tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post6109470783866882490..comments2024-02-20T15:17:48.594+11:00Comments on A.E.Brain: For ValourZoe Brainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-53468619986652757312009-01-25T10:54:00.000+11:002009-01-25T10:54:00.000+11:00It's hardly your problem anymore, is it? You and ...It's hardly your problem anymore, is it? You and your friends have made it abundantly clear where I fit in your world, (i.e. not at all) and you know it. If I get blown up by an IED while out on patrol this September, so be it. As I mentioned, I have nothing left to lose, and nothing left behind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-57892484311609127582009-01-24T19:44:00.000+11:002009-01-24T19:44:00.000+11:00Nat, I swear that if you earn ANY form of gong pos...Nat, I swear that if you earn ANY form of gong posthumously, I'll half kill you!Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-48917425041868690512009-01-24T14:20:00.000+11:002009-01-24T14:20:00.000+11:00Hey, maybe I'll get one of those neat VCs too! Af...Hey, maybe I'll get one of those neat VCs too! After all, I'm headed for Kandahar later this year, likely outside the wire. I've volunteered for it. Remember, courage is just a euphemism for scared shitless with nothing left to lose. And I have nothing left.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-8934009744045298732009-01-17T23:33:00.000+11:002009-01-17T23:33:00.000+11:00In this day and age, one should be very wary of pe...In this day and age, one should be very wary of people <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Gambit" REL="nofollow">postulated as "Today's Galileo"</A> for the simple reason that it is almost impossible for such to exist. The phenomena is brilliantly discussed <A HREF="http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/12/lonely-grave-of-galileo-galilei.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> from where I quote in part:<BR/><BR/><I>What's interesting is that the idea of inappropriate or manufactured doubt about scientific or historical claims is a very new phenomenon. Indeed, it's very hard to think of any examples before 1950, with the possible exception of the first wave of Creationism in the 1920s. Leah Ceccarelli points out that many of the rhetorical tricks used go back to the Greek Sophists but until recently the concept of denialism would have been almost meaningless, for the simple reason that this requires a truth to be inappropriately called into question and before about the 19th century, to a first approximation, we didn't have access to any such truths.<BR/><BR/>It's easy to forget just how ignorant we were until recently. The average schoolkid today has a more accurate picture of the universe than the greatest genius of 500 years ago, or of 300 years ago, and even of 100 years ago (assuming that the schoolkid knows about the Big Bang, plate tectonics, and DNA - all 20th century discoveries).<BR/><BR/>To exaggerate, but not very much: until the last couple of centuries of human history, no-one correctly believed in anything, and people had many beliefs that were actively wrong - they believed in ghosts, and witches, and Hiranyagarbha, and Penglai. People erred by believing. Those who disbelieved were likely to be right.<BR/><BR/>Things have changed. There is more knowledge now; today, when people err, it is increasingly because they reject the truth. No-one in the West now believes in witches, but hundreds of millions of us don't believe that the visible universe originated in a singularity about 13.5 billion years ago, although this is arguably a much bigger mistake to make. In other words, whereas in the past the main problem was belief in false ideas ("dogma"); increasingly the problem is doubting true ones ("denialism").</I><BR/><BR/>Basically while what started off as Natural Philosophy and we now call Science, used to feature big breakthroughs and new radical ideas, it no longer does. Now that our scientific 'map' is far more filled in, scientific progress is made in more of an inchworm fashion; where one group undertakes an experiment, another group replicates and extends it, a third group untertakes a derivative experiment etc. and each time small chunks of data are added to the overall human knowledge base.<BR/><BR/>It is unfortunate in this respect that our scientific heroes, by necessity, are all of the previous era. Therefore people (non-scientists) stil expect breakthroughs and wondrous new world-changing theories. It provides fertile ground for many self-styled Davids, but simply given the lack of big things left to be discovered, any such David is more than likely to be a quack.<BR/><BR/>To further the analogy, several hundred years ago, it was plausible for someone to return from a voyage and state they had discovered a new, uninhabited continent (indeed it was plausible to set off on a voyage in order to discover new continents). These days, we not only have a complete set of continents, we are even quite certain of the number of mountains, rivers, lakes etc. Someone proposing a new Mount Everest in the middle of Australia would be laughed at (and rightly so) by a schoolkid. There's still stuff to discover - satellites can identify previously unknown springs, tribal settlements and artifacts of ancient civilizations. Determining the composition of forests, amount of high-altitude snowfall etc are also common tasks, but it is all incremental work, Columbus-like discoveries are all taken.<BR/><BR/>CashewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-13135027206990602322009-01-17T20:15:00.000+11:002009-01-17T20:15:00.000+11:00Please explain how that particular "fringe" hypoth...Please explain how that particular "fringe" hypothesis differs from hundreds of other such.<BR/><BR/>I'd say "theory", but a theory requires some body of evidence. What evidence there is from particle accelerators etc is inconsistent with the idea, and some of the propositions are provably nonsense.<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology" REL="nofollow">Plasma Cosmology</A>.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-30227083513465908412009-01-17T19:57:00.000+11:002009-01-17T19:57:00.000+11:00Courtesy of Vault-co:http://www.thunderbolts.info/...Courtesy of Vault-co:<BR/><BR/>http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-1103903536085705202009-01-17T15:42:00.000+11:002009-01-17T15:42:00.000+11:00I think that "medals" given, for the acknowledgeme...I think that "medals" given, for the acknowledgement of positive deeds in society is a good thing. But the evil sister of "the medal" are the awards given through competitive activities. I abhore competition. I believe in the 2000 Olympics the time difference between 1st and 2nd place in the 100meters was .oo1 of a seconds. That seems strange to me. Is that really a difference? If the wind had blown .5mp more at an angle more congruant with the 2nd place finisher then they would have won. Its the arbitriness of is that bothers me. How 1st place is placed at the top of Mount Olympus with all others being forgotten. I think competition should be done away. Effort should be acknowledged but not held over others that also participated in "the game". Competition for me, represents one of human kinds hugest Achilles Heel, a heel that I see as being part of the lenchpin of human kinds social adolescence.<BR/><BR/>Yikes that was a long comment! With that being said, congrats on your Bronze!!! :-p<BR/><BR/>luv mMia B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04445119563495166341noreply@blogger.com