Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
PJ Montgommery did the commentary, Keith Quinn did the pre-match sideline bit. Yup; TVNZ has come a long way alright.
Why is it that NZ is ageist in this way?
I caught the final story on 60 Minutes last night. Not only was it an interesting human interest story (somethin we can rarely manage), but the reporter was Morley Safer.
On New Zealand TV we'd be wondering why someone that old was still around. As soon as someone passes a certain age, why are we fixated on replacing them with someone cute and bubbly?
-
provoking ... "test match sized" audiences
First thought: so stuff-all people watched it? Weren't one-day matches introduced because no-one watched test matches?
Then: Oh.
-
And, of course, that would be CER.
-
I've posted the rest of this guide here on Public Address System
I was wonderin'.
NZ's sensible idea of letting everyone who's a resident (and therefore a taxpayer) vote is so much more civilised.
And almost unique. Plus, no-one's really sure why we did it.
And because of CIR, it means any Australian here on an extended holiday around the election can vote!
-
ScottY - Who's on first?
-
Oh, and Graeme, you've missed James' point.
Light is both a wave and a particle, a wave packet if you will.
I am aware of the wave-particle duality of light.
That is why I used the example.
I do not think that schools should only teach that light is a wave. I do not think that schools should only teach that light is made of particles. I was rather surprised when someone answered my question "should we be teaching students that light is a particle or a wave?" with a "yes", instead of a "no; we should teach them it's both."
My other example (what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?) was obviously the better one for getting the general point across that disagreement and differing points of view do have a place in science.
-
Paul - absolutely. The problem I had was with the implicit argument:
Evolution is a scientific theory.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, which we shouldn't teach as science.
Therefore we should not take a relativistic sense of 'balance' or 'fairness to both sides' and extrapolate it to science, where that kind of thinking doesn't really work. -
If the commission decided on a smaller Auckland (metropolitian) council with executive powers, then:
"All the Community Council members form an electoral college, immediately after the local body elections, to vote for the members of the Auckland Metropolitan Council." (on pg 27)
The Greens also proposed two Maori Community Councils, based on electorates decided by Mana Whenua.
What an appalling idea.
So instead of voting for who might be the best person for my community board, I vote for the person who will choose the mayor I want.
And the other one is even worse. If I want resource consent to build an extension, I go to one local authority. If my Māori-enrolled neighbour wants one for the same type of extension to her house, she has to go to a separate body, who might apply the rules in different ways...
-
So should we be teaching students that light is a particle or a wave?
Um, yes.
Really? Then which?
Do we teach them it's a particle? Or do we teach them its a wave? I'd be in favour of teaching both. And pointing out the contradictions. Why choose one scientific theory over another?
This was my point - to dispute the argument that there can't be two sides to science. Competing theories abound in science just as in other disciplines.
-
Another would be people taking a relativistic sense of 'balance' or 'fairness to both sides' and extrapolating it to science, where that kind of thinking doesn't really work.
So should we be teaching students that light is a particle or a wave?
There is a lot of science with various camps and competing theories. Was a single massive impact the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs, or sea-level regression, volcanism and the Deccan Traps, or some combination? etc.