Posts by Neil Graham
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Invent a better mouse-trap and people will buy it, etc.
That's not how modern business works though.
Invent a better mouse trap and save it for when your current mouse traps aren't selling.
For instance, it is rumoured that Intel is already producing processors on a 45nm process, but they are waiting for AMD to release their new processors.
-
so...
Wouldn't it be intriguing if such a tool existed for conservapedia. Fewer entries, I'm sure, but the strike rate would be better.
-
I think only www.youtube.com links work.
-
...and part 2.
-
magically works you say..
Appealing, in a disturbing sort of way.
-
So I may be wrong but it seems that a lot of people assumed that that the violent sports thing was all about the impact of TV coverage.
My issue with it wasn't that people get to see players being violent. The problem is that the players are being violent.
Violence being tollerated in sport is a problem because there are lots of people playing. I hear they do it even when there are no cameras about.
...and yeah, fixing this isn't going to make a utopia. but no one thing will. This will help.
-
I find the rugby thing quite disturbing. The violence is accepted by far to many.
I wouldn't have any problem with sending players off for taking a swing at another player. The defence of provocation or that it was an instinctive reaction doesn't sway me. That seems to boil down to 'I should be allowed to hit people if I'm angry enough'.
I get particularly steamed up about people who take the attitude of 'If the ref doesn't see it then it is legal' . As far as I'm concerned, that's an invitation for anything goes. If they complain because you snipped one of their tendons with a razor blade, ask to see their list of rules of acceptable illegal behaviour.
-
they can't go marching in like cowboys. They've got to go marching in with humility, with support, not with arrogance
If people could do things like that then The Iraq war would have been over by now.
So it it because humility is considered synonymous with weakness? The alternative (in both Oz and Iraq) is worse. They never had any intention of fixing the problem.
-
really fine story on the issue for Close Up last night
And to think I watched Campbell Live's combo of... Kids are obese and worried about their image.
The world is going a bit funny I think.
-
can you please provide the quotes where I said anything of the sort? I would politely ask that you stop making stuff up, thanks.
And it seems I can now make the same request of you.
I made no claims about your views. I was just attempting to find what your views actually were. That's why I asked.
this looks like a tautology to me: if something works, then it must be science.
It's not a tautology. It's a straight definition.
If it can reliably be shown to work, it's science.If data or methodology is disputed then the criticism should be based in science. The same deal applies. to criticize methodology you have to provide sound argument as to why the methodology would not work reliably.
Scientific consensus is different from science. The Scientific consensus may be flat wrong on any number of counts, but as soon as it can be reliably shown that it is wrong the consensus shifts.
IMHO, there are countless things that work, which have never been accepted by Western scientifically based medicine.
You could mean one of two things by 'never been accepted', Either that it has been rejected or simply unaccepted.
To reject a treatment scientifically it would have to be reliably shown that the treatment offered no benefit.
For something to be unaccepted it simply means it hasn't been shown to work.There may be treatments that people believe work that do indeed work, but you need to distinguish those from the treatments that people believe work that don't work. Any mechanism that you use to reliably distinguish one from the other can be called science.
The entire notion of "western scientifically based medicine" is a bit absurd. The west doesn't own science. Science isn't 'beakers and Bunsen burners but not herbs and oils'
I should add that scientists may reject theories out of hand. This isn't strictly scientific but is usually done on a balance of probabilities. A person may come up with a design for an experiment that would produce one result if the universe is made up of electrons protons neutrons etc. and a totally different result if the universe is made out of toothpicks. It would be unlikely that any scientist would build the experiment. It isn't strictly scientific to dismiss the notion of a toothpick universe but scientists must make pragmatic decisions to make good use of their time while adhering as closely to the principles of science as possible.
Some treatments may be rejected because of attached baggage. For instance If I told you that taking an asprin would fix you headache because the toothpicks in your head will chase the asprin down to your stomach. You may reject it out of hand because the toothpick universe is absurd. That's unscientific without proving the nonexistance of the toothpick universe but you take your chances with probability It doesn't mean asprin doesn't work, but you have to have a better reason than that to consider taking it.
Science is simply the best possible way to know things.
The best possible way to know things is science.
not a tautology, defined equivalence.