I believe that this goes beyond vocabulary. It's more about who bears the burden in communication - in most cultures, it's the speaker, who is supposed to communicate clearly, and concisely. In western culture, it's the listener, who is expected to decipher whatever the speaker is talking about.
> In most cultures, it's the speaker, who is supposed to communicate clearly, and concisely. In western culture, it's the listener, who is expected to decipher whatever the speaker is talking about.
If you said this in Japanese, I'd say something like "Hmm, that seems a bit...". And you'd be expected to figure out what the rest of the sentence was.
To be more clear, I don't think the generalization you're making is valid. My experience of non-"Western" cultural communication styles has not at all been uniformly more direct and clear. I think some subcultures in the US have an annoying habit of doing what you describe (e.g. "if you can't follow this you must be dumb" kind of mentality) but many others do not.
There is no reason to doubt that Jesus lived in the Roman Empire, once you believe that he lived at all. And there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that the church formed in Rome. All known world was Rome at the time. From Britain to Morocco to the Middle East. (Islam only happened in the middle ages, it isn't that old.)
The western half, sure. You're ignoring the eastern half which carried the mantle for another thousand years. And the concurrent existence of the Holy Roman Empire, which was also intertwined with the Roman Catholic church.
The thing that made him question geocentrism was that Venus quite visibly orbits the Sun.
It has always been known that the tides are caused by the Moon. The hard part is to predict the tides in detail, as they depend on the geography as well. Some of the first computers were invented to predict the tides.
Galileo not only actively rejected lunar explanations for the tides, but felt that they were driven purely by the kinetic motion of the Earth - rotation about its own axis + revolution around the Sun. He dismissed the concept of invisible action at a distance -- Newton would be born in the same year that Galileo would die. You can read more about Galileo and his views on the tides here. [1] He felt that this was his most compelling argument for heliocentricism.
People always overestimate how 'phonetic' their language is, because nobody actually uses phonemes in regular speech. In Korean in particular, there doesn't even seem to be any obvious correspondence between what is written, and what is actually said.
Foreign accents don't come from any inherent inability to learn language after X years of age. They come from people pronouncing languages as they are written, and virtually no language is like that in reality.
It's true that when studying a foreign language, learning to read too early can harm your pronunciation. However, it is very difficult to learn new sounds that have no equivalent in your native language, and some languages have very restrictive phonology (like Italian and Japanese requiring a vowel at the end of every word) that their native speakers struggle to break out of.
Even the premise of the idea is wrong, as evenings are either blue from the blue sky, or white from the clouds. It takes exceptional circumstances to have a reddish evening, and even then it's just around the sunset.
I guess that it may help people with undercorrected myopia due to the chromatic aberration, but, I don't know.
It is indeed about the sunset and especially the last phases of it.
It's also why red light is recommended for night feeding when breastfeeding.
Works for me, both reducing the blue light and worked for my baby, too, using only deep orange and red light of a cheap LED color change lamp. Apparently works for many, since red nursing lights are suddenly sold everywhere.
The sunset and also fires. Humans have been making fires for a million years and in addition to allowing us to evolve much smaller guts they've also had time exert pressure on our behavior.
Well technically during the twilight right after the sun has disappeared below the horizon, or just before the sun appears from under the horizon (when there is no direct line of sight to the sun), the sky is strictly blue-er: the reason the sun and the neighboring angles in the sky appears "yellow/orange" is because green and especially red scattered less through the atmosphere, while a good portion of blue light scatters much more easily on our atmosphere, allowing non-line-of-sight blue illumination on land where the sun has not yet risen or where the sun has already set.
All of humanity has been a witness to these observations and yet we blindly assume blue light filters must have such and such an effect.
But even if it did: suppose a modern concrete-cave-dweller has an out of phase shifted day/night pattern with respect to solar rhythm, having blue light as the last form of light actually seems more natural!
The amount of red light goes down, (and you can use a camera with white set to sunlight to check how much blue it gets on a clear day, it isn't an illusion at all) so if anything, we should be using red light filters, not blue.
I think the reason for it is actually pretty banal. Rationality won. But it didn't win over irrationality, but over superrationality, and we just suffer the horrors of its wrongness.
Too much of sci-fi has become reality, and space alone isn't interesting.
So, you can fly to another planet? What are you going to do there? Talk with computers, like you do with your phone?
reply