Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #25580 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-01-07 10:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2021-01-10 13:27 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi
Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-07 10:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-07 14:49 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-01-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-07 18:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-07 19:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-01-08 22:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-01-08 18:04 +0200
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? dave@661.org (David Griffith) - 2021-01-08 22:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 08:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-09 08:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 09:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 11:58 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 13:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:19 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 11:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-10 13:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-09 14:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-09 18:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-10 16:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-10 18:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-10 21:07 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:44 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-11 11:39 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 12:30 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:36 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:43 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-11 18:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 20:50 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-11 20:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-11 21:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-11 22:04 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 04:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 19:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 13:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 14:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 13:42 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-13 15:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 19:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 13:34 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Nikolaj Lazic <nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr> - 2021-01-13 14:30 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:45 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 21:05 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 21:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:35 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:07 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 18:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 19:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 20:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 21:13 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:31 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 05:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-14 10:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-14 13:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 14:32 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:19 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 12:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 15:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 16:21 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 22:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-11 05:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-11 14:58 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 15:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-11 23:32 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-11 23:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-12 00:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 01:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 18:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-12 09:42 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6694.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-12 05:14 +1300
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-12 09:15 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 10:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-12 10:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:21 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 12:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 19:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 13:28 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 14:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-13 18:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:49 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-14 08:37 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-13 21:20 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-13 21:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-14 03:03 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 22:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6644.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-10 17:09 +1300
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-11 17:34 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 11:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 22:09 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-11 11:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 20:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2021-01-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 12:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-11 12:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 13:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:27 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:36 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 21:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:22 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:40 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:43 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:59 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:11 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-01-09 09:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-09 16:59 -0500
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-09 23:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-10 09:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-10 13:27 -0500
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 08:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtef1u$j5d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25667 |
On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Jan 2021 18:02:18 GMT) it happened alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in <KcmKH.291427$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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 16:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4> |
| In reply to | #25683 |
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 08:46:56 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Jan 2021 18:02:18 GMT) it happened alister > <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote in > <KcmKH.291427$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. You act like another idiot who believe every conspiracy he sees posted on the internet without giving it even the most basic critical analysis News flash The USA DID land on the moon Evis IS dead Flight is not a Bermuda Triangle mystery The world is not flat Vaccines work And there are no microchips in ANY of the Covid vaccines. There were approx 1500 deaths in the UK today due to covid. 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 aysymptomatic people may spread it to those more susceptible & refuse to wear a mask or have one but refuse to wear it properly. -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cjgmvftrh132fnk07lduqjlsf9uj1kir78@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25710 |
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in <wjGKH.480276$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote: >-- >A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and >making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually >die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. > -- Max Planck This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them. -- Jim H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-10 21:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e0KKH.361430$gXy7.133175@fx40.ams4> |
| In reply to | #25714 |
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 :-) -- To program is to be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 04:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtgl38$21l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25721 |
On 10/01/2021 21:07, alister wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in >> <wjGKH.480276$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 :-) > Apt, but wrong. > > -- Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age. Richard Lindzen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 11:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i62rn3F5jg5U10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25721 |
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$ijZ9.39088@fx05.ams4>, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> >> wrote: >> >>> -- >>> A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and >>> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually >>> die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. >>> -- Max Planck >> >> This was more the case in the 60s when science played a significant role >> in education at the HS level due to our push to catch up withthe >> Russians in space. But for many years now science has been given short >> shrift and whacky ideas have gained a strong foothold. And it's not >> "politically correct" to tell the whackos they're dumber than a bag of >> hammers and crazier than a ferret on crack... which they are despite the >> attempt to use "political correctness" to shield them. > > That was a randomly generated fortune cookie > I have to say how pleasantly surprised I am to see how apt it turned out > to be :-) He meant hampsters, not hammers. -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 12:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rthgdm$jqo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25743 |
On 11/01/2021 11:39, TimS wrote: > On 10 Jan 2021 at 21:07:22 GMT, alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:12:39 +0000, Jim H wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in >>> <wjGKH.480276$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. > I think you mean 'hampers' -- In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone gets full Marx.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <it1svf16cf3lbl95avugdh2drp2ogee7qr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25743 |
On 11 Jan 2021 11:39:15 GMT, in <i62rn3F5jg5U10@mid.individual.net>, TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >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. No, I meant hammers. Dumber than hamsters still implies more intelligence than many of the whackos possess. -- Jim H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 04:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtgl27$21l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25714 |
On 10/01/2021 18:12, Jim H wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 16:54:52 GMT, in
> <wjGKH.480276$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.
>
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...
...
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."
- Stephen Vizinczey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rti5261rul@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #25735 |
On 2021-01-11, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 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...
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist,
fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic
criteria. The human race divides politically into those who
want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the
greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly
curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they
are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
-- Robert A. Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die,
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make."
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 20:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rtia5b$ugm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25735 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > 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... > I will print this and hang it on the wall as it summarizes the problem perfectly. This is why after I got my degree I found out the plumber and the mechanic from the nearest car shops deserve more respect than people with whatever title infront or after the name. But please do not forget the truth seekers. After this current middle age is over they will be the new Newtons or Einsteins.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 20:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210111205641.33cc1d81b07283fe5cc7a1dd@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #25735 |
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. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 21:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtif9d$2je$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25759 |
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. -- -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-11 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtii230152l@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #25760 |
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... -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die, \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make." / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 04:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtj9q5$jkr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25761 |
On 11/01/2021 22:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 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...
>
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.
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*.
--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"
- John K Galbraith
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i669u5Fe12eU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25766 |
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. -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtkul912ps1@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #25795 |
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. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | "Some of you may die, \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | but it's a sacrifice X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | I'm willing to make." / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 12:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtmqc2$4em$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25798 |
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 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. To test mankind, allegedly. So there's the bible, which takes you to heaven, and all this other stuff that goes to the Hot Place. Your choice, don't say you weren't warned, they are really only trying to *help mankind*. Just like Greta Thunderpants. And the Orange Jesus. We are overwhelmed with Good People carrying infallible moral compasses all trying to Help Mankind > > They've probably been following too many politicians. > I think you should make the effort to try to understand the non-technical mind. And metaphysics. The fact is that there is no fact that is not interpreted in terms of some underlying world-view. That is what is really meant, when people say 'truth is relative to culture' (without usually understanding what it means) You are a techie. We like stuff to be reliable predictable and physical. The materialist world-view gives us a physical world ruled by natural law. That means we can do science. Our world-view allows us a great power. In many ways we can predict the future. But it - is as Kant would say - *a-priori* to our understanding. Although the idea of a material world is supported by the evidence that science works, it is not *proved* by it. Those of a religious or spiritual persuasion that argue on favour of belief in a sentient Creator who actually gives a shit, would argue that this gives life a purpose and a moral dimension that it otherwise totally lacks. And that is as *useful* as science is, in terms of species survival. A most sustaining and comforting _lie_, if you like. You are looking for the One True Stick. dude, it ain't there. Plenty of people will try and sell it to you, but is it the real one? All we can do if we are intellectually acute enough is to note the problem. And the problem is we have to assume something in order to proceed at all, and we have no way other than our progress, to establish whether what we assumed was true or not. Think Matrix. The material world is one humongous glorious act of faith, that we assume to be true, because it *works for us*. God concepts are one humongous glorious act of faith, that they assume to be true, because it *works for them*. You see my dilemma? -- “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de M. de Voltaire
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i68aufFe12eU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25824 |
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. 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 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. -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtmvdm$819$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25830 |
On 13/01/2021 13:29, TimS wrote:
> 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.
>
Faced with a proposition odf a One True Perfect God and the manifest
imperfection of the world, the devil simply embodies all the chaitic
destructive forces - if you have Yang, you need a yin. If you have
matter, you need antimatter...
> And then there's King James, eh? I wonder why that one.
That's the one they took to America.
Remember the pilgrim fathers were religious bigots.
Too stuffy even for protestant England.
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 to have transcription errors.
> Second, you can pretty much always find a Bible passage to support and another
> to oppose any particular PoV.
>
she is completely correct.
> 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.
>
I am saying that to them, that is the One True Word. Every metaphysic
has to start *somewhere*, with some assumption, even yours....
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
― Leo Tolstoy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi
csiph-web