You likely know of the negation for the Xtian argument "evolution is just a theory". It's meaningless because theories aren't just ideas, they are rigorously-tested explanations for how elements of fact interact with each other. Math and music are understood facts, our theories on them and evolution explain how they work, and are tested via demonstrations of how well they consistently work when applied. Any idea not tested would just be a hypothesis.
So, today I decided to indulge my curiosity on the Dead Sea scrolls, and on the Wikipedia page I saw numerous "theories" regarding their origin, when they were produced, and who wrote them. The referential titles of these ideas were apparently assigned by historians, all containing that word "theory", although they were probably assigned before most of them were eventually falsified. Shouldn't the word "theory" be restricted to matters of proven fact, rather than somebody's untested hypothesis? With this sort of linguistic confusion running rampant, it only makes the job of the religious apologist easier.
I'd love to know what your thoughts are on this.
The discussion is probably better under the regular religion section ... either Christian or General.
It is a common habit, particularly in English, to use vocabulary in a causal way, like casually running over pedestrians with your car.
The extra-Biblical literature, which includes the Dead Sea Scrolls .. are a fascinating if specialized topic. Maybe ask something specific under the General Religion category.
Quote from: Baruch on August 10, 2015, 12:47:40 PM
The discussion is probably better under the regular religion section ... either Christian or General.
It is a common habit, particularly in English, to use vocabulary in a causal way, like casually running over pedestrians with your car.
The extra-Biblical literature, which includes the Dead Sea Scrolls .. are a fascinating if specialized topic. Maybe ask something specific under the General Religion category.
Well, I'm sure this is a question which is better to ask in a more specialized section, but I came to this forum curious (frustrated with the blog zoo), and the rules say I can only post here for my first 10 posts. Counting down...
Anyway, the Dead Sea Scrolls, on which little if anything appears to be conclusive, are just an example how the word "theory" seems to be used inconsistently. I'm concerned that this is causing too much confusion over what that word's definition really is, and then I'm not really sure that I can know for sure what it really is.
Keeping things general ... there is a whole history of the canonization of scripture by the various pre-Constantinian movements, and by the eventual State Church established in somewhat fractured form in the 4th century. The official transcript of the debates are the pre-Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers .... but there are all sorts of non-canonical material left out by the rabbis and priests, that is both before and after the historical Paul (if we can take him as the first really substantial Christian we can name). Pseudepigraphy not withstanding, at least some of the Pauline corpus is reasonably Pauline, if edited ... and is earlier than any official Gospel. So a Christian theologian would respond ... these questions have already been settled centuries ago.
So if you already exclude part of the genuine pre-Constantine writings ... Jewish or Christian ... then the official canon is "just theory" too .. just a very old one. Papias was the first Church Father to try to do an investigation along your lines ... but his definition of theory was pretty casual to say the least.
So do you want the Greek definition of "theory" or the modern one ... that is a problem talking in English.
I think the Greeks can use their own language however they wish to, and that the rest of the world need not defer to their choices just because modern languages contain derivatives of theirs in its oldest form. Most English-speaking people today are incapable of comprehending 12th Century English, and the definitions of that language's words have morphed significantly well inside of the past 100 years. I'm only concerned that in order for rational secularists to be able to effectively communicate reason to those who have the buzzards of faith circling over their heads, it will be important that we also work with linguists to tighten up our own language so that it will be used more consistently. Not sure that can happen, but what do you think on that?
An example ... "doxa" means opinion, not truth. And "ortho" means proper ... so "orthodoxy" means proper opinion ... not proper truth. The ancients didn't argue scientifically, they argued legalistically, whether rabbi or Roman. Roman jurisprudence, such as that perfected by Cicero, is the kind of reasoning they meant by being reasonable. As it says in trials today ... "beyond a reasonable doubt" ... but there was no science in Roman trials, or for many centuries after. The promoters of orthodoxy have been pissing in the well of thought and speech. So a "doxa" is just a conjecture ... as is "theoria". One of the means of arguing in a Roman court was that of "authority" and "writings". Of course the judge had all the authority, and the "writings" were the law code and legal tradition built upon that law code (the litany of judgements at trial). In a Roman court they had "condemno" and "damno" ... to be condemned meant you were found guilty (whether or not you actually did it or not ... but the bad karma had to be expiated somehow or bring down the wrath of the gods) ... but you aren't given the maximum sentence. To be damned means you are guilty but you get the maximum sentence. Theodicy is "god's justice" ... which has been a problem for theologians at all times.
In my personal experience, G-d is both human and inhumane, blessing and cursing, loving and hating. That is also confirmed by some verses in the Bible. But the idea of an all loving G-d can either be seen as a contradiction of that, or something that has to be seen in a greater light. I don't believe in G-d, I know G-d ... but that doesn't mean I like G-d. I find G-d rather monstrous. For some that is reason to disbelieve. I would like to disbelieve in nuclear weapons, but I don't think my belief is going to make any difference. Nuclear weapons are both real and monstrous. The invention of these weapons caused some people, at the time, to lose their faith ... because they couldn't put a square severity in a round mercy.
Well secular jargon already exists, in philosophical circles. Unfortunately language is like a giant plate of spaghetti, where you can't find the ends, so we cut all up into little pieces, like Alexander with the Gordian Knot ... but then we can't find the "original" ends, can we.
When theists say "evolution is just a theory" they imply that theories by definition, can't be facts, that theories do not explain the observed phenomena, and that they are not subject to testing. Whether you agree that these things are part of the definition of theory or not, isn't really that important. The statement is an obfuscation, attempting to discredit science and put science on equal footing with religion.
But while they attempt to discredit, they do nothing to bolster their own speculations about creation, which can be nothing more than just another theory (this assumes that their "only a theory" meaning is correct; which it is not). Whether you accept creationism or not, it does none of the things they imply scientific theory doesn't do. There's no testing, no falsification, no explanation of all the observed phenomena. Creationism remains no more than an untested idea, or by their definition, just another "stupid" theory.
But the creationist now feels better because he has misled himself into believing he has said something meaningful.
Quote from: Baruch on August 10, 2015, 12:47:40 PM
It is a common habit, particularly in English, to use vocabulary in a causal way, like casually running over pedestrians with your car.
This. Sort of like when I hear the word "proof" I think of mathematics and how that's very different than say for example a legal definition of proof. When Christians try to pull the "evolution is just a theory BS" on me, I usually counter with "Well, so is gravity." Hell, biological cell theory is "just a theory", but I don't walk around pretending people are actually made of Hershey's kisses. I think the biggest part in attempting to get through and make a scientific point is to point out how dismissive the word "just" is in that sentence, like saying the Bible is "just a book." Even as an atheist, I wouldn't call it that. I might call it a manual of destruction and oppression whereas a Christian might call it divine, but either way, it's not "just a book."
The Hershey Kiss theory has some backing ... white chocolate, brown chocolate ... but more brown numerically ;-) The Aztecs used cocoa beans as money ... and we know how important money is to people.
Quote from: Baruch on August 10, 2015, 07:51:43 PM
In my personal experience, G-d is both human and inhumane, blessing and cursing, loving and hating. That is also confirmed by some verses in the Bible. But the idea of an all loving G-d can either be seen as a contradiction of that, or something that has to be seen in a greater light. I don't believe in G-d, I know G-d ... but that doesn't mean I like G-d. I find G-d rather monstrous. For some that is reason to disbelieve. I would like to disbelieve in nuclear weapons, but I don't think my belief is going to make any difference. Nuclear weapons are both real and monstrous. The invention of these weapons caused some people, at the time, to lose their faith ... because they couldn't put a square severity in a round mercy.
Nuclear weapons are a proven reality. Gods, not so much, not a one of them. The existence of life speaks for no intelligent design whatsoever. Humans design from the top down, because this makes the best sense when you actually are designing something with a purpose. Our lives are short, but the earth had all of 4.8 billion years to produce life as it exists today from the bottom up, as genetic analysis reveals it happened. Bottom-up design is no design at all It all fell into existence through a long chain of endless repetitions of colliding atoms, until self-repeating chain reactions were launched to produce life. The survivors in the game of life correct past mistakes, relative to the demands of current environmental and geographic factors. That it happened this way is the only good explanation for the common genes which we share with everything else which has or had genetic material, even at the lowest level. There was time, and in the case of the Earth there were the right materials and energy levels. Somewhere along the genetic line something very rare and unusual happened, so that now we can be here to ponder and discuss it all, but that still proves nothing on anybody's claims to any extraterrestrial, much less supernatural design and execution.
Facts are things that don't change with any belief. But how do we really know what the facts are with speculation on unknowns? Is the world we live in real, or just a creation of our minds, same for gods, God, or any other hypothetical question. I prefer to live in the world of objective reality, not the world of my imagination, with fears, and hopes wanting my mommy and daddy to comfort me, and decide what is best for me. I want to be able to make mistakes and learn from them, and I don't need absolute knowledge to live my life to the fullest, only the freedom to do so. Speculating on the unknowable is a waste of time, and using it for your life is foolish.
More adults would enjoy imaginary stories if our parents had done a better job at parenting. The product of nuclear weapons are the horrific result of human imagination ... plus some basic physics that humans had to exploit. So no intelligent creation indeed ... but stupid creation maybe ... both human and divine. Without evil monkeys opposable thumbs and big brains, there would be no nuclear weapons, or do you think that dolphins could build them underwater using flippers? Evolution, as a synonym for change, produced nuclear weapons, using humans as intermediaries. Of course one could personalize this as Gaia .. but most here prefer to worship quantum mechanics (the bulk of modern physics) ;-) We are much like the degenerate telepaths of the 2nd Planet of the Apes movie, who worshipped the Omega bomb. I find no rationality in the fact that humans are the way they are, however derivative we may be from our own biosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peHEOgiQgnI
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2015, 07:59:04 PM
More adults would enjoy imaginary stories if our parents had done a better job at parenting. The product of nuclear weapons are the horrific result of human imagination ... plus some basic physics that humans had to exploit. So no intelligent creation indeed ... but stupid creation maybe ... both human and divine. Without evil monkeys opposable thumbs and big brains, there would be no nuclear weapons, or do you think that dolphins could build them underwater using flippers? Evolution, as a synonym for change, produced nuclear weapons, using humans as intermediaries. Of course one could personalize this as Gaia .. but most here prefer to worship quantum mechanics (the bulk of modern physics) ;-) We are much like the degenerate telepaths of the 2nd Planet of the Apes movie, who worshipped the Omega bomb. I find no rationality in the fact that humans are the way they are, however derivative we may be from our own biosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peHEOgiQgnI
I follow what you say here, Baruch. But that word 'worship'--interesting word. What does that mean to you? I like to think I don't worship. Anything. Okay, baseball and ice cream maybe, and my cat that passed--nothing else. There is nothing to worship. I have interest in and respect for much. Physics and cosmology are two such things. I like to follow the explanations they offer; but with the understanding that those explanations can and often do change. On the other hand, god never changes--and that seems quite odd. Why would a never changing entity create something that never stops changing???? I just cannot stretch my mind around something unseen, unmeasurable, unknowable. Especially when accepting the unseen as being real would not enhance any part of my life, but would make it much less rich.
Shadow boxing straw deities? Why is G-d changeless? I see no reason to agree to that theological joke. G-d as manifested in the human imagination for example, is as varied as the humans and constantly changing in each individual as each individual changes. Heraclitus and Xenophanes trump Thales and Pythagoras ;-) But the wrong answer by Thales and Pythagoras was pragmatically more useful, eventually.
Worship is such a loaded word. Most people don't worship anything or anyone ... and that may be OK. I find worship to be a kind of mania. So I agree with you, at least today, I don't worship anything or anyone either. Of course that may be because as an old guy I am simply burnt out, too tired to be a fanatic.
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2015, 07:59:04 PM
More adults would enjoy imaginary stories if our parents had done a better job at parenting. The product of nuclear weapons are the horrific result of human imagination ... plus some basic physics that humans had to exploit. So no intelligent creation indeed ... but stupid creation maybe ... both human and divine. Without evil monkeys opposable thumbs and big brains, there would be no nuclear weapons, or do you think that dolphins could build them underwater using flippers? Evolution, as a synonym for change, produced nuclear weapons, using humans as intermediaries. Of course one could personalize this as Gaia .. but most here prefer to worship quantum mechanics (the bulk of modern physics) ;-) We are much like the degenerate telepaths of the 2nd Planet of the Apes movie, who worshipped the Omega bomb. I find no rationality in the fact that humans are the way they are, however derivative we may be from our own biosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peHEOgiQgnI
Dammit Baruch, now you are stooping to the red herring tactics employed (and never missed by any single free thinker, agnostic or atheist ever) by the proselytizing trolls which have been coming around here! Do you really think anybody misses the fact that it took a lot of intelligence to create the first nuclear weapon, and that design had nothing to do with the questionable intelligence behind the executive decision to use it on the Japanese? Up until now I've regarded you as above the use of such manipulations.
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2015, 08:31:54 PM
Shadow boxing straw deities? Why is G-d changeless? I see no reason to agree to that theological joke. G-d as manifested in the human imagination for example, is as varied as the humans and constantly changing in each individual as each individual changes. Heraclitus and Xenophanes trump Thales and Pythagoras ;-) But the wrong answer by Thales and Pythagoras was pragmatically more useful, eventually.
Worship is such a loaded word. Most people don't worship anything or anyone ... and that may be OK. I find worship to be a kind of mania. So I agree with you, at least today, I don't worship anything or anyone either. Of course that may be because as an old guy I am simply burnt out, too tired to be a fanatic.
Okay--you did not say that god was changeless. To answer your question, I don't know why god is changeless. I have simply heard that from theists so much it is kind of a knee-jerk thought attached to the notion of god. You don't have to believe that god is changeless.
Good ... how can you argue against a position, when you unconsciously accept an opponent's assumptions? Don't use a concept, unless you own up to it (and yes, you can use something rhetorically that you yourself don't agree with).
PS - I fully support using weapons against enemies, while they are enemies. Even weapons of mass destruction ... though it may be un-pragmatic to use such weapons in practice (vs intimidation). We have yet to evolve a society where the leaders play chess, and if they lose, they have to commit seppuku in embarrassment. It was a choice made as one imagined outcome vs another. Better yet, the method of choosing ministers on Lilliput ... some kind of tightrope walking ;-) The Japanese imagination of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere aka better Japanese Empire ... cost 20 million Chinese lives. If you can't eat a little red herring, best not try to eat a shark.
Quote from: Baruch on August 11, 2015, 10:52:37 PM
Good ... how can you argue against a position, when you unconsciously accept an opponent's assumptions? Don't use a concept, unless you own up to it (and yes, you can use something rhetorically that you yourself don't agree with).
I did not say I accepted my opponent's assumption. I merely stated I made an assumption as to what his argument would contain. The only assumption I have about god is that it does not exist. Period. I argue that all the time. But I also have come to assume (which is not really a good thing to do--assume) that a theist will imbue god with certain characteristics and one of the most common ones I've heard is that god is changeless. And I suppose in a sense, they are right--how can something that does not exist change??? It can't. But then, a theist assumes god exists and does not change.
Not this theist ;-) Greek philosophical memes are so ... 2400 BCE.
The Dead Sea scrolls are not strong, verifiable and supporting evidence...of anything at all. So when I hear religious people misusing that term, I want to cringe. For they have no supporting evidence to come up with a 'theory of God.'
I have this theory that most people are just full of shit. Turns out that I'm right. Sewage treatment plants are the only real proof I need, but we all know that, right?
Deidre32 ... well there is fact and there is scholarship ... but don't tell the scholars ;-) Scholarship involves Derrida-like deconstruction of physical evidence (often old written evidence). The result is "what might have been" or "what might be today". So bias enters into scholarship, but presumably more educated bias than a lay person can muster. The usual denigration is "ivory tower".
The Dead Sea scrolls are only evidence of themselves. Their origin is disputable. Their meaning is disputable. And we can't escape that with more scholarship, because what we really need to do is to have a time machine, to talk to the Essenes and other folks of that time. This is why I can't base my religion on old books, though sometimes I find some verse or other to be inspirational.
AllPurposeAtheist - You realize you are quoting one of Jesus' jokes, right? "It is what comes out of you that defiles you" ... "not what goes into you". But again, what did the writer (not Jesus) mean by that. So the scholar engages in exegesis.
One can attempt to reconstruct the mental world of people who wrote things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and many have come up with their own version, just as they do with the authorized books of the Bible. For me, the Gospel of Thomas, that comes from the later Nag Hammadhi, is definitive, but that is my "scholarly" intuition at work.
Quote from: Baruch on August 22, 2015, 05:32:23 AM
For me, the Gospel of Thomas, that comes from the later Nag Hammadhi, is definitive, but that is my "scholarly" intuition at work.
If I remember correctly, the Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings, the originator of each impossible to know. So, how can that 'book' be definitive? And of what?
Well definitive for many of you ... is Jesus Christ (not that fictional folk rabbi guy) appearing in front of you, judging you as damned, and tossing you into a lake of lava ;-) But no need to worry, unless in death you meet up with Dante! In which case I am toast, because my Italian is rather poor.
Yes, the Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings, there is virtually no hagiography in it. In synchrony (time emptiness) the originator doesn't matter. And diachrony (time fullness) won't help unless you have a time machine. Hagiography being a modest kind of mythology.
Definitive for me means ... it has genuineness, verisimilitude and truthiness unlike other works of that period ... it speaks to me in oracular ways. But I get that more or less from many works of wisdom literature. Wisdom literature goes back to Old Kingdom Egypt ... and is most familiar in the Proverbs and Psalms of the Bible. But the prayers of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav is a more recent incarnation.
Quote from: Baruch on August 22, 2015, 01:52:15 PM
Yes, the Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings, there is virtually no hagiography in it. In synchrony (time emptiness) the originator doesn't matter. And diachrony (time fullness) won't help unless you have a time machine. Hagiography being a modest kind of mythology.
Definitive for me means ... it has genuineness, verisimilitude and truthiness unlike other works of that period ... it speaks to me in oracular ways. But I get that more or less from many works of wisdom literature. Wisdom literature goes back to Old Kingdom Egypt ... and is most familiar in the Proverbs and Psalms of the Bible. But the prayers of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav is a more recent incarnation.
I have often read the term Wisdom Literature--and have read a fair amount of it. I am amused that much of it contains little to no wisdom--at least as far as I'm concerned.
Well maybe you need to write your own ... and see if anyone still cares 2000 years from now ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on August 22, 2015, 02:18:50 PM
Well maybe you need to write your own ... and see if anyone still cares 2000 years from now ;-))
I haven't written it. But I do take what I think works for me and use it. As for seeing if anyone cares in 2000 years--that has no pull for me. I won't care what people think (or don't think) of me in 20 yrs from now. Or 2 years, for that matter. My current well being is not predicated upon what anyone will think of me in the future. I can't control that even if I want to.
No Mike CL is an island?
"But I do take what I think works for me and use it" ... exactly what I do. Are you me, or am I you?
Quote from: Baruch on August 22, 2015, 09:16:14 PM
No Mike CL is an island?
"But I do take what I think works for me and use it" ... exactly what I do. Are you me, or am I you?
I am a rock, I am an island...............I'm a Simon and Garfunkel song. :)
"Are you me, or am I you?" You are me--I am you--we are all one--right????
Going back to the question raised in the OP. The word theory has two different meanings which are
virtually polar opposites hence the confusion over its use. In science it is an established frame work
of laws representing the most rigorously tested hypotheses which have all been subject to potential
falsification. So it is not something untestable or unsupportable which is what the lay definition of it
is. It is interesting how Christians say evolution is only a theory. Since they never say it at all about
gravity or electromagnetism or quantum mechanics or general relativity which are also only theories
Quote from: surreptitious57 on August 27, 2015, 08:48:13 AM
Going back to the question raised in the OP. The word theory has two different meanings which are
virtually polar opposites hence the confusion over its use. In science it is an established frame work
of laws representing the most rigorously tested hypotheses which have all been subject to potential
falsification. So it is not something untestable or unsupportable which is what the lay definition of it
is. It is interesting how Christians say evolution is only a theory. Since they never say it at all about
gravity or electromagnetism or quantum mechanics or general relativity which are also only theories
Theists seem to elevate scientific law to something noble and immutable, and perhaps they confuse scientific law with written rules that can only be made by entities. Yes, evolution is only a theory, but then gravity is only a law. Both can change. God's law changes at various points in the Bible. It also varies according to circumstances. So what's so flawed about something only being a theory?
A theory is only an explanation that explains how something works, but some explanations are very good, and some are better than others. It could be argued that evolution provides a better theory than gravity, which is still far from understood, yet never questioned by theists. And evolution certainly provides a better understanding of how species come to be than any biblical account. "God did it" doesn't suffice as a scientific explanation because there is no possible way to verify it. It's no better than saying "invisible kangaroos did it, because that would be impossible to verify also.
Creating a woman from the rib of man is poetic, but it doesn't address how. God breathing life into clay is poetic and perhaps even a moving metaphor, but it doesn't explain how. It's poetry that leaves the hows and whys to nothing more than an individuals half baked imagination. For me, it describes a process that "poofs" something into something else. It only explains why this happens if I don't give a shit how it works. It's entirely unsatisfying from the perspective of actual accumulation of useable knowledge.
If you want to fall back on "evolution is a theory", I would agree, but then the "Bible is poetry that captures some people's imaginations," which makes evolution significantly more helpful to understanding. Theories explain phenomena. Scientific laws describe them. Poetry inspires the spirit. All do entirely different things. Inspiration may be a wonderful thing, but it really doesn't explain how something works.
When I want to understand something, getting all inspired and poetic just doesn't satisfy the right buttons. A theory, even one that might be conditional until further verification is available, just does a better job. We are free to realize it's conditional. No one tells us to believe a theory or we will suffer eternally in some fiery place. It's a much better offerring.
Quote from: surreptitious57 on August 27, 2015, 08:48:13 AM
Going back to the question raised in the OP. The word theory has two different meanings which are
virtually polar opposites hence the confusion over its use. In science it is an established frame work
of laws representing the most rigorously tested hypotheses which have all been subject to potential
falsification. So it is not something untestable or unsupportable which is what the lay definition of it
is. It is interesting how Christians say evolution is only a theory. Since they never say it at all about
gravity or electromagnetism or quantum mechanics or general relativity which are also only theories
Two different meanings, and Baruch insists they are both correct, but I doubt that. Science and math basically explain everything else, therefore I don't see how there can be one single application for the not-scientific application of "theory" which is better than the scientific one.
There happens to be at least two definitions for "atheist" as well. My personal favorite is the 17th Century definition "a loose person without moral restraint", but I define myself as "a person who doesn't believe in a god". When some disrespectful jerk today addresses atheism by the former definition, I often get the urge to smack them clear up into the ...heavens. Don't know why I never did that, having no moral restraint and all!
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 27, 2015, 10:18:15 AM
Two different meanings, and Baruch insists they are both correct, but I doubt that. Science and math basically explain everything else, therefore I don't see how there can be one single application for the not-scientific application of "theory" which is better than the scientific one.
There happens to be at least two definitions for "atheist" as well. My personal favorite is the 17th Century definition "a loose person without moral restraint", but I define myself as "a person who doesn't believe in a god". When some disrespectful jerk today addresses atheism by the former definition, I often get the urge to smack them clear up into the ...heavens. Don't know why I never did that, having no moral restraint and all!
Obviously you are a hedonistic heathen!
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 27, 2015, 10:18:15 AM
Two different meanings, and Baruch insists they are both correct, but I doubt that. Science and math basically explain everything else, therefore I don't see how there can be one single application for the not-scientific application of "theory" which is better than the scientific one.
There happens to be at least two definitions for "atheist" as well. My personal favorite is the 17th Century definition "a loose person without moral restraint", but I define myself as "a person who doesn't believe in a god". When some disrespectful jerk today addresses atheism by the former definition, I often get the urge to smack them clear up into the ...heavens. Don't know why I never did that, having no moral restraint and all!
Yes. Inspiration and understanding are not the same thing. Both are enjoyable to varying degrees among different individuals, and they each may have a value to mankind, but they are not the same.
Quote from: SGOS on August 27, 2015, 11:20:40 AM
Yes. Inspiration and understanding are not the same thing. Both are enjoyable to varying degrees among different individuals, and they each may have a value to mankind, but they are not the same.
I have to agree.