Today I'll mainly be moaning about ...

[Mincey]

4 minutes ago, stepheneric said:

People who use cliche's, does my head in, having said that and moving forward I do appreciate a good pun!

I'll reach out to some of my colleagues about this and touch base as required. 

[Phil xxkr]

4 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

With the risk of opening a can of worms... People that do not get a jab as they are doing their own research or think they have more knowledge about medicine and epidemics than scientists.

So are you saying the medicos and scientists are always right Bernard? How can this be when the very essence of science is sceptism and challenging existing norms? And how can you not encourage people to do their own research and consequently form their own opinions through critical analysis and not having them given to them? 

[paulrnx]

6 hours ago, Mincey said:

I'll reach out to some of my colleagues about this and touch base as required. 

I suggest we brainstorm this and do a bit of blue sky thinking

[paulrnx]

2 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

So are you saying the medicos and scientists are always right Bernard? How can this be when the very essence of science is sceptism and challenging existing norms? And how can you not encourage people to do their own research and consequently form their own opinions through critical analysis and not having them given to them? 

Many people limit their scientific research to people they like and are liked by on a regular basis on various social media platforms

[First_Lexus]

6 minutes ago, paulrnx said:

I suggest we brainstorm this and do a bit of blue sky thinking

I’ll pick the low hanging fruit. We just all need to make sure we think outside the box and ensure we get to a win-win position. When we’ve agreed between us I’ll run it up the flagpole and the senior team can sign it off and move forward…

[Mincey]

11 minutes ago, paulrnx said:

I suggest we brainstorm this and do a bit of blue sky thinking

Agreed. Let's put this on the 5:15 and see if it gets off at Winchester.

[paulrnx]

Just now, First_Lexus said:

I’ll pick the low hanging fruit. We just all need to make sure we think outside the box and ensure we get to a win-win position. When we’ve agreed between us I’ll run it up the flagpole and the senior team can sign it off and move forward…

Love it 🤣

[dutchie01]

2 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

So are you saying the medicos and scientists are always right Bernard? How can this be when the very essence of science is sceptism and challenging existing norms? And how can you not encourage people to do their own research and consequently form their own opinions through critical analysis and not having them given to them? 

Well Phil, in this case i give them the benefit of the doubt..

[Cotswold Pete]

12 hours ago, paulrnx said:

I suggest we brainstorm this and do a bit of blue sky thinking

But so far no one has woken up and smelt the coffee🍮

[Mincey]

29 minutes ago, Cotswold Pete said:

But so far no one has woken up and smelt the coffee🍮

Let's operate a zipped-lip scenario on this one.

[Las Palmas]

44 minutes ago, Cotswold Pete said:

But so far no one has woken up and smelt the coffee🍮

Wife is making coffee now. I can smell it. Now you can moan if you cannot.

[Phil xxkr]

7 minutes ago, Cotswold Pete said:

But so far no one has woken up and smelt the coffee🍮

 

7 minutes ago, Cotswold Pete said:

But so far no one has woken up and smelt the coffee🍮

Key take-away from this thread at this particular juncture of maturation is few people have the bandwidth to pivot to the first alternative 😎

[LenT]

19 hours ago, paulrnx said:

Many people limit their scientific research to people they like and are liked by on a regular basis on various social media platforms

The Curse of Confirmation Bias.

[LenT]

22 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

So are you saying the medicos and scientists are always right Bernard? How can this be when the very essence of science is sceptism and challenging existing norms? And how can you not encourage people to do their own research and consequently form their own opinions through critical analysis and not having them given to them? 

If there’s an identifiable moan here, Philip, I would suggest that it’s the presumption that every opinion is equally valid.

It isn’t.

And that everyone is equally capable of assessing the merits of opposing opinions.

They’re not!

So apart from what may be encountered on the interweb, it irks me when I hear a debate between an acknowledged ‘expert’ on a subject and a shouty interviewer who clearly isn’t.

In such cases, one so often one hears interviewers demanding an unambiguous,‘clear’ yes/no answer to a question for which the scientist knows there is no such thing. 

But there are few things the media like better than an apparently evasive expert.

On the other hand, I often feel some sympathy for Opposition spokespeople who are wheeled on to, well….oppose a Government position.

Their job function is defined by their title.  After all, there’s little future for a Member of the Opposition who has a tendency to say, ‘Well, we would have probably done much the same!”

[royoftherovers]

4 minutes ago, LenT said:

If there’s an identifiable moan here, Philip, I would suggest that it’s the presumption that every opinion is equally valid.

It isn’t.

And that everyone is equally capable of assessing the merits of opposing opinions.

They’re not!

So apart from what may be encountered on the interweb, it irks me when I hear a debate between an acknowledged ‘expert’ on a subject and a shouty interviewer who clearly isn’t.

In such cases, one so often one hears interviewers demanding an unambiguous,‘clear’ yes/no answer to a question for which the scientist knows there is no such thing. 

But there are few things the media like better than an apparently evasive expert.

On the other hand, I often feel some sympathy for Opposition spokespeople who are wheeled on to, well….oppose a Government position.

Their job function is defined by their title.  After all, there’s little future for a Member of the Opposition who has a tendency to say, ‘Well, we would have probably done much the same!”

Watch the Youtube video of Carl Sagan responding to the question "is there a God?"

[Phil xxkr]

17 minutes ago, LenT said:

If there’s an identifiable moan here, Philip, I would suggest that it’s the presumption that every opinion is equally valid.

It isn’t.

And that everyone is equally capable of assessing the merits of opposing opinions.

They’re not!

So apart from what may be encountered on the interweb, it irks me when I hear a debate between an acknowledged ‘expert’ on a subject and a shouty interviewer who clearly isn’t.

In such cases, one so often one hears interviewers demanding an unambiguous,‘clear’ yes/no answer to a question for which the scientist knows there is no such thing. 

But there are few things the media like better than an apparently evasive expert.

On the other hand, I often feel some sympathy for Opposition spokespeople who are wheeled on to, well….oppose a Government position.

Their job function is defined by their title.  After all, there’s little future for a Member of the Opposition who has a tendency to say, ‘Well, we would have probably done much the same!”

Thank goodness someone else believes equality (in all it's false guises) is a total myth. I gather St Andrews University have re-defined the word to not mean all people are equal and should not be treated as such. There is a sickness afoot and it's far far worse than CV-19 🙄

[royoftherovers]

3 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Thank goodness someone else believes equality (in all it's false guises) is a total myth. I gather St Andrews University have re-defined the word to not mean all people are equal and should not be treated as such. There is a sickness afoot and it's far far worse than CV-19 🙄

`Tis a violent sickness sweeping Higher Educational Establishments and The Funding Council is feeding it.

Cut it off at the head.

[LenT]

18 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

Watch the Youtube video of Carl Sagan responding to the question "is there a God?"

Another excellent capture from the past, John.

I can’t say I recall this specifically at this distance in time.  But I certainly recall his Cosmos TV series that came out in the early 80s when I was in my mid-thirties.

it was Sagan - and such as Richard Dawkins - who stood out from their Peers as being such influential communicators of a science-based reality that there was hope that they might lead to a diminishing role for superstition and conspiracy.

Sadly, along comes the interweb and ‘social media’ and anyone with half a mind to do so can demonstrate that that’s really all it takes!

[royoftherovers]

5 hours ago, LenT said:

Another excellent capture from the past, John.

I can’t say I recall this specifically at this distance in time.  But I certainly recall his Cosmos TV series that came out in the early 80s when I was in my mid-thirties.

it was Sagan - and such as Richard Dawkins - who stood out from their Peers as being such influential communicators of a science-based reality that there was hope that they might lead to a diminishing role for superstition and conspiracy.

Sadly, along comes the interweb and ‘social media’ and anyone with half a mind to do so can demonstrate that that’s really all it takes!

I have several of Dawkins` books and the entire Cosmos series on Discs Len.

A far cry indeed from my heady days as a Milk monitor!🤣🤣

[LenT]

34 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

I have several of Dawkins` books and the entire Cosmos series on Discs .

I don’t have the Cosmos series, but I do have the Dawkins’ books - and I recall some very effective TV documentaries that he did.  For many years I subscribed to his website when he was personally very active on it.  I now see that it has relocated to America but this conversation has prompted me to subscribe again, hopefully to introduce me to whole new fields of disgruntlement.

Another author and investigator who I felt made a valuable contribution to the science of rational thought was James Randi.  He would demonstrate that many scientists were vulnerable to fraud because they don’t expect Nature to set out to trick them.  And he was always very effective at exposing psychics.  They never saw him coming!

[royoftherovers]

32 minutes ago, LenT said:

I don’t have the Cosmos series, but I do have the Dawkins’ books - and I recall some very effective TV documentaries that he did.  For many years I subscribed to his website when he was personally very active on it.  I now see that it has relocated to America but this conversation has prompted me to subscribe again, hopefully to introduce me to whole new fields of disgruntlement.

Another author and investigator who I felt made a valuable contribution to the science of rational thought was James Randi.  He would demonstrate that many scientists were vulnerable to fraud because they don’t expect Nature to set out to trick them.  And he was always very effective at exposing psychics.  They never saw him coming!

Sadly ,James passed away a few months ago.

I can lend you the Cosmos Disc if you wish. PM me if interested Len.

[Phil xxkr]

On 11/11/2021 at 6:29 PM, Phil xxkr said:

Or, inconsiderate bxxxxxds for short 

 

On 11/11/2021 at 6:18 PM, LenT said:

Double Parkers.

People who are so important that they are entitled to park alongside cars already neatly lined up along a road so that they can stride into the shop/office/flat directly opposite without the inconvenience of finding a sensible parking space that’s not quite so convenient and would involve the effort of a short walk and to whom the possibility that their action may result in blocking in another driver who may be under the impression that their reason for wanting to leave may be important to them but is in fact insignificant when compared to the importance of the Double Parker and their inalienable right not to be inconvenienced by the thoughtless behaviour of individuals who earlier had chosen to occupy the kerb space directly in front of their destination.

 

Just realised Len you wrote Double and not Dorothy! If you had you might have added one of her favourite quotes " That's life for you! Spend the best part of your life studying penmanship and rhetoric and syntax and Beowolf and George Eliot, and then someone comes along and steals your pencil. 😎

[Phil xxkr]

If you, like a lot of others including me , take regular medication my whinge of the day is the boxes tablets come in🤯. Why is it that no matter which end you choose to open first ALWAYS has that folded leaflet first 🤯🤯🤯

[Mincey]

17 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

If you, like a lot of others including me , take regular medication my whinge of the day is the boxes tablets come in🤯. Why is it that no matter which end you choose to open first ALWAYS has that folded leaflet first 🤯🤯🤯

I remember many years ago listening to a feature on Radio Solent Fab FM (or something - there was nothing else to listen to) where the Smashey and Nicey of the day opened 30 packets of Paracetamol (it must have taken them ages to get them, what with you only being allowed to buy two at a time) and I seem to recall 16 opened with the folded leaflet first. 

[LenT]

1 hour ago, Mincey said:

I remember many years ago listening to a feature on Radio Solent Fab FM (or something - there was nothing else to listen to) where the Smashey and Nicey of the day opened 30 packets of Paracetamol (it must have taken them ages to get them, what with you only being allowed to buy two at a time) and I seem to recall 16 opened with the folded leaflet first. 

I may be mistaken, but doesn’t that suggest that with only having a choice of two ends to open, they got a 50:50 result?

Now I don’t know how these packs are assembled, but I would have thought it’s a mechanised process.  So the printed packs might be loaded into cassettes, say, normally all oriented the same way, and the folded leaflets would be matched up with the tablet foils and inserted into the opened packs.

In other words the folded leaflet end would most likely be inserted into the opened pack from the same direction.  In which case they only had to open the first pack in order to know in which direction that was.

Is not the problem that tablet takers only open a new pack every 28 days, for example, and thus never remember which end that was?  This is a particular problem if the tablets you’re taking are related to your dementia.