They say no news is good news

[Worthy4England]

So there we have it, The Wanderer's conclusion on the origin of the aussie word 'Pom' :-

most likely originating from pommegranite, however plausibly disputed, and far from FACT.

I like FaninOz also believe that fairies live in the bottom of my garden, just not literally.

you don't literally believe? Or they only metaphorically live there?

We are too obsessed with FACTS and the scientific/literalistic/rational world view. Fairies can be just as 'real' as a law of science. They inhabit the world of imagination and metaphor which is the same place that super string theory and wormholes reside..

sorry but ..... boll ocks. You've leapt from "laws" to "theories" and "postulations" there.

I can't wait for your boss telling you you've been paid and you're just imagining it's not in your bank account and that you're bills aren't being paid. See how "too obsessed" with facts you are then.

Hmmm Pommies coming from pomegranate isn't actually a fact until it's proven to be correct, although it could well be the correct on the balance of probability. "Fairies" just have a lower probability of being found at the bottom of the garden. Unless it's Julian Clary's.

[Lord Kangana]

Has anyone ever seen a fairy?

Only, I've never seen aliens, or indeed wild boar, in this country, but I'd be hard pressed to bet against them existing. I didn't see the big bang(I'm reliably informed no-one else did, so we all missed out) so I couldn't say for sure that it did or didn't happen.

Just saying, like.

[freeindeed]

So there we have it, The Wanderer's conclusion on the origin of the aussie word 'Pom' :-

most likely originating from pommegranite, however plausibly disputed, and far from FACT.

I like FaninOz also believe that fairies live in the bottom of my garden, just not literally.

you don't literally believe? Or they only metaphorically live there?

We are too obsessed with FACTS and the scientific/literalistic/rational world view. Fairies can be just as 'real' as a law of science. They inhabit the world of imagination and metaphor which is the same place that super string theory and wormholes reside..

sorry but ..... boll ocks. You've leapt from "laws" to "theories" and "postulations" there.



I can't wait for your boss telling you you've been paid and you're just imagining it's not in your bank account and that you're bills aren't being paid. See how "too obsessed" with facts you are then.

Hmmm Pommies coming from pomegranate isn't actually a fact until it's proven to be correct, although it could well be the correct on the balance of probability. "Fairies" just have a lower probability of being found at the bottom of the garden. Unless it's Julian Clary's.

A balance of probabilities can't ever prove anything. Either Pom does come from Pommegranate or it doesn't. Julian Clary either has hold of your green giant or does not...In a literal sense the fairies aren't there at all, but in another sense they could be the most real thing in your life..

Funny that this amateur philosophy pops up in the No news thread! We need a new signing! Megson OUT!

[Puskas]

Has anyone ever seen a fairy?

Only, I've never seen aliens, or indeed wild boar, in this country, but I'd be hard pressed to bet against them existing. I didn't see the big bang(I'm reliably informed no-one else did, so we all missed out) so I couldn't say for sure that it did or didn't happen.

Just saying, like.

You're missing the point. Hard evidence exists for the existence of wild boars and the big bang. No evidence exists for the existence of aliens, but, given the size of the universe, it isn't impossible. No evidence exists for fairies - and, given the fact that we're fairly sure we know about the earth, it seems reasonable to doubt their existence.
Freeindeed, as commie points out, leaps from hard fact to speculation. Indeed, Mr WorkEthic could go further, and point out that FI is conflating theory in the sense that it is used in science - a verified [to such an extent as these things can be] hypothesis - with theory in the more common sense of "unproven conjecture". Irrationalists often (IMHO, deliberately) do this - hence the oft heard quote that evolution is "just a theory". The obvious retort is "So is gravity..."
FI's rather silly statement that fairies can be equated with string theory can be brushed aside by pointing out that, whilst string theory is theoretical, it does explain real phenomena, and does so using mathematics that works. It therefore has evidence to support it (albeit what we may call secondary evidence, as opposed to "hard" evidence of the sort that would support the existence of wild boar or the theory of evolution). Fairies have no such evidence.
Evidence is far more than just "Stuff I can see".

[communistworkethic]

hmm er thanks puskas, I think I might have said it a lot simpler - a law is shown to be proven - constant composition of mass, first law of thermodynamics, whereas the a theory may not be proven but it is the summation of rational thought based on the logical application of other knowledge and evidence to explain a phenomena.

All that said, I suppose FI may well be right if he means that two men live together at the bottom of his garden and he's seen them kissing, holding hands, mincing, dressing far to smartly and singing show tunes without them or anyone else specifically telling him they like to take it up the gary.

[Lord Kangana]

Has anyone ever seen a fairy?

Only, I've never seen aliens, or indeed wild boar, in this country, but I'd be hard pressed to bet against them existing. I didn't see the big bang(I'm reliably informed no-one else did, so we all missed out) so I couldn't say for sure that it did or didn't happen.

Just saying, like.

You're missing the point. Hard evidence exists for the existence of wild boars and the big bang. No evidence exists for the existence of aliens, but, given the size of the universe, it isn't impossible. No evidence exists for fairies - and, given the fact that we're fairly sure we know about the earth, it seems reasonable to doubt their existence.
Freeindeed, as commie points out, leaps from hard fact to speculation. Indeed, Mr WorkEthic could go further, and point out that FI is conflating theory in the sense that it is used in science - a verified [to such an extent as these things can be] hypothesis - with theory in the more common sense of "unproven conjecture". Irrationalists often (IMHO, deliberately) do this - hence the oft heard quote that evolution is "just a theory". The obvious retort is "So is gravity..."
FI's rather silly statement that fairies can be equated with string theory can be brushed aside by pointing out that, whilst string theory is theoretical, it does explain real phenomena, and does so using mathematics that works. It therefore has evidence to support it (albeit what we may call secondary evidence, as opposed to "hard" evidence of the sort that would support the existence of wild boar or the theory of evolution). Fairies have no such evidence.
Evidence is far more than just "Stuff I can see".

The big bang is a theory, no-one can say categorically that it happened. I think you missed my point a little.

There are more questions than answers an all that.

[communistworkethic]

oooh lets do Schrodinger's Cat next!!

[Puskas]

Has anyone ever seen a fairy?

Only, I've never seen aliens, or indeed wild boar, in this country, but I'd be hard pressed to bet against them existing. I didn't see the big bang(I'm reliably informed no-one else did, so we all missed out) so I couldn't say for sure that it did or didn't happen.

Just saying, like.

You're missing the point. Hard evidence exists for the existence of wild boars and the big bang. No evidence exists for the existence of aliens, but, given the size of the universe, it isn't impossible. No evidence exists for fairies - and, given the fact that we're fairly sure we know about the earth, it seems reasonable to doubt their existence.
Freeindeed, as commie points out, leaps from hard fact to speculation. Indeed, Mr WorkEthic could go further, and point out that FI is conflating theory in the sense that it is used in science - a verified [to such an extent as these things can be] hypothesis - with theory in the more common sense of "unproven conjecture". Irrationalists often (IMHO, deliberately) do this - hence the oft heard quote that evolution is "just a theory". The obvious retort is "So is gravity..."
FI's rather silly statement that fairies can be equated with string theory can be brushed aside by pointing out that, whilst string theory is theoretical, it does explain real phenomena, and does so using mathematics that works. It therefore has evidence to support it (albeit what we may call secondary evidence, as opposed to "hard" evidence of the sort that would support the existence of wild boar or the theory of evolution). Fairies have no such evidence.
Evidence is far more than just "Stuff I can see".

The big bang is a theory, no-one can say categorically that it happened. I think you missed my point a little.

There are more questions than answers an all that.

There is a lot of evidence to support the big bang. The "just a theory" argument, as usual, doesn't wash. If you want to be be extreme (he said, turning into a first-year philosophy undergrad, copy of Descartes' Meditations in one hand, pint of snakebite and black in the other), no one can say for sure that wild boars exist - people who claim to see them may well be hallucinating, insane, mistaking large cats for boars, and so on.
The point is, of course, that we can question anything we like. It's just that some things are worth questioning, and some things aren't (unless an even more substantial body of evidence comes along in that direction).

[communistworkethic]

there is not sufficient hard evidence for BBT to suggest it as anything beyond theory, and when someone like yourself suggets otherwise it actually weakens the position of science overall

[Lord Kangana]

Am I not right in saying that Newtonian Physics is now being questioned? (feel free to correct me, its not the first thing I look up on t'net).Only if it is, didn't it form the bedrock of most scientific research for centuries? And if so, where does that leave 'certainty'?

All I'd say is that certainties can remain so for years, and then... which is why we have words like innovator and inventor, and indeed ludite, in the dictionary.

We really don't know as much as we'd like to think, its all pretty good guesses, but I would laugh at the person who said 'The big bang happened/god doesn't exist'. (and I'm a ruddy atheist).

[freeindeed]

You're not quite seeing my point.

No evidence is needed for fairies because they don't literlally exist.

Superstring & wormholes were used as examples because they are highly contenscious even within quantum mechanics. They are simply working models that will later be superceded by better models as many scientific theories ultimately are. They exist in our minds only, yet these myths are sanctioned by the self appointed high priests of truth - scientists.

Of course rational thought is invaluable, but it's not everything.

Evolution is certainly the best model we have to explain the diversity of life, but it is far from complete and is still evolving (!). It's you comparing this to the little folk, not i.


By limiting ourselves to only that which is literally true, we close ourselves off to whole worlds of creativity, myth, metaphor, gods, goblins and fairies. In short - the imagination. Which if we allow to flourish without concern for evidence, can open up a magical and enchanted existence with friendly helping folk who live in the wardrobe. FACT.

[Puskas]

oooh lets do Schrodinger's Cat next!!

No, please, let's not!
As Stephen Hawking remarked (when not singing Wanderers songs), "When I hear about Schrodinger's Cat, I reach for my gun".
Oh yes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLUr1mYNLjs&NR=1

[communistworkethic]

You're not quite seeing my point.

No evidence is needed for fairies because they don't literlally exist.

Superstring & wormholes were used as examples because they are highly contenscious even within quantum mechanics. They are simply working models that will later be superceded by better models as many scientific theories ultimately are. They exist in our minds only, yet these myths are sanctioned by the self appointed high priests of truth - scientists.

Of course rational thought is invaluable, but it's not everything.

Evolution is certainly the best model we have to explain the diversity of life, but it is far from complete and is still evolving (!). It's you comparing this to the little folk, not i.


By limiting ourselves to only that which is literally true, we close ourselves off to whole worlds of creativity, myth, metaphor, gods, goblins and fairies. In short - the imagination. Which if we allow to flourish without concern for evidence, can open up a magical and enchanted existence with friendly helping folk who live in the wardrobe. FACT.

you take a lot of drugs don't you?

[TANGODANCER]

I've moved this topic over to the Banter Forum as it doesn't really belong in the Trotter. Please continue over there.

[Puskas]

Am I not right in saying that Newtonian Physics is now being questioned? (feel free to correct me, its not the first thing I look up on t'net).Only if it is, didn't it form the bedrock of most scientific research for centuries? And if so, where does that leave 'certainty'?

All I'd say is that certainties can remain so for years, and then... which is why we have words like innovator and inventor, and indeed ludite, in the dictionary.

We really don't know as much as we'd like to think, its all pretty good guesses, but I would laugh at the person who said 'The big bang happened/god doesn't exist'. (and I'm a ruddy atheist).

Newtonian physics works well in most cases - in the "medium sized" world, if you will. It doesn't work at very large or very small levels. So it isn't a complete answer. Neither, for that matter, are quantum theory and general relativity. Hence the search for a Grand Unified Theory.
Where does that leave certainty? I'm not sure...
And I'm not claiming that I can be sure that the big bang definitely happened - just that there's a lot of good evidence to suggest it did, and all the alternative models that have been so far proposed have fallen in the light of this evidence. Does this mean it definitely happened? No. Does it give us good grounds to be confident it did? I think so.

[Puskas]

there is not sufficient hard evidence for BBT to suggest it as anything beyond theory, and when someone like yourself suggets otherwise it actually weakens the position of science overall

I possibly didn't express myself properly. My point was meant to be against LK's use of "just a theory", saying that there's nothing wrong with being a theory well supported with evidence, as opposed to "The big bang is fact, definite, 100%" (although I would argue it is very, very likely, given the evidence of background microwave radiation, and the proportions of the "light elements". Not certain, but highly probable).

[communistworkethic]

there is not sufficient hard evidence for BBT to suggest it as anything beyond theory, and when someone like yourself suggets otherwise it actually weakens the position of science overall

I possibly didn't express myself properly. My point was meant to be against LK's use of "just a theory", saying that there's nothing wrong with being a theory well supported with evidence, as opposed to "The big bang is fact, definite, 100%" (although I would argue it is very, very likely, given the evidence of background microwave radiation, and the proportions of the "light elements". Not certain, but highly probable).

yet I bet you've not read New Scientist recently....

[Puskas]

there is not sufficient hard evidence for BBT to suggest it as anything beyond theory, and when someone like yourself suggets otherwise it actually weakens the position of science overall

I possibly didn't express myself properly. My point was meant to be against LK's use of "just a theory", saying that there's nothing wrong with being a theory well supported with evidence, as opposed to "The big bang is fact, definite, 100%" (although I would argue it is very, very likely, given the evidence of background microwave radiation, and the proportions of the "light elements". Not certain, but highly probable).

yet I bet you've not read New Scientist recently....

No, I haven't. Why, has it got something about the Big Bang in it?

[communistworkethic]

aye. scienetist now question how galaxies get their magnetic fields - gyroscopic theory doesn't add up

[Puskas]

aye. scienetist now question how galaxies get their magnetic fields - gyroscopic theory doesn't add up

Fair enough. Is it in the latest edition - if so, I'll try to get a copy...