This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by ShinobiYaka

Go to: Teaching science in public schools without stepping around religion

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 1 by Red Dog

Why do you have to bring up God at all when teaching physics?

Agreed, stick to the science and teach them to challenge and question, equip them to think not what to think, that’s what the other side does.

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:17:37 UTC | #949261

Go to: Teaching Primary Aged Children

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 2 by zengardener

Dinosaur books. Kids love dinosaurs

Oh yeah! they do :)

Great OP by the way kudos ROSEMAE and kids...

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:12:21 UTC | #949260

Go to: The raw deal of determinism and reductionism

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 4 by ccw95005

“Of course if you go down to quantum level we are all just robots made up of colonies of cells”

I think it’s a bit more subtle than that, even if we dispense with the concept of free will, it would not make humans mere automatons, it would only mean that our cognitive processes were deterministic not predetermined, no two individuals will respond in precisely the same way in identical situations, although it might be that they would react in similar ways, which is why I think every system so far devised for modelling human behaviour, from Economics to Psychology are at best probabilistic.

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:12:47 UTC | #948877

Go to: The raw deal of determinism and reductionism

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by ShinobiYaka

Well, that’s quite a long post, which means that to do the topic justice would require just as long replies, unfortunately I will only be able to address some of your points.

Firstly, in my humble opinion, free will is illusory at a fundamental level, but because we cannot with any certainty model accurately human behaviour, the concept is and will continue to be useful as a working hypothesis, what do I mean by this?

We know that all decisions are actually made before they are presented to the conscious part of the mind, you are somewhat aware of this because you do not know by introspection how any particular thought is formed, why think of one thing and not the other? Why did you choose a particular word or phrase and not some other? So conscious thought appears to be a rationalisation of preformed cognitive processes, however even if we established the exact mechanism involved and it was found that all were deterministic, it would be unlikely that a model could be developed that would simulate behaviour to a precision where prediction would be anything other than probabilistic.

There would be many variables, initial conditions required for accurate simulation would be extremely difficult to acquire with any certainty, in short, free will is simply a convenient concept, and it appears to describe what is happening, even though it might not be an accurate description of reality.

“neuroscience and psychology - seems to "reduce" us to electrical signals in a dense net of neurons.”

Indeed, and if one were to carefully remove chunks of these dense nets of neurons, one will witness the self gradually become extinct, which is why dementia is so feared by many, but that relates to the nature of sentience itself, the self is only a small part of the whole, most of which is entirely hidden from us, at least on a conscious level.

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:17:36 UTC | #948864

Go to: Sex: it's a good thing, evolutionarily speaking

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by ShinobiYaka

Its also fun, particularly if there is more than one participant ;)

Thu, 31 May 2012 19:22:02 UTC | #944816

Go to: Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 56 by xsjadolateralus

“Again, the passive idea I'm advocating not only already exists for other races (ie, I get payed more simply because im a white male for example)”

I’m sorry but promoting and in particular “subsidising” is not “passive” it is advocacy, it least know the difference before you take it upon yourself to cure the worlds injustices.

“You've also failed to realize that I was simply using armchair logic from the beginning and asked someone with more knowledge on the topic than myself to chime in. Obviously, that hasn't come close to happening.”

Would you actually recognise if someone with more knowledge than yourself “chimed in”, I suspect not, in reality what you hoped for is confirmation of your own rather parochial world view, obviously, that hasn't come close to happening. Has it?

Sun, 06 May 2012 01:53:25 UTC | #940038

Go to: Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 52 by xsjadolateralus

If you know only what needs to be conquered, and know not what needs to be defeated, woe unto thee; it will fare ill with thee. – (a misquote) Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543 - 1616)

With the greatest respect, I think you fail to grasp my objection, let me use an analogy that might clarify my point; homophobia is not the cause of the prejudice directed against it is the “object” of the prejudice, following your reasoning steps could be taken to eliminate bigotry simply by removing the “object” or “focus” of the prejudice while leaving the cause unaddressed, but in doing so there is a very real danger that you simply confirm the rationalisation that forms the basis for prejudice in the first place.

Simply put, we can eliminate “homophobia” by removing the trait itself, job done!

In relation to the use of the term “eugenics” your proposal certainly looks like eugenics to me, I can only suggest you take a step back from the issue and as far as possible read objectively what you have so far proposed.

“BTW, how does it feel to have the same view on this topic as the white power retards? You both think I'm trying to "Kill the white race" and helping people get over their irrational fears of people of different shades is nazism.”

Actually, if the “white power retards” as you so quaintly put it, believed the earth were billions of years old and that evolution is a fact, we would probably agree on several things, but I suspect that is not the thrust of your statement is it? Why on earth would you even think I should care? You stray towards dangerous territory, which I suspect you are ill-equipped to navigate.

Sat, 05 May 2012 11:22:47 UTC | #939875

Go to: Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 31 by xsjadolateralus

“No, it isn't eugenics.”

I’m sorry, maybe I was being rather circumspect, what I should have wrote is, what you suggest is eugenics, I’m sorry that word is unpalatable to you but it actually describes what you propose, if you “promote” and “subsidise” reproduction with the aim of producing a specific genetic outcome what other term would you use to describe that process?

“Do we NEED many different races?”

No we don’t, but we “HAVE” many and therein lay your problem, what you suggest is we eliminate “race” in order to have a world without racism, but that is simply nonsense, if we conduct a thought experiment and take your suggestion to its ultimate end, we would then have a single race, global culture and universal ethnicity, do you believe for one moment that bigotry and prejudice would be banished?

“Of course you would have to make considerations; of course we already do make these kinds of decisions. You have no problem with excluding HIV positive people from donating sperm.”

There is a difference in discriminating with the view of preventing further harm and that of discrimination in order to achieve a desired ideal outcome, which is what you have suggested; the two are not morally comparable and are in my mind quite distinct.

“The way the world works today is a very convoluted system of eugenics. You're probably (judging by your response) just too naive and ignorant to realize it.”

Naïve and ignorant maybe, I can only suggest you Google “eugenics” then come back and convince me that in fact I am “naïve”, “Ignorant” and wrong when I apply the term eugenics’ to your favoured solution.

Fri, 04 May 2012 19:09:02 UTC | #939729

Go to: Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 24 by xsjadolateralus

Well I’m not an evolutionary biologist (ducks under parapet) but isn’t your melting pot reducing diversity rather than increasing it? The slight difference between the racial groups would be eliminated; I would assume that would lead to less overall diversity not more?

I also presume that such “mixing” would not necessarily lead to a gene pool that for example averaged skin colour, maybe after several generations there might be some normalisation of the genetic mix, but would it be as expected, there are also medical conditions that are primarily found in particular genetic groups, like Sickle cell anemia which is well known but there are other less well known issues such Lactose Intolerance which is almost 100% in certain groups, would your mixing elevate or minimise these in the “mixed” population?

I’m not sure if you had given this much thought, but what you have suggested is in my opinion eugenics, also would you include peoples such as the Japanese or maybe the Native American groups in this new “ideal” world?

Thu, 03 May 2012 23:16:12 UTC | #939464

Go to: Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 20 by xsjadolateralus

“We all need to be light tanish brown”

Well, it’s not as simple as mixing paints, and anyway what about blond haired Essex girls? Where would we be if they become well… extinct!

Also, if it’s ok with the rest of you, do you think it possible if I could select my sexual partners by personal attraction rather than some arbitrary sociological grand design?

Comment 21 by Richard Dawkins

Indeed.

That was rather... cutting

Thu, 03 May 2012 21:00:32 UTC | #939435

Go to: U.K.'s Royal Society Finds No 'Silver Bullet' for Population Issues

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by ShinobiYaka

Sorry to point out the obvious here, but in my humble opinion the Royal Society has no business pontificating on such issues anyway, it is not the function of the society to advise or offer judgment in such matters, it is has in my opinion, strayed dangerously close to advocacy on far too many occasions in recent history.

“it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always adhere, never to give their opinion as a Body upon any subject either of Nature or Art, that comes before them.”

Sound advice, and is as relevant today as it was when first penned in 1753.

Discuss.

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:21:31 UTC | #938427

Go to: 'Gay cure' Christian charity funded 20 MPs' interns

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by ShinobiYaka

"It's a complete disgrace that any elected representative would have associations with an organisation that promotes a (Insert any issue here) in the 21st century,"

What surprises me is that despite overwhelming and damning evidence to the contrary, there are still people who claim to be shocked even horrified by our politician’s lack of a basic or even elementary ability to exercise the simplest moral judgement, the problem is I’m afraid, we no longer have “politicians” rather we have a political “class” and there lay the problem which in some small measure explains why these people could ingratiate themselves with not only “politicians” from a single self-proclaimed ideology but also with those, who’s ideologies (in theory) are supposedly completely distinct.

Well dear reader, do you grasp the real issue?

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 01:05:40 UTC | #934715

Go to: Lawrence Krauss at the Reason Rally Wash. DC 3/24/2012

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 2 by Cartomancer

“Technical point of order, Lawrence. It wasn't the Middle Ages that saw the collapse of the Greek scientific enterprise along with the entirety of Classical civilization”

Well that’s one interpretation but I’m not sure on what historical basis such an interpretation might be made, “technically” the Greek enterprise did not collapse it was destroyed, the closing of the academy by the emperor Justinian in 529 A.D. is often cited as the end of Antiquity and therefore might be considered the beginning of the dark ages or the beginning of the early medieval period if you prefer, but one thing is certain the Greek tradition did not simply “fall” it was I’m afraid given a rather unsubtle push, it did not cease to exist altogether though, although its students were scattered in exile the academic tradition survived long enough to establish academies in Persia and seeded the Neoplatonist tradition of Baghdad.

“intellectual achievements of the Middle Ages are superior to those of classical antiquity, because they were more durable and permanent. So far the line of scientific progress from the twelfth century to the twenty-first has not been broken, while the science of antiquity is largely gone for good.”

I would disagree, philosophy and what later became known as “science” rests firmly on classical philosophy, the scholastic tradition was primarily an attempt to fuse philosophy and theology, the difference between that and the Greek academic tradition is distinct, even though a lot of the later Greek philosophical schools were steeped in mysticism the methods and objectives of enquiry were really very different, let’s not forget that it was the rediscovery of Aristotle that was pivotal in the development of a systemic approach to reason within the early universities, without Aristotle there would have been no Summa Theologica, and no Aquinas of any note, the enlightenment itself was inspired and stimulated by classical Greek schools of philosophy, I think you underestimate the debt owed by western culture to the thinkers of antiquity and overestimate the importance of the scholastic tradition in the development of Western civilisation.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 02:18:12 UTC | #933174

Go to: Petition: Guarantee human rights in Tunisia’s new constitution

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 4 by tadmjones

“You guys are from Europe huh?”

You can tell? I did take the trouble to capitalise “Europe” for you, the Europeans can get a bit cranky about things like that, but yes you do make a valid point, for instance the American Constitution is four pages (4,543 words) and that includes the signatures, the European Constitution on the other hand is 855 pages (156,447-words) I think the American constitution would fit on eleven pages of the same size, now what does that tell us?

In relation to the original post, personally I think that the form and content of the Constitution of Tunisia is a matter for Tunisians surely? I only hope they make a better job of it than that ship of fools in Brussels, or maybe there are some here who think we should write the Tunisian Constitution for them, you know just in case they include something we don’t like or get the spelling wrong, or maybe we could insert amendments we would like to see included in “their” Constitution?

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:32:19 UTC | #925480

Go to: BBC rewrites history of science

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 24 by Daniel Clear

so the church was right all along?

Well, they did apologise… rather belatedly in 1992 it only took 362 years for the church to realise that he might well have been on to something , so a quick apology and the holy see can go back to being infallible again… kinda…

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:57:56 UTC | #924590

Go to: Special pleading for the persistence of mal-adaptive traits

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by ShinobiYaka

OP

“in a resource limited ecosystem, a million copies of a gene would be too many copies”

Well of course you might be right, probably are right but is that the way things actually work in nature? The prime driving force for genes is copy making, bacteria will multiple at such a rate that they often exhaust resources or are simply poisoned by their own waste products, higher mammals ruthless exploit their environment until numbers are culled usually by starvation, there is no forward planning or optimal number for genes, they will replicate regardless at least that’s my take on it?

Gene success is either by sheer weight of numbers or some adaption that gives them an advantage, I think that for genes, changes might result because of resource changes, but as for replication I think its “Keep calm and carry on”, as has been mentioned there may come a point were numbers reach a steady state, but that has little to do with how the genes themselves go about their life cycle.

Comment 1 by Helga Vierich

“A few 3-year-olds, however, will offer up their Bambas. What's different about them?”

They are probably ill equipped to survive in the wild? Young mammals need to be selfish in order to thrive, runts rarely make it, is it reasonable then to expect a certain level of altruism in children so young?

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:39:39 UTC | #924582

Go to: The 'Witch Children' Condemned by Christians

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by ShinobiYaka

As Voltaire said;

those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:01:12 UTC | #924572

Go to: BBC rewrites history of science

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by ShinobiYaka

Hahaha Epic fail!

That wasn’t a BBC "science" correspondent narrating was it? Most common mistake is usually to say he invented the telescope, this one is pretty match in a class of its own...

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:56:53 UTC | #924571

Go to: The "So" meme

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 93 by rsharvey

the word "meld" is actually a portmanteau of melt and weld

Ha, there’s that word “portmanteau” again, meld is not a portmanteau, melding is the mixing of materials or ingredients (like in brewing) to meld is to mix, at a guess I would think the word is probably rooted in Middle English, welding and melting are unrelated.

Reading this thread takes me back to my school days, hands up all those who had to Google “segue”? come on… fess up.

Was I the only one? damn!

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:50:08 UTC | #924570

Go to: Physical Nothing v. Metaphysical Nothing

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by ShinobiYaka

If you had three identical “metaphysical” jars which contained “metaphysical nothing”, “nothing” and “supernatural nothing” how would you metaphysically determine which jar contained which nothing?

Discuss.

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:52:40 UTC | #924308

Go to: The "So" meme

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by ShinobiYaka

I didn’t realise how much of a busy bee “so” actually is until reading this thread and the post by RDfan containing a link to the urban dictionary in Comment 27, I’m not really bothered about “text speak” because it’s a quite clever way off overcoming the constraints imposed by the technology and actually does save time (and sore thumbs), I hate seeing it in e-mails or used in forum posts though, over used text lingo “LOL” (Laugh Out Loud) Grrrrr… which brings me to my joke for today…

I used to think it funny that my mother thought that LOL stood for lots of love, until she sent me a text last week, “Grandmother past away this morning… LOL”.

If you want to translate text speak there’s a fun little online translator to play with:

spk d lingo

Make it so Number One…

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:43:03 UTC | #924303

Go to: The "So" meme

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by ShinobiYaka

Not sure “So” is actually a meme it’s more a grammatical device, it’s not in the same class as "um" or "er" if expressed in writing, but it has “evolved” and I’ll use another example to make my point, Spurious is an interesting word it has several contemporary meanings, one of which is in biology, but its origins lay with roman military law, legionaries were not allowed to marry, any children produced by legionaries were wards of the roman state, they were acknowledged as SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus), this later became spurious offspring (bastard) in the middle ages, which is now used to mean anything from random event to counterfeit depending on context.

So, originates from the Hebrew and later Greek and Latin for “amen” its original use would have been “so, I will go to the next town” (god willing), today it has a different connotation, it is used to highlight something or someone questionable as in “yeah, that’s what his so called friends thought”, or it might be used to introduce a new phrase or concept as in “so-called 'super bug'”. When it is used in “so, let’s look at the next power point slide”, it amounts to little more than punctuation, a place holder or pause, its habit more than meme I think, if it were not “so” it may well be “erm”, “er”, “OK” or “right”, does that makes sense?

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:16:08 UTC | #924221

Go to: Organ Donor Badge

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 78 by green and dying

“Do the private patients pay for the blood or for the overall care?”

Not sure that actually makes any difference, like drugs for instance blood would be a material item and therefore would be treated in the same way as all other consumables, I doubt patients who receive treatment through their insurance would see detailed billing, might well be different for self-paid treatments, blood will be charged but I suppose the question is, do private health companies charge at cost or for a profit?

This is an Interesting problem to ponder, if the Welsh Assembly introduces opt out legislation, and I see no reason why they wouldn’t (they put 3p on carrier bags), if you were to leave England for a nice holiday in Wales and had a fatal Accident while driving to your favourite holiday cottage, would your family find that there was rather less of you than anticipated on repatriation?

Just a thought...

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:45:10 UTC | #923930

Go to: Organ Donor Badge

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 76 by ShinobiYaka

Sorry one of the links I provided above was malformed and I should have tested it, here is the correct link: Direct Link

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:30:32 UTC | #923750

Go to: Organ Donor Badge

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 74 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 71 by green and dying

“Are they just paying to have an operation privately that they would get on the NHS anyway or are they queue jumping?”

I can think of no other reason why anyone would pay for a freely available operation other than queue jumping, but if that was all it amounted to that in itself while wrong, is hardly a significant issue, unless of course you happen to be in that particular queue.

Blood in the UK is supplied to private hospitals by the NBS (National Blood Service) at cost price, that is they are charged for processing, typing and testing, what I object to is that no requirement is stipulated in regards to the final cost to the private patient, in other words the private health providers are free to profit from blood products supplied at cost by the NBS.

I have been a blood donor over many decades; I don’t even like rich tea biscuits so the NHS has had a pretty good deal over the years, I was absolutely furious to learn that my good will had been betrayed in this appalling and thoughtless manner.

I shall put up some links below in relation to the donor situation, its entirely up to other people what they conclude, but they should be aware of all the facts before carrying a donor card, then if they are happy to do so, good for them.

Comment 72 by foundationist

“Organ trading on the private market is indeed filthy and highly unethical.”

Now, I don’t for one moment suggest that there is “organ trading” going on, well actually there is I suppose, there is no guarantee that an organ donated in the UK is used within the UK it might be used abroad, but there are safeguards in place to ensure there are no local matches first, what I object to is the health tourism aspect and the involvement of private health care, a reasonable question to ask is this, how is it a Greek businesses man suddenly decides to book himself into a London(NHS Trust) hospital, gets an organ and flies out the next week after paying his bill?

Questions one might ask are, how did they match donor and organ? Was he on a donor list? If so was he prioritised? Interesting isn’t it? I can think of lots more “questions” but the bottom line is this, that organ was “sold” the operation paid for privately, the health company profits, and worse NHS resources, facilities and staff are utilised in the procedure, and what about the donor? The NHS doesn’t even think it worth making a contribution towards their funeral expenses, because? Well its your bloody duty isn’t it old chap?

No its not, go take a hike… old bean.

Rant over.

Hospital flouts rules

Sometimes things just get worse

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:41:01 UTC | #923742

Go to: Organ Donor Badge

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 69 by ShinobiYaka

Well things are going far too well in this thread; it’s almost as if consensus is almost imminent so here’s my view and it is fairly simple… I refuse to carry a donor card and will never consent to my organs being used ever.

I also stopped giving blood several years ago, the reason, which some may claim as wholly irrational is simple, unless the NHS can assure me, no… “Guarantee” that my donations will not be used for private treatment, I will not even consider the possibility of carrying a card, they can take a running jump, sorry.

This issue should have been addressed years ago, in fact should have been resolved by new regulations in 2010, but I know for a fact that the practice was still in place in 2011, in 2010 alone almost 800 transplants had been performed by the NHS on non-UK patients, just where did these organs come from do you think?

Did the families of these donors give their consent so that surgeons could personally profit by tens of thousands of pounds for each operation? I’m sorry, but my ultraism evaporates as soon as some grubby little doctor thrusts out his sweaty palm for what is literally blood money, I do not approve of private health care in any form, I certainly will not freely give my organs so that private companies can profit and rich people can buy their transplants at the expense of others, and sad to say I no longer trust the NHS in these matters, I’m sorry, if you think my position is “unreasonable” or “irrational” fine, but I simply won’t have it.

If an opt out system is legislated, then you are no longer a “donor” something claimed by the presumption of consent is not a donation, it is not “gifted” it is taken, it is the ultimate insult any state can inflict on its citizens, as too why anyone would even for a single moment think this is a good thing I simply cannot fathom, as far as I’m concerned the thought of industrial harvesting of organs is simply abhorrent, particularly given the track record of the NHS, the UK would become the organ capital of the world and you dear readers would actually become the UK PLC's best assets, although maybe not in the way you or those you leave behind might wish.

Pah! No thanks…

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:47:41 UTC | #923578

Go to: Free Will

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by ShinobiYaka

Free will is a pernicious device invented by theologians, the sole purpose of which is to allow their deity plausible deniability.

PS Sam Harris rocks…

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:27:03 UTC | #923550

Go to: Physical Nothing v. Metaphysical Nothing

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by ShinobiYaka

The OP

“The metaphysical world is in our thoughts”

Some might take issue with that particular statement, is it possible for an embodied mind to construct a consistent internal model which it has not either directly or indirectly experienced?

“just because we can visualize zero in the model (metaphysical nothing), does not mean that must have a corresponding situation in the physical world.”

The further we move from direct experience then the less sure we must necessarily become of what we can reasonably claim to be known, “nothing” may be conceptualised on different levels, you need not remove all the objects from the table in order to have “nothing” where once an object stood, by the same token a physicist may enclose the volume that the object had occupied and remove all matter from within that space and would be content that within his device there was “nothing”, the former concept of nothing is based on direct experience and observation while the latter is the result of indirect method.

What happens at the quantum level can never be directly experienced or observed, we can never be certain that our abstractions or internal models of reality at this level are true, only that they work, they may well be entirely wrong, our minds simply do not have the experience to construct a consistent representation of “nothing” at this resolution of reality.

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:24:21 UTC | #922957

Go to: Science and cinema

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 73 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 71 by Laura Bow

Well having read the biographies of both Nimoy and Shatner (yeah I know…) the more mundane explanation for the apparent weakness of Spocks logic and the triumph of Kirks “passion” was ego, Shatner openly admits to being more than a little irked at Spocks popularity and how shall we put it… had the writers “rebalance” the scripts in favour of the Captain, which explains why some of the bridge conversations were a little pointless, Nimoy himself I think it fair to say did despair at Spocks dumbing down and Kirks sudden leap of IQ.

The Straw Vulcan analyst then only works at the most superficial level, it was not deliberate policy on the part of the writers that logic was portrayed as inferior.

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:03:52 UTC | #921922

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

ShinobiYaka's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by ShinobiYaka

Comment 61 by Alan4discussion

“Children do not need to involved in the complexities of PROVING if climate science produces predictions”

Phew! That will save everyone a lot of time and trouble Alan.

We don’t teach Darwinism in our schools we teach biology, the national curriculum should focus on core science, if you don’t get that right you’re simply wasting your time, in my opinion there has been too much emphasis on “issues” rather than scientific “knowledge, the curriculum is already overburdened and I doubt we have the teaching expertise in place to include even more “Climatology” anyway.

In the last review of the UK’s National curriculum the recommendation was to exclude the teaching of “climate change” which has been part the school’s curriculum since 1995, this recommendation has been supported by the Association for Science Education, schools will still be able to decide whether and how to teach climate change, and other topics, but “climate change” itself, will no longer be part of the curriculum if of course the review is adopted.

Anyway, having read a few of the school packs on climate change, I’m pretty sure the kids will not suffer intellectually and may actually benefit emotionally from being spared having to sit through their teachers current environmental obsession.

By the way… what did you chaps do with EvilConservative?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:16:58 UTC | #921646