Was reading this:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1
with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for
very serious things
should that not be the next step?
Was reading this:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1
with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for very serious things
should that not be the next step?
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Was reading this:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel- for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1
with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for very
serious things should that not be the next step?
The Pi is a low cost computer. Given that ECC requires more memory (36
bits for every 32 of data), who is paying?
(noting that ECC is extremely uncommon in mobile devices, 36-bit wide
LPDDR4 chips may be hard to find)
On Thu, 07 Jan 2021 16:37:28 +0000, Theo wrote:
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1
Was reading this:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-
with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for
very serious things should that not be the next step?
The Pi is a low cost computer. Given that ECC requires more memory
(36 bits for every 32 of data), who is paying?
(noting that ECC is extremely uncommon in mobile devices, 36-bit
wide LPDDR4 chips may be hard to find)
From an article in The Register, if you're running on fairly recent
Intel chips you won't have ECC memory unless you're on Xeons - none
of their consumer-grade of laptop MPUs support ECC, and because they
don't, the motherboards don't have the data lines needed to connect
the extra bits.
Was reading this:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1
with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for very serious things
should that not be the next step?
From an article in The Register, if you're running on fairly recent Intel chips you won't have ECC memory unless you're on Xeons - none of their consumer-grade of laptop MPUs support ECC, and because they don't, the motherboards don't have the data lines needed to connect the extra bits.
Was reading this:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1
with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for
very serious things should that not be the next step?
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Was reading this:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/linus-torvalds-blames-intel-for-lack-of-ecc-ram-in-consumer-pcs/?comments=1
with ever more RAM (now 8 GB) and raspberry used more and more for
very serious things should that not be the next step?
Something everyone here seems to be missing is that ECC provides some
degree of protection from deliberate attacks meant to flip bits or read >arbitrary portions of memory otherwise off-limits. The best known of
these is Rowhammer. Now, I grant that a new Rowhammer attack has been >discovered that works even on ECC memory. It does show, however, that
better ECC memory design might entirely fix this problem. That was a
big part of Linus's concerns.
As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation
for years http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/
Why?
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation
for years
http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/
Why?
Is there a radon barrier under your house ?
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation
for years
http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/
Why?
Is there a radon barrier under your house ?
I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation for years
http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
note the sudden increase,
those are counts per minute from
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/
Why?
On 09/01/2021 08:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation >>> for years
http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/
Why?
Is there a radon barrier under your house ?
is that µS/h?
If so its normal for a granite style area.
get worried when it isn't a click every 5 seconds, but a high pitched >scream.....
Normal background is around 5mS/Yr
Granite areas up to 20mS/yr
Some places up to 200mS/yr.
The amount before cancer risks measurably increase is massively more.
The amount before the Japanese government declares an emergency is
massively less.
The amount before Jane Fonda declares an emergency is zero.
Jan Panteltje wrote:
I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation for years
http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
note the sudden increase,
those are counts per minute from
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/
Why?
Did your new neighbours give you some bananas as a moving-in gift?
On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:24:59 +0000) it happened The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtbspc$ggu$1@dont-email.me>:
On 09/01/2021 08:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
As to radiation, I moved house a month or so ago, been logging radiation >>>> for years
http://panteltje.com/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
note the sudden increase, those are counts per minute from
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/
Why?
Is there a radon barrier under your house ?
is that µS/h?
If so its normal for a granite style area.
get worried when it isn't a click every 5 seconds, but a high pitched
scream.....
Normal background is around 5mS/Yr
Granite areas up to 20mS/yr
Some places up to 200mS/yr.
The amount before cancer risks measurably increase is massively more.
The amount before the Japanese government declares an emergency is
massively less.
The amount before Jane Fonda declares an emergency is zero.
:-)
Yea, anyways I also designed and build a gamma spectrometer, been some years since I played with all that,
was even subscribed to some related google group at the time.
The gamma spectrometer and that GM counter is sitting next to me:
http://panteltje.com/pub/gamma_spectrometer_plus_probe_plus_geiger_counter_2_IMG_4185.JPG
had no time yet to look a this, the PMT (in the large green cardboard tube) needs changing (old Russian one abused by me).
And I have this one in pieces somewhere:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
much better PMT, using scintillator crystals from ebay....
note the radium and uranium samples
been 'under construction' for >14 years now....
nuclear war did not happen yet... ;-)
And and, well...
this one is smaller and also gives very high levels here:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
it records GPS location and radiation level to SDcard, can be used for prospecting...
my adventure in using / programming OLED displays..
Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in
the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear btw,
But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.
On 09/01/2021 10:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:24:59 +0000) it happened The NaturalFrom what I have read on latest research radiation is not a significant
Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtbspc$ggu$1@dont-email.me>:
And I have this one in pieces somewhere:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
much better PMT, using scintillator crystals from ebay....
note the radium and uranium samples
been 'under construction' for >14 years now....
nuclear war did not happen yet... ;-)
hazard beyond about 50% more than the blast radius anyway.
If you dont get vapourised or smashed to bits, you probably wont die of >cancer.
The LNT model which was used to scare people in the 1960s has been
completely discredited.
And and, well...what are you using as a detector?
this one is smaller and also gives very high levels here:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
it records GPS location and radiation level to SDcard, can be used for prospecting...
my adventure in using / programming OLED displays..
In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..
Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very healthy people have already died from and is not tested over generations,
On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 11:58:52 +0000) it happened The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtc5pt$bug$1@dont-email.me>:
On 09/01/2021 10:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:24:59 +0000) it happened The NaturalFrom what I have read on latest research radiation is not a significant
Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <rtbspc$ggu$1@dont-email.me>: >>>
And I have this one in pieces somewhere:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
much better PMT, using scintillator crystals from ebay....
note the radium and uranium samples
been 'under construction' for >14 years now....
nuclear war did not happen yet... ;-)
hazard beyond about 50% more than the blast radius anyway.
If you dont get vapourised or smashed to bits, you probably wont die of
cancer.
Indeed, I worked in nuculear {} twice... the first time I quit the first day as I found the guys were careless.
Then serendipity had it I worked there again, in an other department, years later.
Some years after I left and started my own business I did read in the paper that whole place got contaminated..
It all depends.
Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear btw,
But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.
I did see a youtube video about the Chernobyl area where wildlife is flourishing,
mostly due to the absence of people hunting it I think.
That video was removed...
In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..
Ruling the masses by fear is what governments do now, I did lookup some numbers
and here in 2018 more people died than in 2020..
Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very healthy people have already died from and is not tested over generations,
so will the kids you have be OK? Remember softenon.
It is about big money control and politicians that are puppets of big money and completely clueless about medicine
but abuse the lockdown to control everything from chat groups to people moving about.
UNLESS there is a revolt they will keep locking everybody down then give you a chip implant
so they can remotely kill you if you do not comply with their follies, now they use the police for that.
OK,
The LNT model which was used to scare people in the 1960s has been
completely discredited.
And and, well...what are you using as a detector?
this one is smaller and also gives very high levels here:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
it records GPS location and radiation level to SDcard, can be used for prospecting...
my adventure in using / programming OLED displays..
That one uses a small geiger muller tube, basically contains gas between 2 high voltage electrodes that gets ionized if high energy particles hit it
and then becomes conductive for a moment causing a small current peak. Several such high energy particles per minute is normal at ground level, on airplane level with less protection by the atmosphere
much more, in space even more than that
scroll down for the picture of the tube next to the GPS module, or:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/gm_pic2_component_side_IMG_4408.JPG
For gamma spectrometer I use crystals from ebay in front of the photo-multiplier tubes like these:
NaI(Tl) 30x30 Scintillation Crystal Detector
or plastic Scintillation rods
http://panteltje.com/pub/crystal_relatve_to_world_img_3123.jpg
both give of a light flash when a high energy particle hits, this is then amplified very many times by the PMT (photo mutiplier) so you
get an other impulse that you can count, and in the case of that setup can measure the amplitude of,
this amplitude is related to the amount of energy for each particle, and that depends on what material is 'decaying' releasing the particle
so you can identify what radiates, and see who's bomb it was.... from the spectral composition.
Enough info?
I did see a youtube video about the Chernobyl area where wildlife is flourishing, mostly due to the absence of people hunting it I think.
That video was removed...
In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in
the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear btw,
But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.
From "Int. J. Cancer: 119, 1224–1235 (2006)" via https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/44334601/Estimates_of_the_cancer_burden_in_Europe20160402-19341-ugwo1h.pdf
"The risk projections suggest that by now Chernobyl may have caused about 1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers in Europe, representing about 0.01% of all incident cancers since the accident. Models pre- dict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thy- roid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other can- cers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these
estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an
indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the
Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer bur- den from the
largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."
On 09 Jan 2021 at 13:51:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..
I'm not even sure one died, although I've not been following those
aspects that closely. Meanwhile 25,000 or so are missing/dead from the tsunami.
Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very
healthy people have already died from and is not tested over
generations,
Which untested mRNA would that be, then?
I was more thinking along the lines where people board SpaceX flights to Mars >and bring the lightest possible personal computers with them: raspberries >High radiation levels...
Or astronauts in earth orbit, or high altitude flights...
Moonbase
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT, Jan Panteltjerigorous
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com>
declaimed the following:
I was more thinking along the lines where people board SpaceX flights to >>Mars and bring the lightest possible personal computers with them: >>raspberries High radiation levels...Any device typically allowed on a space mission has to undergo
Or astronauts in earth orbit, or high altitude flights...
Moonbase
testing for all sorts of environmental situations... Both from the
device (can't have it out-gassing corrosive vapors under reduced air pressure) and to the device (radiation hardening if it has any safety critical functions).
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:23:38 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> >declaimed the following:
I was more thinking along the lines where people board SpaceX flights to Mars >>and bring the lightest possible personal computers with them: raspberries >>High radiation levels...Any device typically allowed on a space mission has to undergo rigorous
Or astronauts in earth orbit, or high altitude flights...
Moonbase
testing for all sorts of environmental situations... Both from the device >(can't have it out-gassing corrosive vapors under reduced air pressure) and >to the device (radiation hardening if it has any safety critical
functions).
Not sure about the chip implant, and I think they are actually very
scared about this virus.
I never trust what a government says,I watch what they do. They haven't >stopped flying to climate conferences or sold their beachside houses or
gone in for a crash program of nuclear power - they know that renewable >energy is profitable crap and doesn't work to reduce emissions, and they
are not worried. So climate change isn't an emergency, its a political
power and profit opportunity. Same for electric cars, but they are
wearing masks and isolating themselves, so I think this one is real.
The LNT model which was used to scare people in the 1960s has been
completely discredited.
I have always thought that if everybody had a Geiger counter on their
smart phone, they would be a lot less scared of radiation.
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 14:29:32 +0000, TimS wrote:
On 09 Jan 2021 at 13:51:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..
I'm not even sure one died, although I've not been following those
aspects that closely. Meanwhile 25,000 or so are missing/dead from the
tsunami.
Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very
healthy people have already died from and is not tested over
generations,
Which untested mRNA would that be, then?
that final paragraph from Jan destroyed any credibility he may have had &
is simply not worth continuing further
Indeed, I know, but have you seen the SpaceX pictures of their big
spacecraft traveling to mars with passengers in it using their laptops?
Neither would the Tesla car's electronics Musk sent to deep space...
OK he is selling, needs some salt....
Which untested mRNA would that be, then?
that final paragraph from Jan destroyed any credibility he may have had &
is simply not worth continuing further
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Later ... we had the Chernobyl fallout, and where I worked the filters in
the aircos were hot (radiation) and had to be properly disposed.
That made me want to measure things, by that time I lost my nuculear fear btw,
But nobody died, vegetables in your garden you were not recommended to eat.
From "Int. J. Cancer: 119, 1224–1235 (2006)" via https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/44334601/Estimates_of_the_cancer_burden_in_Europe20160402-19341-ugwo1h.pdf
"The risk projections suggest that by now Chernobyl may have caused about 1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers in Europe, representing about 0.01% of all incident cancers since the accident. Models pre- dict that by 2065 about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400–72,000) cases of thy- roid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000–59,000) cases of other can- cers may be expected due to radiation from the accident, whereas several hundred million cancer cases are expected from other causes. Although these
estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty, they provide an
indication of the order of magnitude of the possible impact of the
Chernobyl accident. It is unlikely that the cancer bur- den from the
largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates—other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions—that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."
There was a recent study in the UK suggesting air pollution (not
nuclear) caused 36,000 deaths a year in just the UK.
The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a vaccine.
In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any
testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a vaccine.
Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk
from taking the vaccine is even lower.
In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint.
There is a much
greater risk that they will contract Covid and pass it on to someone
who has a much higher risk, maybe going on to die or to suffer long
term damage from "long Covid".
Remember, something like a third of people who have Covid are not
even aware that they have it. Such people are highly dangerous,
even lethal.
On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Jan 2021 18:02:18 GMT) it happened alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in
<KcmKH.291427$oT47.247116@fx20.ams4>:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 14:29:32 +0000, TimS wrote:
On 09 Jan 2021 at 13:51:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
In the F*ckupshima disaster exactly 1 person died of radiation IIRC.
Hundreds die each year in coal mine accidents..
I'm not even sure one died, although I've not been following those
aspects that closely. Meanwhile 25,000 or so are missing/dead from the
tsunami.
Big farma sells and it sells untested mRNA shit that several very
healthy people have already died from and is not tested over
generations,
Which untested mRNA would that be, then?
that final paragraph from Jan destroyed any credibility he may have had
&
is simply not worth continuing further
You act like an other clueless government paid brainwashed troll that
tries to bend reality.
--
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
-- Max Planck
Indeed, I know, but have you seen the SpaceX pictures of their big spacecraft traveling to mars
with passengers in it using their laptops?
Laptops would not last very long...
OK he is selling, needs some salt....
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
<wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
--
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
-- Max Planck
This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role
in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.
On 10/01/2021 15:46, David Higton wrote:
In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a
vaccine.
Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk from taking the vaccine is even lower.
Just how would we know that? The IFR for someone less than 30 is < 0.01%. For a healthy person under 30, even less. You cannot rely on testing
20,000 people for a few months to be confident of that level of risk.
Unless you have a cite, I'm going to assume you are just making it up. Something which has plagued medical treatments throughout the ages.
In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint.
I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly
healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in
order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me.
I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly
healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in
order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me.
I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.
I'm old, and I'll be at the vaccination centre as soon as I'm called,
which I expect to be before the middle of February.
David
If I may step in...Indeed, but what the testing has done is ascertain that the vaccines are
last time I talked to a lab person with experience in the vaccine market, he told me that using a big number of subjects alone does not count as good testing.
If I develop a med that causes you to grow a second head the 18th month after the first administration, the fact I tested the med in a million subjects won't
help the least if the testing was conducted for less than 18 months.
Hospitals are shutting down essential services because they do not have
the capacity to cope because of knowledge-less people repeating the
claims like "Its only the Flue"
ignoring the fact that asymptomatic
people may spread it to those more susceptible & refuse to wear a mask or have one but refuse to wear it properly.
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
<wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
--
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
-- Max Planck
This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role
in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not
"politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of
hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the
attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.
That was a randomly generated fortune cookie
I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out
to be :-)
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
<wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister
<alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
--
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
-- Max Planck
This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant
role in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite
the attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.
Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was
approved for general use. No adverse effects were noted. A few days
after the Pfizer vaccinations started, two people had temporary adverse >effects - these were people who had a history of severe allergic
reactions, so now the advice is not to vaccinate people with such
histories.
So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all
the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the
vaccine is much less that 0.01%.
In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting
perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested
treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to
me.
I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.
Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT
David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting
perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested
treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to
me.
I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.
It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen.
It's called a calendar.
Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that
kind of period.
The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been
shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff.
Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
<wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
--
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
-- Max Planck
This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role
in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not
"politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of
hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the
attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.
That was a randomly generated fortune cookie
I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out
to be :-)
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT
David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting
perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested
treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to
me.
I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.
It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen.
It's called a calendar.
Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that
kind of period.
The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been
shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff.
Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.
Life is risky.
In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use.
Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*.
Life is risky
On 10 Jan 2021 at 21:07:22 GMT, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
<wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> >>> wrote:
--
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually >>>> die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
-- Max Planck
This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role >>> in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short >>> shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not
"politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of >>> hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the >>> attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.
That was a randomly generated fortune cookie
I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out
to be :-)
He meant hampsters, not hammers.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:29:52 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Life is risky.
In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use.
Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*.
Pregnant women and the under 15s are both groups advised to await further testing because those groups were not represented in the tests to date.
Life is risky
But we do our best to mitigate the bad ones.
On a sunny day (Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:08:19 GMT) it happened David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote in <9764d5ec58.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>:
Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was approved for general use. No adverse effects were noted. A few days
after the Pfizer vaccinations started, two people had temporary adverse effects - these were people who had a history of severe allergic
reactions, so now the advice is not to vaccinate people with such histories.
So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the vaccine is much less that 0.01%.
There is a big difference between the Oxford vaccine and the mRNA based
ones. The method used by the Oxford vaccine has been proven over the years. How the Oxford vaccine works: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine.html
How mRNA based vaccines work: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine.html
The mRNA based ones have ones have hardly been tested and several people
have mysteriously died after receiving it. https://www.rt.com/news/511524-portuguese-nurse-dies-pfizer-vaccine/ Nurse died: https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/healthcare-worker-dies-48-hours-after-getting-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/story/427050.html
Doctor died: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/medical-examiners-investigate-death-of-u-s-doctor-who-got-covid-19-vaccine-1.5256887
2 older people died after receiving mRNA vaccine: https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-two-dead-in-norway-received-pfizer-s-coronavirus-vaccine-recently-2866294
Reuters had a look: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pfizer-health-concerns/fact-check-clarifying-claims-around-pfizer-vaccine-deaths-and-side-effects-idUSKBN28K2R6
So, what is it? Given the small number of people in the Pfizer test and
the outrageous conclusions Pfizer makes that it is 'safe'
Count me out with mRNA experiments that have NOT been tested over
generations
Gosh, you do spout some rubbish.
The stuff you cite shows clearly that being vaccinated is far safer than
not being vaccinated. By a very long way.
Being vaccinated against something doesn't magically prevent recipients
from dying of all causes. Some people will die soon after vaccination,
but it is extremely rare for the vaccination to cause death, or indeed
any serious negative effect.
Count me out with mRNA experiments that have NOT been tested overWe can only speculate about how many lives were saved by Jenner's
generations
smallpox vaccine, the first vaccine ever, which had minimal testing.
Like I said, I'll be there for my vaccination as soon as they call me.
David
On 10/01/2021 04:09, Richard Falken wrote:
If I may step in...Indeed, but what the testing has done is ascertain that the vaccines are
last time I talked to a lab person with experience in the vaccine
market, he told me that using a big number of subjects alone does not
count as good testing.
If I develop a med that causes you to grow a second head the 18th month
after the first administration, the fact I tested the med in a million
subjects won't help the least if the testing was conducted for less
than 18 months.
(a) moderately effective and (b) not instantly lethal
I was offered adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy "Radiotherapy will
give a 15% increase in the risk of possible unrelated cancers after
about 15 years"
"What about the chemotherapy"
"Well that's only been around for 12 years actually so we don't know"
"But the 5 year survival rate since that chemo was introduced went from around 70% to 98%.."
Life is risky
Dude, it's all in your fucking *minds* - socialism, communism, fascism, sexism, racism, feminism....these aren't *real* - they are very
approximate and very ill defined labels for patterns that may or may not
have any meaning whatsoever. And whose chief *use* seems to be to stir
up social conflict...
And of course there is no such thing as a 'scientific truth'.
Einstein blew that to bits when he replaced Newton's invisible forces
with bent space instead, because it worked *better* . That was really
the end of classical science.
Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and into
the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of Induction.
Unfortunately today most scientists are still stuck in a post
enlightenment mind set, and think science 'reveals truths', and when confronted by Art Students who correctly state 'but you cant be sure'
instead of playing to sciences strengths - namely that it *works* -
they get all stupid and start wittering on about 'scientifically proven truths', which proves they know as little *about* science as Max Planck.
And that you can be a scientist without ever understanding what it is in
fact you are doing.
And this is why science is in a state., because people *believe* in it without *understanding it* which is why people with letters after their
names can spout appalling non scientific rubbish, and be believed
because they are *'scientists'*. We are taught, or we learn to think, in
one dimensional boolean logic: 'Newton was right, gravity exists, it's a scientific fact, in the real world'
Except as Einstein showed, it wasn't, In fact *every one* of those
statements is ultimately false.
And that's the problem with externalising what are ultimately inductive propositions.
It's very hard to move backwards from 'gravity is a fact in the world'
to 'gravity is an approximate model, in your mind, that kinda works well enough to get you to the moon, but it may not be any more real than that'
And when the Art Student gets hold of sociology, the whole thing becomes farcical. They stick an -ism on the back of anything and call it 'real objective fact'.
Dude, it's all in your fucking *minds* - socialism, communism, fascism, sexism, racism, feminism....these aren't *real* - they are very
approximate and very ill defined labels for patterns that may or may not
have any meaning whatsoever. And whose chief *use* seems to be to stir
up social conflict...
Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and into
the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of Induction.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:43:50 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and
into the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of
Induction.
I've always thought of science as a mechanism for pruning out
guesses that don't work rather than a mechanism for finding the truth.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:56:41 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:43:50 +0000 The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and
into the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of
Induction.
I've always thought of science as a mechanism for pruning out
guesses that don't work rather than a mechanism for finding the truth.
Yes, agreed, but there's another essential ingredient: critical thinking.
The scientific method doesn't work if the would-be scientist doesn't understand or use it.
In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2021 15:46, David Higton wrote:
In message <rteqbk$l4l$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
The risk of Covid for people < 30 is surprising low. I've not seen any >>>> testing that shows it is safer from them, in general, to take a
vaccine.
Not true. The risk of Covid for them is very low, yes; and the risk from >>> taking the vaccine is even lower.
Just how would we know that? The IFR for someone less than 30 is < 0.01%. >> For a healthy person under 30, even less. You cannot rely on testing
20,000 people for a few months to be confident of that level of risk.
Unless you have a cite, I'm going to assume you are just making it up.
Something which has plagued medical treatments throughout the ages.
Something like 45000 people tested the Oxford vaccine before it was
approved for general use.
So far we've had about 1.5 million people vaccinated, and that's all
the problems. Now do your arithmetic, and you'll see the risk of the
vaccine is much less that 0.01%.
In any case, it's an indefensibly selfish viewpoint.
I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting perfectly
healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested treatment just in
order to protect others seems a tad selfish to me.
You've just stated something that is not true. The vaccines (not a treatment, incidentally) have been tested just as well and as
thoroughly as all previous vaccines. Don't let the short timescale
fool you.
That's what has been done in the case of these vaccines
- plus a great deal of pressure, in view of the 7-figure mortality.
You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over
decades.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote:
You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of givingJudging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will
the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not
holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let
alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then
3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas.
However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim thisHere's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last
vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over
decades.
off a sinking ship' principle?
What do YOU think they should do?
On 11/01/2021 23:48, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote:Don't see why not. The over 80s I know have be done, one twice (Pfizer),
You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of givingJudging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s
the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
will be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not
holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let
alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather
then 3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas.
one once (she tells me AstraZeneca but I will need to read the letter to
be sure).
Get vaccinated first, like Her Maj (for UK readers + colonials)However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim thisHere's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first
vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over
decades.
(to show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is
always last off a sinking ship' principle?
What do YOU think they should do?
On 2021-01-11, Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:56:41 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 04:43:50 +0000 The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Physicists started to realise that physics wasn't about uncovering
truths so much as simply creating models that worked. Karl Popper
elucidated the whole position of science rather well in that respect.
And once you move science out of the realm of 'truth discovery' and
into the realm of 'model invention', you run into the Problem of
Induction.
I've always thought of science as a mechanism for pruning out
guesses that don't work rather than a mechanism for finding the truth.
Hmm, interesting... That does fit with the idea of coming arbitrarily
close to the truth without actually getting there.
Yes, agreed, but there's another essential ingredient: critical thinking.
The scientific method doesn't work if the would-be scientist doesn't
understand or use it.
That nicely takes care of creation science...
You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over decades.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote:
You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of givingJudging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will
the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not
holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let
alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then
3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas.
However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim thisHere's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to >show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last
vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over
decades.
off a sinking ship' principle?
What do YOU think they should do?
On a sunny day (Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000) it happened Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote in <rtin5s$cv1$1@dont-email.me>:
You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of giving
the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
However, I would not believe medical professionals if they claim this
vaccine is as safe as other vaccines which have been tested over decades.
Well that all depends does it not?
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/24-dead-and-137-infected-at-ny-nursing-home-after-experimental-covid-injections/
Pfizer shit
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
Was that not also in Hitler's mind?
Oh no he sent all kids to war too.
This is also good to know about keeping people in lockdown:
https://www.rt.com/news/512137-lockdown-ineffective-coronavirus-restrictions/
I think it is very obvious when you have like 3% of people test positive that lockdowns make no sense.
I did read the > 3% for London here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-55588163
You will bump into - or meet one covid case for every 30 people you encounter.
Most people most likely have antibodies so it is all panic making and a control trip
and yes I am 74 years old and not scared.
I think I encountered covid about half a year ago when I got some parcel from China, bought
something on ebay, opened it, something got into my lungs, couched a couple of times
and that was it.
Never felt anything go so deep in my lungs as that time.
And I did not have the flue ever, no shots against it either.
What do YOU think they should do?
Here's a conundrum: should Our Lords And Masters get vaccinated first (to show confidence to the voters) or be last (on the 'captain is always last off a sinking ship' principle?
What do YOU think they should do?
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:41:00 GMT
Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is also good to know about keeping people in lockdown:
https://www.rt.com/news/512137-lockdown-ineffective-coronavirus-restrictions/
I think it is very obvious when you have like 3% of people test
positive that lockdowns make no sense.
Strange how well lockdown worked the first time round when
people took it seriously.
This is also good to know about keeping people in lockdown:
https://www.rt.com/news/512137-lockdown-ineffective-coronavirus-restrictions/
I think it is very obvious when you have like 3% of people test positive
that lockdowns make no sense.
On 12/01/2021 11:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/
"Full lockdown in the UK did not come into effect until March 25.
However, in the week before, social distancing measures were already in
place and many people had begun working from home. Large public
gatherings had stopped and bars, restaurants and theatres were starting
to close. "
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/
"Coronavirus infections in England and Wales peaked several days before
the lockdown came in, a new study suggests, indicating that the
draconian restrictions were not responsible for the decline in deaths
and cases."
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:25:24 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/01/2021 11:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/coronavirus-infections-england-wales-hit-peak-days-lockdown/
"Full lockdown in the UK did not come into effect until March 25.
However, in the week before, social distancing measures were already in
place and many people had begun working from home. Large public
gatherings had stopped and bars, restaurants and theatres were starting
to close. "
Thats only what the newspaper says - where are the actual numbers?
There's so much waffle coming from innumerate pricks^W^Wofficial
spokesmen that its impossible to tell whats actually happening with the vaccination rollout.
On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
That nicely takes care of creation science...Well no.
In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
figure is.
On 11/01/2021 23:48, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:32:12 +0000, Pancho wrote:
You are again ignoring my point about the reasonable doubts of givingJudging by progress so far, today's prediction that all UK over-80s will
the vaccine to young people. Giving the vaccine to the old is the best
way to reduce the mortality. That is why vaccine approval has been
rushed through as an emergency measure, quite sensibly in my view.
be vaccinated by mid-Feb is optimistic in the extreme. IOW I'm not
holding my breath for the UK to complete the first round by autumn, let
alone getting the second shot (now to be given 3 months later rather then >> 3 weeks!) completed before next Christmas.
Don't see why not. The over 80s I know have be done, one twice (Pfizer),
one once (she tells me AstraZeneca but I will need to read the letter to
be sure).
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
That nicely takes care of creation science...
Well no.
In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a
supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
figure is.
If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in 4004 BC,
then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no
I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
And so on.
But then such people would probably be unable to answer *why* the Supremem Being bothered to fake it up to look like billyuns.
If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or "lose"
as "loose".
On 10 Jan 2021 at 21:07:22 GMT, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
<wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> >>> wrote:
--
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually >>>> die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
-- Max Planck
This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role >>> in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe
Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short
shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not
"politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of
hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the >>> attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them.
That was a randomly generated fortune cookie
I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out
to be :-)
He meant hampsters, not hammers.
In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a >supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
figure is.
And those are not the only narratives that exist. And they are in the
end metaphysical. They can't be proved to be correct, only more or less >useful, in any given context.
Its not turtles all the way down, it's *models*.
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:16:28 GMT
David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
In message <rtf9j2$bb5$1@dont-email.me>
Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
I'm old and it seems perfectly defensible to me. Expecting
perfectly healthy people, at low risk, to take a poorly tested
treatment just in order to protect others seems a tad selfish to
me.
I want you to cite evidence that the vaccines are poorly tested.
It's hanging on your wall, or if not then on your computer screen.
It's called a calendar.
Medications can reasonably be declared tested and safe after five to ten >years. Whatever you choose to assert, the Covid medications (mostly not >vaccines) have quite obviously not yet been shown to be safe over that
kind of period.
The *kind* of medication that some of the 'vaccines' are has not been
shown to be safe over a reasonable period. It's pioneering stuff.
Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes:
Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.
Not by modern standards it wasnt. It was, famously, a trigger for
tightening up the regulatory regimes.
OK well in that case, no one had better have it until it's not been used for >10 years. We'll just leave it all on the shelf til, then, OK?
On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2
seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now.
Life is risky.
In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use.
Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*.
It was very unfortunate with thalidomide that the effects showed up in
foetal poisoning only. The medical profession simply hadn't seen that
one coming.
sometimes you have to play the percentages, despite what socialist >politicians tell you about the completely safe-space kindergarten they
will build for you if you give them all your money and let them have
complete authority....
...bless!
Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
to hang its hat on.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
to hang its hat on.
Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so
most of the time.
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes:
Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.
Not by modern standards it wasn’t. It was, famously, a trigger for >>tightening up the regulatory regimes.
The refusal of the FDA to approve the drug suggests it didn't meet the standards of the time... which have been tightened considerably since.
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"
On 2021-01-12, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
That nicely takes care of creation science...
Well no.
In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a
supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
figure is.
If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in 4004 BC,
then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no
I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
And so on.
But then such people would probably be unable to answer *why* the Supremem >> Being bothered to fake it up to look like billyuns.
They've probably been following too many politicians.
On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2
seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now.
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or "lose"
as "loose".
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
to hang its hat on.
Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so
most of the time.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 04:50:12 +0000, in <rtj9q5$jkr$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what
you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a
supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked
it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current
figure is.
And those are not the only narratives that exist. And they are in the
end metaphysical. They can't be proved to be correct, only more or less
useful, in any given context.
Its not turtles all the way down, it's *models*.
Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
to hang its hat on.
On 12/01/2021 19:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2021-01-12, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
That nicely takes care of creation science...
Well no.
In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what >>>> you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in
which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a >>>> supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked >>>> it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current >>>> figure is.
If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in 4004 BC,
then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no
I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
Perhaps it did. As I am trying to point out, its purely a question of
which *narrative* you *choose to believe*. And the consequences of that particular belief.
The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an
interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion inspired by the devil
And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just
made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying to be witty.
On 12/01/2021 19:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMTIndeed. And that is not inconsistent with some interpretations of the
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 >>> seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now.
world, where time space and the material world are simply a rather
inadequate way of relating to the Mysterious All.
A view that is becoming less inconsistent with science the more physics pushes the limits of quantum reality...
On 12/01/2021 19:01, TimS wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or "lose" as "loose".
Or those who say 'going forward' when they mean 'in future'
If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years,
it will never be used.
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:54:21 +0000, in <rthlad$uq0$3@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
sometimes you have to play the percentages, despite what socialist
politicians tell you about the completely safe-space kindergarten they
will build for you if you give them all your money and let them have
complete authority....
...bless!
But... but.. but... it's "for the children!!!"
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:29:52 +0000, in <rthgc1$jqo$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Life is risky.
In the end cost benefit analysis is all we can use.
Perhaps pregnant women should avoid it, but people are dying *already*.
It was very unfortunate with thalidomide that the effects showed up in
foetal poisoning only. The medical profession simply hadn't seen that
one coming.
Yes they did! The problem is that the medical professionals involved
in the testing didn't have to report all the side effects at the
time... and they didn't. Even before any tests in humans the
teratogenic effects of Thalidomide were seen in animal testing. But
only in some species and not others.
Would you want your wife or daughter of child bearing age, with a
likelyhood of becoming pregnant, to use a drug that caused serious
fetal deformity in say rats, but not hamsters? Does it make a
difference in your answer that the problem was with taking the drug
during the first 3-4 weeks of pregnancy when few know for sure that
they're pregnant and so won't know to stop taking it in time to
prevent defects?
Life is risky, but it doesn't need to be that much of a risk for yet
another drug that did the same thing as many other drugs available at
the time. Not to mention that use to prevent morning sickness was an
"off label" use.
On 13 Jan 2021 at 12:51:13 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/01/2021 19:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2021-01-12, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 04:50:12 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
That nicely takes care of creation science...
Well no.
In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what >>>>> you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in >>>>> which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a >>>>> supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked >>>>> it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current >>>>> figure is.
If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in 4004 BC,
then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 seconds ago, no
I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
Perhaps it did. As I am trying to point out, its purely a question of
which *narrative* you *choose to believe*. And the consequences of that
particular belief.
The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an
interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion
inspired by the devil
So you have to believe in the Devil, for starters, an entity I don't believe in and for which I've never seen any evidence.
And then there's King James, eh? I wonder why that one.
theology at Uni, says that any modern version of the Bible has been copied and
translated back and forth over the centuries by scribes with greater or lesser
degrees of care, and greater or lesser detailed knowledge of the languages they were translating from, that you're bound to have transcription errors. Second, you can pretty much always find a Bible passage to support and another
to oppose any particular PoV.
So it's interesting as any other history book but shouldn't be taken as the firm unalterable direct and final Word of God. To do so is to make the same error that the Islamists make.
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:55:22 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/01/2021 19:01, TimS wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan PanteltjeOr those who say 'going forward' when they mean 'in future'
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or
"lose" as "loose".
"in the fullness of time" when they mean "never".
On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in
4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2
seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago.
Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now.
The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an
interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion inspired by the devil
On 13 Jan 2021 at 12:51:13 GMT, The Natural Philosopher
The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only
One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion inspired by the devil
So you have to believe in the Devil, for starters, an entity I don't
believe in and for which I've never seen any evidence.
And then there's King James, eh? I wonder why that one. My SWMBO, who did
some theology at Uni, says that any modern version of the Bible has been copied and translated back and forth over the centuries by scribes with greater or lesser degrees of care, and greater or lesser detailed
knowledge of the languages they were translating from, that you're bound
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:55:22 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/01/2021 19:01, TimS wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or
"lose" as "loose".
Or those who say 'going forward' when they mean 'in future'
"in the fullness of time" when they mean "never".
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
to hang its hat on.
Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the
universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so
most of the time.
On 12/01/2021 21:38, TimS wrote:
And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just
made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying
to be witty.
That of course is why you need to really understand the Matrix proposition.
That what appears to be the case could actually be utterly and
completely wrong.
And that is why Einstein smashed materialism unwittingly. He came up
with an equivalent narrative that was utterly different from Newtonian >metaphysics.
Which was true? They couldn't *both* be true. And that shattered the >assumption of materialism, that the world in facts was pretty much the
way it appeared to be, with all the secrete hidden Laws swept up into a
tidy bundle of linear differential equations..we kept the linear
differential equations, but we traded in absolute time and absolute flat >space for accuracy of prediction.
And now with quantum physics, we are trading in strict Causality as well.
And that is why philosophers of science have retreated from the position
that you espouse, to a more useful working relationship with science,
not as revealing facts, but as the construction of efficient models that
work and give accurate predictions
God theories work, but not to give accurate predictions. They work to
bring meaning to peoples lives and to regulate the behaviour of societies.
Once you abandon the idea that science or materialism and its underlying >assumptions, its 'a-prioris', are the One True Stick, and see them just
as another set of assumptions that need to be made to achieve certain
things then you realised religion is no different except in its purpose.
Neither has any monopoly on the Truth. Both are in the end inductive >hypotheses - working from effects to causes - and therefore subject to
the Problem of Induction', namely that given an effect, the here and now >experience of your life, you cannot unequivocally say what *causes* it,
and indeed the notion that *something must have*, is another unwarranted >assumption that you are making.
That the material world, space time, and our normal reasonable
assumptions of cause and effect *work*, especially in physics (though
less well in politics) is, in the end *not* 'strong evidence' that they
are *correct*. Newton could have said the same about his forces, Neo
about the Matrix. Galileo did say that about his heliocentrism, and yet
all of them proved to be only limited approximate *models*. Which is >precisely what the Catholic church tried to tell Galileo.
To say more than that is to claim certainty where none exists, We appear
to be beings that do not have unlimited computing power at our disposal,
and the approximation of a 'real solid objective world out there,
comprised mostly of 'things' we can ignore because 'they don't eat us
and we can't eat them'' is a *useful* way to handle it. A good ad hoc
working *model*. And if you can't handle the loneliness, and absolute
lack of any hint as to what you ought to be doing about it, by all
means shove an omniscient-creator-that-gives-a-shit in there, if it gets
you through the night.
Religion and science have their place. But neither is demonstrably true
or indeed can be said to have any decidable truth content.
My argument is to dethrone *both*, and see them for what they are.
Useful *models* that in their own way work, but neither of which should
ever be held up to the the One and Only True Stick.
Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> writes:
Thalidomide was 'safe' and 'properly tested'.
Not by modern standards it wasnt. It was, famously, a trigger for >>>tightening up the regulatory regimes.
The refusal of the FDA to approve the drug suggests it didn't meet the
standards of the time... which have been tightened considerably since.
Many other countries approved it (hence the subsequent disaster) - the
FDA (or possibly just the specific officer assigned to the application)
was clearly ahead of the rest of the world at that point.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:05:30 +0000, in <20210112210530.699aeae0650ac684503cd6a8@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's
Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
to hang its hat on.
Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that
the
universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so >most of the time.
I'd like to hear your definition of "most."
I don't buy the *TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can
never know for sure and thus everything is only belief."
This is
little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least
On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote:
If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years,
it will never be used.
LOL, That's the 'precautionary principle' in full flight there, then.
Modern health and safety regulations would have banned fire, stone axes
and indeed the Wheel.
And is well on its way to doing so today.
On 12/01/2021 21:27, Jim H wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:54:21 +0000, in <rthlad$uq0$3@dont-email.me>,Believe that, and you will believe anything. :-)
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
sometimes you have to play the percentages, despite what socialist
politicians tell you about the completely safe-space kindergarten they
will build for you if you give them all your money and let them have
complete authority....
...bless!
But... but.. but... it's "for the children!!!"
I don't buy the*TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we canThe problem is deep and you are sweeping it under the carpet, and it
never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is
little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least
as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what
is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does
it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat.
That last said, I'd guess the poor "string theory" or "M theory" folks
were a little disturbed when the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard
Model of particle physics was proven to exist when the string or M
theory model had no Higgs boson. Back to the drawing board. Not
everything necessarily debunked, but it's a huge problem for a theory
to deny the existence of thing that's proven to exist.
Now don't tell be we only "believe" Higgs bosons exist.
On 2021-01-13, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:55:22 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/01/2021 19:01, TimS wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways" or >>>> "lose" as "loose".
Or those who say 'going forward' when they mean 'in future'
"in the fullness of time" when they mean "never".
"at this point in time" when "now" would suffice.
"Orientate" is an example of the trend toward polysyllabificationizing.
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:35:34 +0000, in <rtmsv6$m8o$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/01/2021 21:38, TimS wrote:
And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just
made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying
to be witty.
That of course is why you need to really understand the Matrix proposition. >>
That what appears to be the case could actually be utterly and
completely wrong.
And that is why Einstein smashed materialism unwittingly. He came up
with an equivalent narrative that was utterly different from Newtonian
metaphysics.
Utterly different in terms of the mathematics, but the result for
objects observable by Newton is essentially unchanged. It's only at
the infinitesimally small and incredibly massive scale that Newton,
Einstein, and Quantum theory differ.
Which was true? They couldn't *both* be true. And that shattered the
assumption of materialism, that the world in facts was pretty much the
way it appeared to be, with all the secrete hidden Laws swept up into a
tidy bundle of linear differential equations..we kept the linear
differential equations, but we traded in absolute time and absolute flat
space for accuracy of prediction.
And now with quantum physics, we are trading in strict Causality as well.
And that is why philosophers of science have retreated from the position
that you espouse, to a more useful working relationship with science,
not as revealing facts, but as the construction of efficient models that
work and give accurate predictions
God theories work, but not to give accurate predictions. They work to
bring meaning to peoples lives and to regulate the behaviour of societies.
But assertions about God are essentially infinitely less provable than scientific assertions about physical objects.
Once you abandon the idea that science or materialism and its underlying
assumptions, its 'a-prioris', are the One True Stick, and see them just
as another set of assumptions that need to be made to achieve certain
things then you realised religion is no different except in its purpose.
I think you've stepped squarely into the arena of sophistry with this.
Neither has any monopoly on the Truth. Both are in the end inductive
hypotheses - working from effects to causes - and therefore subject to
the Problem of Induction', namely that given an effect, the here and now
experience of your life, you cannot unequivocally say what *causes* it,
and indeed the notion that *something must have*, is another unwarranted
assumption that you are making.
That the material world, space time, and our normal reasonable
assumptions of cause and effect *work*, especially in physics (though
less well in politics) is, in the end *not* 'strong evidence' that they
are *correct*. Newton could have said the same about his forces, Neo
about the Matrix. Galileo did say that about his heliocentrism, and yet
all of them proved to be only limited approximate *models*. Which is
precisely what the Catholic church tried to tell Galileo.
The Catholic church wasn't dealing in anything but belief and a fear
that an unprovable religious view would be proven incorrect whether or
not the view held by Galileo was perfect. It was close enough to
throughly disprove the view of the church and thus Galileo had to be silenced.
It would be best if science left the unprovable beliefs of religion
alone simply because belief by definition is unprovable one way or
another. And for religion to leave the views of science that
accurately describe the world we can observe alone... especially when
they're thoroughly provable.
To say more than that is to claim certainty where none exists, We appear
to be beings that do not have unlimited computing power at our disposal,
and the approximation of a 'real solid objective world out there,
comprised mostly of 'things' we can ignore because 'they don't eat us
and we can't eat them'' is a *useful* way to handle it. A good ad hoc
working *model*. And if you can't handle the loneliness, and absolute
lack of any hint as to what you ought to be doing about it, by all
means shove an omniscient-creator-that-gives-a-shit in there, if it gets
you through the night.
No problem, but don't shove him down the throat of those who don't
care to believe... unless one can provide the same level of proof for
the existence of such a supreme being as science can provide for its assertions.
Religion and science have their place. But neither is demonstrably true
or indeed can be said to have any decidable truth content.
Sophistry.
My argument is to dethrone *both*, and see them for what they are.
Useful *models* that in their own way work, but neither of which should
ever be held up to the the One and Only True Stick.
I know someone who is deeply religious and too often pushes his
beliefs well past the point of being annoying. When I get tired of it
I ask him to "prove it" at which point he goes off on a well prepared
and rehearsed tangent involving the nature of absolute truth. I ask
him to define some of the words he uses. The end result is that he
goes in circles and can't prove anything... doesn't even try to prove anything just goes on about the nature of absolute truth... all of
which doesn't mean that a God absolutely doesn't exist, but that it
can't be proven and should be left in the realm of belief and those
who don't believe should be spared from having it shoved down their
throats. Science is built on demonstrably provable things with more
recent theorys being subject to acceptable proof before being widely accepted.
Science and religion should stay out of each others arena despite the interesting and amusing debates that arise when they don't.
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:38:06 +0000, in <rtmt3u$m8o$2@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote:
If something can't be used until it's been in safe use for 10 years,
it will never be used.
LOL, That's the 'precautionary principle' in full flight there, then.
You snipped the context needed for my statement. One might suspect it
was done intentionally, or due to not reading for comprehension.
Go back and read <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>... the remarks by
TimS and the material he was remarking on.
Modern health and safety regulations would have banned fire, stone axes
and indeed the Wheel.
And is well on its way to doing so today.
Gross exaggeration to illustrate a viewpoint is a really poor debate
tactic.
On 13/01/2021 18:33, Jim H wrote:
I don't buy the*TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we canThe problem is deep and you are sweeping it under the carpet, and it
never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is
little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least
as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what
is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does
it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat.
goes to the heart of all 'knowledge' about the world, because all of it
is ultimately *models* - inductive propositions that are more or less
useful. Nowhere in any of it is there the solid testability that allows
us to call it 'truth'.
The real point here is not to dismantle ordinary knowledge that works
pretty well, but to make us aware that ordinary knowledge that works
pretty well is not the only take we can have on the universe. It is the antidote to 'One True Stickiness' that forces people to believe that
they have it right, and other people have it wrong.
Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we believed
in Newton?
Go back and read <i62scuF5jg5U11@mid.individual.net>...
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"
or "lose" as "loose".
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:52:16 +0000, in <rtmtug$se9$2@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/01/2021 21:27, Jim H wrote:
But... but.. but... it's "for the children!!!"Believe that, and you will believe anything. :-)
At the time that phrase was popular, and used seriously, I
(figuratively of course) grabbed my wallet and backed up against a
sturdy wall whenever I heard it. Yep, they not only wanted your money,
but also wanted to "bend you over" too.
Later it was for the polar bears.
Not sure what's the latest.
On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:46:28 GMT, The Natural Philosopher
Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we
believed in Newton?
Newton's gravity did as good a job as could be measured against at the
time. The anomaly pointed up by the precession of the axis of Mercury's
orbit hadn't been noticed yet, and it was a *huge* advance on what went before.
Remember also that if you simplify Einstein's theory (presumably by
setting speed of light to infinity), then AIUI Einstein's theory
simplifies down to exactly Newton. So there's no real conflict.
On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan PanteltjeAlmost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"
or "lose" as "loose".
class, whether they were monarchs or politicians.
On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"
or "lose" as "loose".
Almost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling
class, whether they were monarchs or politicians.
Politicians claim to solve problems, but they are almost always problems
that were created by other politicians.
On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:46:28 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/01/2021 18:33, Jim H wrote:
I don't buy the*TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we canThe problem is deep and you are sweeping it under the carpet, and it
never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is
little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with
widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least
as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what
is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does >>> it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat.
goes to the heart of all 'knowledge' about the world, because all of it
is ultimately *models* - inductive propositions that are more or less
useful. Nowhere in any of it is there the solid testability that allows
us to call it 'truth'.
The real point here is not to dismantle ordinary knowledge that works
pretty well, but to make us aware that ordinary knowledge that works
pretty well is not the only take we can have on the universe. It is the
antidote to 'One True Stickiness' that forces people to believe that
they have it right, and other people have it wrong.
Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we believed
in Newton?
Newton's gravity did as good a job as could be measured against at the time. The anomaly pointed up by the precession of the axis of Mercury's orbit hadn't
been noticed yet, and it was a *huge* advance on what went before.
Remember also that if you simplify Einstein's theory (presumably by setting speed of light to infinity), then AIUI Einstein's theory simplifies down to exactly Newton. So there's no real conflict.
On 12 Jan 2021 19:01:47 GMT
TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021 at 07:41:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kill all old people, those are a burden on society anyways?
The true burden on Society is people who spell "anyway" as "anyways"
or "lose" as "loose".
Almost all problems throughout history have been caused by the ruling
class, whether they were monarchs or politicians.
Politicians claim to solve problems, but they are almost always problems
that were created by other politicians.
The faith part in science comes in with the assumption that it is
possible to construct ever more accurate models because we are modelling something that really does behave predictably. There is no way of knowing that the universe does behave predictably everywhere and at all times, but
if it doesn't then we can't model it so that is a useful assumption that
has so far not been invalidated.
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:36:58 +0000
Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:52:16 +0000, in <rtmtug$se9$2@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/01/2021 21:27, Jim H wrote:
But... but.. but... it's "for the children!!!"Believe that, and you will believe anything. :-)
At the time that phrase was popular, and used seriously, I
(figuratively of course) grabbed my wallet and backed up against a
sturdy wall whenever I heard it. Yep, they not only wanted your money,
but also wanted to "bend you over" too.
Later it was for the polar bears.
Not sure what's the latest.
The rain forests.
"Orientate" is an example of the trend toward polysyllabificationizing.
On 13/01/2021 19:23, Jim H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:38:06 +0000, in <rtmt3u$m8o$2@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/01/2021 21:08, Jim H wrote:
(iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just stop flying.
Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in the
USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold northern hemisphere winter.
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
(iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just stop
flying.
Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in the
USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold northern
hemisphere winter.
I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either
that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it is
to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one yet.
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
(iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just
stop flying.
Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in
the USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold
northern hemisphere winter.
I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either
that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it
is to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i
and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one
yet.
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:26:59 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 05:48:16 +0000 The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
(iii) Its down to high flying aircraft contrails, so we should just
stop flying.
Of these the only currently *testable* one is (iii) and when air
transport did shut down post 911 there were in fact colder nights in
the USA. And post Covid 19 shutdown there has been a rather cold
northern hemisphere winter.
I've seen comments that during the 911 flight shutdown the average
temperature over the US rose a little. I have no reason to doubt either
that observation or yours, it is just an indication of how difficult it
is to test even that hypothesis - let alone ones like "It's a mix of i
and ii proportions unknown". Personally I don't believe anything that
ascribes a single cause to a complex phenomenon because I ain't seen one
yet.
Its quite possible that both are true and that both are due to the same
cause - the absence of jet transport contrails over the continental USA:
- daytime temperature rose and the skies looked clearer because there
were no contrails reflecting sunlight back into space. NOAA reckon that
average daytime temperatures rose by 3 degrees Fahrenheit during the air
travel shutdown and many American glider pilots commented, in
rec.aviation.soaring, on how much clearer the air had been.
- I assume the same happened at night, but it would work in reverse, with
the lack of contrails at night allowing the ground to cool more because
they weren't there to prevent heat from radiating out through the
atmosphere. I don't remember seeing any comment about this though, or
seeing any estimate of what the temperature drop was.
| Sysop: | Rempala |
|---|---|
| Location: | Richlands, NC |
| Users: | 106 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 40:23:32 |
| Calls: | 205 |
| Files: | 6 |
| Messages: | 111,121 |
