I always regarded cricket as a much more physical game than rugby, though when young i opened the batting and bowling. Allan's tactic is against the rules in league - he must have been watching union - or maybe the Eton Wall Game!! I do think authority in science is misunderstood, but don't disagree with you Para.Some work on just how biased forensic scientists generally are is scary though.
On Jul 28, 9:54 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > Well Allan, if you ever decide to go see a match, let me know; i'd be > delighted :) > > On Jul 28, 9:15 pm, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Someday I may have the honor of see a game hopefully with some one as > > knowledgeable as you. > > Allan > > > On 28 jul. 2011, at 11:42, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Lol. Yeah, i've seen some innovation in rugby, for sure. > > > > Well, cricket is one sport that i am passionate about (at least as far > > > as i can be passionate about sport). It's at once a game of supreme > > > patience and incredible reaction speed. You have the batsman who, with > > > the right "guard" and standing perfectly motionless, is practically > > > impenetrable, against a bowler and 10 strategically placed teammates > > > who patiently and cleverly induce the batsman to make a "false" stroke > > > with ever so subtle changes in the speed, flight, movement, trajectory > > > and/or spin of the ball. When it happens, it can be a beautiful > > > thing :) > > > > On Jul 28, 7:23 am, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Until I came to Europe I never was a fan of any sport, since I have > > >> become a fan of rugby ,, ever since I watched a man fall on the ball > > >> with the other team piled on top. But his legs were sticking out of the > > >> pile. So his mates (6) grabbed his legs and used him like a wheel > > >> barrow. As for cricket,, I have never gotten it wrapped around my mind. > > >> Allan > > > >> On 27 jul. 2011, at 17:42, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> I thought that Relativity was pretty revolutionary, actually; less > > >>> "fundamental" than perhaps String Theory, but frame shifting for sure. > > > >>> So, you're a rugby man, eh? I'm more cricketer myself; all that > > >>> physical contact would have strained my control beyond breaking > > >>> point :) > > > >>> Btw, your ballet's not at all lacking :) > > > >>> On Jul 26, 5:35 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> The point, Para, is not that Einstein is bull, but that interpreting > > >>>> Relativity as 'new physics' always was. I did my dancing on the rugby > > >>>> field so you can expect my ballet to be clumsy! Chemistry is more my > > >>>> line, but Ludwig and Snell satisfy me that the 'paradigm' stuff is > > >>>> wonky. I suspect we are collectively very dumb as an alternative to > > >>>> enlightenment concepts - most people don't learn much. Thus they > > >>>> remain prey to the Old One. Indeed, it's the propaganda of the Old > > >>>> One that prevents enlightened society, aimed as it is at the dumb. I > > >>>> believe this may be what leaves us with only the worst of democracy. > > >>>> There has been no enlightenment,only some space developed away from > > >>>> the old Idols. > > > >>>> On Jul 26, 1:01 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> Not sure of what you mean. Do you want e-books to be controlled in > > >>>>> content? Take history, for a long time it was written by the winners/ > > >>>>> colonists, etc. until the "losers" started publishing their stories/ > > >>>>> recollections. A good example is "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". > > >>>>> There are countless books/ personal confessionals (St. Augustine, > > >>>>> Newman, C.S. Lewis, etc.) that have inspired others- perhaps readied > > >>>>> them for a personal journey of their own. The "enlightenment" is not > > >>>>> always religious/spiritual- there are the arts of man/women which also > > >>>>> inspire an individual/society. There is also propaganda and deceit as > > >>>>> a path to power. > > > >>>>> On Jul 25, 11:13 am, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>> LOL. Yeah I am still here, > > >>>>>> Enlightenment is a fascinating subject, to me it always will be an > > >>>>>> experience(s) yet there are may book thumpers thumpers can sight > > >>>>>> article and books many volumes justifying what they have to say. > > >>>>>> When you get discussing enlightenment you begin discussing personal > > >>>>>> experience not that of others. > > >>>>>> Putting it simply in my opinion your personal experiences will stand > > >>>>>> on their own .. > > >>>>>> Allan > > > >>>>>> On 25 jul. 2011, at 16:30, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> Thing is archytas, though i dont altogether feel "on board" with > > >>>>>>> your > > >>>>>>> critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very persuasive > > >>>>>>> :) > > > >>>>>>> Nice pirouette with "optimism" :) > > > >>>>>>> You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have the > > >>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>> "heretic" here already...alan? :) > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the insights. > > > >>>>>>> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no rationalist > > >>>>>>>> per > > >>>>>>>> se. The free rider problem is very complicated though, especially > > >>>>>>>> since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'. I suspect > > >>>>>>>> neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if > > >>>>>>>> we're > > >>>>>>>> all planning this mess we're in deep trouble! What may be > > >>>>>>>> depressing > > >>>>>>>> is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used to > > >>>>>>>> false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in > > >>>>>>>> better > > >>>>>>>> times. I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as > > >>>>>>>> explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, > > >>>>>>>> doing > > >>>>>>>> science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and > > >>>>>>>> measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have > > >>>>>>>> developed > > >>>>>>>> ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of disjuncture > > >>>>>>>> with reality there to witness. I tend to prefer notions like > > >>>>>>>> hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and > > >>>>>>>> others > > >>>>>>>> in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like communicative > > >>>>>>>> action 'extirpating ideology'. We do seem to get left with choice > > >>>>>>>> at > > >>>>>>>> some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic Newton > > >>>>>>>> versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work hard > > >>>>>>>> enough. Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be > > >>>>>>>> more > > >>>>>>>> than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along > > >>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>> a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what others > > >>>>>>>> are. > > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :) > > > >>>>>>>>> You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really > > >>>>>>>>> ought to > > >>>>>>>>> get out more :) > > > >>>>>>>>> Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, though > > >>>>>>>>> i > > >>>>>>>>> suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a > > >>>>>>>>> misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the > > >>>>>>>>> rationality; > > >>>>>>>>> in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and > > >>>>>>>>> "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you fix > > >>>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>>> "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, quite > > >>>>>>>>> asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality in > > >>>>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>> one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be > > >>>>>>>>> demonstrated", that you refer to? To be fair, your argument drifts > > >>>>>>>>> closer to equality in obligation than to equality in right; which > > >>>>>>>>> certainly is less problemmatic, certainly laudable. > > > >>>>>>>>> You think we're all "collectively stupid"? That doesn't sound very > > >>>>>>>>> optimistic, archytas :) > > > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I > > >>>>>>>>>> see it > > >>>>>>>>>> fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best by > > >>>>>>>>>> others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected > > >>>>>>>>>> with > > >>>>>>>>>> more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality didn't > > >>>>>>>>>> make > > >>>>>>>>>> me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few sides > > >>>>>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>>> hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister > > >>>>>>>>>> was as > > >>>>>>>>>> good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for women. > > >>>>>>>>>> Of > > >>>>>>>>>> course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to > > >>>>>>>>>> work. > > >>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend > > >>>>>>>>>> to much > > >>>>>>>>>> time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner > > >>>>>>>>>> reliance' in > > >>>>>>>>>> any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching my > > >>>>>>>>>> old > > >>>>>>>>>> team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan > > >>>>>>>>>> have > > >>>>>>>>>> been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality > > >>>>>>>>>> makes > > >>>>>>>>>> it possible for games like this to take place, even if one side > > >>>>>>>>>> appears so much better than the other. We are not all born with > > >>>>>>>>>> equal > > >>>>>>>>>> abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of > > >>>>>>>>>> equality that > > >>>>>>>>>> interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality > > >>>>>>>>>> involved > > >>>>>>>>>> that does. > > >>>>>>>>>> That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses we > > >>>>>>>>>> generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the stuff > > >>>>>>>>>> we > > >>>>>>>>>> come out with trying to explain this is dire. In epistemology > > >>>>>>>>>> (broadly defined) it regularly becomes clear that you can't > > >>>>>>>>>> achieve > > >>>>>>>>>> some clear and grounded system and that assumptions you didn't > > >>>>>>>>>> know > > >>>>>>>>>> you were making come out. This more or less leaves me with > > >>>>>>>>>> structured > > >>>>>>>>>> realism, but this leaves plenty of scope. Most of the time I > > >>>>>>>>>> can tell > > >>>>>>>>>> whether evidence claims are not phony in such a system - this > > >>>>>>>>>> sadly is > > >>>>>>>>>> not true of introspectively divined light and glow. The long > > >>>>>>>>>> history > > >>>>>>>>>> of this, taken externally, is not good. I can find light and > > >>>>>>>>>> glow, but > > >>>>>>>>>> I still find it hard not to cry watching Warrington lose. > > >>>>>>>>>> Neither > > >>>>>>>>>> matter in a larger sense of > > ... > > read more »
