Posted by Music Top SIte
Jumat, 19 Februari 2010
As a technologist, I do not "do" science, but I do use scientific results. This means adopting a high regard for the peer reviewed, tested, logical conclusions based on sound evidence that forms the basis of science. The world has improved immeasurably as a result of such an approach, we have been taken out of the rule of ignorance and superstition and into one of reason and progress.
Then along comes the IPCC.. I am not a climate scientist, the world may be heading for a terrible catastrophe much worse even than they predict, I do not know, but I do know they have insulted the ideals of science by their behaviour. In particular, by the personal attacks on any scientist who dares to question "the consensus" on global warming, the deliberate use of scare stories to gain attention and the blatantly political means they use to put over what looks like science.
It leaves people like me in a quandary, who to believe? I hear intelligent people claim the "science is settled", and that "1,500 top scientists agree". The trouble is, both of those statements can be shown to be lies. Firstly, science is rarely "settled", predictions of climate change are predicated on probabilities, the results are therefore probabilities in themselves, hardly "settled". Many, especially non-scientists, simply miss out the probabilities, which is nonsense. The claim that 1,500 scientists agree is also nonsense, some of these 1,500 people have tried hard but failed to remove their name from the list, many of the others are chosen from a list of people thought to be friendly to the IPCC line, those who do not agree with that line are not invited to take part. That is not science, it is politics and we all know what happens if we trust politicians. It is not widely realised, but the IPCC is a political not scientific organisation, it does not "do" science, it trawls the world for work that aligns with its political agenda.
The trouble with this rape of science is that people may start to think that the scientific method itself is flawed, hence plunging us back into the arms of ignorance and superstition. We have seen it before with the report The Limits to Growth. Published in 1972 by the Club of Rome, the IPCC of the 1970s, this report predicted all sorts of catastrophes. They were wrong, partly because they did not listen to counter arguments.
If we silence those who question the main line, we will head back into the dark ages. We need an open, responsive and questioning society, not one dominated by beliefs, however firmly held, but one predicated on reason, evidence and sound scepticism.
Baca Selengkapnya ....
Posted by Music Top SIte
Sabtu, 13 Februari 2010
For me, the naked and the nude
(By lexicographers construed
As synonyms that should express
The same deficiency of dress
Or shelter) stand as wide apart
As love from lies, or truth from art.
Lovers without reproach will gaze
On bodies naked and ablaze;
The Hippocratic eye will see
In nakedness, anatomy;
And naked shines the Goddess when
She mounts her lion among men.
The nude are bold, the nude are sly
To hold each treasonable eye.
While draping by a showman's trick
Their dishabille in rhetoric,
They grin a mock-religious grin
Of scorn at those of naked skin.
The naked, therefore, who compete
Against the nude may know defeat;
Yet when they both together tread
The briary pastures of the dead,
By Gorgons with long whips pursued,
How naked go the sometime nude!
I love to read Robert Graves, it is all made more personal as he fought in the same unit as my Grandfather in the Great War. What is interesting in this poem is the distinction between The Nude and The Naked, one is higher, better than the other. What he does not account for is the meaning ascribed to each word by the reader in contrast to the lexicographers. In common use, these words have widely differing meanings. Some will say nude means without clothes and naked is almost synonymous with vulnerable.
Baca Selengkapnya ....
Posted by Music Top SIte
Selasa, 09 Februari 2010
In times past, the female genital area was called the Pudendum. The word Pudendum is from the Latin root "pudo" the verb meaning to be ashamed or "that of which one ought to feel ashamed or be ashamed to mention". The reason this word came into use was probably as a result of the religious teaching of just one or two people, possibly in a pre-Christian Jewish sect or people like Paul and Augustine. This teaching caught on and was accepted as fact.
In a rational world, how this could happen would be a puzzle, but we do not live in a such a world. Those who prize belief over rationalism will deny a logical argument if it conflicts with belief. Let me give a example. It is often said that the Victorian age was one of prudery where people even covered their piano legs to avoid blushes. Many believe this story, to them it is fact. The trouble is, it was written as a joke in 1837 by Frederic Marryat in his book "Diary in America" but the idea spread, became fact and is believed my many. It is not only believed that some people covered their piano legs, everyone did it! With the spread of such daft and unsupported ideas, no wonder ideas such as shame spread, people accepted them without thinking, taught them to their children and lived in the belief they were doing the Right Thing.
People feel no shame until they learn it by the same means they learn the "facts" of Victorian prudery, others tell them, "be ashamed of your private parts, keep them hidden at all times". I know a woman who has had three children by her husband, yet he has never seen her naked. This astonishing feat was achieved in the belief that seeing a naked woman is in some way harmful. Naturists know that the sight of a naked woman is not in fact sexually arousing but even the most ardent proponent of religion cannot deny that the production of children requires some sexual activity. Even in this situation ,where a faithful, committed married couple desire to make a family, nudity is seen as bad. If they can be taught to believe this, surely they can be taught all manner of daft ideas, easy prey to those who pursue less savoury ideals.
It is clear that no rational argument can be made to establish that a child is born with shameful parts, but ideas will persist. One still finds people believing in "air pockets" when they fly, that low temperatures will give you a cold or that politicians are honest:- all myths that are passed on generation to generation. These are only one step away from being frightened of night airs.
The myth of dangerous night airs was dispelled by clear evidence and rational argument. It is time to be rational about social nudity. Experience suggests that it results in positive feelings and better health, yet it causes no harm. In contrast, the never ending pursuit of fashion and the perfect body has led to bulimia, anorexia and much misery besides.
The Government often tells us not to smoke, not to drive too fast or eat too much, all on the grounds of safety leading to a better and longer life. If we are rational, we should extend this idea. The Government should at once encourage social nudity at swimming pools, sports events, parks, gardens and open spaces of all kinds. But they won't will they? Rationalism has a long way to go.
Baca Selengkapnya ....
This is a recipe I have made before. You only really need three ingredients to make a lip balm--a solid, like beeswax, an oil or butter, like shea, mango, coconut, avocado, etc. And finally flavoring oils. I like vanilla, but you can use peppermint, rose, almond, and so on. This all-natural recipe makes 8 lip balms that are .05 oz. each. You can find the following ingredients at most health food stores.
