Posts by stephen walker
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'd say science is another name for the methods we use to assess the pink light solution. In that sense, without science there are no answers - or at least, no answers we can trust as likely true.
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.
-
If science can't provide answers to some health issues then nothing can.
Once again, this is just pure twaddle.
It comes down to how you define "answers".
Surely an "answer" is a solution to some health problem.
And you seem to be asserting that if science cannot provide the solution, it does not exist.This assertion is not based on a scrap of "evidence".
Just your blind faith. -
If science can't provide answers to some health issues then nothing can.
<strikethrough>bollocks.</strikethrough>I mean, fundamentalist claptrap.
"If I can't have it, no one can!" haha, very droll.
Based on your logical falacy, if "science" can't show how or why something works, then it simply doesn't work.
Yeah, right.
Science is omniscient, I'd always suspected as much after being brought up on a cerebral diet of Dr. Who, Star Treck and Lost in Space.
LOL -
I do find it dangerous how much faith people put in the medical profession.
This is an important point: this faith may have a bit more evidence to back it up than a lot of other types of faith, but in the end it is still just that--a kind of faith.
"proof it is safe"
There are all sorts of things people ingest all the time without "proof" they are safe or actually give the benefits claimed. There are only degrees of probability, and even then, the issue of safety over the long term is often completely ignored or downplayed.
So, is asparatame safe?
Monosodium glutamate?
High-fructose corn syrup?
Sodium nitirite?
Irradiated food?A lot of scientific studies have reported no evidence of significant risk. A lot of these have been disputed. Long-term and short-term risks require completely different methods of assessment, and the truth is that over the long term, the scientific method becomes somewhat less reliable. You just cannot isolate the individual factors in order to observe the effects.
And there's the rub: unlike science, in the real world, individual factors are not isolated. Everything is part of a massively complex system, of which only a tiny part is understood by "science".
Science is useful, but it is arrogant to believe that is has more than a small part of the answers.
-
more garbage news...
from stuff.co.nz (NZPA) yesterday:
Dr Darby said Taranaki had been estimated to have potential to generate 2000 billion barrels of oil, of which only 1000 billion barrels has so far been found.
and from today's herald (reuters):
Babies who are born heavy and grow fast have a 150 per cent chance of being overweight or obese by the time they are 7 years old, a survey of more than 8000 children in Hong Kong has shown.
such reliable news sources, eh?
-
The point is plant biology will be the answer
I agree that biomass will once again become an important energy source. But the energy density of fossil fuels versus plants means we will be forced to reduce overall energy usage from here on in. All of the energy conservation measures and efficiency gains of the last 30 years have been more than cancelled out by growth in cosumption. Jevons paradox. Efficiency gains and conservation will now be needed to reduce overall consumption permanently.
-
they're still omitting particles
so CHC is gonna ban petrol and diesel vehicles?
Now we're talking! -
Canty air kills.
this is an argument to ban all dodgy emissions. cars, trucks, buses, fireplaces, etc.
it is not an argument against wood pellets. -
Just following up on what Simon said...
it reminded me of when I came back to NZ after 15 months in Japan in the mid-80s. As an avid clubber I went out a lot in Auckland and Tokyo around this time. The first time I went clubbing in Auckland after arriving back was a huge shock to the system. I had forgotten the level of aggression that seems to be always just under the surface in NZ. If you look at someone the wrong way you could end up with a rearranged face pretty quickly. But this kind of attitude had been completely absent in Tokyo, there was plenty of drinking but almost never fights and no one had ever threatened me with violence. But in Auckland this kind of thing seemed to be a regular occurance. -
I think the idea of wood pellets is that, unlike any old hunk of wood, the fuel is quality assured. And apparently the pellets have a very low particulate emission level. Whether this makes them ok for mass usage in Christchurch, I assume David hass already sussed this out?