View Full Version : Ignorance: religion and science
secrets in symmetry
10-Mar-12, 22:14
On this forum we've seen people display their ignorance about science, and we've seen people display their ignorance about religion.
In this week's local press, however, some dude called Dan Mackay managed to display his ignorance about one of our country's greatest scientific achievements and his ignorance about one of Scotland's most prominent religious leaders of the last few decades - and both in the same article. :cool:
Hats off to Dan Mackay (http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/Features/Dan-Mackay/Faith-and-the-search-for-the-God-particle-05032012.htm) - that's awesome ignorance dude!
secrets in symmetry
10-Mar-12, 23:51
Is there some way we can understand what you mean, without reading the linked column?Indeed there is....
Dan Mackay wrote
I was intrigued by the need for theoretical physicists to term the Higgs boson the God particle. I didn’t expect scientists hypothesising about the cosmic origins of the universe billions of years ago to label their explanations with such divine symbolism. Surely something of a contradiction given the disparity between scientific and biblical accounts for the beginnings of life on planet Earth?Some commentators are now suggesting that Professor Higgs, whose great-grandfather was born in Caithness in 1805, will be nominated for a Nobel Prize.
It is well known that Leon Lederman wanted to entitle his book about the Higgs "The Goddam Particle", but his editor wouldn't let him, so he took the piss and called it "The God Particle". There is no "divine symbolism" - unless you are an ignoramus, in which case you shouldn't publish on that topic in your local newspaper.
He also wrote
NEITHER did I expect to see, reading in the weekend broadsheets, revelations that the former head of Scotland’s Episcopal Church had lost his faith just five years after being ordained.
Richard Holloway, whose memoir Leaving Alexandria has just been published, has been described as “the bishop who stopped believing in God”.
Yet he says “there may be no God in the universe, but let’s live as though there is”.
I own just one Holloway book. Published in 2001, Doubts and Loves argues that it is better to regard the Bible as “good poetry than as bad science”. It sets out to deconstruct Christian doctrines and to “craft from the Christian past a usable ethic for our own time”.
We might be forgiven for feeling confused.
With scientists on the one hand propounding the discovery of the God particle and a leading theologian, on the other, denying the existence of a divine creator, what are we to make of it all?
Anyone who knows anything about Richard Holloway (or who has read Doubts and Loves) should not be surprised to read that he stopped believing in God a long time ago. I first heard him speak about 20 years ago, and it was as clear as day back then that his views were similar to mine.
Scientists are not propounding the discovery of the "God particle", the media are doing that. Scientists are discovering the Higgs - probably....
secrets in symmetry
12-Mar-12, 01:01
Why did you delete your post sids?
tonkatojo
12-Mar-12, 11:12
Does it not confound you that no one is partaking in this subject, perhaps we others are not clued up enough to spout off or is it you are doing enough for all ?.
Perhaps your opening statement didn't drum up much enthusiasm. It was a touch insulting...
Perhaps your opening statement didn't drum up much enthusiasm. It was a touch insulting...
Nothing new there then!!! A more smug, arrogant and big headed poster you will be hard pressed to find!!!
It must be great to be always right and know everything!!!
C3..............[disgust][disgust]
changilass
12-Mar-12, 12:39
On this forum we've seen people display their ignorance about science, and we've seen people display their ignorance about religion.
Good job we have the org's very own expert on all things to put us right then.
A more smug, arrogant and big headed poster you will be hard pressed to find!!!
It must be great to be always right and know everything!!!C3..............
For a brief moment there Corrie I thought you were banging your drum about Eck Salmond....Again!!!!!!!!!!![lol]
It's really just a continuation of the Einstein deist/poetic 'god does not play dice stuff' combined with some people being self serving, publicity seeking attention whores and what happens when the media is largely ignorant of science and technology. Both Richard Dawkins and surprisingly Ben Goldacre have covered it quite a lot.
secrets in symmetry
13-Mar-12, 00:06
Good job we have the org's very own expert on all things to put us right then.If you're referring to me, then I thank you for your kind comments. I try to do my best to help and inform those whose education and life skills need a little boost from time to time.
It's really just a continuation of the Einstein deist/poetic 'god does not play dice stuff' combined with some people being self serving, publicity seeking attention whores and what happens when the media is largely ignorant of science and technology. Both Richard Dawkins and surprisingly Ben Goldacre have covered it quite a lot.Yes, Ben Goldacre is good in that respect. Richard Dawkins isn't averse to a little media whoring, but at least he isn't ignorant of science and technology - whereas the media (and also much of government with their Oxford PPE degrees) are as uneducated as many on this forum. :cool:
I was talking recently to one of the scientists who "starred" in a Horizon programme that was aired earlier in the year. Apparently, the producers decide in advance what spin they want to put on the programme, and they try time and time again to put words into the scientists' mouths when they are on camera. He certainly put me off speaking to the media about science.
linnie612
13-Mar-12, 00:27
I was talking recently to one of the scientists who "starred" in a Horizon programme that was aired earlier in the year.
'To' or 'at'?[lol]
He certainly put me off speaking to the media about science.
What you mean is the Media have never asked you to speak to them!!!!
I wish he had put you off typing on the .Org at the same time.
C3................[disgust]:roll:
Yes, Ben Goldacre is good in that respect. Richard Dawkins isn't averse to a little media whoring, but at least he isn't ignorant of science and technology - whereas the media (and also much of government with their Oxford PPE degrees) are as uneducated as many on this forum. :cool:
I was talking recently to one of the scientists who "starred" in a Horizon programme that was aired earlier in the year. Apparently, the producers decide in advance what spin they want to put on the programme, and they try time and time again to put words into the scientists' mouths when they are on camera. He certainly put me off speaking to the media about science.
I've seen stuff like that from the media in general, they try to put phrases in mouths and lead and frame the story the way they want it: "Would you say the Prime Minister is flip flopping". It doesn't help that most science and technology correspondents and reporters have no background in the subject. The media only gets it right and doesn't dumb it down when it's stuff they're good that and then it becomes pretentious and they try to cram in too many references to Russian novelists.
Lot of the 'science' stories are just marketing and PR crap. Most of those 'equation for the perfect [whatever]' they pay some nobody from a university to put his name to it. And of course 90% of media science is somehow related to health or medicine, most of that is scare stories. They also have an annoying habit or inflating the credentials of supposed scientists and never giving any references. There coverage of technology is even worse.
secrets in symmetry
13-Mar-12, 23:10
I've seen stuff like that from the media in general, they try to put phrases in mouths and lead and frame the story the way they want it: "Would you say the Prime Minister is flip flopping". It doesn't help that most science and technology correspondents and reporters have no background in the subject. The media only gets it right and doesn't dumb it down when it's stuff they're good that and then it becomes pretentious and they try to cram in too many references to Russian novelists.
Lot of the 'science' stories are just marketing and PR crap. Most of those 'equation for the perfect [whatever]' they pay some nobody from a university to put his name to it. And of course 90% of media science is somehow related to health or medicine, most of that is scare stories. They also have an annoying habit or inflating the credentials of supposed scientists and never giving any references. There coverage of technology is even worse.Yes, a lot of the "science" stories on BBC News and BBC Breakfast are health related pseudo-science scare stories, which often misquote statistical results.
Contrastingly, the BBC News science website is mostly ok. And they have started giving references - which is a refreshing change. I often skim-read the BBC article and go straight to the online journal article. Of course, this only works if your employer has a subscription to the relevant electronic journals.
As I mentioned previously, I had lunch with BBC Scotland's science correspondent a few weeks ago. As far as I'm aware, he doesn't have a scientific training (he has a law degree), but I was rather impressed. He was remarkably well informed, and he even gave me some advice on what to say to the media about certain topical science issues. :cool:
As I mentioned previously, I had lunch with BBC Scotland's science correspondent. I didn't pay of course because I am only a pretend scientist and don't earn very much!!!
He was remarkably well informed, and he even gave me some advice on what to say to the media about certain topical science issues. :cool:
Err!! Like....."stop boring me to death with your smug attitude"??????? Good advice that from the BBC's science correspondent!!! Well done him!!
C3............[disgust]
weezer 316
14-Mar-12, 20:08
<smallest possible font> Well said corrie </smallest possible font>
I think the media do a decent job on science. I am not a scientist, but I read quite extensivly on it and unless you are wanting to get bogged down in some very technical concepts (try explaing time dilation to your average bloke in the pub and you will see what I mean) whcih doens tmake for great news casting then you have to simplify as best you can. On the whole i think they do this rather well.
Its the non-science thats touted as such I detest, like climate change deniers and the like.
Oh and nationalists :-p
linnie612
14-Mar-12, 21:10
As I mentioned previously, I had lunch with BBC Scotland's science correspondent a few weeks ago. :cool:
I can't see anywhere you mentioned earlier that you actually lunched with the man. You should have. It might have been interesting.
I can't see anywhere you mentioned earlier that you actually lunched with the man. You should have. It might have been interesting.
David never mentioned a lunch with some one from Caithness to me last week, I guess it was not that memorable or interesting to him either. lol
secrets in symmetry
15-Mar-12, 00:03
I can't see anywhere you mentioned earlier that you actually lunched with the man. You should have. It might have been interesting.It was interesting. :cool:
You're right though, I didn't mention it previously - do you think I imagined it lol?
David never mentioned a lunch with some one from Caithness to me last week, I guess it was not that memorable or interesting to him either. lolCoincidentally, I don't remember having lunch with your David lol.
secrets in symmetry
15-Mar-12, 00:16
I think the media do a decent job on science. I am not a scientist, but I read quite extensivly on it and unless you are wanting to get bogged down in some very technical concepts (try explaing time dilation to your average bloke in the pub and you will see what I mean) whcih doens tmake for great news casting then you have to simplify as best you can. On the whole i think they do this rather well.The problem is not with simplification - they get things hopelessly wrong, and they emphasise all the wrong bits.
For example, a scientist could give you a simple qualitative explanation of time dilation that's technically correct, whereas the media would just get it wrong - or use a bogus analogy.
A phrase from a few posts ago needs careful interpretation. For me, someone who does not agree with the present arguments put forward for the latest thinking on climate change is an opponent to that way of thinking.
I think it is harsh and misleading on two counts to call such individuals or groups "climate change deniers"
In the first instance because the use of that phrase implies the arguments for climate change have already been completely vindicated. Which is not the case, as the debate continues.
In the second place - and rather more darkly - there is moral opprobrium attached to the phrase, as the only other extant use of the "denier" label is in "holocaust deniers".
Thus, people not agreeing with the outcome to an argument which has become both de rigeur and fashionable in the last few years, are deemed not only ignorant, but also lacking a moral compass.
It may not have been the original intention, but it does smack of bullying.
It was interesting. :cool:
You're right though, I didn't mention it previously - do you think I imagined it lol?
Coincidentally, I don't remember having lunch with your David lol.
Not my David but the BBC Scotland's science correspondent but perhaps there are two of them.
The problem is not with simplification - they get things hopelessly wrong, and they emphasise all the wrong bits.
For example, a scientist could give you a simple qualitative explanation of time dilation that's technically correct, whereas the media would just get it wrong - or use a bogus analogy.
Like a balloon, and... something bad happens!
secrets in symmetry
16-Mar-12, 23:29
A phrase from a few posts ago needs careful interpretation. For me, someone who does not agree with the present arguments put forward for the latest thinking on climate change is an opponent to that way of thinking.
I think it is harsh and misleading on two counts to call such individuals or groups "climate change deniers"
In the first instance because the use of that phrase implies the arguments for climate change have already been completely vindicated. Which is not the case, as the debate continues.
In the second place - and rather more darkly - there is moral opprobrium attached to the phrase, as the only other extant use of the "denier" label is in "holocaust deniers".
Thus, people not agreeing with the outcome to an argument which has become both de rigeur and fashionable in the last few years, are deemed not only ignorant, but also lacking a moral compass.
It may not have been the original intention, but it does smack of bullying.Climate change deniers are opponents of climate change in the same way Hitler was an opponent of the Jews.
Every mainstream climate scientist I know would disagree with your assertions. The "debate" is how much our carbon emissions are changing the climate, not whether they are changing the climate.
Are you a denier?
secrets in symmetry
16-Mar-12, 23:36
Not my David but the BBC Scotland's science correspondent but perhaps there are two of them. It appears that time is the separator.
In his articles from early 2011, David is listed as BBC Scotland Science and Environment correspondent. In more recent articles, he is listed as Environment correspondent.
IIRC Ken did mention that he hadn't been Science Correspondent for very long.
Climate change deniers are opponents of climate change in the same way Hitler was an opponent of the Jews.
Every mainstream climate scientist I know would disagree with your assertions. The "debate" is how much our carbon emissions are changing the climate, not whether they are changing the climate.
Are you a denier?
Comparing doubt to what Hitler did amounts to anti-Semitism - but then we've come to expect this from a pompous prat I'm afraid
It appears that time is the separator.
In his articles from early 2011, David is listed as BBC Scotland Science and Environment correspondent. In more recent articles, he is listed as Environment correspondent.
IIRC Ken did mention that he hadn't been Science Correspondent for very long. Oh dear are you not aware that David is the Editor not a correspondent lol from the way you wrote I thought you had been speaking to the man in charge and not one of his many reporters but nice for you if you found him helpful.
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 00:16
Oh dear are you not aware that David is the Editor not a correspondent lol from the way you wrote I thought you had been speaking to the man in charge and not one of his many reporters but nice for you if you found him helpful.I have no idea who is who at the BBC lol.
I haven't met David, but I was impressed with Ken's knowledge. As you've probably noticed, I'm not usually impressed by science journalists - that's why I've been rabbiting on about one I was impressed by.
If you're a BBC Scotland insider, can you give me Cat Cubie's phone number? :cool:
Neil Howie
17-Mar-12, 00:18
To heck with the God particle, sensationalist media and science reporting bah!, what I want to know - will I survive a bowl of white rice and fried beef?
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 00:58
To heck with the God particle, sensationalist media and science reporting bah!, what I want to know - will I survive a bowl of white rice and fried beef?How much soy sauce will you put on it? And how much alcohol will you drink whilst consuming it?
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 01:04
Oh dear are you not aware that David is the Editor not a correspondent lol from the way you wrote I thought you had been speaking to the man in charge and not one of his many reporters but nice for you if you found him helpful.Ok, I've just read a lot of David's articles. They all leave me cold. There's no passion and no evidence of any scientific knowledge or understanding at all. What is his background? I doubt he has any scientific background at all....
Ken, on the other hand, displays a passion that impresses. I know who I'll contact next time I need to speak to a BBC person about a scientific issue.
PS I'm still wanting Cat's phone number.
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 01:20
Big bang theory anyone?One of my colleagues is Sheldon.
Well, I think so. No-one else does lol.
When you can convince me that you have some real scientific knowledge I might then consider giving you cat's phone number. lol Until then enjoy you lunches with 'Ken'.
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 01:34
When you can convince me that you have some real scientific knowledge I might then consider giving you cat's phone number. lol Until then enjoy you lunches with 'Ken'.How do I know you really have Cat's phone number?
Who cares? This is worth the risk....
How about I buy you lunch, and in return you give me Cat's number?
Ah but then if you had lunch with me you would forget about Cat's number, but I am as elusive as Cat's number is for you.
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 01:52
Oh good, I'd hoped that would be the case.
What's your number? :cool:
Oh good, I'd hoped that would be the case.
What's your number? :cool:
I assume you mean my PIN number which I never give out, it's required for bursting balloons.
I assume you mean my PIN number which I never give out, it's required for bursting balloons.
Do you burst bubbles as well Kells? I know someone who needs his bursting urgently!!!!
C3................:roll::roll:;)
weezer 316
17-Mar-12, 12:46
A phrase from a few posts ago needs careful interpretation. For me, someone who does not agree with the present arguments put forward for the latest thinking on climate change is an opponent to that way of thinking.
I think it is harsh and misleading on two counts to call such individuals or groups "climate change deniers"
In the first instance because the use of that phrase implies the arguments for climate change have already been completely vindicated. Which is not the case, as the debate continues.
In the second place - and rather more darkly - there is moral opprobrium attached to the phrase, as the only other extant use of the "denier" label is in "holocaust deniers".
Thus, people not agreeing with the outcome to an argument which has become both de rigeur and fashionable in the last few years, are deemed not only ignorant, but also lacking a moral compass.
It may not have been the original intention, but it does smack of bullying.
What debate and where? Only morons, Oil companies and any media outlets bankrolled by them deny it, but thats fine. There is around 30% more carbon dioxide in the air today that 150 years ago, thats a fact and you can verify it yourself if you wanted to. Then you have the artic ice sheet thats dwindling, and analysis of gases contained within ice cores going back tens of millions of years from greenland and Antartica that show swings of CO2 in the air over said time periods, and the subsequent warming and cooling. Thiose very same cores show there has never been a 30% increase in 150 years, or anything even remotely close, as it usually takes tens of thousands of years.
oh and the last decade was the warmest of record.
And it all neatly ties in with our burning of fossil fuels.
Now all of that is verifiable, and reproducable. Now what exactly is the issue?
Do you burst bubbles as well Kells? I know someone who needs his bursting urgently!!!!
C3................:roll::roll:;)
lol Court jesters are amusing and never to be taken seriously plus bubbles are short lived anyway. lol
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 13:58
I assume you mean my PIN number which I never give out, it's required for bursting balloons.I was thinking mobile number, but if you want me to pay for lunch using your PIN, then I'm game.
Where shall we dine?
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 15:21
What debate and where? Only morons, Oil companies and any media outlets bankrolled by them deny it, but thats fine. There is around 30% more carbon dioxide in the air today that 150 years ago, thats a fact and you can verify it yourself if you wanted to. Then you have the artic ice sheet thats dwindling, and analysis of gases contained within ice cores going back tens of millions of years from greenland and Antartica that show swings of CO2 in the air over said time periods, and the subsequent warming and cooling. Thiose very same cores show there has never been a 30% increase in 150 years, or anything even remotely close, as it usually takes tens of thousands of years.
oh and the last decade was the warmest of record.
And it all neatly ties in with our burning of fossil fuels.
Now all of that is verifiable, and reproducable. Now what exactly is the issue?Lol! That may be a typical intemperate weezy rant, but it's mostly right. :cool:
I was thinking mobile number, but if you want me to pay for lunch using your PIN, then I'm game.
Where shall we dine?
You can think what you like and I have no doubt you are game for anything but I am picky about the type of person I dine with.
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 15:43
You can think what you like and I have no doubt you are game for anything but I am picky about the type of person I dine with.That's why you picked me. :cool:
Although I may lose interest rapidly if you threaten to wimp out that quickly....
You can think what you like and I have no doubt you are game for anything but I am picky about the type of person I dine with.
I would go Kells if you fancy a boring night out. I could just see you falling asleep at the dinner table through sheer boredom!!
C3...................:roll:;);)
That's why you picked me. :cool:
Although I may lose interest rapidly if you threaten to wimp out that quickly....
I have excellent taste when it comes to men and I certainly did not and never would pick you, I like my men interesting and well informed. I do not do boring, or meet men with inflated egos that lack substance or character.
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 16:22
I have excellent taste when it comes to men and I certainly did not and never would pick you, I like my men interesting and well informed. I do not do boring, or meet men with inflated egos that lack substance or character.You met David. He seems boring. I'm sorry I overestimated your tenacity and your character.
Can you give me Cat's number regardless? :cool:
I would go Kells if you fancy a boring night out. I could just see you falling asleep at the dinner table through sheer boredom!!
C3...................:roll:;);)
Guess who won't be going to dinner, lol besides Violet might be there.
You met David. He seems boring. I'm sorry I overestimated your tenacity and your character.
Can you give me Cat's number regardless? :cool:
Compared to you David is exciting, No need to be sorry for something you know nothing about, but that must be a first you have admitted to be wrong about anything. I would never give a boring perv the phone number of anyone so suggest you go and perv at woman on buses instead.
Compared to you David is exciting, No need to be sorry for something you know nothing about, but that must be a first you have admitted to be wrong about anything. I would never give a boring perv the phone number of anyone so suggest you go and perv at woman on buses instead.
Well said Kells, I think the word "Smarmy" should be in there somewhere!!! Perhaps "Smarmy Perv" ???
C3..................:eek:;)
Crikey you guys must have led a sheltered life if you think SIS and his encounter with a wifie he found attractive and beguiling is "pervy". :D
The most beautiful man I ever saw was a black guy I passed in a store I once worked in. I was about 20. I was so taken by him that I followed him accross the ground floor - up the escalators to the third floor, through haberdashery and almost into the gent's toilets. I realised just in time and was so embarrassed that I shot off without speaking to him. for several weeks after that I watched for him, and for several months I regretted I hadnt spoke to him. I never saw him again and i cant recall his face any more but I can recall how taken i was with him.
I shouldnt think you have much to worry about in accepting a lunch invitation from SIS. You might be talked to death but I doubt you will find yourself worrying about your safety!
Go on SIS - ask me lol
Crikey you guys must have led a sheltered life if you think SIS and his encounter with a wifie he found attractive and beguiling is "pervy".
The most beautiful man I ever saw was a black guy I passed in a store I once worked in. I was about 20. I was so taken by him that I followed him accross the ground floor - up the escalators to the third floor, through haberdashery and almost into the gent's toilets. I realised just in time and was so embarrassed that I shot off without speaking to him. for several weeks after that I watched for him, and for several months I regretted I hadnt spoke to him. I never saw him again and i cant recall his face any more but I can recall how taken i was with him.
I shouldnt think you have much to worry about in accepting a lunch invitation from SIS. You might be talked to death but I doubt you will find yourself worrying about your safety!
Go on SIS - ask me lol
I am sure that I would have nothing to worry about regards my safety meeting SIS :roll: where did you get that idea from, this is just a bit of banter.. Now SIS you have an offer on the table you are not getting me or Cat for lunch but you and Squidge might be well matched. :lol::roll:
secrets in symmetry
17-Mar-12, 19:22
Crikey you guys must have led a sheltered life if you think SIS and his encounter with a wifie he found attractive and beguiling is "pervy". :D
The most beautiful man I ever saw was a black guy I passed in a store I once worked in. I was about 20. I was so taken by him that I followed him accross the ground floor - up the escalators to the third floor, through haberdashery and almost into the gent's toilets. I realised just in time and was so embarrassed that I shot off without speaking to him. for several weeks after that I watched for him, and for several months I regretted I hadnt spoke to him. I never saw him again and i cant recall his face any more but I can recall how taken i was with him.
I shouldnt think you have much to worry about in accepting a lunch invitation from SIS. You might be talked to death but I doubt you will find yourself worrying about your safety!
Go on SIS - ask me lolYou have to play hard to get a bit first! :cool:
You have to play hard to get a bit first! :cool:
I am hard to get - I never said I would say yes lol
secrets in symmetry
18-Mar-12, 01:48
I am hard to get - I never said I would say yes lolThat's a start, but I like a woman to put up a real fight - it works up such a good appetite for lunch. :cool:
If my date with Kells had come off, people should have been more worried about my safety than hers. We all know that she must carry a huge spade around with her - because we've all seen her digging that enormous hole when she gets into trouble. I would have asked her to leave her spade outside for safe keeping - her boring friend from the BBC could have looked after it, whilst at the same time acting as moral chaperone.
Where's lunch? If it's Inverness, the Mustard Seed has an excellent lunch menu at a reasonable price. If it's Caithness, then it's Bord de L'Eau or the Captain's Galley. If it's Edinburgh, then I suggest the Kitchin or Martin Wishart, and in Glasgow it has to be Two Fat Ladies or Mother India.
Do you have Cat Cubie's phone number? Failing that, do you have Gillian Smart's, Catriona Shearer's or Judith Ralston's?
That's a start, but I like a woman to put up a real fight - it works up such a good appetite for lunch. :cool:
If my date with Kells had come off, people should have been more worried about my safety than hers. We all know that she must carry a huge spade around with her - because we've all seen her digging that enormous hole when she gets into trouble. I would have asked her to leave her spade outside for safe keeping - her boring friend from the BBC could have looked after it, whilst at the same time acting as moral chaperone.
Where's lunch? If it's Inverness, the Mustard Seed has an excellent lunch menu at a reasonable price. If it's Caithness, then it's Bord de L'Eau or the Captain's Galley. If it's Edinburgh, then I suggest the Kitchin or Martin Wishart, and in Glasgow it has to be Two Fat Ladies or Mother India.
Do you have Cat Cubie's phone number? Failing that, do you have Gillian Smart's, Catriona Shearer's or Judith Ralston's?
Ah these men that cannot handle rejection,:roll: I never dig holes for myself, only for others as I am sure you are aware off. . No question about your safety or the requirement for a moral chaperone as I am far to much a lady to treat any bad behaviour with anything other than disdain. :(
You should reconsider your need for a real fight though, these days when a woman says no it does mean NO and not to give you a better appetite for lunch.
I dont dig holes either. Kells, maybe you and I should have lunch.
I can burst a few bubbles too though I dont play games either ....Well unless its a certain variation on Hopscotch i played on a cobbled street in Edinburgh once after too much red wine.
If its edinburgh I would bow to your knowledge as its a good few years since I was eating out in the central belt.... I remember a fun mexican though....
Inverness? The mustard seed is nice but i prefer those accross the
river, the river house restaraunt or the other one, the kitchen i think its called. Bord de L'eau would be fine too. As for phone numbers i asked Judith and she laughedher head off and said if you are gorgeous and I text her she might just pop along for a look see.
Still havent said yes yet though.
secrets in symmetry
18-Mar-12, 13:58
Ah, yes, the River House is the one I was trying to remember. The food is better and the decor is a bit more up market than the Mustard Seed. I don't know the Kitchen, but its website looks good!
I don't know of any good or up market Mexicans in Edinburgh. Glasgow fares a little better on that front.
Do you think Judith would give us Cat's number?
We could ask Cat and Ken along for lunch. Ken is good company at lunch, and I can't imagine Cat will be boring! :cool:
secrets in symmetry
18-Mar-12, 18:26
Our aperitif....
http://mediaserver.dwpub.com/press-release/tb_lrg/6029/GodlagerBot&glas.jpg
Bill Fernie
20-Mar-12, 00:30
Errrr see this link.....http://www.caithness.org/fpb/2012/march/gallery.php?gallery=0&image=3
oldmarine
21-Mar-12, 22:26
Thanks for your post Bill. Some of the things I have learned during my 87 years on this planet: one cannot argue religion or politics. There are too many different beliefs that individuals lock on to and it's difficult to change their belief. As for science, I got my college degree in Electronic Engineering. I found it to be more of an exact science not subject to much change.
secrets in symmetry
24-Mar-12, 15:11
Errrr see this link.....http://www.caithness.org/fpb/2012/march/gallery.php?gallery=0&image=3I'm not interested in the meeting, but I appreciate that some will be, so good luck with it.
I was interested to see that it will be held at the ETEC centre in Thurso (http://www.northhighland.ac.uk/engineering.aspx). Somehow, I'd never heard of this. Can someone tell us ignoramuses a bit more about it?
I'm late to this particular party so apologies for quoting some of the earlier posts.
The problem is not with simplification - they get things hopelessly wrong, and they emphasise all the wrong bits.
For example, a scientist could give you a simple qualitative explanation of time dilation that's technically correct, whereas the media would just get it wrong - or use a bogus analogy.
I studied physics for long enough and I've heard some of these "simple qualitative explanations" and they are rarely actually all that simple. Also the BBC website seems to have gotten a bit of abuse on this thread and contrary to what the apparent scientific expert(s?) on here say, I think they do a fair job when it comes to science. They don't dumb it down too much and they don't make it too complicated - they seem to have found a decent middle ground. Science is simply not an easy thing to understand, it takes time and studying to learn it well so making it accessible to everyone is obviously going to result in dumbing down (not my favourite terminology but there we go) and that will inevitably lead to mistakes or certainly a decrease in accuracy or detail.
A phrase from a few posts ago needs careful interpretation. For me, someone who does not agree with the present arguments put forward for the latest thinking on climate change is an opponent to that way of thinking.
I think it is harsh and misleading on two counts to call such individuals or groups "climate change deniers"
In the first instance because the use of that phrase implies the arguments for climate change have already been completely vindicated. Which is not the case, as the debate continues.
In the second place - and rather more darkly - there is moral opprobrium attached to the phrase, as the only other extant use of the "denier" label is in "holocaust deniers".
Thus, people not agreeing with the outcome to an argument which has become both de rigeur and fashionable in the last few years, are deemed not only ignorant, but also lacking a moral compass.
It may not have been the original intention, but it does smack of bullying.
Really, you're bring the holocaust into this? Go big or go home eh? Also you seriously over estimate the amount of implications the world "denial" has...
I'm not interested in the meeting, but I appreciate that some will be, so good luck with it.
I was interested to see that it will be held at the ETEC centre in Thurso (http://www.northhighland.ac.uk/engineering.aspx). Somehow, I'd never heard of this. Can someone tell us ignoramuses a bit more about it?
I can't believe anyone has told you this yet, but please, just shut up.
secrets in symmetry
30-Mar-12, 23:30
I studied physics for long enough and I've heard some of these "simple qualitative explanations" and they are rarely actually all that simple. Also the BBC website seems to have gotten a bit of abuse on this thread and contrary to what the apparent scientific expert(s?) on here say, I think they do a fair job when it comes to science. They don't dumb it down too much and they don't make it too complicated - they seem to have found a decent middle ground. Science is simply not an easy thing to understand, it takes time and studying to learn it well so making it accessible to everyone is obviously going to result in dumbing down (not my favourite terminology but there we go) and that will inevitably lead to mistakes or certainly a decrease in accuracy or detail.If you'd actually read my posts, you might have noticed that I was relatively complimentary about the BBC website. It's the science news on TV that's under attack for being bad.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.