The moon doesn't cause ocean tides, claims UKIP MP Carswell
Discussion
Greg66 said:
"You will drown if your head is held underwater for ten minutes"
Give me a bucket of water and your head, and I'll prove that beyond all doubt in five.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stig_SeverinsenGive me a bucket of water and your head, and I'll prove that beyond all doubt in five.
22 minutes and not dead.
davepoth said:
Greg66 said:
"You will drown if your head is held underwater for ten minutes"
Give me a bucket of water and your head, and I'll prove that beyond all doubt in five.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stig_SeverinsenGive me a bucket of water and your head, and I'll prove that beyond all doubt in five.
22 minutes and not dead.
Greg66 said:
Unless you're Stig Severinsen (and we will add the fact that you're not as number 5 to the list), you appear to be conceding fact number 6.
You made a list? and I'm the crazy one?Stig Severinsen holds the world record, so it's entirely possible that a number of other people have held their breath for ten minutes or more.
Michelle Funk lived after 66 minutes underwater.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/science/the-doct...
So while it's by no means certain that I would live after holding my head in a bucket for ten minutes, it's by no means certain that I would die either.
davepoth said:
You made a list? and I'm the crazy one?
Stig Severinsen holds the world record, so it's entirely possible that a number of other people have held their breath for ten minutes or more.
Michelle Funk lived after 66 minutes underwater.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/science/the-doct...
So while it's by no means certain that I would live after holding my head in a bucket for ten minutes, it's by no means certain that I would die either.
Try it and report back. That's the only way of knowing for sure. Stig Severinsen holds the world record, so it's entirely possible that a number of other people have held their breath for ten minutes or more.
Michelle Funk lived after 66 minutes underwater.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/science/the-doct...
So while it's by no means certain that I would live after holding my head in a bucket for ten minutes, it's by no means certain that I would die either.
davepoth said:
But it is impossible to prove something beyond all doubt. That would also mean proving something beyond doubt to stupid, illogical and possibly insane people who say things like "the moon has nothing to do with the tides" or "maybe I don't have a skeleton".
That's why the court frames it as "beyond reasonable doubt"; hundreds of years of jurisprudence have come to the conclusion that there is always some doubt, even if it is unreasonable, and that a little bit of unreasonable doubt is acceptable even if we're sending someone to prison.
The same is true in life. Everything we hold to be certain is at least a tiny bit uncertain, but if we focused on those uncertainties we would be crippled by them. So we cope with those uncertainties by pretending they are certain. IMO it's why religion became so popular - if you've got a God, you've got some certainty.
It's also why I've been arguing that thinking anything is certain is a bad idea, because you're just replacing the fake certainty of God with an invented fake certainty of science.
Bang on. Anyone disagreeing hasn't really thought things through.That's why the court frames it as "beyond reasonable doubt"; hundreds of years of jurisprudence have come to the conclusion that there is always some doubt, even if it is unreasonable, and that a little bit of unreasonable doubt is acceptable even if we're sending someone to prison.
The same is true in life. Everything we hold to be certain is at least a tiny bit uncertain, but if we focused on those uncertainties we would be crippled by them. So we cope with those uncertainties by pretending they are certain. IMO it's why religion became so popular - if you've got a God, you've got some certainty.
It's also why I've been arguing that thinking anything is certain is a bad idea, because you're just replacing the fake certainty of God with an invented fake certainty of science.
rohrl said:
Jaroon said:
PH believe in atoms (for eg), never seen em...
I'll take "what is photoionization microscopy" for $400 please Alex."I know that I know nothing", attributed to Socrates is the kind of intellectual humility 94.7% of PH really needs to think about.
Edited by Jaroon on Sunday 25th September 00:49
I had a history teacher who was so inspirational that I have read a history book more than once a month for the last 50 years. (And bought too many according to my wife.)
He started his first lesson by introducing himself, going over the syllabus and then said:
'Everything I am going to tell you is wrong.'
Pause for response. None. Then he said:
'I know this because everything I was taught was wrong. So challenge my statements, ask on what I base it, check my interpretations, but come up with reasons.'
He was a lovely bloke as well. Nothing too much trouble.
I realised a couple of years later that the various science teachers should have said the same thing about their teaching.
He started his first lesson by introducing himself, going over the syllabus and then said:
'Everything I am going to tell you is wrong.'
Pause for response. None. Then he said:
'I know this because everything I was taught was wrong. So challenge my statements, ask on what I base it, check my interpretations, but come up with reasons.'
He was a lovely bloke as well. Nothing too much trouble.
I realised a couple of years later that the various science teachers should have said the same thing about their teaching.
ATG said:
davepoth said:
But it is impossible to prove something beyond all doubt. That would also mean proving something beyond doubt to stupid, illogical and possibly insane people who say things like "the moon has nothing to do with the tides" or "maybe I don't have a skeleton".
That's why the court frames it as "beyond reasonable doubt"; hundreds of years of jurisprudence have come to the conclusion that there is always some doubt, even if it is unreasonable, and that a little bit of unreasonable doubt is acceptable even if we're sending someone to prison.
The same is true in life. Everything we hold to be certain is at least a tiny bit uncertain, but if we focused on those uncertainties we would be crippled by them. So we cope with those uncertainties by pretending they are certain. IMO it's why religion became so popular - if you've got a God, you've got some certainty.
It's also why I've been arguing that thinking anything is certain is a bad idea, because you're just replacing the fake certainty of God with an invented fake certainty of science.
Bang on. Anyone disagreeing hasn't really thought things through.That's why the court frames it as "beyond reasonable doubt"; hundreds of years of jurisprudence have come to the conclusion that there is always some doubt, even if it is unreasonable, and that a little bit of unreasonable doubt is acceptable even if we're sending someone to prison.
The same is true in life. Everything we hold to be certain is at least a tiny bit uncertain, but if we focused on those uncertainties we would be crippled by them. So we cope with those uncertainties by pretending they are certain. IMO it's why religion became so popular - if you've got a God, you've got some certainty.
It's also why I've been arguing that thinking anything is certain is a bad idea, because you're just replacing the fake certainty of God with an invented fake certainty of science.
'There are no facts, only interpretations' - Nietzsche
Eta, the more political variant...
'Nothing is true, everything is permitted'
Edited by steveT350C on Saturday 24th September 21:07
Derek Smith said:
I had a history teacher who was so inspirational that I have read a history book more than once a month for the last 50 years. (And bought too many according to my wife.)
He started his first lesson by introducing himself, going over the syllabus and then said:
'Everything I am going to tell you is wrong.'
My history teacher started off by telling us that history was largely a set of lies agreed upon by the winners!He started his first lesson by introducing himself, going over the syllabus and then said:
'Everything I am going to tell you is wrong.'
davepoth said:
As an atheist my opinion is that evolution is what happens, and that the big bang is most likely. I also am of the opinion that the moon has the greatest influence on the tides. But I am open to the views of anyone who says something else.
Well, that's a big mistake. Not all views are equal. If they were, medical students would have to take time out to study with witch doctors.Being open minded is fine, but some people are so open minded their brains have fallen out!
Don't be open to the views of people who spout nonsense.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Don't be open to the views of people who spout nonsense.
Your meaning is obvious and initially it's easy to agree with it outright, but it all depends on the meaning of nonsense.The proposal that bats echolocate using a form of sonar was nonsense to scientists who (initially) didn't accept the idea, so much so that witness testimony describes how a dry seminar became more entertaining when one of the scientists making the proposal was grabbed by the lapels and shaken by another scientist who thought that he was spouting nonsense. Then again, the witness might have been spouting nonsense.
Announcing that a certain brand of sky pixie requires believers to hand over a hefty slice of income to self-appointed religious officials is spouting nonsense to unbelievers but not to believers.
Nonsense also mellows with time, e.g. talk of a female Prime Minister in the 1800s.
turbobloke said:
Your meaning is obvious and initially it's easy to agree with it outright, but it all depends on the meaning of nonsense.
The proposal that bats echolocate using a form of sonar was nonsense to scientists who (initially) didn't accept the idea, so much so that witness testimony describes how a dry seminar became more entertaining when one of the scientists making the proposal was grabbed by the lapels and shaken by another scientist who thought that he was spouting nonsense. Then again, the witness might have been spouting nonsense.
Announcing that a certain brand of sky pixie requires believers to hand over a hefty slice of income to self-appointed religious officials is spouting nonsense to unbelievers but not to believers.
Nonsense also mellows with time, e.g. talk of a female Prime Minister in the 1800s.
Spoken like a true spouter of nonsense The proposal that bats echolocate using a form of sonar was nonsense to scientists who (initially) didn't accept the idea, so much so that witness testimony describes how a dry seminar became more entertaining when one of the scientists making the proposal was grabbed by the lapels and shaken by another scientist who thought that he was spouting nonsense. Then again, the witness might have been spouting nonsense.
Announcing that a certain brand of sky pixie requires believers to hand over a hefty slice of income to self-appointed religious officials is spouting nonsense to unbelievers but not to believers.
Nonsense also mellows with time, e.g. talk of a female Prime Minister in the 1800s.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff