themadkat
-
Posts
714 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by themadkat
-
-
Second, in your two examples there is a pointed difference between fishing and logging. With fishing, there is a clear (but decreasing) tendency to harvest and move on, which is not ver significant in logging. Your objection to logging in fact had nothing to do with sustainability. An objection based on unsustainability would be based on the conclusion that the trees were harvested and not replanted, but that was not your objection. Instead, it was based on a muddled property idea that a company has a duty to prevent flooding on your property, by limiting what they do on their property (not "our" property). In other words, this is just another instance of the standard environmentalist anti-industry stance, and it has nothing to do with "sustainability". Thus, we're down to fishing as an example.
This is something I wonder about myself. As an environmental scientist I've learned quite a bit about the far-reaching effects of certain types of land use, such as logging for one. I find your example a bit confusing. Let's say you own a timber-company and you clear-cut your patch of land (which is a big assumption in today's world - most companies cut on state or federally-owned land from which they buy or are given the logging rights, which is one reason there's little accountability). You clear cut your patch of land, and now runoff is a problem. I live downriver from your logging site. It rains, and not only does all of the topsoil and detritus from the logged site make the water unusable (say that I draw on this water source for drinking and such and have always done so), but the increased water flow causes flooding and erosion which ultimately comes in to my basement and threatens to wash out some areas of my property entirely, i.e. I would literally lose land. Purely from the perspective of property rights ONLY, particularly your logging land and my residential land, have you not harmed me? Are you not destroying some of the value of my property and possibly even endangering my life (from flooding)? Before you object that this is an unrealistic scenario, it really isn't. It's factually sound. Logging a whole mountainside does fundamentally change the dynamics of a watershed, and lots of people live close to rivers and streams.
I personally think that most if not all environmental problems can be solved by property rights, but you seem to be saying that someone who is being harmed "down the line" just needs to deal with it and move on, which doesn't sound very individualistic to me. It sounds more like justifications for eminent domain and such where people are "holding back progress."
To me the question boils down to this - what recourse does the Louisiana shrimper/fisherman have against the Iowa farmer (times several thousand) who is creating the dead zone in the gulf where virtually no marine life can live? What recourse do the people of New England have against the air pollution blowing across the lakes from the upper Midwestern states (this was before they lost all their manufacturing)? These are the issues I, and I suspect many environmental scientists, wrestle with solving. Note that these questions all concern harm to actual living people and not "nature".
-
Can you explain how one arrives at truth without the use of reason?
To present the faith in the blind manner is only one kind of faith. As Softwarenerd says, "There is also a second meaning of faith, which is: confidence in a person or a plan. That is a very different meaning, and one has to be careful not to equivocate between faith in the sense of a non-observational, non logical attempt at getting knowledge versus faith in the sense of trusting someone. The latter can often be valid, particularly if one has faith in the findings of a person who has shown he never uses (philosophical) faith. "There are many who would say that their faith is not blind and to argue that it is would be a strawman fallacy. There is no question that reason works within the parameters that it sets. Of course the use of reason is not faith. To say that those who are not athiests all have a blind faith and reject reason seems illogical, unless you can really prove ALL.
Reason is not faith. One could argue that it takes faith to use Objectivism to rule out possibilities and truth that are clearly outside the parameters of reason. To say that something seems beyond reason and therefore should not be viewed with any reason seems invalid.
-
Here at Texas A&M University, we just had a vote on allowing this recently. I voted to allow people to have licensed, concealed-carry weapons on campus even though I myself do not and have never owned a gun, nor ever fired one. If someone is going to come shoot up my campus I somehow doubt it's going to be one of the duly licensed and registered folks, and I don't think a prohibition is going to stop them.
Yesterday, while attending a campus festival exhibiting student organizations, I saw a booth that instantly caught my attention: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The group is promoting change in legislation and school policies that would allow students at public universities enjoy their second amendment right, by allowing them to carry a concealed weapon on school (public) property.Here at Virginia Tech, the idea is even more thought provoking just over two years after the April 16 massacre. What if just one person West Ambler Johnston or Norris Hall had something to fight back with? Isn't that one of the reasons we have the Second Amendment?
From a legal standpoint, the idea makes a lot of sense to me. Sure, private schools can have any sort of regulations they want concerning guns, but on "public" property like a state university, the constitution is the supreme law of the land!
I would be very interested to hear some other thoughts, as well.
Concealed Campus URL: http://concealedcampus.org/
-
From a historical perspective, Caesar was the beginning of the end of Rome's glory. The first few emperors, especially the first one (Augustus Caesar), weren't bad. But they got progressively worse with time and more and more of Rome's wealth was destroyed with each successive failure, causing them to be increasingly dependent on looting their conquered neighbors, expanding the empire beyond the range at which it could effectively operate.
What Caesar ultimately did was move Rome away from a Republic and towards mob rule. Appeasing the masses became more and more of a central focus of each succeeding emperor. I think that this ultimately led to Christianity becoming predominant in Rome as that started with the masses and ended up reaching all the way to the Emperor, with the upper classes being the most reluctant to adopt or tolerate Christianity.
I give Julius Caesar a thumbs-down, and not just because I've watched too many episodes of Xena.
Was Julius Caesar a hero?Surely, he did some good things. He brought peace and stability to a country being fraught with internal instability. He expanded a great civilization into places like Gaul. He expanded citizenship in the empire. He founded what would become London. He decreased corruption in the government, and moved toward a system of government that did not give the political class considerably more power and "justice" than the lower classes. And, contrary to popular opinion, he was not emperor of Rome. He was declared Dictator in Perpetuity two months before his assassination.
Of course, it's hard to overlook the fact that he continued to centralize an already massive state bureaucracy. He did sell those he conquered into slavery. And being an all powerful dictator, even if only for two months, is something that's really hard to justify.
So - was Caesar a hero? Can his faults be overlooked in the light of his achievements? Or were his faults just too deep to be ignored? Was he a great man who saved a civilization that would become famous for it's achievements - or a power luster who was to become a tyrannical dictator by overthrowing a republic?
-
If faith is defined as "belief without proof", doesn't one take it on faith that humans are the source of all truth rather than God? If someone says, "I accept my worlview on reason" isn't one saying, "I believe reason is the way to view all reality. Is it not a statement of faith to say that one cannot step outside of one's brain and attack it? If there is something more than a human mind to define the world, it would be logical to seek the reason of the "something more".
For example, SoftwareNerd provided a secondary, potentially valid definition of faith. If it is valid "particularly if one has faith in the findings of a person who has shown he never uses (philosophical) faith." If the God of the Bible is real, by SoftwareNerd's definition, it is valid to put one's faith in Him, if said God does not use faith. If one accepts the Bible's claim that God is truth, God would never exercise faith. Thus, is it not reasonable to accept such a God?
Does it not take faith to reject such a God, one that is reasonable to accept? If it does, than Rand would be guilty of exercising faith.
But why would it ever be reasonable to accept any notion of God? This is the burden of proof you must meet if you're going to make any headway. Why should one accept any claims made by the Bible, which is a contradictory and factually incorrect historical document?
-
I think the general feeling in Scotland (eg. among the legal profession) is that the trial/verdict was a sham and the man should never have been locked up, but the governments colluded to ensure that he was for some reason. So therefore, he's being released on compassionate grounds because they think his incarceration is unfair, or that the appeal (which he'll never live to know) would have cleared his name.
Of course, they can't SAY as much because it would undermine the reputation of the justice system, so they just give this vague 'country of values' answer.
I've heard this excuse too. Someone has mentioned to me that they think he was unjustly convicted and not the bomber. If that's really what's going on here, they should say so. Otherwise, we have to assume that he was in fact guilty of this terrible crime, in which case he really should not have been allowed to live as long as he has anyhow.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine...nted=1&_r=1
While the article doesn't get everything right and doesn't necessarily understand the issues on a deeper philosophical level, at least this is a clear indication that there is some understanding that individual rights, especially for half the world's population, are necessary to solve many of the world's problems, most especially poverty.
I also appreciated that there were no pulled punches out of respect for "other cultures and their heritage" - sex trafficking, slavery, physical abuse/murder, and legal inability to own property are declared unequivocally wrong and barbaric.
-
Funded by rights violating taxes?
No, funded by the voluntary contributions of individuals who understand what it means not to have a rights-respecting and rights-PROTECTING government.
-
If you could remember the source that would be handy, because hopefully it would include a good explanation of why a choice of one favorite is "inevitable."
I believe it's one of her Q&A sessions, perhaps at Ford Hall Forum, but I know that doesn't exactly narrow it down and I apologize for that.
-
On that same note, however, she also implied (I don't have the quote I just remember this) that such an arrangement would almost certainly be temporary and that a choice would inevitably be made between the two lovers (or of course you could leave both).
The following quotes are taken from The Passion Of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against The Brandens by James S. Valiant:"Branden reports that 'one of the often asked questions' following his lectures at NBI was: 'Is it possible to be in love with two people at the same time?' He reports Rand's own answer to students: 'It's a project that only giants can handle.'"
“Rand's answer to these questions is highly revealing. She implies that a high degree of moral character is required -- and, perhaps, that the intensity of the commitment required is equally high -- and that such demands would probably make this a rare circumstance. The situation is not inherently evil, however, as the positive implication to the word 'giants' makes plain.”
"In effect, Rand's position is 'great -- if you can handle it.'"
-
Please tell me that your bar is called "Atlas Chugged."
Best. Bar name. EVER.
-
One case where somebody misidentified their feelings for a time does not mean the whole thing is inherently flawed and can never be good and functioning. That's as good as concluding one person realized they only were pursuing engineering because they had friends in the field and that they really weren't personally that interested in engineering means engineering itself is an uninteresting field and nobody should pursue it, that it will always be bad for their lives.
I may perhaps agree with the spirit of Grames's commentary to a degree, but his tone is a bit insensitive to say the least. It's nothing to celebrate over when something doesn't work out for someone.
-
Very sorry to hear about this, man.
-
Recently I saw coverage of a town hall meeting in Iowa and was pleasantly surprised that people were able to discuss things in a reasonable manner. No one was shouting anyone down. So maybe it is getting better.
That's probably because only the man-bites-dog visuals make the news.Yesterday, I saw about 30 minutes of one town-hall meeting (a senator in Maryland). While there was some disruptive cheering and jeering, almost everyone who took the mike was extremely "normal". Yes, many were emotional, but none were looney. It is not necessary for everyone of them to make a "professorial" reasoned argument, as long as they say something from which their reasons can easily be gleaned by a typical voter. For instance, one guy said "you expect me to believe that the government can run this huge system cheaper than it is currently run... are you kidding me?" In my book, that qualifies as a decent town-hall comment.
Also, up to a point (i.e. if not seen as crazy), heightened emotionalism and hyperbole works to increase the sense of fear of any new proposed plan.
The biggest thing Obama has going for him is that a vast majority of people who work in media genuinely think the U.S. has a health care crisis, and genuinely think that the government ought to do something about it.
-
Well, Egoist, a few examples does not a movement make.
As for the fact that they aren't making any rational argument, I agree. However, they are mostly average people. They know something's wrong, just not what. As long as they aren't opposing Obama's plan for any immoral reason (Religious, for example), then I'm fine with the protests.
The fact that these people, who are mostly helpless philosophically, but are struggling against statism, are being demonized and physically assaulted should be enough to make anyone mad.
No offense, but I think Charles Johnson has got his "Moderate" claws in you a bit.
I have to stick up for Egoist a bit here. I'm as against the healthcare plan as anyone else here but a lot of these town hall protesters and teaparty guys are only making the rest of us look as nuts as they are. Shouting and flailing are not rational arguments. I have yet to hear a reasoned, intelligent question from one of the protesters that made the news. This does not help us. We need to fight this with ideas, not just try to shout down the other side. Not only does this bring us down to the level of the other side, we cannot and will not beat them at their own game.
I sympathize with the NH guy and having lived in NH it's not terribly uncommon (depending on where you are) for people to open-carry. What he did should not have been a big deal and it was perfectly legal. But he did not come off well on Chris Matthews and, though I don't want to ascribe fault to him because I really don't think he did anything wrong, he did hurt the image of opposition to healthcare because of that appearance.
I'm not even sure what to do anymore honestly. We're getting so far away from a free-market in healthcare or almost anything else really. And just in time for ObamaCare I'm about to drop into the ranks of the uninsured myself, though only temporarily.
-
That is horrible
I'm horrified that we permit this to happen in our country but the truth is that in many of these immigrant communities these honor killings do occur for all number of reasons. I wish that the government would crack down on it and really protect individuals in this country. But unfortunately the police are not very good at protective or preventative activity anyhow, mostly just cleaning up the mess afterwards. We don't even seem to be able to protect women from abusive boyfriends very well, let alone homicidal Muslim families. Just a few months ago in my own town here a guy went off and killed both his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend.
Protecting people from murderous animals is practically the most important purpose of government yet they fall so short.
-
One would wonder if a marriage to such a person was worth saving.
Staying out all night?
Hope there was a 6 month quarantine & STD testing involved after the POS came to his senses.
Yes, I would have a hard time with this as well. I would feel so profoundly disrespected I'm not sure I'd value the family enough to want to save it. Then again I suppose I've indulged in enough emotional masochism before that I might end up giving it a shot like this woman did, but even if I recognized that his struggles were "not about me", they still AFFECT me, and the fact that he would allow what was going on in his own inner world to hurt me would be a big slap in the face. I bend over backwards not to do such things to those I care about.
-
That's Just Me by No Doubt (pretty self-explanatory)
Make Yourself by Incubus
-
I'm thinking he might have a mind / body dichotomy. If a mental illness (the way I use the term) effects cognition, unless medicated, then a badly operating brain does effect the mind. For something like schizophrenia, too much dopamine production leads to easy memory triggering -- the subconscious runs wild, so to speak -- and this can seriously effect one's ability to remain focused and to think rationally. Similarly, for something like bipolar disorder, as I understand it, the chemical imbalance leads to emotions swinging up and down quite easily. Now, I think it would take a competent psychotherapist / psychiatrist to come up with the correct treatment plan, but the two fields do not necessarily have to be in conflict with one another, as a treatment plan may include medication and psychotherapy.
Also, on a related topic, there is a disorder that is called synethesia, whereby different regions of the brain next to one another are not electrochemically isolated as well as they should be and the person experiences sounds when they see certain things or colors around number or words or even tastes when they hear certain words. The only cure would be to better isolate those regions of the brain, but obviously, such a condition would make even talking about what something looks like or sounds like is being interfered with by a brain malfunction. So, the mind / body dichotomy -- of saying the brain is not the mind and has no relation to it -- would lead to not making the correct diagnosis when it comes to assessing what the problem is.
These people with these problems are not imagining their ills -- that is, it is not "just in their minds" -- but are real experiences that occur when the brain malfunctions.
I think it is also worth noting that with cognitive therapy, changing your most basic and typical thought patterns will literally over time change your brain architecture and chemical composition. So what is going on in the "mind" has very real physical effects.
-
I personally do not accept that there exist mental illnesses, excepting as metaphorical illnesses.
What would I say about people currently diagnosed as having various mental illnesses?
In brief, that they have been diagnosed with having various mental illnesses, various metaphorical illnesses.
Ok then, that makes sense. Then you and I are not in agreement, nor are you I suspect in agreement with Wrath or Tom or most of the other posters. I see nothing metaphorical about hallucinations or bipolar disorder.
-
Precisely, I'm suggesting that those who might yet not accept the view that "we all know" that mental illnesses are real illnesses just like other illnesses, and that psychiatrists are medical doctors just like other doctors, read Dr. Thomas Szasz's book, The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement, which I mentioned previously. Here again is a link to the book on Amazon.
To understand psychiatry, insanity and mental illnesses, one needs to understand the history of psychiatry, insanity and mental illnesses. That is the reason I recommend that particular book by Dr. Szasz.
Beyond that, here are a couple of YouTube videos that may be of some interest to some, though doubtfully to yourself.
You did not answer Wrath's question. Do you or do you not, personally, accept that there exists such a thing as mental illness and that there are in fact mentally ill people? If you do not believe that there is such a thing as mental illness than what would you say about people currently diagnosed as schizophrenic, bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, chronically depressed, etc?
-
On a side note, one should know that the VA is not a part of the military, and it doesn't just provide health services--education financing, as already mentioned. The military runs its own hospitals, usually on bigger bases or posts, and personnel are given health insurance called CHAMPUS/TRICARE that is used off post. VA is for people out of the military.
For anyone who was not already aware of this, there are so many horror stories about the mess that is Tricare it would make your head spin. They are far worse about actually covering things than even the slimiest private health insurance company. Worse than Kaiser, even.
-
Well, that's a bit of a Pollyannaish saying, and there's no reason to expect it - but in spirit, as an ideal to aim for, yes, I agree. (That is, there will always be occasional conflicts between rational men because rational men sometimes make mistakes, but in theory there shouldn't be if they are being rational and haven't made any mistakes.)
I believe you misunderstand him. It's not that rational men won't ever have conflicts, it's that the INTERESTS (i.e. fundamental, long-term interests) of rational men do not conflict. This is chiefly because rational men do not seek the unearned or seek to evade reality, which are the two biggest sources of conflict. Say I'm in a grocery store, and I buy an apple. The cashier shorts me my change and gives me a big smile and a "have a nice day", hoping I won't notice. This really covers both - he's faking reality by trying to get me to believe I made the exchange on the terms I expected to (i.e. the real price of the apple) and he's trying to get something that was mine for nothing (however much change he shorted me, say $1). His "interests", such as they are at this point, are wholly irrational. The people who think that the interests of rational humans conflict basically have to believe that it's the most rational choice for a business to rob its customers (and certainly there are many people who think/act that way).
As to your earlier point about saving the drowning child, for me at least yes it is a moral issue. If I fail to save the child at trivial cost to myself, I fail to uphold my values. It is immoral to knowingly sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. I value the health, safety, and happiness of innocent children, and of course this valuing includes caring about them in a sense even if I don't know them well. But the point is that this value is MINE, I have chosen it, and if I really believe it then I will act on it to save the child, which I would. I would definitely have a negative judgment of someone whose value hierarchy put snappy dressing ahead of respect for a life.
-
In any case, there is nothing wrong with ignorance which is why we even have these discussions in the first place.
I'm not so sure that you're ignorant anymore. Now I think you're evading. Reasons for this are to follow.
If Evolution is correct, there should be at the very least fossil evidence showing a transition between those water based ancestors and terrestrial animals.You chose to ignore the examples which I already gave you in my prior post, of the lobe-finned fishes as well as the very much alive lungfish which you could go look at yourself in central Africa if you were so inclined.
I even earlier gave the example of a giraffe. Have you ever read about a fossil of a water based creature that is very similar in structure to an antelope?What possible reason would we have to think something like that would exist? When's the last time you saw an underwater antelope??? Animals have structure that reflects the environment in which they live and helps them to survive. What you are asking for makes no sense on any level. Remember that every "transitional form", so to speak, was its own unique organism with its own life history and circumstances while it existed. Transitional form is only a relative term between one thing and another. A transitional form is NOT some freak-show Frankenstein animal that you made up in your head and then said "Well why doesn't this exist?" Why do you THINK it doesn't exist? Because an animal like that would never survive. And no evolutionary scientists would even expect to find something like that in nature.
You are so confident about Evolution as if it is an establised set of irrefutable laws when the truth is that there are so many variations of it and so many arguments about it. While certain components of it may be fact, the part about transition from one species to other completely different ones is still a theory with no clear proof.There are established sets of laws regarding evolution. We can observe them now. Natural selection is a fact. It's easy to find and easy to demonstrate. Variation is a fact. Anyone can look around and see that even the same kinds of animals are different from each other. And that variation is heritable.
Variation + Heritability + Natural Selection = evolution. It really is that simple. Now, there is a great deal of nuance and controversy around that nuance, and we have a lot of dispute regarding which of the mechanisms of evolution are more or less important and what broader patterns, if any, emerge over the history of life. But that evolution occurs is an indisputable fact and I won't let you weasel out of that one. As for your "transition" question I have been trying to explain to you why the question as you ask it is a nonsensical question. Living things change. When they change enough we call it a different species. There are good reasons to pick certain criteria as distinguishing one species from another but ultimately it is a concept we create and attempt to use to describe nature as best we can. Do you think living things only change up to a point and then stop? What makes you think this?
You ignore the important facts I mentioned about Entropy, the precision of DNA plus the repair capability it (DNA) has. Can you just try to imagine the kind of changes required to be made to DNA for a species to move from the sea to land, never mind the air? All these changes are being opposed by Entropy and the other two factors. Does a million years make any difference to entropy?Firstly I told you I was responding to the evolution part of your post and nothing else. Secondly, if I "ignore" entropy it is only because entropy is irrelevant to evolution. Look up at the sky and there you will find this amazing thing called THE SUN. THE SUN is a constant energy input to the earth and all life depends upon it (except for deep-sea geotherms etc. etc. you get my point). THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM SO ENTROPY IS IRRELEVANT. And yes I can conceive of what changes DNA can undergo, in fact I have a very good idea of it from courses in genetics. You're wrong about entropy being a barrier to change in DNA sequences. In fact, if anything entropy would INCREASE change in DNA sequences and cause them not to be replicated faithfully, but that would be random change rather than directed change. The truth is we see both random and directed change in DNA, the former as a result of genetic drift or other kinds of neutral/accidental forces and the latter as a result of natural selection. Both are important in evolution, though scientists argue over which is more important. Falling into the "adaptationist" camp I will of course opt for the latter but I digress.
You then make the astonishing statement that "There is no connection between mammals and birds" and you use this to claim I am ignorant. How do you know this for a FACT?It's not an astonishing claim at all. I don't understand why you think it is. I know it because it's true. Mammals "branched off" of the reptile lineage first, and birds much later. The last common ancestor of birds and mammals was a tiny little lizard-looking thing in the Triassic, resembling nothing you would think of as a bird or mammal today. We traced the lineages through time with those fossils you claim don't exist. There is also DNA sequencing from living things that helps determine relatedness too. Ever hear of a molecular clock?
If evolution works the way you say it does, what would stop mammals changing to birds? Don't you know that for example penguins have more in common with mammals than with reptiles?Nothing per se STOPS mammals from changing into birds, but that's not what happened. Life "could have" evolved in any number of ways but there is only one way it actually DID evolve and that's what we try to figure out. At this point, I'd say it'd be nigh impossible for a mammal to "change into" a bird, whatever you mean by that, but a mammal could always develop birdlike qualities to a certain degree. Ever hear of this crazy thing called a bat? I don't know why you bring up penguins having more in common with mammals than reptiles. First of all I'd like to know in what ways you think they are similar, and why you think those ways are important to figuring out lineage. Secondly, even if they are, there's this pesky thing called "convergent evolution" where animals may develop similar traits despite being on different "branches" of the tree, because they live in similar ways. A bird wing and a bat wing are both wings and they're both used for flying but that doesn't make birds and bats related. To put it another way, if my distant kin in Mongolia or wherever that I haven't been related to for 5000 years started getting taller because it helped them, and my family started getting taller too because it helps us, that doesn't magically make us ancestor/descendant again.
You further say "Birds arose directly from reptiles, most likely from raptor-type dinosaurs. In fact, many scientists now theorize that feathers were a feature of certain dinosaurs." Does this sound very definitive to you? Sorry to say but I don't find it very rational for you to claim I am ignorant based on conjectures, which is the best way I would describe your presentation of Evolution.Well it sure seems that way when you ignore the concrete examples I gave you of WHY scientists think this. Scientists arrive at the conclusions they do for a reason (even when they're ultimately wrong somehow). You cherry-picked my argument to find the logic but ignored the examples and did not respond to them in any way to make it look like I was just inventing things. All of these ideas we have about evolution have EVIDENCE to back them up, evidence which I have described to you and you consistently choose to ignore. This is why I said you were evading. You won't acknowledge the observations about reality that lead us to conclude what we do about how life evolves.
Sustainable development
in Political Philosophy
Posted
OK, that works for me. The problems then, it seems, come down to the more practical matters of determining harm and when it has occurred, which is a scientific/fact-gathering enterprise moreso than a philosophical one. There would also have to be a better legal foundation for pursuing those sorts of damages. I grew up in an area where if your land, water, or air got polluted and you tried to say something about it the response was basically "oh well, tough luck".
From a purely practical standpoint, I still think establishing rights and ownership over natural resources, most particularly living and/or highly mobile resources, is a tricky business. I hope that environmental science sheds some light on these issues over the next few years but I am not optimistic. Thankfully that is not my area of research.