Systematic Error In A Boyle

If God forgives our sins, why can’t He just forgive Eve for eating that apple so we don’t have the Original Sin?

There is a difference between forgiving someone and saying there will be no consequences for your actions. In this case, I don't think issues of allegory or myth or fact really come into play. Because this question gets to the moral of the story. The moral of the Adam and Eve story is that God does forgive them. God still cares. But there are consequences for their actions.When it says God cursed them it's not like some magic zap ray gun. That's not how I'd read this. It's more like well damn it I told you not to- okay fine. Here's what's going to happen.In terms of analyzing that part, we could look at whether it reads like allegory or literal punishment from an unforgiving God. We could look at as condescending paternalism and bad parenting and is God to blame et cetera. It’s in the narrative to ask these questions. What was the “sin” exactly and why did God let it happen and what did the punishment mean? The story is all about that kind of questioning. Like much of the beautiful literature of the Pentateuch.But in terms of forgiveness, I believe the story paints a clear picture that sometimes you do forgive someone but you also need to tell them to go to hell. Because forgiveness and caring doesn't mean being a doormat. It does mean leaving the door open when they're well and truly ready to come back, if ever. On your terms if it's your house, your life.The part where we as observers ask but why did you kick them out? Did they deserve it? Why not give them a second chance or better boundaries? God you are a jerk. Bad dad. That's part of the mental puzzle that should help us become better people. The kinds of lessons you can really only learn after the first mistake. Which is the whole point of the story. Hope this helps.

How did we know about chemical reactions before the advent of quantum mechanics?

Dalton had discovered the law of multiple proportions, which strongly suggested that compound substances are made out of molecules that contain atoms of different elements in small whole-number ratios. The law of conservation of mass was also known at that time, suggesting that chemical reactions involve the rearrangement of existing atoms into new molecules.Studying the structures of complex molecules was difficult, and involved a lot of trial and error, until the discovery of mass spectrometry, X-ray crystallography, and other modern analytical techniques, many of which were discovered before quantum mechanics was well understood. Mass spectrometry, for instance, tells you the masses of the fragments of a molecule, so you can piece the original molecule back together. So it was possible to understand which atoms were bonded to which ones, without using quantum mechanics.Determining the mechanisms of chemical reactions is even more difficult. We now have a variety of spectroscopic techniques at our proposal for e.g., detecting the presence of short-lived intermediates, but you need knowledge of quantum mechanics in order to interpret the spectra. Before we were able to do this, chemists had to rely on more indirect evidence. For example, labelling some of the reactant molecules with a radionuclide, and observing the radioactivity of products, can yield some insight into where the atoms in the product came from.

What is the behavioristic view of language acquisition?

Behaviorism is a systematic approach to the understanding of human and animal behavior.Skinner applied this theory to language, and described it as a mechanical process of habit formation that follows the sequence stimulus-reponse-reinforcement.A great deal of language learning and teaching in the 1950s and 1960s was influenced by behaviorism (e.g. audiolingualism). Similarities between the two languages cause "positive transfer" while differences cause "negative transfer". The aim of behaviorism was to form new linguistic habits eliminating errors in the process.However, in 1959 Chomsky published "Skinner's Verbal Behavior", where he asked "How can children make mistakes if they repeat what they hear?"This led to cognitivism, a view where learners are credited with using their cognitive abilities in a creative way to work out hypotheses about the structure of the target language.Since the 1970s, cognitive approaches have been in the ascendant. However,the analysis of errors turns out to be a complex matter. Some errors are due to the influence of the mother tongue, some to external influences (inadequate teaching or materials), and some arise out of the need to make oneself understood by whatever means possible.Some errors become so acceptable that they do not disappear, they become “fossilized” because they do not cause major problems of communication. This is called fossilization.Related answers:How do people overcome fossilization in second language acquisition?Who is the foremost authority on second language acquisition?What are some good books and resources to learn about popular theories on language acquisition in infants and small children?SourcesRichards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Why does the graph fail to pass through the origin in a simple pendulum experiment?

To add to the existing answers, if you’re taking data and trying to do a linear fit (i.e. a fit of length versus period squared), it might not go through the origin simply because it ISN’T a simple pendulum. There’s air drag, and longer string will suffer more drag all else being equal (more string to be dragged on, and the speed of the pendulum will be greater for the same initial angle). This will bend the data towards longer periods than predicted, and the slope won’t go through zero-zero.

When did the definition of racism change to say that only white people can be racist? Shouldn't we all be on the same page?

The debate surrounding the definition of racism comes from the fact that there is a lexical gap in the English language - we don't have a proper word or term to describe the distinct realities of people of color living in white supremacist societies.True story: when I was in seventh grade, I sat next to a black boy named Darrius in my Language Arts class. Darrius was a real dick to me, and he expressed to me very clearly that it was because I was white. I would get up from my desk for a minute and return to find something missing - my eraser, my pen, or even my purse. I would ask him to return it, and he would say something like, "You're white. You're soft. You're not gonna do anything." I'm pretty sure he was just going through a weird phase or something at the time, but it used to really piss me off. And it wasn't just me - he was like that with all of my white classmates. (He actually ended up getting into a fistfight later in the school year because a white kid decided to test his 'you won't do anything' theory.) Anyway, I used to think Darrius was racist. After all, the dictionary definition of racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." So yes, if you subscribe to that very literal definition of racism, then a non-white person can be racist. However, there's a larger picture to look at. Isn't it kind of weird to describe things like Darrius's annoying comments with the same word we use to describe centuries of state-sanctioned oppression in the form of colonization, enslavement, segregation, disenfranchisement, and violence inflicted on one race by another?Like Andre Gonsalves says, I think the concept of racism was always meant to refer to  racism at the hands of white people toward other groups. After all, this is the only form of racism that has real and devastating consequences on a broad scale.  However, the dictionary definition fails to reflect that, and I think that's where the attempt to rework the definition comes from. And going back to your question, yes, it would be helpful if everyone could be on the same page about this. Then we can stop quarreling about definitions and start working on the actual issues.