Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Alfie:
Time to bring on the subs.
simon g:
Current lead story on the Herald website is … just not news.
Breaking news: Lack of subs leads to lack of depth charges.
-
Reference posted in the drug harm index thread, copied here as being equally relevant to this thread: Psychadelic Science
a BBC Radio 4 program asking, basically, whether anyone is competent to understand and adjudicate uses and results of magic mushrooms:Jamie Bartlett asks if new research into psychedelic drugs will lead to them being accepted as mainstream medical treatment – or whether their controversial history will prove insuperable.
-
It’s like no one sane ever took drugs.
By definition, for those believing the hype of campaigns like the classic “This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?”
Meanwhile on BBC Radio 4, broadcast 7 April 2016: Psychadelic Science
Jamie Bartlett asks if new research into psychedelic drugs will lead to them being accepted as mainstream medical treatment – or whether their controversial history will prove insuperable.
Currently available for streaming, but no download (yet).
-
Not quite (and Bart didn’t ask for exactly that level of knowledge either):
“being scientifically literate” does not imply “having direct experience of being a working scientist”, in much the same way as
“being competent to understand and adjudicate uses and results of magic” does not imply “being able to cast spells”. -
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to Alfie,
property magnates
though OTOH, given our theme of inaccurate word use in the MSM, the journos might just think "magnates" means that their properties are more ... sticky?
-
Hard News: Media Take: Radio Radio, in reply to bob daktari,
do they host the Reef Lectures?
-
more than iwi stations operate as a national network
Number missing here; still to be inserted from another browser tab?
-
Hard News: Approved by lunchtime, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
nor would it even be desirable
…says someone who makes a career out of broadcasting opinion unconstrained by evidence!
If “the people” or their representatives are slow or irrational in their reactions to real-world problems, there must be real-world consequences from that; and it is the responsibility of a government to minimise the harmful impact of such consequences. In a representative democracy, our representatives are supposed to know better than us; that’s part of why they’re there. They need to be able to follow the available evidence in making decisions.
In the interest of their job security, they then have to be able to take the public with them where the available evidence leads.
There, the long-term solution for improved and effective democracy is to have an educated and well-informed demos – which requires (i) freely available ongoing education, developing capacity for reflection, analysis, and critical thought, and (ii) a well-resourced and politically-independent media to disseminate results of research and investigation.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Alfie,
Different thing. 90% of NZers may recognise the name, but probably not that the individual with that name is a defendant in this specific case. The judge’s point is that mere name recognition (as an unavoidable consequence of someone being “prominent”) is insufficient by itself to bar anyone from jury membership. By contrast, prior firsthand knowledge of the specifics of the case, or prior close connection with defendant(s) or victim(s), normally will bar someone from jury membership.
-
Polity: The Taxpayers' Union rides again!, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
you can’t then say that people are lying
Repeating that assertion doesn’t make it correct.
As has already been pointed out on other threads, you can quite validly accuse people of lying, obfuscation, or bad faith if they base their example costings on assumptions they know to be unrealistic.
DPF and the TU very much a case in point.