Peterkin

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

"What aspect of human society unites us" Sport is one of those.

Indeed, that's the only aspect of human society on which you have focused throughout, except for the references to "science". I agree that you have made your conviction on this topic perfectly clear. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm simply countering your rhetorical comments that seem to concentrate on the false premise that sport does more harm then good,

If that's what you read, I have utterly failed to convey what I think.

If India and Pakistan were able to sublimate their hostility in tennis, and if  North and South Korea have reunited, those are excellent outcomes and I'll be happy to hear that more such reconciliations take place.  

The graphs I'v seen correlated party affiliation and educational level, which isn't at all the same thing as intelligence. 

I found one that you can use as a starting point. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300350

I'd approach it warily, however, as they seem to be looking for genetic factors.

8 hours ago, beecee said:

I respectfully suggest that you appear a half empty sort of bloke, while I prefer half full [more realistically probably 7/8 full].

Fair assessment. (Q. Which is more likely to start thinking about a refill before the bar closes?)

8 hours ago, beecee said:

And again, seriously, it is not sport which is bad...it is not science which can be bad,

Where did I say that sport and science were "bad"? These are not things that exist in themselves or have any intrinsic value or quality - these are just activities in which people engage; what people do. (There isn't much evil you can do with music, but people still find a way to abuse it.)

8 hours ago, beecee said:

On one more point, you misconstrue my statement replying to your missiles and solar panels....

Sorry!

I'm happy to learn that South Africa was united by sport. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm speaking of the everyday Joe Blow walking the streets, that is unaware and ignorant in how science is involved in most all we do to some extent, not the minority of unscrupulous actors/individuals that we can find in any discipline, including sadly, even science.

I know whom you mean. And, it's true, most people don't know how science is involved, but they're quite aware that they themselves are using technology.  What they generally don't distinguish is the fiction of "Science" as a big monolithic entity that speaks with a single voice and follows a single agenda, from the reality of piecemeal, uncoordinated scientific activities aimed at disparate outcomes for disparate reasons.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Who? Let me use some quotes from notable sources, that seem to agree with how I look at scientific organization in every day society....

 How are they relevant?  I was responding to:

5 hours ago, beecee said:

In reality we unknowingly use science to organize in everyday life, to improve living standards.

Who are this "we" that use science? And those are two different spheres: organization of society and improving living standards. Science has no role in the organization of societies. It can help people (some people) improve their living standard - but sometimes kills them instead, and quite often kills many in order to improve the living standard of a few.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

No science is not always right...as this pandemic illustrates, but it is and does get it more and more right as time progresses.  

That makes no difference if it's ignored or abused by the people in power.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

In all regards. Solar panels and 'smart' missiles; truth serum and insulin; disease resistant crops and a pathogen that kills caterpillars. 

And many more desirable examples in everyday life.

Do you really believe that missiles and solar panels are equally desirable? 

I would rather say: and many other examples of effective means to both harmful and beneficial ends. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

was in reference to the anti vaccination nuts,

I know. And I replied that the social media spreading that toxin are also a product of scientific activity. Science supplies media and weapons for its enemies, as well as its friends.  Science is just a tool for getting things done - good things, bad things, dumb things, fun things, all kinds of things. Science is not inherently right, good and  noble - any more than it is inherently wrong, evil and despicable.

It's just one of the methods people use to get what they want. 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm pretty sure we actually have become unaware of science in every day life...perhaps that old adage, "familiarity breeds contempt" may apply?

We can't help being aware. The contempt is deliberately manufactured by unscrupulous actors who want to co-opt some function of science to their own benefit, while turning their followers away from understanding it.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

In reality we unknowingly use science to organize in everyday life, to improve living standards.

who! Those are two very different purposes. Organization is not at all the same as improvement. Some application of science plays a part in just about every aspect of modern life, but Science as a way of approaching reality doesn't: it tends to be pushed aside by politics, monetary self-interest and religion. 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Science today and the three main applications of physics, chemistry and biology all help in this regard.

In all regards. Solar panels and 'smart' missiles; truth serum and insulin; disease resistant crops and a pathogen that kills caterpillars. 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

That  coupled with the unscientific conspiracy crap that abounds on social media with regards to vaccination in general...

Both social media and vaccines are examples of applied science. Science is a means to find out things - like how to design machines and molecules. It can serve any agent to accomplish any goal - harmful, beneficial, pointless of frivolous. 

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

So, when is unison a good thing?

In defence of the community: in a flood relief or fire-fighting or evacuation effort.

In shared projects for mutual benefit, such as building a bridge or inventing a vaccine. 

In support of some vulnerable, weaker entity - like polar bears or monarch butterflies.

In overcoming a threat or recovering from a crisis that affects everyone.

In the wise use of resources. 

(not in blind, unthinking zeal for a demagogue or simplistic ideal)

I'm nut sure how Science can be enlisted to support social organization. I think the understanding has to come first and the use of some aspect of science afterward, for an agreed-on purpose.

On 12/5/2020 at 12:58 PM, VenusPrincess said:

If you believed something was true, but also knew that others would be demoralized and angry at you for sharing that truth, should you stay quiet or lie about it instead?

Depend on the "something", my relationship with the person or persons I might tell it to and the affect of that truth on  their knowing it or not knowing it. I'm not always in position to judge the truth value of a datum that's come my way; nor am I confident of judging accurately the general good. 

Sometimes people are upset when told something they really need to know (Dad, I'm gay.) and later come to terms with far more easily than if they had been kept in the dark. Sometimes, OTOH, potentially upsetting knowledge is better withheld. (The grandfather you idolized thought you were a twit.) Some things that one might inadvertently discover are not in one's province to divulge. (Your big sister is really your mother.)  Sometimes they already know and being told that others know, too, only makes it more painful. Sometimes they suspect and are seeking the truth in their way, in their own time. Sometimes telling a secret arms the other person against diasappointment; at other times, blurting merely spoils a surprise

I'm not married to Truth, a truth or the truth: I have some respect for each of them, but no special reverence.  Communication has a purpose involving one or more other sentient being(s):  to educate, inform, warn, negotiate, solicit, assess, correct, convince, beguile, rebuke, control; to elicit information from them, to compare their views with mine, to collaborate on a project or form a plan, to share an experience or emotion, to entertain or amuse them, or simply to hold their attention.

This means that I don't have to tell everybody everything I know; don't have to tell anyone everything I know - just the bits that serve a particular purpose at a given time. As for opinions, I have so many, on so many subjects, attempting to share them all might well place me in jeopardy. That's not entirely facetious: in today's social climate, you never can anticipate how disgreement will be expressed.

Sure - anything we share a positive enthusiasm about. Unfortunately, while we're often  positive and enthusiastic about the same things, we're not that good at the sharing part.

You know how something you think, hear, read, notice, smell or taste can conjure up a picture in your mind? it happens all the time and it's nearly always a fleeting, trivial image that you forget right away.

But once in a while, something triggers a really powerful response. You get a clear, bright, significant picture that's worth storing in long-term memory.  That you either want to look at, again and again, like a photo album, or else that pops up, uninvited, in association with new input. Some of these graphic images are horrific, but you can't turn them off. Some, on the other hand, are pleasant, useful or amusing. Like Doctor Who's wibbly wobbly timey wimey thing.

I have several graphics that give me at least a smile whenever something evokes them. I'd like to take this opportunity to express gratitude. I invite you to do likewise, for your own good images. 

Thank you, William Gibson, for the picture I superimpose every time I see one of those big ugly container ships that I got in the novel Spook Country. {Spoiler: they killed the money}

On 7/12/2021 at 7:47 AM, Tema said:

wish to hit the problem, that ethic is not logically understood. Ethics are only intuitivemotional thoughts. Can this be true?

It can be both. in fact, if it is not both, it's useless.

On 7/12/2021 at 7:47 AM, Tema said:

But being loving as the goal of life, is intuitivemotionalthought and can't be studied methological way.

Loving has nothing to do with ethics. What you need ethics for is to prescribe how you ought to treat the people you don't love, or particularly care about, and even more significantly, the people who get in your way, whom you can use, whom you fear. It's about what allows a society to survive, prosper and thrive - all quite reasonable aims. So the "study" of ethics is really concerned with how disparate human beings can coexist. The "ought" is added later, when the "how" is fitted to the philosophical principles on which a particular society is organized.

On 7/12/2021 at 7:47 AM, Tema said:

I think arts are also like that.

I think it isn't.

47 minutes ago, Der_Neugierige said:

And will hardly find any Swiss who wear traditional costumes neither do the Germans. 

See, they have that in common, too!

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

One thing that brings us together and unites us is staying on-topic 

Well, I sometimes come back to it - does that count?

Disappointed about the cuckoo clock!

But when I bethink the Swiss and Bavarian geography, customs, architecture, lifestyle... I guess it's all right.

Even if those were the actual choices, I'd take the clock. What came out of that period in Italy would have happened somewhere, anyway, because it was time - but who else was ever going to come with the cuckoo clock?

(I'll pass on the muesli, if it's all right...)

On 3/4/2011 at 7:28 PM, John Cuthber said:

What else would the point of toys be (from an evolutionary perspective)?

- To entertain the children; prevent whining, tantrums, wheedling, boredom and sibling strife in order to keep the parents functioning until they reach self-sufficiency. 

- To keep a child occupied, giving the parents some alone-time to recombine their DNA. 

- To cull the prepubescent herd, as per article linked by The Vat ^^.

- To test relative intelligence, physical stamina and attention-span for vocational sorting (you want to send the tough, aggressive and stupid off to boot-camp asap and train the more valuable 'keepers' for long term occupations.  

- To build the social skills necessary for the acquisition and retention of property.

Yeah, but dead people are so much easier to get along with than the so-and-so with the weak bladder three seats over, and the painted idjit jumping up and spilling his beer at every near miss by the wrong team!

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Nothing wrong with professionalism per se.

Yes, there is. Play is play; work is work. If you play for pay, it turns into work. 

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

I believe all that is good about sport [just as you have listed] far outweighs what is wrong.

That's a legitimate perspective. but it doesn't get any closer to your opening claim about uniting "us". Mandela's opinion notwithstanding. Actually, the least enjoyable FIFA world cup was 2010: vuvuzelas are worse than bagpipes! 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

What sidebar?

A column taking up about one-third of my screen that lists statistics, popular posts and images. It appeared today - i assume, in response to my hitting a button I didn't know was there. (You know how in Star Trek, any of the bridge crew can approach the helm of a spaceship owned by any other species in the galaxy and figure out in three minutes which lighted panels with weird squiggle on the control panel will make what happen? Well, I'm not on the bridge crew; I'm the barber.)  

3 hours ago, iNow said:

What browser?

Firefox.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Mobile or laptop?

laptop

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Do you have a screenshot?

no... a what? 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Are you ready to accept that it probably cannot be turned off?

Oh, always. But it did get turned on, so I figured it's worth an ask.... 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

your position seems to be bordering on that sport does more harm then good.

That is NOT my position.

My position is that sport is wonderful (I've said so) that sport is a good way to deflect aggression into harmless competition (I said so in my first response) that sport is a healthy outlet for frustration, a great way to build strength, stamina and co-ordination. Sport, particularly team sport, is good training for children to learn rules, co-operation, self-control and how to cope with disappointment. It's a primitive but reliable assessment of adolescent males for their status in a masculine hierarchy (if you must have those) and an even better means of bolstering the confidence of adolescent females. It's also fun, both to participate in and to watch. A home team inspires loyalty and pride of community. I may have left some stuff out, but the main theme here is that sport is wonderful (I've said that already).

 What's bad is commercializing it, turning it into a spectacle, exploiting athletes and driving them to self-destructive behaviours in pursuit of winning, isolating them, wrecking their childhood and social life, idolizing them and commodifying them at the same time.  What's wrong is turning a joyful leisure activity that everyone should enjoy into a profession and a business. That's wrong. 

Query, commander: How do i turn off the sidebar?

Why the big letters?

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

While the IOC needs reform, and while other undesired aspects of sport exist, my focus, if I was in a position to focus, would be on world wide demilitarisation and elimination of all nuclear weapons. 

Sure, me too. But how is this relevant to international sporting competition bringing people together?  Has any government ever taken the warhead off a single missile because they were so moved by an olympic victory?

I have no statistics on this, but I suspect Nana Mouskouri has brought together more disparate people (like you and me) than Beauden Barrett.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I have Waltzing Matilda committed to memory.

What about "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"? Oddly enough, I also know more of Matilda than Fitzgerald.

Thanks for the welcome. It seems like a nice port to get washed up in. More technologically advanced than I'm used to.

As to sport, it has much to contribute to the health, and perhaps even the cohesion of a society. IMO, music does it better, for being more accessible on a visceral level. For example, my SO, who emigrated from Europe in adulthood, doesn't 'get' hockey or baseball.

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Commit this version to memory matey!

Uh....? But, on a visceral level, I can connect with it!

On closer inspection (as you can see, it's been preying on my mind) that's not one book, but excerpts from several. In each case, the word is used correctly, akin to "differential diagnosis", but the language is so dense with specialized words and information, it's difficult to follow.

Is it really that hard write simply and clearly about plant pathogens and old muscles? 

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Does this help ?

Yes, it does.

As an editor, I would still like to talk to the author about repetition and clarity. After all, you're addressing students who can be easily confused (and once confused, much less easily straightened out again!), not colleagues who are familiar with the jargon.