Off-Topic / How would Poles react to a visit from Queen Elizabeth? [72]


Now why did you have to go and say that?
Real history!!
Strongbow invited the english into Ireland really.

The guy was coat trailing and not for the first time, he is so stupid he cant spell his own racist crap correctly even though its written on the typically racist english propaganda cartoon.

The rest of his stuff is the usual bigoted ill-informed ramblings of a fool who ignores the role the british army played in supporting the 16 cent bigoted fascist statelet, forcing Catholics into the box that was third class citizenship.

Did anyone see this in the great democracy that is the UK? Of course they didnt......well not in an official capacity.

Off-Topic / How would Poles react to a visit from Queen Elizabeth? [72]

How would Poles react to a visit from Queen Elizabeth?
Probably welcome her as the head of state of a foreign country as the Irish will do.
hague1cmaeron

There is an art to trolling and you aint got it.

UK, Ireland / The mystery of Ireland's worst driver "Prawo Jazdy" [37]


The story was emailed to me a week or so ago.

That is spooky


I'd vote for him :)

UK, Ireland / The mystery of Ireland's worst driver "Prawo Jazdy" [37]


No way......cos he is in cahoots with Ming the Merciless.

Off-Topic / PF - The Omnibus Edition [1502]

We could have been third now, a bad slip up this week

Off-Topic / PF - The Omnibus Edition [1502]


Exactly and I'll second what Szar said.


I think of myself more as Ricci Villa minus the beard and skill:)

Off-Topic / PF - The Omnibus Edition [1502]


You had the minerals (as they say) to try:)

Who knows what happens....I'm trying to be made redundant at the moment and they wont let me:(

History / Insoluble Judaeo-Polish imbroglio? [44]


Secular society in the arab world was destroyed by western states remember that little word Realpolitik you are fond of using.


Is there anything you will not wash your hands of?

Then again its all realpolitik

News / Poland building an empire (instead of a nation)? [67]


Very well said, the Soviet and Nazi empires terrible things altogether.

History / Stalag Luft III - the Great Escape (yes, it's in Poland!) [20]


Ah...That makes sense.

History / Stalag Luft III - the Great Escape (yes, it's in Poland!) [20]


I thought that was Colditz.

Edit:
The Wooden Horse was also about Stalag Luft III.
This guy jumped over the horse in real life as a POW

• 
  Carry On
  

History / Stalag Luft III - the Great Escape (yes, it's in Poland!) [20]

There was a fourth tunnel called George that they are going to excavate.

History / Climate, weather event and Polish history [23]


What does wiki say


Hmmmmm not sure

so another site


From The National Climatic Data Center In the US (ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/resource1000.html)
The same organisation has also started to archive global tree ring data, you can browse.

You said "Extreme political events will happen EITHER: (a) immediately after an unexpected one-off event OR (ii) shortly after the lowest point of a long trend is reached." This is clearly nonsense and is not backed by historical sources.

You dont like the word superstition lets use the term anecdotal evidence instead. Of course famine causes unrest as does changes in taxation or land use to give two examples. Do all other upheavals that occurred within a period of climatic stasis count, If not is it because they dont fit the description?

History doesnt have to be like science and trying to make it so betrays an agenda.

History / Climate, weather event and Polish history [23]

Varsovian
You are suggesting that astral events have a disproportionate effect on human habitation, you also say that all historians note these events but give them too little weight. The reason for this lack of gravitas is that other earthly events don’t have “an astrological trigger”. You don’t think other factors may have more of an influence on events, are you seriously suggesting that the Nazis did what they did in the early 1940s because it was cold? The triggers for political events are as likely to be meteorological or climatologically as not. The entire thesis is based upon superstition that is why I believe it is wrong.

This whole perfectionist idea has been knocking about for a long time...a place for everything and everything in its place..a search for a biblical utopia that doesnt exist. There is a place in the rational world for neo Catastrophism (Geomorphology for example) but applying it here is just not correct. You need to separate out cause and effect.

Landscheidt, this guy is a perfect example of anything goes science, you take known phenomena and try to marry them. The rational behind this thought process was astrology.

Read more carefully!!

The latter half of the 15th Century was characterised by Icy winters it was the Little ice Age when we had two significant down turns in the 15th and 17th Centuries.

Life / Buying a laptop in Poland - where/whats a good deal? [32]

I had a pro A30 a number of years ago, the only problem was it kept shutting down cos it overheated. I think this is a known flaw and may have been fixed.

History / Climate, weather event and Polish history [23]



The difference between climate and weather is both temporal and spatial. The average of weather makes climate. The period 1430-1490 is characterised by cool/icy winters, of course its possible that the springs were warmer when the growth was laid down but it would be interesting to see the paper. You mention climate and extreme events yet talk about extreme events in a localised context.

This idea has been around for a long time, on the face of it the idea seems sound yet you fail to mention all the other things that happened when the climate was different or the same. All you are saying is that hungry people riot.

The underlying tone that there is no evidence for human activity in influencing the climate is wrong and driven by an agenda. I googled yer man you mentioned and he was an astrologer, so I googled the dates you mentioned and they all correspond to so called significant astrological events.

History / Climate, weather event and Polish history [23]

Two things, you are confusing climate with weather and you are saying that hungry people riot!!

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


In an ideal world that would be the case.
That is why punctuated equilibrium is an ad hoc change.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

The fossil record cannot be explained by gradualism even if gradualism is working at different speeds. So we need punctuated equilibrium to explain the fossil record, some threads show a gradual process and some show a rapid change. For me that is a logical flaw in the elegance of the theory but perhaps all theories are imperfect.


That is really irritating I have started using Google Scholar when I want to check something scientific.
scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=how+old+is+our+earth&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on


God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit;)

But seriously three things:

Captain Beefheart is dead (Measurable)
We have a heliocentric solar system....looks the same as a geocentric one from here though;) (Belief dependant)
The mighty Spurs are in the knockout stage of the Champions League. (Consensus view)

Philosophical thought is necessary after all we are not talking about The Bay City Rollers.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


In a thread about atheists it will become philosophical.


No, instead of debunking science I have been pointing out that there are logical flaws in science and a good scientific mind will try and explain these flaws. Thus using science as a universal truth to suggest that there is no God is logically flawed.

That was my point.

I know that you can think yourself into a black hole like those irritating little boys with pockets full of wire and electrical fuses proving that 1+1=3.

There has to be a basis for doing something, anything, people just dont look at things with a blank mind.

What is "The scientific method" essentially it is whatever you want it to be


You can use anything and say anything.

You suggest that all good science is based on rationality and logic.

How do you make a choice between two competing ideas that have access to the same data? It is done by either probability or product both of which entail gathering data, the type and nature of the data gathered depends upon theory, a kind of leap of faith.


Philosophers try to tidy up this mess and give a framework to science so that we can tell the difference between science and pseudo science. Blindly accepting one set of ideas over another is no different to having belief. Science is not fact nor is it common sense it's a process and the methodology is defined by philosophy.


If evolution is a fact why does it keep changing? Evolution contains a process, there are too many variables for a process to be a fact, saying it is a fact is also saying that it's a truth.

As there are evolutionary truths I believe that the process is probably true.

Scientists generally don't give a dam for philosophy but to make any claim for the superiority of science over superstition you need philosophy. Any open mind can see that that must be the case.


The predictive ability of Evolution is powerful but nowhere near as powerful as the so called hard sciences. The predictions tend to be very short term, (cosmologists however predict over billions of years). Often the predictions of evolutionists are wrong, where oil will be found for example, or the exceptions to the rules on inheritance, though they have a good hit rate. That doesn't nullify the science it just leads to probability.

The ability to falsify evolutionary theory is also restricted, when it has been challenged the theory changes to fit the new evidence (ad hoc). Thus falsification of evolution relies on degrees of truth and learned experience. We dont know what will happen if a rabbit is found in the precambrian, will there be an ad hoc change or a fundamental re-evaluation to deal with the new discovery?


I accept evolution, am not religious and probably dont believe in God:)

Edit:
Lots of theories have been falsified in the past but are still in use because they are so powerful.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


Belief in God and evolution is not the same. Belief in evolution is based upon evidence that can be measured in a scientific way. I agree with the rest.

Evolution doesn't lend its self to analysis by the formal method of "hypothesis testing" and often seeks to explain in an apparent ad hoc way. For example the gaps in the fossil record that gradual change cannot explain (save that they are lost or Dawkins view that the creatures migrated) have been explained by punctuated equilibrium (a jerky change) there are problems with that approach so punctuated gradualism (Jerky in a different way) was used. Together these fit the observable data but one by itself cannot explain all the data. Its possible that all three or more mechanisms operated together but again this is not a tweak, doesn't make predictions and is untestable.

I joined this thread because Posters were using the logic of science to say there is no God, and I pointed out that there are flaws in the logic of some sciences so their argument was illogical.

I'm not discrediting anything merely pointing out that Science is not as logically sound as some believe. My non statement that you quoted in fact describes what science tries to do, remove superstition. Any blind acceptance of "science" is just a form of belief. I dont know is a powerful statement showing an open scientific mind.


Alchemists and astrologers were not scientists, empiricism wasn't invented.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


Natural selection is what we are discussing, (the bare bones of evolution…inside the box) the thing that evolution hangs on. That is why I referred to it as being the platform for other easily falsifiable ideas.

The fact remains that natural selection works and can be demonstrated to do so but it is as logical/illogical as any other belief.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


In principle yes but in logic? I would really appreciate if you can demonstrate that.
Popper himself said it cannot be falsified and referred to evolution as a metaphysical platform.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


You dont know because it hasnt been explained by science so any claim that science makes is as valid as any claim made by non scientists in this instance.


And that is the very point I have been making all along, if you cannot falsify a belief it has no more validity than any other belief, evolution cannot be falsified.

The only way to evaluate competing beliefs is to resort to either probability or a measurement of results which use different yardsticks making the task that little bit harder if not impossible.

Once one has dropped logic, claiming that your system is better or superior to another is bogus.


All sorts of results that cannot be measured by science. Today I am 7.8346 happy just doesnt work.

Of course so called empirical, logical thinkers will gladly use rubbish like IQ tests to make decisions, I dont see anyone belittling their belief system.

I have been saying this for a few days now, you need to separate logic from belief if you claim there is a logical basis for saying there is no God.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]

I think I wrote something like "similar to what Science calls the Placebo effect" meaning there is no rational explanation for this effect. Its not a leap of faith to see how an unexplained phenomenon can be measured in different ways, it hasnt been codified.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


I'm not, I never said that God produced better results than science, I said that religion produced results.

I think you have missed the point somewhat, religion has produced results in parallel to science that are measured in a different way, that cannot be quantified, I'm not talking about do gooders helping the infirm to hospital etc but intangible benefits similar to what science calls the placebo effect.


Arguing that Science is what scientists do is the same argument that religious people use. It must be within the scientific method otherwise the logic used as justification for the superiority of science over religion disappears. Its not good enough to have an anything goes approach.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]

A belief is something that cant be disproved. If there is no possibility to disprove something it is a belief. Genetic investigation can be dismissed (no one has and I doubt if anyone will) the description that is evolution cannot be dismissed.

Most churches have given up trying to counter uncomfortable things from science because the logic is sound. Evolution doesnt have the same solid basis that is why the creationist nuts keep banging away at it.

Evolution works and produces results we can all see. Religion has produced results in the past just measured in a different way:)
I posted before about the church being a form of health insurance in pre health service days even offering a permanent place to retire to. The results the church supplied were of their time.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


Yeah, I agree I dislike religion but I'm still not able to say there is no God.

From a theoretical point of view I still cant say Evolution is not a belief. My brother is a Biology professor and he says Its not a theory its reality but then he is a big Catholic:)

I have a great wee book about the philosophy of science I'll gladly send it to you...really:)

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


Only that I dislike absolutism. Not only is it good practice its natural to question things. Belief in God is only illogical if you look at it with an absolutist mind. I think the same about certain aspects of science, evolution being the most obvious.

No one looks at the world without pre conceived ideas that is why ideas need testing. Newtonian Physics makes all sorts of predictions from knowing where a cannon ball will land to the sun coming up in the morning, they can be falsified. Evolution cannot be disproved because it doesnt make predictions that means its a belief. An idea that has enabled the production of many, many measurable results.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]

All the evidence for evolution can be used to formulate another set of ideas the only way to evaluate the two would be to disprove one or both. The nature of evolution leaves it unable to be disproved so we have to rely upon results produced ie predictions. Evolution doesn’t provide predictions it just explains what has happened.

Creating an idea from observations cannot be scientific because you cannot separate the idea from the observations ie the observable universe will fit your idea not the other way round. You dont start looking at things with a blank mind.

Evolution has provided a great platform for the sciences but it really in not a testable theory as you quite rightly described science as being.

News / Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes [239]


The evidence only fits if you believe the idea and evidence is not proof. In fact it's much more powerful to be able to disprove something then there can be no doubt, using probability always leaves room for doubt.


Yes thats right. You just need to find one. Evolution hangs by a similar thread.