eclipse, he could more accurately predict the orbital path of Mercury, and many other things besides (e.g., the possibility of black holes). The current theory of evolution does not yet have such a pedigree (and it is doubtful it ever will, due to the time scales involved). P.S. I am no "young Earther" either. There are more flaws in those theories - which are shaped to fit the narrative of poetic language contained in the first chapter of Genesis - than in the current theories of geology and evolution. But the wrongness of one theory does not instantly give absolute credibility to a competing theory. Both can be wrong (to varying - or the same - degree, depending on the specific piece of evidence being examined).

DCARA06 The problem you are displaying is that you do not understand what science is all about. Science does not 'prove' things to be 100% certain. What it does is make suggestions about what *seems* to be the truth and then uses continuous testing and observation to hone in on it better. In other words, as far as the Scientific Method is concerned, the only thing considered absolutely 'true' is a self-evident truth - otherwise known as a fact. A theory is simply a 'best possible explanation' for something that is not self-evident. It is never considered 100% certain. However, the more it is tested, the more certain its 'truth' is considered. The theories that have been tested the most, and passed every test, are often considered 'fact' by the layperson - but they are not. Take evolution. The theory has been modified over time to account for errors/mistakes in the theory - however, because it is so 'controversial' for many, it has become one of the most well tested theories in all of science. It has also been used to predict the characteristics of intermediate species whose fossils have not yet been found - and in numerous cases those predictions have been proven true when new fossils have been discovered. In addition, the recent science of DNA analysis has provided one of the most convincing 'proofs' that evolution is, in fact, an extremely accurate theory. Your so-called 'reasoning' that uses human ignorance as a basis of 'proof' by stating that 'people have faith' in evolution shows an astounding lack of understanding about both the theory and science in general. Hence, you are one of the poster children for the dangerous type of thinking that Emily discusses in this video. However, given the tone of your reply, wherein you seem absolutely certain of the 'truth' of your ignorance, I doubt that even this explanation will penetrate very far into your wall of denial.

Only if you bring your own assumptions to the talk. To be honest, I also thought she was going to go elsewhere with the talk, but I can see the connection now.

Hodgepodge Mama well yeah i guess that true

***** Yea, sorry about that! :)

Emily Calandrelli I get why you titled your talk that way. I like how you covered everything. I have said this phrase with such pride. It is embarrassing I did. I love how you explained all your points. I am constantly trying to change my thoughts on math and STEM literacy is a great way to lead people to understand what is going on in our daily lives. GREAT TALK! Let's do this! I will be promoting this until its changed.

Thanks Victoria!!

Dan Hillman This is a copy of a reply to someone else that I made - so please forgive any parts that seem to address something you didn't actually say. I think, however, it does answer your basic question... While what you say is strictly true, what she is really discussing is people who deny science, not those who are skeptical. And they deny because they are not 'STEM literate'. In her definition, STEM literate does not mean you have done the research and come to your own conclusions - because in order to do that for virtually every possible subject would be impossible for a single human being to do. You, for example, cannot possibly verify the research and conclusions (theories) in cosmology, physics (all of its branches), anthropology, physiology, biology, computer science, etc., etc,, etc. So, what she is REALLY saying is that if you are STEM literate (you have critical thinking skills and a rudimentary understanding of the Scientific Method), you can presume that when the majority of those who specialize in a particular scientific discipline agree - that they are most likely correct, and you should probably listen to them. She is not saying 'blind acceptance'. In fact, considering that there is likely much more money to be gained (through grants, awards and talks) for someone who is able to disprove an existing widely accepted theory, there is great likelihood that at least one individual who has a great deal of knowledge in the field is working very hard to disprove at least one or more of the accepted theories. After all, this is precisely why knowledge and technology has advanced so fast over the past few hundred years. Seriously - think about it. Now, I understand what you are trying to say - but the problem is that those who are actually not* STEM literate will almost certainly interpret your 'well said' statement as 'proof' that their denial is actually just 'healthy skepticism' and it is the 98% of climate scientists (for example) who need to work harder to prove their theory.

+Renegades Water Polo Club Psychoanalysis and Ecology at the edge of Chaos by Joseph Dodds explains the positions both of you have taken. Is STEM an acronym for Scientific Thinking Emotional Method? Just kidding. I belong to a group on Facebook of people doing research at the South Pole. Old Antarctic Explorers. My Dad went with Admiral Byrd in 1946 to Antarctica.

+Dan Hillman I think the point was to be anti-pseudoscientific.

I think the bigger point was that she engaged in partisan shaming, while ignoring the faults or her own party.

Dan Hillman It makes no sense for that to be her point. That's your point, not hers!

+mysteriouswolven That's what I thought... Her way of talking is scary...

+mysteriouswolven It sounds more like "Here are people who are doing things wrong and here's what they look like" rather than "We have an existing problem, let's go about fixing it."

+Francisco Florimon There is an app called Bedtime Math.

You ought to know.

It's ironic actually, how she mentioned Steve Jobs as a good example, and yet he was into what she may call "pseudoscience". And also, if it wasn't for the first scientists believing in what it was thought to be pseudoscience, we wouldn't have the science we have today.

MathBarbie!

Cal d'Arion RULE 34

U r right..

+sedeslav Then you have a problem with all culture. How many people in the Bible weighed food? How many people measured as carpenters? Who built the pyramids? Medical doctors are telling patients to guess portions and you ignore this and tell us that with all the precise measurements in the Bible, with Noah, Joseph, the Wilderness, carpentry and Jesus that STEM is not to be found in the Bible? Look again perhaps.

+Charlotte Fairchild The building of the pyramids has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible; quite possibly nothing to do with religion as well, but from man's need and desire to locate himself in the universe.

+Ahmose Reigns The pyramids were built by a race between 400 and 500 years way before Christ. The Hebrews built the pyramids as slaves. This is in the Bible. It is one of the character building "jobs" in the Bible for the Hebrew people. The math in the building of the pyramids were exceptional. The weighing of food kept people from eating too much during plenty and from cannibalism during famine. The math is involved in pyramids, weight/measurement, time, and is written about in the ancient words of the Bible, older than the Quran. There are older books/writings. Yet this book we call the Bible is known by many more people than the other books. Perhaps the narcissistic men who needed a pyramid to be buried in located themselves in the universe as more important than anyone else since people need a higher power.

+Charlotte Fairchild A. "The pyramids were built by a race between 400 and 500 years way before Christ." That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying 1) 'It took anywhere from 400 to 500 years to build the pyramids, and 2) it was way before Christ'? Or, are you saying 'the pyramids were built 400 to 500 years before Christ'? Which one is it, because these are two different statements and either one could be inferred from what you inarticulately preposed. I can't even lucidly respond until I first make sense of what it is you're attempting to say. B. "The Hebrews built the pyramids as slaves. This is in the Bible. It is one of the character building "jobs" in the Bible for the Hebrew people." Apparently you're archaeologically illiterate as that particular science of the humanities determined a long time ago that the Egyptian pyramids were not built by slaves, Hebrew or otherwise: 1. "the pyramids were not built by slaves or foreigners" The Pyramid Builders, National Geographic Magazine by Virginia Morell (American journalist and author who writes for the Smithsonian, Science and National Geographic magazines) ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.5.fulltext.html 2. "Pharaoh Khufu, second ruler of the fourth dynasty, constructed the Great Pyramid. Herodotus reported that Khufu enslaved thousands of people in order to build his huge pyramid, but he was later proven incorrect. National Geographic reports, "Excavated skeletons show that they [pyramid workers] were Egyptians who lived in villages developed and overseen by the pharaoh's supervisors." Pharaoh Khafre was the son of Khufu. He built the Pyramid of Khafre and many statues, including the famous statue of the Sphinx. Pharaoh Menkaure, sixth ruler of the fourth dynasty, died before his pyramid's completion. Shepseskaf, his heir, finished it in 2490 B.C." traveltips.usatoday.com/great-pyramids-giza-1205.html 3. "National Geographic indicates that archaeologists estimate that 20,000 to 30,000 Egyptians built the pyramids at Giza over the course of 80 years. To construct the pyramids, first priests and astronomers determined the correct position for the pyramid. Architects used ropes to guide the shape from the corners to the pinnacle. Then workers hauled huge blocks of limestone up ramps. The Encyclopedia Smithsonian indicates that Egyptian workers used copper tools to sculpt the rock, “Egyptians had copper tools such as chisels, drills and saws that may have been used to cut the relatively soft stone.” The names of workers and their work groups were chiseled into some of the stones of the pyramids. National Geographic notes, "Graffiti indicates that at least some of these workers took pride in their work, calling their teams 'Friends of Khufu,' 'Drunkards of Menkaure,' and so on-names indicating allegiances to pharaohs." traveltips.usatoday.com/great-pyramids-giza-1205.html Sorry Grandma, Hebrews HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUILDING OF THE PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT. Until you get your facts straight and can articulate what you'd like to say in a comprehensive manner, I really don't think it's even necessary to address anything else you more than likely got incorrect. PS. Oh, and one last thing… the Great Pyramid of Egypt was built c. 2580-2560 BC… no Hebrew existed anywhere on planet earth at that period. Abraham, the first Hebrew, according to the published Bible timeline, does not even make it to Egypt until 2091 BC (biblehub.com/timeline/ ) that's almost 500 YEARS AFTER the pyramids were already built. I guess they don't teach people how to count in Sunday school, only the pastor can count, all of the money in the collection plate, because the congregation certainly can't count, not if they actually believe 'Hebrews built pyramids in Egypt'. That's like saying President Bill Clinton shook hands with Christopher Columbus; umm a 500 year difference says, no, I don't think so. C. "The math in the building of the pyramids were exceptional. The weighing of food kept people from eating too much during plenty and from cannibalism during famine. The math is involved in pyramids, weight/measurement, time, and is written about in the ancient words of the Bible, older than the Quran. There are older books/writings. Yet this book we call the Bible is known by many more people than the other books." The math of pyramids is the result of the scholar priests of ancient Egypt, not Hebrews or anyone else. If the Bible mentions it, big deal, the Bible didn't create it, nor did anyone who took credit for writing it, nor anyone who was given credit for writing it. Reporting on something someone else did doesn't imbue you with their credit. Sports writers don't get credit for home runs and touchdowns that were made by other people. D. "Perhaps the narcissistic men who needed a pyramid to be buried in located themselves in the universe as more important than anyone else since people need a higher power." Perhaps your own narcissism induces you to pronounce judgement on a culture and civilization you are apparently ignorant about (your statements prove it, all of them). Number two, it was never said that it was the kings who were seeking to locate their very own person in the universe, but that the construction was undertaken as national projects for the benefit of the state; without that effort modern astronomy would not even exist.

+CzechRiot IMHO If somebody would like to be him/herself taken seriously especially in a scientific environment, he/she should dress accordingly. In other words: you want their minds attention not their other parts...

+CzechRiot Read the transcript if you cannot turn off your baser thoughts.

Charlotte Fairchild It's ok, different heads can focus on each item.

Not funny.

not a riot, but a little funny...

All scientists are like that. My way is the highway. She mentioned vaccines but not all the problems with that nor the sterilization vaccines that have reportedly used in Africa or the developmental retardation in children that has also been reported by pediatric doctors in the US and other countries due to the immune system being overwhelmed...

Interpreting data is also complicated and might lead to divergent conclusions wether you say the one or the other factor is responsible for your result. Knowing the theory behind the weighted factors influing on the phenomenon is primordial for a reliable interpretation. To take the example of climate change or preventing high flood events, not only the air T° and moisture, but also the soil properties (T°, infiltration capacity, water content, colour, ...) , the geodetic location, etc.. come into the game. You have to rank them and to simplify everything about them: they all are related to oneanother. Climate change is a big cable spaghetti... :D

You're an idiot.

Seems like mk ultra

+morgengabe1 ikr

+morgengabe1 I feel like the young mommy pointed her index finger on me, blaming me for having done some shit. On the other site her intelligence and the serious look in her eyes rarely changing to a cute smile made me really enjoy watching her. @CzechRiot Wouldn't blame her sexappeal on the skirt - she will look gorgeous in business-pants, too.