Posts by Neil Graham
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
yes, but effectively, what you are saying is that if a solution cannot be "expalined" or backed up by "science" it is not a solution, just a coincidence. but, unfortunately, science is only about empirical observation and probabilities/correlations extrapolated from such.
what I'm saying is that science cannot claim to have a monopoly on the solutions. scientific consensus is constantly changing, which kind of suggests that science only has a modest grasp of the big picture. and that silly absolutist statements are as faith-based as anything else.
I'm not sure what you are implying here. You seem to be talking about some characteristics that I'm not sure exist.
Are you saying that science denies the existence of anything that lacks a complete explanation of its behaviour? If that were true Science would deny the existance of the universe.
Are you saying that science makes absolutist statements? Poor scientists may, but the principles of science can never generate an absolute answer. Many scientists may talk about things in terms of absoluteness but most will admit that this is simply for efficiency of communication. It's like having a discussion about Sherlock Holmes playing the violin without having to repeatedly state that Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character.
Science can claim to have a monopoly on solutions because it is prepared to take on information from all sources. If you have a solution and you can show that it performs better than chance then it becomes part of the scientific base. You can't show something works and go 'nyah nyah and science can't have it'.
-
Actually, If answers can be reliably found, It's science.
-
Is it really a blog? I always thought an integral part of blogs as offering and implied invitation to engage in debate. Does the Author reply to comments or just she just let the mortals muse upon her sermon from the mount.
It may just be that I move in different Circles, but there was some initial confusion regarding the meaning of 'sub'.
-
I can understand Gore not ruling himself out.
Hillary may crack under pressure and eat a press crew. Someone might find that collection of baby skulls in Barak's basement.
If something like that happens i'd imagine him wanting to have a go.
-
I do wonder how much relevance this has to the rest of the world beyond calculating our chances of being 'liberated' in future years.
The child wellbeing study was a good example of showing that children are growing up differently around the world. Look at figures 3.1 and 3.3b and the position of the US. It's a rather odd combination but probably shows the culture of the American Dream.
..and hells bells. 6.3b needs a campaign 'For just a dollar a day you can send a Japanese kid a postcard'.
oh, and re: tomorrow people. They remade it in 1992, it was hideous. I'll take melodramatic over trite any day.
-
three things.
1. I have a daughter and while there are things that I wouldn't like her wearing, there are also things that other parents would ban, which I have no problem with. At some levels I think I'd even see harm in restricting the freedom of the child. Should we set up laws based on my personal threshold? Works for me.
2. What if porn was actually representative of sexual behaviour? Would people watch it? I find that I'm not intrinsically against porn. I just don't like all the instances I've encountered.
3.Spanish-American War, Conservapedia "The war between America and Spain for control of Cuba, the Phillipines and other Spainish colonies, which America, being a Christian nation, won, while Spain, being a Catholic country, lost. "
-
I ended up in an argument trying to get a wikipedia article undeleted. I didn't have anything to do with the article other than I went to wikipedia to get information only to find it once had an article on the topic but it had been deleted.
I hear the phrase It's an encyclopedia not a <wildcard>. Wikipedia is not an encylcopedia. Britanica is an encyclopedia. It overs a tiny subset of what wikipedia does. It does this out of necessity due to limited resources. You still get a ' That is beneath us' vibe for topics not covered.
For me If I go to wikipedia looking for info on it, I think it's notable. If I can't find any I consider Wikipedia to have failed it's job that time.
So what would happen if there were no restrictions on articles that failed a notibility test? Links from notable to non notable articles would be forbidden. If you were in a notable article you could never click your way to a non-notable bat there would still be information there if you searched specifically for it.
As long as articles met the other wikipedia crteria for style and content it wouldn't get too messy would it?
-
Looking at the campaign contributors page gave me an idea.
A bipartisan party. Bring a date and a donation.
Instead of donating to one political party, have a website matching you up with potential donators of the opposing party. Intead of giving the money to politicians get together and spend it on an almighty piss-up. The donations would have only cancelled each other out anyway.