|
On October 18 2013 17:46 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:41 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:34 packrat386 wrote:
My argument was that we shouldn't privilege a negative hypothesis simply because it is the negative hypothesis. You then proceeded to offer other reasons not to believe in God, so I answered those, and provided some reasons to believe in it in order to even out the scales.
Your original argument was that we shouldn't believe in God simply because we should always prefer the negative hypothesis. When I answered this argument you wanted to move on to another one (we shouldn't believe in God because the harms outweigh the benefits).
These are 2 fundamentally different arguments, so before we go forward I'd like to know which one we're talking about.
Should I not believe in God because
A: Belief in God causes material harms that are worse than the benefits (lack of progress etc.)
B: Belief in things that are not able to be tested is unjustified. B is definitely the discussion at hand. You've sort of misunderstood me, belief in god was just an example for me. Lack of progress is true in all situations where you prefer positive hypothesis. The scientific method is founded on the idea that hypotheses are useless until you can test them to make sure they have any value and actually represent the world in a meaningful way. Whether you believe in god or invisible teapots is not relevant, the fact that you believe in them without basis is the problem. When you can test something, you can learn more about it, which is the progress I'm talking about. When an hypothesis is untestable, you can just change the hypothesis randomly and nothing will change, so it's not really progress. God is just the most pressing example because of the topic at hand. Since the things that we are allowed to believe in will probably remain untestable, I fail to see how it prevents progress. Whether or not I believe in undetectable teapots on pluto is going to have no effect on my ability to test other hypotheses. Your argument is basically that science is good, but how I choose to interact with those things that we can't use do experiments on has no bearing on how I interact with the testable material world.
First of all, the invisible teapot isn't on Pluto, it's in the Asteroid Belt. Second, if you believe it exists on Pluto, you're just dead wrong about the facts because there is an abundance of evidence that it is in the Asteroid Belt somewhere, but you don't seem like someone who is a big fan of "facts".
|
On October 18 2013 17:50 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:46 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:41 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:34 packrat386 wrote:
My argument was that we shouldn't privilege a negative hypothesis simply because it is the negative hypothesis. You then proceeded to offer other reasons not to believe in God, so I answered those, and provided some reasons to believe in it in order to even out the scales.
Your original argument was that we shouldn't believe in God simply because we should always prefer the negative hypothesis. When I answered this argument you wanted to move on to another one (we shouldn't believe in God because the harms outweigh the benefits).
These are 2 fundamentally different arguments, so before we go forward I'd like to know which one we're talking about.
Should I not believe in God because
A: Belief in God causes material harms that are worse than the benefits (lack of progress etc.)
B: Belief in things that are not able to be tested is unjustified. B is definitely the discussion at hand. You've sort of misunderstood me, belief in god was just an example for me. Lack of progress is true in all situations where you prefer positive hypothesis. The scientific method is founded on the idea that hypotheses are useless until you can test them to make sure they have any value and actually represent the world in a meaningful way. Whether you believe in god or invisible teapots is not relevant, the fact that you believe in them without basis is the problem. When you can test something, you can learn more about it, which is the progress I'm talking about. When an hypothesis is untestable, you can just change the hypothesis randomly and nothing will change, so it's not really progress. God is just the most pressing example because of the topic at hand. Since the things that we are allowed to believe in will probably remain untestable, I fail to see how it prevents progress. Whether or not I believe in undetectable teapots on pluto is going to have no effect on my ability to test other hypotheses. Your argument is basically that science is good, but how I choose to interact with those things that we can't use do experiments on has no bearing on how I interact with the testable material world. I agree. However, you're making a completely unnessecary exception. If you agree with the scientific method, you agree that you shouldn't believe in things which lack basis. However, you're saying that while this is true for the material world, we can throw that away as soon as an hypothesis is completely untestable, in which case it makes just as much sense to accept it as true. This is inconsistant at best, illogical at worst.
You need to read my post above. There are things that science doesn't describe.
|
On October 18 2013 17:50 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:43 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote:
How about Occam's Razor? All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor. My method? You mean the scientific method? Science =/= occams razor. Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it. Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I haven't brought up the occams razor. You said your arguments against my method (I'm only discussing the scientific method) are just as good against occams razor (not directly relevant to what I'm talking about).
You're right, science doesn't tell you what to believe when science won't let you test an hypothesis. Which is why, in the scientific method, hypotheses which can't be tested are considered useless, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method that hypotheses need to be testable. You are allowed to believe in them, but your ability to argue for them is obviously nil.
|
On October 18 2013 17:50 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:43 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote:
How about Occam's Razor? All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor. My method? You mean the scientific method? Science =/= occams razor. Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it. Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist."
|
On October 18 2013 17:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:50 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:43 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote:
How about Occam's Razor? All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor. My method? You mean the scientific method? Science =/= occams razor. Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it. Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe. I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist."
This will blow your mind.
You can't make the argument that "God doesn't exist" unless someone has argued that God does exist.
|
On October 18 2013 17:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:50 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:43 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote:
How about Occam's Razor? All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor. My method? You mean the scientific method? Science =/= occams razor. Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it. Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe. I haven't brought up the occams razor. You said your arguments against my method (I'm only discussing the scientific method) are just as good against occams razor (not directly relevant to what I'm talking about). You're right, science doesn't tell you what to believe when science won't let you test an hypothesis. Which is why, in the scientific method, hypotheses which can't be tested are considered useless, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method that hypotheses need to be testable. You are allowed to believe in them, but your ability to argue for them is obviously nil.
YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
|
On October 18 2013 17:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:50 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:43 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote:
How about Occam's Razor? All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor. My method? You mean the scientific method? Science =/= occams razor. Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it. Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe. I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist."
Science is not the only reason to believe a hypothesis.
|
On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:54 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:50 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:43 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote:
How about Occam's Razor? All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor. My method? You mean the scientific method? Science =/= occams razor. Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it. Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe. I haven't brought up the occams razor. You said your arguments against my method (I'm only discussing the scientific method) are just as good against occams razor (not directly relevant to what I'm talking about). You're right, science doesn't tell you what to believe when science won't let you test an hypothesis. Which is why, in the scientific method, hypotheses which can't be tested are considered useless, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method that hypotheses need to be testable. You are allowed to believe in them, but your ability to argue for them is obviously nil. YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further. I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
Dude, you realize that icefrog is just a silly myth, right?
|
On October 18 2013 18:01 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:54 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:50 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:43 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote:
How about Occam's Razor? All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor. My method? You mean the scientific method? Science =/= occams razor. Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it. Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe. I haven't brought up the occams razor. You said your arguments against my method (I'm only discussing the scientific method) are just as good against occams razor (not directly relevant to what I'm talking about). You're right, science doesn't tell you what to believe when science won't let you test an hypothesis. Which is why, in the scientific method, hypotheses which can't be tested are considered useless, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method that hypotheses need to be testable. You are allowed to believe in them, but your ability to argue for them is obviously nil. YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further. I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done. Dude, you realize that icefrog is just a silly myth, right?
Thank you for the comic relief. It is much needed in here.
|
On October 18 2013 17:57 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:54 IgnE wrote:On October 18 2013 17:50 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:43 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote:
How about Occam's Razor? All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor. My method? You mean the scientific method? Science =/= occams razor. Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it. Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe. I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist." This will blow your mind. You can't make the argument that "God doesn't exist" unless someone has argued that God does exist.
Wait. Wait. Wait. What if that person is your own self?
|
On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote:
YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to change stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth.
Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not.
|
On October 18 2013 18:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:57 ninazerg wrote:On October 18 2013 17:54 IgnE wrote:On October 18 2013 17:50 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:43 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote:
How about Occam's Razor? All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor. My method? You mean the scientific method? Science =/= occams razor. Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it. Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe. I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist." This will blow your mind. You can't make the argument that "God doesn't exist" unless someone has argued that God does exist. Wait. Wait. Wait. What if that person is your own self?
Okay, let's do that.
Rainbow Unicorns are definitely real oh wait no they're not.
|
Okay, let's do that.
Rainbow Unicorns are definitely real oh wait no they're not.
Your point?
|
On October 18 2013 18:06 Sejanus wrote:Show nested quote +
Okay, let's do that.
Rainbow Unicorns are definitely real oh wait no they're not.
Your point?
The only point is the rainbow unicorn's majestic horn.
User is totally awesome for this post.
|
On October 18 2013 18:03 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote:
YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done. Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to chance stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth. Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not.
You should read up on your philosophy of science. There is no cornerstone of science to reject all things which can't be empirically tested. Science doesn't comment on those things which cannot be subjected to experimentation. Does that mean those things should be necessarily rejected? No, it just means that we need to use a different system to talk about them.
Take the example of uncountable reals. There is no experiment for me to run, thus science can't give me an answer to the question.
edit: Spelling. Also the idea that scientists "frown on" the supernatural is laughable given the amount of religious scientists there are.
|
Yeah just look at the Templeton Prize winners. Science's best and brightest.
|
On October 18 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Yeah just look at the Templeton Prize winners. Science's best and brightest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
Is the 2000 winner good enough for you? If not, its not like there aren't plenty of other scientists who are religious (also, notable - the guys who invented science).
|
On October 18 2013 18:23 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Yeah just look at the Templeton Prize winners. Science's best and brightest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_DysonIs the 2000 winner good enough for you? If not, its not like there aren't plenty of other scientists who are religious (also, notable - the guys who invented science).
Ah, so that's why when I do algebra, I feel a little bit closer to Allah.
|
On October 18 2013 18:12 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 18:03 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote:
YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done. Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to chance stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth. Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not. You should read up on your philosophy of science. There is no cornerstone of science to reject all things which can't be empirically tested. Science doesn't comment on those things which cannot be subjected to experimentation. Does that mean those things should be necessarily rejected? No, it just means that we need to use a different system to talk about them. Take the example of uncountable reals. There is no experiment for me to run, thus science can't give me an answer to the question. edit: Spelling. Also the idea that scientists "frown on" the supernatural is laughable given the amount of religious scientists there are.
Science necessarily rejects untestable hypoteses, yes. There's no doubt there. Does all scientists reject untestable hypoteses? No, like you say, there are a lot of religious scientists. However, they don't apply science to those beliefs (those who do are definitely frowned upon, just look at all the smack books which try to prove that god exists scientifically get).
There's a big difference between frowning upon people who claim ghosts exists without any form of empirical evidence, and believing in something supernatural, though I think it's a pretty small minority who do because like I said earlier, it's inconsistant. I see no reason, objectively, to accept the scientific method and then disregard it because of an old book and your parents raising you a certain way.
Also, your examples in math are irrelevant. You don't have to test uncountable reals, because it's a matter of definition, which is true for most math. Is 1 + 1 always 2? Yes. How do we prove that? Because we have accepted a very specific definition of what 1, 2, + and = means. The only way this can't be true is if that definition changes, and that's how we can do mathematical proofs.
|
On October 18 2013 19:08 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 18:12 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 18:03 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote:
YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done. Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to chance stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth. Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not. You should read up on your philosophy of science. There is no cornerstone of science to reject all things which can't be empirically tested. Science doesn't comment on those things which cannot be subjected to experimentation. Does that mean those things should be necessarily rejected? No, it just means that we need to use a different system to talk about them. Take the example of uncountable reals. There is no experiment for me to run, thus science can't give me an answer to the question. edit: Spelling. Also the idea that scientists "frown on" the supernatural is laughable given the amount of religious scientists there are. Science necessarily rejects untestable hypoteses, yes.
Awesome, therefore I can reject the hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers because there is no way for me to scientifically test it. Glad we had this conversation.
edit: In case you might have missed the punchline, there are uncountably many real numbers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
